:::

詳目顯示

回上一頁
題名:高中藝術教師跨領域領導與協同教學之個案研究— 以中山女中高瞻計畫(2007~2010)為例
作者:傅斌暉
作者(外文):Fu, Pin-Hui
校院名稱:國立臺灣師範大學
系所名稱:美術學系
指導教授:陳瓊花
學位類別:博士
出版日期:2013
主題關鍵詞:藝術教師教師領導協同教學統整課程高瞻計畫art teacherteacher leadershipteam teachingintegrated curriculumhigh-scope project
原始連結:連回原系統網址new window
相關次數:
  • 被引用次數被引用次數:期刊(1) 博士論文(3) 專書(0) 專書論文(0)
  • 排除自我引用排除自我引用:1
  • 共同引用共同引用:0
  • 點閱點閱:84
本研究以臺北市立中山女中高瞻計畫教師團隊為例,透過一系列深度訪談、檔案記錄和文件分析,探討高中藝術教師與科學教師跨領域協同教學與教師領導實踐之歷程,目的在於了解藝術教師與其他領域教師進行團隊合作,以及開發並執行統整課程之模式、策略和成效,以做為課程與教學創新等相關研究之參考。本研究獲致的重要結論如下:
一、主題式、循環式的多科協同教學跨領域合作,是成就政策導向教育行動研究之有效模式:中山女中高瞻計畫是根據校本課程目標向下發展團隊目標,並依此目標由藝術與科學教師籌組團隊開發統整課程,教師團隊採取主題式、循環式的多科協同教學,過程中以集中研習討論、分散執行教學的特徵進行運作,三年的團隊合作歷程和模式,整體而言就是一次教育行動研究(action research)的完整體現。
二、「分散式領導」與「授權賦能」是跨領域合作的有效教學策略:藝術教師與科學教師彼此尊重專業、共同分享領導,教師團隊展現出「分散式領導」(distributive leadership)與「授權賦能」(empowerment)等教師領導學理特徵,並從角色、技巧、作為、效果四方面進行教師領導的實踐。藝術教師在團隊之間達成的領導效果,主要呈現在「班級經營」和「教學方法」兩方面,此外藝術教師在課程設計、教學合作、行銷推廣上也發揮不少主導性。
三、藝術教師跨領域領導與協同教學呈現課程活化、學習創新及教師改變之具體效能與影響:主要呈現在「課程」、「學生」和「教師」三方面,課程方面具有「多元教法與多元評量」、「小組合作學習」、「適性化教學」三種課程活化效能;學生方面達到「增進女學生科學實作等領域的興趣」、「創新設計與覺察能力的進步」、「創意思考能力與態度的提升」、「擴展團隊合作與多元思考能力」四個學習創新效能;教師方面呈現「強化藝術教師的角色定位與領導價值」、「教學專業與團隊合作能力的成長」、「共享與付出的意識和行動」、「為學校教師專業社群文化帶來正面影響」等教師改變效能。
最後根據研究發現,研究者對未來藝術教師跨領域教學之實務與相關研究提出建議。
With the high-scope project teacher group in Taipei Municipal Zhongshan Girls High school as an example, this present study investigates the progress of art and science teachers’ inter-disciplinary team teaching in high schools and their practice of teacher leadership in class. It conducts a series of in-depth interviews, file tracking, and document analysis, with the hope of understanding the patterns, strategies and effects of art teachers’ teamwork with teachers from other subjects and of their integrated curriculum design and operation. The research results, which serve as consultation for further studies on curriculum and pedagogy innovation, are as follows:
1.Thematic and circulating inter-disciplinary team teaching is an effective mode to achieve policy-oriented action research: The goal of the high-scope project of Taipei Municipal Zhongshan Girls High School is developed from the objective of the school-based curriculum. To achieve the goal of this project, art teachers and science teachers form a teacher group to design the integrated curriculum. The multi-subject team teaching by this teacher group is thematic and circulating. Their teaching process is featured by concentrated discussion and distributive teaching. In totality, the patterns and progresses of their team teaching during three years represent a complete action research.
