聯合國永續發展目標下的優質學習生態系統建構：以社會創業型態之印度河濱學校為例

CONSTRUCTING AN ECOSYSTEM FOR QUALITY LEARNING IN THE WAKE OF UN SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT GOALS: A SOCIAL-ENTREPRENEURSHIP STUDY OF RIVERSIDE SCHOOL, INDIA

10.6151/CERQ.201912_27(4).0001

鄭以萱(I-Hsuan Cheng)

聯合國永續發展目標 ； 優質教育 ； 學習生態系統 ； 社會創業 ； 河濱學校 ； 印度 ； UN Sustainable Development Goals ； quality education ； learning ecosystem ； social entrepreneurship ； Riverside School ； India

當代教育研究季刊

27卷4期（2019 / 12 / 31）

1 - 35

繁體中文

研究目的：本研究目的旨於探索印度河濱學校如何以社會創業精神建構優質學習生態系統，回應聯合國永續發展目標下優質學習的觀念與挑戰。研究設計／方法／取徑：本研究以國際間和印度國內屢獲教育創新和社會創業獎項肯定的印度河濱學校為例，採連續三年（2015-2017年）的個案研究策略，每年進行為期一個月的移地研究，運用參與式觀察、半結構式訪談以及文件分析方法蒐集質性證據資料，並以社會創業理論分析架構進一步檢析之。研究發現或結論：研究發現個案學校將課綱發展、課程設計以及教學實踐建立在以使用者為中心的設計思維和「Relevance-Rigour-Relationship」的3R價值主張框架上，繼而發展出優質學習生態系統。研究發現優質學習生態系統的多維構面與發展可分為以下三面向：一、如何製造「優質學習」：符應國際標準，發展學校本位特色；回應教師創業家精神，教師分工專業化並跨領域共創；全球與在地公民素養導向。二、如何傳遞「優質學習」：以學習者為中心的教學實踐；強調後設認知與反思的評量方式。三、如何支持「優質學習」：家長的認同與參與，社區服務與社會運動。研究原創性／價值：過去「千禧發展目標二」政策著重於初等教育普及化，強調教育機會管道和入學率等量化指標，教育品質偏重於易以標準化評量檢測出的認知能力，品質一詞逐漸限縮其定義和概念範疇。聯合國「永續發展目標四」政策圍繞於「優質教育」此一核心觀念，自2015年推動迄今，國際社會期待愈來愈多元的私部門組織（包括營利事業和社會企業等）投資教育創新、提升教育品質。2015年之後的聯合國教育議程不只重視學習者的認知能力發展，同時強調非認知能力的養成；教育目的不只為了脫貧與經濟發展，更要培養民主價值和負責任的公民。然而，優質學習該如何實踐和達成？優質學習生態系統可如何被社會創業家建構等議題，往往是聯合國永續發展目標下相當關鍵卻較少文獻探討著墨處。是故，本研究成果期貢獻於此。

Purpose: This research explores how Riverside School in India develops an ecosystem for quality learning, by means of social entrepreneurship, in response to concepts and challenges of quality learning in the wake of UN Sustainable Development Goals. Design/methodology/approach: This research examines India's Riverside School, which has earned a national and international reputation for its education innovation and social entrepreneurship. A case-study strategy spans 2015-2017. A 1-month field visit is conducted each year, involving participatory observation, semistructured interviews, and documentary analysis. For analyzing findings and results, a theoretical lens of social entrepreneurship is developed and utilized. Findings: The studied school was found to base its curricular development, lesson planning, and pedagogical practices on a user-centered design thinking and on a 3R value framework, 'Relevance-Rigor-Relationship', on which an ecosystem for quality learning is based. The development of the ecosystem for quality learning is also found to be multidimensional. The first dimension involves how quality learning is produced. The respective process not only meets international standards but is specialized and school-based, and responds to 'teacherpreneurship', which means specialization and professionalization of teachers' jobs. It also refers to teachers who cooperate and create in an interdisciplinary manner. The second dimension concerns how quality learning is delivered. The respective process is permeated using learner-centered pedagogy and metacognition as well as reflective evaluation methods. The third dimension supports quality learning by virtue of not only parents' recognition and participation but also community service and social activism. Originality/value: In the past, the Millennium Development Goal 2 (MDG 2) policy heavily stressed the universalization of primary education, with a focus on quantitative indicators such as educational access and enrolment rates. Accordingly, the definition and concept of quality education was narrowed down to standardization of measurements favoring cognitive development. The United Nations (UN) Sustainable Development Goal 4 (SDG 4) policy is currently centered on the core concept of quality education. After the launch of SDG 4 in 2015, the international society expects an increase in numbers of private sector organizations (including profit enterprises and social enterprises) to invest in educational innovation and promote educational quality. In the post-2015 era, the UN educational agenda emphasizes not only learners' cognitive development but also their noncognitive development, with the aim of using education to not only reduce poverty and develop the economy but also foster democratic values and responsible citizenship. Consequently, key questions remain unaddressed, such as how quality learning can be practiced and achieved and how an ecosystem for quality learning can be constructed by social entrepreneurs? These questions are crucial to the post-2015 UN educational agenda but are neglected in the relevant literature to which this research makes an original and valuable contribution.

