本研究的目的是想建立一個能夠做為分析跨國生物課堂錄影研究的分析架構，並且藉由本研究的重新詮釋，分析TIMSS-R錄影研究於2011年所釋出的五國科學課堂錄影資料，進而提供不同國家的教學資訊以及可供臨摹參考的教學優點。
本研究為質性研究，採用詮釋研究法，並且歷經「初始期」、「釐清期與發展期」以及「調整期與固定期」共三個階段的資料分析，最後決定以教學表徵、Kikan-Shido、教學行為以及教科書的使用情形來分析各國於不同教學歷程間，所呈現的結果異同。
研究結果發現五個國家教師使用教學表徵於課堂教學的比率大致上都高於74%，由此顯示出各國教師都是相當重視每一堂課可以傳授知識給學生的機會。但其中美國教師使用教學表徵於課前複習上的比率，遠遠高出於其他的教學歷程時期；也就是說美國僅花了不到29％的時間教授與當日課程目標有關的概念知識。再者，教師的「口語解釋」教學表徵是科學教師常使用的教學表徵；但唯獨美國教師在「口語解釋」教學表徵的使用比率上偏低，較偏好於使用「圖表呈現」或「多媒體教學」的教學表徵，來替代「口語解釋」於教學上的功能。
如果要觀察一個教師的教學特色，可分析各國教師於IPA及PSM的時間內所偏好使用的教學轉化方法，例如：捷克及荷蘭教師皆重視「問答引導」於概念上的教學呈現；「荷蘭」教師相當重視學生的獨立學習，並且給予班上學生足夠的時間以建構屬於學生自己的知識。澳洲及日本教師則認為全班進行「小組合作學習」的時候，是一個能夠讓教師與學生距離拉近的機會，不僅較容易提供個別學生適性教學，也是一個創造友善教學的機會。在總結課堂知識上，可以發現澳洲、捷克及美國的教師都喜歡使用「作業練習」教學活動來達到教學複習的目的。捷克教師更是使用了「多媒體」教學表徵來幫學生總節當日所學的課程內容；而日本教師是藉由全班一起念課文，以及寫下板書重點來做為一堂課的結束。
教科書的使用上，可以發現最忠實於教科書的國家為荷蘭；捷克及日本是採部份依循，美國及澳洲國家則是依據教師的專業，採用自編講義來達到教學的目標。
Kikan-Shido的使用上，可以發現美國教師是扮演一個監控教學進度以及提拱學生適時引導的角色，並不是主動的教學者。荷蘭教師則是藉由這段時間搭建概念鷹架來引導學生思考問題、指導學生學習、監控教學進度或用來增進師生間的感情交流。日本藉由Kikan-Shido給予學生於學習上鼓舞、打氣，以及透過不斷的提問以引導學生主動思考；尤其特別的是，日本教師非常重視學生上台分享學習成果的經驗，這是日本教師獨有的教師信念。他認為給予學生練習上台分享的機會，可以提升學生於學習的自信心。
捷克教師不是很重視以學生為主的學習活動，因此她使用Kikan-Shido於一堂課裡的時間比例極為低；多用於監控全班學習進度或者是提供全班有關作業如何書寫的教學資訊。這段時間對於捷克教師來說，並不是一個可以進行師生互動的機會，只是學生用來檢討自己學習程度的時間。澳洲教師非常重視Kikan-Shido的使用，並且善用Kikan-Shido的教學功能；除了輔助學生學習，並且創造一個更具友善的教學環境，使學生降低學習焦慮。

The purpose of this study is to establish a coding framework for video analysis that can be used for cross-national comparison of biology classes. Subsequently, the framework was attempted on the TIMSS-R videotapes data that were released in 2011, thereby illuminating the advantages and disadvantages of different teaching strategies adopted by biology teachers in different countries.
In order to achieve its purpose, this study adopted a mixed method design by first comparing and contrasting several existing frameworks for coding videos that led eventually to the compilation of a new framework that is intended to be applicable in a cross-national settings. The whole process involved three phases, starting from the initial stage, the clarification and development stage, and then finalizing into the adjustment stage that settled on incorporating the comparison of various instructional representations, instruction activities, Kikan-Shido (or between-desks-instructions), teaching behavior and textbooks usage into the framework.
The results indicated that teachers in all five countries, namely, Australia, Czech Republic, Japan, the Netherlands, and the United States, used “instructional representation to explain biological contents” with at least 74% of the time, indicating that the importance of this instructional approach. It was noticed that the usage of “instructional representation to explain biological contents” by the American teacher for reviewing was far higher than for other purposes, which amounted to reflecting that the American teacher took less than 29% of the teaching time for teaching the topic of the day. Furthermore, the ratio of verbal explanation by the American teacher was lower than those by teachers of the other countries. Besides verbal explanation, the American teacher resorted to using more graphical illustration and multi-media.
On the other hand, it was noticed that comparing the relative approach to “teaching process” within the IPA and PSM process was an appropriate way to analyze the teaching characteristics of teachers from the five countries. For example teachers from the Czech Republic and The Netherlands preferred to use question-and-answer approach as a pedagogical means for guided conceptual learning. In contrast, the Dutch teacher valued independent learning by students and allowed them more time to construct their own knowledge. However, the teachers from Australia and Japan regarded group learning as a good opportunity that allowed closer interaction between the teacher and students. Not only was it easier to provide adaptive teaching to individual students, but it also created a friendly teaching environment. The analysis revealed various usage of instructional representations across countries in teaching biological concepts and sub-concepts as well as in the clarification of any misconceptions.