2.Distributive leadership” and “empowerment” are effective teaching strategies for inter-disciplinary cooperation: Art teachers and science teachers show respect to each other’s professions and share their teacher leadership. The teacher group demonstrates the theoretical characteristics of teacher leadership such as “distributive leadership” and “empowerment”. They put teacher leadership into practice in four aspects: character, skill, performance and effect. The effect of leading achieved by art teachers in the group is manifested in class management and teaching methods. Moreover, art teachers often play the guiding role in curriculum design, teaching collaboration and publicizing.
3.Art teachers’ inter-disciplinary leading and team teaching manifest the effects and influences of course activation, learning innovation and teacher change: This is mainly observed in the three aspects of curriculum, students, and teachers. The effects on curriculum show themselves in three course-activating functions: “multiple pedagogies and alternative assessment,” “group cooperative learning” and “adaptive teaching”. For students, the effects contribute to learning innovation in four aspects: “increasing high school girls’ interests in science experiments,” “improving the potency of creative design and observing,” “enhancing the capacity and attitude of creative thinking” and “expanding the capacity of teamwork and diversified thinking”. The project also has influences on teacher change, which includes “accentuation of art teachers’ role definition and leading value,” “growth of professional teaching competence and teamwork capacity,” “awareness and action of sharing and devoting” and “positive impact on the culture of school teachers as a professional society”.
Finally, the findings of the present study will be the base of further suggestions for the practices of and studies on art teachers’ inter-disciplinary teaching.
一、中文部分
丁一顧、張德銳(2009)。臺北市教學導師教師領導與專業學習社群關係之研究。臺北市:臺北市立教育大學教育行政與評鑑研究所。new window
王文科(1994)。質的教育研究法。臺北市:師大書苑。new window
王文科(2002)。教育研究法。臺北市: 五南。new window
王秀雄(1990)。美術與教育。臺北市:臺北市立美術館。
行政院教育改革審議委員會(1996)。教育改革總諮議報告書。臺北市:行政院。
李坤崇(2001)。綜合活動學習領域教材教法。臺北市:心理。
