本研究探討國中資淺暨資深自然科教師在溫度與熱單元的教學表現
。兩位教師各屬於不同的學校，分別於民國九十二年十一月初及民國九十三年十一月初起各觀察一個月，透過教室觀察、晤談及文件蒐集等方法收集個案教師概念組織、教學表徵、發問問題類型與評量方式等資料並分析之。研究結果如下：(1)概念組織：資淺教師的組織方式與教科書相似按節次順序來呈現概念；資深教師則以中心概念為主軸來鋪陳相關概念。(2)教學表徵：(a)資淺教師通常使用一種教學表徵講解概念，依賴教科書與坊間參考書作為範例的來源，發問的問題意義不清，¬而引發學生偏離主題，花費較多的時間在討論與主題無關的情境問題，卻無法順利引導學生，家庭作業為要求學生做坊間參考書的題目；(b)資深教師的教學表徵具多樣性，範例的來源除了教科書之外，還有教師製作的學習單，花費較少的引導時間就可以順利達到教學目的，家庭作業的內容除了教師製作的學習單外，還會根據上課的內容要求學生上網找資料繳交報告。(3)發問類型：兩位老師都以記憶類型的問題居多，但資深教師發問閉鎖收斂類型問題的比例高於資淺教師。(4)評量方式：資深教師較常使用評量來了解學生的學習狀況和提示上課的重點及使用評量作為督促學生學習的教學策略；資淺教師則未注意到評量。本研究建議持續提供培養教師發問與評量能力的管道，未來可深入探討教科書之撰寫。

Investigated were the comparisons of conceptual structures, instructional representations, questioning techniques, and evaluation skills of an experienced and a non-experienced physical science teachers in junior high schools on the topics of “ Heat and Temperature”. Two teachers who came from different schools were observed from Nov. to Dec. in 2003 and 2004 respectively. Interpretative research method was adopted. Data were collected through classroom observations, interviews, and documents collections. Data were analyzed through reviewing of video-tapes, transcripts, and triangulations. The findings were as follows: 1) the teaching sequence of concepts for the non-experienced teacher were followed by the sequences of the textbook, however, for the experienced teacher, the teaching sequence were organized through main concepts; 2) for non-experienced teacher, lecture was the only and more often used representation , his examples and homework all came from textbook and reference books, the meaning of his questions were not clear and always misleading students’ discussions which is to non-related to the topics; however, for experienced teacher, there were multiple teaching representations used , besides textbooks, teacher also designed examples and homework to help students learn, her questioning was very skillful and easily reached the goals of the teaching; 3) most questions were memory-type for both teachers, but, there were more convergent thinking questions for experienced teacher; 4) there was no evaluation of students learning for non-experienced teacher, however, the evaluation was used as strategies for monitoring students’ learning and emphasizing key concepts of teaching. To provide more opportunities for teachers to promote their abilities in questioning and evaluating and more research related to the writing of textbooks were suggested.

