偏鄉小學教師實施數學混齡教學之個案研究

Challenges and Implications of Conducting Multi-grade Teaching in Mathematics: A Case Study on Two Elementary Schools in a Remote Area

10.7038/JETP.202112_(44).0003

林佳慧(LIN, Chia-Hui)；鄭章華(CHEN, Chang-Hua)

混齡教學 ； 跨年級教學 ； 偏鄉教育 ； mixed-age teaching ； multi-grade teaching ； rural education

教育理論與實踐學刊

44期（2021 / 12 / 01）

57 - 83

繁體中文

近年來愈來愈多偏鄉小校因少子女化實施混齡教學，大多數聚焦於知識結構性不強的科目。僅有少數學校於知識結構性強的科目（例如：數學）實施混齡教學，這方面的研究仍在起步。基於此，本研究以兩所偏鄉小型國民小學為案例，探討個案教師實施數學混齡教學時，在課程轉化、教學實施與相關行政配套所遭遇的挑戰及其帶來之相關啟示。資料蒐集包括訪談逐字稿、觀察紀錄、教案與學習單與研究日誌等，並以持續比較與歸納方式進行分析。研究發現：一、在課程轉化方面，循環課程最為困難，耗費教師最多的時間與精力為不同學習準備度的學生設計教材和題目；二、在教學實施方面，教師不易因應學生差異設定學習目標，以及運用小組合作學習發揮混齡教學優勢；三、在行政配套方面，教育行政支持與校長課程領導有助於教師實施混齡教學，然而教師增能卻未能對準混齡教學的需求；四、值得注意的是，循環課程轉化雖最具挑戰性，卻是促成教師關注學習差異與教學改變的利基。綜上，本研究針對教師專業發展以及師資培育課程規劃提出建議，期能對國內推動混齡教學有所助益。

More and more elementary schools in remote areas conduct multi-grade teaching (MT) to address the issues of low birth rates. Most of the schools implement MT in subjects with a weak structure of knowledge. Only a few schools conduct MT with a strong structure of knowledge, such as mathematics. Research on MT in mathematics is burgeoning. Thus, this case study explored the implementation of MT in mathematics in two schools in a remote area to learn the challenges, opportunities, and implications. Data collections included lesson observations, lesson plans, worksheets, interview transcripts, and fieldnotes. The researcher applied constant comparison and inductive analysis to analyze the collected data. Research findings suggest that, firstly, the vital challenges of MT occurred in the design and implementation of the cyclic math curriculum to meet students with varied learning readiness. Secondly, the teachers did not set up differentiated learning goals and did not take advantage of multi-grade collaborative learning. Thirdly, the teachers' teaching benefited from the local education bureau's and the school administrations' supports; however, the teacher workshops conducted by the educational administrations did not benefit multi-grade teaching. Last but not least, although the cyclic math curriculum is a significant difficulty and burden for the case teachers, it is the opportunity for promoting case teachers' Differentiated Instruction. This study provides suggestions for in-service teachers' professional development and pre-service teachers' program design.

