中小學教師進行課程行動研究的困境與省思

The Difficulty and Reflection of Doing Curriculum Action Research in Junior High and Primary Schools

10.6249/SE.2007.58.6.02

劉祐彰(Yu-Chang Liu)

課程行動研究 ； 課程改革 ； 方法論 ； curriculum action research ； curriculum revolution ； methodology

中等教育

58卷6期（2007 / 12 / 01）

22 - 35

繁體中文

本文從三個面向分析中小學教師進行課程行動研究可能面臨的問題和困境。首先，淵源於課程行動研究方法論的問題包括：教師身兼參與者和研究者的矛盾、研究效度和標準備受爭議、固著於技術性的問題解決等。再者，教師專業研究能力發展的困境是教師工作忙碌缺乏主動研究的動機、缺乏深入批判反省的能力、教師對於如何呈現行動研究的成果感到困擾等。第三，建立批判對話社群的阻礙，諸如：學校組織文化缺少對話社群、課程專家學者角色和功能的混淆等。 最後試圖提出建立適用課程行動研究的效度和標準、從問題解決提升至文化革新、運用多元分析與檢證的方法提升嚴謹度、透過各種獎勵措施激勵教師、提升教師批判反省的能力、鼓勵教師將成果寫成書面報告、成立協同合作的核心小組、從行動中了解行動研究等可行途徑，省思課程行動研究促進課程改革的可行性。

The Difficulty and Reflection of Doing Curriculum Action Research in Junior High and Primary Schools This article performs an analysis, from three different perspectives, of the possible problems and difficulties of elementary and high school teachers who do curriculum action research. The methodology of curriculum action research contains possible problems, such as the double-identity paradox of a teacher who also acts as a researcher, disputes over research efficiency and standards, and solutions to technical problems. Moreover, teachers' obstruction of advanced research into ability development originates is due to several factors: teachers are mostly occupied by their busy routines, teachers are confused about methods of displaying action research results, etc. Also, there has been resistance to establishing critical conversation groups, and thus school culture lacks conversation groups, curriculum experts and scholars are confused about their roles and functionality, and so on. This study suggests many ways. For example, try to develop a suitable curriculum action research efficiency and standards, solve technical problems, strengthen our resolve to improve school culture, use multiple analysis and verification that have higher standards, praise teachers' works through every kind of incentive, improve teachers' ability through criticism, reward teachers with positive performance results, form coordinated core teams, and look at action research in terms of its progress. Thus the study discusses the possibility of curriculum action research for the purpose of inspiring radical curriculum changes and improvements.

