以繪本《紙袋公主》結合教育戲劇實踐批判閱讀教學之自我研究：陶造與再陶造戲劇慣例的運用

A Self-Study of Using "Paper Bag Princess" and Drama-in-Education for Teaching Critical Reading: Crafting and Re-Crafting the Use of Drama Conventions

10.6151/CERQ.2012.2004.03

譚寶芝(Po-Chi Tam)

自我研究 ； 批判閱讀素養 ； 性別議題 ； 教育戲劇 ； 戲劇慣例 ； 繪本教學 ； self-study ； critical reading literacy ； gender issues ； drama-in-education ； drama conventions ； picture books instruction

當代教育研究季刊

20卷4期（2012 / 12 / 30）

85 - 120

繁體中文

本研究嘗試以繪本《紙袋公主》結合教育戲劇，先後在香港兩所小學實踐批判閱讀教學，期望學生能藉著認識另類公主故事脫離迪士尼公主童話的宰制。為瞭解及改善教育戲劇的教學效果，研究者陶造及再陶造這兩次教學中戲劇慣例的選取與編排，並進行自我研究，以便反思、改進及革新自身對教育戲劇和批判閱讀教學的認識和觀念。研究運用教學歷程檔案紀錄和分析教學過程中所遇的變化、困頓，矛盾與得失，結果發現，第一次教學著力引導學生認同另類公主，反而造成另一種權威與操控，到了第二次教學時，由於修改後的戲劇慣例能為學生提供了層層深入的戲劇結構、變動的架構，以及中介角色，學生的批判閱讀素養才逐漸萌生。是次研究揭示，教師若只要求學生以指定的批判方式，又或單一的角度來閱讀，只會令教學無異於主流。此外，學生身分認同的形成往往變動不居，運用教育戲劇來實踐批判閱讀教學須給予學生自主、深入、多角度和不同層面的戲劇經歷，以多元開放來抵抗單一封閉的閱讀方式。

The better to understand and perfect the effect of teaching with drama-in-education, the author crafted and re-crafted the choices and arrangement of drama conventions when employing critical reading teaching in two primary schools, and later conducted a self-study from which she further reflected, advanced and renewed her knowledge and belief in drama-in-education and critical reading teaching. Coupled with drama-in-education, a picture book, ”The Paper Bag Princess”, was used in these two teaching sessions in the hope that pupils would disconnect from the hegemony of Disney Princess Craze by exploring the story of 'alternative princess'. In the self-study, teaching portfolio was employed to record, analyze and examine the changes, worries, conflicts and results in the teaching. The author found that, in the first session, directing the pupils to acknowledge the 'alternative princess' has led to another form of authority and control. Later in the second session, the author re-crafted the drama conventions which offer drama structures in stages, changing frames and bridging roles, and that critical reading literacy has then been yielded. The self-study reveals that when a teacher requests pupils to read a text with a prescribed critical approach or a particular angle, the teaching is nothing but mainstream education. In addition, the formation of identities always remains volatile. Thus, the critical reading teaching with drama-in-education should engage the pupils to some drama experiences which are self-directed, in-depth and carry various angles and perspectives. It then allows these pupils, who are now equipped with openness and multiple viewpoints, to defend against a single and closed way of reading.

