本研究旨在瞭解大眾文化如何影響兒童的繪畫表現，並探討高年級個案學童自發性漫畫創作之表現動機、學習歷程、作品之形式與內容表現等四個繪畫創作層面與大眾文化的關係。本研究之對象為台北市某地區某國小的高年級學童，男女各兩位，並擅長自發性漫畫創作。本研究採用多重個案研究的方式，利用參與觀察與訪談做文件資料的蒐集，再將文件資料進行內容分析，最後做跨個案的分析比較，期能發現深受大眾文化影響的兒童繪畫表現之特質。
本研究所獲致的重要結論如下：
一、由於大眾文化的視覺刺激，引發了兒童創作的動機，亦提供了最佳的學習參考。大眾文化是同儕間的次文化，個案們創作漫畫作品，並提供同儕們分享與欣賞，是一種社會化歷程的表現，而個案們在創作漫畫的同時，可滿足一種自我想像的樂趣。
二、個案們從大眾文化擷取視覺表達資源，並從大眾文化圖像的描摹入手，過程包含漫畫圖像的借用、模仿、簡化與改造，與漫畫敘述語法的拷貝、簡化、修飾、記憶與轉換，並能自求解決描繪問題與困難，經過長期的練習與學習的持續，而後達成圖像表達的精練與漫畫敘述語法的精熟。
三、個案們承襲大眾文化圖像的表達系統，模仿流行的漫畫敘述語法，在漫畫符號系統的選擇與線條造型特徵表現有兩性分化的傾向。
四、個案們沿用市面上所常見的少男、少女漫畫的表現內容題材，反映以漫畫為主的大眾文化制式化的兩性題材取向。在內容表現上接收大眾文化關心的議題，在人物角色的塑造上反映英雄主義、傳統性別主義觀念，表現對異性的期待、同儕認同與同性對立關係。
根據上述研究之發現，研究者提出對兒童繪畫教學與實施九年一貫美術教學課程的建議：（1）培育兒童解讀媒體影像，（2）營造繪畫模仿的適切環境，（3）協助兒童澄清大眾通俗文化的意涵，以培養適當的價值觀，（4）把大眾文化藝術融入美術課程，（5）多元評量兒童的繪畫表現。
關鍵詞：兒童繪畫發展、漫畫、大眾文化。

The purpose of this study is to investigate the children's drawings within influence of popular culture. It also explores the relationship of drawing motivation, process, form and content of spontaneous comic strip artworks and popular culture in senior students of primary school. Subjects used in this study consist of two boys and two girls of senior students of primary school in the Taipei region. All of them are good at spontaneous comic strip creation. Participation-observation and interview are used for data gathering. These collected data are then analyzed and compared. Finally, we expect to obtain the representation characteristics of children drawings by influence of popular culture.
The important conclusions are as follows:
1. Due to the visual stimulation of popular culture, it motivates children's drawing and provides the best learning reference. Popular culture is a kind of sub-culture among classmates. Subjects offering and sharing comic strip artworks with classmates is a prenence of socializing process. Meanwhile, subjects enjoy the pleasure of self-satisfaction from the imaginary drawing.
2. Retrieving visual expression resources from mass culture, subjects imitate images initially. The processes include borrowing, facsimiling, simplifing and reforming of comic strip images and coping, abbreviating, modifying, memorizing and transforming of comic strip narrative syntax. Moreover, subjects can pursue the method of solving drawing difficulties by themselves. After proceeding practice and continuous learning, refinement of image expression and skill of comic strip narrative syntax are achieved finally.
3. Inheriting expressive system of images of popular culture, subjects imitate prevalent comic strip narrative syntax. Therefore, the selection of comic strip symbolic system and description of line modeling feature have the inclination of bi-sexualizing.
4. Following narrative materials of comic strip for young people in marketing, subjects reflect the uniform material orientation of bi-sexual relationship. Furthermore, in content representation, subjects accept the concerned topics of popular culture, and in characters modeling, the concepts of heroism and traditional sexism are presented. In addition, it also shows the expectation to the other sex, classmate identity and the hostile relationship to the same sex.
According to the above, the suggestions for instructional method in children's drawings and fine arts curriculums of nine-year-series are proposed as follows.