The analysis of the PSM process revealed that for the Australian, the Czech Republic’s and the American teachers preferred to give students assignments in order to achieve the purpose of teaching review. The Czech Republic’s teacher, in addition, adopted a multi-media teaching, while the Japanese teacher let the whole class read the text in unison and wrote the summary of the lesson on the board at end of class.
As for “textbooks usage”, it was found that the Dutch teacher made use of the textbooks at the highest rates in comparison to his peers. The teachers from the Czech Republic and Japan used the textbooks part of the time, while the American and the Australian teachers preferred to use handouts while they taught. These practices seemed to depend on the teachers’ subject matter knowledge of Biology, pedagogical content knowledge and their personal preference.
As regards the feature of “Kikan-Shido,” it was noticed that the American teacher used Kikan-Shido as a way to monitor the learning progress of students and to give them guidance in a timely manner. The Dutch teacher used Kikan-Shido to provide scaffolding as a special form of explanation, guiding students to think along with the questions, monitoring the progress of students and promoting closer interaction between the teacher and students.
The way the Japanese teacher used Kikan-Shido was in encouraging the students to learn and in guiding them to think by asking questions. It was regarded as an instructional act related to the on-task activity and intended to motivate and to provide support and feedback to individuals or to groups of students. The teacher of Czech Republic placed less emphasis on student-centered activities. Kikan-Shido was used as a means for monitoring and in providing instructional information regarding how the assignments should be written. It was not a time for teacher and students interaction, but rather for students to reflect on their own progresses.
Finally, the Australian teacher made extensive use of Kikan-Shido in the lesson for an extended periods of time. It was interpreted that the teacher consciously regarded that he could use various instructional practices to create a friendly teaching environment, thereby implicitly reducing the potential power differences between the teacher and the students.

一、中文文獻
方炳林（1972）。普通教學法。台北市：三民。
方炳林（1979）。教學原理。台北市：教育文物出版社。
王文科（1993）。教育研究法。台北市：五南。
王文科（2007）。課程與教學論。台北市：五南。
王品心（2008）。台北縣國小四年級數學教學錄影研究（未出版之碩士論文）。台北市立教育大學，台北市。取自http://handle.ncl.edu.tw/11296/ndltd/30175476693500516495。
王振鴻（2000）。國小教師對九年一貫課程之變革關注及其影響因素研究（未出版之博士論文）。國立政治大學教育學系，台北市。
王財印、吳百祿、周新富（2004）。敎學原理。台北：心理。
王國華、段曉林、張惠博（1998a）。學生對教師之學科教學知覺問卷之發展。科學教育學刊，6（2），129-147。
王國華、段曉林、張惠博（1998b）。國中學生對科學教師學科教學之知覺。科學教育學刊，6（4），363-381。
江文慈（1992）。斐哥斯基「近側發展區」之基本概念及其在教學上的應用，現代教育，7（28）， 145-156。
吳心楷、宋曜廷、簡馨瑩（2010）。錄影分析在教育研究的應用。教育科學研究期刊，55（4），1-37。
吳文忠（譯）（1997）。課堂研究。台北：五南。
吳幸宜（譯）（1994）。學習理論與教學應用。台北：心理。
吳姿芬（2009）。臺北縣國小四年級教師數學教學之分析研究（未出版之碩士論文）。台北市立教育大學，台北市。取自http://handle.ncl.edu.tw/11296/ndltd/32598818460380045412。
李咏吟（1995）。教學原理。台北：遠流。
李奉儒（譯）（2002）。質性教育研究：理論與方法。台北：濤石文化事業有限公司。
