後設認知觀點的歷史人物主題策展設計：以張七郎紀念展為例

Exploring the Curatorial Design in Historical Figures with Metacognition: The Case of Zhang Qi-Lang Memorial Exhibition

馬睿平(Jui-Ping Ma)；陳維翰(Wei-Han Chen)

後設認知 ； 展覽 ； 策展設計 ； Metacognition ； Exhibition ； Curatorial Design

設計學報

18卷4期（2013 / 12 / 01）

41 - 64

繁體中文

一般博物館歷史類的主題展，可分為文物或人物兩類，但在紀念館的歷史人物主題展，往往由於涉及特殊族群的情感、詮釋觀點甚至政治立場等問題，策展設計因此有別於相對較單純的文物展。此外，現今博物館的發展趨勢促使策展參與者（策展人、展示設計師）重視觀賞者的感官認知和參與學習的效果，並思考如何轉換、演繹策展理念，使觀賞者能理解敘事觀點，連結陌生的展覽內容，從而形塑更貼近人心的觀看經驗和情感。然而，直到目前，不論學界或實務界對於策展設計尚未有較系統的研究，因此，本研究嘗試以台北228紀念館張七郎紀念展的策展設計為樣本，運用文獻探討、後設認知分析、深度訪談進行個案解析，並歸納、統整後設認知與經驗學習相關理論，呈現一個「策展認知─學習」分析架構，以探究團隊式策展設計對於歷史人物主題展的貢獻，並供後續研究參考。結果發現：（1）歷史人物主題的策展設計，是策展團隊、展館人員、受難者遺眷三方共同妥協出來的成果，其中，受難者遺眷是主導策展定位的主要力量；（2）展出人物年代接近當代，策展過程可能會引起部分政治干擾；（3）三類受訪者在「後設認知」分析的共通點為，對於互動情境塑造的體驗最為深刻；（4）三類受訪者在「後設認知」分析的差異點，主要由個人立場、企圖分歧而產生。

Generally, the exhibitions of historical theme can be classified into styles of object and figure in the museums. However, it is relative to some special people due to the exhibitions of historical figure raised by memorial hall; the exhibitions are different from that of objects. The purpose of this study is, therefore, to take the Zhang Qi-Lang Memorial Exhibition as a case study and analyze the curatorial perspectives from three groups, attended to arrange curation. The data of case study are scrutinized with content and literature analysis methods. Then, in order to understand how curators construct concepts, ideas by themselves to shape the exhibition, we develop an assessing tool, named ”Curation-Learning Analysis” frame by integrating theories of metacognition and Experience Learning Theory (ELT). The evaluation of the three-group curators focuses on their preference and attitudes. The findings are as follows: (1) the curatorial design of historical figure's theme is a compromise by working team, exhibition side, and victim's family; (2) the stance from exhibition side is more neutral, whereas victim's family owns a main power to lead the curatorial activity; (3) due to the fact that the historical figure is closer to contemporary, some topics are made by political issues in the curatorial period; (4) the impression of all interviewees is profound to experience the interactive scenario. Finally this study presents a framework of metacognition analysis in historical figure curation to some possibilities for further research.

