本研究旨在以教師知識為主題，試圖探討一位國中數學專家教師的教學專
業知識，進入教學現場，觀察其教學實況，訪談其教育理念，並希望藉著研究發
現，讓眾人瞭解與思考數學教學的實際狀況、深刻瞭解個案教師之教學表現；分
析、討論個案教師教學表現背後所展現出的教學專業知識；探討專家教師教學專
業知識之內涵；綜合歸納、說明個案教師教學成功之要素，期能對個案教師教學
有完整的了解，並為一般從事教學之教師，帶來教學靈感與創新教學，也引發教
師教學創新發展的動力。
為達成以上目的，本研究首先搜集國內外相關文獻，深入探討並設計研究
的概念架構，其次依循研究目的與待答問題編擬研究計劃、確立研究個案，採取
詮釋性研究法，研究者以本身為主要的研究工具，進入研究情境之後，研究者利
用參與教學現場觀察、訪談、文件蒐集等方式蒐集資料。研究者在檢核、分析、
歸納與個案教師有關的資料資料以後，除說明其所理解的教學專業知識外，並分
析該個案老師教學表現的成因與教學特質、其教學表現的主要形態，以及其成功
的教學創新動因。
綜合上述研究的結果，研究者提出了對國中數學教師的建議：不斷充實
教學專業知識、以學生為中心的教學模式、不斷反省自己的教學歷程、勇於改變
具終身學習的理念。另外，研究者並且對數學師資培育單位的建議：均衡的培育
教學專業知識、培養教師自我檢視教學知識的能力、完成領域教學的專業培育。
最後，研究者亦對後續研究的重點、方法以及對象等方面，提出建議事項。

The aim of this study is to explore teacher’s knowledge, seeking to discuss the
professional teaching knowledge of a junior high school mathematics expert teacher.
Getting into on the spot teaching to observe its practical teaching and interview its
teaching philosophies. Hoping that through the research findings, all the people could
realize and think over the practical mathematics teaching conditions, and have
profound understanding of the teacher’s teaching performance of the case study;
analyze and discuss the performed professional teaching knowledge underlies the
teacher’s teaching performance of the case study; discuss the contents of the expert
teacher’s professional teaching knowledge; integrate and generalize and interpret
successful factors of the teacher’s teaching of the case study, and hope for a complete
understanding of the teacher’s teaching of the case study, furthermore, to bring the
teaching inspiration and innovation to teachers in general, and also induce teacher’s
power to make teaching innovation development.
To achieve above objectives, firstly, the study collects relevant literature from
domestic and oversea, goes deep into discussion and designs study concept
framework. Secondly, compiles study plan and sets up study case in accordance with
study object and questions for reply. By taking interpretive methodology, the
researcher makes itself as a principle study tool, and after enter into the study status,
the researcher collects data by means of attending at on the spot teaching observation,
interview and paper collection. After the researcher exams, analyzes and generalizes
the data in connection with the teacher of the case study, in addition to interpret the
realized professional teaching knowledge, the researcher also analyzes the factors of
the teacher’s teaching performance and teaching specialty, teaching performance and
main form, and successful teaching innovation motives.
Combine the above study outcomes, the researcher proposed junior high
school mathematic teacher with following recommendations: fulfill professional
teaching knowledge unceasingly, student centralized teaching mold, introspect
teaching progress continuously and has the courage to change and hold the ideal of
lifetime learning. Moreover, the researcher also recommends the teacher education
institution of mathematics teachers of following: maintain the equilibrium cultivation
of professional teaching knowledge, cultivate teacher’s ability to self-exam teaching
knowledge and complete professional field teaching cultivation. Finally, the
researcher also recommends focus, approach and subject for the future study.

一、中文部分：
王仁癸（民89）。教育在知識經濟時代的因應與挑戰。載於中國教育學會主編：
新世紀教育願景（頁210）。臺北：臺灣。
王懷權（民70）。數學發展史。臺北：協進。
朱柔若譯（民89）。社會研究法。譯自Lawrence Neuman 社會科學研究方法與資
料分析，臺北﹕揚智。
邱守榕（民85）。數學教育的全民化。原載於「學校教育一學門資源整合規劃修
訂」研究報告第二章第二節。2002 年12 月16 日， 取自
http://www.bio.ncue.edu.tw/c&t/issuel-8/v8-2.htm
呂秋文（民89）。新數學教材教法。臺北：五南。
岳修平譯（民87）。教學心理學一學習的認知基礎。臺北：遠流。
林清江（民76）。教育社會學新論（四版）。臺北：五南。
林進材（民86）。教師教學思考一理論研究與運用。高雄：復文。
林進材（民88）。教學研究與發展。臺北：五南。
林曉雯（民83）。國中生物教師教學表徵的詮釋性研究。國立臺灣師範大學科學
教育研究所博士論文，未出版，臺北。
林福來（民86）。教學思維的發展﹕整合數學教學知識的教材教法1/3。國科會
專題研究計劃成果報告，未出版，臺北。
林福來（民90）。數學師資教育研究。國立臺北師範學院演講，臺北。
尚榮安譯（民90）。個案研究。臺北：弘智。
柳賢（民88）。數理科教師教學能力指標與評鑑工具研究。原載於「高雄師範大
學舉辦中小學教師素質與評量研討會」會議手冊，117-132。2002 年10 月31
日取自http：//140.127.40.7/~edu/item/item3-article7.htm
桂冠前膽教育叢書編輯組譯。（民88）。教師角色。譯自Heck, S. F.& illiams,C.R.