1. 林欣毅,鄭章華,廖素嫺(2016)。混齡教學於國中小階段之實施方式與支持措施—多重個案研究。教育實踐與研究，29(2)，1-32。
   連結：
2. 陳延興,朱秀麗(2018)。一所學校型態創新混齡實驗教育學校的成長與蛻變。師資培育與教師專業發展期刊，11(3)，109-135。
   連結：
3. Ball, D. L.,Bass, H.(2009).With an eye on the mathematical horizon: Knowing mathematics for teaching to learners' mathematical futures.The 43rd Jahrestagung der Gesellschaft fur Didaktik der Mathematik,Oldenburg, Germany:
4. Berry, C. (2004). Mixed age classes in urban primary schools: Perceptions of headteachers. http://multigrade.ioe.ac.uk/fulltext/fulltextBerrymixedage.pdf。
5. Bogdan, R. C.,Biklen, S. K.(2007).Qualitative research for education: Anintroduction to theory and methods.Allyn and Bacon.
6. Cohen, D.,Raudenbush, S.,Ball, D.(2003).Resource, instruction, and research.Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis,25(2),119-142.
7. Cohen, L.,Manion, L.(2000).Research methods in education.Routledge.
8. Cornish, L.(Ed.)(2006).Reaching EFAthrough multi-grade teaching.Kardoorair Press.
9. Coza, B.(2017).The multi-age learning community in action: Creating a caring school environment for all children.Rowman & Littlefield.
10. Cronin, Z.(2019).to mix or not to mix: A critical review of literature on mixed-age groups in primary schools.Cambridge Open-Review Educational Research e-Journal,6,165-179.
11. Desimone, L. M.(2009).Improving impact studies of teachers' professional development: Toward better conceptualizations and measures.Educational Researcher,38(3),181-199.
12. Guskey, T. R.(2000).Evaluating professional development.Corwin Press.
13. Hattie, J.(2009).Visible learning: A synthesis of over 800 meta-analysis relating to achievement.Taylor & Francis.
14. Hoffman, J.(2002).Flexible grouping strategies in the multiage classroom.Theory into Practice,41(1),47-52.
15. Hyry-Beihammer, E. K.,Hascher, T.(2015).Multi-grade teaching practices in Austrian and Finnish primary schools.International Journal of Educational Research,74,104-113.
16. Khazaei, L.,Ahmadi, P.,Momeni far, S.,Rahmani, F.,Bakhshi, H.,Ali fat, A.,Gholipour, J.,Hosseinpour, R.(2016).Challenges and disadvantages of multigrade teaching: Qualitative research.Science and Education,24(12),135-142.
17. Klein, F.,舒湘芹（譯）,陳義章（譯）,楊欽樑（譯）(1996).高觀點下的初等數學.
18. Lincoln, Y. S.,Guba, E. G.(1985).Naturalistic inquiry.Sage.
19. Lindström, E. A.,Lindahl, E.(2011).The effect of mixed-age classes in Sweden.Scandinavian Journal of Educational Research,55(2),121-144.
20. Little, A. W.(2006).Education for all and multigrade teaching: Challenges and opportunities.Springer Press.
21. Mason, D. A.,Burns, R. B.(1996).Simply no worse and simply no better' may simply be wrong: A critique of Veenman's conclusion about multigrade classes.Review of Educational Research,66(3),307-322.
22. McLaughlin, M. W.,Talbert, J. E.(2001).Professional communities and the work of high school teaching.The University of Chicago Press.
23. Mulryan-Kyne, C.(2007).The preparation of teachers for multigrade teaching.Teaching and Teacher Education,23,501-514.
24. National Council of Teachers of Mathematics(2014).Principles to actions: Ensuring mathematical success for all.Author.
25. Ontario. Ministry of Education(2007).Combined grades: Strategies to reach a range of learners in kindergarten to grade 6..Author.
26. Shenton, A.(2004).Strategies for ensuring trustworthiness in qualitative research projects.Education for Information,22,63-75.
27. Small, M.(2012).Good questions: Great way to differentiate mathematics instruction.Teacher College Press.
28. Smit, R.,Engeli, E.(2015).An empirical model of mixed-age teaching.International Journal of Educational Research,74,136-145.
29. Smit, R.,Humpert, W.(2012).Differentiated instruction in small schools.Teaching and Teacher Education,28,1152-1162.
30. Stake, R.(1995).The art of case study research.Sage.
31. Taole, M. J.(2014).Multigrade teaching: A daunting challenge for rural teachers.Studies of Tribes and Tribals,12(1),95-102.
32. Tomlinson, C. A.(2001).How to differentiate instruction in mixed ability classroom.Association for Supervision & Curriculum Development.
33. Trussell-Cullen, A.(1994).Whatever happened to times tables?.Reed Books.
34. United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization(2015).Practical tips for teaching multigrade classes.Author.
35. Veenman, S.(1995).Cognitive and non-cognitive effects of multigrade and multi-age classes: A best-evidence synthesis.Review of Educational Research,65(4),319-381.
36. Veenman, S.(1996).Effects of multigrade and multi-age classes reconsidered.Review of Educational Research,66(3),323-340.
37. Wiliam, D.(2018).Embedded formative assessment.Solution Tree Press.
38. 吳清山(2016)。混齡教學。教育脈動，8，161。
39. 林碧珍,蔡文煥(2006)。TIMSS 2003 國小四年級學生的數學成就及其相關因素之探討。TIMSS 2003 國際數學與科學教育成就趨勢調查國家報告
40. 洪儷瑜(2018)。跨年級教學概論。跨年級教學實務手冊
41. 洪儷瑜,梁雲霞,林素貞,張倫睿,李佩臻(2019)。林素貞、張倫睿跨年級教學在臺灣推動之初期現況與問題探討。跨年級教學的實踐與眺望，心理:
42. 徐永康,鄭同僚(2019)。鄉村小校混齡教學與課程設計。課程研究，14(1)，55-77。
43. 張新仁（編）(2015).中小學教學改革.五南.
44. 教育部（2018）。十二年國民基本教育課程綱要數學領域。https://12basic.edu.tw/12about-3.php。
45. 教育部（2014）。十二年國民基本教育課程綱要總綱。https://reurl.cc/95la2j。
46. 教育部統計處（2019）。107學年度各級教育統計概況分析。http://stats.moe.gov.tw/files/analysis/107_all_level.pdf。
47. 梁雲霞(2018)。跨年級教學：課程與教學設計。跨年級教學實務手冊
48. 陳聖謨(2017)。科技部補助專題研究計畫成果報告期末報告科技部補助專題研究計畫成果報告期末報告,科技部。
49. 黃意舒（2000）。混齡教學。教育大辭書。https://reurl.cc/jgAoXZ。
50. 新北市教育局（2017）。偏遠地區公立國民小學混齡教學課程發展導引手冊。https://reurl.cc/gzd1Lb。
51. 新北市教育局(2018)。,作者。
52. 蔡銘津(2012)。少子女化的教育政策走向與應變。臺灣教育評論月刊，1(5)，1-7。