研究生: |
王淑枝 Shu Chih Wang |
---|---|
論文名稱: |
以生物區域主義為哲學基礎發展鄉土教學活動課程之行動研究 An action research of homeland study curriculum development on the philosophical basis of bioregionalism |
指導教授: |
周儒
Chou, Ju |
學位類別: |
碩士 Master |
系所名稱: |
環境教育研究所 Graduate Institute of Environmental Education |
論文出版年: | 1998 |
畢業學年度: | 86 |
語文別: | 中文 |
論文頁數: | 159頁 |
中文關鍵詞: | 生物區域主義 、鄉土教學活動課程發展 、行動研究 |
英文關鍵詞: | bioregionalism, homeland study curriculum development, action research |
論文種類: | 學術論文 |
相關次數: | 點閱:261 下載:0 |
分享至: |
查詢本校圖書館目錄 查詢臺灣博碩士論文知識加值系統 勘誤回報 |
根據學者的研究,國小教師面對八十二年公佈新增的「鄉土教學活動課程」,最令他們困擾的是「專業能力不足」的問題。本研究以行動研究的方法進行國小鄉土教學活動課程的發展,目的即在解決教師所面臨的鄉土教學活動課程發展上的問題。
研究者嘗試由「生物區域主義」中心思想中,萃取出兩大要素:「建立地方感」與「產生修復的行動」為主要目標,依此發展出「認識家鄉」、「發展親密感」、「產生關懷感」等次目標,再根據這些目標發展一學期的鄉土活動課程。所要探討的問題有:(一)、利用生物區域主義發展鄉土教學活動課程的可行性?(二)、教師利用生物區域主義發展鄉土課程時會面臨到什麼問題?(三)、教師在此研究與課程發展中的成長與收獲如何?過程中,研究者與教師研究者依據課程架構與目標,共同設計課程內容。在課程的發展與實施階段中,不斷地檢討與改進教學方法,修正課程內容,期使課程能充分展現生物區域主義的內涵與達成鄉土教學的目標。
經過一學期的鄉土活動課程實施,研究者將教師之省思札記、研究者札記、活動中的觀察記錄、其他文件資料,並透過對教師的期中與期末訪談,學生期末訪談等所得的資料,進行三角交叉分析歸納,得到以下的結論:(一)利用生物區域主義發展鄉土課程具有高度的可行性。(二)教師在過程中面對了專業知識不足、花費較多準備時間、以及擔心學生安全等問題。(三)教師的收獲與成長包括了學生的回饋、教學知能的提昇、戶外教學信心的增加、以及對當地更加了解等等。最後研究者建議教師可以生物區主義作為發展鄉土課程的哲學基礎,同時可從了解生物區域主義的意涵開始,找到當地的專家或同好一起合作,激發豐富的鄉土內容,也要多出去走走,建立個人親身經驗,有助於課程的發展與設計。在學術研究上的建議則包括生物區域主義與相關理論的探究,以及理論轉化為教學實務之應用研究等等。
關鍵詞:生物區域主義、鄉土教學活動課程發展、行動研究
ABSTRACT
According to educators* study , the biggest problem elementary school teachers will meet when teaching the homeland study , the newly advocated subject in 1992 in Taiwan is the educational profession issue. In this research , we adopted action research approach to develop homeland study curriculum and tried to help the teacher solve this problem.
Before implementing this curriculum , we draw out two key elements from bioregionalism (bioregional thoughts) : to build a sense of place and get to reinhabitate our home, as main goals to construct the frame of curriculum content , and then decided the subgoals including knowing this place, feeling closeness or connectedness with local nature and caring for our home, etc. We concerned that : (1) Is it feasible to develop homeland study curriculum on the philosophical basis of bioregionalism? (2)What kind of problem the teachers will face when conducting this program? (3)What progress the teacher will make in the process?
The researcher and teacher researcher collaborated to develop curriculum and design unit activity with following the guide of curriculum frame. We finished eight lessons including four outdoor sites finally. In the process, we revised the content, refined the teaching strategies, and reimplement the lessons in order to catch the central meaning of bioregionalism and achieve the ultimate aims of homeland study program.
