其他标题：A case study on the characteristics and transformation of “knowledge in class” of student physical education teachers, focusing on reflection at follow-up meetings
出版社：Japan Society of Physical Education, Health and Sport Sciences
摘要：It has been said that when teachers reflect on a class, it is then that their knowledge develops the most. The purpose of this study was to clarify the characteristics of “knowledge in class,” and how it develops upon reflection by student teachers at follow-up meetings after physical education classes. The study participants were 8 student physical education teachers and 2 supervisors. “Knowledge in physical education class” was extracted from their reflections at follow-up meetings after physical education classes. The findings were deductively analyzed according to “knowledge in physical education class” categories created by the authors on the basis of relevant studies conducted by Shulman (1987), Siedentop and Tannehill (2000), and Yoshizaki (1987). The results were as follows: (1) As the characteristics of “knowledge in physical education class” expressed in reflections by the student teachers, the rates of “teacher knowledge about pedagogy” (area 2) and “explanation, instruction, conceptual expression, and question” (teacher knowledge about the subject matter and pedagogy; area A) were high. On the other hand, the rates of “teacher knowledge about students” (area 3) and “teacher knowledge about the subject matter, pedagogy, and students” (area D) were low. However, more complex knowledge was expressed in later stages of teacher training. (2) In the case of student teacher F, his reflection gradually changed throughout teaching practice. The reasons for this transformation were (a) the cycle of practice and follow-up meetings focused on F’s unique issues and (b) concrete advice complementing the “knowledge in physical education class” that F lacked. (3) Finally, there was a gradual change in the stages of “knowledge in physical education class” expressed by the reflections of the student teachers. The first stage was “teacher knowledge about pedagogy” (area 2), the second stage was “explanation, instruction, conceptual expression, and question” (teacher knowledge of the subject matter and pedagogy; area A), the third stage was the “students’ understanding and skill level for subject matter” (teacher knowledge of the subject matter and students; area B), and the fourth stage was “teacher knowledge about the subject matter, pedagogy, and students” (area D). This transformation was thought to be the result of knowledge being integrated and developed into a complex form, being influenced by both quantitative factors, such as accumulation of practice and reflection on experience through teaching practice, and qualitative factors, as revealed by the case of student teacher F..
其他摘要：It has been said that when teachers reflect on a class, it is then that their knowledge develops the most. The purpose of this study was to clarify the characteristics of “knowledge in class,” and how it develops upon reflection by student teachers at follow-up meetings after physical education classes. The study participants were 8 student physical education teachers and 2 supervisors. “Knowledge in physical education class” was extracted from their reflections at follow-up meetings after physical education classes. The findings were deductively analyzed according to “knowledge in physical education class” categories created by the authors on the basis of relevant studies conducted by Shulman (1987), Siedentop and Tannehill (2000), and Yoshizaki (1987). The results were as follows: (1) As the characteristics of “knowledge in physical education class” expressed in reflections by the student teachers, the rates of “teacher knowledge about pedagogy” (area 2) and “explanation, instruction, conceptual expression, and question” (teacher knowledge about the subject matter and pedagogy; area A) were high. On the other hand, the rates of “teacher knowledge about students” (area 3) and “teacher knowledge about the subject matter, pedagogy, and students” (area D) were low. However, more complex knowledge was expressed in later stages of teacher training. (2) In the case of student teacher F, his reflection gradually changed throughout teaching practice. The reasons for this transformation were (a) the cycle of practice and follow-up meetings focused on F’s unique issues and (b) concrete advice complementing the “knowledge in physical education class” that F lacked. (3) Finally, there was a gradual change in the stages of “knowledge in physical education class” expressed by the reflections of the student teachers. The first stage was “teacher knowledge about pedagogy” (area 2), the second stage was “explanation, instruction, conceptual expression, and question” (teacher knowledge of the subject matter and pedagogy; area A), the third stage was the “students’ understanding and skill level for subject matter” (teacher knowledge of the subject matter and students; area B), and the fourth stage was “teacher knowledge about the subject matter, pedagogy, and students” (area D). This transformation was thought to be the result of knowledge being integrated and developed into a complex form, being influenced by both quantitative factors, such as accumulation of practice and reflection on experience through teaching practice, and qualitative factors, as revealed by the case of student teacher F.