ㄧ、中文部份
丁凡譯。多感官學習。臺北市：遠流出版社。(1998)。
王文科(民80)。教育研究法。臺北市：五南出版社。
王明傑和陳玉玲編譯。美國心理協會出版手冊。台北市：雙葉書廊有限公司，第五版。
王春展。專家與生手間問題解決能力的差異及其在教學上的啟示。教育研究資訊5:2 民86.03 頁80-92。
王淑俐(1997)。教師說話技巧-教師口語表達在教學與師生溝通上的運用。
臺北市：師大書苑。
方炳林(民65)。普通教學法。台北市：教育文物出版社。
江芳盛（1990）。批判思考教學研究的必要性。高雄文教，39。34-35。
李田英(民70)。自然科學教學發問的技巧。國教世紀，16(9)，14-17。
李平譯。經營多元智慧。臺北市：遠流出版社。(1997)。
李堅萍（2002）。PCK理論於九年一貫課程中的意義。研習資訊，19(4)，56-65。
李憶萍(1996)。一個高中生物教師教學表徵的詮釋性研究。高雄市：國立高雄師
範大學科學教育研究所碩士論文(未出版)。
朱敬先(1997)。教育心理學 : 教學取向。台北市 : 五南出版社。
林俊宏(1996)。國中生物實習教師學科教學知識之探究。國立彰化師範大學科學
教育研究所碩士論文(未出版)。
林曉雯 (1994)。國中生物教師教學表徵的詮釋性研究。國立台灣師範大學科學
教育研究所博士論文(未出版)。
林寶山(1994)。教學理論。臺北市：五南圖書。
佘曉清(1999)：生物教師的教學信念、教學、與師生互動-個案研究。科學教育
學刊,7(1),35-47。
邱美虹和江玉婷(1997)。初任與資深國中地球科學教師學科教學知識之比較。
科學教育學刊，5(4)419-459。
胡幼慧&姚美華(1996)。一些質性方法上的思考。胡幼慧主編。質性研究-理論、
方法及本土女性研究實例。臺北市：巨流出版社。
孫志麟 (1992)。教師自我效能及其相關因素之研究。國立政治大學教育研究所碩士論文(未出版)。
孫志麟（民81）。專家教師與生手教師的差異。師友，298，21～23。
高榮成和段曉林(民84)。化學實習教師學科教學知識之探究。科學教育，6 113-133。
張玉成（1999）。教師發問技巧，二版。台北市：心理出版社。
張惠博(1994)。初任科學教師認知與專業的成長。行政院國科會專題研究計畫成
果報告(NSC83-011-S-018-020F)，未出版。
張靜儀（1999）。由「地球運動」探討國小自然科學專家教師之教學知識與初
任教師之教學知識與教學實務。八十八學年度師範學院教育學術論文發表論文集，486-513。
張賴妙理（1999）。初任暨資深國中生物教師在運輸作用、遺傳與演化單元的教學表現之個案研究。國立台灣師範大學科學教育研究所博士論文（未出版）。
陳美玉(1998)。教師專業-教學法的省思與突破。高雄市：麗文文化。
陳英豪和吳裕益(民80)。測驗與評量。高雄市 : 復文圖書出版社。
許良榮(1996)。圖形與科學課文學習關係的探討。教育研究資訊，4(4)，121-131。
黃永和（1997）：「教學表徵」－－教師的教學法寶。國教世紀，178，17－24。
黃達三(1996)國小教師於科學教學中口語解釋研究（Ⅰ）。國科會專題報告，NSC 85-2511-S143-003。
黃夢怡(2004)。國小自然教師教學表徵對學生思考智能學習成效之個案研究。台北市：臺北市立師範學院科教育研究所碩士論文(未出版)。　
黃麗娟。職前化學教師在微試教學中的學科教學知識。彰化市：國立彰化師範大學科教育研究所碩士論文(未出版)。
葉辰楨（民85）。 國中初任與資深生物教師運用發問策略之比較研究。國立彰化師範大學科學教育研究所碩士論文(未出版)。
鄒慧英譯。測驗與評量 : 在教學上的應用。臺北市：紅葉文化。(2003)。
趙金祁(民81)：人文與科技平衡中科學教扮演的角色。中華民國世界和平教授學會八十一年度學術研討會。
劉麗玲(2000)。國中資深理化教師教學表徵之個案研究。彰化市：國立彰化師範
大學科教育研究所碩士論文(未出版)。
歐滄和(民91)。教育測驗與評量。臺北市 : 心理出版社。
謝甫宜（2001）。國小自然科教師應用發問策略促進有意義學習之詮釋性研究。國立高雄師範大學科學教育研究所碩士論文（未出版）。
謝秀月(2001)。國小自然科教師科學教學實踐知識與科學教學表徵之個案研究。
國立彰化師範大學科學教育研究所博士論文(未出版)。
鍾瑞珍 (2001): 國中生物教師教學表徵與學生學習之關係。國立高雄師範大學
科學教育研究所碩士論文。
藍治平、簡秀玲、張永達(2002)。教學表微多樣化的理論與應用-以國中生物「遺傳」的概念為例。科學教育月刊，248，41-53。
蕭速農(民84)。國小專家教師與初任教師的數學學科知識之分析與比較。新竹市：國立新竹師範學院初等教育研究所碩士論文(未出版)。
簡紅珠(1994)。師範生學科與學科教學的知識基礎。載於師範教育多元化與師資素質。臺北市：師大書苑。
簡茂發(1996)。教學評量。黃政傑 主編。教學評量。台北市 : 師大書苑。
羅素貞 (1996) 問題表徵與問題解決。屏東師院學報第九期。頁， 149-176。
嚴祥鸞(1996)。參與觀察法。胡幼慧主編。質性研究-理論、方法及本土女性研
究實例。臺北市：巨流。