林文展、林殿傑和張素貞(2002)。推動教學創新九年一貫課程之問題與對策。載於張煌熙(編),國民中小學校長與視導人員:理論篇研習手冊,177-206,臺北市:教育部。
林玉芬、林曉君、黃玉如、江衍宜、池婷伊(2010)。綠野掀蹤 ~綠色生活地圖應用課程。2011年7月7日,取自:教育部標竿學習網站http://teachernet.moe.edu.tw/BENCHMARK/
林劭仁、周惠民、顏淑惠、高新建(2012)。高中創意課程實施歷程及其影響之個案分析。中正教育研究,11(2),73-111。new window
林欣儀(2009)。臺中市國民小學教師領導之研究。國立臺中教育大學教育學系碩士論文,未出版之,臺中市。
林珊慧(2007)。微生物科學家繪本電子書教學對國小學童學習科學之研究。國立臺北教育大學自然科學教育學系碩士論文,未出版,臺北市。
林翠玲、吳靜怡等整理(2003)。協同教學。2011年6月5日,取自:東吳大學虛擬教育學院http://vschool.scu.edu.tw/。
林佩璇(2000)。個案研究及其在教育研究上的應用。載於中正大學教育學研究所主編,質的研究方法,239-262。高雄市:麗文。
邱皓政、陳燕禎、林碧芳(2009)。組織創新氣氛量表的發展與信效度衡鑑。測驗學刊,56(1),69-97。new window
吳清山、林天祐(2003)。增權益能。教育研究月刊,113,160。
吳清山、林天祐(2008)。教師領導。教育研究月刊,173,136-137。

周美惠報導(1999年4月4日)。陳郁秀:美術、音樂、表演藝術統整教學傷害基礎美育。聯合報。
周祝瑛(2012)。當前12年國教爭議問題。2013年4月13日,取自:財團法人國家政策研究基金會網站:http://www.npf.org.tw/post/1/10667。
周珮儀、閻璽如(2009)。以藝術元素統整之藝術鑑賞課程對學生鑑賞能力表現的影響。藝術教育研究,17,71-103。new window
胡幼慧(2003)。質性研究-理論、方法及本土女性研究實例。臺北市:巨流。
邱憶惠(2002)。國小級任教師知識之個案研究。國立高雄師範大學教育學系博士論文,未出版,高雄市。new window
紀文卓、陳啟文、陳香吟、許瑜旂(2010)。魔境夢遊‧電子有聲繪本。2011年7月7日,取自:教育部標竿學習網站http://teachernet.moe.edu.tw/BENCHMARK/
高紅瑛(2000)。協同教學的理念與實踐。教育研究月刊, 77, 57-62。new window
高震峰 & Wilson,B.(2003)。An Integrated Curriculum Developed in Taiwan for Arts and Humanities: Problems and Prospects。藝術教育研究, 6,1-19。
國科會高瞻計畫推動辦公室(2006)。計畫簡介。2011年6月3日,取自:http://www.highscope.fy.edu.tw/
教育部(1998)。國民教育階段九年一貫課程總綱綱要。臺北市:教育部。
教育部(2001)。國民中小學九年一貫課程試辦工作輔導手冊。臺北市:教育部。
教育部(2003)。國民教育階段藝術與人文領域課程綱要。臺北市:教育部。
教育部(2005)。藝術教育政策白皮書。臺北市:教育部。
教育部(2008a)。普通高級中學課程綱要總綱。臺北市:教育部。
教育部(2008b)。普通高級中學必修科目「美術」課程綱要。臺北市:教育部。
教育部(2011)。十二年國民基本教育實施計畫核定本。臺北市:教育部。
郭玲君、林克學、賴美玲、翁建民(2010)。給你好看─廣告開麥拉。2011年7月7日,取自:教育部標竿學習網站 http://teachernet.moe.edu.tw/BENCHMARK/
郭禎祥(1999)。描繪新世紀藝術教育藍圖。美育雙月刊,110,1-9。
郭禎祥、趙惠玲(2002)。視覺文化與藝術教育。黃壬來主編,藝術與人文教育, 325-366。臺北市:桂冠。
郭騰展(2007)。學校領導的新典範-教師領導。學校行政,49,150-175。
陳向明(2002)。社會科學質的研究。臺北市:五南。new window
陳伯璋(2000)。課程統整與協同教學。載於毛連塭、吳清山主編,攜手共譜教學新樂章-談協同教學,508-514。臺北市:臺北市立師範學院。
陳佩英(2008)。教師領導之興起與發展。教育研究月刊,171,41-57new window
陳佩英(2009)。一起學習、一起領導:專業. 學習社群的建構與實踐。中等教育,60(3),68-88。new window
陳佩英、焦傳金(2009)。分散式領導與專業學習社群之建構:一所高中教學創新計畫的個案研。教育科學研究期刊,54(1),55-86。new window
陳姿伶(2004)。個案研究法(Case Study)。2011年6月1日,取自:http:// http://tw.myblog.yahoo.com/jw!gIKI5zacFRuQc0j1HwUoT2B0/article?mid=237
陳智弘、簡菲莉、黃琪、傅斌暉(2011)。不可能的高中新課程-中山女高高瞻計畫實錄。臺北市:行政院國家科學委員會高瞻計畫推動辦公室。