Over the whole semester's implementation, we collected teacher's reflection diaries, researcher's diaries, field observations, and other documents as data analysis resource. The teacher and students were also interviewed . After analyzing the information with triangulation technique, our findings show: (1) there is high feasibility to develop homeland study curriculum on the philosophical basis of bioregionalism. (2) The teacher faced three problems: being lack of professional knowledge, spending much more time to prepare, and warring about the safety problem. Nevertheless, the teacher had made progress in teaching competence. She felt more confident when teaching in the outdoors. Also she had known this place more deeply. Moreover, students gave many responses back in the class. We suggested teachers in the homeland study may use the bioregionalism to develop the curriculum with the start of understanding the content of bioregionalism first. Find an expert or collaborator to brain storm much more abundant materials, and go out have more field experiences to get ideas for teaching materials. We hope there will be more researchers jump into this study, as if theory transformation to practice and other related issues.
Keywords: bioregionalism, homeland study curriculum development, action research.
參考文獻
毛連塭、陳燕鶴、馬家祉(1995):《台北市國民小學鄉土教學活動 之意見調查》。國立教育資料館編印。
王文科(1980):《質的教育研究法》。台北,師大書苑出版公司。
王文科(1996):《課程與教學論》。台北,五南圖書出版公司。
王文科(1996):《教育研究法》(增訂新版)。台北,五南圖書出 版公司。
王家祥等譯(Joseph Cornell著)(1994):《與孩子分享自然》。台 北,張老師出版社。
方潔玫譯(Joseph Cornell著)(1996):《分享自然的喜悅》。台北 ,張老師出版社。
王 鑫(1995):<發展教師環境教育哲學之研究>。《環境教育季 刊》。台北,26期,1-16。
王 鑫(1997):<鄉土教學概說>。《臺灣的自然生態與鄉土教學 》。國語日報臺灣鄉土教育資源中心編印。教育部國教司、環 境保護小組、國語日報臺灣土教育資源中心。
李祖壽(1974):《教育視導與教育輔導(上)》。台北,黎明文化事 業公司。
金恆鑣譯(J.E. Lovelock著):《蓋婭,大地之母》。台北,天下文 化出版股份有限公司。
吳芝儀、李奉儒譯(Patton, M. Q.著)(1995):《質的評鑑與研究》 。台北,桂冠圖書公司。
高敬文(1996):《質化研究方法論》。台北,師大書苑出版公司。
孫大川(1997):《神話之美:台灣原住民之想像世界》。台北,山 海文化雜誌社編輯,行政院文化建設委員會。
夏曼.藍安波(1992):《八代灣的神話》。台中,晨星出版社。
夏黎明(1995):<鄉土的範圍、內容、理念與設計>。《鄉土教育 》。台北,漢文書店。
教育部(1993):《國民小學課程標準》。台北,教育部。
教育部(1994):《國民小學鄉土教學活動課程標準》。台北,教育 部。
教育部(1995):《國民中學課程標準》。台北,教育部。
莊展鵬(1994):《三峽》。台北,遠流出版公司。
陳伯璋(1988):《行動研究的理論基礎及其應用》。行政院國家科 學委員會專題研究計畫成果報告。0103-11-77A-F215。
陳美玉(1996):《教師專業實踐理論與應用》。台北,師大書苑出 版公司。
陳美如(1995):<躍登教師研究的舞台----課程行動研究初探>。 《國民教育》。35卷,11、12期,21-28。
黃光雄(1996):《課程與教學》。台北,師大書苑圖書出版公司。
黃政傑(1985):《課程改革》。台北,漢文書店。
黃政傑(1995):《多元社會課程取向》。台北,師大書苑出版公司 。
張世平(1991):<行動研究法>。見黃光雄、簡茂發主編:《教育 研究法》。台北:師大書苑有限公司。
楊冠政(1992):<環境行為相關變項之類別與組織>。《環境教育 季刊》。台北,15期,10-24。
楊冠政(1995):<聯合國未來環境教育之規劃>。《環境教育季刊 》。台北,24期,22-30。
楊冠政(1997a):《環境教育》。台北,明文書局股份有限公司。
楊冠政(1997b):<環境倫理學說概述(一)人類環境倫理信念的 演進>。《環境教育季刊》。台北,28期,7-28。
蔡清田(1992):<從課程革新的觀點論教師的專業角色>。《教育 專業》。中華民國師範教育學會主編。台北:師大書苑出版公 司。
廖鳳池(1990):<行動研究法簡介>。《諮商與輔導月刊》。台北 ,60期,5-9。
歐用生(1994):<提升教師行動研究的能力>。《研究資訊》。台 北,11卷,2期,1-7。
歐用生(1994):《課程發展的基本原理》。高雄,復文圖書出版社 。
歐用生(1995):<鄉土教育的理念與設計>。《鄉土教育》。台北 ,漢文書店。
歐用生(1996):《課程與教學革新》。台北,師大書苑出版公司。
饒見維(1996):《教師專業發展-理論與實務》。台北,五南圖書 出版公司。
Aberley, D. (1993). Boundaries of home: Mapping for local empowerment.
