Search

面對世界變革及教育系統之需求，本研究重新從認識論與方法論建立課程評鑑之基礎，並擴大視野，跨越邊界，透過朝向問題化的設計思考，規劃能喚起個體在群體中及對系統的覺知，反思課程實踐，建立具價值與意義之課程評鑑引導設計。本研究主要運用團體討論法，經過8次，每次1-2小時的團體討論，進行「意義驅動與展化的課程評鑑工作坊」之引導設計， 並以關鍵字分析和提問類型進行資料分析，再以參與工作坊學員之意見調查與備課文件作為語料分析之佐證。本研究發現包括：一、融入展化學習及U型理論之問題化的設計思考可生成課程新的理解；二、透過提問展開課程評鑑之選擇觀點、建立理解與策略之路徑值得探詢；三、問題化過程關注真實問題與脈絡、意向與思考性語言不可或缺、運用社群運作，能有意 義地連結個體的思維與集體共創的課程；四、多樣提問類型扮演不同功能，可豐實並活化問題化思考過程。最後，根據研究發現提出相關建議。 Motivation and Purpose As Taiwan enters the third decade of the twenty-first century, its educational systems must be well-equipped for the future. However, Taiwan’s seemingly rigorous and concrete curriculum evaluations as evidenced by past experience, have shown its limitations. Without a solid foundation in the needs and challenges of educators and the educated, curriculum evaluations become mere formalities incapable of driving self-reflection and improvement. Additionally, such evaluations must prompt critical inquiry into the following questions: “Why do we need curriculum evaluations?” “Why adopt one system of curriculum evaluation over another?” and “What do curriculum evaluations mean to us?” This study sought to utilize methodological and epistemological insights to ground curriculum evaluations in the context of the problems they seek to address; this allows us to expand our horizons, cross boundaries, and, through problem-oriented design thinking, make educators more aware of the systems and groups of which they are a part. Such reflection on curriculum evaluations prompted the creation of a series of meaningful curriculum evaluation measures and courses. Literature Review Epistemological reflections informed the present study’s multidisciplinary approach to curriculum evaluation; problem-oriented design thinking served as the engine for this study’s guiding design; and expansive learning and U-theory provided reference strategies, tools, and learning environment support. Research Questions The research questions this study sought to answer are as follows: 1. How does the problematization process influence the design of meaning-driven curriculum evaluations? 2. What key themes emerge during the problematization process within teams conducting meaning-driven curriculum evaluations? 3. How do various types of questioning facilitate design thinking in problematization for meaning-driven curriculum evaluation? 4. Through the lens of problematization in design thinking, what innovative guiding designs are developed for conducting meaning-driven curriculum evaluations? Method This study employed eight focus group sessions, each lasting 1-2 hours, to guide the design of a “Meaning-driven and Expansive Curriculum Evaluation Workshop.” Keywords and question types from the session transcripts were analyzed and coded; they were supplemented by opinion surveys of the workshop participants and their lesson preparation materials. Results and Discussion 1. Problematization— which is the process of identifying problems to be addressed and their solutions— is clearly discernible in the chronological evolution of the group discussions, which moved from clarifying key points of curriculum evaluation to designing a workshop on guiding evaluation design. In chronological order, the key questions of the problematization process were as follows. Early-stage questions were posed to clarify the problems surrounding curriculum evaluation in Taiwan and its relationship to educators. Beginning with the problems inherent in the current traditional evaluation system, participants questioned the meaning and value of curriculum evaluation, forming the workshop’s goals. Late-stage questions were designed to transform the meaning and goals that emerged during the discussions and incorporate them into the design of the workshop courses. The subsequent process of problematization emphasized creative collaboration and explored more fundamental problems, such as: “How can curriculum evaluation help educators improve their motivation and skills?” and “What must be done next?” 2. Multiple themes emerged from keyword analysis of problematization content, specifically: (1) The problematization process involves real problems/needs in the context of the curriculum: All the questions from the group discussion process were imported into a keyword analysis software. “What,” “how,” and “why” ranked as the top three keywords. The high frequency of these question words indicates that the group discussion focused on inquiry and exploration, which are basic functions of the problematization process. The team evaluated problems in the context of the curriculum, using questions to suggest avenues for experimental