本研究定名為：「國民中學國文科專家教師語體文教學專業知識內涵之研究」，試圖採取詮釋性研究之精神及原則，以個案教師為對象，經由教室觀察，訪談、文件分析等方式，長期進入教學實境中，以了解國中國文科專家教師語體文教學專業知識之內涵，以及如何將此專業知識，經由「教學推理及行動之過程」，轉化為「可教性」的知識，以利學生學習。本研究同時也探究影響教師教學專業知識之來源，說明了專家教師主動積極追求進修機會及吸納各個不同領域知識及概念，使個人時時持有專業、創新的活力。
本論文之撰述，總計為五章，第一章緒論，說明本研究之動機和目的。第二章為研究方法，陳述本研究之研究方法和實施程序。第三章為文獻探討，主要是希望結合教育理論及國文科教師應有之教學相關知識，為本研究架構出理論之鷹架。
第四章結果分析與討論，內容乃是以文獻探討後所形成專家教師定義，分別以教學信念、教學知識、學習者知識、課程知識，情境知識、以及探討教師推理及行動過程六個層面，分析歸納以實例呈現之個案教師語體文教學歷程，以及教師如何在教學推理中，將其知識轉化為能因應學生學習的「可教性」的知識，並從中發現其成為專家教師之特質。
第五章結論與建議，由分析個案教師的學科教學知識、推理與行動之過程，了解個案老師的確具有專家教師之特質，同時提出本研究之限制和對後續研究建議：一、能持續發展研究國文領域之對象，如能擴大研究人數，則可以經由類比，使更多觀點得以釐清或彰顯，對於國中國文教學成功的定義，應較能有一個通則，且有利於教師真是及師資培育的參考。二、採取不同的研究方法，質化或量化並用、將更有助於國文教學專業知能之提昇。三、將學習者方面的反應，納入研究，匯集多方面資料，研究推論才更具統整性。

The study is based on the spirit and principle of interpretive study, which tries to understand the pedagogical knowledge on colloquialism of the expert pedagogue by means of a long-term research on campus and by class observation, interviews with individual teachers, and document analysis. Meanwhile, it tries to figure out how the teachers transfer the expert knowledge into “teachable” knowledge, through the process of “pedagogical, reasoning, and action,” so that the students can learn. This research also studies the influences of the resource of teachers’ expert pedagogical knowledge, which shows that the expert pedagogues actively hold the opportunities of further studies as well as absorbing the knowledge and ideas from different fields, enabling themselves to be professional and creative all the time.
There are six chapters in this paper. The first one elucidates the motivation and aim of the research. The second one explains the method of research, including its order and procedure when putting into practice. In the third chapter, there are discussions on literature, hoping to combine education theory with the teaching knowledge that Chinese literature teachers should have, in order to construct the schema of this paper.
The content of the fourth chapter are to define what is “expert pedagogue” after the discussion mentioned above. The definition is made through six aspects—the pedagogical knowledge, content knowledge, general pedagogical knowledge, knowledge of learner, curriculum knowledge, and knowledge of education context. After analysis and inference, this part of the paper takes individual teachers’ teaching experience on colloquialism as an example, and shows how they transfer their knowledge into a “teachable” kind as to fulfill the students’ need; at the same time, to find out the characteristics of being an expert pedagogue.
