國中小資源班任課教師數學專業知能及其受重視程度之研究

Mathematics Special Educators' Professional Expertise in Resource Room Teaching and Its Importance-Performance Analysis

10.3966/181665042015031101001

劉芳玲(Fang-Ling Liu)；王文伶(Wen-Ling Wang)

國民中小學 ； 專業知能 ； 資源班 ； 數學教師 ； elementary and junior high school ； mathematics teachers ； professional expertise ； resource room

教育研究與發展期刊

11卷1期（2015 / 03 / 31）

1 - 32

繁體中文

近年來，期待每位學生皆能在學校成功學習的思潮，已為一般教師與特教教師之專業知能帶來重大改革，也形成教師教學上極大的挑戰，尤其是在資源班中教授數學的老師。因此，本研究透過資源班數學教師的觀點，探討其對於學理上教師應具備之專業知能的期望／重視程度之看法，同時檢視資源班數學教師對其各項專業知能表現的滿意／表現程度之自評，並探討教師期望與滿意程度的相關性與影響因素，且進一步運用重視度表現值分析法探析教師專業發展的維持與改進方向。問卷調查結果發現，267位國中小資源班數學教師的專業知能平均表現程度為中間程度，重視程度為中上程度，兩者具顯著正相關。以類型來分析，則以落在低重視與低表現型與高重視低表現型的教師人數最多。而影響資源班數學教師專業知能表現度的個人背景因素有教師的年齡、年資、與特教背景；重視度的影響因素則為年齡、年資、與教學階段。重視度表現值分析法結果發現，整體而言學生如何思維以及教師的教學法知識上，為資源班數學教師應繼續保持的能力。專業責任以及數學學科專業知識則是後續應逐步改進的部分。研究者據此提出相關建議。

The expectation that all students can succeed in school has brought general and special educators' expertise reforms. Many teachers are facing great challenges, especially mathematics special educators. Therefore, the authors explored current mathematics special educators' perspectives on their performance and importance levels of the professional expertise in teaching mathematics in resource room. The authors also examined several potential predictors of the performance and importance levels and investigated the correlation between them. Besides, Importance-Performance Analysis (IPA) were applied to further indicate the strengths and weaknesses in teachers' professional expertise. Surveys were conducted through questionnaires and participants included 267 mathematics resource room teachers from elementary and junior high schools. Findings reveal that, overall, the performance level of the mathematics professional expertise is in the middle, while the importance level is at upper middle level. And there exists strong positive correlation between the two levels. As for the importance-performance types, most teachers belong to ＂low importance, low performance＂ and ＂high importance, low performance＂ types. The results also indicate that the performance is impacted by age, teaching experience, and special educational background; the importance is impacted by age, teaching experience, and teaching in elementary or junior high school settings. According to the IPA analysis, teachers' expertise weaknesses include their knowledge of mathematics and professional accountability. Meanwhile, teachers' pedagogical knowledge and knowledge of learners' cognitions in mathematics are found to be the opportunity for showing teachers' professional competency. Lastly, the directions in improving special educators' quality are highlighted by the authors.

