學校選修課程發展因素研究－以藝術選修課程分析

Inquiries Into School-level Factors Influencing the Development of Art Elective Courses

10.6209/JORIES.202203_67(1).0010

陳育祥(Yu-Hsiang Chen)

課程發展 ； 學校本位課程 ； 學校層級因素 ； 藝術教育 ； 藝術選修課程 ； curriculum development ； school-based curriculum ； school-level factors ； art education ； art elective courses

教育科學研究期刊

67卷1期（2022 / 03 / 01）

291 - 318

繁體中文

藝術教育促進個體理解美感經驗之意義與實踐，是個體全人素養之重要環節，然鑑於課程發展具層次差異性，藝術課程於學校發展影響之因素值得探討。本研究採混合研究法之解釋性序列設計，針對高中學校背景屬性因素與藝術選修課程分析開設之關聯性分析，繼之訪談學校藝術教師之觀點以探究藝術選修課程發展因素。分析結果顯示，藝術加深加廣課程發展情形與設置藝術才能班因素具顯著相關，藝術多元選修課程發展情形則分別與學校規模、公私立與設置藝術才能班等因素有顯著關聯。綜合訪談整體結果指出，學校藝術選修課程發展受到社會環境關注學生生涯發展與升學之共通因素影響，學校規模、空間設備與發展亮點等各校異質性因素影響多元選修課程發展，在此境況下，藝術教師普遍關注專業提升與充實相關資源，並希冀釐清學校定位及藝術選修課程之價值，本研究根據結果提出相關建議。

Background and Motivation: Art education facilitates individuals to understand the meaning and practice of aesthetic experiences, which is essential to a well-rounded education. However, art elective courses in secondary schools are in fact in decline and marginalized in recent years. The National Society for Education in Art and Design (NSEAD) investigated the number of students taking at least one art course for the General Certificate of Secondary Education (GCSE) during 2015-16 in the UK and found that the percentage had fallen to 53.5% (BBC News, 2018; NSEAD, 2016). By the same token, researchers from the different countries also worried about the development and availability of art courses in school in the face of marginalization due to school location, school size, shortage of art teachers, and the lack of equipment (Chapman et al., 2018; Fitzpatrick, 2012; Meyer, 2005). Owing to the complexity of the operational level of curriculum decision-making (Goodlad, 1979; Marsh et al., 1990), school-focused curriculum development often results in multi-faceted factors influencing art education. Some research has indicated that art curricula in development at school levels have been negatively influenced by school size and the lack of full-time art teachers (Chapman et al., 2018; Elpus, 2020). The discrepancy between art education in public and private schools has also been an argument of the current study, with results showing that art courses in American public high schools significantly provided more art courses than those in private ones (Elpus, 2020). Furthermore, given that the practice of school curricula requires the support of material contexts, including space and other resources for teachers' discussion and practice, funds, and equipment are especially needed for art courses (Chapman et al., 2018; Fitzpatrick, 2012). With these factors worth exploring, the study aims to address the influence of school-level factors on the development of art elective courses in senior high schools in Taiwan. The research questions are: (1) What is the relationship between the school-level factors and the development of art elective courses? (2) How do art teachers view the school-level factors' influence on art elective courses? Method: A mixed-methods design was adopted in this study. The questionnaire survey was first sent to collect the data of high school background factors and the development of art elective courses in Taiwan, followed by stratified sampling for in-depth interviews with art teachers on their perception and participation in school art electives courses development. The Chi-square test of independence was applied for the data analysis of the questionnaire to examine the correlation between school-level factors and the offering of art elective courses. Interviews were transcribed and gradually categorized with the meaningful data from open coding, axial coding, and selective coding. Evidence was examined to form the conclusions and recommendations. Result and Discussion: Descriptive analysis indicated that the ratio of schools not