improvements. (2) Reflective and intentional language is essential to the design thinking process: Hypothetical questions typically inspire an epistemological approach of inquiry and verification, or evaluative thinking; this requires the use of reflective language. The keywords, the context of the educators’ questions, and the language used demonstrate that the participants focused their thinking and decision-making on the usability, appropriateness, and improvability of the proposed curriculum and were thus continually optimizing and evaluating ideas. The discussion leaders emphasized the participants’ intentions in curriculum evaluation during the discussion process. Additionally, the keyword “want” occurred frequently (17 times), underscoring the participants’ focus on changing their behaviors and responding to needs. (3) A learning community is the operational basis for the problematization process: The fourth-highest ranked keyword was “we,” whereas “they” was ranked 10th, indicating that the educators were focused on solving problems as a community. This community focus is consistent with U-theory’s approach of creating a social field that enables a team to generate collective wisdom and a sense of direction through exploration and reflection. The questions guided participants to consider the relationship between individuals and the team. (4) Members know that their ultimate goal is benefiting students, prompting critical reflection on and engagement with the evaluation process: The goal of any curriculum is to educate students. Curriculum evaluation is a crucial component of curriculum development that requires educators to remain flexible. Because the educators did not use traditional terms such as “evaluation” and “performance” in their questions, their meaning-driven curriculum evaluation emphasized the context of education itself, focusing on teachers and students and responding to their needs in the process of meeting the evaluation objectives. 3. Questions serve several functions in guiding the design thinking underpinning the problematization process: Through question analysis, 258 questions were categorized into 5 types: (1) Value-oriented questions concerning feelings, relationships, and meanings; (2) assessment-oriented questions using logical explorations in the context of a particular problem to reach a solution; (3) strategy-oriented questions focusing on perceiving problems and developing time-sensitive strategies to address them; (4) empathy-oriented questions promoting collaboration and dialogue; (5) task-oriented questions involving action planning, reflective evaluation, and collaboration. 4. The meaning-driven curriculum evaluation guiding design was generated, and a meaning-driven curriculum evaluation was proposed: The eight group discussions resulted in a 2-day meaning-driven curriculum evaluation guiding design workshop. The design philosophy emphasized participation and cocreation, where learning evolved continually through questioning and the cultivation of shared learning spaces. The process clarified participants’ perspectives on curriculum evaluation, starting from real problems/needs and moving through individual experiences to community dialogue and cocreation. The workshop was based on participants’ questions and encouraged individual reflection, group collaboration, and team cocreation. The guiding design was dynamic, emphasizing participant interaction and responses, with real-time adjustments made as new problems were identified. Conclusion 1. The themes and types of questions generated from keyword analysis indicate the feasibility of integrating expansive learning and U-theory to guide understanding in problematization thinking and planning. 2. The act of questioning reveals perspectives and options through mutual understanding and shared strategic vision to create a curriculum evaluation that is sensitive to the real needs of teachers and students. 3. The problematization process focuses on real problems/needs in context. Reflective and intentional language is indispensable to the problematization process. Moreover, a group approach to designing a curriculum evaluation establishes meaningful connections between educators’ thoughts and needs and the curriculum they deliver. 4. A diversity of question types enriches and animates the problematization process. Recommendations 1. Educators must be encouraged to engage in discourse with an open mind, maintain flexibility, and embrace uncertainty. 2. Design thinking must be integrated into curriculum evaluations. 3. A diversity of questions and opinions must be encouraged in curriculum evaluation.

