本研究旨在探討自主性專業學習社群對教師探究式教學之成效。資料收集上共分成兩個研究，研究一觀察和晤談已參與四年研習之領導教師(N=15)，了解其所組成之自主社群提供給新招募之研習教師的探究式教學資源，進而建立教師專業成長模式。研究二則分析領導教師及研習教師參與專業學習社群之效益，資料來源包括：(a)以質性資料詮釋個案領導教師及研習教師(N=9)發展情境式科學能力導向評量試題之精煉歷程；(b)效化「情境式科學能力導向評量試題」，並分析受教於社群教師(包括領導教師及研習教師)之學生相較於非社群教師之學生的科學能力表現；(c)以準實驗研究法探討領導教師自行設計探究式教材融入課程對個案班級學生效益，希冀藉由多方資料檢視專業學習社群對參與教師探究式教學之成效。初步結果如下：研究一之質性資料顯示自主性專業學習社群提供：「探究式教學外在領域」讓教師接受額外的探究式教學相關的資訊刺激；「探究式教學社群互動領域」讓成員經歷社群內精煉探究式教學相關之學習；及「探究式教學教室實踐領域」讓教師經歷教室內之師生互動探究式教學經驗等三項資源。研究二之結果顯示：(a)試題發展之討論過程提供研習教師經驗「互動學習」及「協同學習」有助於研習教師精煉情境式科學能力導向評量試題。(b) 獨立樣本t檢定分析結果顯示受教於研習教師之學生在科學能力表現並無顯著優於背景相當非受教於研習學教師之學生，但進一步分析發現受教於領導教師之學生在科學能力表現顯著優於其他學生。(c)單因子共變數分析結果顯示領導教師王老師班級學生在探究能力表現顯著優於對照組學生，且進一步藉由教室觀察及晤談結果顯示「精進探究式教學之動態模式」能促進學生進行探究學習。當中，「討論」和「反思」是支持學生探究學習的關鍵因素。整體而言，由研究一之結果能了解自主性專業學習社群如何支持教師探究式教學及評量專業能力之發展，在現有文獻知識基礎之上，進一步指出社群成員之間的互動、分享、討論與反思是促進教師探究教學專業能力的重要學習機會。而研究二則提供質性或量化資料佐證研習教師參與專業學習社群之後對受教學生之效益。最後，根據以上的研究發現，本研究提出以專業學習社群推動探究式教學的應用及建議。

The main purposes of this study were to investigate the efficiency of self-organized Professional Learning Community (PLC) on teachers’ professional development (PD) of inquiry-based science teaching (IBST). Two main studies were conducted: Study 1: Observing and interviewing two leading teachers who were self-organized PLC in order to identify the supportive actions and propose a model of teacher professional growth on IBST. Study 2: (a) A group of PLC (including nine teachers) was selected to be observed for their developing and refining progression of contextualized science test items that was investigated through researcher’s field notes on-site observation, verbatim transcription of roundtable discussions, and the draft of context-based science test items; (b) An instrument of context-based science assessment (CBSA) was validated for assessing students’ science competency performance between students who were taught by PLC teachers and non-PLC teachers. (c) Two leading teacher were selected and the instrument of science inquiry test was used for assessing students inquiry ability between experimental group students (two class of fifth grader students who were taught with IBST for 16-weeks IBST; N1 = 21; N2 = 28) and the comparison group students (one class of fifth grader students and one class of sixth grader students who were taught in traditional lecturer instruction; N1 = 25; N2 = 27) via a quasi-experimental study. The results on each study are as follows: Study 1: PLC provides three main supportive resources for community teachers on enhancing teacher’s professional growth：‘External Domain of Inquiry-Based Science Teaching’ (i.e., external source of information or stimuli on IBST’, ‘Practice Domain in class of Inquiry-Based Science Teaching’(i.e., teaching practice of IBST in their own class) and ‘Interaction Domain in community of IBST’(i.e., Interaction with community members); Study2: (a) Reciprocal interaction and collaborative learning are beneficial for PLC teacher on developing and refining CBSA test items via ‘Interaction domain in community of IBST’, and the professional development has gone through three phases of: information stimuli, test items refinement and test items convergence. (b) The independent t-test results showed that there is no significant difference in the scores of CBSA between students of PLC teachers and students of non-PLC teachers. However, the data revealed that leading teacher’s students outperform their counterparts on CBSA. (c)The ANCOVA results reveal that experimental group students outperform their counterparts in inquiry ability. In addition, on-site observation field notes and informal interviews showed that ‘discussion’ and ‘reflections’ were two key features for supporting students on inquiry practices. Meanwhile, the noteworthy finding of “Interaction domain in community of IBST” provides insights into existing literature and highlights the importance of community members’ interaction, sharing, discussion, and reflection on their professional development. The teaching dynamic model of ‘Enhancement IBST’ was constructed as a useful teaching model on science inquiry. With the aforementioned findings, the implication of the study will be addressed.

