從生活美學實踐家的實踐智慧探究國民中學美感素養導向課程與教學的取徑

Effects of Curriculum and Instruction Based on Aesthetic Competence and Life Aesthetics Practitioners' Phronesis and Designed for Junior High School Students

10.6925/SCJ.202212_18(4).0002

黃祺惠(Chi-Hui Huang)

108課綱 ； 美感教育 ； 生活美學實踐家 ； 設計為本研究法 ； 飲食課程 ； 2019 Curriculum Guidelines (Taiwan) ； aesthetic education ； aesthetic life practitioners ； design-based research ； diet course

教育研究與發展期刊

18卷4期（2022 / 12 / 31）

41 - 78

繁體中文;英文

美感教育是全人教育中重要的一環，十二年國教新課綱將美感素養納入核心素養中，如何透過課程發展，讓學生廣泛接觸多樣化的生活題材，並能轉化在生活中的行為與態度上的美感素養，是本研究所關切的課題。美感的內涵會隨著時空而變遷，需要融合社會、文化觀點與情境脈絡，透過「生活美學實踐家」的觀點來掌握美感落實於生活的取徑，遂成為進行美感教學設計的重要參著。本研究目的在透過訪談，探析四位生活美學實踐家（以飲食方面為例）的實踐智慧，據此設計飲食美感實驗課程並進行學生前、後測問卷調查，以提出美感素養導向課程與教學的取徑。本研究採「設計為本的研究法」，以新北市一所國中的兩個班級透過準實驗不等組前、後測設計進行教學成效檢核，結果顯示實驗組學生整體美感學習成效顯著高於對照組學生，具有大程度效果量，此外，本研究進一步就各子構念進行分析，也發現實驗組學生在美感三大面向與各類學習目標表現皆顯著高於對照組學生。最後，本研究提出未來相關課程實施與研究的建議。

Aesthetic education is a key aspect of holistic education, and aesthetic competency is a core competency in Taiwan's Curriculum Guidelines of 12-Year Basic Education. How students learn to perceive aesthetics in class and develop aesthetic competency is a topic that warrants further research. The connotations of aesthetics changes in time and space must be integrated with social and cultural perspectives and context. The opinions of aesthetic life practitioners can help clarify how aesthetics can be implemented in everyday life. Furthermore, these opinions can serve as models for student learning. Therefore, the purposes of this study were to analyze the practical wisdom of life aesthetics practitioners by focusing on diet, design a diet aesthetics experimental course, and evaluate the designed course's learning effect. Students from two classes in a junior high school in New Taipei City, Taiwan, were enrolled as participants in this quasi-experimental study. The diet course was designed by applying the design-based research method. The results of a questionnaire survey revealed that the experimental group outperformed the control group. Further analyses of each construct (i.e., three aspects of aesthetic education and four learning objectives) were conducted. Finally, several suggestions regarding the future implementation of the proposed course are provided.