The last chapter is the conclusion and suggestion. It discovers that the teachers of each independent case do actually have characteristics of expert pedagogue by ways of analyzing the process of their “pedagogical, reasoning, and action.” Meanwhile, it brings forth the limitation of this research and three suggestions for the continuing study—first, it would be better for people who are able to continue the study of the Chinese literature family, to expand the study group, so that through more comparisons, more viewpoints could be clarified and manifested. Then there would be a more general principle to define a successful teaching on junior high school’s Chinese literature class. It would also provide a standard to choosing teachers, as well as be a reference for the cultivation of teachers. Secondly, to adopt more methods of study—using both qualitative and quantitative research—would be helpful to the raise of expert pedagogical knowledge. Third, the inference of study would be more integrated and complete when the research includes the reaction of learners and information from all aspects

壹、 中文部分

王更生(1996)。國文教學面面觀。台北。五南。
王明通（1989）。中學國文教學法研究。台北。五南。
王春展（1987）。專家與生手間問題解決能力。教育研究資訊。5(2) ， 80-92 。
王熙元（1983）。國文教學的三個層面。 教學語言研究，第5期，147-152。
江玉婷(1985)。 國中地球科學教師學科教學知識之研究。國立臺灣師範大學地球科學研究所碩士論文，未出版，台北。
呂武志(1987)。我對語體文教學的看法。台灣省高級中學教學輔導叢書國文科教學研究專輯（二），53-70。
吳明清（1991）。教育研究-基本觀念與方法之分析 。台北：五南。
吳明清（2001）。教育向前跑—開放社會的教育改革。台北：師大書苑。
吳青蓉(1997)。英語科專家/生手教師教學歷程及教學效果之比較研究。國立台灣師範大學教育心理與輔導研究所碩士論文，未出版，台北。
林良（1976）。追求聽覺意義。中國語文月刊。38卷（5），47-53。
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：質的研究方法（頁199-221）。高雄：麗文。
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，彰化。
林進材（1999）。國小專家教師與新手教師教學理論建構之研究。國民教育研究集刊。第5期，185-218。
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，台北。
季旭昇（1996）。如何進行生字難詞教學。載於國立台灣師範大學中等教育輔導委員會，如何進行國文教學。（頁101-
116）。台北：國立台灣師範大學。
岳修平（譯）（1988）。E. D. Gagne , C. W. Yekovich,＆ F. R. Yekovich 著。教學心理學-學習的認知基礎。台北：遠流。
胡適著（1986）。白話文學史。台北：遠流。
段曉林（1994）。職前化學教師教學思考之個案研究。載於科學教育學刊編輯委員會，科學教育學刊，第二卷第二期。（頁115-141）。台北：科學教育學會。
柯華葳（1996）。培育專業中文教師。華文世界。79期， 61-63。
高敬文(1988)。「質的研究派典」之理論分析與實際運用。屏東：東益。
高榮成(1994)。化學實習教師學科教學知識之探究。國立彰化師範學教育研究所碩士論文，未出版，彰化。
耿雲志（1990）。胡適與國語運動。國文天地。67期，75-81。
郭玉霞（1992）。簡介修曼的「教學知識」概念。師友月刊，八月號，35-37。
陳伯璋（1999）。九年一貫新課程綱要修訂的背景及內涵。教育研究資訊，7（1），1-13。
陳麗華（1995）。實習教師的社會科教學推理-結構與意識的辨證。台北：師大書苑。
孫志麟（1992）。專家教師與生手教師的差異。師友月刊，四月號，21-23。
孫志麟（1992）。教師自我效能的概念及其研究取向。 現代教育，7卷，1期，103-113。
教育部編（1994）。國民中學課程標準。台北：教育部。
教育部編（2000）。國民中小學九年一貫課程暫行綱要。2002/3/20，取自http://teach.eje.edu.tw/。
張景媛（1997a）。英語科專家/生手教師課堂教學之研究。師大學報，42期，17-33。台北：國立台灣師範大學。
張景媛（1997b）。如何讓新手教師成為專家教師。測驗與輔導，45期，3008-3010，台北，心理。
張雁婷（1998）。教師學科教學知識之研究-以國中英語科為例.國立台灣師範大學教育研究所碩士論文，未出版，台北。
張惠昭（1996）。高中英文教師教學專業知識之探究.國立台灣師範大學教育系碩士論文，未出版，台北。
張瑜弦（2001）。專家教師專業知識之個案研究探究－以一位英文教師為例。國立台灣師範大學教育系碩士論文，未出版，台北。
單文經（1992）。課程與教學研究。台北：師大書苑。
陸汝東（1996）。對外漢語教學的歷史演變。對外漢語教學通論。中國：上海外語教育。
黃永和(1996)。國小實習教師數學學科教學知識之個案研究。國立新竹師院初教所碩士論文，未出版，新竹。
黃明章（1973）。影響國中教師對學生態度之差異因素。國立台灣師範大學教育研究所碩士論文，未出版，台北。
黃政傑（1993）。課程評鑑。台北，師大書苑。
黃政傑等著（l989）。質的教育研究：方法與實例。台北。漢文。
黃淑貞（1996）。教學內容知識之人種誌研究—以一位高三國文老師為例。台北市立師範學院初等教育研究所碩士論文，未出版，台北。
游淑燕(1993)。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的啟示。嘉義師院學報，七期，207-236。
廖瑞銘主編（1987）。大不列顛百科全書中文版。台北：丹青圖書有限公司。
潘麗珠（2001）。國語文教學有創意。台北：幼獅文化。
謝寶梅(1996)。專家教師與實習教師的教學思考及教學行動之比較研究。台北。五南。
簡紅珠(1992)。師範生學科與學科教學的知識基礎。輯於中華民國師範教育學會八十二年年會暨「師範教育多元化與師資素質學術研討會」論文彙編，15-29，台北。
簡紅珠(1996)。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。
歐用生（1988）。教育研究方法的新取向-質的研究方法。台北：南宏。
蕭速農（1994）。國小專家教師與初任教師的數學學科知識之分析與比較。新竹師院初教系碩士論文，未出版，新竹。

貳、英文部分

Anderson, J. R. (1990). Cognitive psychology and its implications,3rd Ed. New York: W.H. Freeman ＆Company.