論文審定書 …………………………………………………………… i
誌謝 ……………………………………………………………………… ii
中文摘要 ……………………………………………………………… iii
英文摘要 ……………………………………………………………………… v
第壹章 緒論 ……………………………………………………………… 1
第一節 研究背景與重要性 ………………………………………………… 1
第二節 研究目的與待答問題………………………………………………… 4
第三節 名詞釋義 …………………………………………………………… 6
一、 探究式教學專業發展(PD-IBST) …………………………………… 6
二、 探究式教學專業學習社群(PLC-IBST) ……………………………… 6
三、 領導教師 ………………………………………………………… 7
四、 領導教師自我認同 ……………………………………………… 8
五、 科學能力 …………………………………………………………8
六、 科學探究能力 …………………………………………………………9
七、 情境式科學能力導向評量試題之認知能力分佈層次 ………… 9
第四節 研究限制 …………………………………………………………11
第貳章 文獻探討 …………………………………………………………12
第一節 以專業學習社群視為教師專業發展之實踐途徑 ……………13
一、 教師專業發展之定義……………………………………………… 13
二、 教師專業發展之類型 ………………………………………………13
三、 專業學習社群 ……………………………………………………14
四、 領導教師自我認同對建立PLC-IBST之重要性 …………………… 15
五、 探究式教學專業學習社群的發展模式 ………………………16
第二節 從探究式教學專業發展至探究式教學專業學習社群—對教師和對學生之效益探討 ………………………………………………………………… 19
一、 探究式教學專業學習社群對研習教師之學習效益…………………19
二、 探究式教學專業學習社群對受教於研習教師之學生的學習效益… 20
第三節 探究式教學與評量之專業發展………………………………………22
一、 探究式教學之專業發展………………………………………………22
二、 探究能力評量之專業發展……………………………………………23
第參章 研究方法 …………………………………………………………27
第一節 研究情境與研究架構 ………………………………………………27
一、 PLC-IBST之運作模式(2010年-2015年) …………………………29
第二節 研究資料收集、整理與分析 ………………………………………37
一、 研究資料收集 ……………………………………………………37
二、 研究工具之建立 ……………………………………………………42
三、 研究資料之整理與分析 ………………………………………50
第肆章 研究結果 ……………………………………………………56
第一節 研習教師專業能力成長之學習資源及其專業成長之模型……………56
一、 個案教師 1：莊老師 …………………………………………57
二、 個案教師 2：王老師 ………………………………………………62
三、 兩位個案教師建立社群所創造的學習資源 …………………………65
四、 研習教師參與PLC-IBST之專業成長模式 …………………………72
五、 研習教師參與PLC-IBST之專業能力成長整體模型……………………77
第二節 研習教師設計情境式科學能力評量試題之精煉歷程、科學能力與知識深度層次之分…………………………………………………………………………80
一、 研習教師發展情境式評量試題之初步成效 …………………………80
二、 情境式科學能力評量試題之精煉歷程 ………………………………81
三、 研習教師發展CBSA之科學能力指標及知識深度分佈 …………89
四、 研習教師參與PLC-IBST在設計情境式科學能力評量試題之成效…91
第三節 研習教師之學生與背景相當非研習教師之學生的科學能力表現…92
第四節 領導教師將探究式教學活動融入國小自然領域課程對實驗班級學生的科學探究能力效益………………………………………………………………95
一、 受教於領導教師王老師之學生的科學探究能力學習成……………95
二、 受教於領導教師莊老師之學生的科學探究能力學習成效 ………97
第五節 領導教師提供那些學習機會用於激發學生提出研究問題、提出研究假設、設計實驗、提出結果和提出結論之能力………………………………………100
第伍章 討論與建議……………………………………………………………112
第一節 研究結果討論及其在科學教育的應用………………………………112
第二節 研究限制及未來研究建議……………………………………………119
參考文獻 ……………………………………………………………………121
附錄 ……………………………………………………………………………128

參考文獻
李正賢、廖志桓、林靜如譯(2007)。質性研究導論。台北市：五南文化
郭生玉(2003)。心理與教育測驗。台北市：精華書局。
教育部(2009)。中小學教師專業學習社群手冊。台北市：作者。
陳佩英(2009)。一起學習、一起領導：專業學習社群的建構與實踐。中等教育，60(3)，68-88。
Arnold, J. C., Kremer, K., & Mayer, J. (2014). Understanding students' experiments—What kind of support do they need in inquiry tasks? International Journal of Science Education, 36(16), 2719-2749.
Aron, A., Aron, E., & Smollan, D. (1992). Inclusion of Other in the Self Scale and the structure of interpersonal closeness. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 63(4), 596-612.