Philadelphia: New Society Publishers.
Andruss, V., Plant, C., Plant, J., & Wright, E., (eds) . (1990). Home!:A
bioregional reader. Philadelphia: New Society Publishers.
Bell, J. (1993). (2nd ed.) Doing your research project. Buckingham,
Philadelphia: Open University Press.
Berg, P. (1983). More than just saving what*s left. Home!: A bioregional reader. (pp.13-16). Philadelphia: New Society Publishers.
Berg, P., & Dasmann, R. F. (1978). Rehinhabiting California . Home!: A
bioregional reader. ( pp.35-38). Philadelphia: New Society Publishers.
Beattie, M. (1990). The languagee of letting go. New York: HarperCollins.
Bowers, C. A. (1995) . Implications of bioregionalism for a radical theory of
education. Perspectives in bioregional education. ( pp.55-65). OH: North
American Association for Environmental Education (NAAEE).
Calliou, S. (1995). Bioregional education: Implications for the classroom
practitioner. Perspectives in bioregional education. (pp. 67-75). OH: North American Association for Environmental Education (NAAEE).
Corcoran, P. B., & Sievers, E. (1994 ) . Reconceptualizing Environmental
Education: Five possibilities. Journal of environmental education
25(4 ), 4-8.
Dodge, J. (1981). Living by life: Some bioregional theory and practice . Home!: A bioregional reader. (pp.5-12). Philadelphia: New Society Publishers.
Eggleston, J. (1979) School-based curriculum development in England and Wales. In. OECD.
Engleson, D. C., & Yocders, D. H. (1994). A guide to curriculum planning in environmental education. Wisconsin: Wisconsin Department of Public
Instruction.
Elliott, J. (1991). Action research for educational change. Milton Deynes.
Philadelphia: Open University Press.
Gigliotti, L. M. (1991). Environmental education: What went wrong ? what can be done ? Journal of environmental education. 18(2), 9-12.
Hines, J. M., Hungerford, H. R. & Tomera, A. N., (1986/1987). Analysis and
Synthesis of Research on Responsible Enviornmental Behavior: A Meta-
Analysis. Journal of environmental education, 18(2), 1-8.
Hungerford, H. R. and R. B. Peyton. (1986). Procedure for developing an
environmental education curriculum . UNESCO. Paris.
Hungerford, H. R., & Volk, T. L.(1990). Changing learner behavior through
environmental education. Journal of environmental education, 21(3),8-21.
Kahn, C. (1991) Bioregional education: Knowing love and connectedness.
Perspectives in bioregional education. (pp.49-54). OH: North American
Association for Environmental Education (NAAEE).
Lincoln, Y. S., & Guba. E. G. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Marsh, C., & Stafford, K. (1988). (2nd ed.). Curriculum: Practices and issues.
Australia: McGraw-Hill Book Company Australia Pty Limited.
Plant, J. (1990). Growing home. Home!: A bioregional reader . Philadelphia: New Society Publishers.
Sale, K. (1991). Dwellers in the land: The bioregional vision. Philadelphia:New Society Publishers.
Schaefer, V. H., (1992). Thinking locally in environmental education: The Victoria B.C.,experience. Journal of environmental education, 24(1), 5-8.
Simmons, I. G. (1993). Interpreting nature:Cultural constructions of the
environment.New York: Routledge.
Skilbeck, M. (1984). School-based curriculum development. Lodon: Paul Chapman Publishing Ltd.
Snyder, G. (1990) . Bioregional perspcective. Home!: A bioregional
reader. (pp17-20). Philadelphia: New Society Publishers.
Traina, F. (1995a). What is bioregionalism? Perspectives in bioregional
education. (pp1-12). OH: North American Association for Environmental
Education (NAAEE).
Traina, F. (1995b). The challenge of bioreegional education. Perspectives in
bioregional education. (pp19-26). OH: North American Association for
Environmental Education (NAAEE).
Traina, F., & Darley-Hill, S. (eds.). (1995). Perspectives in bioregional education. OH: North American Association for Environmental Education (NAAEE).