:::

詳目顯示

回上一頁
題名:臺灣與紐西蘭原住民族族語課程政策的比較研究
作者:洪振華
作者(外文):Chen-Hua Hong
校院名稱:國立臺北教育大學
系所名稱:課程與教學研究所
指導教授:洪雯柔
學位類別:博士
出版日期:2013
主題關鍵詞:課程政策課程綱要族語比較教育臺灣紐西蘭Curriculum PolicyCurriculum GuidelinesIndigenous LanguageComparative EducationTaiwanNew Zealand
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(0) 博士論文(0) 專書(0) 專書論文(0)
  • 排除自我引用排除自我引用:0
  • 共同引用共同引用:0
  • 點閱點閱:184
台灣與紐西蘭原住民族族語課程的比較研究
摘 要
台灣是世界上南島語族的家鄉,因此原住民族族語的流失是非常可惜的事情;
紐西蘭原住民族毛利語的復興典範正可以提供台灣族語課程的參考比較。這是本研究的動機。
本研究採比較教育研究法取向,比較台灣與紐西蘭原住民族族語課程政策,並以文件分析法為主,訪談法為輔,比較兩國有關族語課程政策的相關文件。本研究也訪談兩國主管原住民族族語課程政策的官員以及實際任教的族語教師,以了解族語課程政策正式文件層面與實務運作層面,並以課程邏輯、多元文化主義及語言復興的理論與實務加以檢驗。檢驗的指標包括多元文化主義內涵的「結構批判」、「公領域肯認」以及語言復興理論裡的「社會多樣性提倡」、「語研社群整體投入」等要素。
本研究的研究目的主要是探討台灣與紐西蘭的原住民族族語流失過程、族語相關政策、族語課程政策背景、族語課程綱要(包含總綱族語課程政策、族語領域的基本理念、課程目標、分段能力指標、教學與評量活動)以及相關措施(包括師資培育、族語課程校外驅策與評鑑機制)等層面並加以比較。
本研究的研究結果主要發現:1.族語課程政策背景:台灣主要是由於民主意識的出現與立法行動;紐西蘭則主要出自自發性、草根性的社會與教育行動。2.課程總綱:台灣規定,族語在國小是必選(實際上每週多為40分鐘),國中為自由
選修;紐西蘭要求學校致力為七年級以上學生提供毛利語學習機會。3.族語領域基本理念:台灣為原則性簡要陳述:紐西蘭則以長篇幅說明各理念。4.族語課程目標:台灣為四個學習階段共用一套課程目標;紐西蘭八個學習水準各有各的成就目標。5.分段能力指標:台灣為五種:聆聽、說話、音標、閱讀與寫作,實際上多數階段僅有聆聽與說話;紐西蘭則有六種:聆聽、說、讀、寫、視讀與呈現,八個學習水準都包括這六種能力。6.教學與評量活動:台灣多為原則性陳述,與基本理念部分重複性高;紐西蘭多為具體性、脈絡性且建議性的陳述。紐西蘭提及高層次語言社會能力(語言社會學、語言策略與語言批判論述能力)、自學能力與媒體、網路運用能力的培養;台灣則無。7.族語師資培育:職前教育方面,台灣多接受行政院原民會36小時的師資研習課程;紐西蘭大都接受三年的學士課程。在職教育方面,台灣大都採聽講方式;紐西蘭則大多採行動研究方式。8.校外驅策與評鑑機制:台灣主要為族語認證考試,評量對象是學生個人。紐西蘭
為教育審查署,評鑑對象是學校整體。此外,毛利語言委員會還舉辦毛利語言流暢性考試,評量包括聽、說、讀、寫能力,任何人均可參加。
關鍵詞:課程政策、 課程綱要、 族語、 比較教育 、 台灣、 紐西蘭
The comparative study of indigenous language curriculum policy
between Taiwan and New Zealand
ABSTRACT
Taiwan is the home of the Austronesian in the world; therefore it’s a pity that the indigenous peoples in Taiwan lose their languages. The indigenous people in New Zealand have revitalized Maori language successfully and their experiences can offer good examples for the schools’indigenous language curriculum in Taiwan to be compared with.
This study uses comparative education approach to compare the indigenous language curriculum policy in both countries. The researcher adopts document analysis as research method mainly, and interviews complementarily, to compare the documents regarding indigenous languages. The officials in charge of indigenous language curriculum and the indigenous language teachers in both countries were also interviewed to find out the correspondences between formal document policy and operational practices.
After the exploration, the researcher compare the policy in both countries according to the theories of curriculum logic, multiculturalism, and language revitalization.
