题名

發展以教師對話為取向之數學課堂教學研究分析架構

并列篇名

Developing an Analytical Framework for Investigating Lesson Study: Taking Teacher Talk as an Approach

DOI

10.6925/SCJ.202109_17(3).0001

作者

鄭章華(Chang-Hua Chen)；林佳慧(Chia-Hui Lin)；蔡曉楓(Hsiao-Feng Tsai)

关键词

課堂教學研究 ； 教師專業發展 ； 教師對話 ； lesson study ； teacher professional development ； teacher talk

期刊名称

教育研究與發展期刊

卷期/出版年月

17卷3期（2021 / 09 / 30）

页次

1 - 39

内容语文

繁體中文
中文摘要

課堂教學研究（Lesson Study）被視為有效提昇教師專業知能的模式，在許多國家或地區廣泛推動。《十二年國民基本教育課程綱要總綱》將此一模式列入教師專業發展項目，期能建立學校本位的同儕共學文化。然而，國內教育界對於課堂教學研究多為理念探討，相關實徵研究尚處萌芽階段；再者，學術界對於課堂教學研究促進教師專業成長的機制仍所知有限。基於此，本研究根據社會文化取徑的對話分析理論與Ball等人的「教學所需的數學知識」（mathematics knowledge for teaching, MKT）理論，發展「數學課堂教學研究對話分析架構」，並以小學數學教師參與「基準量與比較量」單元為案例，探析其專業發展特徵。研究結果顯示：此一架構具備信、效度，適合探究教師參與課堂教學研究之專業發展特徵。教師在課堂準備與省思階段經歷不同的專業成長經驗，社群對話集中在探究式與學科教學知識。本分析架構期能有助於課堂教學研究的實踐與深化，提昇教師公開授課的品質，以及增進對於教師專業發展的認識。
英文摘要