二、英文部分
Anderson , R. D., & Mitchener, C. P. (1994). Research on science teacher education. In L. Gabel (Ed.), Handbook of research on science teaching and learning: A project of the National Science Teachers Association. New York: Macmillan Publishing Company.

Ball, D.L. (1988). Knowledge and reasoning in mathematical pedagogy: examining what prospective teachers bring with them to the teacher education. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Michigan State University.

Bellon, J. J., Bellon, E. C., ＆ Blank, M. A.(1992). Questioning and responding .
In J. J. Bellon, E. C. Bellon ＆ M. A. Blank(Eds.).Teaching From a Research KnowledgeBase: A Development and Renewal Process(pp. 307-401). New York:
Macmillan Publishing Company.

Berliner, D.C (1998). The development of expertise in pedagogy. Presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Association of colleges fog Teacher Education, Los Angeles. (ERIC Document Reproducation Service No. ED 298 122)

Bloom, B.S. (ed), (1956). Taxonomy of educational objectives: handbook 1 cognitive domain. NYC: David Mckay Company, 1956.

Blosser, E. (1980). Review of research : Teacher questioning behavior in science classrooms. Clearinghouse for Science, Mathematics and Education.

Borko, H., & Livington, C. (1989). Cognition and improvisation: Differences in mathematics instruction by expert and novice teahers. American Educational Research Journal, 26(4), 473-498.

Burry, J. A., & Bolland, K. A. (1992). Describing expert science teaching. Journal of Personnel Evaluation in Education, 5,313-319.

Campbell, L., Campbell, B. & Dickinson, D.(1996). Teaching and learning through multiple intelligences.

Carlsen, W. S. (1987). Why do you ask ? The effects of science teacher subject matter knowledge on teacher questioning and classroom discourse. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Washington DC.

Carpeenter, T. P.,Fennema,E.,Peterson,P.,& Carey,D.(1988).Teachers’ pedagogical content knowledge of students’problem soloving in elementary arithmetic.Journal for Research in Mathematics Education,19,385-401.

Clermont, C. P., Borko, H., & Krajcik, J. S. (1994). Comparative study of the pedagogical content knowledge of experienced and novice chemical demonstrators. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 31(4),419-441.

Dagher, Z.R. & Cossman, G. (1992). Verbal explanations Given by Science Teachers: Their Nature and implications. Journal of Research in Science Teaching. 29(4), 361-374.Educational Researcher,February,4-14.

Elbaz, F. (1991). Research on teacher’s knowledge: the evolution of a discourse. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 23(1),1-19.

Gall, M. D.(1970). The use of questioning in teaching. Review of Education Research, 40, 707-720.

Gardner, H.(1993). Multiple intelligences: The theory in practice. New York: Harper Collins.

Geddis,A.N.(1993).Transforming subject-matter knowledge：The role of pedagogical content knowledge in learning to reflect on teaching.International Journal of Science Education,15(6),673-683.

Gess-Newsome,J. & Lederman,N.G..(1993).Preservice biology teachers’ knowledge structures as a function of professional teacher education：A year-long assessment.Science Education,77(1),25-45.

Gilbert, S. W. (1992). Systematic questioning: Taxonomies that develop critical thinking skills. The Science Teacher, 59(12), 41-46.

Grossman, P. L., & Richert, A. (1988). Unacknowledged knowledge growth: A re-examination of the effect of teacher education. Teaching and Teacher Education, 4,53-62.

