| Summary: | 碩士 === 國立彰化師範大學 === 科學教育學系 === 85 === The purpose of this study was to explore a secondary
science studentteacher''''s reflective practice. The guiding
questions were: (1) What did theparticipant teacher reflect on?
(2) What kind of processes were involved inher reflection？
(3) What factors affected her reflection？ (4) Had
plansresulted from her reflection been put into her teaching
practice? Qualitative research methods were
adopted in this study to investigate thecontext and events that
occurred in the life of classroom. Data were collectedthrough
pre-lesson interviews, classroom observations, post-
observationinterviews, stimulated recall, post-lesson
interviews, and relevant documentcollection. Constant
comparative method was used to analyze the data and toconstruct
the results, which were validated by triangulation in terms of
diffeent types and resources of data.
The results indicated that when the student teacher
used directinstructional methods during the first semester,
the major themes of herreflection included the strategies
she used to facilitate her students''''learning, her own ability
to teach, and the role she played in teaching; andthen when she
used cooperative learning methods for instruction during
thesecond semester, the representations of pedagogical
content knowledge andstudents'''' roles in learning became the
main themes of her concerns. Besides,the content of her
reflection had shifted from reflection on aspects of one''''
spractice to reflection on one''''s practice as a whole. The
process of herreflection was triggered by feeling unsatisfied
with present teaching setting,then she framed the problematic
situation and proposed plans for furtheraction. To take her
teaching practice and context for granted was the maingthat
kept her reflection from being triggered. Additionally, lack of
relevantprofessional knowledge and practical experiences made
her unable to frame andreframe the messy context. If the plans
resulted from her reflection appearedto be specific strategies
that could solve the problems she had met, she wouldput it into
practice immediately; on the other hand, if the ones she
proposedwere just to refine the existent routines rather
than to change the wholepractice, she would probably not
execute them because of external constrains,forgetting, and
laziness. Suggestions based on the findings were
alsopresented.
|
|---|
