帳號:guest(3.129.250.236)          離開系統
字體大小: 字級放大   字級縮小   預設字形  

詳目顯示

以作者查詢圖書館館藏以作者查詢臺灣博碩士論文系統以作者查詢全國書目勘誤回報
作者:左榕
作者(英文):Jung Tso
論文名稱:運用Lee Shulman教學推理與行動模式分析國小教師國語教學知識之轉化
論文名稱(英文):Implementation of Lee Shulman’s Pedagogical Reasoning and Action Model on an Elementary School Teacher’s Transformation of Chinese Language Arts Teaching
指導教授:林意雪
指導教授(英文):Yin-Sheue Lin
口試委員:何縕琪
蕭昭君
李雪菱
顧瑜君
口試委員(英文):Yun-Chi Ho
Jau-Jiun Hsiao
Shiue-Ling Lee
Yu-Chun Ku
學位類別:博士
校院名稱:國立東華大學
系所名稱:教育與潛能開發學系
學號:810288114
出版年(民國):111
畢業學年度:110
語文別:中文
論文頁數:283
關鍵詞:學科教學知識教學推理與行動轉化教學案例實踐知識
關鍵詞(英文):Pedagogical Content KnowledgePedagogical Reasoning and ActionTransformationTeaching Case(s)Practice Knowledge
相關次數:
  • 推薦推薦:0
  • 點閱點閱:20
  • 評分評分:系統版面圖檔系統版面圖檔系統版面圖檔系統版面圖檔系統版面圖檔
  • 下載下載:11
  • 收藏收藏:0
  國語科教學是奠定學生學習的基礎。然因語文教學內容龐雜,學科知識結構不確定,以工具理性驗證的原理原則,不易體察教學現場的複雜多變和解決教學問題;而攸關國小語文教學轉化的研究又付之闕如。因此,本研究以Lee Shulman「教學推理與行動模式」為視框,透過文件分析、教室觀察、晤談、教學省思等互動取向的質性研究方式,觀察四位國小教師經由教學轉化,建構學科教學知識(Pedagogical Content Knowledge, PCK)之歷程。研究者並以個人實踐知識輔佐教師進行轉化,藉分析十二則教學案例,建構深化的「國語教學推理與行動模式」,嘗試指出一條可循的教學途徑,作為檢核國語教學之工具。研究發現如下:
  一、國語科教學須經「教學前教材轉化」、「教學中教法轉化」,及「教學後省思」三階段,具有循環遞迴(recursive)現象;其中的教材轉化是教學推理與行動之核心;教師教學重在「學習者」理解,且須隨時反省及改變策略;最後,依據個案教學歷程,建構「國語教學推理與行動模式」。
  二、教師的學科內容知識、教學知識與學生特性知識是建構PCK的關鍵;「實踐知識」有助於教學轉化;且教學轉化須植基於「教師基礎知識」。
  三、教師先備知識、專家教師介入,以及教材、學校文化因素,對教師教學推理與行動皆有影響。
  四、國語教學轉化須植基於「課文本位」(textbook-based)。
Chinese language arts is the foundation where students consolidate their learning; however, due to the complex contents of language teaching and the yet-to-be-discovered structure of subject knowledge, it is not easy to understand the complex and ever-changing nature of teaching as well as to solve teaching problems using principles and theories tested empirically; in addition to relatively less research related to teaching transformation of language at elementary-school level. In light of that, this qualitative research with an interactive approach aimed to identify and understand four elementary school teachers’ teaching transformation and their construction of pedagogical content knowledge (PCK) by using Lee Shulman’s Pedagogical Reasoning and Action Model as the theoretical framework to analyze data acquired from lesson plans, classroom observation, interview, fieldnotes and student work. The researcher also provided assistance to the teachers with her own practice knowledge, and came up with 12 cases of their teaching to further facilitate the understanding of ‘pedagogical reasoning and action model for Chinese language arts teaching’ and point out an available path to evaluate the teaching of this subject. The research findings are:

I. The teaching of Chinese language arts is recursive among three stages, pre-teaching transformation of teaching materials, during-teaching transformation of teaching methods, and post-teaching reflection, of which the ‘Transformation of Teaching Materials’ is the core of pedagogical reasoning and action. All four teachers had well implemented their knowledge about the learners and were able to reflect and change her/his strategies at any time in terms of teaching. A ‘pedagogical reasoning and action model for Chinese language arts teaching’ was established in accordance with the aforementioned teaching cases.
II. The content knowledge, pedagogical knowledge, and knowledge of students’ characteristics possessed by a teacher are extremely crucial regarding the establishment of her/his PCK. The practice knowledge does help with teaching transformation whereas the very teaching transformation must be based upon the teacher’s basic knowledge.
III. Factors, such as prior knowledge of teachers, intervention of expert teachers, teaching materials, school culture, etc. do have imprints upon the pedagogical reasoning and action of teachers.
