順應全球教育改革趨勢，我國政府於108年開始正式實行十二年國民基本教育課程綱要總綱。新課綱強調培養學生的「核心素養」與「問題解決能力」，並透過降低部定課程學分數來開展學校本位課程發展的空間。全國各級學校皆「動起來」積極發展以學生為中心的跨領域素養導向課程。在此脈絡下，不論校本課程的建構乃至跨領域素養課程的設計，皆涉及「「討論技術及方法的引進」、「專業討論文化的建立」、「探究性教學的實踐及反思」，而這些的改變多少考驗著學校領導團隊和教師們的課程領導力、對話溝通能力及集體學習能力。
本研究採田野調查法，記錄一群偏鄉校長團隊的實踐與其集體能動性形塑之歷程。因著政策文本的啟動，偏鄉教育行動者意識到新課綱的推行可能為偏鄉教育帶來危機與轉機。新課綱是迫切需要改變的理由，而學校和老師需要怎麼樣的能力才能順利轉化課綱？培養學生帶著走的能力？面對這些挑戰，需要在地教育工作者團隊不斷提問並付諸實踐才能具體回應與改變。
本研究個案校長實踐社群作為一活動系統，以聯合行動體型態對外尋求課程專家支持開展資源網絡，並建立以因應新課綱為明確標的的增能夥伴關係。茲此，個案團隊不再只是被動承接課程專家給予之課程架構模板，而是更進一步在實踐之中積累課程領導能力，以成為能解決在地教育問題的行動主體。
本研究運用文化歷史活動理論作為理論分析取徑，梳理個案社群聯合行動主體之形成，再討論個案社群與社群之間的網絡關係及課程共力系統的生成。

Following the global trend of education reform, the government of Taiwan officially implemented the 12-year National Basic Education Curriculum in 2019.
The New Curricular Guidelines emphasize the cultivation of students’ "core competencies" and "problem-solving capabilities". Schools at all levels across the country are actively developing student-centric, multi-disciplinary, literacy-oriented curriculum. Besides, both the construction of school-based curriculum are involved with "the introduction of discussion techniques and methods of new curriculum", "the establishment of professional inquiry communities and discussion culture", "the practice of inquiry instructional strategy and the reflective mechanism", which collectively pose a challenge to school leaders and teachers.
This thesis used field research approach to record the practice of a team of school principals in a rural county and the process of shaping their collective initiative. With the launch of The New Curricular, rural educators realized that the promotion of the new curriculum is both a crisis and an opportunity for rural education system. It brings reasons for the urgent need for change. While, what kind of ability is needed to successfully implement its spirit? These questions can only be answered by local educator’s team working.
In this research, the principal’s community of practice is regarded as an activity system. It seeks the support of curriculum experts to develop a network in the form of joint action, and establishes an empowering partnership in order to respond The New Curricular. This school principal’s team is no longer passively accepting the curriculum framework given by the curriculum experts, but further accumulates curriculum leadership skills in practice to become the main body of action that can solve local education problems.
This study uses the Cultural and Historical Activity Theory (CHAT) as the path of theoretical analysis. With the theoretical basis, we sort out the formation process of the case community and discuss the network relationship between the case community and other sub-communities.

參考文獻
壹、中文部分
尼爾森J.（2019）。關鍵在問－焦點討論法在學校中的應用（The Art of Focused Conversation for School）（屠彬，譯）。教育科學。
文崇一、楊國樞（2000）。訪問調查法。社會及行為科學研究法下冊。東華。
王文科、王智弘（2008）。教育研究法。五南。
史丹佛（2014）。學・問ORID（The Art of Focused Conversation）。（陳淑婷、林思玲，譯）。開放智慧。
吳思華（2020）。明日教育的曙光。遠流。
郭生玉（2005）。心理與教育測驗。精華。
胡幼慧（2008）。一些質性方法的思考：信度與效度？如何抽樣？如何搜集資料、登錄與分析？。巨流。
陳向明（2002）。社會科學質的研究。五南。
陳斐青、林盈秀、蕭述三（2013）。教師合作設計課程的困難—活動理論觀點 。教育研究與實踐，26（1），63-94。
陳佩英、焦傳金（2009）。分散式領導與專業學習社群之建構：一所高中教學創新計畫的個案研究。教育科學研究期刊，54（1），55-86。
陳佩英、曾正宜（2011）。探析專業學習社群的展化學習經驗與課程創新行動─活動理論取徑。教育研究集刊，57（2），39-84。
陳佩英（2017）。對話即實踐: 網絡學習社群專業資本積累之個案研究。教育科學研究期刊，62（3），159-191。
陳佩英（2018）。跨領域素養導向課程設計工作坊之構思與實踐。課程研究，13（2），21-42。
鈕文英（2012）。質性研究方法與論文寫作。雙葉書廊。

貳、外文部分
Bailey, D, M, (1990). Reasons for attrition from occupational therapy. American journal of Occupational Ther¬apy, 44, 23-29.