offering art elective courses was higher than the offering ones. In addition, the ratio of schools offering art enrichment and expanded elective courses exceeded the ones offering art elective courses. With the use of Chi-square test of independence, the results showed that the offering of art enrichment and expanded elective courses correlated to the availability of art talent class within the school, whereas the offering of art elective courses was respectively associated with the factors of school size, public/private school system, and the existence of art talent class in school. Overall, it revealed heterogeneity factors among schools is worth heeding. In particular, the offering of art elective courses in schools of small size accounts for a significantly lower ratio, reflecting the influence of the shortage of art teachers and the pressure of maintaining faculty stability on the development of art elective courses. Therefore, the positive correlation between the existence of art talent classes and the development of art elective courses within a school results from art teachers' diverse professions and the sufficiency of the fundamental art equipment. Schools with at least an art talent class offer more art enrichment and expanded elective courses or art elective courses than those without, which shows that in addition to art courses per se, the development of art courses also has the specific need of teaching resources and equipment. Furthermore, past studies have shown similar results that art elective courses offered in public schools significantly outnumbered those in private schools, the interview data illustrate that due to social context factors in Taiwan, schools are in the face of challenges from sub-replacement fertility and pressure of high competitiveness. During the curriculum development, that the school administrative adopting strategies beneficial for students' college enrollment or transferring school resources to emphasize school features has highlighted the criticality of developing school features as well as the role art elective courses play in school positioning. Conclusion and Suggestions: The research finding indicate the development of school-level art elective courses is affected by the common factors of the social environment concerning students' career development and higher education enrollment rates. The development of the art multiple elective courses is more related to the school size, equipment, and developing features and other heterogeneous factors of each school. Art teachers focus on professional enhancement and enrichment of related equipment, clarify the positioning of the school in the exam success-oriented environment and establish the role and value of art elective courses. Based on the research results, considering the relatively high quantity and density of colleges in Taiwan, it is suggested that schools collaborate with neighboring schools and connect to the local community for art resources so as to enhance the availability of resources and instructors needed for art elective courses. In addition, as the development of art elective courses encompasses the skill-specific feature and diverse, cross-disciplinary learning content, when meeting the learner competence-based educational trend and clarifying the role of art elective courses in school, value of art elective courses will thus be accentuated. This research addresses the relationship between school-level factors and the development of art elective courses. However, owning to the complexity of school factors, it is suggested that relevant research in the future further analyze the development of art elective courses in schools through multilevel analysis method, or continue to inquire the cases of the development of art elective courses in school in-depth.