IV. The transformation of Chinese language arts teaching must be textbook-based.
第一章 緒論
  第一節 研究動機 1
  第二節 研究目的與問題 4
  第三節 名詞釋義 5

第二章 文獻探討
  第一節 國語科閱讀理解教學 7
  第二節 教師知識的內涵及相關概念 32
  第三節 教學轉化 43
  第四節 Shulman教學推理與行動模式在國語教學之應用 51
  第五節 先備知識與理解 57

第三章 研究方法與設計
  第一節 互動取向的質性研究方法 61
  第二節 研究者背景 63
  第三節 教室經驗的探問到研究 66
  第四節 研究倫理、信實度與主觀性問題 67
  第五節 資料蒐集與分析 72
  第六節 研究設計與實施 80

第四章 個案教師教學轉化歷程分析與詮釋
  第一節 案例篩選與呈現 87
  第二節 盈芬老師的教學轉化 90
  第三節 海嵐老師的教學轉化 115
  第四節 薇安老師的教學轉化 145
  第五節 旻暉老師的教學轉化 170
  第六節 個案教師的轉化學習 192
  第七節 個案教師知識與其年齡、任教年資、年級、師培背景之相關 195

第五章 研究結果與討論
  第一節 綜合分析過程 199
  第二節 教學推理與行動歷程分析結果與討論 201
  第三節 影響教學推理與行動歷程之因素 210
  第四節 教學推理與行動對國語教學實務的啟示 222


第六章 結論、建議與省思
  第一節 結論 235
  第二節 建議 241
  第三節 研究者省思 243
  第四節 我為什麼從教學現場出發-代結語 257

參考文獻
  中英文書目 263

附錄一 案例發現一覽 285
附錄二 案例發現歸納一覽 287
丁有寬(2008)。丁有寬與讀寫導練。北京師範大學。
王玉蘭(2012)。國小數學教師科技學科教學知識的展延與再思:以互動式電子白板融入教學為例。教學科技與媒體,101,40-64。
王宏喜(主編)(1992)。文體結構舉要。經濟管理。
王萬清(1997)。國語科教學理論與實際。師大書苑。
王瓊珠(2004)。故事結構學與分享閱讀。心理。
左榕(2000)。一位國小教師教學省思之探究:以國語科教學為例。國立台東師範學院教育研究所碩士論文,未出版,臺東市。
左榕(2013)。深入教學現場的語文科教學-左榕教學檔案(ISBN:978-957-43-0262-8)。作者。
左榕(2021)。運用Lee Shulman教學推理與行動模式探究教師教學轉化歷程:以國小國語課為例。臺灣教育評論月刊,10(9),235-264。
左榕、林意雪(2021)。國小低年級資深教師轉化國語科讀寫教學之探究。師資培育與教師專業發展期刊,14(3),27-54。
布裕民、陳漢森(1993)。文體寫作指導。書林。
卯靜儒(2015)。從知識本位到學習本位之課程與教學轉化。載於中國教育學會主編,教育的想像:演化與創新(頁189-218)。學富。
朱作仁(1995)。中國小學語文學習策略研究,國立臺東師範學院:第一屆小學語文課程教材教法國際學術研討會論文集(頁715-731)。臺東市。
伍晴文譯(2018)。R. Ritchhart、M. Church、K. Morrison著。讓思考變得可見(Making Thinking Visible)。大家出版。(原著出版年:2011)
杜書伍(2012)。將將-打造將才基因。天下雜誌。
杜淑貞(1986)。國小作文敎學探究。學生書局。
李威宜(2015)。自學人類學法的竅門。2015.10.19取自:https://guavanthropology.tw/article/6472
李政賢譯(2012)。H. F. Wolcott著。質性研究寫作(Writing Up Qualitative Research)。五南。(原著出版年:2008)
李政賢譯(2014)。R. K. Yin(2010)著。質性研究:從開始到完成(Qualitative Research from Start to Finish)。五南。(原著出版年:2010)
李偉勝(2009)。學科教學知識(PCK)的核心因素及其對教師教育的啟示。教師教育研究,21(2),33-38。
李漢偉(1996)。國小語文科教學探索。麗文。
吳宗立(1996)。閱讀理解教學的後設認知策略。研習資訊,13(1),33-37。
吳英長(1986)。兒童故事基架的分析。臺東師院學報,14,195-213。
吳英長(1989)。閱讀教學系列探討--構設意義的閱讀(1月23日至3月18日共8篇)。兒童日報,第13版。
吳英長(1997)。精熟教學推理與行動-談教師思考。載於國立臺東師範學院主編,新制教育實習面面觀(頁52-64)。臺東師院。
吳英長(1998)。國民小學國語故事體課文摘寫大意的教學過程之分析。臺東師院學報,9,149-184。
吳敏而(2013)。多文本閱讀的教學研發。臺北教育大學語文集刊,23,123-157。
何玉棻(2010)。故事結構教學在國小國語文讀寫教學之應用研究。高雄師範大學國文教學碩士班碩士論文,未出版,高雄市。
何縕琪、張景媛(2003)。合作省思專業成長模式對國小教師的教學知識與信念以及社群關係之影響。教育心理學報,34(2),157-178。
官美媛(1999)。國小學生摘取大意策略之教學研究-以五年級說明文為例。國立東華大學教育研究所碩士論文,未出版,花蓮市。
林步昇譯(2018)。S. Sloman、P. Fernbach著。知識的假象:為什麼我們從未獨立思考?(The Knowledge Illusion: Why We Never Think Alone)。先覺。(原著出版年:2017)
林邦文譯(2008)。I. Shor、P. Freire著。解放教育學(A Pedagogy for Liberation Dialogues on Transforming Education)。巨流。(原著出版年:1986)
林佩璇(2002)。行動研究的知識宣稱-教師實踐知識。國立臺北師範學院學報,15,189-210。
林建平(1997)。整合學習策略與動機的訓練方案對國小閱讀理解困難兒童的輔導效果。國立臺灣師範大學教育心理與輔導研究所博士論文,未出版,臺北市。
林俊賢(2004)。小學國語文摘寫大意的教學過程分析─以議論文為例。臺東大學教育學報,15(2),123-162。