1. 鄭勝分, J. S. F(2007)。社會企業的概念分析。政策研究學報，7，65-108。
   連結：
2. Abu-Saifan, S.(2012).Social entrepreneurship: Defnition and boundaries.Technology Innovation Management Review,2012,22-27.
3. Alexander, R.(2008).Education for all, the quality imperative and the problem of pedagogy.
4. Asian Development Bank=ADB(2012).India Social enterprise landscape report.
5. Austin, J.,Stevenson, H.,Wei-Skillern, J.(2006).Social and commercial entrepreneurship: Same, different or both?.Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice,30(1),1-22.
6. Bangay, C.,Latham, M.(2013).Are we asking the right questions? Moving beyond the state vs non-state providers debate: Reflections and a case study from India.International Journal of Educational Development,33(3),244-252.
7. Berry, B.,Byrd, A.,Wieder, A.(2013).Teacherpreneurs: Innovative teachers who lead but don’t leave.San Francisco, CA:Jossey-Bass.
8. Berry, B.,Teacher Solutions 2030 Team(2010).Teaching 2030: What we must do for our students and our public schools -now and in the future.New York, NY:Teacher College Press.
9. Bloom, P. N.,Dees, G.(2008).Cultivate your ecosystem.Stanford Social Innovation Review,2008(winter),47-53.
10. Bourn, D.(2008).Education for sustainable development in the UK: Making the connections between the environment and development agendas.Theory and Research in Education,6(2),193-206.
11. British Council(2015).Social enterprise: An overview of the policy framework in India.London, UK:British Council.
12. Brown, T.(2009).Change by design: How design thinking transforms organizations and inspires innovation.London, UK:HarperCollins Publishers.
13. Cheng, I. H.(Ed.),Chan, S. J.(Ed.)(2015).International education aid in developing Asia: Policies and practices.Singapore:Springer.
14. Dees, J. G. (2003). Social entrepreneurship is about innovation and impact, not income. Retrieved from https://centers.fuqua.duke.edu/case/wp-content/uploads/sites/7/2015/02/Article_Dees_SEisAboutInnovationandImpactNotIncome_2003.pdf
15. Dees, J. G. (1998). The meaning of social entrepreneurship. Retrieved from https://centers.fuqua.duke.edu/case/wp-content/uploads/sites/7/2015/03/Article_Dees_MeaningofSocialEntrepreneurship_2001.pdf
16. Dees, J. G. (2001). The meaning of social entrepreneurship revisited. Retrieved from https://centers.fuqua.duke.edu/case/wp-content/uploads/sites/7/2015/03/Article_Dees_MeaningofSocialEntrepreneurship_2001.pdf
17. Defourny, J.,Nyssens, M.(2008).Social enterprise in Europe: Recent trends and developments.Social Enterprise Journal,4(3),202-228.
18. Government of India (2013). 12th fve year plan (Vol. 3, pp 1-274). New Delhi, India: Government of India. Retrieved from https://mhrd.gov.in/sites/upload_fles/mhrd/fles/document-reports/XIIFYP_SocialSector.pdf
19. Lewin, K.(2011).Expanding access to secondary education: Can India catch up?.International Journal of Educational Development,31(4),382-393.
20. Lundstrom, A.(Ed.),Zhou, C.(Ed.),Friedrichs, Y.(Ed.),Sundin, E.(Ed.)(2014).Social entrepreneurship: Leveraging economic, political and cultural dimensions.Basel, Switzerland:Springer.
21. Mair, J.,Marti, I.(2006).Social entrepreneurship research: A source of explanation, prediction and delight.Journal of World Business,4(1),36-44.
22. Martin, R.,Osberg, S.(2007).Social entrepreneurship: The case for definition.Stanford Social Innovation Review,2(Spring),28-39.
23. McCombs, B. L.,Whisler, J. S.(1997).The learner-centered classroom and school: Strategies for increasing student motivation and achievement.San Francisco, CA:Jossey-Bass.
24. Mehrotra, S.(Ed)(2014).India’s skills challenge: Reforming vocational education and training to harness the demographic dividend.Oxford, UK:Oxford University Press.
