因應社會與藝術界的轉變，統整課程成為課程發展的主要取向，而視覺藝術教育中藝術源於生活的背景，能使知識間的連結脈絡更貼近生活與文化，廣大的融合特性適於整合其它學科。本研究之目的在於探討統整課程中視覺藝術課程的相關理念與模式，並依據美國TETAC(Transforming Education through the Arts Challenge)課程結構結合環境議題研發以視覺藝術為核心的統整課程「環境藝診」，探討國小學生接受本實驗課程後的學習成效。
本研究對象為台北市某國小六年級學生，採單一受試者研究設計實施課程，每週兩節的教學實驗為期六週。實驗後取得學生之學習單與前、後測資料作為評量依據，並以推論本研究課程之可行性。茲將本實驗結果主要發現，摘述如下﹕
(一)依據相關理念探討發現視覺藝術教育統整課程內容與社會關聯，符合後現代的意識形態。
(二)視覺藝術教育統整課程可以提高學生探討圖像、多元詮釋、及建構觀念等藝術思維能力。
(三)當代藝術品與視覺影像的運用，可以結合社會議題發展出視覺藝術為核心之統整課程。
(四)視覺藝術為核心之統整課程將視覺藝術學習提高至思考層次。
最後，根據研究發現，研究者對視覺藝術統整課程之實務與相關研究提出建議，以提供未來藝術教育供作者參考。

Along with the transition of society, integrated curriculum has become the main trend in school curriculum development. How art related to life makes the connection among different knowledge get closer to people’s life and culture. That is why visual art education, with the feature of immense integration and the background that arts ‘derives’ from life, is appropriate to be integrated with other subjects. This study aims to explore the relevant concepts and modes of visual arts curriculum in integrated curriculum. In addition, based on the curriculum framework of TETAC (Transforming Education through the Arts Challenge)(USA), the environmental issues are connected with to develop ‘the artistic diagnosis of environment’, a visual-art-centered integrated curriculum, to explore students’ learning proficiency after their participation of this experimental curriculum.
The objects for this research are the sixth-grade students of an elementary school in Taipei City. The curriculum is implemented under the single-participant research design. It is practiced as a six-week long experiment with two classes per week. Afterwards, students’ worksheets and pre- and post-test data are collected as the basis of assessment, and to infer the feasibility of this curriculum.
The findings in this study are as follows:
First, according to the research, integrated curriculum of visual art education related to the social issues is corresponded with post-modern ideology. Secondly, integrated curriculum of visual art education enhances student’s ability of thinking in the art, i.e. icons exploration, multi-interpretation and concept construction, etc. Thirdly, the application of contemporary art works and visual images can be connected with the social issues to develop visual-art-centered integrated curriculum. Fourthly, visual-art-centered integrated curriculum promotes the learning of visual arts onto the level of thinking (towards the opportunities for thinking).
|In conclusion, drawing on the findings, suggestions for the experimental teaching result in visual art integrated curriculum and the relevant research are provided for the future art educators’ reference.