1. 李力昌、林淑卿(2006)。動物園遊客對教育行銷策略認知之 IPA 分析－以臺北市立動物園為例。休閒暨觀光產業研究，1(1)，55-64。
   連結：
2. 李源順、林福來、陳美芳(2012)。理論與實務持分者對不同身分國小教師所需數學教學專業知能觀點之比較研究。科學教育學刊，20(6)，539-562。
   連結：
3. 林碧珍、蔡文煥(2007)。數學領域實習輔導教師專業標準指標的發展與建立之初探。國立新竹教育大學學報，24(2)，57-88。
   連結：
4. 高博銓(2007)。教學評量的原則及其革新作法。中等教育，58(1)，44-59。
   連結：
5. 張蓓莉(2006)。啟動建構學習的教學方式對數學低成就聽覺障礙學生二步驟四則運算文字題的教學效果。特殊教育研究學刊，30，75-94。
   連結：
6. The Australian Association of Mathematics Teachers (AAMT) (2006). The AAMT standards for excellence in teaching mathematics in Australian schools. Retrieved form http://www.aamt.edu.au/standards
7. 教育部（2011）。教育部特教通報網。取自http://www.set.edu.tw。
8. 教育部（2007）。各師資類科教師專業標準結案報告。取自http://www.edu.tw/EDU_WEB/Web/publicFun/dynamic_default.php?UNITID=30&TYPE=2#。
9. Ball, D. L.,Thames, M. H.,Phelps, G.(2008).Content knowledge for teaching: What makes it special?.Journal of Teacher Education,59,389-407.
10. Billingsley, B.,Israel, M.,Smith, S.(2011).Supporting new special education teachers: How online resources and web2.0 technologies can help.Teaching Exceptional Children,43,20-29.
11. Blanton, L. P.,Pugach, M. C.(2007).Collaborative programs in general and special teacher education: An action guide for higher education and state policy makers.Washington, DC:Council of Chief State School Officers.
12. Bottage, B.,Rueda, E.,LaRoque, P.,Serlin, R.,Kwon, J.(2007).Integrating reform-oriented math instruction in special education settings.Learning Disabilities Research & Practice,22,96-109.
13. Brouck, E. C.(2005).Secondary special educators: Perspectives of preservice preparation and satisfaction.Teacher Education and Special Education,28(2),125-139.
14. Brownell, M. T.,Sindelar, P. T.,Kiely, M. T.,Danielson, L. C.(2010).Special education teacher quality and preparation: Exposing foundations, constructing a new model.Exceptional Children,76(3),357-377.
15. Carlsen, W.(1991).Subject-matter knowledge and science teaching: A pragmatic perspective.Advances in research on teaching: Teachers' subject matter knowledge and classroom instruction,Greenwich, CT:
16. Carpenter, T. P.,Fennema, E.,Peterson, P. L.,Chiang, C. P.,Loef, M.(1989).Using knowledge of children's mathematics thinking in classroom teaching: An experimental study.American Educational Research Journal,26(4),499-532.
17. Chapman, R. G.(1993).Brand performance comparative.Journal of Products and Brand Management,2(1),42-50.
18. Cochran, K. F.,DeRuiter, J. A.,King, R. A.(1993).Pedagogical content knowing: An integrative model for teacher preparation.Journal of Teacher Education,44,263-272.
19. Council for Exceptional Children=CEC(2004).The new IDEA: CEC's summary of significant issues.Arlington, VA:Author.
20. Craven, J.A.(2003).Representation in teaching: Inferences from research of expert and novice teachers.Educational Psychologist,38,235-247.
21. DeVellis, R. F.(1998).Scale development: Theory and applications.CA:Sage.
22. Dolinsky, A.(1994).A complaint framework with resulting strategies: An application to higher education.Journal of Services Marketing,8,27-39.