李宗薇（1998）。 教學設計，載於黃政傑（主編），教學原理，67- 116。台北:師大書苑。
李宛玲（2009）。台北市國小四年級教師數學教學樣貌之分析研究（未出版之碩士論文）。台北市立教育大學，台北市。取自http://handle.ncl.edu.tw/11296/ndltd/39630219861787745698。
李春芳（1999）。教師效能談流暢的教學效能。教師天地，102，27－34。
李源順（2005）。學生教師運用知識庫學習數學教學：理論與實務的連結。科學教育學刊，13（1），53-70。
李憶萍（1996）。一個高中生物教師教學表徵的詮釋性研究（未出版之碩士論文）。國立高雄師範大學，高雄市。取自http://handle.ncl.edu.tw/11296/ndltd/25564980942288706959。
沈中偉（1994）。魏考斯基理論在認知策略上的應用。教學科技與媒體，13，23-31。
沈鴻明（1995）。國中學生神經系統之概念發展。（未出版之碩士論文）。國立彰化師範大學科學教育研究所，彰化市。
林志彥（1998）。教學策略與學生對科學的態度之關係：一位國中生物教師之個案研究（未出版之碩士論文）。國立高雄師範大學科學教育研究所碩士論文，高雄市。
林佩璇（2000）。個案研究及其在教育研究上的應用。載於中正大學教育學研究所主編，質的研究方法，239-263。高雄市：麗文文化。
林芬遠（1997）。國中生物課口語之探討（未出版之碩士論文）。國立台北教育大學，台北市。取自http://handle.ncl.edu.tw/11296/ndltd/41686807651422331776。
林芬遠、段曉林、孫國燕（1998）。國中生物課教室口語之探究。載於國立高雄師範大學（主編），中華民國第十四屆科學教育學術研討會暨第十一屆科學教育學會年會會議手冊及短篇論文彙編（477-485頁）。高雄：國立高雄師範大學。
林俊宏（1996）。國中生物實習教師學科教學知識之探究（未出版之碩士論文）。國立彰化師範大學，彰化。取自http://handle.ncl.edu.tw/11296/ndltd/31629574271291635574。
林陳涌、童麗珠（2000）生物實驗教學能力重要性評估比較研究。師大學報：科學教育類，45（2），21-38。
林曉雯（1994）。國中生物教師教學表徵的詮釋性研究（未出版之博士論文）。國立臺灣師範大學科學教育研究所，台北市。
林曉雯（1997）。國小自然科教師的學科專門知識與科學教學實務的關係(I)。國科會研究計畫，NSC 86-2511-S-153-003。
邱美虹（1993）。類比與科學概念的學習。科學教育，1（6），79-90。
邱鴻麟、梁惠玉（1997）。高中化學教師口語解釋之詮釋研究。科學與教育學報，1，211-234。
洪佳慧（2002）。由教科書內容與性別面向分析我國國二學生在第三次國際數學與科學教育成就研究後續調查 (TIMSS-R) 的學習表現-生命科學以及環境與資源議題部分（未出版之碩士論文）。國立臺灣師範大學科學教育研究所，台北市。
洪思雅（2008）。南部地區國小四年級數學教學錄影研究（未出版之碩士論文）。台北市立教育大學，台北市。 取自http://handle.ncl.edu.tw/11296/ndltd/51605890213839849712。
洪郁雯、楊德清（2006）。具體表徵融入數學教學之探究。屏師科學教育，23，30-38。
洪煌堯（2012）。紮根理論研究法在數位學習研究上的應用-數位學習研究方法，137-162，台北市：高等教育出版社。
洪瑞鎂（1990）。從「第三次國際數學與科學教育成就研究後續調查」 探究台灣國二學生的數學基本能力（未出版之碩士論文）。國立臺灣師範大學數學研究所，台北市。
夏應慈（2004）。國小教師在統整課程的教學表徵之研究-以「校園自然生態之美」為例（未出版之碩士論文）。國立台中師範學院自然科學教育學系，台中。
徐淑芬（2009）。南部地區國小四年級數學課堂教學解析（未出版之碩士論文）。台北市立教育大學，台北市。取自http://handle.ncl.edu.tw/11296/ndltd/30531727359104273692。
馬湘宜（2009）。中部地區國小四年級教師數學教學之分析研究（未出版之碩士論文）。台北市立教育大學，台北市。取自http://handle.ncl.edu.tw/11296/ndltd/50621293837813770568。
張一誠（2001）。由我國國中教科書內容分析國二學生在第三次國際數學與科學教育成就研究後續調查 (TIMSS-R) 之表現：物理、科學探究與科學本質以及地球科學部分（未出版之碩士論文）。國立臺灣師範大學科學教育研究所，台北市。
張玉成（1999）。教師發問技巧之外－論鼓勵學生發問暨教師回答技巧之重要性。國民教育，39（3），47－53。
張芬芬（2007）。後現代質性研究：特徵及其對課程研究的蘊義。課程與教學季刊，013（003），0031-0048。
張芬芬（譯）（2006）。質性研究資料分析（修訂版），台北市:雙葉。
張春興（1996）。教育心理學─三化理論的取向與實踐。台北市：東華。
張添洲（2000）。技術職業教育發展。台北市：五南。
張煌熙（1993）。班級環境品質與改善。載於黃政傑、李隆盛主編，班級經營理念與策略（33-42）。台北：師大書苑。
張謝玲（2004）。宜蘭區某國中國二學生科學成效影響因子之探討-引用國際調查報告TIMSS—R 之研究方法（未出版之碩士論文）。國立臺灣師範大學物理研究所，台北市。
教育部（2008）。97年國民中小學九年一貫課程綱要。台北市：教育部。
郭丁熒（2001）。「教師角色轉化」模式之建構，國民教育研究集刊，7，183-252。
郭玉霞（1996）。教師在課程實施中扮演的角色。國民教育研究集刊，4，53-59。
郭銘哲（2003）。高中生活科技教師教學表徵之個案研究。國立高雄師範大學工業科技教育學系（未出版之碩士論文）。國立高雄師範大學，高雄市。取自http://handle.ncl.edu.tw/11296/ndltd/39985859780934557980。
陳敏健（2001）。以批判對話分析法探討國小自然科教學中師生的語文行為、立場和知識（未出版之碩士論文）。國立台中師範學院自然科學教育所，台中。取自http://handle.ncl.edu.tw/11296/ndltd/93948020844186606876。
陳梅香（2009）。探討鷹架式網路形成科學議題課程對國小學生形成科學議題能力與科學探究能力之影響（未出版之碩士論文）。國立交通大學教育研究所，新竹。
陸健體（1995）。關於世界的問答：科學說明。台北市：淑馨。
單文經（1999）。欣見全方位的課程改革、期待真正落實教學改革。教學資料與研究，26，40-41。
彭姌齡、張必隱（2000）。認知心理學，台北：東華書局。
游家政（1998）。教科書選用的問題與改進。北縣教育，21，75-83。
湯梅英（1999）。課程改革：限制與可能。國教新知，1（46），10-19。
黃上芬（1997）。國中理化課程轉化之研究（未出版之碩士論文）。國立臺灣師範大學教育研究所，台北市。