The purpose of this study aims to explore the process of the indigenous language loss, the relative policies concerning indigenous languages, the backgrounds of indigenous language curriculum policy, indigenous language curriculum guidelines used in both countries(including curriculum policy concerning indigenous languages in the general part of the curriculum guidelines, the basic beliefs, the curriculum objectives, the ability indicators in each learning stage, and the teaching and assessment in the indigenous language learning area in the curriculum guidelines) and relative measures(including teacher education, and the evaluation mechanism for the indigenous language curriculum)and then compare these situations in both countries.
The main findings are listed as follows:
1.The backgrounds of indigenous language curriculum policy: The reasons to start indigenous language curriculum in Taiwan were the democratic awareness and lawmaking moves in the whole society, but the reasons in New Zealand were basically the grass-root social and educational campaigns of Maori community.
2.The general part of the curriculum guidelines: The indigenous languages were compulsorily elective courses in elementary schools (generally speaking, 40 minutes a week) and elective courses in junior high schools in Taiwan. Contrarily, According to <New Zealand Curriculum>, schools must be dedicated to offering Maori language learning opportunities for grade7-13 students.
3.The basic beliefs of the indigenous language learning area: The basic beliefs are stated briefly and in principle in Taiwan. On the contrary, the basic beliefs are stated in length and in detail in New Zealand.
4.The objectives of the indigenous language learning area: There is only one set of curriculum objectives shared by the 4 indigenous language learning stages in Taiwan but contrarily, the 8 Maori language learning stages have their own set of objectives respectively
5.Ability indicators of each learning stage: There are 5 kinds of ability indicators listed in Taiwan: listening, speaking, phonetic symbols, reading and writing, but in the most stages, there are only listening and speaking available. In New Zealand, there are 6 kinds of indicators: listening, reading, viewing, speaking, writing and presenting and each learning stage includes all the 6 indicators.
6.Teaching and assessment of the indigenous language learning area: They are stated in principle in Taiwan, but in New Zealand, they are suggested in the context and in concrete. Besides, New Zealand also emphasizes to teach and assess the ability of sociology of language, language strategies, critical and discourse ability and self-learning ability.
7.Teacher education: (1)Pre-service education: The indigenous language teachers in Taiwan generally receive 36-hour training program for teaching qualification, but in New Zealand, most of the indigenous language teachers have to complete the programs of a bachelor degree. (2)In-service education: Most of the programs are offered in instruction in Taiwan. Contrarily in New Zealand, most of the programs are held in action research to solve the present problems.
