:::

詳目顯示

回上一頁
題名:國小教師對綜合活動領域課綱之釋意研究
書刊名:當代教育研究季刊
作者:王為國 引用關係
作者(外文):Wang, Wei-kuo
出版日期:2020
卷期:28:1
頁次:頁75-108
主題關鍵詞:釋意綜合活動領域國小教師課綱SensemakingIntegrative activities learning areaElementary school teacherCurriculum guidelines
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:42
  • 點閱點閱:4
研究目的:本研究的研究目的在於瞭解國小教師對於臺灣的綜合活動領域課綱的釋意內容、來源、脈絡與行動。研究設計/方法/取徑:本研究藉由深度訪談來瞭解現職國小教師對於綜合活動領域課綱與實踐的內心世界與想法,進而建構出現職國小教師對於課綱解讀與實踐的釋意過程。本研究選取研究參與者為在J國民小學(化名)三年年資以上的教師,且擔任綜合活動具有三年經驗以上之教師六名。研究發現或結論:教師在師資培育階段的學習、參與教學實務的活動、認同的教育理念等對釋意的影響較多,校內專業成長活動與同儕互動的影響較少。在教師擁有課程實施自主性及教師專業互動少的學校脈絡下,教師的似真性想法與行動較少獲得同儕的回饋。教師對於綜合活動領域課綱的釋意內容,大部分符合課綱的理念,少部分是似真性想法。學校活動及其他領域課程占用綜合活動上課時數的釋意行動,造成綜合活動領域主體性模糊的現象。研究原創性/價值:過去研究對於國小教師如何詮釋綜合活動領域課綱並未有深入探討,因此本研究採用釋意理論,探究國小教師對於綜合活動領域課綱的釋意來源、脈絡、內容與行動。教育政策建議或實務意涵:建議可強化教師在綜合活動領域的課程意識、反思與教學策略。安排研習前,事先調查教師們綜合活動領域所遇到的問題,然後據以安排研習內容與方式。另外,新課綱在推廣時,應該善用多元管道,包含研習、工作坊、網路課程、線上討論區、教師專業社群、校長與主任課程領導等。
Purpose: This study investigated the content, sources, contexts, and actions pertaining to elementary school teachers' sensemaking for the learning area of integrative activities in curriculum guidelines in Taiwan. Design/methodology/approach: In this study, in-depth interviews were conducted to procure elementary school teachers' perceptions regarding the curriculum guidelines of the integrative activities learning area and their interpretation of the curriculum guidelines during the curriculum implementation were analyzed. The participants were six teachers who worked at the J elementary school(pseudonym) for over 3 years, and also taught in the integrative activities learning area for 3 years or more. Data were collected through interviews. Coding categories of the study were accomplished after repetitively reading interview transcripts. The study data were coded and analyzed, and the study conclusions were formed. Findings/results: This research investigated learning in the teacher education stage, involved participation in teaching practices, and identified the educational concepts that have a high influence on teachers' sensemaking. Professional growth activities and peer interactions within a school had less influence on teachers' sensemaking. As a consequence of teachers' curriculum autonomy and limited professional interactions between teachers, peers could only provide little feedback pertaining to the teachers' actions and the ideas of plausibility. Most of the teachers' sensemaking content of the integrative activities learning area curriculum was in accordance with the curriculum guidelines, and a minor part of their sensemaking pertained to the ideas of plausibility. The school's activities and other curriculum-related tasks occupied the hours allocated for the integrative activities learning area. This sensemaking action led to ambiguity concerning the subjectivity of the curriculum. Originality/value: Studies have not conducted detailed analyses regarding elementary school teachers' interpretations of the curriculum guidelines of integrative activities learning area. Therefore, this study applied the sensemaking theory to investigate the content, sources, contexts, and actions related to elementary school teachers' sensemaking for the curriculum guidelines of integrative activities learning area. Suggestions/implications: To increase teachers' curriculum awareness, reflection, and teaching strategies in the integrative activities area, a seminar sponsor should analyze teachers' problems related to the integrative activities learning area before arranging the content and methods used in the seminar. Schools and teachers' professional development seminar programs should use diversified channels, such as seminars, workshops, online courses, online forums, teachers' organizations, and school leadership to promote the curriculum.
期刊論文
1.Cobum, C. E.(2004)。Beyond decoupling: Rethinking the relationship between the institutional environment and the classroom。Sociology of Education,77(3),211-244。  new window
2.Coburn, C.(2001)。Collective sensemaking about reading: How teachers mediate reading policy in their professional communities。Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis,23(2),145-170。  new window
3.Coburn, C. E.(2005)。Shaping teacher sensemaking: School leaders and the enactment of reading policy。Educational Policy,19(3),476-509。  new window
4.Evans, A. E.(2007)。School leaders and their sensemaking about race and demographic change。Educational Administration Quarterly,43(2),159-188。  new window