黃永和（1997）。教學表徵-教師的教學法寶。國教世紀，178，17-24。
黃光雄（1991）。教學的概念、模式及策略。載於黃光學主編，教育概論。台北：師大書苑。
黃光雄、蔡清田（1999）。課程設計：理論與實際。台北：五南。
黃光雄、簡茂發（1991）。教育研究法。台北：師大書苑。
黃幸美（2010）。數學課程轉化與教學之探討。研討會主持人（吳青山），東南亞地區課程改革脈絡下課程轉化議題國際學術研討會。台北市立教育大學。
黃政傑（1985）。課程改革。台北：漢文。
黃政傑（1991）。課程設計。台北：東華。
黃政傑（1997）。教學的意義與模式。教學原理，1-25。台北：師大書苑。
葉連祺（2002）。九年一貫課程與基本能力轉化。教育研究月刊，6，49~63。
詹耀宗（1995）。科學教學中之語言行為：一位國民中學理化老師之詮釋性研究（未出版之碩士論文）。國立高雄師範大學科學教育研究所，高雄。
熊同鑫（1998）。語言在自然科教室的角色：學童對話分析。第十四屆科學教育學術研討會短篇論文彙編，107-113。
劉昭宏（1996）。臺灣地區編輯教科書的選擇與設計。載於兩岸圖書出版合作研討會專輯（三），109-118。台北：出版人。
劉麗玲（2015）。國民小學學童品德行為評量指標建構之研究（未出版之碩士論文）。中臺科技大學，台中。取自http://handle.ncl.edu.tw/11296/ndltd/81459890220930926029。
歐用生（1994）。做一個有反省能力的教師。研習資訊，11（5），1-6。
歐用生（1996）。教師專業成長。台北：師大書苑。
歐用生（2000）。課程改革。台北：師大書苑。
鄭子善、張惠博（2006）。教學影像研究方法初探。教育與發展，6，109-118。
鄭肇楨（1987）。教師教育。香港：中文大學出版社。
鄭雙慧（2008）。中部區國小四年級數學教學錄影研究（未出版之碩士論文）。台北市立教育大學，台北市。取自http://handle.ncl.edu.tw/11296/ndltd/4937638145491554876。
盧珍瑩（2006）。運用鷹架理論於國小二年級科學概念學習之研究-以「聲音」教學為例（未出版之碩士論文）。國立屏東教育大學數理教育研究所，屏東縣。
謝小岑、范信賢（1999）。九年一貫課程中的學生主體性。中華民國課程與教學學會主編：九年一貫課程之展望，127-143。台北：揚智出版社。
謝秀月（2001）。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（未出版之博士論文）。國立彰化師範大學，彰化。取自http://handle.ncl.edu.tw/11296/ndltd/56899530797173664478。
謝秀月、郭重吉（2001）。國小自然科教師學科教學實踐知識與科學教學表徵之個案研究。科學教育，12，147-156。取自http://www.airitilibrary.com/Publication/alDetailedMesh?DocID=10195904-200208-x-12-147-163-a。
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，高雄市。
簡錦鳳（2007）。文字鷹架對七年級學生科學解釋能力的影響（未出版之碩士論文）。國立臺灣師範大學科學教育研究所，台北市。
簡馨瑩（2006）。國小教師之教學專業發展研究：以閱讀策略教學為例。國立臺灣師範大學教育心理與輔導學系在職進修碩士班學位論文，台北市。
簡馨瑩、宋曜廷、張國恩（2010）。變與不變：兩位國小教師學習自詢策略教學之歷程分析 Change or Not Change: An Analysis of Learning Self-Generating Question Strategy of Two Elementary School Teachers。 教育心理學報， 40（4）。
藍治平、張永達（2002）。國中生物教師資訊行為再探討。圖書館學與資訊科學， 28，21-34。
藍治平、簡秀玲、張永達（2002）。教學表徵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。
藍珍梅（2008）。台北市國小四年級數學教學錄影研究（未出版之碩士論文）。台北市立教育大學，台北市。取自http://handle.ncl.edu.tw/11296/ndltd/24819994996347513642。
譚克平、粘富閔（2011年12月）。生物教師與課程、學習者的互動關係與轉化行為分析探討－以美國、荷蘭及日本個案教師為例。盧秀琴（主持人）。自然科教科書轉化與教學實務研討。教科書轉化與精進教學議題國際學術研討會。台北市立教育大學。
武國華（2001）。國小六年級自然教室中全班討論與科學知識建構歷程之詮釋性研究（未出版之碩士論文）。台北市立師範學院自然科學教育研究所，台北市。

二、英文部分
American Evaluation Association. (2010, March 31). Qualitative analysis software. Retrieved from http://www.eval.org/Resources/QDA.htm.
Angelillo, C., Rogoff, B., & Chavajay, P. (2007). Examining shared endeavors by abstracting video coding schemes with fidelity to cases. In R. Goldman, R. D. Pea, B. Barron, & S. J. Derry (Eds.), Video research in the learning sciences (pp. 189-206). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Aulls, M.W. (1998). Contributions of classroom dis-course to what content students learn during curriculum enactment. Journal of Educational Psychology, 90(1), 56-69.
Ball, D. L. (1988). Knowledge and reasoning in mathematical pedagogy: Examining what prospective teachers bring to teacher education. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Michigan State University, East Lansing.
Ball, D. L. (1990). The mathematical understandings that prospective teachers bring to teacher education. The elementary school journal, 449-466.