林俊賢(2009)。華語文教學之師生提問策略研究-以故事體的提問為例。教育資料與研究雙月刊,90,25-52。
林俊賢(2013)。大意策略教學對國小五年級學生閱讀理解與問題解決能力影響之研究。國立臺東大學教育系博士論文,未出版,臺東市。
林清山譯(1997)。R. E. Mayer著(1990)。教育心理學-認知取向。遠流。(原著出版年:1987)
林清江(1981)。教育社會學。五南。
林進材(1997)。敎師敎學思考:理論、硏究與應用。復文。
林寶山(1991)。教學論。五南。
周水珍(2003)。師院生集中實習的教學轉化歷程之研究。花蓮師院學報,17,31-54。
周淑卿(2002)。誰在乎課程理論?課程改革中的理論與實務問題。載於:課程政策與教育革新(頁199-216)。師大書苑。
周健、霍秉坤(2012)。教學內容知識的定義和內涵。香港教師學報,11,145-163。
岳修平譯(1998)。E. D. Gagne'., C. W. Yekovich., & F. R. Yekovich 著。教學心理學-學習的認知基礎(The Cognitive Psychology of School Learning)。遠流。(原著出版年:1993)
邱憶惠(2002)。國小級任教師知識之個案研究。國立高雄師範大學博士論文,未出版,高雄市。
洪文瓊(1997)。小學國語科「教材分析」深層探究。國教之聲,31(1),12-21。
洪金英(1993)。文章結構的提示與主題知識對兒童說明文表現的影響。國立政治大學教育研究所碩士論文,未出版,臺北市。
柯華葳(1994)。從心理學觀點談兒童閱讀能力的培養。華文世界,74,63-67。
柯華葳、范信賢(1990)。增進國小社會科課文理解度之研究。國教學報,3,33-60。
柯華葳、詹益綾、張建妤、游婷雅(2008)。台灣四年級學生閱讀素養(PIRLS報告)。中央大學學習與教學研究所。
唐淑華(2011)。眾聲喧嘩?跨界思維?—論「教學轉化」的意涵及其在文史科目教學上的應用。教科書研究,4(2),87-120。
唐淑華、蔡孟寧、林烘煜(2015)。多文本課外閱讀對增進國中學生理解歷史主題之研究:以[外侮]主題為例。教育科學研究期刊,60(3),63-94。
夏林清(1996)。實踐取向的研究方法。載於胡幼慧主編(1996)。質性研究-理論、方法及本土女性研究實例(頁99-120)。巨流。
郝明義、朱衣譯(2003)。M. J. Adler & C. Van Daren (1972/2003) 著。如何閱讀一本書(How to Read a Book?)。商務。(原著出版年:1972)
孫敏芝(1997)。師範院校結業生教學實際知識之個案研究。行政院國家科學委員會專題研究計畫成果報告:NSC 85-2413-H-153-005。國立屏東教育大學。
孫敏芝(2006)。實習教師學科教學知識之探討:教學設計與教學實務。教育研究與發展期刊,2(2),67-92。
殷鼎(1990)。理解的命運。東大。
翁穎哲、譚克平(2008)。設計研究法簡介及其在教育研究的應用範例。科學教育月刊,307,15-30。
郭靜姿(1992)。閱讀理解訓練方案對於增進高學生閱讀策略與後設認知能力之成效研究。國立臺灣師範大學教育研究所博士論文,未出版,臺北市。
許瑛玿、莊福泰、林祖強(2012)。解析設計研究法的架構與實施:以科學教育研究為例。教育科學研究期刊,57(1),1-27。
連啟舜(2002)。國內閱讀理解教學研究成效之統合分析研究。國立臺灣師範大學教育心理與輔導研究所碩士論文,未出版,臺北市。
教育部(2003)。國民中小學九年一貫課程綱要語文學習領域。臺灣書局。
教育部(2010)。閱讀理解策略教學手冊。教育部。
教育部(2011)。在職教師閱讀教學增能研習手冊。教育部。
教育部(2012)。課文本位閱讀理解教學.教學策略資料庫。取自:http://tbb.nknu.edu.tw/
教育部(2014)。十二年國民基本教育課程綱要總綱。取自:http://12cur.naer.edu.tw/upload/files/96d4d3040b01f58da73f0a79755ce8c1.pdf
教育部(2018)。十二年國民基本教育課程綱要國民中小學暨普通型高級中等學校語文領域-國語文。取自:https://www.naer.edu.tw/files/15-1000-14113,c639-1.php?Lang=zh-tw
畢恆達(1995)。生活經驗研究的反省︰詮釋學的觀點。本土心理學研究,4,224-259。
畢恆達(1996)。詮釋學與質性研究。載於胡幼慧主編(1996)。質性研究-理論、方法及本土女性研究實例(頁27-45)。巨流。
畢恆達(2010)。教授為什麼沒告訴我。小畢空間。
張大春(2016)。文章自在。新經典文化。
張芬芬、陳麗華、楊國揚(2010)。臺灣九年一貫課程轉化之議題與因應。教科書研究,3(1),1-40。
張春興(1991)。現代心理學。東華。
張清榮(1997)。巧思妙手織錦文:各類文章寫作指導。幼獅。
張莉珍(2003)。故事構圖策略與摘要策略對增進國小六年級低閱讀能力學生閱讀理解之比較研究。中原大學教育研究所碩士學位論文,未出版,中壢市。
張景媛、陳萩卿(2003)。促進推理思考的認知策略。課程與教學,6(2),79-108。
張新仁(1990)。從資訊處理談有效的學習策略。教育學刊,9,252-271。
張新仁(1992)。寫作教學研究:認知心理學取向。復文。
張新仁(2002)。當代教學統整新趨勢:建構多元而適配的整體學習環境。國立高雄師範大學教育學系教育學刊,18,43-64。
張新仁、符碧真、崔夢萍、黃淑苓(2019)。再論教學實踐研究論文之撰寫重點。教學實踐與創新,2(1),1-16。
陳正治(2008)。國語文教材教法。五南。
陳向明(2002)。教師如何作質的研究。紅葉。
陳向明(2003)。實踐性知識:教師專業發展的知識基礎。北京大學教育評論,1(1),104-112。
陳向明(2014)。社會科學質的研究。五南。
陳弘昌(1999)。國小語文科教學研究。五南。
陳李綢(1985)。布魯納理論應用於中小學生認知學習的成效研究。教育心理學報,18,191-228。
陳昇飛(2006)。教師語文教學鷹架之搭建及其教學策略之發展。國民教育研究集刊,179-204。
陳明蕾(2018)。課文本位閱讀策略教學對國小學童閱讀表現與策略使用覺知情形之影響。教育心理學報,49(4),581-609。
