探究師資生素養導向課程之設計能力與改變

以作者查詢圖書館館藏

、以作者查詢臺灣博碩士

、以作者查詢全國書目

、勘誤回報

、線上人數：58

、訪客IP：18.221.139.146

姓名

李佳霓(Chia-ni Lee) 查詢紙本館藏

畢業系所

學習與教學研究所

論文名稱

探究師資生素養導向課程之設計能力與改變
(Investigating Pre-service Teachers′ Competence-based Curriculum Design Ability and Transformation)

相關論文

★ 課室小組討論活動的口語參與-以六名大學師資生為例	★ 地理素養教學在台灣中學的教學和挑戰－以三位中學地理科教師為例
★ 探究課室小組討論觀點——以「課程發展與設計」的師資培育課程為例	★ 探究高中生於論證遊戲中的協同論證模式與過程

檔案

[Endnote RIS 格式]

[Bibtex 格式]

[相關文章]

[文章引用]

[完整記錄]

[館藏目錄]

[檢視]

[下載]

本電子論文使用權限為同意立即開放。
已達開放權限電子全文僅授權使用者為學術研究之目的，進行個人非營利性質之檢索、閱讀、列印。
請遵守中華民國著作權法之相關規定，切勿任意重製、散佈、改作、轉貼、播送，以免觸法。

摘要(中)

探究師資生素養導向課程之設計能力與改變
Investigating Pre-Service Teachers’ Competence-based Curriculum Design Ability
and Transformation

中文摘要
　　21世紀因為網路與科技的發展，快速變動的社會對於未來人才的需求已經與過往不相同，許多能力是現代人才不可或缺的，例如溝通能力、合作共創能力等。近年來世界各國陸續推出新課綱，台灣也在108年正式推行素養導向課程綱要，推崇真實的學習。然而教育改革成功的重要推手之一是教師，教師需具備相應的課程設計能力才能夠將這樣的理想付諸實現。在師資培育方面，首先需要了解師資生的素養導向課程設計能力為何，才能規劃適宜的師資課程，發揮師資培育的最大效果。
　　本研究聚焦了解師資生的素養導向課程設計能力，並呈現師資生在經歷教學法訓練後課程設計能力之改變為何。本研究之研究對象是一國立大學師資課程「教學原理」兩學期修課的師資生，共六十七名，其在修習教學原理前課程設計相關經驗甚少，更是不清楚素養導向課程如何做。研究者欲了解師資生的素養導向課程設計能力為何，以三個　　
研究問題引導探究：一、師資生於學期初設計之素養導向課程教案設計呈現哪些趨勢？考慮哪些重點？二、師資生於學期末撰寫的修改報告做了哪些改變？考量哪些重點？三、造成前後設計差異的原因為何？
　　研究者兩個學期皆全程參與教學原理，研究資料包含師資生於教學原理學期初設計之素養課程教案、學期末教案修改報告、學習歷程自述、整個學期田野資料等，並以質性個案方法（Stake，1995）分析資料。
　　研究結果顯示，師資生在學期初設計教案時主要有三項設計趨勢，一、較不清楚如何培養素養學習目標，二、設計時單純以教師角度設計教案而無法站在學生角度思考學生的學習經驗，三、學習評量體現學科精熟導向教學的習慣，重視標準答案而不是重視素養目標。
　　而在經過一學期教學原理課程的訓練後，師資生的設計主要有四項改變，一、較能夠針對學習目標設計課程活動，二、較能夠站在學生角度設想學生的思考與互動樣態，進而設計相對應措施，三、較清楚教師與學生的角色與責任，四、較能針對素養學習目標設計學習評量」。以上之改變主要原因有一、教學原理中師資生實際設計與體驗教學演示，並透過反省提升教學能力，二、教學原理課堂中一心二用的練習，三、教學原理授課教師示範與引導如何思考素養導向課程，四、師資生與小組以及其他同儕的互動帶來學習觀的轉變。
　　根據本研究的結果與發現，研究者希望能初步建立師資生專業成長的理論基礎，也能提供師資培育機構研擬師培課程時的參考依據，另外也能提供師資培育相關法規研擬時的參考依據。