一、中文部分
王秀雄(1990)。美術與教育。台北﹕台北市立美術館。
王秀雄(1998)。觀賞、認知、解釋與評價—美術鑑賞教育的學理與實務。台北﹕國立歷史博物館。
王秀雄、姚世澤等(1996)。中小學藝能科(音樂、美術)基本學力指標之研究。台北﹕教育部教育研究委員會。
王國川(2002)。圖解SAS在變異數分析上的應用。台北﹕五南。
王國川、翁千惠(2003)。圖解SAS在資料分析上之應用。台北﹕五南。
北川民次(1991)。兒童的繪畫與教育。台北﹕世界文物出版社。
李雅婷(2003)。課程美學探究取向的理論與實踐之研究—以國小藝術統整課程之教育。國立台灣師範大學教育研究所博士論文。
李雅琴(2003)。藝術與人文領域議題取向統整課程之研究。彰化師範大學藝術教育研究所碩士論文。
周淑卿（2001）。「主題式」課程統整的設計模式解析。載於反省與前瞻－課程改革向前跑。台北：中華民國教材發展研究學會。
林曼麗(2000)。台灣視覺藝術教育研究。台北﹕雄獅圖書公司。
林曼麗編(2003)。世界重要國家中小學藝術教育課程統整模式參考手冊。台北﹕國立台灣藝術教育館。
張玉成著(2002)。思考技巧與教學。台北﹕心理出版社。
張春興、林清山(1989)。教育心理學。台北﹕東華。
張索娃譯(2004)。像藝術家一樣思考。台北﹕時報出版。
教育部(1993)。國民小學課程標準。台北﹕教育部。
教育部(1998)。國民教育階段九年一貫課程總綱綱要。台北﹕
教育部。
教育部（2000）。國民中小學九年一貫課程暫行綱要。台北：教育部。
教育部（2001）。九年一貫課程問題與解答。台北：教育部。
教育部（2004）。國民中小學九年一貫課程綱要。台北：教育部。
教育局(2001)。台北市國民中小學九年一貫課程家長手冊Q與A—國小篇。台北﹕市政府教育局。
郭榮瑞（2002）。談藝術與人文課程統整。國教新知，第四十九卷，第二期，頁1-15。
郭禎祥(1993)。透過藝術教育達成全國教育之重整。當代美勞教學理論與實務研討會論文集。台北﹕台北市立師範學院。
郭禎祥(1992)。中美兩國藝術教育鑑賞領域實施現況之比較研究。台北﹕文景。
郭禎祥(1993)。當前我國國民美術教育新趨勢。台北﹕國立台灣師範大學中等教育輔導委員會。
郭禎祥(1999)。21世紀藝術教育的展望。一九九九藝術教育國際學術研討會論文集。彰化﹕國立彰化師範大學美術學系。
郭禎祥(2002)。新世紀藝術教育變動。新世紀藝術教育理論與實務國際學術研討會。台北﹕國立台灣師範大學美術學系。
郭禎祥、趙惠玲(2000)。視覺文化與藝術教育。黃壬來主編，藝術與人文教育。台北﹕桂冠。
郭禎祥譯（1991）。藝術視覺的教育。台北：文景。
莊蕙菁(2003)。以視覺文化為核心之藝術教育課程研究以廣告影像為例。國立台灣師範大學美術研究所碩士論文。
陳建伶(2004)。以視覺藝術為核心之統整課程設計與實施之行動研究以基隆市東信國小及信義國小為例。彰化師範大學藝術教育研究所碩士論文。
陳玲萱(2003)。批判思考教學法應用於國小藝術鑑賞教學之實驗研究。國立台灣師範大學美術研究所碩士論文。
陳朝平、黃壬來(2002)。國小美勞科教材教法。台北﹕五南。
陳榮瑞(2003)。社區取向藝術教育統整課程設計研究—以台北市北投地區公共藝術為例。彰化師範大學藝術教育研究所碩士論文。
陳瓊花（2001）。從美術教育的觀點探討課程統整設計之模式與案例，視覺藝術年刊第四期，頁97-126。
黃光雄譯(2001)。統整課程的設計。高雄﹕麗文。
黃政傑(1985)。課程改革。台北﹕漢文。
黃政傑(1992）。課程設計。台北：東華。
黃政傑(1997)。課程改革的理念與實踐。台北﹕漢文。
詹明信、唐小兵譯(1989)。後現代主義與文化理論。台北：合志。
黎曉安(2002)。檔案評量策略在視覺藝術課程實施之探討。國立台灣師範大學美術研究所碩士論文。
鍾政岳(2003)。高中視覺藝術統整課程教學研究～以國立苑裡高中為例。彰化師範大學藝術教育研究所碩士論文。
蘇永明等著（2000）。九年一貫課程：從理論、政策到執行。高雄：復文。

二、西文部份：
Apple,M.(1979). Ideology and curriculum. London﹕ Routledge and Kegan Paul.