1. 宋曜廷、潘佩妤（2010）。混合研究在教育研究的運用。教育科學研究期刊，55（4），97-130。https://doi.org/10.3966/2073753X2010125504004 【Sung, Y.-T., & Pan, P.-Y. (2010). Applications of mixed methods research in educational studies. Journal of Research in Education Sciences, 55(4), 97-130. https://doi.org/10.3966/2073753X2010125504004】
   連結：
2. 洪詠善（2013）。臺灣後期中等教育階段學校發展特色課程之問題與展望。教育研究月刊，225，102-117。https://doi.org/10.3966/168063602013010225007 【Hong, Y.-S. (2013). Problems and prospects of developing featured curriculum in oost-secondary schools for Taiwan 12-year basic education. Journal of Education Research, 225, 102-117. https://doi.org/10.3966/168063 602013010225007】
   連結：
3. 侯一欣、高新建（2018）。課程實施在推廣中的意涵與革新體現：課程史觀點。教育科學研究期刊，63（2），219-250。https://doi.org/10.6209/JORIES.201806_63(2).0009 【Hou, Y.-H., & Gau, S.-J. (2018). Curriculum implementation implies the meanings of the dissemination and innovation: The viewpoint of curriculum history. Journal of Research in Education Sciences, 63(2), 219-250. https://doi.org/10.6209/JORIES.201806_63(2).0009】
   連結：
4. 姜添輝（2002）。九年一貫課程政策影響教師專業自主權之研究。教育研究集刊，48（2），157-　197。https://doi.org/10.6910/BER.200206_(48-2).0005 【Chiang, T.-H. (2002). A study of the influence of the nine-year-integrated-curriculum policy on teachers’ professional autonomy. Bulletin of Educational Research, 48(2), 157-197. https://doi.org/10.6910/BER.200206_ (48-2).0005】
   連結：
5. 張芬芬、陳麗華、楊國揚（2010）。臺灣九年一貫課程轉化之議題與因應。教科書研究，3（1），1-40。https://doi.org/10.6481/JTR.201006.0001 【Chang, F.-F., Chen, L.-H., & Yang, K.-Y. (2010). Transformational issues of grades 1-9 curriculum reform in Taiwan. Journal of Textbook Research, 3(1), 1-40. https://doi.org/10.6481/JTR.201006.0001】
   連結：
6. 張茵倩、楊俊鴻（2019）。從校訂到校本：校長課程領導的行動策略。課程研究，14（2），49-　65。https://doi.org/10.3966/181653382019091402003 【Chang, Y.-C., & Yang, C.-H. (2019). From school-developed curriculum to school-based curriculum: The action strategies for curriculum leadership of principals. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 14(2), 49-65. https://doi. org/10.3966/181653382019091402003】
   連結：
7. 郭丁熒（2019）。高中教育目標之分析與比較。教育科學研究期刊，64（1），81-117。https://doi. org/10.6209/JORIES.201903_64(1).0004 【Guo, D.-Y. (2019). Study of high-school educational goals. Journal of Research in Education Sciences, 64(1), 81-117. https://doi.org/10.6209/JORIES.201903_64(1).0004】
   連結：
8. 陳健生、林智中（2012）面向新高中課程改革：學校政策制定者的觀點和決定。課程研究，7（1），65-85。https://doi.org/10.3966/181653382012030701003 【Chen, K.-S., & Lam, C.-C. (2012). The new senior secondary school curriculum reform in Hong Kong: School policy makers’ perspectives and decision making. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 7(1), 65-85. https://doi.org/10. 3966/181653382012030701003】
   連結：
9. 陳曉雰（2017）。十二年國教「多媒體音樂」開課實務及教師知能之探討。藝術教育研究，33，69-102。https://doi.org/10.6622/RAE.2017.33.03 【Chen, H.-F. (2017). A study on the practice of course offerings and teachers’ knowledge and skills for multimedia music within the 12-year basic education. Research in Arts Education, 33, 69-102. https://doi.org/10.6622/ RAE.2017.33.03】
   連結：
10. 黃鴻博（1990）。我國高級中學選修課程實施狀況研究。國立臺灣師範大學教育研究所集刊，32，157-187。https://doi.org/10.6910/BGIENTNU.199006_(32).0008 【Huang, H.-B. (1990). Research on the implementation status of elective courses in upper secondary schools in Taiwan. Bulletin of Graduate Institute of Education Taiwan Normal University, 32, 157-187. https://doi.org/10. 6910/BGIENTNU.199006_(32).0008】
    連結：
11. 楊朝祥（2014）。十二年國民基本教育：政策爭議與對策。教育資料與研究，115，1-26。https:// doi.org/10.6724/ERR.201411_(115).0001 【Yung, C.-S. (2014). National twelve-year basic education: Policy dispute and corresponding strategies. Educational Resources and Research, 115, 1-26. https://doi.org/10.6724/ERR.201411_(115).0001】