Bateson, G. (1972). Steps to an Ecology of Mind. Ballantine Books.
Brady, L. (1992). Curriculum development. Prentice Hal.
Campbell, C., A. Lieberman, A. Yashkina, with S. Alexander, and J. Rodway. (2018). Teacher Learning and Leadership Program: Research Report 2017–2018. Toronto, Canada: Ontario Teachers’ Federation.https://www.otffeo.on.ca/en/wp-content/uploads/sites/2/2018/11/TLLP-Research-Report-2017-2018.pdf
Ciborra, Claudio and Andreu, Rafael (2001). Sharing knowledge across boundaries. Journal of Information Technology 16, 73-81.
Davydov, V. V. (1990). Types of generalization in instruction: Logical and psychological problems in the structuring of school curricula. National Council of Teachers of Mathematics.
Davydov, V. V. (2008). Problems of developmental instruction: A theoretical and experimental psychological study. Nova Science.
DeMatthews, D. (2015). Clearing a path for inclusion: Distributing leadership in a high performing elementary school. Journal of School Leadership, 25(6),1000-1038.
Denzin, N. K. (1978). The Research Act: A Theoretical Introduction to Sociological Method. McGraw Hill.
DuFour, R. (1999). Help Wanted: Principals Who can Lead Professional Learning Communities. NASSP Bulletin,83(614),12-17.
Harris, A., M. Jones, and J. Huffman. (2017). Teachers Leading Educational Reform: The Power of Professional Learning Communities. Routledge.
Harris, A.M., and Jones. (2019). Teacher leadership and educational change. School leadership & management, (39-2), 123-126.
Bakhurst, D. (1990). An Introduction to Vygotsky. In D. Middleton and D. Edwards (Eds.), Social memory in Soviet thought (pp. 203-26). Routledge
Bourdieu, P., & Passeron, C. (1990). Reproduction in education, society, and culture. Sage.
Burroni, L and Keune, M. (2011). Flexicurity: A conceptual critique. European Journal of Industrial Relations 17(1) ,75-91.
Cole, M., & Engeström, Y. (1991). A cultural-historical approach to distributed cognition. In G. Salomon (Ed.), Distributed cognition (pp.1-47). Cambridge.
Edwards, A., Montecinos, C., Cadiz, J., Jorratt, P., Manriquez, L., & Rojas, C. (2017). Working relationally on complex problems: Building capacity for joint agency in new forms of work. In M. Goller & S. Paloniemi (Eds.), Agency at work: An agentic perspective on professional learning and development (pp. 229-247). Springer.
Engeström, Y. (1987). Learning by expanding: An activity-theoretical approach to developmental research. Orienta Konsultit.
Engeström, Y. & Escalante, V. (1995). Mundane tool or object of affection? The rise and fall of the Postal Buddy. In B. Nardi (Ed.), Context and consciousness: Activity theory and human-computer interaction. (pp. 73-75). Cambridg.
Engeström, Y., Virkkunen, J., Helle, M., Pihlaja, J., & Poikela, R. (1996). The change laboratory as a tool for transforming work. Lifelong Learning in Europe, 1(2), 10-17.
Engestro ̈m, Y., Miettinen, R. and Punamaki, R.-L. (1999). Perspectives on Activity Theory. Learning in Doing: Social, Cognitive, and Computational Perspectives. Cambridge.
Engeström Y (2000) Comment on Blackler et al. Activity Theory and the Social Construction of Knowledge: A Story of Four Umpires. Organization ,7(2), 301-310.
Engeström, Y. (2001). Activity theory as a framework for the study of organizational transformations. Paper presented at the conference of Knowing in Practice. Trento, Italy.
Engestro ̈m, Y. (2007), “Putting Vygotsky to work: the change laboratory as an application of double stimulation”. In Daniels, H., Cole, M. and Wertsch, J. (Eds.), The Cambridge Companion to Vygotsky (pp. 363-82). Cambridge.
Engeström, Y. (2008a). Disturbance management and masking in a television production team. In Y. Engeström (Ed.), From teams to knots: Activity-theoretical studies of collaboration and learning at work (pp.22-47). Cambridge.
Engeström, Y. (2008b). From design experiments to formative interventions. In G. Kanselaar, J. V. Merrienboer, P. Kirschner, & T. d. Jong (Eds.), Paper presented at the conference of the 8th international learning sciences (Vol. 1, pp.3-24). ISLS.