Lesson Study (LS) has been viewed as a valuable model for teacher professional development and has been widely conducted in many countries and districts. The general curriculum guidelines of 12-year basic education included LS into the teacher professional item to establish a school-based and collaborative culture among Taiwanese teachers. However, the major LS discussions have revolved around theoretical points in Taiwan, and the empirical study of LS has been scant. In addition, educational scholars' comprehension of how LS contributes to teachers' professional growth is limited. Therefore, this study adapted the sociocultural approach for discourse analysis and the framework of mathematics knowledge for teaching proposed by Ball et al. to construct a scheme for LS talk analysis (SLSTA) to analyze mathematics teachers' peer interactions in conducting LS. We took the LS of a fifth graders' mathematics unit conducted by four teachers as a case to exemplify SLSTA and to identify the teachers' professional development. Data analysis suggested that the reliability of SLSTA was satisfactory. The majority of teachers' talk was exploratory and demonstrated pedagogical content knowledge. Although these teachers spent more time on lesson preparations than lesson reflections, the lesson reflections did not benefit the teachers' professional growth less than the lesson preparations. This framework, SLSTA, expects to examine and escalate the LS quality and contribute to understanding teacher professional development.
主题分类 社會科學 > 教育學
参考文献
  1. Sudejamnong, A., Robsouk, K., Loipha, S., & Inprasitha, M. (2014). Development of teachers’ mathematical knowledge for teaching by using the innovation of lesson study and open approach. Sociology Mind, 4(4), 317-327. https://doi.org/10.4236/sm.2014.44032
    連結：
  2. Tsai, H. F., & Wilkinson, I. A. G. (2018). The use of collaborative reasoning to promote the quality of text-based discussion: A case study in the Chinese community school. International Journal of Intelligent Technologies and Applied Statistics, 11(4), 283-299. https://doi.org/10.6148/IJITAS.201812_11(4).0004
    連結：
  3. 方志華、丁一顧（2013）。日本授業研究的發展與佐藤學學習共同體的批判轉化。課程與教學季刊，16（4），89-120。https://doi.org/10.6384/CIQ.201310_16(4).0004
    連結：
  4. 卓益安、金鈐、邱顯義（2015）。以教學反思探究一位高中資深數學教師教學用數學知識的內涵與適應。課程與教學季刊，18（4），29-56。https://doi.org/10.6384/CIQ.201510_18(4).0002
    連結：
  5. 陳佩英（2017）。對話即實踐：網絡學習社群專業資本積累之個案研究。教育科學研究期刊，62（3），159-191。https://doi.org/10.6209/JORIES.2017.62(3).06
    連結：
  6. 張景媛、鄭章華、范德鑫、林靜君（2012）。「教師學習社群」發展對話式形成性評量實務及其對學習成效之影響。教育心理學報，43（3），717-733。https://doi.org/10.6251/BEP.20110318
    連結：
  7. 劉世雄（2017）。臺灣國中教師對共同備課、公開觀課與集體議課的實施目的、關注內容以及專業成長知覺之研究。當代教育研究季刊，25（2），43-76。https://doi.org/10.6151/CERQ.2017.2502.02
    連結：
  8. 劉世雄（2021）。國小教師採合作探究理念進行觀課、議課之個案研究。教育研究與發展期刊，17（1），1-29。https://doi.org/10.6925/SCJ.202103_17(1).0001
    連結：
  9. 鄭志強、胡俊、施瀾（2019）。開展日本授業研究的文化因素－從野中郁次郎的知識創造理論來看。當代教育研究季刊，27（2），77-109。https://doi.org/10.6151/CERQ.201906_27(2).0003
    連結：
  10. Mercer, N. (2004). Sociocultural discourse analysis: Analyzing classroom talk as a social mode of thinking. Journal of Applied Linguistics, 1(2), 137-168. https://doi.org/10.1558/japl.v1.i2.137
  11. Mercer, N. (2010). The analysis of classroom talk: Methods and methodologies. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 80(1), 1-14. https://doi.org/10.1348/000709909X479853
  12. Mercer, N., & Dawes, L. (2008). The value of exploratory talk. In N. Mercer & S. Hodgkinson (Eds.), Exploring talk in school: Inspired by the work of douglas barnes (pp.55-72). Sage Publications. http://dx.doi.org/10.4135/9781446279526.n4
  13. Mercer, N., & Howe, C. (2012). Explaining the dialogic processes of teaching and learning: The value and potential of sociocultural theory. Learning, Culture and Social Interaction, 1(1), 12-21. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lcsi.2012.03.001
  14. Mercer, N., & Littleton, K. (2007). Dialogue and the development of children’s thinking: A sociocultural approach. Routledge.
  15. Meyer, R. D., & Wilkerson, T. L. (2011). Lesson study: The impact on teachers’ knowledge for teaching mathematics. In L. C. Hart, A. S. Alston, & A. Murata (Eds.), Lesson study research and practice in mathematics education (pp. 15-26). Springer.
  16. Ministry of Education. (2014). Curriculum guidelines of 12-year basic education: General guidelines.
  17. Murphy, C. (2015). Changing teachers’ practices through exploratory talk in mathematics: A discursive pedagogical perspective. Australian Journal of Teacher Education, 40(5), 61-84. https://doi.org/10.14221/ajte.2015v40n5.4
  18. National Commission on Mathematics and Science Teaching for the 21st Century. (2000). Before it’s too late: A report to the nation from the National Commission on Mathematics and Science Teaching for the 21st Century. Department of Education, Washington, DC.
  19. Patterson, E. W. (2018). Exploratory talk in the early years: Analysing exploratory talk in collaborative group activities involving younger learners. International Journal of Primary, Elementary and Early Years Education, 46(3), 264-276. https://doi.org/10.1080/03004279.2016.1243141
