行政院國家科學委員會補助專題研究計畫
成 果 報 告
□期中進度報告
優質數理師資培育學術研討會
International Conference on Research and Evaluation of Teacher
Quality in Elementary Science and Mathematics
行政院國家科學委員會專題研究計畫
成果報告
壹、概述
針對國科會推動之政策導向研究「優質師資培育」及科教處整合型專案研
究「國小教師數理專業基準與成長之研究 NSC 95-2522-S-153-001」第二年及第
三年科學教師培訓課程與輔導評鑑，本校應用化學暨生命科學系及數理教育研
究所於 11 月 20～22 日民生校區國際會議廳舉辦「優質數理師資培育國際學術
研討會」
。會中特邀本校劉慶中校長、國科會科教處林陳涌處長、中教司陳益興
司長、屏東縣教育局顏慶祥局長、高雄縣教育局陳瑞忠局長、本校李賢哲教務
長、理學院陳坤檸院長、應用化學暨生命科學系樊琳主任、數理教育研究所林
曉雯所長擔任本研討會主持人。
本研討會議程包括國外學者 Dr. Sandra K. Abell 主講「Effective Professional
De
ve
l
opme
nt
i
n Sc
i
e
nc
e a
nd Ma
t
he
ma
t
i
c
s
Educa
t
i
on:
Te
a
c
he
r
s
’
a
nd Fac
i
l
i
t
a
t
or
s
’
Views」
、Dr. Mark J. Volkmann 主講「Science Teacher Professional Development:
Using Lesson Study to Investigate and Improve Instruction」及國內高雄師範大學
周 進 洋 院 長 主 講 「 The Language of Thinking as the Agent of Conceptual
貳、對國內科學教育研究之貢獻
本研討會之舉行提高國內數理師資培育機構、教育部、教育局覺知數理師
資培育及教師專業知能發展之重要議題與價值。有助於檢討目前數理師資培育
的現況，並提出改進方向。研討會之資訊及成果將可提供參與科學教師培育研
究者及政策制定者建立我國未來數理教師培育之基準、探討數理教師專業知能
成長、進行成效評鑑、制訂相關制度與願景之參考。
參、研討會議程表
Day 1: November 20, 2006 (Monday)
Seminar Site: National Pingtung University of Education, Wu Yu Building 4F,
International Conference Hall
Time Activity Participants
08：30～09：00 Registration
09：00～09：20 Opening Presider: 劉慶中校長（國立屏東教育大學校長） 林陳涌處長（國科會科教處處長）
09：20～10：50
Session 1
Effective Professional Development in Science and Mathematics Education: Teachers’and Facilitators’Views
Speaker: Dr. Sandra K. Abell (University of Missouri, Columbia) Presider: 林陳涌處長（國科會科教處處長）
10：50～11：00 Coffee Break
11：00～12：30
Session 2
Implementation ofthe“Evaluation System for Promoting Mathematics Teachers’ProfessionalDevelopment”:An Investigation of a Secondary Mathematics Intern 談數學實習教師成長機制─以教師教學評鑑系統促進一位實習教師的專 業成長為例 Speaker: 柳賢教授（國立高雄師範大學數學系教授） Presider: 陳益興司長（教育部中教司司長） 12：30～13：00 Lunch 13：00～13：30 Registration 13：30～15：00 Session 3
The Language of Thinking as the Agent of Conceptual Development Speaker: 周進洋院長（國立高雄師範大學理學院院長）
Presider: 顏慶祥局長（屏東縣教育局局長）
15：00～15：10 Coffee Break
15：10～16：40
Session 4
Becoming Science Teachers—From Mentoring to Professional Development 成為科學教師—從曼特寧到專業發展
Speaker: 熊召弟教授（國立台北教育大學自然科學教育學系教授）
Day 2: November 21, 2006 (Tuesday)
Seminar Site: National Pingtung University of Education, Wu Yu Building 4F,
International Conference Hall
Time Activity Participants
08：30～09：00 Registration
09：00～10：30
Session 5
A Timely Report on the Teaching and Class Managemant of Student Teacher’sPracticefrom School-Based Viewpoint
從學校本位觀點探討國小教學與級務實習相關議題之現況 Speaker: 鍾靜教授（國立台北教育大學數學暨資訊教育學系） Presider: 李賢哲教務長（國立屏東教育大學） 10：30～10：40 Coffee Break 10：40～11：00 Introduction 11：00～12：10 Session 6
Evaluation of Quality of Elementary Science Methods Course Using ESTPI Indicators
國小自然與生活科技教材教法課程（含實習）之設計、實施與評鑑 Spokesperson: 王靜如教授（國立屏東教育大學應用化學暨生命科學系教授）
Presider: 陳坤檸院長（國立屏東教育大學理學院院長）
Review: Professor Sandra K. Abell（University of Missouri, Columbia）
Professor Mark J. Volkmann（University of Missouri, Columbia）
周進洋教授（國立高雄師範大學理學院院長） 熊召弟教授（國立台北教育大學自然科學教育學系教授） 12：10～13：00 Lunch 13：00～13：30 Registration 13：30～15：00 Session 7
