本行動研究旨在探討戶外教育跨領域課程之實施歷程、學生學習經驗與成效及教師行動省思，嘗試解決國中學生學習動機低下、親自然性低落之問題。研究對象為臺北市某高中國中部一年級學生25人，實施為期十一週之戶外攀樹跨領域課程，透過蒐集在行動研究歷程中的教學觀察紀錄、課後議課紀錄、學生學習檔案、師生訪談紀錄等資料進行質性分析，得出以下研究結論：
一、 戶外教育跨領域課程之實施與修正歷程：
透過組成教師跨領域共備社群，以每週課程共備、協同教學與課後議課，逐步反思與修正課程，為教師帶來對戶外教育跨領域課程更深的理解與發現。

二、戶外教育跨領域課程之學生經驗與成效：
1. 學生學習經驗：失衡經驗到自我調整、師生同儕互動學習、團隊衝突的因應學習、分享學習提升自信。
2. 學生學習成效：增進自我認識、提升學習動機、學習人際互動、增加對樹木關注、間接提升相關學科學習成效、促進不同情境學習遷移。

三、教師對戶外教育跨領域課程之行動省思：
1. 課程行動策略：在彈性選修課程實施戶外跨領域統整、彈性編排課程與協調課時、主動溝通以取得行政與家長的支持及攀樹專業訓練與協同教學的配搭。
2. 課程改進方向：增加課時及調整課程內容順序、融入環境教育元素於戶外教育跨領域課程、嘗試不同的戶外教育媒介發展跨領域課程。
3. 教師對戶外教育跨領域課程之理解：課程能整合分科及統整之優勢、作為素養導向教學的實踐、促進學生多元豐富學習。

本研究根據上述研究結論，提出相關實務及研究之具體建議，作為教師未來進行相關課程與研究參考。

This action research aims to explore the process of implementing the outdoor interdisciplinary curriculum (OIC), students’ experiences and learning outcomes, and teachers’ reflections. This study also tries to address junior high school students’ low learning motivation and their less affinity for nature.

In this study, 25 students from a junior high school in the Taipei city participated in an 11-week OIC about tree climbing. A qualitative research method was adopted in this study. Teaching observation records, post-teaching discussion records, students’ learning profiles, and teachers’ and students’ interviews were collected and analyzed. Three key aspects were shown in the major findings below: (a) the implementation process of the OIC; (b) the students’ experiences, learning outcomes of OIC; and (c) the teachers’ reflections on the OIC.

First, in terms of the implementation process of the OIC, teachers could have deeper understanding of OIC through forming an interdisciplinary professional learning community, interdisciplinary lesson planning and teaching, mutual classroom observation and post-teaching discussion to reflect and improve the lessons. Second, in the light of students’ learning experiences in OIC, disequilibrium experience supported self-regulation. Peer learning with students and teachers, coping with group conflicts, and sharing discoveries also improve students’ confidence. Regarding students’ learning outcomes, OIC could increase self-awareness, improve learning motivation, interpersonal skills, raise awareness for trees, promote students’ learning outcomes of related subjects, and promote learning transfer to a different context. Third, as for teachers’ reflections of the OIC, the strategies for implementation were planning course time with flexibility, the coordination of class schedules, active communication for supports from parents and school administrators, and the professional training of tree climbing for collaborative teaching. The improvement of OIC were adding more lesson and reorganized the learning content, integrating the element of environmental education, and trying different outdoor activities to development the OIC. With regard to the understanding of OIC, OIC can bring out the advantages of both integrated and disciplinary curriculum, serve as a practice of competency-based instruction, and enhance students’ diverse learning.

Based on these results, some suggestions for future research and OIC planning are provided for future researchers and teachers.