1. Educate children to interpret media images.
2. Give an appropriate environment of drawings and imitation.
3. Help children to recognize the essence of popular culture for suitable value.
4. Include mass culture and popular art in the art curriculum.
5. Evaluate diversely in children's drawing ability.
Keyword: children's drawing development, comic strip, popular culture

中文部分
王文科 (1990) ：教育研究法。台北：五南。
王文科 (1994) ：質的教育研究法。台北：師大書苑。
王曾才 (1991，10月) ：大眾文化之探討(上)。當代青年，80，33-36。
王曾才 (1991，11月) ：大眾文化之探討(下)。當代青年，80，20-21。
王秀雄 (1990) ：美術與教育。台北：市立美術館。
王秀雄 (1991) ：美術心理學。台北：市立美術館。
王嵩音譯 (1993) ：傳播研究里程碑。台北：遠流。
王德育 譯 (1986) ：Lowenfeld, V. 著 (1947)，創造與心智的成長。台北：三有圖書公司。
古采豔 (1997) ：What’s so Funny about The Comics ? ─淺談漫畫媒體表現形式的圖像魅力(上)。幼獅文藝，84卷(1)，87-91。
古采豔 (1997) ：What’s so Funny about The Comics ? ─淺談漫畫媒體表現形式的圖像魅力(下)。幼獅文藝，84(2)，86-90。
呂清夫 (1996) ：後現代的造形思考。台北：傑出出版社。
宋明順 (1993) ：大眾社會、大眾文化與休閒─當前社會危機之一分析。社會教育學刊，22，1-16。
李長俊 譯 (1982) ：Arnheim, R. 著 (1964)，藝術與視覺心理學。台北：雄獅。
李麗真 (1994) ：同儕團體與青少年行為─從麥克旋風談起。教師天地，72，59-63。
吳美真 譯 (1998) ：Jameson, F. 著 (1993)，後現代晚期或晚期資本主義的文化邏輯。台北：時報。
吳芝儀、李奉儒 譯 (1995) ：Batton, M. 著，質的評鑑與研究。台北：桂冠。
林玉山 (1990) ：皮亞傑認知發展理論與兒童繪畫發展之探討。國立臺灣師範大學美術研究所碩士論文(未出版)。
林淑真 (1996) ：漫畫所引發的青少年效應。國文天地，12，70-76。
洪德麟 (1994) ：台灣漫畫40年初探。台北：時報。
高敬文 (1993) ：質的研究實施歷程與發現邏輯之評估。論文發表於國立屏東師範學院學術發表會。
陳瓊花 (1997) ：再從兒童繪畫表現，探討地區性的差異與特質─臺北市與金門縣小學五年級的學童如何畫「我未來的家庭」。美育，89，37-48。
陳麗卒 (1998) ：以質化方式探索兒童繪畫內容與社會環境間的關係。論文發表於一九九七藝術教育學術研討會。
陳育淳 (2000) ：大眾文化對兒童繪畫發展的影響。國立彰化師範大學藝術教育研究所碩士論文(未出版)。
陳錦忠 (1996) ：圖像與語文語言的結合─漫畫語言。84學年度師範學院 教育學術論文發表會論文集，3，1-21。
莊宗憲 (1994) ：消費社會：大眾文化與後現代。國立政治大學社會研究所碩士論文(未出版)。
黃瑞琴 (1994) ：質的研究法。台北：心理出版社。
郭禎祥(1988)，以艾斯納(E.W, Eisner)「學術本位的美術教育」(DBAE)為理論基礎探討現今我國國民教育。師大學報，33，575-592。
郭禎祥 (1992) ：中美兩國藝術教育─藝術教育的鑑賞領域實施現況研究。台北：文景。
郭禎祥 (1999) ：二十一世紀藝術教育的展望，美育，106，2-9。
蔡東照 (1984) ：漫畫技巧。台北：中視。
劉豐榮 (1992) ：艾斯納藝術教育思想研究。台北：水牛。
劉平君 (1996) ：解讀漫畫《城市獵人》中的女性意涵。政大新聞所碩士論文(未出版)。
閻振興、高明 監修 (1986) ：中文百科大辭典(三版)。台北：百科文化。
歐琇瑜 (1997) ：以幻想主題取徑探討臺灣流行漫畫的價值觀。輔仁大學大眾傳播研究所碩士論文(未出版)。
賴怡伶 (2000) ：臺灣少女漫畫發展與文本創作分析研究。國立成功大學藝術研究所碩士論文(未出版)。
羅曉南 (1994) ：「批判理論」對大眾文化之批判─從阿多諾、霍克海默到哈伯馬斯。國立政治大學學報，69(下)，263-282。
蘇蘅 (1994) ：青少年閱讀漫畫動機與行為之研究。新聞學研究，48，123-145。
教育部重編國語辭典編輯委員會 (1981) ：重編國語辭典。教育部重編國語辭典編輯委員會。
臺灣中華書局簡明大英百科全書編輯部 (1988) ：簡明大英百科全書。臺灣中華書局。
英文部分
Abbott, L. L. (1986) Comic art: characteristics and potential of a narrative medium. Journal of popular culture, 19(4), 155-176.