  20. Pica, T. (1987). Second-language acquisition, social interaction, and the classroom. Applied Linguistics, 8(1), 3-21. https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/8.1.3
  21. Pica, T. (1994). Questions from the language classroom: Research perspectives. TESOL Quarterly, 28(1), 49-79. https://doi.org/10.2307/3587198
  22. Schön, D. A. (1984). The reflective practitioner: How professionals think in action. Basic Books.
  23. Shulman, L. S. (1986). Those who understand: Knowledge growth in teaching. Educational Researcher, 15(2), 4-14. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X015002004
  24. Stigler, J. W., & Hiebert, J. (1999). The teaching gap: Best ideas from the world’s teachers for improving education in the classroom. Free Press.
  25. Thames, M. H., & Ball, D. L. (2010). What mathematical knowledge does teaching require?. Teaching Children Mathematics, 17(4), 220-229. https://doi.org/10.5951/TCM.17.4.0220
  26. Tsui, A. B. M. (2008). Classroom discourse: Approaches and perspectives. In N. H. Hornberger (Ed.), Encyclopedia of language and education (pp. 261-272). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-0-387-30424-3_154
  27. Vrikki, M., Warwick, P., Vermunt, J. D., Mercer, N., & Van Halem, N. (2017). Teacher learning in the context of lesson study: A video-based analysis of teacher discussions. Teaching and Teacher Education, 61, 211-224. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2016.10.014
  28. Vygotsky, L. S. (1962). Thought and language. MIT Press. https://doi.org/10.1037/11193-000
  29. Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Harvard University Press. https://doi.org/10.2307/j.ctvjf9vz4
  30. Warwick, P., Vrikki, M., Vermunt, J. D., Mercer, N., & Van Halem, N. (2016). Connecting observations of student and teacher learning: An examination of dialogic processes in lesson study discussions in mathematics. ZDM – Mathematics Education, 48(4), 555-569. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11858-015-0750-z
  31. Watanabe, T. (2002). Learning from Japanese lesson study. Educational Leadership: Journal of the Department of Supervision and Curriculum Development, N.E.A, 59(6), 36-39.
  32. Wilson, P. H., Sztajn, P., Edgington, C., & Confrey, J. (2014). Teachers’ use of their mathematical knowledge for teaching in learning a mathematics learning trajectory. Journal of Mathematics Teacher Education, 17, 149-175. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10857-013-9256-1
  33. 王金國（2020）。中小學實施公開授課的探討與建言。台灣教育研究期刊，1（1），193-224。https://drive.google.com/file/d/1OmLTk7W_GWrjbYW8xIKuCx1ABV1upVVw/view
  34. 林國凍（2009）。日本的 Lesson Study 如何引發教師專業發展之探究。教育研究與發展期刊，5（1），165-184。https://journal.naer.edu.tw/periodical_detail.asp?DID=vol016_06
  35. 郭生玉（2004）。教育測驗與評量（修訂第一版）。精華書局。
  36. 教育部（2014）。十二年國民基本教育課程綱要總綱。https://www.naer.edu.tw/upload/1/16/doc/288/十二年國教課程綱要總綱.pdf
  37. 教育部國民及學前教育署（2016）。國民中學與國民小學實施校長及教師公開授課參考原則。https://www.k12ea.gov.tw/files/class_schema/jh/4/04-國民中小學校長及教師公開授課辦理參考原則 0926(發布版).pdf
  38. 張僑平、陳敏（2020）。課例研究的緣起和流變：回顧與前瞻。全球教育展望，49（8），75-91。
  39. 黃源河、符碧真（2011）。揭開日本學生傑出表現背後的秘密：教學研究。教育科學研究期刊，56（4），69-97。https://doi.org/10.3966/2073753X2011125604003
  40. 廖淑戎（2008）。美日中小學教學研究實施經驗之啟示。師資培育與教師專業發展期刊，1（2），21-36。
  41. 歐用生（2012）。日本中小學「單元教學研究」分析。教育資料集刊，54，121-147。
  42. 劉世雄（2020）。素養導向的教學實務：教師共備觀議課的深度對話（第二版）。五南。
  43. 簡紅珠（2006）。優質教學釋義與啟示。教育研究與發展期刊，2（2），1-17。https://journal.naer.edu.tw/periodical_detail.asp?DID=vol005_01
  44. An, S., Kulm, G., & Wu, Z. (2004). The pedagogical content knowledge of middle school, mathematics teachers in China and the U.S.. Journal of Mathematics Teacher Education, 7, 145-172. https://doi.org/10.1023/B:JMTE.0000021943.35739.1c
  45. Ball, D. L., Thames, M. H., & Phelps, G. (2008). Content knowledge for teaching: What makes it special? Journal of Teacher Education, 59(5), 389-407. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022487108324554
  46. Barnes, D. (1969). Language in the secondary classroom. In D. Barnes, J. Britton, & H. Rosen (Eds.), Language, the learner and the school (pp. 11-77). Penguin Books.
  47. Cazden, C. B. (2001). Classroom discourse: The language of teaching and learning (2nd ed.). Heinemann.
  48. Charalambous, C. Y. (2008). Preservice teachers’ mathematical knowledge for teaching and their performance in selected teaching practices: Exploring a complex relationship [Doctoral dissertation, University of Michigan]. University of Michigan Library. https://hdl.handle.net/2027.42/61673
  49. Chen, C. H., Crockett, M.D., Namikawa, T., Zilimu, J., & Lee, S. H. (2012). Eighth grade mathematics teachers’ formative assessment practice in SES-different classrooms: A Taiwan study. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 10, 553-579. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10763-011-9299-7
  50. Cochran-Smith, M., & Lytle, S. L. (2001). Beyond certainty: Taking an inquiry stance on practice. In A. Lieberman & L. Miller (Eds.), Teachers caught in the action: Professional development that matters (pp. 45-58). Teacher College Press.