Berliner, D. C. (1986). In pursuit of the expert pedagogue. Educational Researcher,5(7),5-13.
Berliner, D. (1988). The deve1opment of expertise in pedagogy.
(ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 298122).
Brandt, R. S. (1986). On the expert teacher: A conversation with David Berliner. Education and Leadership, 44(9), 4-9.
Byrne, C. (1983). Teacher knowledge and teacher. effectiveness: A literature review, theoretical analysis and discussion of research strategy. Paper presented at the l4th Annual Convention of the Northeastern Educational Research Association, Ellenvill, N.Y.
Calderhead, J. ( 1983). Research into teachers’and student teachers’cognition：Exploring the nature of classroom practice. Paper presented at the Ameracian Educational Research Association, Montreal,Canada.
Clarke, M. A., ＆ Silberstein, S. ( 1987). Toward a realization of psycholinguistic principles in the ESL reading class. In M.H.Long ＆J.C.Richards (eds.), Methodology in TESOL： A Book of Readings (pp.233-247). MA：Heinle & Heinle.
Cochran, K. F., DeRuiter, J.A., ＆ King, R. A. ( 1991). Pedagogical content Knowledge: A tentative model for teacher preparation. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Chicago, lL.(ERIC: ED 340683).
Day, P. R., ＆ Conklin, G. ( 1992). The Knowledge base in ESL/EFL teacher education. Paper presented at the 1992 TESOL Conference, Vancouver,Canada.
Elbaz, F. (1983). Teacher thinking： A studv of practical knowledge. New York：Nichols.
Erickson, F. Thomas, D., Pelissier, C. ＆ Boersema, D. (1985). Teachers’practical ways of seeing. Unpublished manuscript.
Fager, J. J. (1992). Characteristics of expertise in teaching: Differences in levels of expert teachers in solving classroom management problem.NHT(D)9237660.
Gagne', R. M. (l985). The conditions of learning and theory of instruction,( 4th ed.). New York,NY:Holt, Rienhart, and Winston.
Geddis, A. N. (1993). Transforming subject matter knowledge: The role of pedagogical content knowledge in learning to reflect on teaching. International Journal of Science. I5(6),673-683.
Glaser, R. (1987). Psychology and instructional technology in training research and education. Pittsburgh University of Pittslburgh Press.
Glaser, R., ＆Chi, M. T. H.(1988). Overview. In M.T.H.Chi,R.Glaser,＆M.J.Farr(Eds.),The nature of expertis, ( pp.xv-xxviii). Hillsdale,N. J.:Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Goldman, E., ＆ Barron, L. ( 1990). Using hypermedia to the improve the preparation of elementary teachers. Journal of Teacher Education, 41(3),2-31.
Grant, G. E. (1992). The sources of structural metaphors in teacher knowledge：Three cases. Teaching ＆ Teacher Education. 8(5/6), 433-440.
Grossman, P. L & Richert, A. E.(1988). Unacknowledged knowledge growth：Are examination of the effects of teacher education. Teaching ＆ Teacher Education,4(1),53-62.
Grossrman, P. L.(1989). A study in contrast：Sources of pedagogica1 content know1edge for secondary English. Journal of Teacher Education.40(5),24--31.
Grossrnan, P .L.(l994). Teachers’know1edge. In J.S.Lawrence(Ed) International encyclopedia of the sociology of education(pp. 692-697). Oxford: Pergamon Press.
