Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item: https://ah.lib.nccu.edu.tw/handle/140.119/124981
題名: 一位國小老師在混齡教育體制下的轉化歷程
A Study on Transformative Learning Process of a Teacher in a Primary School of Mixed-age Education
作者: 羅德發
Loh, Teck-Huat
貢獻者: 鄭同僚
Cheng, Tung-Liao
羅德發
Loh, Teck-Huat
關鍵詞: 混齡教育
轉化歷程
教學方法
Mixed-age education
Transformative learning process
Teaching method
日期: 2019
上傳時間: 7-八月-2019
摘要: 臺灣近年來在人口結構上面臨少子女化的問題衝擊,而在偏鄉地區的人口流失更加明顯。位於中部偏鄉的自然國小,全盛時期學生人數曾多達400餘人。到103學年度的時候,學生人數只剩下24人,已經面臨被裁併的邊緣。為了學校的永續發展,因此加入學校型態實驗教育計畫,轉型成為混齡教育體制學校。當學校轉型的時候,社會大眾多關注的是學生的受教權,而忽略教師在轉型過程中也面臨各種挑戰。接受傳統教育師資訓練的教師,在面臨學校轉型成為混齡教育體制時,如何透過自己的經驗,去轉化現有的教學模式以及個人觀點,以適應新的教學環境,讓混齡教育能夠在班上發揮效益,是為本研究的目的。\n\n本研究係採用質性研究方法,研究對象是一位經歷公立學校從傳統教育體制轉型成為混齡教育體制的國小老師。研究者期望透過研究觀察這位國小老師轉化的歷程,瞭解其背後的人生經歷,如何將過往的經驗,在混齡教育體制下化為驅動其對教育轉型的原動力。透過訪談與現場觀察資料,敘寫研究對象的成長故事、轉型前後的教學歷程以及個人轉化歷程。而後分析並討論故事中的轉化因子,作出研究結論。研究結論包括研究對象在混齡教育體制下的教學歷程是具有流動性的,從學校轉型為混齡教育體制前到混齡後,可以為分為三個階段,分別是緩衝準備期、混沌期、和適應明朗期;在混齡教育體制下遇到的困境為學生的變化以及需要處理同儕關係(同科老師和班級合作導師);在混齡教育體制下的轉化歷程可以分為四個階段,分別是舊有觀點、轉化因子(包含家庭因素、教學經歷以及轉型契機)、觀點轉化(包含從自身經驗及經歷出發、面對外面的批判與不滿,理念持續如一、教法不斷實踐嘗試、以及重新適應教室新角色)、最後達成個人新觀點(實行新的教學方法以及將新觀點融入到教學現場)。最後也針對想要投入混齡教育的老師、學校單位和未來研究給予建議。
In recent years, Taiwan has faced a problem of population shortage in terms of population structure, and the population loss in the rural areas is more obvious. The Natural Primary School was locate in the middle of Taiwan. In 2014, there were only 24 students remaining, and they were already on the verge of being laid off. For the sustainable development of the school, Natural primary school joined the school-type experimental education program and transformed into a mixed-age education system school. The school teacher who received traditional education training are faced with various challenges in the process of transformation. How to transform existing teaching models and personal views through their own experience, to adapt to the new teaching environment, so that mixed-age education can be in the class. The effectiveness of this is the purpose of this study.\n\nThis research is based on a qualitative research method, research object who has undergone a transition from a traditional education system to a mixed-age education system in public schools. Researchers hope to study the history of the transformation of the teacher, understand the life experience behind it, and how to transform the past experience into the driving force for the transformation of education under the mixed-age education system. Through interviews and on-site observations, the story of the growth of the research object, the teaching process before and after the transformation, and the personal transformation process are described. Then analyze and discuss the conversion factors in the story and make research conclusions. The research conclusions include that the teaching process of the research object under the mixed age education system is fluid. From the transition from school to mixed age education system to mixed age, it can be divided into three stages, namely, buffer preparation period and chaotic period. And adapt to the bright period; the dilemma encountered under the mixed age education system is the change of students and the need to deal with peer relationships (the same teacher and class cooperation tutor); the transformation process under the mixed age education system can be divided into four stages They are old ideas, conversion factors (including family factors, teaching experiences, and transformation opportunities), and perspective transformations (including starting from her own experiences, facing external criticism and dissatisfaction, and practicing the teaching methods, and re-adapt to the new role of the classroom), and finally reach a new personal perspective (implementing new teaching methods and incorporating new ideas into the teaching site). Finally, I also give advice to teachers who want to take part into mixed-age education, school administration and the future research.
