(3.238.7.202) 您好!臺灣時間:2021/03/01 21:52
字體大小: 字級放大   字級縮小   預設字形  
回查詢結果

詳目顯示:::

我願授權國圖
: 
twitterline
研究生:李建鋒
研究生(外文):Lee Chen-Feng
論文名稱:以政策社會學途徑探討我國教育優先區計畫
指導教授:花敬群花敬群引用關係
學位類別:碩士
校院名稱:玄奘大學
系所名稱:公共事務管理學系碩士班
學門:社會及行為科學學門
學類:公共行政學類
論文種類:學術論文
論文出版年:2005
畢業學年度:93
語文別:中文
中文關鍵詞:教育優先區計畫政策社會學教育政策
外文關鍵詞:Educational policyEducational Priority Area ProgramPolicy Sociology
相關次數:
  • 被引用被引用:18
  • 點閱點閱:739
  • 評分評分:系統版面圖檔系統版面圖檔系統版面圖檔系統版面圖檔系統版面圖檔
  • 下載下載:270
  • 收藏至我的研究室書目清單書目收藏:19
本論文的目的在於探討教育優先區計畫所發生的實際效用。經過政策研究途徑的回顧,本研究選擇以政策社會學的途徑來對此計畫進行分析。利用Bourdieu實踐理論為架構的政策社會學途徑,本研究將教育優先區計劃的實證分析與對計劃社會意義的政治分析結合起來,而透過教育工作者關於計畫的實踐來探討計劃在社會與教育分化上的意涵。本研究收集實證資料的期間從民國93年10月中旬至民國94年1月中旬為止,以立意抽樣選取4所位於都會區的小型國中與國小作為樣本。除了針對1所國中的參與觀察之外,並對其餘3校的3位行政職教師與4位專職教師進行深入訪談。研究發現與建議如下:

研究發現:
教育優先區學校呈現出一幅文化衝突的景象,但教育優先區計劃的內容與過程過多的表現出對經濟資源投入的重視,卻甚少看到真正關於這些文化作用的討論。計畫的補助確實產生了某種效果,只是效果較多是回饋到原本就相信計劃有效性的那些人,尤其是原本就屬於優勢群體的主管機關與教師們,以及他們所習慣的那一種生活邏輯;而對於計劃原本設定發揮作用的受教者家庭而言,計劃的實施並通常還是讓他們停留在教育場域的弱勢地位。歸納而言,計畫的效果如下:
一、 教育優先區計畫的過程形成了教師、教育行政機關、社會主流意識的共謀機制,架構出主流文化規則對於弱勢群體的規範,因此反而強化了正式學校教育的社會控制機制。
二、 在學校層級上,社區或家庭的對於計畫的參與度相當低,而教師成為計畫的主要主導者。在教師生存心態的作用下,教師們企圖將原本衝突的學校文化打造成過去自己所熟悉的學校情境。從學生、家長與學校、教師雙方面對於計畫的評價看來,教師反而成為計畫的主要受益者。
三、 計畫提供予弱勢學生的乃是對現存主流規則的再確認,因此其作為反而有導致社會結構穩定化的結果,維繫了不平等結構邏輯對於弱勢學生的壓迫,使得大部分弱勢學生還是停留在原本的附屬地位。

對教育優先區計畫的建議:
一、 教育優先區計畫可以轉從學校教育部門與人員方面下手,強調教育工作者的文化再學習,由教育工作者自身來突破不平等結構邏輯的共謀機制。
二、以社區生活為主軸來設計教育優先區計畫之相關措施,以使學生、家長在參與學校事務同時感受到自我生命的意義,而非對自我生命的壓迫。
The aim of this thesis is to discuss the real function of the Educational Priority Area Program. Through reviewing approaches of policy research, the researcher chose policy sociology as the approach to analyze this program. Making use of Bourdieu’s practice theory as the framework, this research combined the empirical data of the program process and the political analysis of the social meaning of this program; therefore discuss the effect of the program on the social and educational distinction through the educators’ practices in this program. The empirical datum was collected during mid October 2004 and mid January 2005, and sampled 2 elementary schools and 2 junior high schools in small size in one urban area by purposive sampling. The datum come from participant observations in one junior high school and deep interviews with 7 teachers of other 3 schools. The findings and suggestions are as follows:

Findings—
1、The process of EPA program constructed a mechanism of conspiracy between mainstream ideology, educational administration, and teachers. During this process, the program regulated disadvantaged groups with the logic of mainstream culture and hence enforced the social control mechanism of formal schooling.
2、The communities and families didn’t participate much in the program on the school level. Teachers were the leading role of the program. Because of the effects of habitus, teachers intended to transform conflict school culture to some kind of environment that they were familiar with. By contrasting the evaluation of students with that of teachers, we found that teachers benefited more from the program than disadvantaged students.
3、What EPA program provided for disadvantaged students is the reconfirmation of the logic of contemporary mainstream culture. Therefore the program resulted in stabilizing social structure and kept the oppression from the logic of unequal structure to disadvantaged students. As a result, the overwhelming majority of disadvantaged students still remained their subordinated positions.