1. 林佩璇(2003)。課程行動研究―從「專業成長」剖析教師角色轉化的困境。課程與教學季刊，5(2)，81-96。
   連結：
2. Badger, T. G.(2000).Action research, change and methodological rigour.Journal of Nursing Management,8(4),201-207.
3. Beverly, J.(1993).Teacher-as-Researcher.ERIC Document Reproduction Service.
4. Carr, W.,Kemmis, S.(1986).Becoming critical: Education, knowledge, and action research.London:Falmer.
5. Denzin, N.(1970).The research act in sociology.London:Butterworths.
6. Elbaz, F.(1981).The teacher`s practical knowledge: Report of a case study.Curriculum inquiry,11(1),44-71.
7. Elliott, J.(1993).Action Research for Educational Change.Open University Press.
8. Flyer, E. M.(2004).Researcher-practitioner: an unholy marriage.Educational Studies,30(2),175-185.
9. Friedman, V J.,P. Reason,H. Bradbury (Eds.)(2002).Handbook of action research: Participative inquiry and practice.London:Sage.
10. Goodson, I.,C. Day,A. Fernandez,T. E. Hauge,J. Moller (Eds.)(2000).The life and work vi teachers: international perspectives in changing times.London:The Falmer Press.
11. Graham, M.(1993).Reflections on the nature of action-research.Cambridge Journal of Education,23(2),173-184.
12. Greenwood, D. J.,Levin, M.,N. K. Denzin,Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.)(2000).Handbook of qualitative research.California:Sage.
13. Grundy, S.(1987).Curriculum: Product or Praxis.Philadelphia, PA:Glamer Press.
14. Grundy, S.,Deakin University Press (Ed.)(1988).Action research reader.Victoria, Australia:Deakin University Press.
15. Grundy, S.,R. McTaggart (Ed.)(1997).Participatory action research.New York:State University of New York Press.
16. Habermas, J.,Thomas McCarthy (Translated)(1984).The theory of communicative action. Vol. 1. Reason and the rationalization vi society.Boston:Beacon Press.
17. Jennings, L. G.,Graham, A. P.,O. Zuber-Skerritt (Ed.)(1996).New directions in action research.London:Palmer Press.
18. Kemmis, S,Wilkinson, M,B. Atweh,S. Kemmis,P. Weeks. (Eds.)(1998).Action research in practice: Partnerships for social justice in education.New York:Routledge.
19. Kirk, D.(1990).School knowledge and the curriculum package-as-text.Journal of Curriculum Studies,22(5),409-425.
20. Losito, B.,Pozzo, G.,S. Hollingsworth (Eds.)(1997).International action research.Washington, DC:Falmer.
21. Lyotard, J. F.(1984).The postmodern condition: A report on knowledge.Minneapolis:University of Minnesota Press.
22. Mayberr, J. B.(1995).Why conduct action research.Teaching & Change,3(1),90-105.
23. Mckernan, J.(1991).Curriculum Action Research.London:Kogan Page.
24. Mckernan, J.(1996).Curriculum Action Research: A handbook of methods and resources for the reflective practitioner.London:Kogan Page.
25. Rosas, C. L. O.,S. Hollingsworth (Ed.)(1997).International action research.Washington, DC:Palmer.
26. Stenhouse, L.(1975).An introduction to curriculum research and development.London:Open University.
27. Stenhouse, L.(1981).What counts as research.British Journal of Educational Studies,29(2),113.
28. Tickle, L.(2001).Opening Windows, Closing Doors: Ethical Dilemmas in Educational Action Research.Journal of Philosophy of Education,35(3),345-359.
29. Winter, R.(1989).Learning from experience: Principles and practice in Action-Research.London:The Palmer Press.
30. 成虹飛(1996)。行政院國科會專題研究計畫成果報告。新竹市:國立新竹教育大學初等教育研究所。
31. 成虹飛、中華民國課程與教學學會主編(2001)。行動研究與課程教學革新。臺北市:揚智。
32. 吳美枝、何禮恩譯、McNiff, J.、Lomax, P.、Whitehead, J著(2001)。行動研究：生活實踐家的研究錦囊|You and Your Action Research Project。嘉義市:濤石。
33. 夏林清譯、Altrichter. H.、Posch. P、Somekh. B.著(1999)。行動研究方援導論―教師動手作研究|Teachers Investigate Their Work。臺北市:遠流。
34. 張芬芬、中華民國課程與教學學會主編(2001)。行動研究與課程教學革新。臺北市:揚智。
35. 陳伯璋(1998)。教育研究方法的新取向―質的研究方法。臺北市:南宏。
36. 陳惠邦(1998)。教育行動研究。臺北市:師大書苑。
37. 陳碧祥(2002)。91年教育部中部辦公室補助行動研究計畫。臺北市:國立臺北師院附屬國民小學。
38. 黃光雄等譯、Bogdan. R. C.、Biklen, S. K著(2002)。質性教育研究。嘉義市:濤石。
39. 黃志順(2001)。邁向教師作爲實踐主體的身分認同：「後殖民論述」的反省。國民教育研究集刊，7，311-342。
40. 黃政傑(2001)。行動研究與課程教學革新。臺北市:揚智。
41. 黃政傑(1999)。課程改革。臺北市:漢文。
42. 甄曉蘭(2002)。中小學課程改革與教學革新。臺北市:高教。
43. 甄曉蘭、洪志成主編(2000)。教學原理。高雄市:麗文。
44. 甄曉蘭、黃政傑主編(1997)。教學原理。臺北市:師大書苑。
45. 歐用生(1996)。教師專業成長。臺北市:師大書苑。
46. 歐用生(1999)。行動研究與學校教育革新。國民教育，5，2-12。
47. 潘世尊(2004)。教育行動研究中的協同反省：方法與態度初探。臺東大學教育學報，15(1)，265-304。
48. 蔡清田(2000)。教育行動研究。臺北市:五南。
49. 蔡清田、中正大學教育學研究所主編(2000)。質的研究方法。高雄市:麗文。
50. 鍾靜(1999)。學校本位課程的行動研究―北師實小經驗。國立臺東師範學院主辦之「一九九行動研究」國際學術研討會―中小學論文集，臺東縣:
51. 饒見維(1996)。教師專業成長：理論與實務。臺北市:五南。

1. 林佩璇(2009)。課程行動研究的實踐論述：從自我到社會文化。教育實踐與研究，22(2)，95-122。
2. 潘玲玲(2011)。合作學習之可能性—「大一本國語文」課外閱讀設計。國立臺中技術學院通識教育學報，4，43-54。
3. 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。
4. 鍾鎮城、陳思惠(2008)。變動中的華語閱讀師資培育。中原華語文學報，2，155-177。