8.Evaluation mechanism outside schools: Indigenous language certificate examination is the main evaluation mechanism for the language learning outside schools in Taiwan. In New Zealand, the evaluation of Education Review Office is the main evaluation mechanism outside schools. Besides, The Maori Language commission holds Maori language proficiency examinations several times a year which assess the abilities of listening, speaking, reading, and writing. Everyone can take these examinations.
Key words: Curriculum policy, Curriculum guidelines, Indigenous language,
Comparative education research, Taiwan, New Zealand
參考文獻
一、中文
王文科、王智弘(2008)教育研究法。台北:五南。new window
王雅弦(1999)。台灣原住民學校教育溯源。初等教育學刊,7,155-164。
方德隆 (2001)。學校本位課程發展的本位機礎。課程與教學,4(2),1-24。
方德隆 (2009)。九年一貫課程綱要總綱實施現況研究之後設分析。載於中小學課new window
程發展之相關基礎性研究成果討論會論文集,1-48。
田博元(2011)。台灣歷史與文化。新北市:新文京。
江樹生譯(2011)。熱蘭遮城日誌。台南:台南市政府。
台灣省政府(1950)。《台灣省政府公報》,夏-50。台北:台灣省政府。
台灣省政府(1975)。《台灣省政府公報》,秋-14。南投:台灣省政府。
台灣省政府(1988)。《台灣省政府公報》,南投:台灣省政府。
台灣省政府民政廳(1954)。《台灣省山地行政法規輯要》。台北:台灣省政府民政廳。
行政院原住民委員會(1998)。原住民教育法。台北:行政院。
行政院原住民族委員會(2012)。101年度原住民學生升學優待取得文化及語言能
力證明考試簡章。台北:行政院原住民族委員會。
吉娃詩‧叭萬(2006)。從紐西蘭毛利族的語言巢看台灣原住民母語教學。台灣國際研究月刊2(1),163-184。
朱自強(2001)。文樂國小母語教學的經驗。原住民文化與教育通訊,10,12-15。
李筱峰‧林呈蓉(2010)。台灣史。台北:華立。
李壬癸(1994)。對於原住民教學應有的一些認識。載於行政院文化建設委員會主編,原住民文化會議彙編,頁47-55。台北:文建會。
李雄揮(2003)。荷據時期關於台灣教育跨洋爭辯探討。台灣教育史研究會通訊,27,頁2-9
李榮豐(2007)。中小學教師對母語教學信念與行為信念:以高雄市為例。教育學誌,22,1-45。new window
李園會(1997)。日據時期台灣師範教育制度。台北:南天。new window
李園會(2001)。台灣師範教育史。台北:南天。
李憲榮(2002)。加拿大的語言政策,收錄於施正鋒編,各國語言政策-多元文化
與族群平等。台北:前衛,頁21-41。
李宗鴻 (2010)。台日國小教師在職進修制度之比較研究。教育行政研究所博士new window
論文,未出版。
呂亞力(1993)。政治學。頁456。台北:三民。
林生傳(2003)。教育研究法-全方位的統整與分析。台北:心理出版社。
林瑞榮、黃光雄、楊智穎(2003)。我國鄉土語言課程決定與實施之研究。國科會,NSC90-2413-H-024-003
吳耀明、馮厚美(2007)。鄉土語言教學政策形成與實施現況訪談new window
分析。屏東教育大學學報,26,37-72。
周淑卿(2002)。課程政策與教育革新。台北:師大書苑。new window
周祝瑛(2009)。比較教育與國際教改。台北:三民。
邱文隆 (2008)。讓全國各級行政單位一起來檢視九十六年度族語復振績效。2012年 12月28 日取自http://www.apc.gov.tw/portal/docDetail.html。
洪雯柔(2009)。批判俗民誌:比較教育方法論。台北:五南。
洪雯柔(2010)。紐西蘭幼兒教育與初等教育改革:卓越與平等間的擺盪。教育資料集刊,45,214-225。new window
洪雯柔(2008)。紐西蘭毛利語言教育改革與語言課程綱要草案初探-一個全球化下的本土教育。課程與教學,11(2),79-99。new window
洪雯柔(2012)。紐西蘭中等教育制度。王如哲主編,各國中等教育制度(頁291-313)。台北:高等教育。
洪雯柔(2011)。紐西蘭師資培育與教師素質。載於楊深坑、黃嘉莉主編,各國師資培育與教師素質(頁297-332)。台北:教育部。
洪惟仁(2002)。台灣的語言政策何去何從,收錄於施正鋒編,各國語言政策-多元文化與族群平等。台北:前衛,頁501-542。new window
洪志彰 (2007)國小原住民鄉土語言教學之探究─以卑南族語為例。國立台東師範學院教育研究所碩士論文,未出版。
施正鋒(2009)。由政治哲學看多元文化主義。教育與多元文化研究期刊,283-292。new window
施正峰、周惠民 (2011)。我國原住民教育之回顧與展望。載於國家教育研究院主編,我國教育的回顧與展望,237-252。
蒲忠成(2010)。原住民教育發展與建構的歷程與展望。載於原住民教育國際學術研討會論文集,頁32-42。
高德義(1994)。邁向「多元一體」的族群關係-原住民基本政策的回顧與展望,載於內政部主編,原住民政策與社會發展,頁141-181。
教育部(1993)。《國民小學課程標準》,頁5。
教育部(1995)。《教育部公報》,247期,頁5-6。
教育部(1998)。《教育部公報》,286期,頁45-46。
教育部(1999)。《教育部公報》,294期,頁46。
教育部(2000)。《教育部公報》,302期,頁43。
國史館(2009)。台灣全志教育志:學校教育篇。南投:國史館。
國立花蓮師院(1999)。原住民教育內涵與實施之規劃研究。行政院原住民委員會委託研究計劃,頁21。