參考文獻: 中華百科全書(2018)。複式教學法,取自:http://ap6.pccu.edu.tw/Enc-yclopedia/data.asp?id=7516\n王勇智、鄧明宇(譯)(2010)。敘說分析(原作者::C. atherineK. Kohler Riessman)。臺北市:五南。\n王雅惠(2007)。覺醒與爭權的社會行動 -- 另類學校家長教育選擇權意識之個案 研究(未出版之碩士論文)。國立政治大學,臺北市。\n全國法規資料庫(2008)。學校型態實驗教育實施條例,取自:https://law.moj.gov.tw/Law/LawSearchResult.aspx?p=A&t=A1A2E1F1&k1\n吳清山(1999)。教育革新與發展。臺北市:師大書苑。\n吳清山(2011)。非學校型態實驗教育的新紀元。師友月刊,531,53-57。\n吳清山(2016)。混齡教學。教育脈動,(8),161-161。\n吳清山、林天祐(2005)。教師新辭書。臺北市:高等教育。\n吳清山、林天祐(2010)。教育e辭書。臺北市:高等教育。\n李素卿(譯)(1996)。P.Cranton著。瞭解與促進轉化學習:成人教育者指南( a guide for educators of adults ),臺北市:五南。
\n李雅慧、葉俊廷(2014)。多元形式的學習參與:成人自我導向學習的觀點及其應用。T&D飛訊,182,1-20。\n林天祐(2003)。認識研究倫理。台北市立師範學院學生輔導中心,研究論文與報告手冊,77-84,臺北市:編者。\n林文律(2010)。漫談轉化學習。T&D飛訊,104,1-28。\n林俊成(2015)。實驗教育相關法規對當前教育之影響及公立學校經營策略。臺灣教育評論月刊,4(1),172-178。\n林騰蛟(2015)。實驗教育—曬下多元種籽,開創繽紛未來。新北市教育,14,4。\n邱紹一、胡秀媛(2017)。實驗教育三法通過後,師資培育的挑戰與經營策略。教育研究月刊,277,18-32。\n邱義隆、梁憶靜、林信慧(2016)。教育部創新混齡實驗教育計畫-中坑國小校本課程介紹。國教教育研究院教育脈動電子期刊,2016年9月,138-152。\n胡幼慧(1996)。質性研究的分析與寫成。載於胡幼慧(主編)(主編),質性研究:理論、方法及本土女性研究實例(頁159-170)(頁 159-170)。臺北市:巨流。\n范熾文(2004)。華德福(Waldorfschule)實驗教育的意義。教育資料與研究,61,22-28。\n唐宗浩(2006)。關於臺灣的另類教育。載於唐宗浩、李雅卿、陳念萱(主編)另類教育在臺灣(19 - 38頁)。臺北市:唐山。\n徐永康(2017)。參訪日本偏鄉學校混齡教學報告。106年寒期師資培訓課程。教育部國民及學前教育署(未出版)。\n徐永康、鄭同僚(2019)。鄉村小校混齡教學與課程設計。課程研究,14(1),55-77。\n高博銓(2018)。教學的變與不變:大腦科學的觀點。教育研究月刊,294,33-48。\n國家教育研究院(2018)。教育改革總諮議報告書。取自:https://www.na-er.edu.tw/files/15-1000-7988,c1315-1.php?Lang=zh-tw\n張添洲(2000)。教材教法-發展與革新。臺北市:五南。\n張臺隆(2017)。偏鄉學校推動跨年級教學的省思。臺灣教育評論月刊,6(1),177-182。\n張瀞文(1999)。參與讀書會之成人女性其母職角色認同與轉換歷程之研究。國立臺灣師範大學社會教育系碩士論文,未出版,臺北市。\n教育部(2017)。105學年度各級教育統計概況分析,取自:http://stats.moe.gov.tw/files/analysis/105_all_level.pdf\n許雅惠(譯)(2002)。成人及繼續教育:理論與實務(Adult and Continuing Education: Theory and Practice)(原作者:Peter Jarvis)。臺北市:五南。
\n陳木金(2003)。混沌現象敏銳度在國小教師班級經營效能評鑑之運用研究。彰化師大教育學報,4,23-46。\n陳向明(2007)。社會科學質的研究。臺北市:五南。\n陳怡光(2017)。實驗教育,到底在「實驗」什麼?取自:https://opinio-n.cw.com.tw/blog/profile/352/article/6332\n陳明蕾(1999)。一個新的學習典範:觀點轉化學習理論。成人教育學刊,3,1-32。\n陳惠邦(2003)。華德福學校教育學的現代意義,載於藝術與人文領域教學理論 與實務學術研討會手冊。新竹市:國立新竹師範學院。\n陳聖謨(2012)。偏鄉人口結構變化與小學教育發展關係—以雲林縣濱海鄉鎮為例。教育資料與研究,106,23-56。\n陳聖謨(2015a)。偏鄉學校發展:議題與研究。臺北市:華騰。\n陳聖謨(2015b)。偏鄉迷你小學推展混齡教學的理路與出路。2015海峽兩岸教育學術研討會。\n陳聖謨(2016)。混齡教學:偏鄉小校新風貌。臺北市:華騰文化。\n陳榮政(2016)。實驗教育的實施與混齡教學的嘗試。教育研究月刊,270,54-67。\n鈕文英(2014)。質性研究方法與論文寫作。臺北市:雙葉書廊。\n馮朝霖(2015)。把根紮深、把夢作大—臺灣實驗教育發展願景。新北市教育,14,13-18。\n馮朝霖(2016)。善變的藝術—另類教育。新竹市:道禾書院。\n馮朝霖、簡瑞容、詹志禹(1997)。多元文化與教育(載於教育改革的民間觀點,王政彥等著),123-164,臺北市:業強。\n黃富順(1988)。終生教育與自我導向的學習。終生教育(中華民國比較教育學會主編)。臺北市:臺灣書店。\n黃富順(2000a)。成人教育導論。臺北市:五南。\n黃富順(2000b)。成人心理與學習。臺北市:師大書苑。\n黃富順(2002)。成人學習。臺北市:五南。\n黃瑞琴(1994)。質的教育研究方法。臺北市:心理。\n黃德祥(2017)。