1. Yong, A. (2014). Critique of Hirsch’s citation index: A combinatorial Fermi problem. Notices of the AMS, 61(9), 1040-1050. https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.1402.4357
   連結：
2. 許瑛玿、莊福泰、林祖強（2012）。解析設計研究的架構與實施：以科學教育研究為例。教育科學研究期刊，57（1），1-27。https://doi.org/10.3966/2073753X20 12035701001
   連結：
3. 陳瓊花（2017）。美感素養導向教學之理論與實踐。教育研究月刊，275，18-33。https://doi.org/10.3966/168063602017030275002
   連結：
4. 楊深坑（1998）。美育與實踐智慧。通識教育季刊，5（1），123-136。https://doi. org/10.6745/JGE.199803_5(1).0009
   連結：
5. Borghini, A., & Baldini, A. (2021). Cooking and dining as forms of public art. Food, Culture & Society, 25, 310-327. http://doi.org/10.1080/15528014.2021.1890891
   連結：
6. Borghini, A., & Piras, N. (2022). Eating local as public art. Pratiche, Linguaggi E Saperi dell’estetico, 15(1), 15-27. http://doi.org/10.36253/Aisthesis-13449
   連結：
7. Brown, A. L. (1992). Design experiments: Theoretical and methodological challenges in creating complex interventions in classroom settings. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 2(2), 141-178. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327809jls0202_2
   連結：
8. Clinard, J., & Foster, L. (1998). Putting art standards into practice with aesthetic literacy. NASSP Bulletin, 82(597), 18-24. https://doi.org/10.1177/019263659808259704
   連結：
9. Collins, A., Joseph, D., & Bielaczyc, L. (2004). Design research: Theoretical and methodological Issues. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 13(1), 15-42. http://doi.org/10.1207/s15327809 jls1301_2
   連結：
10. Etikan, I., Alkassim, R., & Abubakar, S. (2016). Comparison of snowball sampling and sequential sampling technique. Biometrics and Biostatistics International Journal, 3, 6-7. https:// doi.org/10.15406/bbij.2016.03.00055
    連結：
11. Hu, L., & Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling, 6(1), 1-55. https://doi.org/10.1080/10705519909540118
    連結：
12. Latour, K. A., & Deighton, J. A. (2019). Learning to become a taste expert. Journal of Consumer Research, 46(1), 1-19. http://doi.org/10.1093/jcr/ucy054
    連結：
13. Lopes, D. M. (2015). Aesthetic experts, guides to value. Journal of Aesthetics & Art Criticism, 73(3), 235-246. https://doi.org/10.1111/jaac.12170
    連結：
14. McDonald, R. P., & Ho, M. H. R. (2002). Principles and practice in reporting structural equation analyses. Psychological Methods, 7(1), 64-82. http://doi.org/10.1037/1082-989X.7.1.64
    連結：
15. Nautiyal, J. (2016). Aesthetic and affective experiences in coffee shops: A Deweyan engagement with ordinary affects in ordinary spaces. Education and Culture, 32(2), 99-118. https:// doi.org/10.5703/educationculture.32.2.0099
    連結：
16. Schwab, J. J. (1973). The practical 3: Translation into curriculum. School Review, 81(4), 501-522. https://doi.org/10.1086/443100
    連結：
17. Schwab, J. J. (1974). Decision and choice: The coming duty science teaching. Journal of Researchin Science Teaching, 11(4), 309-317. http://doi.org/10.1002/tea.3660110404
    連結：
18. 楊深坑（1998）。美育與實踐智慧。通識教育季刊，5（1），123-136。https://doi.org/10.6745/JGE.199803_5(1).0009
    連結：
19. 米高‧奎因‧巴頓（Patton, M. Q.）（1995）。質的評鑑與研究（吳芝儀、李奉儒，譯）。桂冠。（原著出版年：1980）
20. 李雅婷（2015）。學校日常生活之美育課程美感經驗探究（計畫編號：MOST 102- 2410-H-153-007）。行政院國家科學委員會。https://grbdef.stpi.narl.org.tw/fte/ download4?docId=2497529&responseCode=6735&grb05Id=3086345
21. 亞太地區美感教育研究室（2018）。教育部第一期五年美感教育計畫影響評估報告。教育部。
22. 洪詠善、范信賢（2015）。同行～走進十二年國民基本教育課程綱要總綱。國家教育研究院。
23. 范信賢、洪詠善、阮凱利、黃祺惠、陳伯璋（2016）。美感教育的圖像與發展。載於范信賢（主編），這樣美嗎？美感教育在臺灣（頁 1-23）。國家教育研究院。
24. 教育部（1979）。國民教育法。載於教育部國教司（編），國民教育法令彙編（頁11-14）。
25. 教育部（1992）。國民中學藝能科教學訪視與教師座談會報告。
26. 郭秋汶（2021）。美感教育融入國小生活課程實踐之個案研究（碩士論文，國立臺灣師範大學）。臺灣碩博士論文知識加值系統。https://hdl.handle.net/11296/n8rq5p
27. 陳育淳（2021）。美力洋溢―跨領域美感校本課程之發展與省思。國際藝術教育學刊，19（1），152-176。
28. 喻薈融（2017）。中等學校跨領域美感課程教學案例之研究（碩士論文，國立臺灣師範大學）。臺灣碩博士論文知識加值系統。https://hdl.handle.net/11296/28ptxs
29. 馮至、范大燦（1989）。席勒審美教育書簡。淑馨。