    連結：
12. 湯志民（2018）。小型學校轉型與創新。教育研究月刊，287，66-81。https://doi.org/10.3966/　168063602018030287005 【Tang, C.-M. (2018). Small schools transformation and innovation. Journal of Education Research, 287, 66-81. https://doi.org/10.3966/168063602018030287005】
    連結：
13. 趙惠玲（2014）。課程政策與教師課程意識：以藝術與人文學習領域為例。中等教育，65（1），6-18。https://doi.org/10.6249/SE.2014.65.1.01 【Chao, H.-L. (2014). Curriculum policy and teachers’ awareness of curriculum: Example from art and humanities disciplines. Secondary Education, 65(1), 6-18. https://doi.org/10.6249/SE.2014.65.1.01】
    連結：
14. 簡良平、甄曉蘭（2001）。學校自主發展課程之相關因素分析。教育研究集刊，46（1），53-80。https://doi.org/10.6910/BER.200101_(46).0003 【Jian, L.-P., & Chen, H.-L. (2001). An analysis of related forces for autonomous development of school curriculum. Bulletin of Educational Research, 46(1), 53-80. https://doi.org/10.6910/BER.200101_(46).0003】
    連結：
15. 甄曉蘭、簡良平（2002）。學校本位課程發展權力重整問題之批判分析。教育研究集刊，48（1），65-93。https://doi.org/10.6910/BER.200203_(48-1).0003 【Chen, H.-L., & Jian, L.-P. (2002). A critique on the issues of power restructuring behind school-based curriculum development. Bulletin of Educational Research, 48(1), 65-93. https://doi.org/10.6910/BER.200203_(48-1).0003】
    連結：
16. 潘慧玲、黃莉、陳文彥、鄭淑惠（2020）。學校準備好了嗎？國高中教育人員實施108課綱的變革準備度。教育研究與發展期刊，16（1），65-100。https://doi.org/10.6925/SCJ.202003_ 16(1).0003 【Pan, H.-L., Huang, L.-L., Chen, W.-Y., & Cheng, S.-H. (2020). Are schools ready? School practitioners’ change readiness for the curriculum guidelines of 12-year basic education. Journal of Educational Research and Development, 16(1), 65-100. https://doi.org/10.6925/SCJ.202003_16(1).0003】
    連結：
17. Bowen, D. H., & Kisida, B. (2017). The art of partnerships: Community resources for arts education. Phi Delta Kappan, 98(7), 8-14. https://doi.org/10.1177/0031721717702624
    連結：
18. Burton, J. M., Horowitz, R., & Abeles, H. (2000). Learning in and through the arts: The question of transfer. Studies in art education, 41(3), 228-257. https://doi.org/10.2307/1320379
    連結：
19. Chapman, S., Wright, P., & Pascoe, R. (2018). Arts curriculum implementation: “Adopt and adapt” as policy translation. Arts Education Policy Review, 119(1), 12-24. https://doi.org/10.1080/ 10632913.2016.1201031
    連結：
20. Eisner, E. W. (1998). Does experience in the arts boost academic achievement? Arts Education Policy Review, 100(1), 32-40. https://doi.org/10.1080/10632919809599448
    連結：
21. Elpus, K. (2020). Access to arts education in America: The availability of visual art, music, dance, and theater courses in U.S. high schools. Arts Education Policy Review. https://doi.org/10. 1080/10632913.2020.1773365
    連結：
22. Fitzpatrick, K. R. (2012). School-based management and arts education: Lessons from Chicago. Arts Education Policy Review, 113(3), 106-111. https://doi.org/10.1080/10632913.2012.687340
    連結：
23. Freedman, K. (2007). Artmaking/troublemaking: Creativity, policy and leadership in art education. Studies in Art Education, 48(2), 204-217. https://doi.org/10.1080/00393541.2007.11650100
    連結：
24. Graham, M. A., & Sims-Gunzenhauser, A. (2009). Advanced placement in studio art and secondary art education policy: Countering the null curriculum. Arts Education Policy Review, 110(3), 18-24. https://doi.org/10.3200/AEPR.110.3.18-24
    連結：
25. Heilig, J. V., Cole, H., & Aguilar, A. (2010). From Dewey to no child left behind: The evolution and devolution of public arts education. Arts Education Policy Review, 111(4), 136-145. https://doi. org/10.1080/10632913.2010.490776
    連結：