Development and Application of Professional Standards for Preservice Elementary Mathematics Teachers
國小職前教師數學教學專業基準之發展與應用 Spokesperson: 劉曼麗教授（國立屏東教育大學數理教育研究所教授） Review: 鍾靜教授（國立台北教育大學數學暨資訊教育學系） 柳賢教授（國立高雄師範大學數學系教授） 李源順教授（台北市立教育大學數學資訊教育研究所教授） 15：00～15：10 Coffee Break 15：10～16：40 Session 8
Application of Professional Standards for Mentors of Elementary Science and Mathematics Teachers: A Case Study
國小輔導教師科學與數學專業基準應用：個案研究
Spokesperson: 林曉雯所長（國立屏東教育大學數理教育研究所教授兼所長）
Review: Professor Sandra K. Abell（University of Missouri, Columbia）
Professor Mark J. Volkmann（University of Missouri, Columbia）
周進洋院長（國立高雄師範大學理學院院長）
Day 3: November 22, 2006 (Wednesday)
Seminar Site: National Pingtung University of Education, Wu Yu Building 4F,
International Conference Hall
Time Activity Participants
08：30～09：00 Registration
09：00～10：30
Session 9
Science Teacher Professional Development: Using Lesson Study to Investigate and Improve Instruction
Speaker: Dr. Mark J. Volkmann (University of Missouri, Columbia)
Presider: 樊琳主任（國立屏東教育大學應用化學暨生命科學系系主任）
10：30～10：40 Coffee Break
10：40～12：10
Session 10
附件一 「優質數理師資培育國際學術研討會」進行實況
圖 1. 本校劉校長慶中蒞臨致詞 圖 2. 行政院國家科學委員會科教處 林處長陳涌蒞臨致詞
圖 3. Dr. Sandra K. Abell 演講實況 圖 4.Dr. Sandra K. Abell 討論實況（1）
圖 31. Dr. Mark J. Volkmann 討論實況（1） 圖 32. Dr. Mark J. Volkmann 討論實況（2）
圖 33. 林所長曉雯蒞臨致詞 圖 34. 台北市立教育大學數學資訊教育研究所 李教授源順演講實況
圖 35. Dr. Sandra K. Abell、Dr. Mark J.
Volkmann、王教授靜如、林所長曉雯之 合影
附件二 演講內容介紹
Session 1
(20 November 2006, 09:20~10:50)
Prof. Sandra K. Abell (University of Missouri, Columbia)Effective Professional Development in Science and Mathematics Education: Teachers’and Facilitators’Views
Meredith Park Rogers*, Sandra Abell, John Lannin, Chia-Yu Wang, Kusalin Musikul, David Barker, and Shannon Dingman
*Author for correspondence.
Abstract
This study compares the views of teachers and professional development facilitators about effective professional development (PD). We analyzed interviews with 72 teacher participants and 23 PD facilitators involved in nine science and mathematics PD projects. The teachers’ themes forcharacterizing effective PD included classroom application, teacher as learner, and teacher networking. Similarly, the PD facilitators discussed effective PD as having classroom application and experiences for teachers as learners. In addition, PD facilitators shared the need to develop collegial relationships with teachers and improve teacher knowledge. These views correspond to some of the standards and recommendations described in policy and research documents on effective PD. Criteria of effective PD in these documents that the participants did not mention included: (1) challenging teachers’ content and pedagogical content knowledge with transformative learning experiences, (2) encouraging teacher leadership for sustained support, and (3) focusing on student learning by instructing teachers on how to use student data to inform their teaching practice. Our findings have implications for designing PD that reflects the criteria of standards-based reform.