陳姝蓉(2003)。故事結構教學對增進國小閱讀障礙學生閱讀理解能力之研究。國立臺北市立師範學院碩士論文,未出版,臺北市。
陳美玉(1996)。從實踐知識論觀點看師資生的專業學習與發展。教育資料期刊,1(28),77-107。
陳茹玲(2011)。國小自然科教師發展科技學科教學知識之個案研究—以「一起來賞月」單元為例,未出版,中壢市。取自:https://hdl.handle.net/11296/dck97f
陳國泰(2006)。國小自然與生活科技資深專家教師學科教學知識的發展之個案研究。屏東教育大學學報,19(2),31-64。
陳國泰(2016)。國小新手與專家教師的國語科PCK之比較研究。人文社會科學研究,10(4),56-82。
陳鳳如(1993)。活動式寫作教學法對國小兒童寫作表現與寫作歷程之實驗效果研究。教育研究資訊,1(5),51-67。
陳鳳如(1999)。閱讀與寫作整合的教與學。學生輔導,62,20-29。
陳鳳如、郭生玉(2000)。閱讀與寫作整合的寫作歷程模式之適配度研究。師大學報:教育類,45(1),1-18。
陳劍涵譯(2018)。J. A. Maxwell(2013)著。質性研究設計:互動取向的方法(Qualitative Research Design: An Interactive Approach)。心理。(原著出版年:2013)
陳豐祥(2009)。新修訂布魯姆認知領域目標的理論內涵及其在歷史教學上的應用。歷史教育,15,1-53。
曾陳密桃(1990)。國民中小學生的後設認知及其與閱讀理解之相關研究。國立政治大學教育研究所博士論文,未出版,臺北市。
溫明麗(1998)。批判性思考教學:哲學之旅。師大書苑。
黃永和(1997)。「教學表徵」-教師的教學法寶。國教世紀,178,17-24。
黃永和(2005)。教學文化的概念探討。課程與教學,8(3),27-40。
黃幸美(2012)。數學教學轉化之探討──以一位有經驗教師之面積初步概念教學為例。教科書研究,5(3),99-129。
黃詩雯(2009)。運用 Shulman 教學推理模式發展國小數學教師 PCK 之行動研究,未出版,中壢市。取自:https://hdl.handle.net/11296/zb48ju
黃瑞琴(1991)。質的教育研究方法。心理。
黃瓊儀(1996)。相互教學法對國小高年級學童閱讀理解能力、後設認知能力和閱讀態度之影響。國立嘉義師範學院國民教育研究所碩士論文,未出版,嘉義市。
黃繼仁、周立勳、甄曉蘭(2001)。國小教師國語教學信念及相關因素之調查研究。教育研究集刊,47,107-132。
華霞菱(1976)。讀書和作文的結合。中國語文。
單文經(2014)。教材心理化與邏輯化爭論的平議。課程與教學季刊,17(4),85-112。
鈕文英(2015)。研究方法與論文寫作(第二版)。雙葉。
楊芷芳(1994)。國小不同後設認知能力兒童的閱讀理解能力與閱讀理解策略之研究。國立臺中師範學院初等教育研究所碩士論文,未出版,臺中市。
楊深坑(2004)。科學哲學的新發展及教育與社會科學研究之展望。載於潘慧玲主編。教育研究方法論:觀點與方法(頁27-44)。心理。
楊韻平(1993)。兒童摘取文章大意的能力。國立政治大學教育研究所碩士論文,未出版,臺北市。
甄曉蘭(2003)。課程行動研究:實例與方法解析。師大書苑。
潘士銓、黃繼仁(2010)。國小教師國語文教學實際知識之敘述探究。國民教育研究學報,24,113-128。
潘世尊(2002)。教學上的鷹架要怎麼搭。屏東師院學報,16,263-294。
潘世尊(2012)。建構主義取向國語文作業指導原則與技巧。教育實踐與研究,25(1),29-66。
潘慧玲(2003)。社會科學研究典範的流變。教育研究資訊,11(1),115-143。
鄭昭明(1987)。認知心理學與教育研究:一般介紹。現代教育,4,86-114。
鄭麗玉(1991)。促進後設認知策略的閱讀教學。教師之友,33(3),14-17。
蔡榮昌(1979)。作文教學探討。國立高雄師範大學國文研究所碩士論文,未出版,高雄市。
蔡銘津(1991)。寫作過程教學法對國小學童寫作成效之研究。國立高雄師範大學教育研究所碩士論文,未出版,高雄市。
蔡銘津(1995)。文章結構分析策略教學對增進學童閱讀理解與寫作成效之研究。國立高雄師範大學教育學系博士論文,未出版,高雄市。
蔡銘津(1998)。文章結構分析策略教學對學童寫作成效之影響。課程與教學,1(2),139-159。
蔡銘津(2002,11月)。兒童閱讀與寫作的認知歷程及教學涵義。兒童語文閱讀與寫作研討會,高雄市。
蔡曉楓(2020)。Shulman的教學推理在國中國文訊息類文本教學轉化之應用研究。師資培育與教師專業發展期刊,13(3),01-30。
劉怡亭(2000)。國中歷史科教師的學科教學知識之探究。國立嘉義大學國民教育研究所碩士論文,未出版,嘉義市。
劉佩雲(2019)。多元閱讀策略教學對摘要與閱讀理解能力效果之研究。師資培育與教師專業發展期刊,12(3),1-27。
盧雪梅譯(1991)。M. E. Bell-Gredler 著。教學理論:學習心理學的取向(Learning and Instruction: Theory into Practice.)。心理。(原著出版年:1997)
盧羨文(1998)。閱讀理解。書林。
謝進昌(2015)。有效的中文閱讀理解策略:國內實徵研究之最佳證據整合。教育科學研究期刊,60(2),33-77。
謝建國(2001)。國小實習教師國語科學科教學知識之個案研究。國立臺北教育大學課程與教學研究所碩士論文,未出版,臺北市。
蕭昭君(1996)。質性教育研究中的主觀-坦然面對與監控。國立花蓮師範學院八十四學年度學術研討會論文集(頁1-39)。國立花蓮師範學院。
蕭昭君(2004)。國內教育行動研究解放了什麼?-一個師資培育者的閱讀與困惑。載於:潘慧玲(主編),教育研究方法論:觀點與方法(頁458 - 494)。心理。
蕭瑞麟(2012)。不用數字的研究。培生教育。
簡紅珠(1992)。教學研究的主要派典及其啟示之探析。復文。
簡紅珠(1994)。師範生學科與學科教學的知識基礎。載於中華民國師範教育學會主編,師範教育多元化與師資素質(頁1-15)。師大書苑。
簡紅珠(2002)。教師知識的不同詮釋與研究方法。課程與教學季刊,5(3),1-16。
簡紅珠(2007)。證據本位與教學研究。課程與教學,10(2),53-63。