陳靜琳(2007)。探討動畫對學童環境概念之影響---以宮崎駿動畫為例。國立臺灣師範大學環境教育研究所碩士論文,未出版,臺北市。
陳瓊花 (1998a)。試探愛麗克森設計之課程範例:在世界上我們的地方,之特色與意涵。美育,95,35-44。
陳瓊花譯(1998b)。美國藝術教育國家標準。臺北市:教育部。
陳瓊花(1998c)。中學美術課程標準之評議與前瞻。1998視覺藝術與美勞教育國際學術研討會論文集, 339-360。屏東:國立屏東師範學院。new window
陳瓊花(1999)。國民教育階段九年一貫視覺藝術課程之探討。藝術與人文之全人教育研討會論文集,127-154。臺北市:國立臺灣師範大學藝術學院。new window
陳瓊花(2001a)。科技與我--美術教師焦點團體之經驗回溯。新世紀藝術教育理論與實務國際學術研討會論文集, 229-237,臺北市:國立臺灣師範大學美術系。new window
陳瓊花(2001b)。從美術教育的觀點探討課程統整設計之模式與案例。視覺藝術,4, 97-126。new window
曾志朗(2000)。國民中小學九年一貫課程相關問題專案報告。臺北市:教育部。
黃幸美(2002)。數學主題教學-一個教學試驗行動之探討。初等教育學刊,11,121-153。new window
黃政傑(1996)。創思與合作的教學法。臺北市:師大書苑。
黃惠美、謝文山、蕭柏琪、陳俊雄、吳姿儀(2010)。就是那道光---魔幻光影。2011年7月7日,取自:教育部標竿學習網站http://teachernet.moe.edu.tw/BENCHMARK/
黃瑞琪(2006)。自然系列圖畫書之分析與應用在國小自然與生活科技領域的研究。國立臺北教育大學自然科學教育學系碩士論文,未出版,臺北市。
黃瑞琴(1994)。質的研究法。臺北市:心理出版社。
黃瀞瑩、黃哲彬(2010)。從教師賦權增能〈Teacher Empowerment〉析論教師專業成長。教育趨勢導報,37,110-123。
黃譯瑩(1998)。課程統整之意義探究與模式建構。國家科學委員會研究會刊:人文及社會科學,8(4),616-633。
黃譯瑩(1999)。九年一貫課程中課程統整相關問題研究。教育研究資訊,7(5),60-81。
張清濱(1999)。怎樣實施協同教學。師友,387,九月號,43-.47。new window
張德銳(2010)。教師領導在教學輔導教師制度中的發展於實踐。2010教學輔導教師在臺北論文集。臺北市:臺北市政府教育局。new window
葉宛婷(2005)。互動式繪本教學提升國小學童科學閱讀理解能力之研究。國立臺北師範學院自然科學教育研究所碩士論文,未出版,臺北市。
傅斌暉(2006)。數位學習融入藝術教育課程理論與實務。載於趙惠玲等編著,高中藝術領域課程輔助教學參考手冊.1, 美術,141-168。臺北市:國立臺灣藝術教育館。
游曉惠(2004)。繪本融入自然科生態保育教學之研究。臺北市立師範學院科學教育研究所碩士論文,未出版,臺北市。
楊承謙(2002)。學校外部環境與內部結構影響其學習型組織之研究。國立臺東師範學院國民教育研究所碩士論文,未出版,臺東市。
甄曉蘭(2003)。課程行動研究:實例與方法解析。臺北市:師大書苑。new window
甄曉蘭(2004)。中小學課程改革與教學革新。臺北市:高等教育。new window
潘淑滿(2003)。質性研究的理論與應用。臺北市: 心理。
鄭淵全(2006)。課程發展與教學創新。臺北市:五南。new window
鄭博真(2002)。協同教學-基本概念、實務和研究。高雄市:復文書局。
蔡昀挺、王思強、巴蕙琳、林靜芳(2009)。尋找苓雅葵花寶典-藝植拍。2011年7月7日,取自:教育部標竿學習網站http://teachernet.moe.edu.tw/BENCHMARK/
蔡清田(2000)。教育行動研究。臺北市:五南。
蔡進雄(2005)。中小學教師領導理論之探討。教育研究,139,92-101。new window
歐用生(1995)。質的研究(三版)。臺北市:師大書苑。
賴志峰(2009)。教師領導的理論及實踐之探析。教育研究與發展期刊,5(3),113-144。new window
謝苑玫 (1999) 。音樂課程的改革與創新。迎向千禧年新世紀中小學課程改革與創新教學學術研討會論文集,189-196。高雄市 : 國立高雄師範大學。
簡宏江(2004)。九年一貫課程政策的執行困境與對策:政策設計觀點。教育政策論壇,7(1),19-40。new window
簡菲莉(2007)。印刻中山教務‧臨摹百十風華。2012年12月10日,取自:中山女高教務處網站http://www.csghs.tp.edu.tw/acad/html/director-main1.html
簡菲莉(2009)。風格中山.專業團隊-熱情擁抱傳統與創新的百年名校。中等教育,60(2),172-189。new window

二、英文部分
Allen, R. R. & Rueter, T. (1990).Teaching assistant strategies: an introduction to college teaching. Iowa: Kendall Hunt.