學校型態「多年級」與「混年齡」班級教學模式之發展與實施。教育研究月刊,277,60-78。\n楊振富(譯)(2002)。Peter Senge著。學習型學校(上、下)-第五項修練教育篇(Schools That Learn-A Fifth Discipline Fieldbook for Educators, Parents, and Everyone Who Cares About Education),臺北市:天下文化。\n楊蕓(2018)。偏鄉小校師生少,跨年級教學有解。取自:https://udn.com/news/story/6898/3177386\n劉育中、王慧蘭(2017)。實驗教育在「實驗」什麼?臺灣實驗教育的核心關懷與實踐探索。教育研究月刊,277,4-16。\n劉佳宜(2011)。非學校型態實驗教育機構辦學現況之研究-以臺灣中部四所實驗教育機構為例(未出版之碩士論文)。淡江大學,新北市。\n潘慧玲(2003)。社會科學研究典範的流變。教育研究資訊,11(1),115-144。\n蔡秀媛(2002)。轉化學習之理論與應用。臺北市立師範學院學報,33,389-404。\n鄭同僚、陳榮政、賀淑瑋、徐永康(2015)。偏鄉學校型態實驗教育計畫。教育部國民及學前教育署。\n鄭勝耀(2015)。實驗獨特理念開創實驗學校存在價值。國語日報教育廣場。取自:https://www.mdnkids.com/speak/detail.asp?sn=6154\n親子天下(2015)。2015年「實驗教育大調查」結果出爐:四成家長願意將小孩送實驗教育。取自:https://www.parenting.com.tw/article/5068363\n鮑瑤鋒(2018)。公立小學推動學校型態實驗教育面面觀—以臺中市為例。臺灣教育評論月刊,7(1),76-82。\n薛曉華(1996)。台灣民間教育改革運動。臺北市:前衛。\n\nBandy, J. (1980). The identification of skills and characteristics needed by country school teacher. Victoria, BC: University of Victoria.\nBingham, Anne A.; Dorta, P. McClaskey, M.; & O’Keefe, J. (1995). Exploring the Multiage Classroom. York, ME: Stenhouse Publishers.\nFreire, Paulo. (1970). Pedagogy of the oppressed. New York: Herter and Herter.\nGarrison, D. R., and Baynton, M, (1987). Beyond independence in distance education: The concept of control. The American Journal of Distance Education, 3(1), 3-15.\nGaustad, Joan. (1997). Building Support for Multiage Education. ERIC Digest, 114.\nGibbons, M. (2003). The self-directed learning handbook: Challenging adolescent students to excel. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.\nJarvis, P. (2007). Globalization, lifelong learning and the learning society: Sociological perspectives. London: Routledge.\nKegan, R. (2000). “What form transforms?” In J. Mezirow and Associates(Eds. ) Learning as transformation: Critical perspectives on a theory in progress, pp.35-69. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.\nMerriam, S. B. (2017). Adult learning theory: Evolution and future directions. PAACE Journal of Lifelong Learning, 26, 21-37.\nMerriam, S. B. and Caffarella, R. S. (1999), Learning in adulthood: A comprehensive guide(2ed.), San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.\nMerriam, S. B., Caffarella, R. S., Baumgartner, L. M. (2007), Learning in adulthood: A comprehensive guide(3ed.), San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.\nMezirow, J. (1978). Education for Perspective Transformation: Women`s Re-entry Programs in Community Colleges. New York: Center for Adult Education, Teachers College, Columbia University.