學校本位課程發展：兼論理念學校與教學卓越獎之助益

ANALYSIS OF THE DEVELOPMENT OF SCHOOL-BASED CURRICULUM: THE BENEFIT FROM CHARTER SCHOOL AND TEACHING EXCELLENCE

10.6151/CERQ.201809_26(3).0003

陳建志(Chien-Chih Chen)

理念學校 ； 教學卓越 ； 學校本位課程 ； 環境教育 ； charter school ； teaching excellence ； school-based curriculum ； environmental education

當代教育研究季刊

26卷3期（2018 / 09 / 28）

69 - 106

繁體中文

研究目的：本研究之個案學校以關注環境生態議題及提升學生學習成就為其特色，研究目的為評析其學校本位課程之推展歷程及推動成效。研究設計／方法／取徑：藉由訪談參與之校長、主任、教師、社區志工與學生等成員、評析學校相關文本、觀察實際現場等方式蒐集資料，並分析執行此課程方案之成效。研究發現或結論：學校本位課程之推展歷程依序為萌芽生根準備期、磨合溝通觸動期、策略凝聚發展期、深耕豐收精進期；在其推展歷程中，各階段之關鍵性因素與作為均會成為課程發展的驅動力；以及本套課程方案能對學校親師生與當地環境永續產生助益。最後，則對個案學校未來課程發展提出建議。研究原創性／價值：個案學校因地處偏遠，校園環境生態豐富，雖過往學生學業成就不高，然教師近年來戮力於環境教育與領域學習之聯結，落實學校本位課程之推展，克服學校位處偏鄉，家長對教育關心程度不足、學生領域學習表現較弱的困境，此課程方案更在2016年獲教育部教學卓越金質獎之肯定。該校自2003年開始便有教師自發性組成社群，並將「環境教育」議題納入學校本位課程中，2014學年度下學期更以「環境之生物多樣性」學校本位課程審核通過，成為屏東縣理念學校。而經過2015學年度課發會後，學校成員將課程進行階層性的安排與規劃，其內容首重聯結實際的情境脈絡、強化學生的參與及主動學習，其推展歷程值得探究。教育政策建議或實務意涵：在2017年底偏遠地區學校教育發展條例通過後，偏鄉教育受到更多重視，個案學校之整體課程推動情形值得探究，更可成為欲推行是類課程學校之參酌依據。

Purpose: This research of the case school focuses on environmental issues and how to improve students’ learning achievements. The goals of this research are to analyze process and the effectiveness of school-based curriculum. Design/methodology/approach: We interviewed the principal, directors, teachers, community volunteers, and students involved in the promotion of the school, collected the relative data of the program’s implementation, observed the educational field, analyzed the effectiveness of the curriculum and made the conclusions. Findings: The conclusions are as follows: 1. In this case study, the development process of school-based curriculum includes: (1) budding-root-preparatory phase, (2) running-communication-touching phase, (3) cohesive-strategies-developing phase, and (4) deep-plowing-harvest-sophisticated phase. 2. In the development process, the key factors and behaviors will be the driving force to its development. 3. This curriculum program will benefit parents, teachers, students, and local environmental development. Finally, the suggestions are offered to this case study. Originality/value The case school is located in a remote area and its campus environment is abundant in ecology. Although students’ learning achievements were not high in the past, teachers have focused on the linkage between environmental education and fields learning in recent years. In 2016, this program also won the golden award of teaching excellence by overcoming the plight of the school’s remote location, the weakness of family, and the weakness of students’ achievement. Ever since 2003, teachers have spontaneously organized the learning community and included the “environmental education” in the school-based curriculum. In the second semester of 2014, this school was selected as Pingtung's charter school due to its biological diversity curriculum. Through the curriculum development committee meeting in 2015, teachers arranged and planned the courses hierarchically. This program focused on connecting with the real situation, strengthening students' participation and active learning. Implications for policy/practice: With the implementing of the remote school’s development act in the end of 2017, people pay more attention to remote schools’ education. After we come to further understand the context of this curriculum, it can serve as a reference for schools.