Andriopoulos, C. (2001). Determinants of organizational creativity: A literature review. Management Decision, 39(10), 834-840.
Armstrong, C. L. (1994). Designing assessment in art. Reston, VA. National Art Education Association.
Barth, R. S. (2001). Learning by heart. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Barth, R. S. (2006). Lead with me: A principal’s guide to teacher leadership, Foreward. In G.. Moller & A. Pankake, (Eds). vii-viii. Larchmont, NY: Eye on Education.
Blase, J., & Anderson, G. L. (1995). The micropoltics of educational leadership: From control to empowerment. New York: Cassell.
Bogdan, R. C., & Biklen, S. K.(1998). Qualitative research for education: an introducation to theory and methods. MA: Allyn & Bacon.
Bolam, R., McMahon, A., Stoll, L., Thomas, S., Wallace, M., Greenwood, A. et al. (2005). Creating and sustaining effective professional learning communities. London: DfES.
Boston, B. O.(1996). The Arts and the Integration of the High School Curriculum. New York: College Board Publications.
Boston, J. (2001). Where Am I? My Place in Time and Space. First Grade Activity. CA: San Bernardino County Superintendent of Schools.
Buckley, F. J.(2000). Team Teaching: What,Why and How? Thousand Oaks: Sage.
Chessin, D. & Zander, M. J. (2006). The Nature of Science and Art. Science Scope, 29(8), 42-46.
Chilman, K. (2004). An Integrated Mural Project . School Arts: The Art Education Magazine for Teachers, 103(8), 50.
Copland, M. A. (2003). Leadership of inquiry: Building and sustaining capacity for school improvement. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 25(4), 375-395.
Costantino, T. & Kellam, N. & Cramond, B. & Crowder, I. (2010). An Interdisciplinary Design Studio: How Can Art and Engineering Collaborate to Increase Students' Creativity? Art Education, 63(2), 49-53.
Crowther, F., Kaagan, S., Ferguson, M., & Hann, L. (2002). Developing teacher leaders:How teacher leadership enhances school success. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
Dean, C. & Ebert, C. M. L. & McGreevy-Nichols, S. & Quinn, B. & Sabol, F. R. & Schmid, D. & Shauck, R. B. & Shuler, S. C. (2010). 21st Century Skills Map: The Arts. Washington, D.C.: Partnership for 21st Century Skills.
Denzin, N. K.(1978). The research Act: A theoretical introduction to sociological methods. New York: Mc Graw-Hill.
Dewey, J. (1934), Art as Experience, New York: Perigee Books.
Dewey, J. (1972), My pedagogic creed, In J. Dewey (Ed.), The early works, 1882-1898(5), 84-95, Carbondale & Edwardsville: Southern Illinois University Press.
DiMaggio, K. E. (2007), Teacher leadership: Does it result of the relationship between different aspects of teacher leadership and student achievement. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Gorge Washington University.
Dimmock, C. (2003). Leadership in learning-centred schools: Cultural context, functions and qualities. In M. Brundrett, N. Burton, & R. Smith (Eds.), Leadership in education, 13-22. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
Dragan, P. B. (2003). Everything You Need To Know To Teach First Grade. NH: Heinemann.
DuBrin, A. J. (2007). Leadership: Research findings, practice, and skills (5th ed.). Boston: Houghton Mifflin.