簡紅珠、黃永和(1998)。教師的學科教學知識:概念解析與啟思。載於中華民國教育學會(主編),教師權力與責任(頁253-278)。師大書苑。
簡馨瑩(2008)。讓閱讀策略教學發生在你的教室裡:以預測策略為例。新竹縣教育研究集刊,8,21-366。
藍慧君(1991)。學習障礙兒童與普通兒童閱讀不同結構文章之閱讀與理解策略的比較研究。國立臺灣師範大學特殊教育研究所碩士論文,未出版,臺北市。
羅秋昭(1996)。國小語文科教材教法。五南。
饒見維(2003)。教師專業發展:理論與實務。五南。
Abdelaal, N. M., & Sase, A. S. (2014). Relationship between Prior Knowledge and Reading Comprehension. Advances in Language and Literary Studies, 5(6), 125-131.
Alvarez, M. C., & Risko, V. J. (1989). Schema activation, construction, and application (ERIC Digest #46). ERIC Clearinghouse on Reading and Communication.
Anderson, R.C., Spiro, R.J., & Anderson, M.C. (1978). Schemata as scaffolding for the representation of information in connected discourse. American Educational Research Journal, 15(3), 433-440.
Anderson, R. C., Reynolds, R. E., Schallert, D. L., Goetz, E. T. (1997). Frameworks for comprehending discourse. American Educational Research Journal, 14, 267-382.
Arbib, M. A. (1992). Schema theory. The Encyclopedia of Artificial Intelligence, 2, 1427-1443.
Armbruster, B. B. (1986). Schema theory and the design of content area textbooks. Educational Psychologist, 21(4), 253-267.
Ausubel, D. P. (1968). Educational psychology: A cognitive view. Holt, Rinehart & Winston.
Ball, D. L. (1988). The subject matter preparation of prospective mathematics teachers: Challenging the myths. National Center for Research on Teacher Education, Michigan State University.
Ball, D. L. (1990). The mathematical understandings that prospective teachers bring to teacher education. The Elementary School Journal, 90(4), 449-466.
Ball, D. L., Lubienski, S. T., & Mewborn, D. S. (2001). Research on teaching mathematics: The unsolved problem of teachers’ mathematical knowledge. Handbook of Research on Teaching, 4, 433-456.
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.
Barnett, J. E. (1984). Facilitating retention through instruction about text structure. Journal of Literacy Research, 16(1), 1-13.
Baumert, J., Kunter, M., Blum, W., Brunner, M., Voss, T., Jordan, A., & …Tsai, Y.-M. (2010). Teachers’ mathematical knowledge, cognitive activation in the classroom, and student progress. American Educational Research Journal, 47, 133-180.
Bernstein, J. L. (2018). Unifying SOTL methodology: Internal and external validity. Teaching & Learning Inquiry, 6(2), 115-126.
Birman, B. F., Desimone, L., Porter, A. C., & Garet, M. S. (2000). Designing professional development that works. Educational Leadership, 57(8), 28-33.
Bransford, J. D., Arbitman-Smith, R., Stein, B. S., & Vye, N. J. (1985). Improving thinking and learning skills: An analysis of three approaches. In J.W Segal., S.F. Chipman., & R. Glaser, (Eds.), Thinking and Learning Skills: Relating instruction to research (pp. 133-206). Erlbaum.