翁福元(1998)。台灣原住民教育政策之歷史社會學分析。載於行政院原住民委員會主編,原住民教育與文化政策規劃之研究,頁9-25。
陳金田(1996)。日據時期原住民行政志。南投:台灣文獻委員會。
陳麗桂(2004)。母語教學的特質與困境。國文天地,19(9),頁4-6。new window
黃嘉雄(1999)。英、紐學校自主管理政策之比較。載於比較教育學會主編,教育研究與政策之國際比較論文集,頁195-241。
黃嘉雄 (2000)。落實學校本位課程發展的行政領導策略。教育資料與研究,33,19-25。new window
黃嘉雄。(2002)。國民中小學九年一貫課程的組織架構,國民教育,8-15。
黃嘉雄。(2007)。國民中小學九年一貫課程綱要該增訂內容要素嗎?教育研究集刊,53(4), 33-69。new window
黃政傑(1991)。社會變遷與課程設計。載於中國教育學會主編,社會變遷與教育發展,頁299-319。台北:台灣書局。
黃政傑(1993)。多元文化教育課程的設計途徑。載於中國教育學會主編,多元文化教育,頁343-374。new window
黃政傑主譯(1997)。Lynch, J. (1983)。多元文化課程。台北:師大書苑。
黃瓊徵 (2006)。國內九年一貫課程與文領域知實踐。國立台南大學教育經營與管
理研究所碩士論文,未出版。
黃瑞琴(1994)。質性教育研究。台北:心理出版社。
黃美金(2003)。臺灣原住民族語教學之回顧與展望。清雲學報,29(4),140-166。
黃美金(2005)。原住民族語言認證回顧與展望。原住民教育季刊,29,5-27。
黃美金(2011)。台灣原住民族語師資培育之回顧與展望。台灣語文教育,6(1)。new window
黃宣範(1993)。語言社會與族群意識。台北:文鶴。
黃建銘 (2011)。本土語言政策發展與復振的網路分析。公共行政學報, 39, 71-104。new window
黃東秋 (2007)。二十一世紀族語教學的省思,原住民教育季刊 ,29 ,59-74。
陳宏賓 (2001)。解嚴以來台灣母語教育政策制定過程的研究。國立台灣師範大學
三民主義研究所碩士論文,未出版。
陳美如(1999)。從多元文化教育論台灣原住民語言教育的實踐。教育研究集刊,45, 173-202。new window
陳豐祥(2009)。新修訂布魯姆認知領域目標的理論內涵及其在歷史教學上的運用,歷史教育 , 15 , 1-53。new window
陳慧美 (2008)。原住民族語教師對族語教學的意見─以高雄市為例。國立台東大學華與文學系碩士論文 未出版。
曹逢甫(1995)。從社會語言學的觀點談臺語的語文教育。教改通訊,11,120-128。
張屏生(2001)。當前母語教育實施的困境。國文天地,17(7),22-29。new window
張慧端 (2011) 。空間與台灣原住民身分:以平埔族的承任問題為例。 台灣人類
學與民族學學會2011年會:民族、民主、民生:人類學的場域論文。
張學謙(2002)。紐西蘭的語言規劃。載於施正峰主編,各國語言政策學術研討會-多元文化與族群平等(頁151-197)。台北:前衛。
張學謙(2003)。語言政策及制定「語言公平法」之研究。台北:前衛。
張淑玲 (2010)。台灣與德國幼兒教育課程之比較研究─以台灣台中市和德國耶
拿市幼兒教育機構為例。國立嘉義大學教育學系博士論文,未出版。
程紹綱(2010)。荷蘭人在福爾摩莎。台北:聯經。
郭為藩 (2006)。全球視野的文化政策。台北:心理。
彭富源(2001)。我國國民中小學課程政策執行模式之建構-以九年一貫課程政策為例。國立政治大學教育研究所博士論文(未出版)。new window
賀安娟(1998)。荷蘭統治之下的台灣教會語言學。台北文獻直字,125,81-105。
溫吉(1999)。台灣番政志。南投:台灣文獻委員會。
楊洪貴(2007)。多元文化主義的產生與發展分析,載於學術論壇,2,75-77。
楊敏治 (2010)。台灣與中國國小英語課程綱要及教書內容之比較研究。國立臺北教育大學兒童英語教育學系碩士論文,未出版。
詹景陽、陳俐甫(2006)。荷治與日治時期台灣原住民政策之比較。國際文教,2006,143-158。new window
趙素貞 (2010)。台灣原住民族語教育政策之分析。國立屏東教育大學教育行政研究所博士論文,未出版。new window
劉美慧(2000)。多元文化公民資質之建構-階層分析程序法之應用。行政院國家科學委員會專題研究計劃。
廖惠淑 (2008)。當前母語教學現況之調查研究─以台東縣為例。國立台東大學幼兒教育學系碩士論文,未出版。
蔡進雄 (2009)論教育評鑑人員應扮演的角色。評鑑雙月刊 ,179,61-62。
蔡清華(1989)。台灣地區比較教育的檢討。比較教育通訊,20,頁8-19。
蔡欣伶 (2012)。中學國文課程綱要與課程銜接研究。國立高雄師範大學國文學
系碩士論文,未出版。
熊同鑫、宋佳興、陳振勛 (2010)。台灣原住民族語言師資養成之探討。台灣原住民族研究季刊,91-121。new window
歐用生(2004)。課程領導議題與展望。台北市:高等教育文化事業。
歐志華(2008)。J. Banks和 C. McCarthy的多元文化課程理論對台灣課程改革之啟示。國立中正大學成人及繼續教育研究所博士論文,未發表。new window
鄧毓浩(1996)。台灣地區中小學母語教學問題之探討。公民訓育學報,5,154-156。new window
葉兆祺,張鈿富,林友文(2008)。當前澳洲多元文化語言教育政策之分析。中等教育,59(2),22-37。new window
盧慧真(1996)。由國家語言政策評估台灣幼兒教育之現況發展。環球技術學院科技人文學刊,2,45-56。new window
賴阿忠(1996)。太武山和霧頭山。台灣原YOUNG,頁20-21。
蔣致遠主編(1990)。中華民國教育年鑑。台北:宗青。
謝國平(1995)。從語言規劃看雙語教學。教師天地,67,頁18。
謝紫菱 (2011)。台灣國民小學階段鄉土語言教育的意義、困境與未來。國教新知。
顏國樑(1997)。原住民教育政策的發展、理念基礎及實踐。原住民教育季刊,8,頁28-54。
蕭高彥(1998)。多元文化與承認政治論。收於蕭高彥、蘇文流主編,多元主義,頁487-509。
藤井志津枝(1993)。對台灣少數民族歷史研究的自我挑戰-以日據時期理番政策研究為例。台灣史田野研究通訊,25,頁81-83。
關山月(2009)。由跨國婚姻探討我國多元文化之現況及其問題-與歐洲、新加坡比較。中央警察大學外事警察研究所碩士論文。未發表。
羅玉如(1999),台灣比較教育研究的歷史發展。國立暨南國際大學比較教育研究所碩士論文(未出版)。

二、英文
Alaska University (2001). Guidelines for strengthening indigenous languages. Fairbanks: Alaska Native Knowledge Network.