演講大綱
1. Teachers want PD that is relevant in their classrooms :
(1) Activities to use on Monday.
(2) Hands-on in their classroom.
(3) Resources for teaching.
(4) Grade level specific-tied to their curriculum.
2. PD is effective when PD is relevant to teache
r
s
’
c
l
a
s
s
r
ooms
:
(1) Practical classroom activating.
(2) Ready-made resources.
3. Best practices in PD are transformative
(
1)
Embe
d
l
e
ar
ni
ng
i
n
t
e
ac
he
r
’
pr
a
c
t
i
ce
.
(2) Engage teachers continuously over time.
(3) Help teachers develop new practices.
(4) Create cognitive dissonance.
(5) Provide time for change.
Q2: What is thing you will consider about your next PD?
A2: (1)加入專業學習小組，分享自己過去的學習經驗。
(2)繼續進修以取得專業證照。
Q3: How teachers can help Achieve effective PD?
A3: (1) Understand their learning needs.
(2) Expect a variety of formats and strategies.
(3) Communicate learning needs to administrators and professional
development.
(4) Expect a specific number of contact hours.
Q4: How Funding Agents Can help Achieve Effective PD?
A4: (1) Require collaboration with teachers and schools during design?
(2) Define characteristics of effective PD and expect to see them in
action.
(3) Expect a specific number of contact hours.
(4) Expect a variety of formats and strategies.
Q5：在美國，教師願意用額外的時間進修嗎？
Session 9
(22 November 2006, 09:00~10:30)
Prof. Mark J. Volkmann (University of Missouri, Columbia)Science Teacher Professional Development: Using Lesson Study to Investigate and Improve Instruction
Mark J. Volkmann
Associate Professor of Science Education
Science Education Center, University of Missouri, Columbia, MO, USA volkmannmj@missouri.edu
Abstract
Large-scale reform efforts through curriculum projects of the 60s and 70s, accountability strategies of the 80s, the standards movement of the 90s, and high stakes testing of the new millennium have failed to make lasting changes in the quality of science teaching in the United States. These colossal efforts at reform failed to focus attention on the single most important part of the teaching equation –the role of the teacher and the quality of the lessons taught. This paper describes a Japanese innovation called lesson study. It provides the education community with a new way to think about reform –slow, ongoing, incremental change in the ways that teachers view teaching and learning in a classroom –one lesson at a time. Lesson Study is a process of professional development that is teacher-driven, student-focused, and jointly-designed. Teachers engage in lesson study as researchers and scholars of their own classrooms. The process has the potential to transform schools into places where teachers can investigate and verify what works for their students.
演講大綱
1. A Summary of Reform in the U.S.
2.
A
Ti
me
f
or
Phys
i
c
s
Fi
r
s
t
&
Le
s
s
on
St
udy
.
→
Les
s
on
s
t
udy
i
s
a
pr
oce
s
s
of professional development that is teacher-driven, student-focused,
and jointly- designed.
3. A Description of Lesson Study.
(1) Japanese Lesson Study
(2) Physics Lesson Study
(3) Taiwan Lesson Study
●
Le
s
s
on
St
udy
Mi
s
c
once
pt
i
on
The process consists of four steps：
(1) Setting goals.
討論內容
Session 2
(20 November 2006, 11:00~12:30)
柳賢教授
(國立高雄師範大學 數學系教授)
Implementation ofthe“Evaluation System forPromoting MathematicsTeachers’ ProfessionalDevelopment”:An Investigation ofaSecondary Mathematics Intern
Shian Leou
National Kaohsiung Normal University
Abstract
Session 3
(20 November 2006, 13:30~15:00)
周進洋院長 (國立高雄師範大學 理學院院長)
The Language of Thinking as the Agent of Conceptual Development
Ching-Yang Chou*, Chih-Wen Tsai
Graduate Institute of Science Education, National Kaohsiung Normal University
Abstract
This study explored the role and the function of the language of thinking about the concepts of acid-base neutralization for 8 grade 7 students during their chemistry experiment. The context was a science laboratory. As students operating their experiment, the authors collected students’ verbal data and nonverbal behavior with semi-structured interview technique. Semantic analysis of verbatim transcripts produced students’understanding ofconceptsrepresented with propositionalstatements,and the words of thinking were extracted from these statements. Some of the words were further verified with student’snonverbalbehaviors.Thewordsofthinking atthekey turning point were analyzed to shed its role and meta-cognitive function in the process of students’ conceptual development. The findings indicate that students’ language of thinking work as the agent of their conceptual development. The agent comprises three different functions, such as epistemic stance, intellectual process, and intellectual product. All these functions also played four kinds of roles, such as the carriers of thinking, the referee of conceptual development, the communicator, and the mediator. Different types of language of thinking made the significant influences at the turning pointson students’conceptualconstruction.