Borko, H. (2004). Professional development and teacher learning: Mapping the terrain. Educational Researcher, 33(8), 3-15.
Bransford, J. D., Brown, A. L., & Cocking, R. R. (1999). How people learn: Brain, mind, experience, and school. Washingtion, DC: National Academy Press.
Burns, J. C., Okey, J. R., & Wise, K. C. (1985). Development of an integrated process skill test: TIPS II. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 22(2), 169-177.
Bybee, R. W., Taylor, J. A., Gardner, A., Van Scotter, P., Powell, J. C., Westbrook, A., & Landes, N. (2006). The BSCS 5E instructional model: Origins and effectiveness. Retrieved March 2016, from http://bscs.org/sites/default/files/_legacy/BSCS_5E_Instructional_Model-Full_Report.pdf
Capps, D. K., & Crawford, B. A. (2013). Inquiry-based professional development: What does it take to support teachers in learning about inquiry and nature of science? International Journal of Science Education, 35(12), 1947-1978.
Clarke, D., & Hollingsworth, H. (2002). Elaborating a model of teacher professional growth. Teaching and Teacher Education, 18(8), 947-967.
Cuevas, P., Lee, O., & Hart, J. (2005). Improving science inquiry with elementary students of diverse backgrounds. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 42(3), 337-357.
Dagher, Z. R., & Erduran, S. (2016). Reconceptualizing the Nature of Science for Science Education. Science & Education, 25(1-2), 147-164.
Darling-Hammond, L., Bullmaster, M. L., & Cobb, V. L. (1995). Rethinking teacher leadership through professional development schools. The Elementary School Journal, 96(1), 87-106.
Department of Education. (2013). National curriculum in England: science programmes of study. London, UK: Government.
Drago-Severson, E. E. (1994). What Does" staff Development" Develop?: How the Staff Development Literature Conceives of Adult Growth. Harvard Graduate School of Education.
DuFour, R., & Eaker, R. (2005). Professional Learning Communities at Work TM: Best Practices for enhancing students achievement. Bloomington, IN: Solution Tree.
Ebel, R. L. F. (1991). Essentials of educational measurement. (5th ed.). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Gao, S., & Wang, J. (2014). Teaching transformation under centralized curriculum and teacher learning community: Two Chinese chemistry teachers' experiences in developing inquiry-based instruction. Teaching and Teacher Education, 44, 1-11.
Gillies, R. M., & Nichols, K. (2015). How to support primary teachers' implementation of Inquiry: Teachers' reflections on teaching cooperative inquiry-based science. Research in Science Education, 45(2), 171-191.