摘要(英)

Investigating Pre-Service Teachers’ Competence-based Curriculum Design Ability
and Transformation

Abstract
21st century demands various competencies, such as communication, collaboration, and argumentation skills. This so-called ‘‘21st century competencies (literacies)’’ has become the educational aims of many developed countries. In 2019, the education in Taiwan also shifted its aim towards a competence-based education. However, the success of every educational reform depends heavily on the teachers’ ability. In this research, the researcher seeks to understand pre-service teachers’ competence-based curriculum design ability. Once we learn how pre-service teachers design such curriculum, we know how to train pre-service teachers’ into qualified teachers.
This qualitative case study investigates pre-service teachers’ competence-based curriculum design ability, the researcher chooses 67 pre-service teachers from two semesters of a pre-service class（‘‘Introduction to Principles of Teaching and Learning’’）as research participants. The participants are novice curriculum designers, they would design a competence-based curriculum plan early in the semester, and after weeks of training, they would read their curriculum plan again, and proposes adjustments later in the semester. The researcher specifically seeks to answer three research questions: (1) How would the pre-service teachers design the competence-based curriculum plan early in the semester? (2) How would the pre-service teachers adjust the curriculum plan later in the semester? (3) What are the reasons behind the design differences?
The results show that the pre-service teachers are unfamiliar with competence-based curriculum, and they design competence-based curriculum mostly from teacher’s perspective without considering learners’ learning experiences. Also, they don’t know how to assess competence-based learning. After a semester of training in ‘‘Introduction to Principles of Teaching and Learning’’, the pre-service teachers can do better at designing competence-based curriculum. The reasons behind their change are highly related to design of the class, the reasons include (1) authentic learning, (2) the role-playing practice, (3) the professor’s modeling and guidance, and (4) social interaction and narratives.
The results suggest that pre-service teachers need to have authentic understanding of competence-based learning, and that their competence-based curriculum design ability can be fostered in authentic learning pre-service courses. The researcher concludes with suggestions for future investigations.

Keywords:
Competence-based curriculum, Curriculum design ability, Pre-service teacher education, Qualitative case study

關鍵字(中)

★ 素養導向課程
★ 課程設計能力
★ 師資培育
★ 質性個案研究

關鍵字(英)

★ Competence-based curriculum
★ Curriculum design ability
★ Pre-service teacher education
★ Qualitative case study

論文目次

第一章緒論 1
第一節　研究動機 1
第二節　研究目的 2
第二章文獻探討 2
第一節　「課程」的意涵 2
第二節　二十一世紀教育趨勢：對當前教育體制的反省 3
第三節　二十一世紀人才培育方式：學習觀點的演進 4
第五節　重新定義好教師：教師角色與責任的轉變 8
第四節　師資生課程設計能力之相關文獻 9
第三章研究方法 11
第一節　研究問題 11
第二節　田野描述 12
第三節　研究時間與對象 20
第四節　研究者與研究田野 25
第五節　研究工具 25
第六節　資料收集 26
第七節　資料分析 29
第八節　研究信效度 33
第四章研究結果 35
第五章討論 67
第六章　研究對於我的教學的影響 77
第七章　未來研究建議 82
參考文獻 84