25. Mort, G.S.,Weerawardena, J.,Carnegie, K.(2003).Social entrepreneurship: Towards conceptualization.International Journal of Nonproft & Voluntary Sector Marketing,8(1),76-88.
26. Naidoo, J. (2017). Agenda 2030 -SDG4 education 2030 -One year on: Challenges and opportunities. Retrieved from http://www.norrag.org/agenda-2030-sdg4-education-2030-one-year-on-challenges-and-opportunities/
27. Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) (1999). Social enterprises. Retrieved from https://www.oecd-ilibrary.org/urban-rural-and-regional-development/social-enterprises_9789264182332-en
28. Oxfam(2015).Education for global citizenship: A guide for schools.Oxford, UK:Oxfam.
29. Rao, N.,Cheng, K.,Narain, K.(2003).Primary schooling in China and India: Understanding how socio-contextual factors moderate the role of the state.International Review of Education,49(1/2),153-176.
30. Riverside School.Riverside school teacher manual.Ahmedabad, India:Riverside School.
31. Riverside School (2016). Philosophy. Retrieved from http://www.schoolriverside.com/philosophy
32. Riverside School(2017).Riverside school diary.Ahmedabad, India:Riverside School.
33. Schweisfurth, M.(2015).Learner-centred pedagogy: Towards a post-2015 agenda for teaching and learning.International Journal of Educational Development,40,259-266.
34. Sethi, K. B.,Desai, P.,Aggarwal, A.,Agarwal, A.(2015).Design for change: Teacher’s manual.Ahmedabad, India:Riverside School.
35. Shah, P. P.(2016).Partnerships and appropriation: Translating discourses of access and empowerment in girls’ education in India.International Journal of Educational Development,49,11-21.
36. Singal, N.,Pedder, D.,Malathy, D.,Shanmugam, M.,Manickavasagam, S.(2018).Insights from within activity based learning (ABL) classrooms in Tamil Nadu, India: Teachers perspectives and practices.International Journal of Educational Development,60,165-171.
37. Skinner, A.,Blum, N.,Bourn, D.(2013).Development education and education in international development policy: Raising quality through critical pedagogy and global skills.International Development Policy Revue internationale de politique de développement,4(3)
38. Smith, W.,Joshi, D.(2016).Public vs. private schooling as a route to universal basic education: A comparison of China and India.International Journal of Educational Development,46,153-165.
39. UNESCO (2015a). Education 2030 Framework for Action. Retrieved from http://uis.unesco.org/sites/default/files/documents/education-2030-incheon-framework-for-action-implementation-of-sdg4-2016-en_2.pdf
40. UNESCO (2015b). Humanitarian aid for education: Why it matters and why more is needed. Retrieved from https://unesdoc.unesco.org/ark:/48223/pf0000233557
41. UNESCO (2016). Unpacking sustainable development goal 4: Education 2030. Retrieved from https://unesdoc.unesco.org/ark:/48223/pf0000246300
42. United Nations(2015).World population prospects: The 2015 revision.New York, NY:United Nations.
43. Volkmann, C. K.(Ed.)(2012).Social Entrepreneurship and Social Business.Germany:Springer Gabler.
44. Weimer, M.(2002).Learner-centered teaching: Five key changes to practice.San Francisco, CA:Jossey-Bass.
45. World Bank(2018).World development report 2018: Learning to realise education’s promise.
46. 教育部（2015）。基層教師創業家，掀起新一波臺灣教育革新。取自：https://www.edu.tw/news_Content.aspx?n=9E7AC85F1954DDA8&s=6519DC11420EAF16[Ministry of Education. (2015). Grass-root teacherpreneurs trigger a new wave of education innovation in Taiwan. Retrieved from https://www.edu.tw/news_Content.aspx?n=9E7AC85F1954DDA8&s=6519DC11420EAF16]
47. 鄭以萱, I. H.(2016)。印度技能發展政策之教育機會均等觀的分析。教育機會均等，新北市=New Taipei City, Taiwan:

1. 楊善麟(2023)。從永續發展指標觀點探討偏鄉中學推動跨年級跨領域教學之挑戰與因應。學校行政，145，90-106。