Engeström, Y. (2009). The future of activity theory: A rough draft. In A. Sannino, H. Daniels, & K. D. Gutiérrez (Eds.), Learning and expanding with activity theory (pp.257-273). Cambridge.
Engestro ̈m, Y. and Sannino, A. (2010), “Studies of expansive learning: foundations, findings and future challenges”, Educational Research Review, 5(1), 1-24.
Engeström, Y., and A. Sannino. (2011). ‘Discursive Manifestations of Contradictions in Organizational Change Efforts: A Methodological Framework.” Journal of Organizational Change Management ,24 (3) ,368–387.
Engeström, Y., Nummijoki J.and A. Sannino. (2012). Embodied Germ Cell at Work: Building an Expansive Concept of Physical Mobility in Home Care. Mind, Culture, and Activity, 00,1–23.
Engeström, Y. (2015). Learning by expanding. An activity-theoretical approach to developmental research. Cambridge.
Engeström, Y. (2016). Studies in expansive learning: Learning what is not yet there. Cambridge.
Engestrom, Y. (2018). Expansive learning: Towards an activity-theoretical reconceptualization. In K. Illeris (Ed.), Contemporary theories of learning (pp. 46-65). Routledge.
Fleming, Grace L. (1999). Principals and Teachers: Continuous Learners. Issues about Change,7(2),2-8.
Fraser, S., & Gestwicki, C. (2002). Authentic childhood: Exploring Reggio Emilia in the classroom. Delmar Thomson.
Foucault, Michel, Burchell, G. (1991). The Foucault Effect: Studies in Governmentality. University of Chicago.
Fullan, M. (2018). The Principal: Three Keys to Maximizing Impact. John Wiley & Sons.
Fullan, M., Quinn, J., & McEachen, J. (2018). Deep learning: Engage the world change the world. Corwin.
Giddens, A. (2000). Runaway world: How globalization is reshaping our lives. Routledge.
Giroux, H. (2001). Theory and resistance in education. Praeger.
Glatthorn, Allan A. (2000). The Principal as Curriculum Leader: Shaping What Is Taught & Tested. Corwin.
Gleick, J. Faster (1999). The Acceleration of Just About Everything. Pantheon Books.
Garmston, B. & Wellman, B. (1998). Teacher talk that makes a difference. Educational Leadership, 55(7), 30-34.
Halinen, I. (2014). General Aspects of Basic Education Curriculum Reform 2016 Finland.http://www.oph.fi/english/education_development/current_reforms/curriculum_reform_2016.
Hairon, S., Goh, J. W. P., & Chua, S. K. (2015). Teacher leadership enactment in PLC contexts: Towards a better understanding of the phenomenon. School Leadership & Management,35(2),163-182.
Henderson, J. G., & Gornik, R. (2007). Transformative curriculum leadership. Prentice Hall.
Leont'ev, A. N. (1978). Activity, consciousness, and personality. Prentice Hall.
Leont’ev, A. N. (1979). The problem of activity in psychology. In Wertsch, J. V. (Ed.), The concept of activity in Soviet psychology (pp. 37-71). M. E. Sharpe.
Leont'ev, A. N. (1981). Problems of the development of the mind. Progress.
Lewin, K. (1948). Resolving social conflicts: Selected papers on group dynamics. Harper & Brothers.
Lingard, B., Hayes, D. & Mills, M. (2002) Developments in School-Based Management: the specific case of Queensland, Australia, Journal of Educational Administration, 40(1), 111-122.
Lingard, B., Hayes, D., Mills, M. & Christie, P. (2003). Leading Learning: making hope practical in schools. Open University.
Marx, K. (1969). Capital. Progress.
Mezirow, J. (1991). Transformative dimensions of adult learning. Jossey-Bass.
Miettinen, R. (2002). National Innovation System: Scientific concept or political rhetoric. Edita.
Minick, N. (1987). Implications of Vygotsky's theories for dynamic assessment. In C. S. Lidz (Ed.). Dynamic assessment: An interactional approach to evaluating learning potential (pp.116-140). Guilford.
Mithra Zahedi, Virginie Tessier, Dave Hawey. (2017). Understanding Collaborative Design Through Activity Theory. Design for Next: Sapienza University of Rome.
Moscovic, S. (2008). Psychoanalysis: Its Image and its public. Cambridge polity.
Murphy, J. (2007). Questioning the core of university-based programs for preparing school leaders. Phi Delta Kappan,88, 582-585.
Fred M. Newman (1996). Authentic Achievement: Restructuring Schools for Intellectual Quality. Jossey-Bass.
Nahavandi, A. (2009). The Art and Science of Leadership. Prentice H.
OECD (2018). Teaching for Global Competence in a Rapidly Changing World. OECD.