26. Ivankova, N. V., Creswell, J. W., & Stick, S. L. (2006). Using mixed-methods sequential explanatory design: From theory to practice. Field methods, 18(1), 3-20. https://doi.org/10.1177/1525822X 05282260
    連結：
27. Monk, D. H., & Haller, E. J. (1993). Predictors of high school academic course offerings: The role of school size. American Educational Research Journal, 30(1), 3-21. https://doi.org/10.3102/0002 8312030001003
    連結：
28. Mowday, R. T., & Sutton, R. I. (1993). Organizational behavior: Linking individuals and groups to organizational contexts. Annual Review of Psychology, 44, 195-229. https://doi.org/10.1146/ annurev.ps.44.020193.001211
    連結：
29. Payne, R., & Hall, E. (2018). The NSEAD survey report 2015-16: Political reflections from two art and design educators. International Journal of Art & Design Education, 37(2), 167-176. https:// doi.org/10.1111/jade.12142
    連結：
30. Polit, D. F., Beck, C. T., & Owen, S. V. (2007). Is the CVI an acceptable indicator of content validity? Appraisal and recommendations. Research in Nursing & Health, 30(4), 459-467. https://doi. org/10.1002/nur.20199
    連結：
31. Prideaux, D. (1993). School-based curriculum development: Partial, paradoxical and piecemeal. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 25(2), 169-178. https://doi.org/10.1080/0022027930250206
    連結：
32. Scott, T., & Twyman, T. (2018). Considering visual arts practices at the secondary level: Extending cross-curricular conversations among secondary educators. Art Education, 71(2), 16-20. https:// doi.org/10.1080/00043125.2018.1414533
    連結：
33. 王麗雁、郭禎祥（2010）。全球在地化：談臺灣視覺藝術教育發展。國際藝術教育學刊，8（1），138-148。 【Wang, L.-Y., & Kuo, A. (2010). Glocalization: Art education in Taiwan. The International Journal of Arts Education, 8(1), 138-148.】
34. 李坤崇（2010）。高中課程99課綱與95暫綱之分析。教育資料與研究，92，1-24。 【Li, K.-C. (2010). On the 95 gidelines and the 99 guidelines of high school. Educational Resources and Research, 92, 1-24.】
35. 林永豐（2018）。從九年一貫到新課綱的校本課程省思。臺灣教育，710，29-36。 【Lin, Y.-F. (2018). The retrospection of the school-based curriculum: From grades 1-9 curriculum guidelines to the new curriculum guidelines. Taiwan Education Review, 710, 29-36.】
36. 林佩璇（2004）。學校本位課程發展脈絡與現況研究。國立臺北師範學院學報：教育類，17（2），35-56。 【Lin, P.-H. (2004). The study of the context of school-based curriculum development. Journal of National Taipei Teachers College: Education, 17(2), 35-36.】
37. 香港教育局（2020）。課程及評估指引─核心科目及選修科目。http://334.edb.hkedcity.net/new/tc/　curriculum.php 【The Education Bureau of the Government of Hong Kong Special Administrative Region. (2020). Curriculum and assessment guide (S4-S6)－ Core subjects and elective subjects. http://334.edb.hkedcity.net/new/tc/curriculum. php】
38. 徐秀菊、趙惠玲、蘇郁菁（2003）。臺灣中小學藝術教師教學現況調查之研究。藝術教育研究，5，83-127。 【Hsu, H.-C., Chao, H.-L., & Su, Y.-C. (2003). Investigation of the current Taiwan art teacher and teaching in the elementary and secondary schools. Research in Arts Education, 5, 83-127.】
39. 教育部（2014）。十二年國民基本教育課程綱要總綱。作者。 【Ministry of Education. (2014). The general guide of twelve-year basic education curriculum. Author.】
40. 教育部（2018）。十二年國民基本教育課程綱要國民中小學暨普通型高級中等學校：藝術領域。作者。 【Ministry of Education. (2018). The guide of twelve-year basic education curriculum: Arts area of elementary, junior and ordinary senior high schools. Author.】
41. 教育部統計處（2020）。高級中等學校校數─依學校所在地區。https://depart.moe.edu.tw/　ED4500/cp.aspx?n=1AC243AF6EF5E5DD&s=EDC4A4E717ED32CF 【Department of Statistics of Ministry of Education. (2020). The number of senior high schools by the district. https://departmoe.edu.tw/ED4500/cp.aspx?n=1AC243AF6EF5E5DD85=EDC4A4E717-ED32CF】