原著：The Complex Role of the Teacher：an ecological prespective，
臺北﹕桂冠。
郭玉霞（民81）。簡介修曼的教學知識概念。師友月刊，302，35-37。
教育部（民87）。國民中學學生基本學力指標。臺北：教育部。
教育部（民89）。國民中小學九年一貫課程綱要。臺北﹕教育部。
黃光雄（民79）。教學原理。臺北。師大書苑。
黃敏晃，余霖，李瑞（民85）。大陸高中數學科教育內容之研究。教育研究資訊，
4（3），70-85。
游淑燕（民82）。專家與生手教學表現之比較研究及其對師範教育課程與教學之
啟示。嘉義師院學報，7，207-236。
張景中（民89）。把數學變得容易一點。載於嚴士健主編﹕數學家談數學教育，
（頁80-91）。臺北﹕九章。
張景媛（民86）。如何讓新手教師成為專家教師。測驗與輔導，145 期，3008-3010。
張惠昭（民85）。高中英文教師教學專業知識之探究。臺灣師範大學教育學系碩
士論文，未出版，臺北。
張瑜弦（民90）。專家教師專業知識之個案研究一以一位英語教師為例。臺灣師
範大學教育學系碩士論文，未出版，臺北。
張憶壽，（民80）。怎樣解題。譯polor，1944 原序文。臺北﹕長橋。
賈馥茗（民90）。序文。載於單文經著﹕教學引論（首頁）。臺北：學富。
楊國賜（民90）。知識經濟的崛起與影響。教育研究月刊，89，9-12。
歐用生(民85)。教師專業成長。臺北：師大書苑。
謝秀月(民90)。國小自然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，彰化。
謝寶梅（民85）。專家教師與實習教師的教學思考及教學行動之比較研究。臺北﹕
師大書苑。
鍾瑞珍（民90）。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，未出版，高雄。
鍾靜（民89）。學生學習為中心的數學教學特質分析研究。國科會八十九年度第
一期專題研究計劃成果報告。NSC 89-2511-S-152-003。
簡紅珠（民83）。教師的學科教學知識一概念解析與啟思。載於中國師範教育學
會主編：教師權力與責任。臺北：師大書苑。
簡紅珠（民85）。國小專家與生手教師的班級管理實作與決定之研究。教育研究
資訊，4(4)，36-48。
譚寧君(民85)。解題導向的數學教育。載於黃政傑主編：數學科教材教法，（頁
19-43）。臺北：師大書苑。
二、英文部分：
Ber1iner, D.C.(1986). In pursuit of the expert pedagogue. Educational Researcher,
15(7) 5-13.
Ber1iner, D.C.(1988). The development of expertise in pedagogy.（ERIC Document
Reproduction Service No. ED 298122）
Borko, H.& Livngston, C.（1989）.Cognition and improvisaction: Differences in
mathematics instruction by expert and novice teachers. American Education Research Journal,26（4）,473-498.
Borko, H. & Shavlson, R, J.（1990）.Teacher’s thinking about instruction. Remedical
and Special Education, 11（6）,40-49.
Brophy, J. E, & Good, T. L.（1986）.Teacher behavior and student achievement. In M.
C. Wittrock,（Ed.）. Handbook of research on teaching（3rd ed）（pp.328-375.）.
New York.: Macmillan.
Calderhead, J.（1983）. Research into teacher’s and student teacher’s cognition:
Exploring the nature of classroom practice.Papper presented at the annual meeting
of the American Educational Research Association, Montreal.
Christansen, B., & Walter, G.（1986）.Task and activity. In Christansen, B. et al
（Eds.）.Perspectives on mathematics education. The Netherlands: D. Reidel.
Cochran, K.F., DeRuiter, J. A.,& King, R. A. (1991,Apri1). Pedagogica1 content
knowledge: A tentative model for teacher preparation. Paper presented at the
annua1 meeting of the American Educationa1 Research Association Chicago, IL.
Cochran,K.F., DeRuiter, J. A.& King, R. A. (l993). Pedagogica1 content knowing: An
integrative mode1 for teacher preparation. Journa1 of Teacher Education, 44(4),
263-272.
Cooney, T. J. (1994). Teacher education as an exercise in adaptation. In D. B. Aichele
& A. F. Coxford(Eds.), Professional development for teachers of mathematics: 1994
yearbook (pp. 9-22). Reston: NCTM.