Ball, D. L., & McDiarmid, G. W. (1990). The subject matter preparation of teachers. In W. R. Houston (Ed.), Handbook of research on teacher education (pp. 437-449). New York: Macmillan.
Bateson, G. (1979). Mind and nature: A necessary unity (p. 238). New York: Dutton.
Bencze, L. & Hodson, D. (1999). Changing Practice by Changing Practice: Toward More Authentic Science and Science Curriculum Development. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 36(5), 521-539.
Bishop, A. J.(1985). The Social Dynamics of the Mathematics Classroom. Talk to Austrian teacher educators in Klagenfurt. Austria, 22 May, 1985.
Bloom, B.S. (Ed.), Englehart, M.D., Furst, E.J., Hill, W.H., & Krathwohl, D.R. (1956). Taxonomy of educational objectives: The classification of educational goals. Handbook 1: Cognitive domain. New York: David McKay teacher education.
Bruner, J. S. (1996). The culture of education. Harvard University Press.
Bull, S., & Solity, J. (1987). Classroom management: Principles to practice, London: Croom Helm.
Carin, A. A., Sund, R. B. (1978). Creative Questioning and sensitive listening techniques: A Self Concept Approach. Columbus: Charles E. Merril pubishing Company.
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. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service NO. ED 293 181).
Cazden, C. (1988). Classroom discourse: The language of teaching and learning. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann. NH: Heinemann.
Chinn, C. A., O'donnell, A. M., & Jinks, T. S. (2000). The structure of discourse in collaborative learning. The Journal of Experimental Education, 69(1), 77-97.
Clark, J. M., & Paivio, A. (1991). Dual coding theory and education. Educational psychology review, 3(3), 149-210.
Clark, L.H. & Starr, L.S. (1986). Secondary and middle school teaching methods. New York: Macmillan.
Clarke, D. (2003). International comparative research in mathematics education. In Second international handbook of mathematics education (pp. 143-184). Springer Netherlands.
Clarke, D. J., Keitel, C., & Shimizu, Y. (2006). Mathematics classrooms in twelve countries: The insider's perspective, Rotterdam, The Netherlands: Sense Publishers.
Clarke, D., Mesiti, C., O’Keefe, C., Xu, L. H., Jablonka, E., Mok, I. A. C., & Shimizu, Y. (2007). Addressing the challenge of legitimate international comparisons of classroom practice. International Journal of Educational Research, 46(5), 280-293.
Clarke, D.J. & Mesiti, C. (2003). Addressing the Challenge of Legitimate International Comparisons: Lesson Structure in Australia and the USA. In L. Bragg, C. Campbell, G. Herbert, & J. Mousley (Eds), Mathematics Education Research: Innovation, Networking, Opportunity, Proceedings of the 26th Annual Conference of the Mathematics Education Research Group of Australasia, Vol. 1, 230-237.
Clarke, D.J. (2004). Kikan-Shido: Between Desks Instruction. Paper presented as part of the symposium "Lesson Events as the Basis for International Comparisons of Classroom Practice" at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, San Diego, April 12-16, 2004.
Clarke, D.J., Keitel, C., & Shimizu, Y. (Eds.) (2006). Mathematics Classrooms in Twelve Countries: The Insider's Perspective. Rotterdam: Sense Publishers. [PB ISBN 90-77874-95-X; HB ISBN 90-77874-99-2].
Clarke, D.J., Mesiti, C., Jablonka, E., & Shimizu, Y. (2006). Addressing the Challenge of Legitimate International Comparisons: Lesson Structure in the USA, Germany and Japan. Chapter 2 in D.J. Clarke, J. Emanuelsson, E. Jablonka, and I.A.H. Mok (Eds.). Making Connections: Comparing Mathematics Classrooms Around the World. Rotterdam: Sense Publishers, 23-46.
Coleman, J. A. (1997). Residence abroad within language study. Language Teaching, 30(1), 1–20.
Crabtree, B. F., & Miller, W. L. (Eds.). (1999). Doing qualitative research. Sage Publications.
Dagher, Z. R. (1989). The Nature of Teacher Verbal Explanations in junior-high science classrooms. (Doctoral dissertation, University of Iowa, 1989). Dissertation Abstract International, 51, 471A.
Dagher, Z., & Cossman, G. (1992). Verbal explanations given by science teachers: Their nature and implications. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 29(4), 361-374.
Delamont, S. (1976). Beyond Flanders' fields: The relationship of subject matter and individuality to classroom style. Explorations in classroom observation, 101-128.
Duckworth, K. (1981). Linking Educational Policy and Management with Student Achievement. Eugene, Ore.: University of Oregon Center for Educational Policy and Management.
Duit, R. (1991). On the role of analogies and metaphors in learning science. Science education, 75(6), 649-672.
Duit, R., Müller, C. T., Tesch, M., & Widodo, A. (2004). A video study on the practice of German physics instruction. In NARST Conference 2004, Conference Proceedings. Vancouver: NARST–National Association for Research in Science Teaching (CD Rom).
Elliott, J. (1998). The curriculum experiment. Buckingham: Open University Press.
Fey, J. T. (1970). Patterns of verbal communications in mathematics classes. New York: Teachers College Press.
Flanders, N. A. (1970). Analyzing teacher behavior. Addison-Wesley P. C.
Fleer, M. (1992). Identifying teacher‐child interaction which scaffolds scientific thinking in young children. Science Education, 76(4), 373-397.
Gallagher, J. J. (1965). Expressive thought by gifted children in the classroom. Elementary English, 559-568.