Suggestions—
1、The EPA program could switch its focus on transforming students to focus on schools and teachers. It can break down the mechanism of conspiracy of the logic of unequal structure by emphasizing the cultural re-education of educators.
2、The program should carry out the idea of community in its design. Therefore, when students and parents participating in the school affairs, they will make meanings of their dairy life and won’t feel oppressed of their selves.
章節目次

笫一章 緒論………………..…………………………….………….….………1
第一節 研究背景與動機……………………………….…………..…………1
第二節 教育優先區計劃之內容與實施…………..………………..………...3
第三節 教育優先區計畫的初步探究…………………………...……………6
第四節 研究目的與課題…………………………………………………….10


第二章 政策研究途徑與相關的學校圖像:為何是政策社會學途徑?…...12
第一節 理性政策途徑及反省…………………………...…………………..13
第二節 轉向到「由下而上」的政策研究……………………………….…16
第三節 兼善「個人問題」與「公共議題」-政策社會學……………….22
第四節 Bourdieu實踐理論與政策社會學研究…………………………….24
第五節 小結………………………………………………………………….31


第三章 研究設計與實行…………………………………………………….. 33
 第一節 研究方法…………………………………………………………….33
 第二節 樣本選取…………………………………………………………….35
 第三節 資料收集之過程與內容…………………………………………….37
 第四節 訪談大綱…………………………………………………………….42
 第五節 資料分析方法……………………………………………………….42
 第六節 受訪學校資料……………………………………………………….46
 

第四章 教育優先區計劃的實施現象與分析………………………..……….50
 第一節 何謂「教育優先」?……………………………………………….50
一、以缺陷模型為本的政策制定……………………………………...50
二、社區、家長與學生:「得過且過」的學習態度……………..…...54
三、教師:選哪一邊站?……………………………………………...56
 第二節 教育優先區學校中的互動………………………………………….62
一、 學校與社區的文化差異…………………………………………...62
二、 教師的文化衝擊…………………………………………………...64
三、 可愛的學生?……………………………………………………...66
四、 邊緣學校的矛盾…………………………………………………...70



第三節 計畫在學校中的實行與成效……………….……………………….73
一、 獨重學習成就的計畫選擇………………...……………………….73
二、 次要的計劃措施………………………….…………...……………75
三、 標的人口的計劃效果評估………………...……………………….76
四、 教育者的計劃效果評估…………………………...…….…………77
五、 主管機關對計劃的規範………………...……………….…………80
六、小結………………..……………….…….…………………………83
第四節 教育優先區計劃的角色………………….………………………….84
一、 教育優先區計畫與教師的關係……………………………………84
二、 教育優先區計劃與學校教育的關係………………………………88


第五章 結論、建議與反思………………………………………..…………...92
 第一節 研究發現的歸納……………………………………………..……….93
一、 教育優先區計畫的實施反而強化了學校教育的社會控制……….94
二、 透過教師的裁量,教育優先區計畫的成效更多回饋在教師身上.95
三、是改善不平等?還是維持不平等?……………………………….97
 第二節 對教育優先區計劃的建議……………………………..…………….98
一、 作為文化再學習的教育優先區計劃……………………………….99
二、 以社區生活為主軸的教育優先區措施…………………………....100
第三節 政策社會學途徑的反思…………………………………………......101

