做伙來讀寫七字仔：地方為本的母語讀寫教育

Reading & Writing Chhit-ji-a Together: Place-based Mother Tongue Literacy Education

10.6710/JTLL.201309_8(2).0004

張學謙(TIUⁿ Hak-khiam)；許秀金(KHÓ· Siù-kim)

地方為本教育 ； 母語讀寫 ； 七字仔 ； 雙語讀寫 ； place-based education ； mother tongue literacy ； chhit-ji-a ； biliteracy

臺灣語文研究

8卷2期（2013 / 09 / 01）

99 - 116

台文

現此時ê 母語教材傷過以語言做中心，無照顧著母語佮地方社區ê 連結，佮口語文化傳統ê 連結嘛仝款無夠。爲著欲提升教材ê 在地性，促進學生母語學習，本文徛佇地方為本ê 教育理念，運用家庭佮社區ê 語言文化基金，佇國小進行師生共同參與ê 地方為本母語讀寫教育。本文ê 結果會當歸納如下：七字仔創作教學會當提升囡仔ê興趣佮動機；教囡仔雙語讀寫是有可能ê；在地七字仔讀寫教學是真好ê 教育方式；學生學會曉傳統唸謠ê 表達型式；共在地為本教育理念融入母語讀寫教育，毋但有可行性閣會當達成重要ê 教育目標。

Current mother tongue materials focus more on linguistic aspects, and pay little attention to the connection between mother tongue and community. These materials also fail to connect mother tongue with the creation of traditional oral culture. This paper documents our efforts to implement a chhit-ji-a literacy program. Based on place-based education, the paper attempts to localize mother tongue materials by creating a place-based chhit-ji-a materials, and uses these materials to teach primary school students reading and writing chhit-ji-a with their teacher. The findings of this paper can be summarized as follows: 1. Chhit-ji-a can raise students' motivation, they enjoy reading and writing Chhit-ji-a; 2. It is possible to teach biliteracy in primary school, as mother tongue and second language is interdependent, literacy skill can also transfer; 3. Chhit-ji-a literacy education is a good way to teach mother tongue: students' language skills are improved, their local knowledge and love for the local are also deepened; 4. Students can learn to write local places in the form of traditional rhyme folksong; 5. It is feasible to integrate place-based education with mother tongue literacy, and it can achieve important educational goals.

1. 王貝林. 2007.〈幼兒語言教學將先母語後國語〉。臺北：《自由時報》http://www.libertytimes.com.tw/2007/new/may/15/today-life4.htm (2007/5/15)
2. Brooke, R.(2003).Rural Voices: Place-Conscious Education and the Teaching of Writing.New York:Teachers College Press.
3. Chellapan, K.(1982).Translanguage, translation and second language acquisition.Papers on Translation: Aspects, Concepts, Implications,Singapore:
4. Cook, G.(2010).Translation in Language Teaching.Oxford:Oxford University Press.
5. Cummins, J.(1979).Linguistic interdependence and the educational development of bilingual children.Review of educational Research,49,222-251.
6. Gillespie, T.(1985).Becoming your own expert-Teachers as writers.The Quarterly,8(1),1-2.
7. Gruenewald, D.(ed.),Smith, G.(ed.)(2008).Place-based Education in the Global Age: Local Diversity.NY:Lawrence Erlbaum.
8. Krajka, J.(2004).Your mother tongue does matter! Translation in the classroom and on the web.Teaching English with Technology,4(4)
9. Moll, L. C.,Amanti, C.,Neff, D.,Gonzalez, N.(1992).Funds of knowledge for teaching: Using a qualitative approach to connect homes and classrooms.Theory into Practice,31(2),132-141.
10. Olshansky, B.(2006).Artists/Writers workshop: Focusing on the art of writing.Language Art,83(6),522-523.
11. Skutnabb-Kangas, T.(2000).Linguistic Genocide in Education or Worldwide Diversity and Human Rights?.Mahwh, N.J.:Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
12. Sobel, D.(2004).Place-Based Education-Connecting Classrooms and Communities.Barrington, MA:The Orion Sociey.
13. UNESCO(1953).The Use of Vernacular Languages in Education.Paris:UNESCO.
14. 內爾‧諾丁編(2008)。公民教育：培養全球性意識。臺北:文景出版社。
15. 王育德、黃國彥譯(1993)。台灣話講座。臺北:自立晚報出版社。
16. 林玉体(1995)。主張泛智的教育學者─康米紐斯。教育研究集刊，36，83-106。
17. 洪如玉(2012)。安居與否？批判地方教育學與相關爭議之探究。台灣教育社會學研究，12，43-73。
18. 張學謙(2011)。語言復振的理念與實務：家庭、社區與學校的協作。臺中:新新台灣文化教育基金會。
19. 張學謙(2012)。解開單語教學的緊箍咒：翻譯的雙語教學意義。語文迴旋圈—101年度臺灣南區大學中文系聯合學術會議語言文字學術專業會後論文集，臺北:
20. 張學謙(2004)。結合社區與學校的母語統整教學。台灣語文研究，2，171-192。
21. 許秀金(2012)。碩士論文(碩士論文)。國立臺東大學華語文學系台灣語文教師碩士班。
22. 鄭良偉(1987)。從國語看臺語的發音。臺北:臺灣學生書局。