1. Neelands, J. (2001). The Space in our hearts. Retrieved October 9, 2011, from http://www.theatroedu.gr/main/images/stories/files/Magazine/EandT_e-mag_June2002_UK_03.pdf
2. Bakhtin, M. M.(1981).Form of time and of the chronotope in the novel: Notes toward a historical poetics.The dialogic imagination: Four essays,Austin, TX:
3. Bakhtin, M. M.(1990).Author and hero in aesthetic activity.Art and answerability,Austin, TX:
4. Berry, A.,Loughran, J.(2002).Developing an understanding of learning to teach in teacher education.Improving teacher education practices through self-study,London:
5. Boal, A.,Jackson, A. (Trans.)(1995).The rainbow of desire: The Boal method of theatre and therapy.London:Routledge.
6. Boler, M.(1999).Feeling power: Emotions and education.New York:Routledge.
7. Comber, B.(1994).Critical literacy: An introduction to Australian debates and perspectives.Journal of Curriculum Studies,26(6),655-668.
8. Cope, B.(Ed.),Kalantzis, M.(Ed.)(1993).The powers of literacy: A genre approach to teaching writing.London:Falmer Press.
9. Davies, B.(2003).Frogs and snails and feminist tales: Preschool children and gender.Cresskill, NJ:Hampton Press.
10. Dyson, A. H.(2003).The brothers and sisters learn to write: Popular literacies in childhood and school cultures.New York:Teachers College Press.
11. Ezer, H.(2009).Self-study approaches and the teacher-inquirer: Instructional situations case analysis, critical autobiography, and action research.Rotterdam, The Netherlands:Sense.
12. Gallagher, K.(2000).Drama education in the lives of girls: Imagining possibilities.Toronto, Canada:University of Toronto Press.
13. Giroux, H.(1983).Theory and resistance in education: A pedagogy for the oppression.South Hadley, MA:Bergin & Garvey.
14. Goffman, E.(1974).Frame analysis: An essay on the organization of experience.New York:Harper & Row.
15. Hall, K.(1998).Critical literacy and the case for it in the early years of school.Language, Culture and Curriculum,11(2),183-194.
16. Hamilton, M. L.,Pinnegar, S.(1998).Conclusion: The value and the promise of self-study.Reconceptualizing teaching practice: Self-study in teacher education,London:
17. Heathcote, D.(1991).From the particular to the universal.Dorothy Heathcote: Collected writings on educational drama,Evanston, IL:
18. Hertzberg, M.(2003).Engaging critical reader response to literature through process drama.Reading Online,6(10)
19. Holland, C.(2009).Reading and acting in the world: Conversations about empathy.Research in Drama Education: The Journal of Applied Theatre and Performance,14(4),529-544.
20. Jones, S.(2006).Girls, social class and literacy: What teachers can do to make a difference.Portsmouth, NH:Heinemann.
21. Kramer-Dahl, A.(1996).Reconsidering the notions of voice and experience in critical pedagogy.Feminisms and pedagogies of everyday life,New York:
22. LaBoskey, V. K.(2004).The methodology of self-study and its theoretical underpinnings.International handbook of self-study of teaching and teacher education practices,Dordrecht, The Netherlands:
23. Lankshear, C.(1994).Critical literacy.Canberra, Australia:Australian Curriculum Studies Association.
24. Leland, C. H.,Hartse, J. C.(2004).Critical literacy: Enlarging the space of the possible.Literacy as social practice: Primary voices K-6,Urbana, IL:
25. Loughran, J. J.(2004).A history and context of self-study of teaching and teacher education practices.International handbook of self study of teaching and teacher education practices,Dordrecht, The Netherlands:
26. Luke, A.,Freebody, P.(1997).Shaping the social practices of reading.Constructing critical literacies: Teaching and learning textual practice,Cresskill, NJ:
27. Lyons, N.(1998).Portfolios and their consequences: Developing as a reflective practitioner.With portfolio in hand: Validating the new teacher professionalism,New York:
28. Neelands, J.(1984).Making sense of drama: A guide to classroom practice.Portsmouth, NH:Heinemann.
29. Neelands, J.(1998).Beginning drama 11-14.London:Fulton.
30. Neelands, J.,Goode, T.(2000).Structuring drama work.New York:Cambridge University Press.
31. Nicholson, H.(1995).Genre, gender and play: Feminist theory and drama education.The NADIE Journal Australia,19(2),15-24.
32. Nodelman, P.(1996).The pleasures of children's literature.White Plains, NY:Longman.
33. O''Brien, J.,Comber, B.(2000).Negotiating critical literacies with young children.Literacy learning in the early years,Crows Nest, Australia:
34. O''Toole, J.(1992).The process of drama: Negotiating art and meaning.London:Routledge.
35. Quintero, E. P.(2009).Critical literacy in early childhood education: Artful story and the integrated curriculum.New York:Peter Lang.
36. Samaras, A. P.,Freese, A. R.(2006).Self-study of teaching practices primer.New York:Peter Lang.
37. Sennett, R.(2008).The Craftsman.London:Penguin Books.
38. Shor, I.(1992).Empowering education: Critical teaching for social change.Chicago:University of Chicago Press.
39. Styslinger, M. E.(2000).Relations of power and drama in education: The teacher and Foucault.Journal of Educational Thought,34(2),183-199.
40. Tam, P. C.(2008).UK,the University of Warwick.
41. Tripp, D.(1994).Teachers' lives, critical incidents, and professional practices.Qualitative Studies in Education,7(1),65-76.
42. Vasquez, V.(2004).Finding our way: Using the everyday to create a critical literacy curriculum.Literacy as social practice: Primary voices K-6,Urbana, IL:
43. Wallace, C.(2003).Critical reading in language education.Basingstoke, UK:Palgrave Macmillan.
44. 林佑聖譯、葉欣怡譯、Wasko, J.(2001)。認識迪士尼。臺北市=Taipei, Taiwan:弘智=Hurng-Chih。
45. 洪淑敏(2003)。高雄市=Kaohsiung, Taiwan，國立中山大學教育研究所=National Sun Yat-Sen University。
46. 陳仁富譯、黃國倫譯、Neelands, J.(2010)。透視戲劇：戲劇教學實作指南。臺北市=Taipei, Taiwan:心理=Psychological。
47. 舒志義譯、李慧心譯、Neelands, J.、Goode, T.(2005)。建構戲劇：戲劇教學策略70式。臺北市=Taipei, Taiwan:財團法人成長文教基金會=Healthy Growth Foundation。
48. 蔡欣玶譯、Munsch, R. N. 文、Martchenko, M. 圖(2001)。紙袋公主。臺北市=Taipei, Taiwan:遠流=Yuan-Liou。
49. 蔡清田(2000)。教育行動研究。臺北市=Taipei, Taiwan:五南=Wu-Nan。
50. 鄭黛瓊譯、Morgan, N.、Saxton, J.(1999)。戲劇教學：啟動多彩的心。臺北市=Taipei, Taiwan:心理=Psychological。

1. 譚寶芝(2014)。尋繹戲劇教育全球在地化之道：香港幼兒教師培訓個案研究。藝術教育研究，27，1-26。
2. 譚寶芝(2017)。繪本融合習式方法：香港幼兒戲劇教育的實踐模式、狀況與挑戰。藝術教育研究，34，65-91。
3. (2014)。戲劇教育促進親子溝通之多個案研究。戲劇教育與劇場研究，5，83-114。