1. 方德隆(2001)。學校本位課程發展的理論基礎。課程與教學，4(2)，1-24。
   連結：
2. 王慧蘭(2017)。偏鄉與弱勢？法規鬆綁、空間治理與教育創新的可能。教育研究集刊，63(1)，109-119。
   連結：
3. 林文生(2001)。學校本位課程發展機制－臺北縣瑞柑國小的經驗。課程與教學，4(2)，69-84。
   連結：
4. 康以琳、張瑋琦(2016)。人與食物的距離－鄉村小學食農教育課程發展之行動研究。教育實踐與研究，29(1)，1-34。
   連結：
5. 許惠茹(2008)。校長領導學校本位課程永續發展經驗之探究。當代教育研究季刊，16(4)，71-108。
   連結：
6. 游振鵬、陳寶山、王逸慧(2011)。學校本位課程發展停滯原因之探究：以一所曾獲教學特優獎之國中為例。學校行政，76，129-146。
   連結：
7. 謝傳崇、曾煥淦(2016)。偏鄉公立學校之轉型新路？解析《學校型態實驗教育實施條例》。學校行政，106，157-178。
   連結：
8. 鍾莉娜(2015)。原住民學校教學卓越團隊教師專業增能之重要因素探討－以得勒樂卡潛能開發團隊為例。臺灣原住民族研究季刊，8(2)，1-31。
   連結：
9. 顧瑜君(2004)。以社區與空間為題的學校本位課程發展歷程解析。課程與教學，7(1)，65-90。
   連結：
10. Acker, S.(1990).Teachers' culture in an English primary school: Continuity and change.British Journal of Sociology of Education,11(3),257-274.
11. Alberta Government (2017). Excellence in teaching awards (ETA). Retrieved from https://education.alberta.ca/excellence-in-teaching-awards-eta/what-are-the-etas/
12. Borth, R. S.(1990).Improving schools from within: Teachers, parents, and principals can make the difference.San Francisco, CA:Jossey-Bass.
13. Brady, L.(1988).The principal as a climate factor in Australian schools: Overview of studies.Journal of Educational Administration,26(1),73-81.
14. Brady, L.(1985).The supportiveness of the principal in school-based curriculum development.Journal of Curriculum Development,17(1),95-97.
15. Chang, S. C.,Lee, M. S.(2007).The effects of organizational culture and knowledge management mechanisms on organizational innovation: An empirical study in Taiwan.The Business Review,7(1),295-301.
16. Crabtree, B. F.(Ed.),Miller, W. L.(Ed.)(1999).Doing qualitative research.Thousand Oaks, CA:Sage Publications.
17. Denzin, K. D.(Ed.),Lincoln, Y. S.(Ed.)(1994).Handbook of qualitative research.London, England:Sage.
18. Gay, G.(2010).Culturally responsive teaching: Theory, research, and practice.New York, NY:Teachers College Press.
19. Goodlad, J. I.(Ed.)(1987).The ecology of school renewal.Chicago, IL:University of Chicago.
20. Kennedy, K. J.(1992).School-based curriculum development as a policy option for the 1990s: An Australian perspective.Journal of Curriculum and Supervision,7(2),180-195.
21. Lincoln, Y. S.,Guba, E. G.(1985).Naturalistic inquiry.Beverly Hills, CA:Sage.
22. Louis, K. S.,Kruse, S. D.(1995).Professionalism and community: Perspectives on reforming urban schools.Thousand Oaks, CA:Corwin Press.
23. Marsh, C.,Day, C.,Hannay, L.,McCutcheon, G.(1990).Reconceptualizing school based curriculum development.New York, NY:The Falmer Press.
24. Seidman, I.(2006).Interviewing as qualitative research: A guide for researchers in education and the social sciences.New York, NY:Teachers College Press.
25. Skilbeck, M.(1984).School based curriculum development.London, England:Harper & Row Ltd..