Efland, A. D. (1995). The spiral and the lattice: Changes in cognitive learning theory with implications for art education. Studies in Art Education, 36(3), 134-153.
Efland, A. D. (2000). The city as a metaphor for integrated learning in the arts. Studies in Art Education 41(3) 276-295.
Efland, A. D. (2002). Art and cognition: Integrating the visual arts in the curriculum. New York: Teachers College Press & Reston, VA: National Art Education Association.
Eisner , E. (1972), Educating Artistic Vision. New York: Macmillan Publishing Co., Inc.
Eisner, E. (2001). Should we create new aims for art education? Art Education, 54(5), 6-10.
Eisner,E (2002). The Arts and the Creation of Mind. New Haven & London: Yale University Press.
Fullan, M. (1999). Change forces: The sequel. London: Farmer Press.
Gardner, H. (1983). Frames of mind: The theory of multiple intelligences. New York: Basic Books.
Gay, L. R., & Airasian, P.(2000). Educational Research:Competencies for analysis and application(6th ed.). NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Gabriel, J. G. (2005). How to thrive as a teacher leader. Alexandria. VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
Gold, Raymond L., (1969), Roles in Sociological Field Observations, in George J. McCall and J. L. Simmons (eds.), Issues in participant observation: a text and reader, Reading, 30-39. MA: Addison-Wesley.
Hanson, J. (2002). Improving Student Learning in Mathematics and Science through the Integration of Visual Art. Master of Arts Action Research Project, Saint Xavier University and IRI/SkyLight Professional Development Field-Based Masters Program.
Harris, A. (2003). Teacher leadership and school improvement. In A. Harris et al., Effective leadership for school improvement, 72-83. London: RoutledgeFalmer.
Harris, A., & Lambert, L. (2003). Building leadership capacity for school improvement. Buckingham, UK: Open University Press.
Kariuki, P. & Hopkins, B. (2010). The Effects of an Interdisciplinary Program on Secondary Art Students Participating in an Interdisciplinary Chemistry-Art Program and in an Art Only Program. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the Mid-South Educational Research Association, Mobile, AL.
Katzenmeyer, M. & Moller, G., (2001). Awakening the sleeping Giant: helping teachers develop as leaders. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
Kelley, C. & Jordan, A. & Roberts, C. (2001). Finding the Science in Art: An Interdisciplinary Course Linking Art, Math, and Chemistry. Journal of College Science Teaching, 31(3), 162-166.
Kemmis, S. & Wilkinson, M. (1998). Participatory action research and the study of practice. In B. Atweh, S. Kemmis & P. Weeks (eds.), Action Research in Practice: Partnerships for Social Justice in Education, 21-36. London: Routledge.
Klein, K. J., & Sorra, J. S. (1996). The challenge of innovation implementation. Academy of Management Review, 21(4), 1055-1080.
Krug D. H. & Cohen-Evron, N. (2000). Curriculum integration positions and practices in art education. Studies in Art Education, 41(3), 258-275.
Kurtzberg, T. R. (2005). Feeling creative, being creative: An empirical study of diversity andcreativityinteams.Creativity Research Journal, 17, 51-65.
Lambert, L. (2003). Leadership redefined: An evocative context for teacher leadership. School and Management, 23(4), 411-430.
LeCompte, M. D., Pressle, J., & Tesch, R.(1993). Ethnography and qualitative design in educational research. New York: Academic Press.
Lee, M. & Lostoski, M. & Williams, K. (2000). Diving into a Schoolwide Science Theme. Science and Children, 38(1), 31-35.
Leithwood, K., Louis, K.S., Anderson, S., & Wahlstrom, K. (2004). How leadership influences student learning. NY: Wallace Foundation.
Lieberman, A., & Miller, L. (2004). Teacher leadership. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Lieberman, A., Saxl, E. R., & Miles, M. B. (2006). Teacher leadership: Ideology and practice. In M. Fullan (Ed.), The Jossey-Bass reader on educational leadership (2nd ed.), 403-420. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Lightfoot, S. L. (1986). On goodness in schools: Themes of empowerment. Peabody Journal of Education, 63, 435-466.
