以國小高年級自然科為核心之課程統整設計研究

A Study of Integrated Curriculum Models: Using Science as the Core Course

10.6173/CJSE.200106_9(2).0002

熊同鑫(Tung-Hsing Hsiung)；王振興(Zen-Hsing Wang)；陳淑麗(Shu-Li Chen)

統整課程 ； 行動研究 ； 合作行動研究 ； 自然科學 ； 九年一貫課程 ； Integrated Curriculum ； Action Research ； Collaborative ； One-to-Nine Curriculum

科學教育學刊

9卷2期（2001 / 06 / 01）

123 - 145

繁體中文;英文

透過合作行動研究的模式，本研究結合師院教師、小學教師及師院職前教師，共同合作探討以自然科為核心之統整課程設計與實施。以台東縣世彥國小五年級兩班為實驗班，歷經一年半的行動歷程，分別應用了「大單元式」及「活動本位式」課程統整方案、及建議「STS模式」的課程統整學習評量方案。大單元式課程適合學校在旣有教材下，發展統整課程時使用。活動本位式適合於學校在課程標準及學校本位考量下設計課程。STS模式則適合於綜合活動時，用之評量學生之統整能力於問題解決時採用。統整課程為九年一貫課程中之主要特色之一。本研究結果顯示，統整課程的實踐，除了必須教師群的共同合作，亦仰賴家長的配合及學童學習習慣的調整。統整課程強化各科間的連絡教學，在以自然科為核心的統整課程架構下，可增加自然科教學的深廣度，有利於學童的科學學習。統整課程的瓶頸在於學習評量的實施方式與基本能力標準的設定，是本研究小組在行動過程中發現亟待解決的問題，亦是循環行動過程中呈現的新問題與新行動開始。

Based on an approach of collaborative action research, a team of teacher educators, elementary teachers and preservice teachers worked together to study ways of using science subjects as a core in developing and applying an integrated curriculum. The study was conducted in the Taitung She-Yean elementary school and two classes students of grade five (in 1998 academic year) participated the project. Three integrated curriculum models were addressed during one and half years of the study; they are major-unit model, activity-based model and STS. The major-unit approach is a way to develop an integrated curriculum that is based on the contents of textbooks. The activity-based model is a method to develop an integrated curriculum that is based on the curriculum standards and school-based curriculum. The STS model can be used to assess students' integrated problem solving abilities during the synthetic activity period. Integrated curriculum is a one-to-nine curriculum. Results of the study show that the implementation of integrated curriculum into the classroom relied on teachers' collaboration as well as parents' accommodation and students' attitude toward learning. Using science subjects as a core in curriculum integration provides a broad and important role for science teaching and a better context for learning science. However, the issue of assessment strategies in the integrated curriculum needs to be investigated further. That is, a new approach to assessing students' problem solving and processing needs to be developed.

1. Beane, J. A.(1997).Curriculum integration:Designing the core of democratic education.New York:Teachers College.
2. Bellack, A. A.,Kliebard, H. M.(1971).Bellack, A. A., & Kliebard, H. M. (1971).Curriculum for integrate of disciplines. In L. C. Deighton, L. C.:The Macmillan Company &The Free Press..
3. Carr, W.,Kemmis, S.(1986).Becoming Critical.Basingstoke:The Falmer Press.
4. Elliott, J.(1990).Teachers as researchers:Implications for supervision and for teacher education.Teaching ＆ Teacher Education,6(1),1-26.
5. Elliott, J.(1991).Action research for educational change.Philadelphia:Open University.
6. Fogarty, R.(1991).Ten ways to Integrate Curriculum.Educational Leadership October,61-64.
7. Jacobs, H. H.(Ed.)(1989).Interdisciplinary curriculum: Design and implementation.Alexandria, VA:ASCD.
8. Johnson, B.(1993).,未出版
9. Kain, D. L.(1993).Cabbages —and Kings:Research directions in integrated/interdisciplinary curriculum.The Journal of Educational Thought,27(3),312-331.
10. Kemmis, S.(1980).Action research in retrospectand prospect.annualmeeting of the Australian Association for Research in Education,Sydney:
11. Kincheloe, J L.(1993).Teachers As researchers:Qualitative inquiry as a path to empowerment.Basingstoke:Falmer.
12. Kovalik, S.(1994).ITI: The model, integrated thematic instruction.Village of Oak Creek Arizona:Susan Kovalik and Associates.
13. Macdonald, J. B.(1971).Curriculum Evaluation.The encyclopedia ofeducation,New York:
14. Oja, S, N.,Smulyan, L.(1989).Collaborative action research: A Developmental Approach.New York:The Falmer Press.
15. Palmer, J. M.(1991).Planing Wheels Turn Curriculum Around.Educational Leadership October,57-60.
16. Pate, P. E.,Homestead, E. R.,McGinnis, K. L.(1997).Making integrated curriculum work: Teachers, students, and the quest for coherent curriculum.New York:Teachers College.
17. 中華民國課程與教學學會（編）(2000).課程統整與教學.台北:揚智文化.
18. 李平（譯）(1997).經營多元智慧－開展以學生為中心的教學.台北:遠流出版.
19. 杜威,林寶山（譯）,康春枝（譯）(1990).學校與社會、兒童與課程.台北:五南圖書出版.
20. 財團法人國立台南師院校務發展文教基金會（編）(2000).九年一貫課程－從理論、政策到執行.高雄市:復文圖書.
21. 國立編譯館(1982).國民小學自然科學課本－第九冊（五上）.台北市:國立編譯館.
22. 教育部（1998）：國民教育階段九年一貫課程總綱綱要。台北市：教育部。
23. 陳伯璋(1995)。我國中小學課程統整與連貫問題之檢視。台灣教育，540，11-15。
24. 黃永和(1999)。統整課程的理論與方式之探討。新竹師院學報，12，232-259。
25. 黃政傑(1996).質的教育研究－方法與實例.台北:漢文.
26. 黃政傑(1991)。以科技整合促進課程統整。教師天地，52，38-43。
27. 黃譯瑩(1998)。九年一貫社會科課程統整之意義探究。教育研究雙月刊，62，4-11。
28. 楊益風（編）(1999).完成艱鉅任務九年一貫課程手冊.台北:中華民國全國教師會出版.
29. 鄒浮安(1992)。輪形設計的整合課程。師友，369，31-33。
30. 甄曉蘭(1995)。合作行動研究－進行教育研究的另一種方式。嘉義師院學報，9，298-318。
31. 歐用生(1994)。教師即研究者。研習資訊，11(2)，1-6。
32. 薛梨真(1998)。,未出版

1. 陳佩君、林曉雯(2005)。科學敎學評量的反思與實踐：敎師行動研究。科學教育學刊，13(1)，1-27。
2. 廖婉雯(2023)。以偏遠地區國小高年級自助旅行發展統整課程之敘事探究。教育理論與實踐學刊，47，61-92。
3. (2007)。自然與生活科技領域統整課程的反思與實踐。當代教育研究，15(1)，143-180。