演講大綱
一、前言：思考屬於哲學層次，它必須藉著一些媒介物才能呈現出來。
二、內容
1. 介紹：概念發展引入思考的四個層面
(1) The dual faces of teaching.
(
2)
Too
par
a
di
gms
on
s
t
udyi
ng
s
t
ude
nt
s
’
l
e
a
r
ni
ng.
(3) The importance of thinking on science learning.
(4) The method of microgenetic analysis.
Session 4
(20 November 2006, 15:10~16:40)
熊召弟教授 (國立台北教育大學 自然科學教育學系 教授)Becoming Science Teachers—From Mentoring to Professional Development
Chao-Ti Hsiung
Department of Science Education National Taipei University of Education
Abstract
Thisessay narratesascienceteachereducator’sconcernsaboutthementoring program for elementary teachers in the learning field of science and technology. She collaborates with other researchers from different universities to inquire into the current mentoring situation in Taiwan and how well running a feasibly ideal mentoring program in an elementary school. The purpose of this study was designed to establish a project for mentoring system in science primarily at public elementary schools and develop local theories of the school-based mentoring curriculum for intern teachers. The research team were intensively involved in one of elementary schools by lesson observations, interactive conversation, cogenerative dialogue and the documents analysis. The operation of whole-school approach mentoring program and strengthening the leadership of mentors are main meaningful findings from the observed case school. Finally, the authors proposes four implications of the study: (1) to establish powerful school-based mentoring system to scaffold the teaching development for intern students (or intern teachers) and to take on collective responsibility; (2) to balance different world views between different roles of mentors and intern students then arranging relevant professional growth program for intern students; (3) the idea of co-teaching infusing in the program for intern teacher, the core idea is to let all students have best learning for science; (4) to establish the teacher-approach Professional Development Schools. The process for becoming a science teacher, the relevant mentoring for beginning teachers is a catalyst for their career commitment, and more, to help the sustainable development for personal teaching profession.
Session 5
(21 November 2006, 09:00~10:30)
鍾靜教授 (國立台北教育大學 數學暨資訊教育學 系)A Timely Report on the Teaching and ClassManagemantofStudentTeacher’s Practice from School-Based Viewpoint
Jing Chung
Professor, Graduate School of Mathematics Education, National Taipei University of Education
Hsiao-Mei Chao
Assistant Professor, Center for Teacher Education, Taipei Physical Education College
Te-Tien Hsu
Candidatefordoctor’sdegree,Graduate School of Educational Policy and Management, National Taipei University of Education
Abstract
The program of student teacher practice counseling has existed for ten years. A student teacher practices in a school to experience reality for one year (half year for new program). As a result, a school shifts its role from passive to active in its association with the program of student teacher practice. Now we must investigate the program from school-based viewpoint. Considering a student teacher practice teaching and class management mostly, we investigate issues related to people on the one hand: the choice of counseling teacher, the engaging and interaction among student teachers and counseling teachers. on the other hand, issues related to works are: the planning and execution of teaching practice and class management practice, the main points and ways of instruction about class management, Chinese teaching and mathematics teaching.
This study collected data from three target schools through focus meeting, personal interview, classroom observation and opinion questionnaire. We also made triangle correction analysis on the pervious six issues. We found out: that there are difference cultures among schools so the consideration and ways of doing about the people and works in the practices of teaching and class management are also different; that the counseling of the teaching practice is mainly taken by the counseling teacher based on one-to-one apprentice; that though the program should be school based in theory, the weight on the counseling teachers is by far large in practice. This report also discussed the values of practice counseling and its difficulties.
