Title

高中公民科教師對經濟學教材內涵需求之研究-以台灣中部地區為例

Translated Titles

Teachers' Perceptions of Economics Course Content

DOI

10.6231/CME.2002(12)06

Authors

方詠菁(Yung-Ching Fang);黃美筠(Mei-Yun Huang)

Key Words

經濟教育 ; 經濟學教材 ; 公民科教師 ; economic education ; economics course ; civics teachers

PublicationName

公民訓育學報

Volume or Term/Year and Month of Publication

12期(2002 / 07 / 01)

Page #

143 - 185

Content Language

繁體中文

Chinese Abstract

本研究旨在探討我國高中公民科教師對經濟學教材內涵之需求。首先從相關文獻探討建構高中經濟教育的課程內涵,並據此採取問卷調查,藉以瞭解高中公民科教師對經濟學教材內涵的看法。實證研究方面,乃抽查台灣中部地區六縣市124 位高中公民科教師為有效樣本,以自編之「高中公民科經濟學教材內涵之需求調查問卷」調查教師的看法,所得之調查結果以各種統計方法進行分析。本研究主要發現如下:(一)高中公民科教師的經濟專業背景不理想(二)教師認為本研究所列之教材內容皆適合列入高中教材之中,以「失業」、「物價膨脹」、「機會成本」、「生產資源」、「市場」概念最重要等;但教師對教材內涵的認知程度不甚理想,而重要程度與認知程度皆達顯著正相關,顯示教師對教材內涵的瞭解程度愈高,則認為其重要程度愈高。(三)教師看法的差異分析:不同背景因素的教師對各項教材內涵重要程度的看法,差異並不顯著,而教師在不同背景因素的差異,其對教材內涵的認知程度會有顯著不同。(四)教師對各章節教材內涵的編輯需求內容項目。(五)本文並依據文獻探討與研究發現,提出相關建議。

English Abstract

The purpose of this study was to investigate senior high school civics Teachers' perceptions of high school economics course content. The study based on the assumption that senior high school civics Teachers' knowledge of economics is very meaningful for civics education, regardless of what their academic background may differ.The subjects of this study were 124 randomly selected civics teachers in central Taiwan. Data are collected via survey questionnaire and analyzed by descriptive statistics, t-test, and one- way ANOVA.Several results were generated from this study. First, the participated civics teachers were deficient in professional competency on economics education.Second, Teachers' perceptions of economics course content was showed that 'unemployment', 'inflation', 'opportunity cost', 'resources for production' are important concepts that should be contents of senior high school's Civics textbook. While concepts like 'interest', 'other economical institutions', 'firms and government', 'government policy and the cost of society ' were basically unfamiliar to most teachers. The study indicated that the more civics teachers understand those concepts, the more they thought the importance of them.Third, the results showed that differences of Teachers' point of view can be divided intotwo parts, they are:1. Teachers' point of view on the importance of the concepts was found no significant difference, regardless of what their academic or teaching background (including school locations, type of schools, private vs. public schools, genders, teaching years and teaching civics years, teacher's highest academic training, times of taking-part-in workshops) may differ.2. Teachers' point of view on the cognition of the concepts was found significant difference among teachers, including:(a)male teachers are superior to female ones. (b)teachers with 6 to 10 years of teaching experience are better than others.(c) graduate school level teachers are better than college level ones. ( d ) economics-majored teachers are better performed than non economics-majored ones. (e)teachers who never took credits concerning economics are generally poor performed.(f)teachers who ever participated in economics workshops for 3 times or more are better performed than those who never took part in .(g)Civics teachers perform better than non-civics teachers. Considering other factors, there are no significant differences among school locations, public vs. private schools, and Teachers' experience and teaching years.Finally, based on the results, my recommendations were made in order to improve the instruction of economic education at the senior high school level.