23. Evan, M. R.,Chon, K. S.(1989).Formulating and evaluating tourism policy using importance-performance analysis.Hospitality Education and Research Journal,13,203-213.
24. Fullerton, A.,Ruben, B. J.,Mcbride, S.,Bert, S.(2011).Development and design of a merged secondary and special education teacher preparation program.Teacher Education Quarterly,38(2),27-44.
25. Gay, L. R.(1992).Educational research: Competencies for analysis and application.New York, NY:Merrill.
26. Graves, W. H.(ed.),Moore, J. E.(ed.),Patterson, J. B.(ed.)(1997).Foundation of rehabilitation counseling with people who are blind or visually impaired.New York, NY:American Foundation for the Blind.
27. Griffin, C. C.,Jitendra, A. K.,League, M. B.(2009).Novice special educators' instructional practices, communication patterns, and content knowledge for teaching mathematics.Teacher Education and Special Education,32(4),319-336.
28. Grouws, D. A.(ed.)(1992).Handbook of research on mathematics teaching and learning.New York, NY:Macmillan.
29. Hammasi, M.,Strong, K. C.,Taylor S. A.(1994).Measuring service quality for strategies planning and analysis in service firms.Journal of Applied Business Research,10,24-34.
30. Hollenhorst, S.(1994).Culture, conflict, and communication in the wildland-urban interface.Journal of Leisure Research,26,304-312.
31. Keyt, J. C.,Yava, S. U.,Riecken, G.(1994).Importance-performance analysis: A case study in restaurant positioning.International Journal of Retail and Distribution Management,22,35-40.
32. Knop, M. L.(2001).Houston, Texas,University of Houston.
33. Leinhardt, G.,Smith, D. A.(1985).Expertise in mathematics instruction: Subject matter knowledge.Journal of Educational Psychology,3,247-271.
34. Lewis, R.C.,Chambers, R. E.(1989).Marketing leadership in hospitality.New York, NY:Van Nostrand Reinhold.
35. Lin, P. J.(2000).Professional development for elementary mathematics teachers in Taiwan.the American Educational Research Association Annual Meeting,New Orleans, LA:
36. Magal, S. R.,Levenburg, N. M.(2005).Using importance-performance analysis to evaluate e-business strategies among small businesses.Proceedings of the 38th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences
37. Meyer, H.(2004).Novice and expert teachers' conceptions of learners' prior knowledge.Science Education,88,970-983.
38. Murdock, T. B.,Miller, A.(2003).Teachers as sources of middle school students' motivational identity variable-centered and person-centered analytic approaches.The Elementary School Journal,103(4),383-401.
39. National Council of Teachers of Mathematics=NCTM(2003).Ncate program standards: Program for initial preparation of K-4 teachers with an emphasis in mathematics, 5-8 mathematics teachers, 7-12 mathematics teachers.Reston, VA:Author.
40. O'Neill, M.,Wright, C.,Fitz, F.(2001).Quality evaluation in on-line service environments: an application of the importance-performance measurement technique.Managing Service Quality,11(6),402-417.
41. Rao, M. S.(2000).Indian Institute of Science.
42. Richardson, V.(ed.)(2001).Handbook of research on teaching.Washington, DC:American Education Research Association.