Brinberg, D., & McGrath, J. E. (1985). Validity and research process. SAGE.
Brown, A. L. (1992). Design experiments: Theoretical and methodological challenges. In creating complex interventions in classroom settings. The Journal of the Learning Sciences 2 (2), 141-178.
Bruner, J. (1996). The culture of education. Harvard University Press.
Calderhead, J. (1996). Teachers: Beliefs and knowledge. In D. C. Berliner & R. C. Calfee (Eds.), Handbook of Educational Psychology (pp. 709– 725). Macmillan.
Calderhead, J., & Robson, M. (1991). Images of teaching: Student teachers' early conceptions of classroom practice. Teaching and Teacher Education, 7(1), 1-8.
Carr, W. (1995). For education: Towards critical educational inquiry. Open University Press.
Carr, W., & Kemmis, S. (2003). Becoming critical: Education, knowledge and action research. Routledge.
Chall, J. S. (1996). Stages of reading development (2nd ed.). Harcourt Brace.
Clark, C. M., & Peterson, P. L. (1976). Teacher stimulated recall of interactive decisions. National Institute of Education.
Clark, C. M., & Peterson, P. L. (1986). Teachers' thought processes. In M.C. Wittrock (Ed.), Handbook of research on teaching (3rd ed.) (pp.255-296). Macmillan.
Cochran, K. F., DeRuiter, J. A., & King, R. A. (1993). Pedagogical content knowing: An integrative model for teacher preparation. Journal of Teacher Education, 44(4), 263-272.
Cochran-Smith, M., & Lytle, S. (1993). Inside/outside: Teacher research and knowledge. Teachers College Press.
Cohen, D. K., Raudenbush, S. W., & Ball, D. L. (2003). Resources, instruction, and research. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 25(2), 119-142.
Cross, D. R., & Paris, S. G. (1988). Developmental and instructioal anslyses of children's metacognition and reading comprehension. Journal of Educational Psychology, 80(2), 131-142.
Denzin, N. K., & Lincoln, Y. S. (Eds.). (1994). Handbook of qualitative research. SAGE.
Dewey, J. (1902/1964). The child and curriculum. In R. G. Archambault (Ed.), John Dewey on education (pp. 339-358). Random House.
Dochy, F. J. (1996). Assessment of domain-specific and domain-transcending prior knowledge: Entry assessment and the use of profile analysis. In M. Birenbaum & F. J. R. C. Dochy (Eds.), Alternatives in assessment of achievements, learning processes and prior knowledge (pp. 227–264). Kluwer.
Dole, J. A., Duffy, G. G., Roehler, L. R., & Pearson, P. D. (1991). Moving from the old to the new: Research on reading comprehension instruction. Review of Educational Research, 61(2), 239-264.
Drake, C., & Sherin, M. (2006). Practicing change: Curriculum adaptation and teacher narrative in the context of mathematics education reform. Curriculum Inquiry, 36, 153-187.
Elbaz, F. (1981). The teacher’s practical knowledge: Report of a case study. Curriculum Inquiry, 11 (1), 44-71.
Elbaz, F. (1983). Teacher thinking: A study of practical knowledge. Nichols Publishing Company.
Elbow, P. E. (1998). Writing with power: Techniques for mastering the writing process (2nd ed.). Oxford University Press.
Elliott, J. (2009). Building educational theory through action research. In S. E. Noffke, & B. Somekh (Eds.), The SAGE handbook of educational action research (pp. 28-38). SAGE.
Fenstermacher, G. D. (1986). Philosophy of research on teaching: Three aspects. In M. C. Wittrock (Ed.), Handbook of research on teaching (3rd ed., pp. 37-49). Macmillan.
Fenstermacher, G. D. (1994). The knower and the known: The nature of knowledge in research on teaching. Review of Research in Education, 20(1), 3-56.
Fernandez, C. (2014). Knowledge base for teaching and pedagogical content knowledge (PCK): Some useful models and implications for teachers’ training. Problems of Education in the 21st Century, 60, 79-100.
Gadamer, H. (1989). Truth and method (2nd ed.). Crossroad.
Gagne, E.D., Yekovich, C. W., & Yekovich, F. R. (1993). The Cognitive Psychology of School Learning (2nd ed.). Harper Collins College Publishers.
Gardner, H. (1986). The mind’s new science: A history of cognitive revolution. Basic Books.
Gersten, R., Fuchs, L. S., Williams, J. P., & Baker, S. (2001). Teaching reading comprehension strategies to students with learning disabilities: A review of research. Review of Educational Research, 71(2), 279-320.
Giroux, H. A. (1988). Teachers as intellectuals: Toward a critical pedagogy of learning. Bergin Garvey.
Glesne, C. & Peshkin, A. (1992). Becoming qualitative researchers: An introduction. White Plains. Longman.
Goodman, K. S. (1986). What's whole in whole language? A parent/teacher guide to children's learning. Heinemann.
Grabe, W. (2003). Reading and writing relations: Second language perspectives on research and practice. In Kroll, B. (Ed.), Exploring the dynamics of second language writing (pp. 242-262). Cambridge University Press.
Graesser, A. C., Singer, M., & Trabasso, T. (1994). Constructing inferences during narrative text comprehension. Psychological Review, 101(3), 371-395.
Grossman, P. L., Wislon, S. M., & Shulman, L. S. (1989). Teachers of Substance: Subject Matter Knowledge for Teaching. In M. C. Reynolds (Ed.), Knowledge Base for the beginning teacher (pp. 23-36). Pergamon Press.