26. Tayor, S. J.,Bogdan, R.(1984).Introduction to qualitative research methods.London, England:Wilsy.
27. York-Barr, J.,Duke, K.(2004).What do we know about teacher leadership? Findings from two decades of scholarship.Review of Educational Research,74(3),255-316.
28. 王錦堯、陳俊宏（2017）。國際生物多樣性日專題－何謂生物多樣性？取自http://highscope.ch.ntu.edu.tw/wordpress/?p=75507[Wang, J.-Y., & Chen, C.-H. (2017). Topic for international day of biological diversity: What is biodiversity? Retrieved from http://highscope.ch.ntu.edu.tw/wordpress/?p=75507]
29. 江嘉杰(2017)。偏鄉國小校本特色課程的在地實踐。臺灣教育評論月刊，6(5)，90-95。
30. 吳宗立、林保豊(2003)。國民小學教師工作壓力與組織承諾關係之研究。國教學報，15，193-230。
31. 李新鄉(2010)。教學卓越獲獎團隊表現與學校教師文化關聯性之研究：以大一國小為例。臺灣教育社會學研究，10(2)，41-83。
32. 林永豐(2017)。核心素養的課程教學轉化與設計。教育研究月刊，275，4-17。
33. 姜韻梅(2018)。從逆境中突起－偏鄉學校學校本位課程變革的實例。臺灣教育評論月刊，7(1)，336-349。
34. 屏東縣政府（2017）。屏東縣所屬國民中小學辦理理念教育實施要點。屏東縣：屏東縣政府。[Pingtung County Government. (2017). Enforcement directions implementing charter education in Pingtung County's primary and secondary schools. Pingtung, Taiwan: Pingtung County Government.]
35. 高佩煖(2013)。嘉義縣=Chiayi, Taiwan，國立中正大學=National Chung Cheng University。
36. 高新建(2000)。邁向成功的學校本位課程發展。國立編譯館館刊，29(2)，293-317。
37. 張嘉育(1999)。學校本位課程發展。臺北市=Taipei, Taiwan:師大書苑=Shtabook。
38. 教育部（2017）。教育部教學卓越獎評選及獎勵要點。臺北市：教育部。[Ministry of Education. (2017). Ministry of Education's selection and incentive directions of teaching excellence. Taipei, Taiwan: Ministry of Education.]
39. 教育部（2001）。國民中小學九年一貫課程綱要。臺北市：教育部。[Ministry of Education. (2001). Grade 1-9 curriculum guidelines. Taipei, Taiwan: Ministry of Education.]
40. 教育部（2014）。十二年國民基本教育課程綱要總綱。臺北市：教育部。[Ministry of Education. (2014). The curriculum guidelines of 12-year basic education. Taipei, Taiwan: Ministry of Education.]
41. 許芯瑋、社團法人臺灣童心創意行動協會(2012)。Design for change 給孩子改變世界的機會。臺北市=Taipei, Taiwan:凱信企管=Kaihsin Management。
42. 陳世聰(2014)。屏東縣理念學校的經營與發展：兼述長榮百合國小的創設。教育研究月刊，241，53-67。
43. 陳向明(2002)。社會科學質的研究。臺北市=Taipei, Taiwan:五南=Wu-Nan。
44. 陳麗珠(2000)。美國教育財政改革。臺北市=Taipei, Taiwan:五南=Wu-Nan。
45. 葉連祺(2006)。國中人員如何進行SWOT 分析：採行整合關係取向的研究。教育政策論壇，9(1)，117-148。
46. 劉美慧(2001)。新書評介：文化回應教學：理論、研究與實踐。課程與教學，4(4)，143-151。
47. 蔡清田(2005)。課程領導與學校本位課程發展。臺北市=Taipei, Taiwan:五南=Wu-Nan。
48. 蔡清田(2017)。課程實驗：課綱爭議與出路。臺北市=Taipei, Taiwan:五南=Wu-Nan。
49. 蔡清田(2007)。學校本位課程發展的新猷與教務課程領導。臺北市=Taipei, Taiwan:五南=Wu-Nan。
50. 鄭同僚(2015)。,未出版
51. 謝文全(2015)。教育行政學。臺北市=Taipei, Taiwan:高等教育=Higher Education。

1. 蔡仕廷,黃馨儀,張登文(2022)。The Effect of Motion Infographics on the Learning of Third and Fourth Grade Resource Classes and Regular Classes in Elementary School。圖書資訊學刊，20(1)，31-48。
2. 張芷瑄(2021)。探究公立學校轉型實驗教育學校的師資困境－質性後設分析研究。學校行政，131，118-137。
3. 趙筱屏(2023)。權力與課程決定之研究：以一所國小課程發展委員會為例。學校行政，145，183-205。
4. (2020)。從理念學校轉型實驗教育學校之教師專業發展歷程探究。教育政策論壇，23(1)，91-121。