Glazer, E. M., & Hannafin, M. J. (2006). The collaborative apprenticeship model: Situated professional development within school settings. Teaching and Teacher Education, 22(2), 179-193.
Grigg, J., Kelly, K. A., Gamoran, A., & Borman, G. D. (2013). Effects of two scientific inquiry professional development interventions on teaching practice. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 35(1), 38-56.
Guskey, T. R. (2000). Evaluating professional development. Thousand Oaks, California: Corwin Press.
Guskey, T. R. (2003). What makes professional development effective? Phi delta kappan, 84(10), 748-750.
Hargreaves, A. (2000). Four ages of professionalism and professional learning. Teachers and Teaching: Theory and Practice, 6(2), 151-182.
Hewson, P. W. (2007). Teacher professional development in science. In S. K. Abell & N. G. Lederman (Eds.), Handbook of Research on Science Education (pp. 1177–1203). Mahwah,NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Hord, S. M. (2004). Learning together, leading together: Changing schools through professional learning communities. New York, NY: Teachers College Press.
Hord, S. M., & Hirsh, S. (2008). Making the promise a reality. In A. M. Blankstein, P. D. Houstion & R. W. Cole (Eds.), Sustaining professional learning communities (pp. 23-40). Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
Howe, A. C., & Stubbs, H. S. (2003). From science teacher to teacher leader: Leadership development as meaning making in a community of practice. Science Education, 87(2), 281-297.
Hu, W. P., Wu, B. J., Jia, X. J., Yi, X. F., Duan, C. Y., Meyer, W., & Kaufman, J. C. (2013). Increasing students' scientific creativity: The “learn to think” intervention program. The Journal of Creative Behavior, 47(1), 3-21.
Kim, H. J., Miller, H. R., Herbert, B., Pedersen, S., & Loving, C. (2012). Using a Wiki in a Scientist-Teacher Professional Learning Community: Impact on Teacher Perception Changes. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 21(4), 440-452.
Knapp, M. S. (2003). Professional development as a policy pathway. Review of research in education, 27, 109-157.
Kramer, P., Nessler, S. H., & Schluter, K. (2015). Teacher students' dilemmas when teaching science through inquiry. Research in Science & Technological Education, 33(3), 325-343.
Kruse, S. D., & Louis, K. S. (1993). An Emerging Framework for Analyzing School-Based Professional Community.
Lakshmanan, A., Heath, B. P., Perlmutter, A., & Elder, M. (2011). The impact of science content and professional learning communities on science teaching efficacy and standards-based instruction. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 48(5), 534-551.
Lee, O., Hart, J. E., Cuevas, P., & Enders, C. (2004). Professional development in inquiry‐based science for elementary teachers of diverse student groups. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 41(10), 1021-1043.
Lin, H., Hong, Z., Yang, K.-k., & Lee, S. (2013). The impact of collaborative reflections on teachers' inquiry teaching. International Journal of Science Education 35(18), 3095-3116.
Little, J. W. (2012). Professional community and professional development in the learning-centered school. Teacher learning that matters: International perspectives, 22-46.
Lotter, C., Yow, J. A., & Peters, T. T. (2014). Building a community of practice around inquiry instruction through a professional development program. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 12(1), 1-23.
Lucero, M., Valcke, M., & Schellens, T. (2013). Teachers' beliefs and self-reported use of inquiry in science education in public primary schools. International Journal of Science Education, 35(8), 1407-1423.
Luft, J. A. (2001). Changing inquiry practices and beliefs: the impact of an inquiry-based professional development programme on beginning and experienced secondary science teachers. International Journal of Science Education, 23(5), 517-534.
Magnusson, S. J., & Palincsar, A. S. (1995). The learning environment as a site of science education reform. Theory into practice, 34(1), 43-50.
Morrison, J. A. (2014). Scientists' participation in teacher professional development: the impact on fourth to eighth grade teachers' understanding and implementation of inquiry science. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 12(4), 793-816.
Nam, J., Seung, E., & Go, M. (2013). The effect of a collaborative mentoring program on beginning science teachers' inquiry-based teaching practice. International Journal of Science Education, 35(5), 815-836.