Gudmundsdottir, S. (1990). Values in pedagogical content knowledge. Journal of Teacher Education, 41(3), 44-52.
Gudmundsdottir, S. (1995). The narrative nature of pedagogical content knowledge. In H. McEwan, & K. Egan (Eds.), Narrative in teaching, learning and research. Teachers College Press.
Gunning, T. G. (1992). Creating reading instruction for all children. Allyn and Bacon.
Hargreaves, D. H. (1997). In defence of research for evidence‐based teaching: A rejoinder to Martyn Hammersley. British Educational Research Journal, 23(4), 405-419.
Hashweh, M. (2013). Pedagogical content knowledge: Twenty-five years later. In From teacher thinking to teachers and teaching: The evolution of a research community (pp. 115-140). Emerald.
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.
Hoover, W. A., & Gough, P. B.(1990). The simple view of reading. Reading and Writing: An Interdisciplinary Journal, 2, 127-160.
Irwin, J. W. (1991/2007). Teaching reading comprehension processes. Pearson College Division.
Jackson, P. W. (1966). The way teaching is. National Educational Association.
Johnston, P., & Pearson, P. D. (1982, June). Prior knowledge, connectivity, and the assessment of reading comprehension (Tech. Report No. 245). Center for the Study of Reading, University of Illinois.
Johnston, P. & Pearson, P. (1982). Prior knowledge, connectivity, and the assessment of reading comprehension. (Tech. Report No. 245). Center for the study of Reading, University of Illinois.
Kintsch, W. (1977). On comprehending stories. In M. A. Just & P. A. Carpenter (Eds.), Cognitive processes in comprehension, (pp. 33-62). Erlbaum.
Kleickmann, T., Richter, D., Kunter, M., Elsner, J., Besser, M., Krauss, S., & Baumert, J. (2013). Teachers’ content knowledge and pedagogical content knowledge: The role of structural differences in teacher education. Journal of Teacher Education, 64(1), 90-106.
Korat, O., & Schiff, R. (2005). Do children who read more books know “what is good writing” better than children who read less? A comparison between grade levels and SES groups. Journal of Literacy Research, 37(3), 289-324.
Krauss, S., Brunner, M., Kunter, Baumert, J., Blum, W., Neubrand, M., et al. (2008). Pedagogical content knowledge and content knowledge of secondary mathematics teachers. Journal of Educational Psychology, 100(3), 716-725.
Lather, P. (1986). Research as praxis. Harvard Educational Review, 56(3), 257-278.
LeCompte, M. D. (1987). Bias in the biography: Bias and subjectivity in ethnographic research. Anthropology & Education Quarterly, 18(1), 43-52.
Lehr, S. (1988). The child's developing sense of theme as a response to literature. Reading Research Quarterly, 23(3), 337-357.
Mandler, J. M., & Johnson, N. S. (1977). Remembrance of things parsed: Story structure and recall. Cognitive Psychology, 9(1), 111–151.
Maxwell, J. A. (1992). Understanding and validity in qualitative research. Harvard Educational Review, 62(3), 279-301.
Maxwell, J. A. (2004). Causal explanation, qualitative research, and scientific inquiry in education. Educational Researcher, 33(2), 3-11.
Maxwell, J. A. (2013). Qualitative research design: An interactive approach. SAGE.
McGee, L. M. (1982). Awareness of text structure: Effects on children’s recall of expository text. Reading Research Quarterly, 17, 581-90.
McGinley, W., & Tierney, R. J. (1989). Reading and writing as ways of knowing. Written Communication, 6(3), 243-269.
Meyer, H. (2004). Novice and expert teachers' conceptions of learners' prior knowledge. Science Education, 88(6), 970-983.
Mezirow, J. (1991). Transformative dimensions of adult learning. Jossey-Bass.
Mezirow, J. (1997). Transformative learning: Theory to practice. New Directions for Adult and Continuing Education, 74, 5-12.
Miles, M. B., & Huberman, A. M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis: An expanded sourcebook (2nd ed.). SAGE.
Mishler, E. G. (1986). Research interviewing: Context and narrative. Harvard University Press.
Norris, S. P., & Phillips, L. M. (1987). Explanations of reading comprehension: Schema theory and critical thinking theory. Teachers College Record, 89(2), 281-306.
Oakhill, J., & Cain, K. (2007). Issues of causality in children's reading comprehension. In D. S. McNamara (Ed.), Reading comprehension strategies: Theories, intervention, and technologies. (pp. 47-72). Erlbaum.
Padron, Y. N., Knight, S. L., & Waxman, H. C. (1986). Analyzing bilingual and monolingual students' perceptions of their reading strategies. The Reading Teacher, 39(5), 430-433.
Palinscar, A. S., & Brown, A. L. (1984). Reciprocal teaching of comprehension-fostering and comprehension-monitoring activities. Cognition and Instruction, 1(2), 117-175.
Paris, S. G., Lipson, M., & Wixson, K. (1983). Becoming a strategic reader. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 8, 293-316.
Pearson, P. D., & Dole, J. A. (1987). Explicit comprehension instruction: A review of research and a new conceptualization of instruction. The Elementary School Journal, 88, 151-165.
Pearson, P. D. & Johnson, D. (1978). Teaching reading comprehension. Holt, Rinehart and Winston.
Peshkin, A. (1988). In search of subjectivity: One's own. Educational Researcher, 17(7), 17-21.