30. 黃書庭（2021）。節奏律動教學應用於生活課程提升美感學習成效之行動研究（碩士論文，臺北市立大學）。臺灣碩博士論文知識加值系統。https://hdl.handle.net/11296/puza7f
31. 漢寶德（2010）。如何培養美感。聯經。
32. 歐用生（2003）。課程慎思與課程領導。載於中華民國教材研究發展學會（主編），邁向課程新紀元（十五）：活化課程領導（頁 35-49）。中華民國教材研究發展學會。
33. Amadio, M., Truong, N., & Tschurenev, J. (2006). Instructional time and the place of aesthetic education in school curricula at the beginning of the twenty-first century. IBE-UNESCO. http://www.ibe.unesco.org/sites/default/files/artseducation_ibewpci_1.pdf
34. Anderson, L. W., Krathwohl, D. R., Airasian, P. W., Cruikshank, K. A., Mayer, R. E., Pintrich, P. R., Raths, J., & Wittrock, M. C. (2001). A taxonomy for learning, teaching, and assessing: A revision of Bloom’s taxonomy of educational objectives. Longman.
35. Cobb, P. (2001). Supporting the improvement of learning and teaching in social and institutional context. In S. Carver & D. Klahr (Eds.), Cognition and instruction: 25 years ofprogress (pp. 455-478). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
36. Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
37. Dewey, J. (1916). Democracy and education: An introduction to the philosophy of education.MacMillan.
38. Krathwohl, D. R., Bloom, B. S., & Bertram, B. M. (1973). Taxonomy of educational objectives: The classification of educational goals. David McKay.
39. Lazarsfeld, P., Berelson, B., & Gaudet, H. (1948). The people’s choice. Columbia University. Lopes, D. M. (2014). Beyond art. Oxford University.
40. Mishler, E. G. (1986). Rsearch intervewing: Context and narrative. Havard University.
41. Organization of Economic Co-operation and Development. (2018). The future of education and skills 2030.
42. Schröder, M. (2015). Competence-oriented study programmes. https://www.en-fibaa.org/fileadmin/ uploads/content_uploads/13_Werkstatt_Kompetenzorientierung_Mai_2015_V3_en_01. pdf
43. Schwab, J. J. (1978). The practical: A language for curriculum. In I. Westbury & N. J. Wilkof (Eds.), Science, curriculum, and liberal education: Selected essays (pp. 287-321). University of Chicago. (Original work published 1970)
44. Simpson, E. J. (1972). The classification of educational objectives in the psychomotor domain: The psychomotor domain (Vol. 3). Gryphon House.
45. 米高‧奎因‧巴頓（Patton, M. Q.）（1995）。質的評鑑與研究（吳芝儀、李奉儒，譯）。桂冠。（原著出版年：1980）
46. 李雅婷（2015）。學校日常生活之美育課程美感經驗探究（計畫編號：MOST 102-2410-H-153-007）。行政院國家科學委員會。https://grbdef.stpi.narl.org.tw/fte/download4?docId=2497529&responseCode=6735&grb05Id=3086345
47. 亞太地區美感教育研究室（2018）。教育部第一期五年美感教育計畫影響評估報告。教育部。
48. 洪詠善、范信賢（2015）。同行～走進十二年國民基本教育課程綱要總綱。國家教育研究院。
49. 范信賢、洪詠善、阮凱利、黃祺惠、陳伯璋（2016）。美感教育的圖像與發展。載於范信賢（主編），這樣美嗎？美感教育在臺灣（頁 1-23）。國家教育研究院。
50. 教育部（1979）。國民教育法。載於教育部國教司（編），國民教育法令彙編（頁11-14）。
51. 教育部（1992）。國民中學藝能科教學訪視與教師座談會報告。
52. 許瑛玿、莊福泰、林祖強（2012）。解析設計研究的架構與實施：以科學教育研究為例。教育科學研究期刊，57（1），1-27。https://doi.org/10.3966/2073753X20 12035701001
53. 郭秋汶（2021）。美感教育融入國小生活課程實踐之個案研究（碩士論文，國立臺灣師範大學）。臺灣碩博士論文知識加值系統。https://hdl.handle.net/11296/n8rq5p
54. 陳育淳（2021）。美力洋溢―跨領域美感校本課程之發展與省思。國際藝術教育學刊，19（1），152-176。
55. 陳瓊花（2017）。美感素養導向教學之理論與實踐。教育研究月刊，275，18-33。https://doi.org/10.3966/168063602017030275002
56. 喻薈融（2017）。中等學校跨領域美感課程教學案例之研究（碩士論文，國立臺灣師範大學）。臺灣碩博士論文知識加值系統。https://hdl.handle.net/11296/28ptxs
57. 馮至、范大燦（1989）。席勒審美教育書簡。淑馨。
58. 黃書庭（2021）。節奏律動教學應用於生活課程提升美感學習成效之行動研究（碩士論文，臺北市立大學）。臺灣碩博士論文知識加值系統。https://hdl.handlenet/11296/puza7f
59. 漢寶德（2010）。如何培養美感。聯經。
60. 歐用生（2003）。課程慎思與課程領導。載於中華民國教材研究發展學會（主編），邁向課程新紀元（十五）：活化課程領導（頁 35-49）。中華民國教材研究發展學會。
61. Amadio, M., Truong, N., & Tschurenev, J. (2006). Instructional time and the place of aesthetic education in school curricula at the beginning of the twenty-first century. IBE-UNESCO. http://www.ibe.unesco.org/sites/default/files/artseducation_ibewpci_1.pdf
62. Anderson, L. W., Krathwohl, D. R., Airasian, P. W., Cruikshank, K. A., Mayer, R. E., Pintrich, P. R., Raths, J., & Wittrock, M. C. (2001). A taxonomy for learning, teaching, and assessing: A revision of Bloom’s taxonomy of educational objectives. Longman.
