運用Lee Shulman教學推理與行動模式分析國小教師國語教學知識之轉化

Applying Lee Shulman's Model of Pedagogical Reasoning and Action to Analyze the Transformation of Elementary School Teachers Teaching of Chinese Language Arts

10.53106/207136492023041601002

左榕(Jung Tso)；林意雪(Yih-Sheue Lin)

教學推理與行動 ； 國語教學 ； 課文本位 ； 學科教學知識 ； 轉化 ； Pedagogical Reasoning and Action ； Chinese Language Arts Teaching ； Textbook-based ； Pedagogical Content Knowledge ； Transformation

師資培育與教師專業發展期刊

16卷1期（2023 / 04 / 01）

57 - 84

繁體中文;英文

國語教學是奠定學生學習的基礎。然因國語教學內容龐雜，學科知識結構不確定，不易體察教學現場的複雜多變和解決教學問題。因此，本研究以Lee Shulman「教學推理與行動模式」為架構，透過互動取向質性研究方式，觀察四位國小教師經由教學轉化，建構學科教學知識（Pedagogical Content Knowledge, PCK）歷程。研究者並以個人實踐知識輔佐教師，藉由分析十二則教學案例，建構深化的「國語教學推理與行動模式」，作為檢核國語教學之工具。研究發現如下：一、國語教學須經「教學前教材轉化」、「教學中教法轉化」、「教學後省思」三階段，具循環遞迴（recursive）現象。其中的教學前教材轉化是教學推理與行動核心；教師教學重在「學習者」理解，且須隨時反省及改變策略；最後依據個案教學歷程，建構「國語教學推理與行動模式」。二、教師的學科內容知識、教學知識、學生特性知識是建構PCK的關鍵；實踐知識有助於教學轉化；且教學轉化須植基於教師的基礎知識。三、教師先備知識、專家教師介入，及教材、學校文化因素，對教師教學推理與行動皆有影響。四、國語教學轉化須植基於「課文本位」（textbook-based）。因此建議教師須增強學科內容知識，透過「國語教學推理與行動模式」檢核教學，提升教學轉化能力，建構學科教學知識。

Chinese language arts build the foundation where students consolidate their learning, but, due to the complex contents of its teaching and the yet-to-be-discovered structure of subject knowledge, it is not easy to understand the complex and ever-changing nature of such teaching as well as to solve related teaching problems. In light of that, this qualitative research took an interactive approach to identify and understand four elementary school teachers' teaching transformation and their construction of pedagogical content knowledge (PCK) by using Lee Shulman's Model of Pedagogical Reasoning and Action as the theoretical structure. The researcher also provided assistance to the teachers with personal practice knowledge, coming up with twelve cases of their teaching to further facilitate the understanding of "pedagogical reasoning and action model for Chinese language arts teaching" and to evaluate the teaching of this subject. The research findings are as follows. 1. The teaching of Chinese language arts is recursive among three stages - the pre-teaching transformation of teaching materials, the during-teaching transformation of teaching methods, and the post-teaching reflection-among which the first one is the core of pedagogical reasoning and action. All four teachers have properly implemented their knowledge about the learners and were able to reflect and change their strategies at any time in terms of teaching. A "pedagogical reasoning and action model for Chinese language arts teaching" was established in accordance with these teaching cases. 2. The content knowledge, pedagogical knowledge, and knowledge of students' characteristics possessed by a teacher are extremely crucial in regards to the establishment of their PCK. Practice knowledge did help with teaching transformation whereas the teaching transformation must be based upon the teacher's basic knowledge. 3. Factors, such as prior knowledge of teachers, the intervention of expert teachers, teaching materials, and school culture, did influence the pedagogical reasoning and action of teachers. 4. The transformation of Chinese language arts teaching must be textbook-based. It isherefor suggested that teachers should enhance subject content knowledge, check their teaching through the "pedagogical reasoning and action model for Chinese language arts teaching" to improve their teaching transformation ability, and construct pedagogical content knowledge.