National Curriculum Board. (2010). Foundation to year 10 curriculum: Science. Sydney, NSW: Australian Curriculum, Assessment and Reporting Authority.
National Research Council. (1996). National science education standards. Washington, DC: National Academy.
National Research Council. (2000). Inquiry and the national science education standards. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
National Research Council. (2012). A framework for K-12 science education: Practices, crosscutting concepts, and core ideas. Washington, DC: The National Academies
Ødegaard, M., Haug, B., Mork, S. M., & Sørvik, G. O. (2014). Challenges and support when teaching science through an integrated inquiry and literacy approach. International Journal of Science Education, 36(18), 2997-3020.
Organisation for Economic Co-Operation and Development. (2007). PISA 2006: Science competencies for tomorrow's world. Paris: Author.
Organisation for Economic Co-Operation and Development. (2015). PISA 2015 draft science framework. Retrieved from http://www.oecd.org/pisa/pisaproducts/pisa2015draftframeworks.htm
Park, S., Jang, J.-Y., Chen, Y.-C., & Jung, J. (2011). Is pedagogical content knowledge (PCK) necessary for reformed science teaching?: Evidence from an empirical study. Research in Science Education, 41(2), 245-260.
Payne, P. (2000). Identity and environmental education. Environmental Education Research, 7(1), 67-88.
Schweingruber, H. A., & Fenichel, M. (2010). Interest and Motivation: Steps Toward Building a Science Identity. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.
Shulman, L. S. (1986). Those who understand: Knowledge growth in teaching. Educational Researcher, 15(2), 4-14.
Shymansky, J. A., Wang, T. L., Annetta, L. A., Yore, L. D., & Everett, S. A. (2013). The impact of a multi-year, multi-school district K-6 professional development programme designed to integrate science inquiry and language arts on students' high-stakes test scores. International Journal of Science Education, 35(6), 956-979.
Sparks, D., & Loucks-Horsley, S. (1989). Five models of staff development. Journal of staff development, 10(4), 40-57.
Stanley, A. M. (2011). Professional development within collaborative teacher study groups: Pitfalls and promises. Arts Education Policy Review, 112(2), 71-78.
Stoll, L., Bolam, R., McMahon, A., T., S., & Wallace, M. (2006). Setting professional learning communities in an international context. London,UK: Gerenal Teaching Council.
van Driel, J. H., Meirink, J., Van Veen, K., & Zwart, R. (2012). Current trends and missing links in studies on teacher professional development in science education: a review of design features and quality of research. Studies in Science Education, 48(2), 129-160.
Vescio, V., Ross, D., & Adams, A. (2008). A review of research on the impact of professional learning communities on teaching practice and student learning. Teaching and Teacher Education, 24(1), 80-91.
Webb, N. L. (1977). Criteria for alignment of expectations and assessments in mathematics and science
education. Washington, DC: Council of Chief State School Officers and National Institute for
Science Education Research Monograph.
Wenger, E. (1998). Communities of practice: Learning, meaning, and identity. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Wenger, E. (2015). Introduction to communities of practice: A brief overview of the concept and its uses, from http://wenger-trayner.com/introduction-to-communities-of-practice/
White, R., & Gunstone, R. (1992). Prediction-observation-explanation. In R. White & R. Gunstone (Eds.), Probing understanding (Vol. 4, pp. 44-64). London, UK: The Falmer Press.
Wilson, S. M. (2013). Professional development for science teachers. Science, 340(6130), 310-313.
Wu, H. K., & Hsieh, C. E. (2006). Developing sixth graders’ inquiry skills to construct explanations in inquiry‐based learning environments. International Journal of Science Education, 28(11), 1289-1313.
Yang, K.-K., Lin, S.-F., Hong, Z.-R., & Lin, H.-s. (2016). Exploring the assessment of and relationship between elementary students’ scientific ceativity and science inquiry. Creativity Research Journal, 28(1), 16-23.
Yin, R. K. (1994). Case study research: Design and methods. Thousand Oaks: Sage
Zepeda, S. J. (2013). Instructional leadership for school improvement. New York, NY: Routledge.