中文部分
何琦瑜、賓靜蓀、張瀞文（2015）。十二年國教新挑戰：搶救「無動力世代」。親子天下，33。取自https://www.parenting.com.tw/article/5031634
吳木崑（2009）。Dewey經驗哲學對課程與教學之啟示。臺北市立教育大學學報教育類，40(1)，35-54。doi:10.6336/JUTe/2009.40(1)2
吳清山（2016）。教育名詞－戶外教育。教育脈動，4。取自https://pulse.naer.edu.tw/Home/Content/b870a06f-42e4-45b2-96c8-6ee27d004762?insId=af2e89d7-4c33-4f9d-a680-9aeb9324095b
李玉萍、林瓊瑤、黃琴扉（2018）。從校園課室到戶外場域－污水處理解說方案應用於國小學童教學之比較。休憩管理研究，5(2)，1-20。
李坤崇（2019）。學習評量（第二版）。台北市：心理。
周佩儀（2000）。課程統整與課程分化。載於中華民國課程與教學學會（主編），課程統整與教學 (頁3-26)。台北：揚智。
周淑卿、王郁雯（2019）。從課程統整到跨領域課程：台灣二十年的論述與問題。教育學報，47（2），41-59。
周新富（2017）。課程發展與設計。台北市：五南。
周儒、呂建政（譯）（2008）。戶外教學。（原作者：D. R. Hammerman, W. M. Hammerman, E.L Hammerman，2001）。臺北市：五南。（原著出版年：2001）
林生傳（1998）。建構主義的教學評析。課程與教學，1（3），1-13，133。doi:10.6384/CIQ.199807.0001
林秀珍（2007）。經驗與教育探微—Dewey教育哲學之詮釋。臺北市：師大書苑。
林佩璇（2002）。行動研究的知識宣稱—教師實踐知識。國立臺北師範學院學報，(15)，189-210。
洪詠善（2016）。學習趨勢：跨領域、現象為本的統整學習。國家教育研究院電子報，134。取自https://epaper.naer.edu.tw/index.php?edm_no134&content_no=2671
范信賢（2016）。核心素養與十二年國民基本教育課程綱要：導讀《國民核心素養：十二年國教課程改革的DNA》。教育脈動電子期刊，5，1-7。取自 https://www.naer.edu.tw/ezfiles/0/1000/img/67/379316-21.pdf
香港課程發展議會（2015）。通識教育科課程及評估指引（中四至中六）。取自http://334.edb.hkedcity.net/new/doc/chi/curriculum2015/LS_CAGuide_c_2015.pdf
郝冰、王西敏（譯）（2009）。失去山林的孩子：拯救「大自然缺失症」兒童（原作者：R. Louv）。台北市：野人文化。（原著出版年：2008）
張芬芬（2010）。質性資料分析的五步驟：在抽象階梯上爬升。初等教育學刊，35，87-120。
張芬芬（2019）。十二年國教的統整與分科課程：對立？取代？互補？。臺灣教育評論月刊，8（1），195-200。
張金田（2017）。淺談我國中小學「課程統整」現況與未來展望。臺灣教育評論月刊，6（4），171-174。
張玲偵（2019）。專題式戶外學習應用於高中多元選修課程之行動研究（碩士論文）。取自http://etds.lib.ntnu.edu.tw/cgibin/gs32/gsweb.cgi/ccd=9GdYWj/record?r1=1&h1=0
張嘉芯（2019）。國小戶外教育與解決問題素養導向教學之行動研究（碩士論文）。國立屏東大學生態休閒教育教學碩士學位學程，屏東縣。取自https://hdl.handle.net/11296/5g2h86
張德銳（2014）。教學檔案：促進教師專業發展。臺北市：高等教育。
教育部（2014）。十二年國民基本教育課程綱要總綱。臺北市：教育部。
教育部（2017）。國民中學及國民小學實施跨領域或跨科目協同教學參考原則。取自：https://www.edu.tw/News_Content.aspx?n=9E7AC85F1954DDA8&s=1A3C3F7BC29B1BD1
郭生玉（2004）。教育測驗與評量。台北市：精華。
郭重吉（1988）。從認知的觀點探討自然科學的學習。教育學院學報，13。
陳永龍（2015）。中華民國戶外教育宣言蘊義與政策推展。國家教育研究院教育脈動電子期刊，4，4-11。取自http://pulse.naer.edu.tw/content.aspx?type=A&sid=189