Grossman,P.L.,Wilson,S.M. & Shulman,L.(1989).Tecahers of substance：Subject matter knowledge for teaching.In M.C.Reynolds(Ed.),Knowledge Base for the Beginging Teacher(p.23-36).Oxford：Pergamon press.

Gudmundsdottir, S. (1988). Knowledge use among experienced teachers: Four case studies of high school teaching. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. Stanford University.

Hashweh,M.(1987).Effects of subject matter knowledge in the teaching of biology and physics.Teaching and Teacher Education,3(2),109-120.

Hauslein, P. L., Good, R. G., & Cummins, C. L. (1992). Biology content cognitive structure: From science student to science teacher. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 29(9),939-946.

Hieberrt, J., & Carpenter, T. P.（1992）. Learning and teaching with understanding. In D. A. Grouws （Ed.）, Handbook of research on mathematics teaching and learning（pp.65-97）. New York： Macmillan.

Horwood, R.H. (1998). Explanation and description in science teaching. Science Education, 72(1), 41-49.

Keeves,J.P.,& Aikenhead,G..S.(1995).Science curricular in a changing world.In B.J.Fraser,&H.J.Walberg(Eds.),Improving science education.Chicago：The National Society for the Study of Education.

Kennedy, M. M.(1990).Trends and isseus in：teacher’s subject matter knowledge.Washington and American Association of College for Teacher Ed.(ERIC Document Reproduction Service NO.322100

Kerry, T. (1982). Effective questioning: Ateaching skills workbook. Hong Kong:  
 Machillan Education LTD.

Kibler R. J., et al. (1974). Objectives for instruction and evaluation. (2nd ed.). Boston: Allyn and Bacon.

Leinhardt, G.. & Smith, D. A. (1995). Expertise in mathematics instruction: Subject matter knowledge. Journal of Educational Psychology, 77(3), 247-271.

Lin, S. W., & Yang, J. H. (1998). Biology teachers’ knowledge base of instructional representations. Proceedings of the National Science Council. ROC(D), 8(1),22-32.

MacDonald, D. (1996). Making both the nature of science and science subject matter explicit intent of science teaching. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 7(3), 183-196.

McDiarmid, G. W., Ball, D. L., & Anderson, C. W. (1989). Why staying one
chapter ahead doesn‘t really work: subject-specific pedagogy. In M. C.
Reynolds(Ed.), Knowledge base for the beginning teacher. New York:
Pergamon Press.

Muscari, P. G. (1988). The metaphor in science and in the science classroom.
Science Education. 72 (4). 423-431.

Paivio, A. (1986). Mental Representaions. A Dual Coding Approach. New York：Oxford University Press.

Penick,J.E. & Yager,R.E.(1983).The Search for Excellence in Science Education.Phi Delta Kappan,May,621-623.

Phye, G..D. & Andre T.(Ed.)(1986). Cognitive Classroom Learning: Understanding, Thinking, and Problem Solving. San Diego: Academic.

Shulman, L. S. (1986). Those who understand: Knowledge growth in teaching. Educational Researcher, February, 4-14.

Shulman, L. S. (1987). Knowledge and teaching: Foundations of the new reform. Harvard Educational Review, 57(1),1-22.

Tamir, P. (1988). Subject matter and related pedagogical knowledge in teacher education. Teaching & Teacher Education, 4(2),99-110.

Tobin, K., & Fraser, B. J. (1989). Case studies of exemplary science and mathematics teaching. School Science and Mathematics, 89(4),320-334.

Veenman, S. (1984). Perceived problems of beginning teachers. Review of Educational Research, 54(2),143-178.

Westerman, D. A. (1990). A study of expert and novice teacher decision making: an integrated approach. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 322 128)

Westerman, D.A. (1991). Expert and novice teacher decision making. Journal of Teacher Education, 42(4), 192-305.

Wilen, W.W. (1991). Questioning Skills, for Teachers (3rd ed.). What Research Says to the Teacher Series, Washington, D.C.: National Education Association.