Peterson, P. L., Fennema, E., Carpenter, T. P., & Loef, M. (1989). Teacher's pedagogical content beliefs in mathematics. Cognition and Instruction, 6(1), 1-40.
Rosenshine, B. (1979). Content, time and direct instruction. In P. L. Peterson & H. J. Walberg (Eds.), Research on teaching (pp. 28–56). McCutchan.
Roth, R. G. (1987). The evolving audience: Alternatives to audience accommodation. College Composition and Communication, 38(1), 47-55.
Rumelhart, D. E. (1975). Notes on a schema for stories. In Bobrow, D. G. & Collins, A. M. (Eds.), Representation and understanding: Studies in cognitive science. Academic Press.
Rumelhart, D. E. (1980). On evaluating story grammars. Cognitive Science, 4(3), 313-316.
Rumelhart, D. E., & Ortony, A. (1977). The representation of knowledge in memory. Schooling and The Acquisition of Knowledge, 99, 135.
Schön, D. A. (1983). The reflective practitioner: How professionals think in action. Basic Books.
Schwab, J. J. (1973). The Practical: Translation into Curriculum. The School Review, 81(4), 501-522.
Schwartz, D. L., Sears, D., & Chang, J. (2007). Reconsidering prior knowledge. In M. Lovett & P. Shah (Eds.), Thinking with data (pp. 319–344). Lawrence Erlbaum
Shanahan, T. (2008, December). Reading-Writing relationships revisited. Paper presented at the National Reading Conference, Orlando, FL.
Shotter, J. (1995). In conversation: Joint action, shared intentionality and ethics. Theory & Psychology, 5(1), 49-73.
Shulman, L. S. (1986). Those who understand: Knowledge growth in teaching. Educational Researcher, 15(2), 4-14.
Shulman, L. S. (1987). Knowledge and teaching: Foundations of the new reform. Harvard Educational Review, 57(1), 1-23.
Shulman, L. S. (1992). Toward a pedagogy of cases. In J. Shulman (Ed.), Case method in teacher education (pp. 1-30). Teachers College Press.
Shulman, L. S. (1997). Disciplines of inquiry in education: A new overview. In S. M. Wilson (Ed.). (2004). The wisdom of practice: Essays on teaching, learning, and learning to teach (pp. 276-306). Jossey-Bass.
Shulman, L. S. (2011). Feature essays: The scholarship of teaching and learning: A personal account and reflection. International Journal for the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning, 5(1), Article 30.
Shulman, L. S., & Quinlan, K. M. (1996). The comparative psychology of school subjects. In Berliner, D. C. and Calfee, R. C. (Eds.), Handbook of Educational Psychology (pp. 399-422). Macmillan.
Shulman, L. S., & Shulman, J. H. (2004). How and what teachers learn: A shifting perspective. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 36(2), 257-271.
Snow, C. (2000) Reading for understanding: Toward a research and developmental programs in reading comprehension. Rand.
Spivey, N. N. (1990). Transforming texts: Constructive processes in reading and writing. Written Communication, 7(2), 256-287.
Squire, J. R. (Ed). (1987). The dynamics of language learning: Research in reading and English. NCTE.
Stein, N. L., & Glenn, C. G. (1979). An analysis of story comprehension in elementary school children. In R. D. Freedle (Ed.), New directions in discourse processing (pp. 53-120). Ablex Publishing.
Stenhouse, L. (1975). An introduction to curriculum research and development. Open University.
Taylor, S. J., & Bogdan, R. (1984). Introduction to qualitative research methods: The search for meanings. Wiley-Interscience.
Thorndyke, P.W. (1977). Cognitive structures in comprehension and memory of narrative discourse. Cognitive Psychology, 9, 77-110.
Tonjes, M.J., & Zintz, M. V. (1992). Teaching reading thinking study skills in content classrooms. W. C. Brown Publishers.
Trumbuall, D. J. (1986). Practitioner knowledge: An examination of the artistry in teaching. The Journal of Educational Thought, 20(3), 113-124.
van den Broek, P., & Kremer, K. E. (2000). The mind in action: What it means to comprehension during reading. In B. M. Taylor, M. F. Graves & P. van den Broek (Eds.), Reading for meaning: Fostering comprehension in the middle grade (pp. 1-31). Teachers College Press.
Van Dijk, T.A., & Kintsch,W. (1983). Strategies of discourse comprehension. Academic Press.
Veal, W. R., & MaKinster, J. G. (1999). Pedagogical content knowledge taxonomies. Electronic Journal of Science Education, 3(4). 1-18.
Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Harvard University Press.
Vygotsky, L. S. (1987). Thinking and speech. In R. W. Rieber & A. S. Carton (Eds.), The collected works of L. S. Vygotsky. Vol. 1. Problems of general psychology (pp. 39-285). Plenum.
Williams, J. P. (2005). Instruction in Reading Comprehension for Primary-Grade Students: A Focus on Text Structure. The Journal of Special Education, 39(1), 6-18.
Willingham, D. T. (2007). Critical thinking: Why it is so hard to teach? American Educator, 31(2), 8-19.
Wilson, S. M., Shulman, L. S., & Richert, A. E. (1987). 150 different ways of knowing: Representations of knowledge in teaching. In J. Calderhead (Ed.), Exploring teachers’ thinking (pp. 104-124). Cassell.
Wolcott, H. F. (1990). Writing up qualitative research. SAGE.
Zarei, G. R. (2008). The effect of constructivist language teaching/learning on students' conceptions of L2 reading. Iranian Journal of Language Studies, 2(2), 281-298.

 
 
 
 
第一頁 上一頁 下一頁 最後一頁 top
* *