陳向明（2017）。社會科學質的研究。台北市：五南。
陳佩英（2017）。跨領域素養導向課程設計：初階工作坊實踐手冊。愛思客團隊，2017。臺北市：教育部。取自http://www.sggs.hc.edu.tw/sggsnew/premium/data/%E8%B7%A8%E9%A0%98%E5%9F%9F%E7%B4%A0%E9%A4%8A%E5%B0%8E%E5%90%91%E8%AA%B2%E7%A8%8B%E8%A8%AD%E8%A8%88%E6%89%8B%E5%86%8A.pdf
陳佩英（2018）。跨領域素養導向課程設計工作坊之構思與實踐。課程研究，13，2，21-40。
陳怡均（2015）。啟動五感學習－南大附小主題式戶外教育實例分享。師友月刊，573，26-30。取自http://dx.doi.org/10.6437/EM.201503_(573).0006
陳惠萍（1995）。教學檔案在教師專業發展上的應用。載於中華民國師範教育學會（主編），師資培育與教學科技（183-212頁）。臺北市：臺灣書店。
單文經（2015）。經驗與教育。（原作者：John Dewey）。新北市：聯經。（原著出版年：1938）。
曾鈺琪、黃茂在、李文富、林志成、張惟亮、吳文德、陳永龍、⋯許彩梁（2015）。戶外教育實施指引。新竹市：國家教育研究院。
鈕文英（2015）。研究方法與論文寫作（二版）。臺北市：雙葉。
黃政傑（1991）。課程設計。臺北市：東華。
黃炳煌（1999）。談課程統整——以九年一貫社會科為例。載於中華民國教材研究發展學會 (編印)，九年一貫課程研討會論文集 (下)：邁向課程新紀元 (頁252-257)。臺北：教研學會。
黃茂在、曾鈺琪（2015）。臺灣戶外教育內涵與課程優質化初探。國家教育研究院教育脈動電子期刊，4，25-43。
葉興華（2019）。跨領域或科目之協同教學設計的概念。選修【跨領域或科目之協同教學設計-106年度】課程檔案 (108.01.21) 。 取自 https://cirn.moe.edu.tw/ WebFile/index.aspx?sid=1172&mid=9302
劉世雄（2017）。臺灣國中教師對共同備課、公開觀課、集體議課的實施目的、關注內容及專業成長知覺之研究。當代教育研究季刊，25，2，43-76。
劉蔚之、黃春木（2016）。十二年國教「課程統整」之道。載於中華民國課程與教學學會主編，課程改革2016回顧與展望 (165-191頁)。臺北市：五南
歐用生（2005）。內容分析法及其在教科書研究上的應用。載於莊梅枝主編，教科書之旅 (149-170)。臺北市：中華民國教材研究發展學會。
潘世尊（2004）。行動研究的基本要求。國民教育研究集刊，(12)，163-177+179。doi:10.7038/BREE.200412_(12).0009
潘世尊（2014）。教育行動研究的困境與挑戰。教育理論與實踐學刊，(30)，119-147。doi:10.7038/JETP.201412_(30).0006
潘慧玲（2003）。社會科學研究典範的流變。教育研究資訊，11（1），115-143。
蔡清田（2004）。課程行動研究：反思實務工作者的方法與資源手冊（原作者：Mckernan）。高雄市：麗文文化。（原著出版年：1996）
蔡清田（2011）。課程改革中的核心素養之功能。教育科學期刊，10（1），203-217。
蔡清田（2013）。教育行動研究新論。台北市：五南。
鄭世仁（2000）。課程。教育大辭書。取自http://terms.naer.edu.tw/detail/1314029/
鄭明長（2000）。教學的意涵與模式。載於中華民國課程與教學學會 (主編)，課程統整與教學 (頁153-182)。臺北：揚智。
簡紅珠（2000）。教學評量。教育大辭書。取自：http://terms.naer.edu.tw/detail/1310000/
簡慶郎、鍾怡慧（2005）。建構主義學習理論在技職教育之運用與學習評價之探討。瑞工學報，94。
藍偉瑩（2019）。教學力：深化素養學習的關鍵。臺北市：親子天下。
顏國樑（2017）。國民中小學教師實施公開授課的做法、困境及因應策略。新竹縣教育研究集刊，17，01-18。
羅先耘、黃茂在（2020）。戶外教育有助培育自主學習的學習者。載於學習新動力：「自主學習」在十二年國教的多元展現（頁69-102）。新北市：國家教育研究院。
羅先耘、葉育瑜、黃茂在（2018）我們準備好了嗎？臺灣戶外教育研究回顧。休憩管理研究，5（2），63-88。