本研究旨在探究1980～2020年國際師資培育研究的知識結構與趨勢，運用文獻計量法，分析高頻率出現作者、文獻知識聚類及突現詞探尋研究趨勢，以瞭解師資培育研究在不同時間序列中所關注的熱點，描繪40年來師資培育研究在政策、制度與實務的變革及挑戰，並展望未來研究趨勢。本研究採用VOSviewer和CiteSpace文獻計量工具，從Web of Science資料庫中選取1,779篇師資培育研究期刊論文，分析結果共有五聚類：教學實踐與反思、師資培育學程設計、教師信念與質性研究、教師知識與自我效能、教師認同。除此之外，師資培育研究趨勢為：一、巨觀層次的師資培育政策發展研究，由研究政策對師資培育的影響，逐漸轉為落實教育公平與社會正義之探討；二、中程層次的培養機構，轉變為與學校合作培養師資生，再擴及到情境脈絡對師資培育過程之影響分析；三、微觀層次的師資生學習，則從關注師資生在行動中反思以獲得知識與技能，逐步擴展至師資生學習成為教師中各面向的改變。最後，本研究提出師資培育研究未來展望，包括有效的師資培育政策、系統設計師資培育、師資生學習，以供參考。 1. Context and Research Questions Trends in teacher education research reflect changes in policies, systems, and practices as well as the challenges and strategies involved in addressing them. A thorough understanding of these trends is required to propose effective changes to policies and systems and improve teacher education practices (Darling-Hammond, 2016). However, a thorough review of the relevant literature is necessary to determine the factors influencing these trends. To identify issues and knowledge structures in teacher education and examine how these issues are studied, analyzed, and interpreted, researchers must understand how trends in teacher education research have shifted over time and how these trends have influenced teacher education practices. Therefore, we used bibliometric tools to explore the past, present, and future of teacher education research as well as the knowledge clusters and trends in international research on teacher education that are hidden in co-occurrences and burst terms. 2. Literature Review 2.1 Research Scope We examined teacher education during the preservice and induction periods. The terms preservice teacher, teacher student, prospective teacher, and teacher candidate are used to denote individuals that have not yet become regular (in-service) teachers and were the key terms searched for in this study. 2.2 Approaches to Teacher Education Research Teacher education research is greatly influenced by political and professional developments; thus, contemporary historical and political contexts, the positioning of teacher education, definitions of teacher education issues, and research methods influence the body of research (Cochran-Smith & Fries, 2005). Teacher education research considers both the teaching profession and policy implications (Darling-Hammond, 2016). Research on the teaching profession considers the knowledge and competencies of effective teaching strategies for school education, and various theoretical perspectives (e.g., teacher belief, teacher identity) have been used to explore the influencing factors of preservice teachers’ learning experiences (Cochran-Smith, 2016; Popkewitz et al., 1979). 2.3 Types of Teacher Education Research Frameworks Teacher education research has been categorized into handbooks and literature reviews. Both have their own characteristics, advantages, and limitations. For example, teacher education research handbooks are limited by the editors’ judgments and choices of the author or editor. Moreover, they primarily discuss current issues and are thus not wholly reflective of the overarching knowledge structure of teacher education research. By contrast, literature reviews often collect and analyze literature on the basis of a specific perspective or concept but lost others (Houston, 2008). The evolution of perspectives, methodologies, and approaches has increased the discourse and diversity within teacher education research (Cochran-Smith & Fries, 2005; Shulman, 1986). 3. Methods To investigated development of teacher education research, academic articles from 1980 to 2020 that double-blind peer reviews were retrieved from the Web of Science. After filtering for relevance, 1,779 articles were shortlisted. Next, the bibliometric tools, VOSviewer and CiteSpace, were used to understand the focus of teacher education research during different periods, to describe the changes and challenges of teacher education policies, systems, and practices over the past 40 years, and to identify future research trends. 4. Results and Discussion We identified five clusters of teacher education research: teaching practice and reflection, teacher education program design, teacher beliefs and qualitative research, teacher knowledge and self-efficacy, and teacher identity. By analyzing keywords and burst terms, we discovered 44 burst terms that evolved over time. In addition, the research hotspots have varied over the past 40 years, with each trend lasting only a short period. During 1980-2010, teacher education research was dominated by teacher education policy, including training and reform. After 2010, the focus of research alternated between teaching practices and noncognitive learning. Between 2015 and 2020, mathematics, content knowledge, and pedagogical content knowledge were the focus of research, indicating the importance of teacher knowledge and mathematics. Finally, through the literature review and a big data analysis, we discovered the following trends in teacher education research: (1) At the macro level, the focus of teacher training policies has gradually shifted from teacher education to the implementation of educational equity and social justice. (2) On a more specific level, the how institutions cooperate with schools for teacher education and how they analyze the impacts of certain contexts on teacher education process have changed. (3) On the micro level, teacher education has been gradually extended to include changes in various aspects of preservice teachers’ learning. 5. Suggestions Research on teacher education policy is based on multiple standpoints—and in some cases, opposition. Future policy research should employ empirical, scientific evidence to improve policy and debate the effectiveness of teacher education. Teacher education research is deeply influenced by political, social, and cultural factors and should be conducted by teams that test, collect, and analyze data on preservice teachers’ learning environments to identify influential contextual factors. By so doing, a strong foundation can be established for the systematic design of teacher education programs and acquisition of supporting resources. The cognitive and noncognitive learning of preservice teachers is influenced by their personalities and preparation. How changes occur and how preservice teachers can be internally motivated should continue to be explored. Going forward, researchers should consider philosophical, historical, and sociological insights to assess global developments and identify new research goals by reflecting on the academic discourse with peers and across boundaries.

