你的自主vs.我的專業：公民與社會教師對探究教學之探究

Your Self-directed Learning vs. My Professional Practice: Civics and Society Teachers' Inquiry Into Inquiry Teaching

研究目的

108課綱新增探究與實作課，此課綱是歷史中首度出現的新課程，有賴教師自行研究發展課程內容，因此，成為教師教學之挑戰。本研究將教師發展、設計探究課程視為一種探究，故從探究歷程觀點分析教師之探究，同時透過分析學生的學習經驗來瞭解教師的探究教學成效。

主要理論或概念架構

依據108公民與社會探究與實作課綱之探究四要項架構，以及教師指引與探究教學成效之相關理論進行分析。

研究設計／方法／對象

本研究採用深度訪談法。邀請教授高中公民與社會科探究與實作之教師，分別於學期初課程規劃階段、學期中授課歷程以及學期末課程總結時三個階段，每位教師進行三次深度訪談。於此同時，為瞭解學生對於教師規劃出的探究教學的經驗，亦於學期末時邀請受訪教師之授課班級學生進行訪談。

研究發現或結論

本研究發現，儘管教師都依據課綱指示的探究四大要項進行教學，但教師依據專業判斷以及學生學習特色，分別針對探究歷程中不同探究要項進行教學創新。不同教師各自選擇不同探究要項進行教學創新，不僅意味著教師具有探究教學上自我培力的專業能力，同時也顯示社會領域探究教學可能的多元樣貌。

在教學成效評估上，教師發現因為探究與實作課程並非升學考試科目，故學生普遍學習動機不高，且探究結果之品質落差大。然而，學生都明確指出自身獲得探究能力之成長，特別是資料蒐集與資料分析呈現這兩項能力。

在教師探究指引與學生學習成效上，本文指出，明確指引對學生學習有效，但密集指引則成效不佳，甚至可能妨礙學生學習。

本文主張，教師在探究教學的主要困頓，並非來自探究教學知能的缺乏，而是來自專業認同之焦慮。探究學習強調學生自主，因此教師應扮演專業指引者，這意味著教師在必修課程中所扮演的專業角色，在探究與實作課程裡並不適用。然而，所謂專業指引者的角色內涵並不明確，教師往往採用必修課程裡知識傳授者的專業角色內涵來審視自身的探究教學表現，以知識傳授者的專業指標來檢視專業指引者，而此落差引發教師專業認同上的焦慮，也導致學生自主與教師專業實踐形成一種原本不應存在的緊張困境。

理論或實務創見／貢獻／建議

探究學習旨在培養學生知識建構力，探究的每一要項所發展出的能力都有助於提升知識建構力。本文建議，未來師資培育及探究教學課綱可指引教師如何從過程取向觀點進行探究教學的學習評量，這將有助於教師在評估學生學習成效時，除探究成果外，也看見學生在探究歷程中探究能力的提升。未來的探究教學推動政策，在提供教師探究教學知能外，亦應致力於提供專業指引者角色內涵供教師參考，以化解教師在探究教學上的不安。

Purpose

The 2019 Curriculum Guidelines in Taiwan introduced Inquiry and Practice as a new subject, a first in the history of curriculum guidelines. This new subject relies on teachers to independently research and develop course content, posing a significant challenge to their teaching practices. This article views teachers’ development and design of inquiry-based courses as a form of inquiry itself. Accordingly, it analyzed teachers’ inquiry process from the perspective of the inquiry cycle and examines students’ learning experiences to evaluate the effectiveness of teachers’ inquiry-based teaching.

Main Theories or Conceptual Frameworks

The analysis is based on the four key components of inquiry outlined in the 108 Civics and Society Inquiry and Practice curriculum guidelines, along with relevant theories related to teacher guidance and the effectiveness of inquiry-based teaching.

Research Design/Methods/Participants

This study employed a qualitative research design using in-depth interviews. High school teachers of the Civics and Society Inquiry and Practice course were invited to participate in three rounds of in-depth interviews: at the beginning of the semester during the curriculum planning phase, mid-semester during the teaching process, and at the end of the semester for a course wrap-up. Simultaneously, interviews were also conducted with students from the participating teachers’ classes at the end of the semester to understand their experiences with the inquiry-based teaching designed by these teachers.

Research Findings or Conclusions

This study found that besides following the four key components of inquiry as instructed by the curriculum guidelines, all participating teachers also incorporated pedagogical innovations at various stages of the inquiry process based on their professional judgment and their students’ learning characteristics. Such innovations not only signifies their professional capacity for self-empowerment in inquiry-based teaching but also reveals the diverse possibilities within inquiry-based teaching in the social studies domain.

In terms of evaluating teaching effectiveness, teachers noted that students generally lacked motivation because the Inquiry and Practice course is not included in the high-stakes examinations for university admission, leading to wide disparities in the quality of their inquiry projects. At the same time, students reported consistent growth in developing inquiry skills, particularly in data collection, data analysis, and presentation.

With respect to the relationship between teacher guidance and student learning outcomes, this study found that clear guidance is effective for student learning, but intensive guidance yields poor results and may even hinder student learning.

This paper argues that the main challenge teachers face in inquiry-based teaching is not insufficient knowledge or skills related to inquiry pedagogy, but rather anxiety stemming from their professional identity. Since inquiry learning emphasizes student autonomy, it requires teachers to act as professional guides, which implies that the professional role teachers play in compulsory courses is not applicable in the Inquiry and Practice course. However, the specific role and responsibilities of a “professional guide” are not clearly defined. As a result, teachers tend to evaluate their performance in inquiry-based teaching using the professional standards of a knowledge transmitter, the role they typically play in compulsory courses. This mismatch between the expected role of a professional guide and the self-assessment based on the standards of a knowledge transmitter leads to anxiety in teachers’ professional identity. It also creates an unnecessary tension between student autonomy and teachers’ professional practice.

Theoretical or Practical Insights/Contributions/Recommendations

Inquiry-based learning seeks to cultivate students’ ability to construct knowledge, and the skills developed in each component of the inquiry process contribute to enhancing this ability. This paper recommends that future teacher education and curriculum guidelines for inquiry-based teaching should provide explicit guidance to teachers on process-oriented assessment of student learning. This will help teachers to evaluate student learning outcomes not only based on the final inquiry project but also by recognizing the development of inquiry skills throughout the inquiry process. Furthermore, future policies promoting inquiry-based teaching, in addition to providing teachers with knowledge and skills related to inquiry pedagogy, should also strive to offer a clear framework for the role of a “professional guide” for teachers’ reference. This will help reduce teachers’ anxiety and uncertainty in implementing inquiry-based teaching.