43. Shaw, N. C.,DeLone, W. H.,Niederman, F.(2002).Sources of dissatisfaction in end-user support: An empirical study.The Data Base for Advances in Information Systems,33(2),41-56.
44. Shulman, L. S.(1987).Knowledge and teaching: Foundations of the new reform.Harvard Educational Review,57(1),1-22.
45. Skok, W.,Kophamel, A.,Richardson, I.(2001).Diagnosing information systems success: Importance-performance maps in the health club industry.Information & Management,38,409-419.
46. Solmon, M. A.,Lee, A. M.(1991).A contrast of planning behaviors between expert and novice adapted physical education teachers.Adapted Physical Activity Quarterly,8,115-127.
47. Steinbring, H.(1998).Elements of epistemological knowledge for mathematics teachers.Journal of Mathematics Teacher Education,1,157-189.
48. Telese, J. A.(2012).Middle school mathematics teachers' professional development and student achievement.The Journal of Educational Research,105,102-111.
49. Van Garderen, D.(2008).Middle school special education teachers' instructional practices for solving mathematical word problems: An exploratory study.Teacher Education and Special Education,31(2),132-144.
50. Van Garderen, D.,Thomas, C. N.,Stormont, M.,Lembke, E. S.(2013).An overview of principles for special educators to guide mathematics instruction.Intervention in School and Clinic,48(3),131-141.
51. Washburn-Moses, L.(2005).Preparing special educators for secondary positions.Action in Teacher Education,27(3),26-39.
52. Wittrock, M.(ed.)(1986).Handbook of research on teaching.New York, NY:Macmillan.
53. 王振德(1998)。臺灣省國民中小學資源班實施現況與改進策略之研究。新竹師範學院，2，44-77。
54. 吳青蓉、張景媛(1997)。英語科專家/／生手教師課堂教學之研究。師大學報：教育類，42，17-33。
55. 吳德邦、馬秀蘭、洪榮照、林怡秀(2009)。探討國小身心障礙資源班教師在數學課程與教學調整之教學知識的看法。科學教育研究與發展季刊，54，53-77。
56. 呂玉琴、溫世展(2001)。國小、國中與高中教師的數學教學相關信念之探討。國立臺北師範學院學報，14，459-490。
57. 李秀妃(2009)。語言障礙兒童的數學學習障礙與教學初探。東臺灣特殊教育學報，11，207-218。
58. 李源順(2006)。行政院國家科學委員會專題研究計畫成果報告行政院國家科學委員會專題研究計畫成果報告,臺北市:臺北市立教育大學數學資訊教育學系。
59. 李咏吟(2004)。行政院國家科學委員會專題研究計畫成果報告行政院國家科學委員會專題研究計畫成果報告,臺北市:國立臺灣師範大學教育學系。
60. 孟瑛如(2000)。資源教室方案：班級經營與補救教學。臺北市:五南。
61. 林碧珍、蔡文煥(2006)。行政院國家科學委員會專題研究計畫期中報告行政院國家科學委員會專題研究計畫期中報告,新竹市:國立新竹教育大學數理教育研究所。
62. 邱上真(2005)。特殊教育導論─帶好班上每位學生。臺北市:五南。
63. 邱皓政(2010)。量化研究與統計分析－SPSS中文視窗版資料分析範例解釋。臺北市:五南。
64. 侯禎塘(2004)。特殊教育需求兒童數學學習困難之特質、教學策略與創意遊戲數學之應用。臺中市:國立臺中教育大學。
65. 胡永崇(2001)。融合教育：意義、爭議與配合措施。融合教育論文集，嘉義市:
66. 張素貞(2003)。博士論文(博士論文)。臺北市，國立臺灣師範大學。
67. 陳美如(2009)。碩士論文(碩士論文)。屏東市，國立屏東教育大學。
68. 陳瑋婷(2008)。中等特殊教育師資生對「特殊教育教師專業標準」接受度模式驗證及意見調查之研究。師資培育與教師專業發展期刊，1，97-118。
69. 黃幸美(2000)。教師的數學教學知識與對兒童數學知識認知之探討。教育與心理研究，23，73-98。
70. 黃幸美(2002)。國小教師的數學教材知識與教學觀點之探討。臺北市立師範學院學報，33，201-217。
71. 黃馨慧、王文伶、花敬凱(2006)。國民中小學資源班資深與新手教師課程設計知能調查研究─以桃園縣為例。東臺灣特殊教育學報，8，215-235。
72. 劉曼麗(2006)。國科會九十四年度科教處補助專題研究期中報告國科會九十四年度科教處補助專題研究期中報告,國科會。
73. 劉彩香(2003)。碩士論文(碩士論文)。彰化市，國立彰化師範大學。
74. 鍾靜、許馨月、翁嘉聲(2001)。專家教師經營討論式數學教學之個案研究。九十學年度師範學院教育學術論文發表會

1. 黃湘雲、陳明聰、吳雅萍(2018)。標準本位特殊教育教師專業能力調查探究之系統性文獻分析。特殊教育季刊，147，1-12。
2. 張仁家,侯淳馨(2019)。當前電資領域企業對科技大學畢業生的就業力調查。科技與人力教育季刊，6(1)，55-72。
3. 張文權、范熾文(2018)。國民小學教師績效責任領導量表之發展與運用。課程與教學，21(2)，169-198。
4. (2023)。雙北市資源班教師運用正向行為支持因應身心障礙學生拒學行為：專業實踐現況初探。特殊教育研究學刊，48(3)，31-65。