5.März, V.、Kelchtermans, G.(2013)。Sense-making and structure in teachers'€™ reception of educational reform: A case study on statistics in the mathematics curriculum。Teaching and Teacher Education,29,13-24。  new window
6.Walshaw, M.、Anthony, G.(2007)。Policy implementation: Integrating the personal and the social。Mathematics Teacher Education and Development,8,5-22。  new window
7.潘慧玲、張淑涵(20140300)。策劃學校發展的資料運用:一所高中個案研究。教育科學研究期刊,59(1),171-195。new window  延伸查詢new window
8.周水珍(20041100)。國小綜合活動學習領域的實施困境與改進策略之研究。花蓮師院學報.教育類,19,61-84。new window  延伸查詢new window
9.黃譯瑩(20010300)。從系統理論觀點探究活動課程與九年一貫綜合活動課程:本質、原理與展望。應用心理研究,9,215-251。new window  延伸查詢new window
10.Spillane, J. P.、Reiser, B. J.、Reimer, T.(2002)。Policy implementation and cognition: Reframing and refocusing implementation research。Review of Educational Research,72(3),387-431。  new window
11.林彩雲、王為國(20131000)。國小教師綜合活動學習領域課程實踐之探究。教育研究月刊,234,121-138。new window  延伸查詢new window
12.葉明政(20141000)。國小教師對重大議題課程政策實施之個人釋意分析。課程與教學,17(4),173-205。new window  延伸查詢new window
13.丘愛鈴(2006)。臺灣綜合活動領域研究的回顧與展望。高雄師大學報,20,21-44。new window  延伸查詢new window
14.朱彩馨(20150300)。溫故不知新:半新科技的意會調適。中山管理評論,23(1)上,137-183。new window  延伸查詢new window
15.Allen, C. D.、Penuel, W. R.(2015)。Studying teachers' sensemaking to investigate teachers' responses to professional development focused on new standards。Journal of Teacher Education,66(2),136-149。  new window
16.Bertrand, M.、Marsh, J. A.(2015)。Teachers' sensemaking of data and implications for equity。American Educational Research Journal,52(5),861-893。  new window
17.Martinie, S. L.、Kim, J. H.、Abernathy, D.(2016)。Better to be a pessimist: A narrative inquiry into mathematics teachers' experience of the transition to the Common Core。The Journal of Educational Research,109(6),658-665。  new window
18.Woulfin, S. L.(2016)。Vehicles of logics: The role of policy documents and instructional materials in reform。Educational Research for Policy and Practice,15(3),175-188。  new window
19.丘愛鈴(20060700)。國小高年級綜合活動教科書之評鑑。課程與教學,9(3),121-138。new window  延伸查詢new window
20.Hsiao, Ruey-Lin、Wu, Se-Hwa、Hou, Sheng-Tsung(2008)。Sensitive Cabbies: Ongoing Sense-making Within Technology Structuring。Information and Organization,18(4),251-279。  new window
21.Weick, Karl E.、Sutcliffe, Kathleen M.、Obstfeld, David(2005)。Organizing and the Process of Sensemaking。Organization Science,16(4),409-421。  new window
學位論文
1.Heredia, S. C.(2015)。Dilemmas of reform: An exploration of science teachers' collective sensemaking of formative assessment practices(博士論文)。University of Colorado,Boulder, Colorado。  new window
2.Langton, T.(2014)。A case study of sense-making of the common core state standards for mathematics by elementary generalists(博士論文)。Northeastern University,Boston, Massachusetts。  new window
3.Null, S. Y.(2010)。Continued variation amid standardization: The effects of school program improvement status and of participation in the south coast writing project (SCWriP) on teachers' curricular sensemaking and enactment(博士論文)。University of California,Santa Barbara, California。  new window
圖書
1.Glatthorn, A. A.、Boschee, F. A.、Whitehead, B. M.、Boschee, B. F.(2012)。Curriculum leadership: Strategies for development and implementation。SAGE。  new window
2.Lichtman, M.(2010)。Qualitative Research in Education: a user's guide。Sage。  new window
3.Weick, Karl E.(1995)。Sensemaking in Organizations。Sage。  new window
4.Goodlad, John I.(1979)。Curriculum Inquiry: The Study of Curriculum Practice。McGraw-Hill。  new window
5.Bogdan, Robert C.、Biklen, Sari Knopp(2007)。Qualitative research for education: An introduction to theory and methods。Boston, MA:Allyn & Bacon。  new window
6.LeCompte, Margaret Diane、Goetz, Judith Preissle(1984)。Ethnography and qualitative design in educational research。Academic Press。  new window
圖書論文
1.Spillane, J. P.、Reiser, B. J.、Gomez, L. M.(2006)。Policy implementation and cognition: The role of human, social, and distributed cognition in framing policy implementation。New directions in education policy implementation: Confronting complexity。New Albany, NY:The State University of New York Press。  new window
2.范信賢、李駱遜(2012)。國民中小學綜合活動領域內涵與取向研析。國民中小學各類課程內涵與取向研析。新北市:國家教育研究院。  延伸查詢new window
3.楊思偉、葉天喜(2010)。綜合活動學習領域的理念與內涵。綜合活動教材教法。臺北市:五南。  延伸查詢new window
4.葉明政(2017)。釋意理論及其在課程政策實施研究之應用。課程改革2016回顧與展望。臺北市:五南。  延伸查詢new window
 
 
 
 
第一頁 上一頁 下一頁 最後一頁 top
:::
無相關著作
 
QR Code
QRCODE