國小體育教師課程決定內涵之研究

Study on Contents of Curriculum decision-making by the Elementary School Physical Education Teachers

10.6222/pej.4401.201103.0907

陳文長(Wen-Chang Chen)；李俊杰(Chun-Chieh Lee)

國小體育教師 ； 課程決定 ； physical education teacher in elementary school ； curriculum decision-making

體育學報

44卷1期（2011 / 03 / 01）

113 - 130

繁體中文

國小體育教師課程決定程度，代表著國小體育教師彰權益能的多寡，暨反映國內體育課程決定民主化的指標作用。目的：本研究旨在了解國小體育教師課程決定的內涵程度，更體現國內課程決定的民主化的意義。方法：以臺澎金馬地區各公私立國小教師爲研究母群，採取質量並行的取徑，先針對3名國小體育教師進行參與式觀察與個人深度訪談，再與8名擔任體育科任之教師、組長、主任、及校長進行深度訪談；量化方面透過問卷調查法，採分層隨機抽樣抽取1,000份樣本，約佔全國國小教師人數之0.97%；共回收830份，有效樣本計807份。再以描述統計、單因子多變量變異數分析(one-way MANOVA)與薛費法(Scheffes' mothed)事後比較進行統計。質化方面除配合文件分析，並觀察3名國小體育教師，分別訪談8名國小體育教師、組長與校長。結果：國小體育教師在課程決定內涵整體平均數爲3.51，傾向於經常做決定的情況。各層面以內容的決定爲最高，分組的決定次之，其餘依序爲目標的決定、策略的決定、資源的運用等。不同背景變項國小體育教師課程決定內容之差異考驗，在不同性別、服務年資、專業背景、學歷、擔任職務、任教年級以及參與研習等變項上均有顯著差異存在。結論：國小體育教師普遍體認到「內容的決定」，是體育課程實施的主體，已經能夠體認到應教什麼、爲什麼教、甚至於如何教的意涵。

The extent that the elementary school physical education teachers were able to achieve on curriculum decision-making, more or less, represented to what degree that physical education teacher's rights and interests could be realized. Purpose: this study was to investigate the contents of curriculum decision-making for elementary school physical education teachers and took all elementary school teachers. Methods: Penghu, Kinmen, and Matsu areas as the research population. Both quantitative and qualitative methodologies were taken. In quantitative side, we chose to use the questionnaire survey. By Stratified Random Sampling, we got 807 effective samples. Then descriptive statistics, one-way MANOVA, and Scheffe' method were used for post hoc comparison. On the one hand, we qualitatively observed three elementary school physical education teachers; and on the other hand, we also interviewed eight different school teaching manpower, including elementary school physical education teachers, section chiefs, and school principals. Documentary analyses were included, too. Results: The overall mean for elementary school physical education teachers on contents of curriculum decision-making was 3.51, meaning they tended to make decisions from time to time. Whereas taking every perspective into consideration, it showed that the contents decision scores the highest, followed by group's decision, objective decision, strategy decision, and resource application. When testing for variances among different background variables for elementary school physical education teacher deciding curriculum contents, it were sex, years of teaching, professional background, academic background, jobs, grade teaching, and workshops participation that resulted in the existence of significant differences. Conclusion: elementary school physical education teachers in general realized that ”the decision of the content” is the main body of sports curriculum implementation, and also comprehended the meanings of what should be taught, why to teach, and even how to teach.