參考文獻…………………………………………………………………..….….103
 
一、中文著作
王光旭(民91)制度、網絡與政策產出-台中工業區聯外道路案之個案研究。私立東海大學公共行政研究所碩士論文。未出版。
王國原(民91)國小教師對九年一貫課程改革依違態度形成之研究。南華大學教育社會學研究所碩士論文。
王慧蘭(民88)教育政策社會學初探。教育研究資訊,7(3),87-108。
丘昌泰(民84)公共政策-基礎篇。台北:巨流。
吳康寧(民87)。教育社會學。高雄:復文。
邱天助(民87)布爾迪厄文化再製理論。台北:桂冠。
李淑卿(民93)教育優先區計畫實施現況及成效之研究─以臺北縣國民中學為例。臺北市立師範學院國民教育研究所碩士論文。未出版。
范信賢(民86)。文化資本與學校教育。研習資訊,第14卷,第2期,70-78。
高宣揚(民91)布爾迪厄。台北:生智。
國立師範大學英語系(民92)國民中學學生基本學力測驗英語雙峰現象計改進措施。同作者,未出版。
教育部(民84)教育部民國八十四年度推動教育優先區計畫。
教育部(民93)教育部民國九十三年度推動教育優先區計畫。
教育部(民94)教育優先區計畫訪視結果報告。
張建成(民91)批判的教育社會學研究。台北:學富。
張建成(民93)。教育社會學的新視角。收錄於張建成編。文化、人格與教育。台北:心理。
黃政傑(民80)課程設計。臺北:東華。
許添明與廖鳴鳳(民87)我國教育優先區計畫問題與對策-以花蓮縣第一年實踐經驗為例。教育研究資訊。6(6),100-120。
曾冠球(民93)基層官僚人員裁量行為之初探-以臺北市區公所組織為例。行政暨政策學報。38,95-139。
魏宗明(民90)學校在文化再製中的角色-Bourdieu觀點。國民教育研究學報。7,85-106。
謝敏鈴(民90)台灣偏遠地區教育發展—從基層教師的觀點談起。國立臺灣大學社會學研究所碩士論文。未出版。
戴曉霞(民85)。文化與教育:有關教育學程的一些省思。收錄於中國教育學會主編。師資培育制度的新課題,53-76。台北,師苑。
蘇峰山(民91)符碼與習性:伯恩斯坦與布爾迪厄論文化與權力。教育社會學通訊。42,3-12。


二、中文譯本
Ball, Stephen J.;侯定凱譯(2002)教育改革-批判和後結構主義的視角。上海,華東師範大學出版社。
Ball, Stephen J.;侯定凱譯(2003)政治與教育政策制定-政策社會學探索。上海,華東師範大學出版社。
Bogdan, Robert and Sari Knopp Biklin;李奉儒等譯(民90)質性教育研究:理論與方法。
Bonnewitz, Patrice;孫智綺譯(民91)布赫迪厄社會學的第一課。台北,麥田。
Bourdieu, Pierre &Jean-Claude Passeron著;邢克超譯(2002)。再生產-一種教育系統理論的要點。北京,商務印書館。
Jenks, Chris;王淑燕等譯(民87)。文化。台北:巨流。
Majchrzak, Ann(民89)政策研究方法論。台北:弘智文化。
McLaren, Peter;蕭昭君、陳巨擘譯(民92)。校園生活-批判教育學導論。台北,巨流。
Mills, C. Wright;張君玫、劉鈐佑譯(民84)社會學的想像。台北:巨流。
Strauss, Anselm and Juliet Corbin;徐宗國譯(民86)質性研究概論。台北:巨流。