Adorno, T. W., & Horkheimer, M. (1972). Dialectic of enlightenment,
translated by John Coming. New York: Heder and Herder.
Arnheim, R. (1978). Expressions (A response to "icono-clastic view"). Art Education , 31(3) , 37-38.
Berlyne, D. E. (1969). Laughter, humor, and play. In G. Lindzey, & E. Aronson (Eds.), The handbook of social psychology, 3(2). Reading Mass: Addison Wesley.
Bersson, R. C. (1978). The use of participant-observation in the evaluation of art programs. Studies in Art Education ,19(2) , 61-67.
Churchill, A. R. (1970). Art for preadolescents. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Davis, J. (1997). The“U”and the wheel of“C”:development and devaluation of graphic symbolization and the cognitive approach at Harvard Project Zero, In A. M. Kindler (Ed), Child development in art (pp. 45-58). Reston, NAEA Press.
Duncum, P. (1984). How 35 children born between 1724 and 1900 learned to draw. Studies in Art Education, 26(2), 93-103.
Duncum, P. (1987). What. even dallas? Popular cultural within the art curriculum. Studies in Art Education, 29(1), 6-11.
Duncum, P. (1997). Subjects and themes in children's unsolicited drawing and gender socialization, In A. M. Kindler (Ed), Child development in art (pp. 60-81). Reston, NAEA Press.
Duncum, P. (2000). Art education and visual culture. Paper presented at the meeting of the 2000 International Visual Art Conference. Taipei Municipal Teacher College.
Eisner, E. W. (1972). Educating artistic vision. New York: Macmillan.
Ellis, M. J. (1973). Why people play. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Feldman, E. B. (1981).Varieties of visual experience (2nd ed.). New York: Harry N. Abrams, Inc.
Feldman, D. (1983). Developmental psychology and art education. Art Education, 36(2), 19-22 .
Efland, A. (1999). Mapping the postmodern: A vision of 21st art education. Paper presented at the meeting of the Prospect of Art Education in the 21st Century. Taiwan Museum of Art.
Erikson, E. (1950). Childhood and society. New York: W. W. Norton.
Erikson, E. (1968). Identity youth and crisis. New York: W. W. Norton.
Fiske, J. (1993). Power plays, power works. London; New York: Verso.
Freedman, K. (1997). Art development and curriculum: Sociocultural learning consideration, In A. M. Kindler (Ed), Child development in art (pp. 95-106).
Gamradt, J., & Stapies, C. (1994). My school and me: Children’s drawings in postmodern educational research and evaluation. Visual Arts Research, 20, 30-36.
Gans, H. J. (1974). Popular culture and high culture. New York: Basic Books.
Gardner, H. (1982). Art, mind, and brain. New York: Basic Books.
Glaser, B. G., & Strauss, A. L. (1967). The discovery of grounded theory. Chicago: Mifflin.
Glasberg, R. (1992). The archie code: A study in sexual stereotyping as reflective of a basic dilemma in American society. Journal of popular culture, 26(2), 25-32.
Golomb, C. (1992). Reflections on cultural variables, The child's creation of a pictorial world (pp. 325-339). University of California Press.
Gombrich, E. H. (1960 ). Art and illusion. London: Phaidon.
Guba, E. C. (1981). The paradigm dialog. CA: Sage.
Hobbs, J. (1985). Response to Smith's "A right to the best" . Studies in Art Education, 26(3), 176-180.
Hoff, G. R. (1982). The visual narrative : Kids , comic books , and creativity. Art Education , 35(2), 20-23.
Hughes, R. (1998). Reconceptualizing the art curriculum. Journal of Art & Design Education, 17(1), 41-49.