Alund, A. & Schierup, C.(2011). From paradoxes of multiculturalism to paradoxes of liberalism: Sweden and the European neo-liberal. Journal for Critical Education Policy Studies, 9(2), 125-142.
Anonby, S. J. (1999). Reversing language shift: Can Kwakwala be revived? Papers presented at the Annual Stabilizing indigenous Languages Symposium (5th, Louisville, KY, May, 1998). (Retrived January 10, 2012 from http://www.jan.ucc.nau.edu./jar/RIL_Contents.html).
Auckland University(2013).The faculty of education primary teaching programs.(Retrived April 6, 2013 from http://www.education.auckland.ac.nz/uoa/betch-maori ).
Augilera, D. & LeCompte, M. D. (2007). Resiliency in native languages: The tale of three indigenous communities’ experiences with language immersion. Journal Of American Indian Education, 46 (3), 11-31.
Banks,J.A.(1994).Multicultural literacy and curriculum reform.Education Digest,57(4).
Banks, J. A. (1995). Multicultural education: It’s effects on students’ racial and gender role attitudes. In J. A. Banks & C. A. M. Banks (Eds.), Handbook on Research on Multicultural Education. NY: Macmillan.
Beeby, C. E. (1992). The biography of an idea: Beeby on education. Wellington, New Zealand: New Zealand Council for Education.
Benton, R. (1978). Problems and prospects for indigenous languages and bilingual education in New Zealand and Oceania. In B. Spolsky & R. Cooper (Eds.), Case Studies in Bilingual Education (PP. 126-166). Rowley, MA: Newbury House.
Beready, G.(1964). Comparative method in education. NY: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.
Bialystock, E. (1991). Metalinguistic dimension of bilingual language proficiency. In E. Bialystock (Ed.), Language Processing in Bilingual Children. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Bishop, R. (2010).Changing power relations in education : kaupapa Maori nessages for “maianstraim” education in New Zealand.Comparative Education, 39 (2), 221-238.
Bloom, B.S., Engelahar, M. D., Frust, E.J., Hill, W. H. & Krathwohl,D.R.(1956). Taxonomy of Educational Objective,Handbook1:Cognitive Domain. N.Y. : David McKay.
Boseker, B. J. (2000). The disappearance of American Indian languages. In P. W. Thomas & J. Mathias (Eds.), Developing Minority Languages: The Proceedings of the Fifth International Conference on Minority Languages (PP. 432-442). Cardiff Wales: Gomer Press.
Brandt, E. A. & Ayoungman, V. (1989). A practical guide to language renewal. Canadian Journal of Native Education, 16 (2), 42-76.
Cameron, M. & Baker, R. (2004). Research on initial teacher education in New Zealand. Wellington:New Zealand Council for Educational Research.
Carnoy, M. (2006). Rethinking the comparative and the international. Comparative Education Review, 50(4), 551-570.
Clankie, S. M. (2000). On the directionality and maintenance of language policy in revitalization efforts. (Retrived November 18, 2011 from http://www.eric.ed.gov.).
Collins, S. (2005). Quarter of Nz’s brightest are gone. (Retrieved March 9, 2012, from http://www.nzherald.co.nz).
Chapple, S. (1997). Maori participation and performance in education. Wellington, NZ: Ministry of Education.
Corson, D. (1993). Minority education and gender: Linking social justice and power. Clevedon, England: Multilingual Matters.