63. Borghini, A., & Baldini, A. (2021). Cooking and dining as forms of public art. Food, Culture & Society, 25, 310-327. http://doi.org/10.1080/15528014.2021.1890891
64. Borghini, A., & Piras, N. (2022). Eating local as public art. Pratiche, Linguaggi E Saperi dell’estetico, 15(1), 15-27. http://doi.org/10.36253/Aisthesis-13449
65. Brown, A. L. (1992). Design experiments: Theoretical and methodological challenges in creating complex interventions in classroom settings. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 2(2), 141-178. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327809jls0202_2
66. Clinard, J., & Foster, L. (1998). Putting art standards into practice with aesthetic literacy. NASSP Bulletin, 82(597), 18-24. https://doi.org/10.1177/019263659808259704
67. Cobb, P. (2001). Supporting the improvement of learning and teaching in social and institutional context. In S. Carver & D. Klahr (Eds.), Cognition and instruction: 25 years ofprogress(pp. 455-478). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
68. Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
69. Collins, A., Joseph, D., & Bielaczyc, L. (2004). Design research: Theoretical and methodological Issues. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 13(1), 15-42. http://doi.org/10.1207/s15327809 jls1301_2
70. Dewey, J. (1916). Democracy and education: An introduction to the philosophy of education. MacMillan.
71. Etikan, I., Alkassim, R., & Abubakar, S. (2016). Comparison of snowball sampling and sequential sampling technique. Biometrics and Biostatistics International Journal, 3, 6-7. https://doi.org/10.15406/bbij.2016.03.00055
72. Hu, L., & Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling, 6(1), 1-55. https://doi.org/10.1080/10705519909540118
73. Krathwohl, D. R., Bloom, B. S., & Bertram, B. M. (1973). Taxonomy of educational objectives: The classification of educational goals. David McKay.
74. Latour, K. A., & Deighton, J. A. (2019). Learning to become a taste expert. Journal of Consumer Research, 46(1), 1-19. http://doi.org/10.1093/jcr/ucy054
75. Lazarsfeld, P., Berelson, B., & Gaudet, H. (1948). The people’s choice. Columbia University.
76. Lopes, D. M. (2014). Beyond art. Oxford University.
77. Lopes, D. M. (2015). Aesthetic experts, guides to value. Journal of Aesthetics & Art Criticism, 73(3), 235-246. https://doi.org/10.1111/jaac.12170
78. McDonald, R. P., & Ho, M. H. R. (2002). Principles and practice in reporting structural equation analyses. Psychological Methods, 7(1), 64-82. http://doi.org/10.1037/1082-989X.7.1.64
79. Mishler, E. G. (1986). Rsearch intervewing: Context and narrative. Havard University.
80. Nautiyal, J. (2016). Aesthetic and affective experiences in coffee shops: A Deweyan engagement with ordinary affects in ordinary spaces. Education and Culture, 32(2), 99-118. https://doi.org/10.5703/educationculture.32.2.0099
81. Organization of Economic Co-operation and Development. (2018). The future of education and skills 2030.
82. Schröder, M. (2015). Competence-oriented study programmes. https://www.en-fibaa.org/fileadmin/ uploads/content_uploads/13_Werkstatt_Kompetenzorientierung_Mai_2015_V3_en_01.pdf
83. Schwab, J. J. (1973). The practical 3: Translation into curriculum. School Review, 81(4), 501-522. https://doi.org/10.1086/443100
84. Schwab, J. J. (1974). Decision and choice: The coming duty science teaching. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 11(4), 309-317. http://doi.org/10.1002/tea.3660110404
85. Schwab, J. J. (1978). The practical: A language for curriculum. In I. Westbury & N. J. Wilkof (Eds.), Science, curriculum, and liberal education: Selected essays (pp. 287-321). University of Chicago. (Original work published 1970)
86. Simpson, E. J. (1972). The classification of educational objectives in the psychomotor domain: The psychomotor domain (Vol. 3). Gryphon House.