\nMezirow, J. (1991). Transformative dimension of adult learning. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers.\nMezirow, J. (1995). Transformation theory of adult learning, In M. R. Wlton (Ed.), In defense of the lifeworld-critical perspectives on adult learning. New York: State University of New York Press.\nMezirow, J. (2006). An overview on transformative learning. In Sutherland, P. and Crowther, J. (Eds.), Lifelong learning: Concepts and contexts (pp. 24-38). London: Routledge\nMiller, B. A. (1991). A Review of the Qualitative Research on. Multigrade Instruction. Journal of Research in Rural Education, 7(2), 3-12.\nMulcahy, D. (1992). Do we still have multi-grade classrooms? Morning Watch, 20 (1/2), 1-7.\nPilling-Cormick, J. (1997). Transformative and self-directed learning in practice. New Direction for Adult and Continuing Education, 74, 69-77.\nPolkinghorne, D. E. (1995). Narrative configuration in qualitative analysis. In J. A. Hatch & R. Wisniewski(1995). (Eds.), Life history and narrative (pp.5-23). London: The Falmer Press.
\nPridmore, P. (2007). Adapting the primary-school curriculum for multigrade classes in developing countries: a five-step plan and an agenda for change. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 39(5), 559-576.\nSpear, G. E. and Mocker, D. W. (1984). The organizing circumstance: Environmental determinants in self-directed learning. Adult Education Quarterly, 35, 1-10.\nTaylor, E. W. (2000). Analyzing research on transformative learning theory. In J. Mezirow(Ed.), Learning as transformation: Critical perspective on a theory in progress. San Francisco.: Jossey-Bass.\nUNESCO (2015). Practical Tips for Multigrade classes. Embracing Diversity: Toolkit for Creating Inclusive, Learning-Friendly Environments Specialized Booklet 4. Published in 2015 by the United-Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization.\nVeenman, S. (1995). Cognitive and noncognitive effects of multigrade and multiage classes: A best-evidence synthesis. Review of Educational Research, 65(4), 319-381.\nVincent, S. (Ed. ). (1999). The multigrade classroom: A resource handbook for small, rural schools. Book 2: Classroom Organization. Portland, OR: Northwest Regional Educational Lab.
描述: 碩士
國立政治大學
教育學系
103152015
資料來源: http://thesis.lib.nccu.edu.tw/record/#G1031520151
資料類型: thesis
Appears in Collections:學位論文

Files in This Item:
File SizeFormat
015101.pdf6.01 MBAdobe PDF2View/Open
Show full item record

Google ScholarTM

Check

Altmetric

Altmetric


Items in DSpace are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.