參考文獻

1. 白雲霞（2012）。職前教師之教學信念反省探究歷程-以參與史懷哲教育服務學習之師資生為例。國民教育學報，（9），17-54。
2. 何縕琪、張景媛（2019）。素養導向師資培育教學：以慈濟大學為例。臺灣教育評論月刊， 8（8），51-56。
3. 吳淑禎（2011）。中等學校師資培育課程的發展特色與教育專業課程的能力指標分析。教育研究集刊。
4. 吳清山（2006）。師資培育的理念與實踐。教育研究與發展期刊，2，1-31。
5. 吳雅晴、李心儀（2017）。探討國小師資培育生提升學生數學創造力之教學活動設計。教師專業研究期刊，（13），1-36。
6. 吳璧純（2017）。素養導向教學之學習評量。臺灣教育評論月刊，6（3），30-34。
7. 李雅婷（2011）。師資職前教育師培生進行問題引導學習之課程設計與實施研究。屏東教育大學學報教育類，（37），57-96。
8. 國教院（2018）。十二年國民基本教育課程綱要。
9. 符碧真（2018）。素養導向國教新課綱的師資培育：國立臺灣大學[探究式─ 素養導向的師資培育]理想芻議。教育科學研究期刊。
10. 陳國泰（2011）。反省取向的 [二階段集中實習課程] 對國小師資生實務知識發展的影響。Journal of Educational Practice and Research，24（1），25-66。
11. 楊智穎（2019）。回應新課程政策變革的師資培育課程發展。臺灣教育評論月刊， 8（4），51-57。
12. 楊琬琳、蔡天怡（2018）。合作學習情境中師資培育生教案發展之協作資訊行為。Journal of Library & Information Studies, 16(1)。
13. 葉坤靈（2017）。12 年國教核心素養評量與師資培育之探討。載於中國教育學會（主編），教育新航向──校長領導與學校創新（pp. 247-302）。臺北市：學富。
14. 詹明峰（2011）。如何運用遊戲來促進學習典範轉移。前瞻科技與管理，1（1），47-60。
15. 劉世雄（2019）。培養師資培育學生十二年國教課綱素養導向的教案設計能力之教學研究。
16. Bada, S. O., & Olusegun, S. (2015). Constructivism learning theory: A paradigm for teaching and learning. Journal of Research & Method in Education, 5(6), 66-70.
17. Bobbitt, J. F. (1918). The curriculum. Houghton Mifflin.
18. Brouwer, N., & Korthagen, F. (2005). Can teacher education make a difference?. American educational research journal, 42(1), 153-224.
19. Caswell, H. L., & Campbell, D. S. (1935). Curriculum development. American Book Company.
20. Chai, C. S., Koh, J. H. L., & Tsai, C. C. (2010). Facilitating preservice teachers′ development of technological, pedagogical, and content knowledge (TPACK). Journal of Educational Technology & Society, 13(4), 63-73.
21. Chai, C. S., Koh, J. H. L., & Tsai, C. C.（2010）
22. Cuban, L. (1991). History of teaching in social studies. Handbook of research on social studies teaching and learning, 197209.
23. Darling-Hammond, L. (2006). Constructing 21st-century teacher education. Journal of teacher education, 57(3), 300-314.
24. Doig, B., & Groves, S. (2011). Japanese lesson study: Teacher professional development through communities of inquiry. Mathematics teacher education and development, 13(1), 77-93.
25. Fernandez, C. (2002). Learning from Japanese approaches to professional development: The case of lesson study. Journal of teacher education, 53(5), 393-405.
26. Forbes, C. T., & Davis, E. A. (2010). Curriculum design for inquiry: Preservice elementary teachers′ mobilization and adaptation of science curriculum materials. Journal of research in science teaching, 47(7), 820-839.
27. Gee, J. P., & Hayes, E. R. (2011). Language and learning in the digital age. Routledge.
28. Goodlad, J. I. (1966). The development of a conceptual system for dealing with problems of curriculum and instruction.
29. Graham, R. C., Burgoyne, N., Cantrell, P., Smith, L., St Clair, L., & Harris, R. (2009). Measuring the TPACK confidence of inservice science teachers. TechTrends, 53(5), 70-79.
30. Grundy, S. (1987). Curriculum product or praxis.
31. Hord, S. M. (2009). Professional learning communities. Journal of staff development, 30(1), 40-43.
32. Hord, S. M. (2009). Professional learning communities. Journal of staff development, 30(1), 40-43.
33. Illeris, K. (2018). An overview of the history of learning theory. European Journal of Education, 53(1), 86-101.
34. Kelly, A. V. (2009). The curriculum: Theory and practice. Sage.
35. Kereluik, K., Mishra, P., Fahnoe, C., & Terry, L. (2013). What knowledge is of most worth: Teacher knowledge for 21st century learning. Journal of digital learning in teacher education, 29(4), 127-140.