Aiken,L.R.(1996). Rating scales and checklists﹕Evaluating behavior, personality, and attitudes. New York﹕John Wiley & Sons,Inc.
Barkan,M.(1995). A foundation of art education. New York: Ronald Press.
Beane,J.(1995). Curriculum integration and the disciplines of knowledge. Phi Delta Kappan, 76(8), 616-612.
Beane,J.(1997). Curriculum integration: Design the core of democratic education. New York: Teachers College Press, Columbia University.
Boissel,J.(1990). Quand les enfants se mirent a dessiner. In Michaud, Yves.(Ed.), Chiers du musée national d'art modern,(No.31),p.16. Paris: Centre Georges Pompidou.
Boston,B.O.(1996). Connections: The arts and the integration of the hight school curriculum. New York: College Entrance Examination Board & Getty Center for Education in the Arts.
Boughton,D.(2004). Changing to visual culture in art education﹕Dimensions of difference and implication for assessment. International symposium on art education. Taiwan: Taiwan association for education throught arts.
Burns,R.(1995). Dissolving the boundaries﹕Planning for curriculum integration in middle and secondary school. Charleston,WV﹕Appalachian Educational Laboratory.
Chapman,L.(1978). Approaches to art education. New York﹕Harcourt Brace Jovanovich.
D’Amico,V.(1942). Creative teaching in art. Scranton, Penn: International Book.
Day,M.(2004). Modern art, postmodern art, and visual culture in art education.International symposium on art education. Taiwan: Taiwan association for education throught arts.
Dewey,J.(1938). Experience and education.New York: Macmillan.
Drake,S.M.(1993). Planning integrated curriculum: The call to adventure.Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
Drake,S.M.(1995). Connecting learning outcomes to integrated curriculum. Orbit,26(1),28-32.
Drake,S.M.(1998). Creating integrated curriculum : Proven ways to increase student learning. U.S.: Crowin Press,Inc.
Duncum,P.(2001). Visual culture﹕Developments, definitions, and directions for art education. Studies in Art Education,42(2), 103-112.
Edwards,B.(1999). The new drawing on the right side of the brain.(3rded.). U.S.﹕China Times.
Efland,A.(1990). A history of art education: Intellectual and social currents in teaching the visual arts. New York: Teachers College Press.
Efland,A.(2000). The city as metaphor for integrated learning in the art. Studies in Art Education,41(3), 276-295.
Efland,A.,Stuhr, P.,& Freedman,K.(1996). Postmodern art education: An approach to curriculum. Reston, VA: National Art Education Association.
Eisner,E.W.(1994). Cognition and curriculum re— considered.(2nd edition). New York: Teachers College Press.
Eisner,E.W.(1995). The State of the arts and the improvement of education. Art Education Journal, no.1,2-6.
Eisner,E.W.(2000). Ten lessons of the arts teach. Learning and the arts﹕ Crossing boundaries. Chicago﹕ Amdu Spitz & Associates, Inc.
Elkins,J.(1999). The domain of images. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.
Fogarty,R.(1991). Ten ways to integrate curriculum. Educational leadership,49(2), 61-65.
Forseth,S.D.(1980). Art activities, attitudes, and achievementin elementary mathematics. Studies in Art Education,21(2), 22-27.
Freedman,J.(1995). An integrated transdisciplinary approach through art education﹕At primary school. Culture society art education congress proceedings. Taiwan﹕National Museum of Natural Science.
Freedman,K.(2000). Social perspectives on art education in the U.S.﹕Teaching visual culture in a democracy. Studies in Art Education,41(4), 314-329.
Freedman,K.(2003). Teaching visual culture﹕Curriculum, aesthetics, and the social life of art. New York﹕Teachers College Press.
Freedman,K.(2004). Teaching visual culture﹕visiting new realms and returning home. International symposium on art education. Taiwan﹕National Taiwan Arts Education Center.