英文部分
Amanda, L. (2016). Impact of One-Semester Outdoor Education Programs on Adolescent Perceptions of Self-Authorship. Journal of Experiential Education. 39. doi: 10.1177/1053825916668902.
American Institutes for Research (2005). Effects of outdoor education programs for children in california. CA: The California Department of Education. doc/951101/95-7-2.doc
Andrejko, L. (1998). The Case for the Teacher Portfolio. Journal of Staff Development, 19(4), 45-48.
Banchi, H., & Bell, R. (2008). THE MANY LEVELS OF inquiry. Science and Children, 46(2), 26-29. Retrieved from https://0-www.proquest.com.opac.lib.ntnu.edu.tw/scholarly-journals/many-levels-inquiry/docview/236901022/se-2?accountid=14228
Becker, C., Lauterbach, G., Spengler, S., Dettweiler, U., & Mess, F. (2017). Effects of regular classes in outdoor education settings: A systematic review on students’ learning, social and health dimensions. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 14(5), 485.
Bisson, C. (1996). The Outdoor Education Umbrella: A Metaphoric Model To Conceptualize Outdoor Experiential Learning Methods.
Deane, K. L., & Harre, N. (2014). The youth adventure programming model. Journal of Research on Adolescence, 24(2), 293-308. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/jora.12069
Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (2008). Self-determination theory: A macrotheory of human motivation, development, and health. Canadian Psychology/Psychologie canadienne, 49(3), 182–185.
Dettweiler, U., Ünlü, A., Lauterbach, G., Becker, C., & Gschrey, B. (2015). Investigating the motivational behavior of pupils during outdoor science teaching within self-determination theory. Frontiers in psychology, 6, 125.
Donaldson, G. W., & Donaldson, L. E. (1958). Outdoor Education a Definition. Journal of Health, Physical Education, Recreation, 29(5), 17-63. doi:10.1080/00221473.1958.10630353
Drake, S. M. (2007) (2nd Ed.). Creating standards-based integrated curriculum: Aligning curriculum content, assessment and instruction. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
Drake, S. M., & Reid, J. (2017). Interdisciplinary Assessment in the 21st Century. Academic Exchange Quarterly, 21(1).
Ewert, A. (1989). Outdoor Adventure Pursuits: Foundations, Models, and Theories--Replying to the Critics. Journal of Experiential Education. 14. 53-53. doi:10.1177/105382599101400211.
Ford, M. P. (1981). Principles and practices of outdoor/environmental education. New York: Wiley.
Freeman, J. J. (1998). The teaching portfolio as a vehicle for professional growth. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of New Hampshire, Durham, NH.
Gass, M. (1985). Programming the Transfer of Learning in Adventure Education. Journal of Experiential Education. 10(3). Doi: 10.1177/105382598500800305.
Gass, M. (1999). Transfer of Learning in Adventure Programing. In J. C. Miles & S. Priest (Eds.) Adventure programming (pp.227-234). State College, PA: Venture Publishing.
Gathright, J., Yamada, Y., & Morita, M. (2007). Recreational tree-climbing programs in a rural Japanese community forest: Social impacts and “fun factors”. Urban Forestry & Urban Greening, 6(3), 169-179.
Gathright, J., Yamada, Y., & Morita, M.(2006). Comparison of the physiological and psychological benefits of tree and tower climbing. Urban Forestry & Urban Greening, 5(3), 141-149.
Gathright, John & Yamada, Yozo & Morita, Miyako. (2008). Tree-Assisted Therapy: Therapeutic and Societal Benefits from Purpose-Specific Technical Recreational Tree-Climbing Programs. Arboriculture and Urban Forestry. 34.
Goodlad, J., I. (1979). Curriculum Inquiry: The Study of Curriculum Practice, New York: McGraw Hill.
Gookin, J. (2003). NOLS Wilderness Educator Notebook. Lander, WY, National Outdoor Leadership School.
Hammerman, D. R., Hammerman, W. M., and Hammerman, E. L. (1985). Teaching in the Outdoors (3rd ed.). Dandle, IL: Interstate.
Houge Mackenzie, Susan & Son, Julie & Eitel, Karla. (2018). Using outdoor adventure to enhance intrinsic motivation and engagement in science and physical activity: An exploratory study. Journal of Outdoor Recreation and Tourism. 21. 76-86.
IBO (2014). Fostering interdisciplinary teaching and learning in the MYP, Geneva, Switzerland: International Baccalaureate Organization.
