國中綜合活動領域教師對素養導向課程設計原則權重之分析

The Analysis of Junior High School Integrative Activities Domain Teachers' Weighting on Competence-Based Curriculum Design Principles

邱德維(Chiu De-Wei)

指導教授 ： 張雨霖

國立臺灣師範大學/教育學院/教育心理與輔導學系/碩士(2022年)

https://doi.org/10.6345/NTNU202200868

摘要

本研究旨在分析十二年國教課程改革中，綜合活動領域素養導向課程設計原則，並探討國中綜合活動領域教師知覺素養導向課程設計原則的主觀權重，以及其受到不同新課綱培訓經驗之影響。研究共分為兩部分，第一部分透過文獻分析、專家意見建構綜合活動領域素養導向課程設計原則，第二部份邀請26位現職國中綜合活動領域教師，以層級分析法（analytic hierarchy process, AHP）評定研究參與教師對於各項原則主觀知覺的權重與排序，並依據素養導向培訓經驗將研究參與教師區分為推廣教師與一般教師各13位，以斯皮爾曼等級相關及曼—惠特尼U考驗分析兩組教師之一致性與差異。第一部分研究結果建立兩階層三層面13項原則之素養導向課程設計原則架構，第二部分研究結果：（1）全體教師依據面向區分，最為重視「教學活動與效能」面向，該面向中權重排序最高兩項為「使學生應用所學解決生活問題、因應未來挑戰」、「使學生體驗省思並形成內在信念」；反之「課程發展原則」重要性最低，該面向中「課程能跨領域或融入重要議題」排序最末，同時也為全架構原則中排序最後的原則。（2）全體教師對於全部原則的權重與排序，最高的三項原則依序為「課程運用有效教學與評量的策略」、「使學生應用所學解決生活問題、因應未來挑戰」、「課程教學與評量目標一致」。（3）推廣教師與一般教師對素養導向課程設計原則之權重排序無明顯相關，且其中三項原則排序有明顯差異，推廣教師顯著較重視「課程教學與評量目標一致」，一般教師則較重視「課程運用多元教學與評量的策略」與「使學生連接生活經驗與脈絡」。基於上述發現，本研究提出相關研究討論與建議。

關鍵字

素養導向課程設計原則 ； 綜合活動領域 ； 課程改革 ； 知覺課程 ； 層級分析法

並列摘要

This study aims to analyze the design principles of the competency-based integrative activities domain curriculum in the 12-year basic education curriculum reform. To explore the subjective weight of teachers’ perception of competence-based curriculum design principles in the integrative activities domain and the influence of different training experiences in the new curriculum, we carry out this study. This research is divided into two parts. First part uses literature analysis and expert opinions to construct competence-based curriculum design principles in the integrative activities domain. Second part, 26 teachers of integrative activities domain are invited to use the analytic hierarchy process (AHP) to evaluate the weight and ranking of the teachers’ subjective perceptions of each principle. According to the experience of promoting competence-based curriculum, teachers were equally divided into promotion-teacher and general-teacher. Spearman Rank Correlation and Mann-Whitney U Test were used to analyze the consistency and differences between two groups of teachers. On the first part, we establish a framework of competence-based curriculum design with 13 principles of two levels and three dimensions. The results of the second part include: (1) All teachers are divided according to the aspect, and the most important aspect is “Teaching activities and effectiveness.” The two principles with the highest weight in this aspect are “Enable students to apply what they have learned to solve life problems and respond to future challenges” and “Enable students to experience reflection and form inner beliefs.” On the contrary, the aspect with the least importance of “Curriculum development principles.” In this aspect, “The curriculum can cross fields or integrate into important issues” is ranked last, and it is also the last principle in the overall framework principles. (2) The weight and ranking of all the principles for all teachers, the highest three principles are “The curriculum uses effective teaching and evaluation strategies,” “Enable students to apply what they have learned to solve life problems and respond to future challenges” and “The goal of curriculum teaching and assessment is consistent.” (3) There is no significant correlation between promotion teachers and general teachers in the weight ranking of competence-based curriculum design principles, but there are significant differences in the ranking of three principles. Promotion teachers pay more attention to “The goal of curriculum teaching and assessment is consistent” while general teachers pay more attention to “The curriculum uses a variety of teaching and assessment strategies” and “Connecting students with life experience and context.” Based on the results, this study provides relevant research discussion and suggestions.

並列關鍵字

competence-based curriculum design principles ； integrative activities domain ； curriculum reform ； perceived curriculum ； analytic hierarchy process

參考文獻

十二年國民基本教育課程綱要總綱（2014年11月）。https://www.naer.edu.tw/PageSyllabus?fid=52 [Curriculum Guidelines of 12-Year Basic Education: General Guidelines. (2014, November). https://www.naer.edu.tw/PageSyllabus?fid=52]

方德隆、丘愛鈴、王為國（2018）：〈綜合活動領域教材教法的現況、趨勢與展望〉。《臺灣教育評論月刊》，7（5），145–153。[Fang, D.-L., Chiu, A.-L., & Wang W.-K. (2018). Zonghe huodong lingyu jiaocai jiaofa de xiankuang qushi yu zhanwang. Taiwan Educational Review Monthly, 7(5), 145–153.]

王秀槐（2008）：〈課程改革與教師專業成長〉。《中等教育季刊》，59（3），28–41。[Wang, H.-H. (2008). Teacher’s professional development in the era of curriculum reform. Secondary Education, 59(3), 28–41.]

王金國（2021）：〈素養導向教學設計的問題分析與建議〉。《臺灣教育評論月刊》，10（1），186–192。[Wang, C.-K. (2021). Suyang daoxiang jiaoxue sheji de wenti fenxi yu jianyi. Taiwan Educational Review Monthly, 10(1), 186–192.]

王奕婷（2019）：《體育代理教師實施素養導向課程之多重個案分析》（未出版碩士論文），國立高雄師範大學。[Wang, Y.-T. (2019). The product of times multiple-case research on physical education substitute teachers’ implementations of their literacy-based curriculum design (Unpublished master’s thesis). National Kaohsiung Normal University.]