36. Lachner, A., Jarodzka, H., & Nückles, M. (2016). What makes an expert teacher? Investigating teachers’ professional vision and discourse abilities. Instructional Science, 44(3), 197-203.
37. Lemke, J. L. (1990). Talking science: Language, learning, and values. Ablex Publishing Corporation, 355 Chestnut Street, Norwood, NJ 07648 (hardback: ISBN-0-89391-565-3; paperback: ISBN-0-89391-566-1).
38. Lewis, C. (2000, April). Lesson study: The core of Japanese professional development. Paper presented at the American Educational Research Association Annual Meeting, New Orleans.
39. Lewis, C. C., Perry, R. R., & Hurd, J. (2009). Improving mathematics instruction through lesson study: A theoretical model and North American case. Journal of mathematics teacher education, 12(4), 285-304.
40. Lombardi, M. M. (2007). Authentic learning for the 21st century: An overview. Educause learning initiative, 1(2007), 1-12.
41. Mishra, P., & Koehler, M. J. (2006). Technological pedagogical content knowledge: A framework for teacher knowledge. Teachers college record, 108(6), 1017-1054.
42. Prideaux, D. (2003). Curriculum design. Bmj, 326(7383), 268-270.
43. Schön, D. A. (1987). Educating the reflective practitioner.
44. Shaffer, D. W., & Gee, J. P. (2005). Before every child is left behind: How epistemic games can solve the coming crisis in education.
45. Shaffer, D. W., Squire, K. R., Halverson, R., & Gee, J. P. (2005). Video games and the future of learning. Phi delta kappan, 87(2), 105-111.
46. Smith, M. K. (2000). Curriculum theory and practice. The encyclopedia of informal education.
47. Squire, K. D., & Jan, M. (2007). Mad City Mystery: Developing scientific argumentation skills with a place-based augmented reality game on handheld computers. Journal of science education and technology, 16(1), 5-29.
48. Squire, K. D., & Jan, M. (2007). Mad City Mystery: Developing scientific argumentation skills with a place-based augmented reality game on handheld computers. Journal of science education and technology, 16(1), 5-29.
49. Stake, R. E. (1995). The art of case study research. Sage.
50. Stenhouse, L. (1975). An introduction to curriculum research and development.
51. Stoll, L., Bolam, R., McMahon, A., Wallace, M., & Thomas, S. (2006). Professional learning communities: A review of the literature. Journal of educational change, 7(4), 221-258.
52. Stoll, L., Bolam, R., McMahon, A., Wallace, M., & Thomas, S. (2006). Professional learning communities: A review of the literature. Journal of educational change, 7(4), 221-258.
53. Toole, J. C., & Louis, K. S. (2002). The role of professional learning communities in international education. In Second international handbook of educational leadership and administration (pp. 245-279). Springer, Dordrecht.
54. Tyler, R. W. (2013). Basic principles of curriculum and instruction. University of Chicago press.
55. Wenger, E. (2011). Communities of practice: A brief introduction.
56. Yates, L. (2009). From curriculum to pedagogy and back again: Knowledge, the person and the changing world. Pedagogy, culture & society, 17(1), 17-28.
57. Zeichner, K. M. (1983). Alternative paradigms of teacher education. Journal of teacher education, 34(3), 3-9.
58. Zembal‐Saul, C., Blumenfeld, P., & Krajcik, J. (2000). Influence of guided cycles of planning, teaching, and reflection on prospective elementary teachers′ science content representations. Journal of Research in Science Teaching: The Official Journal of the National Association for Research in Science Teaching, 37(4), 318-339.

指導教授

詹明峰(Ming-fong Jan)

審核日期

2021-1-26

推文