1. 左榕, J.,林意雪, Y. S.(2021)。國小低年級教師轉化國語科讀寫教學之探究。師資培育與教師專業發展期刊，14(3)，29-56。
   連結：
2. 單文經, W. J.(2014)。教材心理化與邏輯化爭論的平議。課程與教學季刊，17(4)，85-112。
   連結：
3. 簡紅珠, H. C.(2007)。證據本位與教學研究。課程與教學季刊，10(2)，53-63。
   連結：
4. Berliner, D. C.(Ed.),Calfee, R. C.(Ed.)(1996).Handbook of Educational Psychology.New York:Macmillan.
5. Birenbaum, M.(Ed.),Dochy, F. J. R. C.(Ed.)(1996).Alternatives in assessment of achievements, learning processes and prior knowledge.Boston, MA:Kluwer.
6. Calderhead, J.(Ed.)(1987).Exploring teachers’ thinking.London, England:Cassell.
7. Cochran-Smith, M.,Lytle, S. L.(1993).Inside/outside: Teacher research and knowledge.New York, NY:Teacher College Press.
8. Cross, D. R.,Paris, S. G.(1988).Developmental and instructional analyses of children's metacognition and reading comprehension.Journal of Educational Psychology,80(2),131-142.
9. Graesser, A. C.,Singer, M.,Trabasso, T.(1994).Constructing inferences during narrative text comprehension.Psychological Review,101(3),371-395.
10. Hargreaves, D. H.(1997).In defense of research for evidence‐based teaching: A rejoinder to Martyn Hammersley.British Educational Research Journal,23(4),405-419.
11. Irwin, J. W.(1991).Teaching reading comprehension processes.Boston, MA:Allen & Bacon.
12. LeCompte, M. D.(1987).Bias in the biography: Bias and subjectivity in ethnographic research.Anthropology & Education Quarterly,18(1),43-52.
13. Maxwell, J. A.(2013).Qualitative research design: An interactive approach.Thousand Oaks, CA:Sage.
14. Maxwell, J. A.(2004).Causal explanation, qualitative research, and scientific inquiry in education.Educational Researcher,33(2),3-11.
15. Maxwell、 J. A.,陳劍涵（譯）, C. H.(Trans.)(2018).質性研究設計：互動取向的方法.臺北市=Taipei, Taiwan:心理=Psychological Publishing.
16. Mezirow, J.(1997).Transformative learning: Theory to practice.New Directions for Adult and Continuing Education,74,5-12.
17. Shulman, L. S.(2011).Feature essays: The scholarship of teaching and learning: A personal account and ref lection.International Journal for the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning,5(1),30.
18. Stenhouse, L.(1975).An introduction to curriculum research and development.London, England:Heinemann.
19. Wilson, S. M.(Ed.)(1986).The wisdom of practice: Essays on teaching, learning, and learning to teach.San Francisco, CA:Jossey Bass.
20. Wilson, S. M.(Ed.)(1987).The wisdom of practice: Essays on teaching, learning, and learning to teach.San Francisco, CA:Jossey Bass.
21. Wilson, S. M.(Ed.)(1997).The wisdom of practice: Essays on teaching, learning, and learning to teach.San Francisco:Jossey Bass.
22. Wolcott, H. F.(1990).Writing up qualitative research.Newbury Park, CA:Sage.
23. 左榕, J.(2021)。花蓮市=Hualien, Taiwan，國立東華大學教育與潛能開發學系=National Dong Hwa University。
24. 左榕, J.(2021)。運用 Lee Shulman 教學推理與行動模式探究教師教學轉化歷程：以國小國語課為例。臺灣教育評論月刊，10(9)，235-264。
25. 左榕, J.(2000)。臺東市=Taitung, Taiwan，國立臺東師範學院=National Taitung Teachers College。
26. 吳英長, Y. C.(1998)。國民小學國語故事體課文摘寫大意的教學過程之分析。國立臺東師範學院學報，9，149-184。
27. 周健, K.,霍秉坤, P. K.(2012)。教學內容知識的定義和內涵。香港教師中心學報，11，145-163。
28. 林佩璇, P. H.(2002)。行動研究的知識宣稱－教師實踐知識。國立臺北師範學院學報，15，189-210。
29. 邱憶惠, Y. H.(2002)。高雄市=Kaohsiung, Taiwan，國立高雄師範大學教育學系=National Kaohsiung Normal University。
30. 洪文瓊, W. C.(1997)。小學國語文「教材分析」深層探究。國教之聲，31(1)，12-21。
31. 國立臺東師範學院（編）=National Taitung Teachers' College(Ed.)(1997).新制教育實習面面觀.臺東市=Taitung, Taiwan:國立臺東師範學院=National Taitung Teachers' College.
32. 教育部（2012）。課文本位閱讀理解教學．教學策略資料庫。取自 https://cirn.moe.edu.tw/Module/index.aspx?sid=1198 [Ministry of Education. (2012). Text-oriented reading comprehension teaching. Teaching strategies database. Retrieved from https://cirn.moe.edu.tw/Module/index.aspx?sid=1198]
33. 陳向明, X. M.(2002).社會科學質的研究.臺北市=Taipei, Taiwan:五南=Wu Nan Publishing.
34. 陳美玉, M. Y.(2003)。從實踐知識論觀點看師資生的專業學習與發展。教育資料集刊，28，77-107。
35. 陳國泰, K. T.(2016)。國小新手與專家教師的國語科PCK 之比較研究。人文社會科學研究，10(4)，56-82。
36. 潘士銓, S. C.,黃繼仁, C. J.(2010)。國小教師國語文教學實際知識之敘述探究。國民教育研究學報，24，113-128。
37. 潘慧玲（編）, H. L.(Ed.)(2004).教育研究方法論：觀點與方法.臺北市=Taipei, Taiwan:心理=Psychological Publishing.
38. 蕭昭君, J. J.(1996)。質性教育研究中的主觀─坦然面對與監控。國立花蓮師範學院八十四學年度學術研討會論文集
39. 謝建國, C. K.(2001)。臺北市=Taipei, Taiwan，國立臺北師範學院=National Taipei Teachers' College。