三、英文著作
Apple, Michael(1988)Work, Class and Teaching. In Jenny Ozga(ed.)Schoolwork: Approaches to the Labour Process of Teaching. Milton Keynes:Open University Press.
Ball, Stephen J. (1997). Policy Research and Critical Social Research:A Personal Review of Recent Education Policy and Policy Research. British Educational Research Journal, 23(3)
Bernstein, Basil(1990)The Structuring of Pedagogic Discourse, Vol4:Class, Codes and Control. London:Routledge.
Bourdieu, Pierre;Richard Nice trans.(1984)Distinction:A Social Critique of the Judgment of Taste. Cambridge, MA:Harvard University Press.
Bourdieu, Pierre(1986)The Forms of Capital. in John Richardson(ed.) Handbook of Theory and Research for the Sociology of Education. New York:Greenwood. 241-258.
Bourdieu, Pierre;Richard Nice trans.(1990)The Logic of Practice. Stanford, CA:Stanford University Press.
Bourdieu, Pierre and Loic Wacquant(1992)An invitation to reflexive sociology. Chicago:University of Chicago Press.
Bowe, Richard and Stephen J. Ball with Anne Gold(1992). Reforming Education and Changing Schools:Case Studies in Policy Sociology. London:Routledge.
Connell, R. W., White, V. and Johnson, , K.(1991)Running Hard as Twice:The Disadvantaged School Program in Australia. Geelong:Deakin University Press.
Dale, Roger(1992)Whither the State and Education Policy?Recent Work in Australia and New Zealand, British Journal of Sociology of Education, 13(3), 387-395.
deLeon, Peter(1997)Democracy and the Policy Science. Albany:State University of New York Press.
deLeon, Peter(1999)The Missing Link Revisited:Contemporary Implementation Research. Policy Studies Review. 16(3/4), 311-338.
Delpit, L.(2001)Education in a Multicultural Society:Our Future’s Greatest Challenge. in J. H. Strouse(ed.)Exploring Socio- Cultural Themes in Education. 203-211. Upper Saddle River, NJ:Merrill Prentice-Hall.
Edwards, T. and Sharon Gewirtz、and Geoffrey Whitty(1992)Whose Choice of Schools? Making sense of City Technology Colleges, in Arnot M. and Barton L. (eds.) Voicing Concerns: Sociological perspectives on contemporary educational reforms. Wallingford:Triangle Books.
Finch, Janet(1986)Research and Policy:The Uses of Qualitative Methods in Social and Educational Research. London:The Falmer Press.
Fitz, John and David Halpin and Sally Power(1994)Implementation Research and Education Policy:Practice and Prospects. British Journal of Educational Studies, 42(1), 53-69.
Grace, Gerald Rupert(1995)School Leadership:Beyond Education Management. London:Falmer Press.
Gewirtz, Sharon and Jenny Ozga(1990)Partnership, Pluralism and Education Policy:A Reassessment. Journal of Education Policy, 5(1), 35-46.
Glaser, and Anselm Strauss(1967)The Discovery of Grounded Theory. Chicago:Aldine.
Guba, Egon G. and Lincoln, Yvonna S.(1989)Fourth Generation Evaluation. Newbury Park:Sage.
Guba, Egon G. and Lincoln, Yvonna S.(1981)Effective Evaluation. San Francisco:Jossey-Bass.
Hill, Heather C.(2003)Understanding Implementation:Street-Level Bureaucrats’ Resources for Reform. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 13(3), 265-282.
Jones, K. and Alexiadous, N.(2001)Traveling Policy / Local Spaces, paper presented at the Congre’s Marx International 111, Paris, September.
Kelly, Marisa(1994)Theories of Justice and Street-Level Discretion. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 4(2), 119-140.

Kennedy, M.(1997)The Connection Between Research and Practice. Educational Researcher, 26(7), 4-12.
Lacey, Colin(1977)The Socialization of Teachers. London:Methuen.
Lamont, M. & Lareau, A.(1988) Cultural Capital:Allusions, Gaps and Glissandos in Recent Theoretical Developments. Sociological Theory, Vol6, 153- 168.
Lareau, A.(1987)。Social Class Differences in Family-School Relationships
:The Importance of Cultural Capital. Sociology of Education, Vol60 (April),
73-85.
LeCompte and Preissle(1993)Toward an Ethnology of Student Life in Schools and Classrooms:Synthesizing the Qualitative Research Tradition. in LeCompte, Millroy and Preissle(ed), The Handbook of Qualitative Research in Education. Orlando, Florida:Academic Press.
Lingard, Bob and Shaun Rawolle(2004)Mediatizing Educational Policy:The Journalistic Field, Science Policy, and Cross-Field Effects. Journal of Education Policy, 19(3), 361-380.
Lipsky, Michael(1980)Street-Level Bureaucracy:Dilemmas of the Individual in Public Services. New York:Russell Sage Foundation.
Liston, Daniel, P& Zeichner, Kenneth, M(1996). Culture and Teaching. New Jersey:Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Lortie, Dan(1975)School Teacher. Chicago:University of Chicago Press.
Maguire, M(1999)‘A Touch of Class’: Inclusion and Exclusion in Initial Teacher Education. International Journal of Inclusive Education. Vol3, 1,13-26.
Majone, Giandomenico(1989)Evidence, Argument, and Persuasion in the Policy Process, New Haven: Yale University Press.
Matland R. E. (1995) Synthesizing the Implementation Literature:The Ambiguity-Conflict Model of Policy Implementation. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 5(2), 145-174.
Maynard-Moody, Steven and Michael Musheno(2003)Corps, Teachers, Counselors:Stories From the Front Lines of Public Service. Ann Arbor:University of Michigan Press.
Merriam, Sharan(2001)Qualitative Research and Case Study Applications in Education. San Francisco:Jossey-Bass.
Moore, R(1996)Back to the Future:the Problems of Change and Possibility of Advance in the Sociology of Education, British Journal of Sociology of Education, 17, 145-162.
Ozga, Jenny(1990)Policy Research and Policy Theory:a Comment on Fitz and Halpin. Journal of Education Policy, 5(4)359-362.