Crook,T.&Caygill,R.(1999).New Zealand’s National Education Monitoring Project:Maori Student Achievement , 1995-1998.(Retrieved March 18, 2012 from http://www.swin.edu.au/aare/99pap/cro99156.htm)
Cummins, J. (1998). The teaching of international language. In J. Edwards (Ed.), Language in Canada. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press (PP.239-304).
Cummins, J. (2000). Language, power, and pedagogy: Bilingual children in the crossfire. Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters.
Derman-Sparks, L. (1992). Anti-bias, multicultural curriculum: What is developmentally appropriate? In S. BredeKamp (Ed.), Reaching Potentials: Appropriate Curriculum and Assessment for Young Children.
Dopke,S.(1992).One parent, One language: An International approach. Amsterdam: John Benuamins.
Eisner,E.W.(2002).The educational imagination:On the design and evaluation of school programs.New Baskerville:Merrill Prentice.
Elmore, R. & Sykes, G. (1992). Curriculum policy. In P. W. Jackson (Ed.), Handbook of Research on Curriculum. NY: Macmillian Publishing Company (PP.185-215).
Fleras, A. (1987). Redefining the politics over aboriginal language renewal: Maori language preschools as agents of social change. The Canadian Journal of Native Studies, 7(1), 1-40.
Fishman, J. (1991). Reversing language shift. Theoretical and Empirical Foundations of Assistance to Threatened Languages. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.
Gallegos, C., Murray, W. E. & Evans, M. (2010). Research note: Comparing indigenous language revitalization: Te reo Maori in Aotearoa New Zealand and Mupudungun in Chile. Asia Pacific Viewpoint, 5(1), 91-104.
Garcia, O. (1992). Societal multilingualism in a multicultural in transition. In H. Byren (Ed.), Language for a Multicultural World in Transition (PP.1-27). Lincolnwood, Illionois: National Textbook Company.
Government Research Unit (1987). Education Vouchers, 4 February 1987, Folder 15. AAZY. W 3901. Picot-General, Archives New Zealand, Wellington.
Grenoble, L.A. & Lindsay, J. W. (1998). Endangered languages: Language loss and community response. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Grenoble. L. A. & Whaley, L. J. (2006). Saving Languages: An Introduction to Language Revitalization. NY : Cambridge University press.
Greymorning, S. (2001). Reflections on the Arapaho language project, or when Bambi spoke Arapaho and other tales of Arapaho language revitalization efforts. In L. Hinton, L. & K. Hale (Eds.). The Green Book of Language Revitalization in Practice, (PP. 289 – 299). C A: Academic Press.
Groof, J. D. & Lauwers, G. (2002). Education policy and law: The politics of multiculturalism in education. Education and the Law, 14 (1-2), 7-12.
Gupta,N.(2005).Diversity matters:An analysis of the many meanings of multiculturalism.Doctoral toctoral dissertation of Syracuse university.
Harrison, B. (1998). Te Wharekura o Rakaumangamanga: The development of an indigenous language immersion school. Bilingual Research Journal, 22 (3), 297-316.
Harrison, B. & Papa, R. (2005). The development of an indigenous Knowledge program in a New Zealand Maori-lauguage immersion school. Anthropology and Education Quarterly, 36 (1), 59-72.
Hawke, G. (2002). Education reform: The New Zealand experience. NZ Trade Consortium Working Paper, 20. Auckland: The New Zealand Trade Consortium.
Heredia, A. & Francis, N. (1997). Coyote as reading teacher: Oral tradition in the classroom, In J. Royhner, (Ed.), Teaching Indigenous Languages. (pp. 56-76).
Hinton, L. (1994). Flutes of fire: Essays on California Indian Languages. Berkeley, CA: Heyday Books.
Hinton, L. (1999). Teaching endangered languages. In B. Spolsky, (Ed.), Concise Encyclopedia of Educational Linguistics. Oxford: Elsevier Science.
Hinton, L. (2001). Language revitalization: An overview. The Green Book of Language Revitalization in Practice. CA: Academic Press.
Hys, D. (2005). A critical assessment of Will Kymlicka’s theory of minority rights: Dilemmas of liberal multiculturalism. Thesis of Institute for Christian Studies (Canada).
Inglis, C. (2004). Multiculturalism: New policy responses to diversity. (Retrived February 26, 2012 from http: // www. unesco. org /most /pp4, htm).
Krashen, S. D. & Terrel, T. D. (1983). The natural approach: Language acquisition in the classroom. Hayward, CA: Alemany.
Krauss, M. (1992), The world’s languages in crisis. In K. Hale, et al. (Ed.), Endangered Languages.
Kymlicka, W. (1995). Multicultural citizenship: A liberal theory of minority rights. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Kymlicka, W. (1998). Finding our way: Rethinking ethnocultural relations in Canada. Don Mills, Ont: Oxford University Press.