Keith. M. (1990). Outdoor and environmental education: diverse purposes and practices. South Melbourne, Australia, Macmillan.
Kolb, D.A. (1984). Experiential learning: experience as the source of learning and development(Vol. 1). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Leo (1991). Benefits of Integrated Outdoor Education and Adventure. University of Minnesota, Minnesota.
Lewin, K. (1947). Frontiers in Group Dynamics: II. Channels of Group Life; Social Planning and Action Research. Human Relations, 1(2), 143–153. https://doi.org/10.1177/001872674700100201
Lewis, C. A., Jr. (1975). The administration of outdoor education programs. Kendall/Hunt Publishing Company, 2460 Kerper Boulevard, Dubuque, Iowa 52001 ($3.95). Retrieved from https://search.proquest.com/docview/63828304?accountid=14228Mitchell
Maher Gilbertson, K., Bates, T., McLaughlin, T., & Ewert, A. (2006). Outdoor Education: Methods and Strategies. Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics.
Matthews,M.R.(1994). Science teaching: The role of history and philosophy of science. New York: Routledge.
Mygind, E. (2009). A comparison of childrens' statements about social relations and teaching in the classroom and in the outdoor environment. Journal of Adventure Education and Outdoor Learning, 9(2), 151-169. https://doi.org/10.1080/14729670902860809
Priest, S. (1986). Redefining Outdoor Education: A Matter of Many Relationships. The Journal of Environmental Education, 17(3), 13-15. doi:10.1080/00958964.1986.9941413
Rychen, D. S., & Salganik, L. H. (Eds.). (2003). Key competencies for a 　　successful life and a well-functioning society. Ashland, OH, US: Hogrefe & Huber Publishers.
Sakofs, M. S. (1979). Proposition 13 and Outdoor Education, Journal of Physical Education and Recreation, 50(2), 66-67, doi:10.1080/00971170.1979.10617956
Schleien, S., Hornfeldt, D., & McAvoy, L. (1994). Integration and environmental/outdoor education: The impact of integrating students with severe developmental disabilities on the academic performance of peers without disabilities. Therapeutic Recreation Journal, 28(1), 25-34.
Schön, D. (1992). The Reflective Practitioner. London: Routledge, https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315237473
Sharpe, D. (2014). Independent thinkers and learners: a critical evaluation of the ‘Growing Together Schools Programme’. Pastoral Care in Education, 32(3), 197-207.
Stevens, C. (2018). Exploring the Impact of Tree Climbing on Participants' Affinity for Nature. (M.S.). Montreat College, Ann Arbor. Retrieved from https://search.proquest.com/docview/2117006414?accountid=14228
Svetlana, N. (2006) Three strategies for interdisciplinary teaching: contextualizing, conceptualizing, and problem‐centring, Journal of Curriculum Studies, 38:3, 251-271, DOI: 10.1080/00220270500422632
Waite, S. (2011). Teaching and learning outside the classroom: Personal values, alternative pedagogies and standards. Education 3-13, 39(1), 65-82.
Wallace, J., Sheffield, R., Rénnie, L., & Venville, G. (2007). Looking back, looking forward: Re-searching the conditions for curriculum integration in the middle years of schooling. The Australian Educational Researcher, 34(2), 29–49. doi: 10.1007/BF03216856
Wiggins, G. P., & McTighe, J. (2005). Understanding by design (2nd ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Education, Inc. Print.
Wolf, P., Hill, A., and Evers, F. (2006). A Handbook for Curriculum Assessment. Guelph, Ont.: University of Guelph.
Yager,R.E.(1991).The constructivist learning model: Towards real reform in science education. The Science Teacher, 58(6),52-57.
Yeung, S. S. Y., & Lam, C. C. (2007). Teachers’ conception of curriculum integration: A problem hindering its implementation in Hong Kong. Education Journal, 35(2), 109–144.
Zhang, J.Y (2013). Cooperative Learning in Outdoor Education. (Master dissertation, Linkoping University) Retrieved from http://liu.diva-portal.org/smash/get/diva2:698636/FULLTEXT02.pdf
Zimmerman, B. J. (2002). Becoming a self-regulated learner: An overview. Theory into practice, 41(2), 64-70.
Zwick, Thomas & Miller, Kenneth. (1996). A Comparison of Integrated Outdoor Education Activities and Traditional Science Learning with American Indian Students. Journal of American Indian Education. 35.