Gallimore, R. (1996). Classrooms are just another cultural activity, in D. L. Speece and B. K. Keogh(eds)(1996). Research on Classroom Ecologies: Implications for Inclusion of Children with Learning Disabilities (pp.229-250). Mahwah, NJ: LEA.
Garnier, H.E., Lemmens, M., Druker, S.L. & Roth, K.J. (2011). Third International Mathematics and Science Study 1999 Video Study Technical Report: Volume 2--Science. Technical Report. NCES 2011-049. National Center for Education Statistics.
Geertz, C, (1973). Deep play: Notes on the Balinese Cockfight, In C. Geertz (Ed.), The Interpretation of Cultures, New York: Basic Books.
Gilbert, S. W. (1989). An evaluation of the use of analogy, simile, and metaphor in science texts. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 26(4), 315-327.
Given, K., Jacobs, J., & Hollingsworth, H. (2006). What does teaching look like around the world? ON-Math, 4(1). Available at: http://my.nctm.org/eresources/view_article.asp?article_id=7396&page=1
Givvin, K. B., Hiebert, J., Jacobs, J. K., Hollingsworth, H., & Gallimore, R. (2005). Are there national patterns of teaching? Evidence from the TIMSS 1999 video study. Comparative Education Review, 49(3), 311-343.
Givvin, K. B., Jacobs, J. K., Hollingsworth, H., & Hiebert, J. (2009). What is effective mathematics teaching? International educators’ judgments of mathematics lessons from the TIMSS 1999 video study. Effective mathematics teaching from teachers’ perspectives: National and cross-national studies, 37-69.
Glaser, B. G. & Strauss, A. L. (1967). The discovery of grounded theory, Aldine Publishing Co, Chicago.
Glynn, S. M., Yeany, R. H., & Britton, B. K. (1991). A constructive view of learning science. The psychology of learning science, 217.
Haukoos, G. D., & Penick, J. E. (1987). Interaction effect of personality characteristics, classroom climate, and science achievement. Science Education, 71(5), 735-743.
Heap, J. L. (1983). "On task in discourse: Getting the right pronunciation". presented at the American Educational Research Association annual meeting, Montreal, P.Q., April.
Heyman, R. D. (1983). Clarifying meaning through classroom talk. Curriculum Inquiry, 13(1), 23-42.
Hicks, D., & Holden, C. (1995). Visions of the future: Why we need to teach for tomorrow. Stoke‐on‐Trent: Trentham Books.
Hiebert, 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: Mcmillan.
Hiebert, J., & Hollingsworth, H. (2002). Learning from International Studies of Teaching: The TIMSS-R Video Study.
Hiebert, J., & Stigler, J. W. (2000). A proposal for improving classroom teaching: Lessons from the TIMSS video study. The Elementary School Journal, 3-20.
Hiebert, J., & Stigler, J. W. (2004). A world of difference. Journal of staff development, 25(4), 10-15.
Hiebert, J., Gallimore, R., & Stigler, J. W. (2003). The new heroes of teaching. Education Week, 23(10), 42-56.
Hiebert, J., Gallimore, R., Garnier, H., Givvin, K.B., Hollingsworth, H., Jacobs, J., Chui, A. M., Wearne, D., Smith, M., Kersting, N., Manaster, A., Tseng, E., Etterbeek, W., Manaster, C., Gonzales, P., & Stigler, J. (2003). Teaching mathematics in seven countries: Results from the TIMSS 1999 Video Study. NCES (2003-013). U.S. Department of Education. Washington DC: National Center for Education Statistics.
Hiebert, J., Stigler, J. W., Jacobs, J. K., Givvin, K. B., Garnier, H., Smith, M., ... & Gallimore, R. (2005). Mathematics teaching in the United States today (and tomorrow): Results from the TIMSS 1999 video study. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 27(2), 111-132.
Horwood, R. H. (1988). Explanation and description in science teaching. Science education, 72(1), 41-49.
Howey, K. R., & Grossman, P. L. (1989). A study in contrast: Sources of pedagogical content knowledge for secondary English. Journal of teacher education, 40(5), 24-31.
Hunkins, F.P. (1972). Questioning strategies and techniques. Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon, Inc.
Hyman, R.T. (1979). Strategic questioning. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Jablonka, E. (2003). Mathematical literacy. In Second international handbook of mathematics education (pp. 75-102). Springer Netherlands.
Jackson, P. W. (1968). Life in Classrooms. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.
Jacobs, J. K., Hiebert, J., Givvin, K. B., Hollingsworth, H., Garnier, H., & Wearne, D. (2006). Does eighth-grade mathematics teaching in the United States align with the NCTM Standards? Results from the TIMSS 1995 and 1999 video studies. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 5-32.
Jacobs, J. K., Hollingsworth, H., & Givvin, K. B. (2007). Video-based research made “easy”: Methodological lessons learned from the TIMSS video studies. Field Methods, 19(3), 284-299.
Jacobs, J., Garnier, H., Gallimore, R., Hollingsworth, H., Givvin, K. B., Rust, K., Kawanaka, T., Smith, M., Wearne, D., Manaster, A., Etterbeek, W., Hiebert, J., & Stigler, J. (2003). TIMSS 1999 Video Study Technical Report: Volume 1: Mathematics Study. U.S. Department of Education. Washington, DC: National Center for Education Statistics.