  51. Cohen, D. K., & Hill, H. C. (1998). State policy and classroom performance: Mathematics reform in California [Policy brief]. Consortium for Policy Research in Education, University of Pennsylvania Graduate School of Education. https://repository.upenn.edu/cpre_policybriefs/78
  52. Copur Gencturk, Y. (2012). Teachers’ mathematical knowledge for teaching, instructional practices, and student outcomes [Doctoral dissertation, University of Illinois]. Illinois Digital Environment for Access to Learning and Scholarship. http://hdl.handle.net/2142/31173
  53. DeVellis, R. F. (2012). Scale development: Theory and applications (3rd ed.). Sage Publications.
  54. Dudley, P. (2013). Teacher learning in lesson study: What interaction-level discourse analysis revealed about how teachers utilised imagination, tacit knowledge of teaching and fresh evidence of pupils learning, to develop practice knowledge and so enhance their pupils’ learning. Teaching and Teacher Education, 34, 107-121. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2013.04.006
  55. Dudley, P., & Vrikki, M. (2020). Teachers’ collaborative dialogues in contexts of lesson study. In N. Mercer, R. Wegerif, & L. Major (Eds.), The Routledge international handbook of research on dialogic education (pp. 217-226). Routledge.
  56. Fennema, E., & Franke, M. L. (1992). Teachers’ knowledge and its impact. In D. A. Grouws (Ed.), Handbook of research on mathematics teaching and learning: A project of the National Council of Teachers of Mathematics (pp. 147-164). Macmillan Publishing.
  57. Guskey, T. R. (2002). Professional development and teacher change. Teachers and Teaching: Theory and Practice, 8(3), 381-391. https://doi.org/10.1080/135406002100000512
  58. Hennessy, S., Rojas-Drummond, S., Higham, R., Márquez, A. M., Maine, F., Ríos, R. M., García-Carrión, R., Torreblanca, O., & Barrera, M. J. (2016). Developing a coding scheme for analysing classroom dialogue across educational contexts. Learning, Culture and Social Interaction, 9, 16-44. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lcsi.2015.12.001
  59. Herrlitz-Biró, L., Elbers, E., & Haan, M. D.(2013).Key words and the analysis of exploratory talk. European Journal of Psychology of Education, 28, 1397-1415. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10212-013-0172-7
  60. Hill, H. C., Blunk, M. L., Charalambous, C. Y., Lewis, J. M., Phelps, G. C., Sleep, L., & Ball, D. L. (2008). Mathematical knowledge for teaching and the mathematical quality of instruction: An exploratory study. Cognition and Instruction, 26(4), 430-511. https://doi.org/10.1080/07370000802177235
  61. Hill, H. C., & Chin, M. (2018). Connections between teachers’ knowledge of students, instruction, and achievement outcomes. American Educational Research Journal, 55(5), 1076-1112. https://doi.org/10.3102/0002831218769614
  62. Hill, H. C., Schilling, S. G., & Ball, D. L. (2004). Developing measures of teachers’ mathematics knowledge for teaching. The Elementary School Journal, 105(1), 11-30. https://doi.org/10.1086/428763
  63. Krippendorff, K. (2013). Content analysis: An introduction to its methodology (3rd ed.). Sage Publications.
  64. Krippendorff, K., & Craggs, R. (2016). The reliability of multi-valued coding of data. Communication Methods and Measures, 10(4), 181-198. https://doi.org/10.1080/19312458.2016.1228863
  65. Lee, L. H. J., & Tan, S. C. (2020). Teacher learning in lesson study: Affordances, disturbances, contradictions, and implications. Teaching and Teacher Education, 89, 102986. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2019.102986
  66. Lewis, C., & Perry, R. (2017). Lesson study to scale up research‐based knowledge: A randomized, controlled trial of fractions learning. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 48(3), 261-299. https://doi.org/10.5951/jresematheduc.48.3.0261
  67. Lewis, C., & Tsuchida, I. (1997) Planned educational change in Japan: The case of elementary science instruction. Journal of Education Policy, 12(5), 313-331.
  68. Lewis, C., Perry, R., & Hurd, J. (2004). A deeper look at lesson study. Educational Leadership: Journal of the Department of Supervision and Curriculum Development, N.E.A, 61(5), 18-22.
  69. Lewis, C., & Tsuchida, I. (1997). Planned educational change in Japan: The case of elementary science instruction. Journal of Education Policy, 12(5), 313-331. https://doi.org/10.1080/0268093970120502
  70. Lewis, J. M., Fischman, D., Riggs, I. M., & Wasserman, K. (2013). Teacher learning in lesson study. Mathematics Enthusiast, 10(3), 583-620.
  71. Marshall, J. D., Smagorinsky, P., & Smith. M. W. (1995). The language of interpretation: Patterns of discourse in discussions of literature. National Council of Teachers of English.
  72. Mehan, H. (1979). Learning lessons: Social organization in the classroom. Harvard University Press.
  73. Mercer, N. (1995). The guided construction of knowledge: Talk amongst teachers and learners. Multilingual Matters.
  74. Mercer, N. (2000). Words and minds: How we use language to think together. Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203464984
print cancel