Kymlicka, W. (2001). Politics in the vernacular: Nationalism, Multiculturalism and citizenship. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Lo Bianco, J. (2000). A description and exploratory evaluation of program types in indigenous and community languages. Victoria: Language Australia.
Maori Language Commission(2013). Māori Language Proficiency Examination System (Retrieved July 21, 2013 from http://www.tetaurawhiri.govt.nz/)
May, S. (2003). Rearticulating the case for minority language rights. Current Issues in Language Planning, 4(2), 95-116.
Mclvor, O. (2010). Strategies for indigenous language revitalization and maintenance. Canadian Language & Literacy Research Network. (Retrived December 20, 2011 from http:// www. literacyencyclopedia. ca).
McLaren, P. (1997). Revolutionary multiculturalism: pedagogies of dissent for the newmillenium. Bolder, Colo: Westview Press.
McLaren, P. & Munoz, J (2005). Dis-investing whiteness: toward a common struggle for social justice. In P. McLaren & C. Companeras (Eds.), Red Seminars: Racial Excursions into Educational Theory, Cultural Politics, and Pedagogy. (pp. 177-207), Cresskill N J: Hampton Press.
New Zealand Council for Educational Research(1987).How fair is New Zealand education ? Wellington:NZCER.
New Zealand Education Review Office(2011).Framework for school reviews. Wellington, New Zealand.
New Zealand Education Review Office(2011).Evaluation indicators for school reviews. Wellington, New Zealand.
New Zealand Ministry of Education (1997). Annual Report on Maori Education – 1996 / 1997 . Wellington, New Zealand.
New Zealand Ministry of Education (2007). The New Zealand Curriculum. Wellington, New Zealand.
New Zealand Ministry of Education (2009). Curriculum Guidelines for Teaching and Learning Te Reo Maori in English-medium Schools. Wellington, New Zealand.
New Zealand Ministry of Education (2012).Te Reo Maori in English-medium Schools. (Retrived December 26, 2012 from http://tereomaori.tki.org.nz/).

New Zealahd Teachers Council(2012). Studying to be a teache r. (Retrived December 24, 2012 from http://www.teacherscouncil.govt.nz/maori).

Neito, S. (1992). Affirming Diversity: The Sociopolitical Context of Multicultural Eudcation. N. Y. : Longman.
Openshaw, R. (1993). Challenging the myths: rethinking New Zealand’s educational history. Palmerston North, New Zealand: Dunmore Press.
Pease-Pretty, J. (2002). Bringing thunder. Tribal College Journal, 14(1).
Rata , R . (1996).Goodness and power:The sociology of liberal guilt. New Zealand Sociology,11(2),223-276.
Rawlins, N. (1994). Attachment to the 103th Congress Senate hearings for reauthorization of Native Hawaiian Education Act. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 374970).
Rawls, J. (1971). A Theory of Justice. Cambridge, Mass: Harvard University Press.
Reyhner, J. (1990). A description of the Rock Point community school bilingual education program. In J. Reyhner (Ed.), Effective Language Education Practices and Native Language Survival (PP.95-106).
Reyhner, J. & Tennant, E. (1995). Teaching indigenous languages. Bilingual Research Journal, 19(2), 279-304.
Rosado, C. (1997). Toward a definition of multiculturalism.(Retrieved January 20,2012 from http//:www.rosado.net
Rust, Val D. (2003). Method and methodology in comparatieve education. Comparative Education Review, 47 (3), PP. Ⅲ-Ⅶ.
Sadashiva, A. (2005). Meaning of multiculturalism: A comparative study of defining characteristics and behaviors in United States of America and India. San Francisco: Alliant International University.
Santora, E.D. (1995). The drama of dominance and diversity: A multicultural curriculum framework for secondary social studies / language arts core.(retrieved February 16,2012 from http://www.eric.ed.gov/pdfs/ED387379).
Scheffler, I. (1989).In praise of cognitive emotions. New York: Routledge.
Schubert, W. H. (1986). Curriculum: perspective, paradigm, and the possibility. NY: Macmillan Publishing Company.
Schwab, J.J.(1978).The practical:A language for curriculum.In I. westbury& N.J.Wilkof(Eds.), Science, Curriculum and Liberal Education.Chicago:University of Chicago press.
Scollon,R.,&Scollon,S.(1981).Narrative ,literacy and race in interethnic communication. Norwood,NJ:Ablex.
Scriven, M.(1967).The methodology of evaluation.In M. Scriven,AERA Monograph Series on Curriculum evaluation.(vol.1).Chicago:Rond McNally.
Skerrett,M.(2010). A review of the literature with relevance for te reo Māori competence of graduates from Māori medium initial teacher education programmes. The dissertation of Canterbury University, New Zealand.