Jacobs, J., Garnier, H., Gallimore, R., Hollingsworth, H., Givvin, K. B., Rust, K., ... & Stigler, J. (2003). Third International Mathematics and Science Study 1999 Video Study Technical Report: Volume 1--Mathematics. Technical Report. NCES 2003-012. National Center for Education Statistics.
Jegede, O. J., & Olajide, J. O. (1995). Wait‐time, classroom discourse, and the influence of sociocultural factors in science teaching. Science education, 79(3), 233-249.
Kathleen, M. C., et al. (2006). Modeling Community Containment for Pandemic Influenza: A Letter Report, Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
Leinhardt, G., & Greeno, J. G. (1986). The cognitive skill of teaching. Journal of educational psychology, 78(2), 75.
Lemke, J.L. (1983) ‘Thematic Analysis: Systems, structures, and strategies’, Recherche's Semiotiques/Semiotic Inquiry, 3, 159–87.
Lemke, J.L. (1990). Technical discourse and technocratic ideology. In M.A.K. Halliday, J. Gibbons, & H. Nicholas (Eds.), Learning, keeping, and using language (Vol. 2, pp. 435-460). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Lesh, R., & Post, T. Behr, M. (1987). Representations and translations among representations in mathematics learning and problem solving. In C. JanvierI(Ed.), Problems of representation in the teaching and learning of mathematics (pp. 33–40), Erlbaum, Hillsdale, NJ.
Lortie, D. C. (1975). School teacher: A sociological inquiry. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Lucas, K.B. & Roth, W. M. (1996). The nature of scientific knowledge and student learning: Two longitudinal case studies. Research in Science Education, 26, 103-129.
Martin, J. R. (1970). Explaining, understanding, and teaching. New York : McGraw-Mill.
Marx, R. W., Freeman, J. G., Krajcik, J. S., & Blumenfeld, P. C. (1998). Professional development of science teachers. In B. J. Fraser & K. G. Tobin (Eds.), International handbook of science education (Part 2, pp. 667-680). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer.
McComas, W. F., & Olson, J. K. (2002). The nature of science in international science education standards documents. In The nature of science in science education (pp. 41-52). Springer Netherlands.
McDiarmid, G. W. (1990). Challenging prospective teachers' beliefs during early field experience: A quixotic undertaking?. Journal of teacher education, 41(3), 12-20.
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.), The knowledge base for the beginning teacher. New York: Pergamon.
Mesiti, C., Clarke, D. J., & Lobato, J. (2003, April). The Structure of Mathematics Lessons in the United States. Paper presented as part of the symposium “Mathematics Lessons in Germany, Japan, the USA and Australia: Structure in Diversity and Diversity in Structure” at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Chicago.
Moje, E.B. (1995). Talking about science: An interpretation of the effects of teacher talk in a high school classroom. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 32, 349 - 371.
Monsell, S., & Driver, J. (2000). Control of cognitive processes: Attention and performance XVIII (Vol. 18). MIT Press.
Mullis, I.V.S., Martin, M.O., & Foy, P. (with Olson, J.F., Preuschoff, C., Erberber, E., Arora, A., & Galia, J.). (2008). TIMSS 2007 International Mathematics Report: Findings from IEA’s Trends in International Mathematics and Science Study at the Fourth and Eighth Grades. Chestnut Hill, MA: TIMSS & PIRLS International Study Center, Boston College.
Muscari, P. G. (1988). The metaphor in science and in the science classroom. Science Education, 72(4), 423-431.
Nolen, S. B. & Haladyna, T. M. (1990). Teacher goals and study strategies: Measures of student perceptions. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 50, 191-202.
O'Keefe, C., Xu, L. H., & Clarke, D. J. (2006). Kikan-shido: Between desks instruction. Making connections: Comparing mathematics classrooms around the world, 73-106.
Okebukola, P. A., & Ogunniyi, M. B. (1984). Cooperative, competitive, and individualistic science laboratory interaction patterns—effects on students' achievement and acquisition of practical skills. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 21(9), 875-884.
Okebukola, P. A., & Ogunniyi, M. B. (1986). Effects of teachers' verbal exposition on students' level of class participating and achievement in biology. Science Education, 70, 45–51.
Olson, J. F., Martin, M. O., & Mullis, I. V. S. (Eds.). (2008). TIMSS 2007 technical report. Chestnut Hill, MA: TIMSS & PIRLS International Study Center.
Paivio, A. (1986). Mental representations: A dual coding approach. Oxford University Press, New York.
Phye, G. D., & Andre, T. (1986). Cognitive classroom learning: Understanding, thinking, and problem solving. Orlando, FL: Academic Press.
Piburn, M.D., & Baker, D.R. (1993). If I were the teacher⋯Qualitative study of attitude toward science. Science Education, 77(4), 4-14.
Roeser, R. W., Midgley, C., & Urdan, T. C. (1996). Perceptions of the school psychological environment and early adolescents psychological and behavioral functioning in school: The mediating role of goals and belonging. Journal of Educational Psychology, 88, 408-422.
Roth, K. J., Anderson, C. W., & Smith, E. L. (1987). Curriculum materials, teacher talk and student learning: case studies in fifth grade science teaching. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 19(6), 527-548.
Roth, K. J., Druker, S. L., Garnier, H. E., Lemmens, M., Chen, C., Kawanaka, T., Rasmussen, Trubacova, S., Warvi, D., Okamoto, Y., Gonzales, P., Stigler, J., & Gallimore, R. (2006). Teaching Science in Five Countries: Results From the TIMSS 1999 Video Study. (NCES 2006-011). U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.