Guba, E. G.(l981). Criteria for assessing the trustworthiness of naturalistic inquiries. Educational Communication ＆ Technology Journal,1981,29(2),75-91.
Gudmundsdottir, S.(1990). Values in pedagogical content knowledge. Journal of teacher Education,41(3),44-52.
Hammrich, P. L.,( 1990). Schema differences among expert and novice teachers in reflection about teaching.(D 344837).
Hill, F. H.(1991). Assessing the relationship between reflectiveness of student teachers.(ERIC Document Reproduction Service No.338565).
Housner, L. D.,＆Griffey, D. C.(1985). Teacher cognition：Differens in planning and interactive decision making betweenexperienced and inexperienced teachers. Research Quarterly,56（1）,45-53.
Kay, M. (1986). How the experts teach math： Research in brief. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 280681)
LeCompte, M. D., ＆ Goetz, J, P.( 1982). Problems of reliability and validity in ethnographic research. Review of Education Research,1982,52(1),31-60.
Leinhardt, G.,＆ Smith, D.(1985). Expertise in mathematics instruction：Subject matter knowledge. Journal of Educational Psychology, 77(3), 247-271.
Leinhardt, G, Weidman, C.,＆ Hammond, K. M.(1987). Introduction to integration of classroom routines by expert teachers. Curricum Inquiry,17(2),135-176.
Leinhardt , G.( 1989). Math lessons:A contrast of novice and expert competence.Journal for Research in Mathematatics Education,20(2),52-75.
Livingston, C., ＆ Borko, H.( 1989). Expert-novice differences in teaching：A cognitive analysis and implication for teacher education. Journacl of Teacher Education,7/8,36-42.
Marks, R.(l990). Pedagogica1 content knowledge：From a mathematics case to a modified conception. Journal of Teacher Education, 41(3), 3-11.
McDiarmid, G. W. Ball, D. L.＆ Anderson, C. W.(1989). Why staying one chapter ahead doesn’t really work： Subject special pedagogy. In M.C.Reynold teacher（Ed）. Knowledge base for the beginning teacher. Oxford：Pergamon Press.
Putnam, R.T.(1987). Structuring and adjusting content for students : A study of live and simulated tutoring of addition. American Educational Research Journal, 24(1)，13-48.
Reighart, P, R(1985). A questionnare to assess preservice teacher beliefs about teaching.Unpublished doctoral dissertation. The Ohio state University.
Reynolds, A.(1992). What is competent beginning teaching? A review of the literature. Review of Educational Research, 62(l),1-35.
Ropo, E.(1987). Teachers’conceptions of teaching and teaching behavior: Some dufference between expert and novice teachers. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 287824).
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), 1-22.
Siedentop,D.,＆Elder E.(1989). Expertise, experience, and effectiveness. Journal of Teaching in Physical Education, 8, 254-260.
Sternberg, R.J.,＆ Horvath, J. A.(1995). A prototype view of expert teaching. Educational Researcher,24（6）,9-17.
Tamir, P. (1988). Subject matter and related pedagogical knowledge in teacher education. Teaching and Teacher Education,4,99-110.
Tamir, P.(1991). Professional and persona1knowledge of teachers and teacher educators. Teacher & Teacher Education. 7(3), 263-268.
Tanner, L. N.,＆Lindgren, H.C.(1971). Classroom teaching and learning：A mental health approach. New York：Holt, Rinehart and Winston.
Tobin, K.(1993). Constructivist perspectives on teacher learnning. In K.Tobin(Ed.), Practice of constructivism in science education.( pp.215-226). Washington, D C.:AAAS press.
Tochon, F., ＆Hugh, M.( 1993). Novice and expert teacher' time epistemology：A wave function didactics to pedagogy. Teacher ＆ Teacher Education. 9(2), 205-218.
Webb, J. M., Diana, E. M., Luft, P., Brooks, E.W., ＆ Brennan, E. L.(1997). Influence of pedagogical expertise and feedback on assessing student comprehens1on from nonverbal behavior. The Journal of Education Research,91(2),89-101.
Westerman, D. A.(1991 ). Expert and novice teacher in decision making. Jourmal 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 Teacher’ Thinking(pp. 104-124). London: Cassell.