Skutnabb- Kangas, T. (1983). All children in the Nordic Countries should be bilingual- Why aren’t they? Papers in Culture and Communicative Competence.
Sletter, C. E. (2004). Critical multicultural curriculum and standards movement. Education Teaching: Practice and Critique, 3(2), 122-140.
Sletter, C. E. & Grant, C. A. (1994). Making Choices for Multicultural Education: Five Approaches to Race, class, and’ Gender. N. Y. Macmillan.

Stiles, D. B. (1997). Four successful indigenous language programs.(Retrieved December 20 , 2011)
Smith, G. H. (1999). Kaupapa Maori Theory. Auckland: University of Auckland.
Smiths,K.(2011).Justifying multiculturalism: social justice , diversity and national identity in Australia and New Zealand. Australian Journal of Political Science,46(1),87-103.
Stephens,C.E.(2012). He huarahi kua takahia- The trodden pathways: Kaupapa Maori initial teacher education pedagagy and practice: one teacher's story. doctoral disertation , Massey University Palmerston north.
Taylor, C. (1985). Philosophy and the Human Science: Philosophical Papers 2 , Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Taylor, C. (1992). The Politics of recognition. In A. Gutmann (Ed.), Multiculturalism and the Politics of Recognition. Princeton, N. J.: Princeton University Press. (pp.25-73).
Taylor, S., Rizvi, F., Lingard, B. & Henry, M. (1997). Education policy and the politics of change. London: Routledge.
Te Whare Wananga o Awanuiarangi(2013). Bachelor of education-teaching.(Retrived April 6, 2013 from http://www.wananga.ac.nz/schools/undergraduate).
The Treasury (1987).Government Management: Brief to the Incoming Government,11. Wellington: Government Printer.
Tiedt, P. L., & Tiedt, I. M. (1990). Multicultural Teaching: A Handbook of Activities, Information, and Resources. Boston: Allyn and Backon.
Titus, D. (2001). High stakes down under for indigenous peoples: learning from Maori education in New Zealand; an outsider’s perspective.(Retrieved March 6, 2012 from http://www.eric.ed.gov/pdfs/ED465721)
Tollefson, J. (1991). Planning Language, Planning Inequality. Harlow: Longman.
Tully, J. (2000). Struggles over recognition and distribution. International Journal of Critical & Democratic Theory, 7(4), 469-482.

Tully, J. (1995). Strange Multiplicity: Constitutionalism in An Age of Diversity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Tully, J. (2000). Struggles over recognition and distribution. International Journal of Critical & Democratic Theory, 7(4), 469-482.
Watson, K. (1999). Comparative Education Research: The Need for Reconceptualisation and Fresh Insights. Compare, 29 (3), pp. 233-248.
Wagemaker, H. (1987). Maori and Pakeha school performance: The challenge for educational Policy and research.
Wai-11 (1986). Te reo Maori report: Waill, 2nd end. Wellington, New Zealand: G P Publications.
Waikari, A.(2011). A Way Forward for Te Reo Maori in English-Medium Education. Master thesis, The University of Waikato.
Walker, R. (1990). Struggle Without End. Maryborough, Victoria, Australia: Australian Print Group.
Wieviorka, M. (1998). Is multiculturalism the solution? Ethnic and Racial Studies, 21(5), 881-889.
Wilson, W. H. & Kamana, K. (2009). Proceeding from a dream: The Aha Punana Leo connection in Hawaiian language revitalization. In Hinton, L & Hale, K(Eds.) The Green Book of Language Revitalization in Practice (pp. 147-177). C A: Academic press Wong Fullmore, L.(1985).When does the teacher talk work as input. In S. Gass and C. Madden (Eds.), Input in second language acquisition. Rowley, MA: Newbury House.
Wong Fullmore, L.(1985).When does the teacher talk work as input. In S. Gass and C. Madden (Eds.), Input in second language acquisition. Rowley, MA: Newbury House.
Yamamoto, A. (1998). Native American languages. In Finegan, E., & Rickford, J. (Eds.). Languages in the U.S.A. Cambridge: Cambridge University Bress.
Young, I. M. (1990). Five faces of oppression. In Jastice and Politics of Difference. (pp. 39-65). Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Young, I. M. (1995), Together in difference: Transforming the logic of group political conflict. In Kymlicka, W. (Ed.). The Rights of Minority Cultures, (pp. 155-178). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Zahorik, J. A. & Novak, R. (1996). Clearing House, 70, 85-89.
Zepeda, O.(1990).American Indian language policy. In Adams, k.&Brink,
D.(Eds.),Perspectives on Offcial Language: The Compaign for English as the
official Language of the USA(pp.247-256).Berlin and New York:Mouton de
Gruyter.

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