42. 陳錫珍（2014）。美國的小型高中教育改革運動。教育資料集刊，62，19-35。 【Chen, J.-S. (2014). Small high school educational reform movement in the United States. Bulletin of the National Institute of Education Materials, 62, 19-35.】
43. 陳瓊花、賴美鈴、張曉華、洪詠善、林于仙（2013）。十二年國民基本教育藝術領域綱要內容之前導研究（NAER102-06-A-1-02-06-1-15）。國家教育研究院專題研究計畫結案報告。 【Chen, C.-H., Lai, M.-L., Chang, H.-H., Hong, Y.-S., & Lin, Y.-H. (2013). Preceding research of the main content of 12-year compulsory education in language (arts) (NAER102-06-A-1-02-06-1-15). National Academy for Educational Research.】
44. 黃春木、劉蔚之（2012）。十二年國教高中校本特色課程規劃與實施的制度面研究。載於黃政傑（主編），十二年國教課程教學改革：理念與方向的期許（頁43-61）。五南。 【Huang, C.-M., & Liou, W.-C. (2012). A systematic approach to the planning and implementation of the high school-based featured curriculum in the 12-year basic education. In J.-J. Hwang (Ed.), The reform of curriculum & instruction in 12-year basic education: Concept, direction and expectations (pp. 43-61). Wu-Nan.】
45. BBC News. (2018). Creative subjects being squeezed, schools tell BBC. https://www.bbc.com/news/ education-42862996
46. Broudy, H. S. (1979). Arts education: Necessary or just nice? Phi Delta Kappan, 60(5), 347-350.
47. Creswell, J. W., & Clark, V. L. P. (2017). Designing and conducting mixed methods research (3rd ed.). Sage.
48. Eisner, E. W. (2002). Arts and the creation of mind. Yale University Press.
49. European Commission. (2020). Finland teaching and learning in general upper secondary education. https://eacea.ec.europa.eu/national-policies/eurydice/content/teaching-and-learning-general-upper-secondary-education-15_en
50. Glaser, B. G., & Strauss, A. L. (2009). The discovery of grounded theory: Strategies for qualitative research. Aldine Transaction.
51. Glatthorn, A. A. (2000). The principal as curriculum leadership: Shaping what is taught and tested (2nd ed.). Cowing Press.
52. Glatthorn, A. A., Boschee, F., Whitehead, B. M., & Boschee, B. F. (2012). Curriculum leadership: Strategies for development and implementation (3rd ed.). Sage.
53. Goodlad, J. I. (1979). Curriculum inquiry: The study of curriculum practice. McGraw-Hill.
54. Klein, M. F. (1985). Curriculum design. In T. Husen & T. N. Postlethwaite (Eds.), The international encyclopedia of education (pp. 1163-1170). Pergamon.
55. Marsh, C. J. (2009). Key concepts for understanding curriculum. Routledge.
56. Marsh, C. J., Day, C., Hannay, L., & McCutcheon, G. (1990). Reconceptualizing school-based curriculum development. The Falmer Press.
57. Marzano, R. J. (2003). What works in schools: Translating research into action. Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
58. Meyer, L. (2005). The complete curriculum: Ensuring a place for the arts in America’s schools. Arts Education Policy Review, 106(3), 35-39.
59. Ministry of Education, Singapore. (2020). Postsecondary education. https://www.moe.gov.sg/post- secondary
60. National Institute for Educational Policy Research. (2020). Upper secondary education in Japan. https://www.nier.go.jp/English/educationjapan/pdf/201209SE.pdf
61. Skilbeck, M. (1984). School-based curriculum development. Harper & Row.
62. The Glossary of Education Reform. (2020). Elective course. https://www.edglossary.org/elective- course/
63. The National Society for Education in Art and Design. (2016). The national society for education in art and design survey report 2015-16. https://www.nsead.org/publications/research-reports-and- reviews/research-reports-and-presentations/art-craft-anddesign-nsead-survey/
64. Thomas, M. K., Singh, P., Klopfenstein, K., & Henry, T. C. (2013). Access to high school arts education: Why student participation matters as much as course availability. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 21(83), 1-21.