Lopez, D. F. & Takiff, H. & Kernan, T. & Stone, R. (2000). Why Art Education? Academic Implications of Art in Elementary School. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association (New Orleans, LA.
McIntosh, R. D. (2008). Teaching Art + Math. SchoolArts: The Art Education Magazine for Teachers, 107(8), 64.
Merrian, S. B.(1998). Qualitative Research and Case Study Applications in Education. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Metcalf, S. (2004). Art and Physics. Art Education, 57(1), 25-34.
Muijs, D., & Harris, A. (2003). Teacher Leadership: Improvement through Empowerment? Educational Management, Administration & Leadership, 31(4),437-449.
Nelson, M. & Chandler, W. (1999). Some Tools Common to Art and Science. Art Education, 52(3), 41-47.
Neuman, W. L. (1997). Social research methods: Qualitative and quantitative approaches. Boston: Preace Hall.
Northern Nevada Writing Project Teacher-Researcher Group. (1996). Team teaching. Peterborough NH: Crystal Springs Books.
Oddleifson, E. (1994). What Do We Want Our Schools to Do? Phi Delta Kappan, 75(6), 446-462.
Parsons, M. (2004). Art and integrated curriculum. In E. W. Eisner & M. D. Day (Eds.), Handbook of Research and Policy in Art Education, 775-794. New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Patterson, J., & Patterson, J. (2004). Sharing the lead. Educational Leadership, 61(7), 74-78.
Patton, M. Q. (1990). Qualitative Evaluation and Research Methods (2nd ed.). Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications, Inc.
Pellicer, L. O., & Anderson, L. W. (1995). A handbook for teacher leaders. Thousand Oaks. CA: Corwin Press.
Pepper, S. C. (1967). Concept and Quality. La Salle, Ill.,Open Court.
Prince, E. S. (2002). Art Matters: Strategies, Ideas, and Activities To Strengthen Learning across the Curriculum. AZ: Zephyr Press.
Ravitch, D. (2010). The Death and Life of the Great American School System: How testing and choice are undermining education. New York: Basic Books.
Rhodes C, Stokes M and Hampton G (2004). A Practical Guide to Mentoring, Coaching and Peer-networking. London: Routledge Falmer.
Sergiovanni, T. J. (2000). The lifeworld of leadership:Creating culture, community, and personal meaning in our schools. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Shaplin, J. T. (1964). Team teaching. New York: Harper&Row.
Simpson, J. (2007). Connections to the World: Visual Art in Urban Schools. Journal of Education, 188(1), 41-53.
Stake, R. (1995). The art of case research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Stellflue, P. & Allen, M. & Gerber, D.T. (2005). Art & Science Grow Together. Science and Children, 43(1), 33-35.
Stephens, P. & Walkup, N. (2000). Bridging the Curriculum through Art: Interdisciplinary Connections. Crystal Productions.
Upitis, R. (2003). What Is Arts Education Good For? Education Canada,43(4), 24-27.
Ursyn, A. (1994). Students' Perception of Computer Art Graphics Integration of Art and Science. Poster presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, New Orleans, LA.
Wallace, M. (2002). Modeling distributed leadership and management effectiveness: Primary school senior management teams in England and Wales. School Effectiveness and School Improvement, 13(2),163-186.
Wang, M. C., (1992). Adaptive education strategies: Building on diversity. Baltimore: Paul H. Brookes Publishing Co.
Yin, Robert K.(1994). Case study research: design and method (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
York-Barr, J. & Duke, K. (2004). What do we know about teacher leadership? Finding from two decades of scholarship. Review of Educational Research,74(3), 255-316.
Yukl, G. (2002). Leadership in organizations (5nd ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Zepeda, S. J., Mayers, R. S. & Benson, B. N. (2003). The call to teacher leadership. New York: Eye On Education.

 
 
 
 
第一頁 上一頁 下一頁 最後一頁 top
:::
無相關著作
 
無相關點閱
 
QR Code
QRCODE