Dawson, S （1999）. The enactive perspective on teacher development:‘A path laid
while walking’. In B. Jaworski, T. Wood, & S. Dawson（Eds.）, Mathematics
Teacher Education :Critical International Perspectives（pp.148-162）. London: Falmer
Press.
Duffe, L., & Aikenhead, G. (1992). Curriculum change student evaluation, and
teacher practical knowledge. Science Education, 76(5), 493-506.
Fogarty.J .L., Wand, M. C., & Creek, R. (1983) . A descriptive study of experienced
and novice teacher’s interactive instructiona1 thoughts and action. Journal of
Educational Reaserch, 77, 22-32.
Fenema, E. ,& Frankc, M. L. (1992). Teacher’s knowledge and its impact. In D. A.
Grouws (Ed.). Handbook of research on mathematics teaching and learning
(pp.l47-l64). New York: Macmillan .
Gandy, J. S.（1993）. Comparison of mastr and novice physical therapy teachers:
Planning, teaching and post-leason reflections. Unpublished doctoral dissertation
Temple University .
Goodell, J. （2000）. Learning to teacher mathematics for understanding : The role of
refection. Mathematics Teacher Education and Development, Vol. 2, 48-61.
Grossman, P. L., & Richert, A. E.（1988）. Unacknowledged knowledge growth: A re-examination of the effects of teacher education. Teaching & Teacher Education,4
（1）,53-62.
Grossman, P. L.,（1990）. The making of a teacher: Teacher knowledge and teacher
education: New York: Teachers College,Columbia University.
Grossman, P. L & Stodolsky, S. S. （1994）. Consideration of content and the
circumstances of secondary school teaching. In L Darling-Hammond （Ed.）,Review
of research in education,20,179-222.
Korenich, R. J.（1988）.Reflecting on practive: A case study of novice and expert
teachers.Unpublished Doctoral dissertation, University of Pittsburgh, AAC
8911377.
Lerman, S. (1999), A review of research perspectives on mathematics teacher
education. Proceedings of Internationa1 conferance on Mathematics Teacher
Education (pp.l10-133).
Marja van den Heuvel-Panhuizen （1998）. Realistic mathematics education work in
progress. Web-site Freudenthal Institute, Retrieved November 20,2002, from
http://www.fi.uu.nl. Norway.
Mcdiarmid,G. W., Ba1l, 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 (pp. 193-206). Oxford Pergamon Press.
National Council of Teachers of Mathematics (1991). Pripciples standards for
teaching mathematics. Reston, VA: NTCM
National Council of Teachers of Mathematics (2000). Principles and Standard for
SchooI Mathematics. Reston, VA: NTCM
Niss, M. (1996). Goals of mathematics Teaching. In J. Kilpatrick (Eds.). International
handbook of mathematics education, Section 1, （pp.11-47）. The Netherlands:
Kluwer Academic .
Peterson, P. L. (1988). Teachers and students’ cognitional knowledge for classroom
teaching and learning. Educational Researcher, 17(5)，5-14.
Putnam, R. T., Lampert, M. , & Peterson, P. L.(1990). A1ternative perspectives on
knowing mathematics in elementary schools. In C. B. Cazden(Ed.), Review of
research in education (pp.57-150). Washington, DC: American Educational
Research Associatlon.
Shimada, S. (1977). Open-ended approach in arithmetic and mathematics: A new
plan for improvement of lessons. Tokyo:Mizuumi Shobou.
Shulman, L. S. (l986). Those who understand: Knowledge growth in teaching.
Educational Researche, 15(2), 4-14.
Shulman, L. S. (l987). Knowledge and teaching:Foundations of the new reform.
Harvard Educational Review, 57（l）, 1-22.
Simon, M. A., & Schifter, D. (1991). Towards a constructivist perspective: An
intervention study of mathematics teacher development. Education Studies in
Mathematics, 22, 309-331.
Simon, M. A. (2000). Reconsidering mathematical validation in the classroom.
PME24,（4）, 161-169.
Sternberg, R., & Horvath, J. A.（1995）.A prototype view of expert teaching.
Education Research,24,9-17.
Tamir, P. (1991). Professional and personal knowledge of teachers and teacher
educators. Teaching & Teacher Education, 7(3), 263-268.
Takeuchi. Y. & Sawada, T. (1984). From problem to problem. Tokyo: Toyokan.
Thompson, A. G. (1992). Teachers’ beliefs and conceptions: A synthesis of the
research. In Grouws, A. (Ed.), Handbook of research on mathematics teaching and
learning (pp.127-146). NY: Macmillan.
Voigt, J. （1995）. Thematic patterns of interaction and sociomathematical norrns. In
P. Cobb & H. Bauersfeld (Eds.). The emergence of mathematical meaning:
Interaction in classroom cultures（pp. 163-201）. Hillsdale. NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Westerman, D. A.（1991）. Expert and novice teacher decision making. Journal of
Teacher Education, 42（4）,292-305.
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). London: Cassell.