Gardner,H.(1983). Frames of mind: The theory of multiple intelligences. New York: Basic Books.
Goldwarer,R.(1972). Primitivism in modern art.London: Thames and Hudson Ltd.
Greer,W.D.(1984). A discipline-based art education﹕approaching art as a subject of study. Studies in Art Education,v25(4),212-218.
Herbert,M.W.(1984). Art education as vatural science: An integrated curriculum approach to the teaching of visual art and natural science in the secondary school. Pennsylvania State University.
Houser,R.(1998). Counseling and educational research- Evaluation and application. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications.
Jacobs,H.H.(1989). Interdisciplinary curriculum: Design and implementation. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
Klein, J.T.(1990). Interdiciplinary studies today. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Krug,D.& Cohen-Evron,N.(2000). Curriculum integration positions and practices in art education. Studies in Art Education,41(3), 258—275.
Lindsay,J.S.(1989). Chaos theory: Implications for educational research. ERIC Document Reproduction Service No.ED 317593.
Lowenfeld,V.(1957). Creative and mental growth. (3thed.).New York: The MacMillan Co.
McFee,J.(1970). Preparation for art. (2nded.) Belmont. CA: Wadsworth.
Mibrandt,M.K.(2002). Addressing contemporary social issues in art education﹕A survey of public school art education in georgia. Studies in Art Education, 43(2), 141-157.
Moore,R.(Ed.)(1995). Aesthetics for young people. Reston, VA﹕National Art Education Association.
Oliveira,N.D.,Oxley,N.,& Petry,M.(1994). Installation art. London﹕Thames and Hudson.
Parsons,M.J.(1998）. Integrated curriculum and our paradigm of cognition in the arts. Studies in Art Education,39(2), 103-116.
Parsons,M.J.(1999）. What we learn through art﹕ Habits of mind and multplicity.An International Symposium In Art Education Congress Proceedings.Taiwan﹕ Council for Cultural Affairs Executive Yuan Office in Taicung.
Parsons,M.J.（2003）. Integrated curriculum, art and cognition. Hong Kong﹕The School of Foundations in Education.
Perkins,D.N.,& Salomon,G.(1989).Are cognitive skills context-bound? Educational Researcher,18(1), 16- 25.
Perkins,D.N.(1994). The intelligent eye: Learning to think by looking at art. Los Angeles﹕The Getty Education Institute for the Arts .
Prawat,R.(1991). The value of ideas: The immersion approach to the development of thinking. Educational Researcher, 20(2),3-10.
Rosenberg.H.(1966). The anxious object. Chicago﹕University of Chicago Press.
Sciaccaluga,M.(2001).Cracking art S.O.S. world. Milano﹕Elemond Editori Associati.
Stuhr,P.L.(2003). A tale of why social and cultural content is often excluded from art education—And why it should not be. Studies in Art Education,44(4), 301-314.
Stuhr,P.L.(2004). Considering visual culture, life- long learning and social justice. International symposium on art education. Taiwan﹕Nation Taiwan Arts Education Center.
TETAC Mentors.(2002). Integrated curriculum﹕ Possibilities for the arts. Art Education,55(3), 12-22.
Thomas M.B.(2002). Integrated curriculum﹕What benefit? Arts Education Policy Review,103(4),31-36.
Tyler,R.W.(1949). Basic principles of curriculum and instrucation. Chicago﹕University of Chicago Press.
Walker,S.R.(2001). Teaching meaning in artmaking. Worcester, Ma﹕Davis Publication,Inc.
Willet,L.(1992). The efficacy of using the visual arts to teach mathand reading concepts. U.S. Department of Education, Office of Educational Research and Improvement, Educational Resources Information Center PS 020784.
Wilson,B.(1997). The quiet evolution: Changing the face of arts education. Los Angeles﹕ Getty Education Institute for the Arts.
Zeki,S.(1999). Inner vision﹕An exploration of art and the brain. Oxford, England﹕Oxford University Press.