Ozga, Jenny(2005)Modernizing the Education Workforce:a Perspective from Scotland. Education Review, 57(2).
Pressman, Jeffrey and Aaron Wildavsky(1973)Implementation: How Great Expectations in Washington are Dashed in Oakland, Berkeley:University of California Press.
Raab, Charles(1994)Theorizing the Governance of Education. British Journal of Educational Studies, 42, 6-21.
Reay, Diana(1995)’They Employ Cleaners to Do that’:habitus in the primary classroom. British Journal of Sociology of Education. Vol16, 3, 353-372.
Riccucci, Norma M.(2005)Street-Level Bureaucrats and Intrastate Variation in the Implementation of Temporary Assistance for Needy Families Policies. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 15(1), 89-111.
Sabatier, Paul(1986:35)Top-Down and Bottom-up Approaches to Implementation
Research:A Critical Analysis and Suggested Synthesis. Journal of Public Policy, 6(1), 21-48.
Sarason, Seymour B.(1971)The Predictable Failure of Educational Reform:Can We Change Course Before It's Too Late?San Francisco:Jossey-Bass.
Schneider, Anne and Helen Ingram(1997)Policy Design for Democracy. Kansas: University Press of Kansas.
Scott, Robert and Arnold Shore(1979)Why Sociology Does Not Apply:A Study of the Use of Sociology in Public Policy. Now York, Elsevier North Holland.
Swartz, David(1977)Pierre Bourdieu:The Cultural Transmission of Social Inequality. Harvard Educational Reform, 47(4), 545-555.
Swartz, David(2002)The Sociology of Habit: The Perspective of Pierre Bourdieu. The Occupational Therapy Journal of Research. 22(1), 61-69.
Taylor, Sandra and Fazal Rizvi, Bob Lingard, Miriam Henry(1997) Educational policy and the politics of change. London:Routledge.
Tomlinson, S.(1990)Asian Children With Special Needs-A Broad Perspective, in C. Orton(eds.)Asian Children and Special Needs. London:Advisory Centre for Education.
Troyna, Barry(1993)Providing Support or Denying Access?The Experiences of Students Designated as ESL and SN in a Multi-ethnic Secondary School, Educational Review, 45, 3-11.
Troyna, Barry(1994)Critical Social Research and Education Policy. British Journal of Educational Studies, 42, 70-84.
Walker, James(1993). Cultural Perspectives on Work and Schoolwork in an Australian Inner-City Boys’ High School. In Lawrence Angus(ed.). Education, Inequality and Social Identity. 128-159. London:The Falmer Press.
Wedege, Tine(1999)To Know or Not to Know:Mathematics, That’s a Question of Context. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 39, 205-227.
Willis, Paul(1977)Learning to Labor:How Working Class Kids Get Working Class Jobs. New York:Columbia University Press.
Wise, Arther(1984)Why Educational Policies Often Fail:The Hyperrationalisation Hypothesis. in J. J. Prunty(ed.)A Critical Reformulation of Educational Policy Analysis, Geelong:Deakin University Press, 72-86.
QRCODE
 
 
 
 
 
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                               
第一頁 上一頁 下一頁 最後一頁 top
1. 王秀珍,〈重探西藏宗教藝術之色彩原形〉,《密教藝術論文集》,金色蓮花出版社,1996,第118-127頁。
2. 魏宗明(民90)學校在文化再製中的角色-Bourdieu觀點。國民教育研究學報。7,85-106。
3. 王慧蘭(民88)教育政策社會學初探。教育研究資訊,7(3),87-108。
4. 曾冠球(民93)基層官僚人員裁量行為之初探-以臺北市區公所組織為例。行政暨政策學報。38,95-139。
5. 蘇峰山(民91)符碼與習性:伯恩斯坦與布爾迪厄論文化與權力。教育社會學通訊。42,3-12。
6. 立川武藏,郭瓊瑤譯,〈曼荼羅的宇宙觀下〉,《香光莊嚴》,53期(1998),第156-16頁。
7. 李源盛,〈藏傳佛教繪畫藝術美學原理之研究〉,《蘭女學報》,7期(2000),第173~ 228頁。
8. 林保堯,〈東大寺藏十五世紀華嚴海會善知識曼荼羅圖〉,《藝術家》,257期,1996,第222頁。
9. 吳永猛,〈密宗曼荼羅與台灣民間小法道壇的比較〉,《空大人文學報》,8期,1999,第211-238頁。
10. 高千惠,〈形簡意繁—人對方圓空間的想像〉,《藝術家》,310期,第398-400頁。
11. 游伯松,「榮格藝術觀導論 (上)」,美育,92期,第33-40頁。
12. 張文玲,〈佛經故事在藝術表達上的時與空〉,《故宮文物月刊》,73期,1989,第3-4頁。
13. 楊清田,〈造形的意義、內涵極其形成之研究〉,藝術學報,55期,第115-136
 
系統版面圖檔 系統版面圖檔