Q6：(李賢哲教授)
師培機構面臨轉型，則是否有配套的實習輔導制度與方向？
A6：(鍾靜教授)
Session 10
(22 November 2006, 10:40~12:10)
李源順教授 (台北市立教育大學 數學資訊教育研究 所教授)An Initial Investigation on SETMTP: A Scholastic Approach
Yuan-Shun Lee*Yuh-Chyn Leu**
Abstarct
The research isto constructStandardsforElementary Teachers’MathematicsTeaching Professional Knowledge and Performance (SETMTP) and to investigate the scholastic perspective of these standards from scholars specialized in elementary mathematics education. The Deming cycle is used to formulate the standards. There are six dimensions to the SETMTP: Mathematics Knowledge (MK), Student Cognition (SC), Teaching Method (TM), Teaching Practice (TP), Teaching Assessment (TA) and Professional Accountability (PA) and there are 9, 4, 3, 9, 4, 18 standards for each section, respectively, with a total of 47 standards. The standards are developed into a questionnaire and census to 42 scholars specialized in elementary mathematics education, with 34 questionnaires recollected. These elementary mathematics education scholars were to evaluate the achievement of teachers with different statuses on a scale from 0% to100%, ranging from intern teachers (with a completion of the training program), qualified teachers (with a completion of internship), mentor teachers and expert teachers. The questionnaire results for each teacher status need achieve 59.39%, 68.62%, 79.06% and 86.26%, respectively. From the perspective of SETMTP required by differentteacherstatues,scholars’cognition isthemostdivergence on intern teachers and the least divergence on expert teachers. From the perspective of the six dimensions, PA ranks the highest achievement point (i.e. the most important dimension needs to be fulfilled) for teachers other than expert teachers, and SC is the most important element for expert teachers need to achieve.
Q3：多元優選教學如何應用？
Session 6
(21 November 2006, 10:40~12:10)
王靜如教授 (國立屏東教育大學 應用化學暨生命科 學系教授)Evaluation of Quality of Elementary Science Methods Course Using ESTPI Indicators
Jing-Ru Wang
Department of Applied Chemistry and Life Science, National Pingtung University of Education, Taiwan ROC
Abstract
Thecourseentitled “elementary sciencemethodscourse(including practicum)” aimsto help preservice student teachers develop science teaching knowledge in aligned with the requirement of reformed curriculum. The critical components of the design in this course were: (1) background and rationale underpinning the course design, (2) course design including a sequence of learning to teaching and a coherent framework of pedagogical content knowledge development, (3) outcome evaluation, and (4) reflection and implications.
The course was based on three contextual issues related to elementary science teacher training in Taiwan. First, understanding and transformation of the statements of standardsin thenewly adopted “NineYearSchoolCurriculum” wasdebatable.Second, teachers’ perceptions of the nature of science and inquiry teaching were skeptical. Third, conceptual gap between the theories advocated in the university and teaching practice in real science classroom. The purposes of the course were to help preservice teachers constructing pedagogical content knowledge, and bridge the conceptual gap between theories learned in the university and in real science classroom. The sequence and content of learning to teach elementary science involved the following four stages: (1) fundamental rationale, (2) basic knowledge of science teaching, (3) observation and teaching practicum, (4) evaluation and reflection. There were two learning sites, the first two stages were in university and the next two stages were in school placements. Finally, the participants’ learning performances wereassessed against the ESTPI indicators there previously developed. The results of the curriculum evaluation suggest that the model the course provide strategies to help preservice teachers construct their understanding of science teaching through a unit design and implementation.
演講大綱
一、目的
1. Methods course.
2. Mentoring programs.
3.Using indicators development.
二、方法：Workshop (Mentoring skills & Indicators).
三、結果
（一）
R
（二）
（三）
1. 科學家概念取代先備知識。
2. 探究的課程歷程(因素)。
3. 控制自我學習(self-evaluation)。
（四）
Fd. Ra
t
i
ona
l
e
→
Ba
s
i
c
knowl
e
dge
of
s
c
i
e
nc
e
t
e
a
c
hi
ng→
Le
s
s
on
Pl
a
n
(inquiry teaching, observation & reflection).