Roth, K. J., Garnier, H. E., Chen, C., Lemmens, M., Schwille, K., & Wickler, N. I. (2011). Videobased lesson analysis: Effective science PD for teacher and student learning. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 48(2), 117-148.
Roth, K., & Garnier, H. (2006). What science teaching looks like: An international perspective. Educational Leadership, 64(4), 16.
Roth, K., & Givvin, K. B. (2008). Implications for Math and Science Instruction from the TIMSS 1999 Video Study. Principal Leadership, 8(9), 22-27.
Roth, K.J., Druker, S.L., Garnier, H.E., Lemmens, M., Chen, C., Kawanaka, T., Rasmussen, D., Trubacova, S., Warvi, D., Okamoto, Y., Gonzales, P., Stigler, J., and Gallimore, R. (2006). Highlights From the TIMSS 1999 Video Study of Eighth-Grade Science Teaching (NCES 2006-017). U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.
Rubba, P. A. (1976). Nature of scientific knowledge scale. School of Education, Indiana University, Bloomington, Indiana, 204.
Rumelhart, D. E., & Norman, D. A. (1981). Analogical processes in learning. Cognitive skills and their acquisition, 335-359.
Sanders, N. M. (1966). Classroom questions: What kinds?. New York: Harper & Row.
Schwab, J. J. (1973). The practical 3: Translation into curriculum. School Review, 81, 501-522.
Seidel, T., & Prenzel, M. (2004). Muster unterrichtlicher Aktivitäten im Physikunterricht. Bildungsqualität von Schule: Lehrerprofessionalisierung, Unterrichtsentwicklung und Schülerförderung als Strategien der Qualitätsverbesserung. Münster: Waxmann, 177-194.
Seidel, T., & Prenzel, M. (2006). Stability of teaching patterns in physics instruction: Findings from a video study. Learning and Instruction, 16(3), 228-240.
Shimizu, Y. (2003, April). Capturing the Structure of Japanese Mathematics Lessons as Embedded in the Teaching Unit. Paper presented as part of the symposium "Mathematics Lessons in Germany, Japan, the USA and Australia: Structure in Diversity and Diversity in Structure" at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Chicago.
Shulman, L. S. (1986). Those who understand: Knowledge growth in teaching. Educational researcher, 4-14.
Shulman, L. S. (1986). Paradigms and research programs for the study of teaching. In M.C. Wittrock (Ed.), Handbook of research on teaching (3rd ed.). New York: Macmillan.
Shulman, L. S. (1987). Knowledge and teaching：Foundation of the new reform. Harvard Educational Review, 57, 1-22.
Smith B. O., & Meux, M. O. (1970). A study of the opgic of teaching. Urbana: University of Ilinois Press.
Snyder, J., Bolin, F., & Zumwalt, K. (1992). Curriculum Implementation. In P. W. Jackson (ed.), Handbook of research on curriculum, 402-435. New York, NY: Macmillan.
Sternberg, R. J., & Horvath, J. A. (1995). A prototype view of expert teaching. Educational researcher, 24(6), 9-17.
Stigler, J. W., & Hiebert, J. (1999). The teaching gap：Best ideas from the world's teachers for improving education in the classroom. New York, NY: The Free Press.
Stigler, J. W., & Hiebert, J. (2009). Closing the teaching gap. Phi Delta Kappan, 91(3), 32.
Stigler, J. W., Gallimore, R., & Hiebert, J. (2000). Using video surveys to compare classrooms and teaching across cultures: Examples and lessons from the TIMSS video studies. Educational Psychologist, 35(2), 87-100.
Stigler, J. W., Gonzales, P., Kwanaka, T., Knoll, S., & Serrano, A. (1999). The TIMSS Videotape Classroom Study: Methods and Findings from an Exploratory Research Project on Eighth-grade Mathematics Instruction in Germany, Japan, and the United States. A Research and Development Report (Reports - Research No. NCES-1999-074): National Center for Education Statistics (ED), Washington, DC.
Tesch, M., Duit, R. & Euler, M. (2003). Zur Rolle des Experiments im Physikunterricht – In der Literatur und der Realität des Unterrichts . In: A. Pitton (Hrsg.): GDCP Außerschulisches Lernen in Physik und Chemie. Jahrestagung der GDCP in Flensburg 2002. Band 23. Münster: LIT Verlag.
The National Center for Education Achievement,〔NCES〕(2003). Highlights from the TIMSS-1999 Video study of eighth-grade mathematics teaching. Retrieved November 8, 2004, from http：//nces.ed.gov/pubs2003/timssvideo.
TIMSS Video Mathematics Research Group. (2003). Understanding and improving mathematics teaching: Highlights from the TIMSS 1999 video study. Phi Delta Kappan, 84(10), 768-775.
Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Collected writings. In M. Cole, V. John-Steiner, S. Scribner, & E. Souberman (Eds.). Mind in society. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Walton, D. (1999). The new dialectic: A method of evaluating an argument used for some purpose in a given case. Proto Sociology, 13, 70-91.
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. 104-125). Eastbourne, England: Cassell.
Wood, D., Bruner, J. & Ross, G. (1976). The Role of Tutoring in Problem Solving. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 17, pp. 89-100.
Wood, T., Cobb, P., & Yackel, E. (1991). Change in teaching mathematics: A case study. American Educational Research Journal, 28(3), 587-616.
Zeidler, D. L., & Lederman, N. G. (1989). The effect of teachers' language on students' conceptions of the nature of science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 26(9), 771-783.