Topic Category 社會科學 > 教育學
Reference
  1. Bruner, J. S.(1960).The Process of Education.New York:Vintage Books.
  2. Buckles, S.,Fremae, V.(1984).A Longitudinal Analysis of Developmental economic education program.Journal of economic Education,15(1),5-10.
  3. Committee for Economic Development(1961).Economic Education in the School.New York:The Commttee for Economic Development.
  4. Cooper, L. W.(1987).Knoxville,The University of Tennessee.
  5. Dawson, G.,D. Wentworth, W. L. Hansen,S. Hawke (Eds.)(1977).Research in Economic Education at the Precollege Level.New York:Joint Council on Economic Education.
  6. Dynneson, T. L.,Gross, R. E.(1995).Designing Effective Instruction for Secondary Social Studies.New Jersey:Prentice-Hall.
  7. Figgins, B.,Young G.(1986).National Survey of High School Economics.Journal of Private Enterprise,Ⅱ,134-139.
  8. Gilliard, J. V.,Caldwell, J.,Dalgaard, B. R.,Highsmith, R. J.,Reinke, R.,Watts, M.(1988).Economics: What and When-Scope and Sequence Guidelines, K-12.New York:Joint Council Economic Education.
  9. Hansen, W. L.,Bash, G. L.,Galderwood, J.,Saunders, P(1977).Master Curriculum Guide in Economics for the Nation`s School, Part I-A Framework for Teaching Economics: Basic Concepts.New York:Joint Council on Economic Education.
  10. Hartoonianiar, H. M.,Langhlin, M. A.(1986).Designing a Scope and Sequence.Social Studies,50(7),502-503.
  11. Highsmith, R. J.(1990).How do We Stand in High School Economics Today?.Social Education,54(2),81-83.
  12. Lephardt, N. E.,Lephardt, G. P.(1983).A Theoretical Model of Concept Learning in Economics.ERIC Document Reproduction Service.
  13. Miller, S.,W. Walstad,J. Soper (Ed.)(1991).Effective Economic Education in the Schools.Washington, D.C.:National Education Association and Joint Council on Economic Education.
  14. NCEE=National Council on Economic Education(1998).Voluntary National Content Standards in Economics.New York:NCEE.
  15. Phillip, J. V.(1999).The National Voluntary Content Standards in Economics.ERIC Document Reproduction Service.
  16. Saunders, P.,Bach, G. L.,Calderwood, J. D.,Hansen, W.L.(1984).A Framework for Teaching Economics: Basic Concepts.New York:Joint Council on Economic Education.
  17. Saunders, P.,Bach, G. L.,Calderwood, J. D.,Hansen, W.L.(1993).A Framework for Teaching Economics: Basic Concepts.New York:Joint Council on Economic Education.
  18. Saunders, P,Gilliard, J. V.(Ed.)(1995).A Framework for Teaching Basic Economic Concepts with Scope and Sequence Guidelines, K-12.New York:NCEE.
  19. Schung, M. C.(1983).The Development of Economic Thinking in Chudren and Adolescents.Social Education,47(2),141-145.
  20. Siegfried, J. J.,Meszaros, B. T.(1997).What Should High School Graduates Know in Economics?-Nation Voluntary Content Standars for Pre-College Economics Education.Aea papers and Proceedings,87(2),247-253.
  21. Soper, J. C.,Walstad W.B.(1988).The Reality of High School Economics: The Teachers` Perspective.Journal of Private Enterprise,4(3),85-96.
  22. Taba, H.(1962).Curriculum Development: Theory and Practice.New York:Harcourt, Brace & World.
  23. Walstad, W. (Ed.)(1994).An International Perspective on Economic Education.Boston:Kluwer Academic.
  24. Yankelovich, Skelly,White Inc.(1981).National Survey of Economic Education.New York:Playback Assouiates.
  25. 中等標準教科書公民科編輯委員會(1967)。高中公民(上)。台北:國立編譯館。
  26. 王若文(1992)。碩士論文(碩士論文)。國立台灣師範大學公民訓育研究所。
  27. 吳明隆(2000)。SPSS統計應用實務。台北:松崗電腦圖書資料股份有限公司。
  28. 李緒武(1990)。社會科教材教法。台北:五南圖書出版公司。
  29. 林邦傑(1980)。國中及高中學生具體運思、形式運思與傳統智力之研究。中華心理學刊,22(2),33-49。
  30. 國立編譯館(2000)。高級中學公民科教科書,4
  31. 國立編譯館(1976)。高級中學公民與道德科教科書,3
  32. 教育部(1995)。教育部中教司。台北:正中書局。
  33. 教育部人文及社會學科教育指導委員會(1990)。公民學科教材大綱研究報告公民學科教材大綱研究報告,教育部人指會。
  34. 教育部統計處(2000)。台閩地區高級中等學校概況統計。台北:教育部。
  35. 陳秀玲(1994)。碩士論文(碩士論文)。國立台灣師範大學公民訓育研究所。
  36. 陳麗美、王鳳敏譯、美國社會科協會主編(1994)。美國社會科課程標準。教育部。
  37. 陸民仁、史振鼎主編(1985)。公民教育之問題與對策(上)。台北:台灣省教育會。
  38. 程健教(1988)。我國兒童需社會學習需要經濟學教育素養。幼兒教育年刊,2,46-76。
  39. 黃炳煌(1986)。課程理論之基礎。台北:文景書局。
  40. 黃美筠(2000)。經濟推理-做決策的模式,在國中公民與道德科教學的應用。國立台灣師範大學公民訓育學系主辦,二十一世紀公民與道德教育學術研討會
  41. 黃美筠(1993)。國立台灣師範大學大-新生經濟認知之分析。公民訓育學報,3,217-262。
  42. 黃美筠(1998)。從經濟教育的立論基礎探討中學經濟學教學的內涵。公民訓育學報,7,201-220。
  43. 黃美筠(1996)。經濟教育理論的評介。公民訓育學報,6,193-222。
  44. 黃美筠(1999)。行政院國家科學委員會專題研究計畫成果報告行政院國家科學委員會專題研究計畫成果報告,未出版
  45. 黃劍華(1999)。碩士論文(碩士論文)。國立台灣師範大學公民訓育研究所。
  46. 溫騰光(1992)。博士論文(博士論文)。文化大學中山學術研究所。
  47. 歐用生(1986)。課程發展的基本原理。高雄:復文圖書出版社。
  48. 蕭碧慧(2000)。碩士論文(碩士論文)。國立台灣師範大學公民訓育研究所。
Times Cited
  1. 蘇郁翔(2005)。探討九年一貫社會學習領域第二學 習階段兒童之經濟認知程度-以「機會成本」及「自願交易」為例。國立臺北教育大學社會科教育學系碩士班學位論文。2005。1-122。
  2. 劉怡婷(2012)。高中師生對公民與社會科經濟課程觀點之研究--以單元四「經濟與永續發展」為例。臺灣師範大學公民教育與活動領導學系學位論文。2012。1-234。
  3. 賈樂平(2012)。國小新住民子女學業成就之後設分析。政治大學學校行政碩士在職專班學位論文。2012。1-143。