（五）
1. 搭起理論與實踐間的橋樑。
2. 九年一貫的重要目標導向。
3. 探究基礎的教學和評鑑啟示。
4. 增加學科內容知識的專業發展。
討論內容
Q1：為何教材教法課程時數每週 2 小時提高為 3 小時呢？(王靜如教
授)
A1：因為任教材教法老師認為時數不夠。(陳院長)
Q2：
1. I think teacher must learn to teach?!
2. Teachers become to be good teacher and mentor.
3. Dr. Wang is very brave to control mentor teachers.
4. How teacher understand very clear about learning?
5. Difference between female and male teachers successful?(Dr.
Abell)
A2：
1. 利用工作坊幫助了解 How to use it。
2. 和 Mr.許 i
s
l
e
a
de
r
of
f
e
ma
l
e
t
e
ac
he
r
s
.
I
t
’
s
t
r
ue
.
Le
s
s
ma
l
e
teachers in elementary school. (王靜如教授)
Q3：
1. My interesting thing focus on finding more in the process of
learning to teach.
2. We wish do something different?!(Dr. Volkmann)
A3：We
mus
t
put
pl
a
ns
be
t
we
e
n
t
ea
c
he
r
s
’
di
s
c
us
s
i
on.
Give
teaching
performances
and
evaluation.
Continuing
cooperation is important. They must report with P.P.T each other.
Q4：報告結構、內涵，We enjoy!
分三個層次討論：
1. 有形式上的內容層次，豐富的手冊內容，兩天時間研討夠
嗎？
2. 內容的探究深層內涵較有困難產出？
Session 7
(21 November 2006, 13:30~15:00)
劉曼麗教授 (國立屏東教育大學 數理教育研究所教 授)Development and Application of Professional Standards for Preservice Elementary Mathematics Teachers
Man-Li Liu
Graduate Institute of Mathematics and Science Education, National Pingtung University of Education
Abstract
An integrated study with three sub-studies was to develop professional standards for elementary mathematics and science teachers. The study was one of these sub-studies, and selected preservice elementary teachers as the major parts. The study was designed forthreeyears.Thepaperisto reportthesecond year’sresults.Thefirstyearwasto develop professional standards for preservice elementary teachers. Based on the professional standards, the second year’s study applied it to design curriculum for preservice elementary teachers to increase their mathematics teaching ability. The participants were preservice elementary teachers, mentors and their students. Data were collected from meeting records, journals, videotapes and learning portfolios. The main findings were discussed. The results indicated the standards-based curriculum could increasepreserviceelementary teachers’mathematics teaching ability.
(鍾靜教授發問)
Q2：學科之間是否應有一些共同的向度，即基準之間是否有關聯性？
A2：基準是用來提昇職前教師的能力的，當然必須討論一些共同的向
Session 8
(21 November 2006, 15:10~16:40)
林曉雯所長 (國立屏東教育大學 數理教育研究所教 授兼所長)Application of Professional Standards for Mentors of Elementary Science and Mathematics Teachers: A Case Study
Sheau-Wen Lin
Graduate Institute of Mathematics and Science Education, National Pingtung University of Education, Taiwan ROC
linshewen@mail.npue.edu.tw
Abstract
附件三 與會人員名單
編號 姓名 單位 編號 姓名 單位 1 陳益興 教育部中教司司長 33 謝琇玲 義守大學副教授 2 林陳涌 國科會科教處處長 34 鍾兆春 臺北醫學大學講師 3 陳瑞忠 高雄縣教育局局長 35 郭文隆 崇仁護專講師 4 顏慶祥 屏東縣教育局局長 36 張文華 臺灣師範大學生命科學系副教授 5 劉慶中 屏東教育大學校長 37 蘇曉菁 台南縣小新國小教師 6 黃冬富 屏東教育大學副校長 38 蘇彥彰 屏東縣鶴聲國小教師 7 李賢哲 屏東教育大學教務長 39 簡敏娥 屏東縣仙吉國小教師 8 陳坤檸 屏東教育大學理學院院長 40 鍾榆翎 屏東縣縣立萬隆國小 9 樊琳 屏東教育大學應生系主任 41 謝明城 屏東縣瑞光國小教師 10 Sandra K. Abell Professor, University of Missouri,Columbia 42 謝佳伶 高雄市福山國小教師 11 Mark J.
Volkmann
Professor, University of Missouri,