1. 周淑卿(2001)。課程決定的賦權迷思─集中化與離中化的探討。教育研究集刊，47，91-106。
   連結：
2. Bechtel, P. A.,O''Sullivan, M.(2007).Enhancers and inhibitors of teacher change among secondary physical educators.Journal of Teaching in Physical Education,26,221-235.
3. Ennis, C. D.(1994).Knowledge and beliefs underlying curricular expertise.Quest,46,164-175.
4. Griffey, D. C.,Housner, L. D.(1991).Differences between experienced and inexperienced teachers' planning decisions, interactions, student engagement and instructional climate.Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport,62(2),196-204.
5. Hawthore, R. D.(1990).Analyzing school-based lollabortive curriculum decision making.Journal of Curriculum and Supervision,5(3),279-286.
6. Jewett, A. E.,Bain, L. I.,Ennis, C. D.(1995).The curriculum process in physical education (2nd ed).Dubuque, IA:Wm. C. Brown.
7. Klein, M. F.(1991).A conceptural framework for curriculum decision-making.The politics of curriculum decision-making: Issues in centralizing the curriculum,New York:
8. Lewy, Arieh(Ed.)(1991).The international encyclopedia of curriculum.Oxford:Pergamon Press.
9. Nutravong, R.(2002).Indiana University.
10. Stroot, S. A.(2001).Preparing for a professional career in physical education.Teaching Elementary Physical Education,12(2),6-9.
11. Woods, A. M.,Lynn, S. K.(2001).Through the years: A longitudinal study on physical education teachers form a research-based preparation program.Reserach Quarterly for Exercise and Sport,72(3),219-231.
12. 丁念金(2005)。論教師參與課程決策的保障體系。河北師範大學學報，7(5)，84-88。
13. 王春堎(1999)。碩士論文(碩士論文)。桃園縣，國立體育學院。
14. 王登方(2001)。碩士論文(碩士論文)。桃園縣，國立體育學院。
15. 吳妮真(2004)。碩士論文(碩士論文)。臺北市，國立臺灣師範大學。
16. 李明達(2004)。碩士論文(碩士論文)。桃園縣，國立體育學院。
17. 李俊杰(2006)。博士論文(博士論文)。桃園縣，國立體育學院。
18. 李俊杰(2008)。我國國小體育教師課程決定影響因素之探討。臺中技術學院學報，9(2)，113-124。
19. 李復惠(2002)。博士論文(博士論文)。臺北市，國立臺灣師範大學。
20. 李瑾諭、柳德玉、牛震乾(2002)。課程改革與教師角色轉換。北京:中國人事出版社。
21. 林盛基(2003)。碩士論文(碩士論文)。桃園縣，國立體育學院。
22. 林興兆(2001)。碩士論文(碩士論文)。臺北市，臺北市立師範學院。
23. 洪崇峰(2003)。碩士論文(碩士論文)。桃園縣，國立體育學院。
24. 陳文長(2005)。博士論文(博士論文)。桃園縣，國立體育學院。
25. 黃子騰(2004)。博士論文(博士論文)。臺北市，國立臺灣師範大學。
26. 黃政傑編(2005)。課程思想。臺北:冠學文化。
27. 黃秋芳(2003)。碩士論文(碩士論文)。臺北市，國立臺灣師範大學。
28. 黃清勇(2002)。碩士論文(碩士論文)。臺北市，國立臺灣師範大學。
29. 黃雅瑛(2001)。碩士論文(碩士論文)。嘉義市，國立嘉義大學。
30. 董洪亮(2004)。教學組織策略與技術。北京:教育科學。
31. 甄曉蘭(2004)。課程理論與實務─解構與重建。臺北:高等教育。
32. 潘義祥(2004)。博士論文(博士論文)。桃園縣，國立體育學院。
33. 蔡清田、雲大維(2007)。影響國小教師鄉土教育課程決定因素之研究。屏東教育大學學報，29，89-121。
34. 戴仁山(2000)。碩士論文(碩士論文)。桃園縣，國立體育學院。
35. 譚彩鳳(2010)。教師校本課程決定即其影響因素之研究：香港個案研究。教育研究與發展期刊，6(2)，3-29。
36. 譚彩鳳(2006)。校本課程政策透視：中文教師的觀點與實踐。教育曙光，53，57-67。

1. 戴玉林(2014)。國小教師體育專業背景與學生體適能之關係：跨資料庫取向研究。臺灣運動教育學報，9(2)，65-84。