Prigogine I, Stengers I. (1984). Order out of chaos: Man's new dialogue with nature. Bantam Books.
Rheingold, H. (2002). Smart mobs: The next social revolution. Cambridge.
Roth, W. M., & Lee, Y. J. (2007). “Vygotsky’s neglected legacy”: Cultural-historical activity theory. Review of Educational Research, 77(2), 186-232.
Sahlberg, P. (2011). Finnish Lessons: What can the world learn from educational reform in Finland? Teachers College.
Sahlberg, P. (2015). Finland’s school reforms won’t scrap subjects all together. The Conversation. https://theconversation.com/finlands-school-reforms-wont-scrap-subjects-altogether-39328
Sahlberg, P. (2017). Finnish ED leadership: Four big, inexpensive ideas to transform education. Corwin.
Sannino, A. (2011). Activity theory as an activist and interventionist theory. Theory and Psychology, 21(5), 571-597.
Sannino, A., Daniels, H., & Gutiérrez, K. D. (Eds.). (2009). Learning and Expanding with Activity Theory. Cambridge University.
Sannino, A., Engeström, Y., & Lemos, M. (2016). Formative interventions for expansive learning and transformative agency. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 25(4), 599-633.
Scott, W. R., Ruef, M., Mendel, P. J., & Caronna, C. A. (2000). Institutional change and healthcare organizations: From professional dominance to managed care. The University of Chicago.
Senge, P. (1990). The fifth discipline: The art and practice of the learning organization. Doubleday.
Silander, P. (2015b). Rubric for Phenomenon Based Learning. http://www.phenomenaleducation.info/phenomenon-based-learning.html
Smith, W. K., & Tushman, M. L. (2005). Managing strategic contradictions: A top management team model for managing innovation streams. Organization Science 16, 522-536.
Stark, Rodney. (2002). “Physiology and Faith: Addressing the Universal Gender Difference in Religious Commitment.” Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion ,41,495-507.
Stetsenko, A. (2005). Activity as object-related: Resolving the dichotomy of individual and collective planes of activity. Mind, Culture and Activity, 12(1), 70-88.
Stetsenko, A., (2008). From relational ontology to transformative activist stance: Expanding Vygotsky's (CHAT) project. Cambridge University.
Stetsenko, A. (2018). Agentive creativity in all of us: An egalitarian perspective from a transformative activist stance. In M. C. Connery, V. John-Steiner & A. Marjanovic. Shane (eds.), Vygotsky and creativity: A cultural-historical approach to play, meaning making, and the arts. (pp. 431-446). Peter Lang.
Virkkunen, J. (2006). Dilemmas in building shared transformative agency. @ctivités, 3(1), 44-66.
Virkkunen, J. & Newnham, D. S. (2013). The Change Laboratory: A tool for collaborative development of work and education. Sense.
Virkkunen, J., Newnham, D. S., Nleya, P. & Engeström, R. (2012). Breaking the vicious circle of categorizing students in school. Learning, Culture and Social Interaction, 1(2), 183-192.
Virkkunen, J. & Tenhunen, E. (2010). Finding a concept that integrates specialists know- how: The case of special school for handicapped and neurologically ill children. Actio, 3, 1-23.
Voogt, J., Laferriere, T., Breuleux, A., Itow, R. C., Hickey, D. T., & McKenney, S. (2015). Collaborative design as a form of professional development. Instructional Science, 43, 259-282.
Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Harvard University.
Vygotsky, L.S. (1997). The Collected Works of L. S. Vygotsky. In Rieber & Carton (Eds.), The history of the development of higher mental functions. (pp.154-171). Springer.
Wartofsky, M. W. (1973). Models: Representation and scientific understanding. Dordrecht. Reidel.
Ylimaki, R. M. (2011). Curriculum Leadership: A Framework for Progressive Education. Routledge.
Ylimaki, R. M. (2012). Curriculum Leadership in a Conservative Era. Educational Administration Quarterly, 48(2), 304-346.
Zander, A. (1979). The study of group behavior during four decades. The Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 15, 272-282.

參、網站資源
LIMA學拓網（2021）愛思客跨領域素養導向課程設計-資源共享平台&創課計畫。https://learningima.org/news_content?id=14
教育部（2019）。國教課綱向前行電子報第28期。教育部再挹注偏遠學校25-6億。https://www.k12ea.gov.tw/Tw/Epaper/Detail?id=8ee8b55b-fe42-4c2d-bc51-6ec01db6e101&eid=59fa9747-c2f1-473c-8833-09f8bf88250b
教育部（2014）。十二年國基教育課程綱要總綱。http://12cur.naer.edu.tw/upload/files/96d4d3040b01f58da73f0a79755ce8c1.pdf