本研究探討「差異化教學法」對國中八年級學生數學學習成效的影響，採用準實驗研究法，並採取不等組前－後測設計。研究對象為某國中八年級兩班共 50 位學生，以其中一班為實驗組，進行「差異化教學法」，另一班為對照組，進行「講述教學法」。教學內 容為「等差數列」與「等差級數」兩個單元，實驗教學結束後，研究者蒐集相關資料進行量化的分析比較，以探討兩組學生數學學習成效的改變，並透過教學回饋單及晤談資料來了解學生對於「差異化教學法」的態度及接受程度。研究發現，實施差異化教學可 以顯著提高學生數學學習成效，以中分群學生之學習成效差距最大。 The study discusses the impact of “differentiated instruction” on the learning of math for 8th graders in junior high school. The quasi-experimental research method was adopted, using the pretest-posttest design with unequal groups. The subjects were 50 students from two 8th grade classes in one junior high school. One class was assigned as the experimental group to receive “differentiated instruction”, while the other one was the control group to receive “didactic instruction”. The instruction contents were two units of the curriculum: “arithmetic sequence” and “arithmetic series”. After the entire experimental teaching was over, the researcher collected relevant data to proceed with quantitative analysis and comparison, as well as to investigate the changes of math learning outcomes for the two groups of students. Students' attitudes and degree of acceptance toward “differentiated instruction” were examined through data collected from students' feedback sheets and interviews. Findings from this study indicate that the implementation of differentiated instruction can significantly promote student's learning outcomes in math; the effect is particularly noteworthy for the average-grade student group.

課程改革的大旗揮舞了多年，究竟兒童對課程知覺為何？兒童在學校如何過生活？從早上八點到下午四點，孩子如何經驗課程？如何覺知課堂？課堂是孩子在學校生活中停留最久的地方，兒童在課堂的身影與心理的狀態，很少主動告訴成人，而成人也鮮少進行理解。本研究透過訪談四所小學96位學生，了解兒童所知覺的課 程及其所經驗的課堂生活。研究發現，兒童對不同學科有既定的刻板印象，而教師的教學流程，兒童也都心知肚明；兒童的上課生活充滿著被控制與無奈，他們能做的是勉強自己去面對；少部分的課堂生活則有著好奇與探索，引領孩子更寬廣的學習。兒童對課程的喜好，除了內容因素，也和學習的方式有關。而在課堂生活方 面，常常是喜悅與恐懼參半，有意義的學習與填充式學習並存。從本研究所得也讓我們看見，即使課程政策推動強調學生中心與主動學習已經行之多年，但是，實際的教育現場還是有一大段努力的路要走。 How have the several-year curriculum reform added to children’s understanding of courses? How do they spend school days? What is their classroom experience? Classrooms are the main venue for their school lives, but children’s physical and mental status in classrooms remains a mystery that earns flagging attention from adults. This study aims to provide a glimpse of children’s learning and their classroom experience. After interviewing 96 subjects from 4 elementary schools, it shows that subjects, as well as teaching style, are stereotyped. Furthermore, being controlled and helpless in classes, they cannot do anything but accept it. Content of the curriculum factors and ways of learning are the factors for Children's preferences on curriculum. In the classroom life, joy and fear are often mixed; meaningful learning and filling learning coexist. The findings also drive us to the significant difference among the real practices inside classrooms, the student-centered approaches and active learning that has been promoted by policies for years.