Kindler, A. M., & Darras, B. (1994). Artistic development in context: Emergence and development of pictorial imagery in the early childhood years. Visual Art Research, 20(2), 1-13.
Kindler, A. M., & Darras, B. (1997). Map of artistic development. In A. M. Kindler (Ed), Child development in art (pp. 17-44). Reston, NAEA Press.
Kindler, A. M. & Darras, B. (1998). Culture and development of pictorial repertoires. Studies in Art Education, 39(2), 147-167.
Kindo Ito (1994). Images of women in weekly male comic magazines in Japan. Journal of popular culture, 27(4), 81-95.
Kreitler, H., & Kreitler, S. (1972). Psychology of the art. Durham, NC: Duke University Press.
Lindstrom, M. (1957). Children's art: A study of normal development in children's modes of visualization. Berkeley, CA: University of California.
Lopate, P. (1976). The comic book project. Teachers and writers magazine, 8(1) , 2-17.
Lowenfeld, V., & Brittain, L W. (1975). Creative and mental growth. New York: Macmillan.
McFee, J. K. (1961). Preparation for art. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.
Marshall, J. (1981). Making sense as a personal process. In P. Peason & J. Rowan (Eds.). Human inquiry: A sourcebook of new paradigm research. New York: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
Merriam, S. B. (1988). Case study research in education. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Miles, M. B., & Huberman, A. M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis. CA: Sage.
Pariser, D. (1979). Two methods of teaching drawing skills. Studies in Art Education, 20(3), 30-42.
Pariser, D. (1997). Graphic development in artistically expression, In A. M. Kindler (Ed), Child development in art (pp. 99-126). Reston, NAEA Press.
Pecora, N. (1992). Superman/superboys/supermen: the comic book hero as socializing agent, In S. Craig (Ed), Men, masculinity and the media (pp. 61-77). USA: Sage.
Peirce, C. (1931-35). Collected papers. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
Piaget, J. (1972). Intellectual evolution from adolescence to adult. Human Development, 1(15), 1-12.
Potter, W. J. (1992). How do adolescents' perceptions of television reality change over times? Journalism Quarterly, 69(2), 392-405.
Robertson, A. (1987). Borrowing and artistic behavior: A case-study of the development of Bruce's spontaneous drawings from six to sixteen, Studies in Art Education, 29(1), 37-51.
Read, H. (1958). Education through art. London: Faber and Faber.
Reitberger, R., & W. Fuchs (1971). Comic: anatomy of a mass medium. London: Shenval.
Richardson, M. (1948). Art and the child. London: University of London Press.
Shaheen, J. G. (1994) Arab images in American comic books. Journal of popular culture, 28(1), 123-133.
Sharpe, S. (1976). Just like a girl: how girl learn to be women. London: Penguin.
Smith, N. R. (1985). Copying and artistic behaviors : Children and comic strips . Art Education, 36(5), 22-25.
Sutton-Smith, B. (1973). Play as adaptive potentiation. New York: Columbia University Press.
Turner, V. (1974). Liminality, play, flow, and ritual. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in a society. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
Wilson, B. (1974). The superheroes of J. C. Holz. Art Education, 27(8), 2-10.
Wilson, B. & Wilson, M. (1977). A iconoclastic view of the imagery sources in the drawings of young people. Art Education, 30(1), 4-11.
Wilson, B. & Wilson, M. (1981). The use and uselessness of development stages. Art Education, 34(5), 4-5.
Wilson, B., & Wilson, M. (1982). The case of the disappearing two-eyed profile: Or how children influence the drawing of little children. Review of Research in Visual Art Education, 15, 19-32.
Wilson, B. (1985). The artistic tower of Babel: Inextricable links between culture and graphic development. Visual Arts Research, 11, 90-104.
Wilson, B., & Wilson, M. (1987). Pictorial composition and narrative structure: Themes and the creation of meaning in the drawings of Egyption and Japanese children. Visual Arts Research, 13, 10-21.
Wilson, B. (1997). Child art, multiple interpretation, and conflicts of interest. In A. M. Kindler (Ed), Child development in art (pp. 60-81). Reston, NAEA Press.
Wilson, B. (2000). Of diagrams and rhizomes: disrupting the content of art education. Paper presented at the meeting of the 2000 International Visual Art Conference. Taipei Municipal Teacher College.