1. 林崇熙(2005)。博物館文物演出的時間辯證：一個文化再生產的考察。博物館學季刊，19(3)，7-23。
   連結：
2. 黃光男(2006)。博物館展覽理念與規劃。書畫藝術學報，1，1-14。
   連結：
3. Brown, A. L.(1987).Metacognition, executive control, self-regulation, and other more mysterious mechanisms.Metacognition, motivation, and understanding,Florence:
4. Castle, M. C.(2004).Teaching in the virtual museum.Ontario Museum Association's Colloquium on Learning in Museums VII,Peterborough, Ontario:
5. Cohen, S.(Ed.),Syme, S. L.(Ed.)(1985).Social support and health.New York, NY:Academic Press.
6. Connor, L. T.,Dunlosky, J.,Hertzog, C.(1998).Age-related differences in absolute but not relative metamemory accuracy.Psychology and Aging,12,50-71.
7. Cross, D. R.,Paris, S. G.(1988).Development and instructional analyses of children's metacognition and reading comprehension.Journal of Educational Psychology,80,131-142.
8. Dickson, W. P.(Ed.)(1981).Children's oral communication skills.New York, NY:Academic Press.
9. Falk, J. H.,Dierking, L. D.(2000).Learning from museums.Oxford:Altamira Press.
10. Flavell, J. H.(1987).Metacognition, motivation, and understanding.Hillsdale:Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
11. Georghiades, P.(2004).From the general to the situated: Three decades of metacognition.International Journal of Science Education,26(3),365-383.
12. Giles, J.,Middleton, T.(1999).Studying culture: A practical introduction.Oxford:Wiley-Blackwell.
13. Hacker, D. J.(Ed.),Dunlosky, J.(Ed.),Graesser, A. C.(Ed.)(1998).Metacognition in educational theory and practice.Boca Raton:Routledge.
14. Hart, J. T.(1965).Memory and the feeling-of-knowing experience.Journal of Educational Psychology,56,208-216.
15. Hein, G. E.(1998).Learning in the museum.London:Routledge.
16. Hooper-Greenhill, E.,Moussouri, T.(2001).Making meaning in art museums 2: Visitors' interpretive strategies at Nottingham Castle Museum and Art Gallery.Leicester:Research Centre for Museums & Galleries.
17. Keniston, A. H.,Flavell, J. H.(1979).A developmental study of intelligent retrieval.Child Development,50,1144-1152.
18. Kluwe, R. H.(1982).Cognitive knowledge and executive control.Human mind - animal mind,New York, NY:
19. Kolb, D. A.(1984).Experiential learning: Experience as the source of learning and development.Upper Saddle River:Prentice-Hall.
20. Macdonald, S.(2005).Accessing audiences: Visiting visitor books.Museum and Society,3(3),1-18.
21. Melton, A.W.(1988).Problems of Installation in Museums of Art.Washington, DC:American Association of Museums.
22. Nelson, T. O.(1988).Predictive accuracy of feeling of knowing across different criterion tasks and across different subject populations and individuals.Practical aspects of memory: Current research and issues, Volume 1,New York, NY:
23. Nelson, T. O.,Dunlosky, J.,Graf, A.,Narens, L.(1994).Utilization of metacognitive judgments in the allocation of study during multitrial learning.Psychological Science,5,207-213.
24. Nelson, T. O.,Narens, L.(1990).Metamemory: A theoretical framework and new findings.The Psychology of Learning and Motivation,26,125-141.
25. Paris, S. G.,Lipson, M. Y.,Wixson, K.(1983).Becoming a strategic reader.Contemporary Educational Psychology,8,293-316.
26. Paris, S. G.,Paris, A. H.(2001).Classroom application of research on self-regulated learning.Educational Psychologist,36(2),89-101.
27. Perfect, T. J.(Ed.),Schwartz, B. L.(Ed.)(2004).Applied metacognition.Edinburgh:Cambridge University Press.
28. Rugg, J.(Ed.),Sedgwick, M.(Ed.)(2007).Issues in curating contemporary art and performance.Bristol:Intellect Books.
29. Schwartz, B. L.(2001).The relation of tip-of-the-tongue states and retrieval time.Memory and Cognition,29,117-126.
30. Silverman, L. H.(1995).Visitor meaning - Making in museums for a new age.Curator,38(3),161-170.
31. Sinclair, A.(Ed.),Jarvella, R. J.(Ed.),Levelt, W. J. M.(Ed.)(1978).The Child's Conception of Language.Berlin:Springer.
32. Son, L. K.,Metcalfe, J.(2000).Metacognitive and control strategies in studytime allocation.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition,26,204-221.
33. Son, L. K.,Schwartz, B. L.(2004).The relation between metacognitive monitoring and control.Applied metacognition,Cambridge:
34. Thiede, K. W.,Dunlosky, J.(1999).Toward a general model of self-regulated study: An analysis of selection of items for study and self-paced study time.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition,25,1024-1037.
35. Wellman, H. M.(1983).Metamemory revisited.Contribution to Human Development,9,31-51.
36. Yore, L. D.,Treagust, D. F.(2006).Current realities and future possibilities: Language and science literacy empowering research and informing instruction.International Journal of Science Education,28(2),291-314.
37. 布希亞、林志明譯(1997)。物體系。台北=Taipei:時報文化=Times Culture。
38. 李子寧(2011)。國立臺灣博物館研究報告國立臺灣博物館研究報告,台北=Taipei:國立臺灣博物館=National Taiwan Museum。
39. 姚村雄(2005)。設計本事：日治時期臺灣美術設計案內。台北=Taipei:遠足文化=Walkers。
40. 迪恩、蕭翔鴻譯(2006)。展覽複合體。台北=Taipei:藝術家=Artist。
41. 耿鳳英(2009)。魔幻與寫實：時間與空間在博物館展示之呈現。製作博物館，台中=Taichung:
42. 陳佳利(2013)。質性觀眾研究初探：理念與方法。博物館簡訊，63，6-9。
43. 陳佳利(2007)。被展示的傷口：記憶與創傷的博物館筆記。台北=Taipei:典藏藝術家庭=Rye Family。
44. 麥克‧史丹福、劉世安譯(2001)。歷史研究導論。台北=Taipei:麥田=Rye Field。
45. 凱斯‧詹京斯、賈士蘅譯(2001)。歷史的再思考。台北=Taipei:麥田=Rye Field。
46. 愛莉森‧卡羅、桂雅文譯(2004)。獨立策展人─從企劃到執行的學習手冊。台北=Taipei:五觀藝術管理=Five Senses Arts。
47. 劉紀蕙編(2001)。他者之域：文化身分與再現策略。台北=Taipei:麥田=Rye Field。
48. 劉婉珍(2011)。博物館觀眾研究。台北=Taipei:三民=San Min。
49. 羅傑‧麥爾斯、陳盈芊譯(1997)。展示學習。博物館學季刊，11(2)，41-44。

1. 林家華(2021)。觀點革命：探討後設認知理論導入設計科系策展企劃教學之學習歷程與成效。設計學報，26(2)，111-134。
2. 顏惠芸、陳璽敬、林志隆、李仙美(2016)。策展設計之個案研究─以「詩情畫意─仙雲之美油畫習作展」為例。設計學報，21(4)，1-24。