透過眼動探討國小與國中職前教師的數學課程覺察力：個案研究

Using Eye-Tracking to Investigate Curricular Noticing Among Pre-service Elementary and Secondary Mathematics Teachers: A Case Study

本研究之主要目的在使用眼球追蹤技術探討10位國小（n = 5）與國中（n = 5）職前數學教師在「比和比值」單元的課程覺察力（curricular noticing）。研究程序為兩組教師分別閱讀國小或國中課本（約5分鐘），接著撰寫教案後（約25分鐘），此期間不可再閱讀教科書，之後再度閱讀另一版本的課本（國中或國小）（約5分鐘），後續回答是否修改教案（約5分鐘）。閱讀教科書的過程，使用Gazepoint GP3 HD眼動儀進行資料收集，並分析其平均凝視時間（fixation duration）與其在特定興趣區塊（Areas of Interest [AOIs]）的比例（fixation proportion）；教案文本則是使用質性研究中的主題分析法進行分析。研究結果發現：（1）在「課程注意」向度上，國小職前教師對課本凝視的總平均時間與國中職前教師相差2倍以上，國小教師明顯花費更多時間於「課程注意」上；兩組教師對於閱讀「不同題型題目」的凝視時間比例分布，主要與其相對應的課本內容多寡有關。（2）關於「課程回應」向度，兩組教師在「教案設計」出現明顯差異，國小職前教師出題的題型較多元，且偏重「集合」的題型（32.6%）；反之，國中職前教師的出題題型較侷限，並且著重「部分–部分」的題型（44.8%）。（3）對於「課程解釋」向度，國小組教師主要由「學習者的觀點」（40.9%）進行教案設計，而國中組教師主要依據「數學觀點」（46.9%）進行教案設計。（4）關於「課程注意、解釋、與回應」的關聯性，不同題目類型的凝視比例與教案設計沒有非常明顯的關聯性，但「定義與解釋」、「部分–整體」、「計算」這三個課本內容類別的凝視比例，似乎是在探討職前教師修改教案與否，值得關注的向度。（5）最後，國小組教師比國中組教師更願意在觀看另外一年段教科書後，修改自己的教案（4/5 vs 2/5）。

The purpose of this study was to use an eye-tracking method to investigate the curricular noticing of ten pre-service mathematics teachers, five from elementary school (n = 5) and five from middle school (n = 5), in the topic of“ratios and proportions.”The research procedure involved both groups of teachers reading either the elementary or middle school textbooks, followed by writing lesson plans and then reading the other version of the textbook to determine whether they would revise their lesson plans. Using the Gazepoint GP3 HD eye-tracker, data were analyzed based on fixation durations and proportions across defined Areas of Interest (AOIs) and the lesson plans were analyzed by using the thematic analysis. Findings showed that: (1) Curricular attending differs between groups, The eye-tracking data revealed a difference in average fixation duration, with the elementary pre-service teachers exhibiting approximately twice as much average fixation duration on textbooks as secondary pre-service teachers. The distribution of fixation proportion for different types of proportion problems was primarily related to the amount of corresponding content in the textbooks. (2) Results in curricular responding showed significant differences between the two groups: the elementary pre-service teachers presented a more diverse range of problem types, with a focus on“associated sets”(32.6%), while the middle school pre-service teachers had a more limited range of problem types, emphasizing“part-part”questions (44.8%). (3) Curricular interpreting differed. The elementary group primarily designed lesson plans from the“learner’s perspective”(40.9%), whereas the middle group was mainly based on the“mathematical perspective”(46.9%). (4) Relationships among curricular noticing dimensions were not clearly defined. The fixation proportions for different problem types did not show a very clear correlation with lesson plan design. However, the fixation proportions for the three content categories of“definitions and explanations,”“part-whole,”and“calculations”seem to be noteworthy dimensions when exploring whether pre-service teachers revise their lesson plans. (5) Lastly, the elementary group was more willing than the middle group to revise their lesson plans after viewing textbooks from another grade level (4/5 vs. 2/5).