臺灣博碩士論文加值系統

藝術教育可以運用藝術作為媒介提升美感素養，並能將日常生活與文化相連結。在多元文化教育思潮之下藝術教育也扮演重要的角色，而社區本位藝術教育乃是以社區為對象的藝術教育，不但能夠善用社區資源作為藝術素材，更因此而深入考量社區文化，並思考較佳的社區生活模式。社區本位藝術教育應如何進行，方能符合多元文化的趨勢，是值得探討的議題。本研究目的在於了解台灣地區實施社區本位藝術教育的推動動機、過程及成果，以建構出合於台灣本土特質的社區本位藝術教育模式，並檢視是否合乎多元文化平等及民主之精神。
本研究先以哲學研究法，經由相關文獻的推論、歸納得出初步的社區本位藝術教育架構及論點。其次，再運用紮根理論研究法，依據三種不同的推動組織型態，分別以一個代表性之個案為研究對象，經過深度訪談及次級資料蒐集，再以紮根理論的三階段之編碼程序，得到個案所屬之台灣地區社區本位藝術教育的模式。
經過編碼分析與跨個案分析，本研究得到以下結論:
一、 社區本位藝術教育的本質是透過社區藝術符號為媒介所進行的互動學習。
二、 社區本位藝術教育的推動，需要由整個社區的議題開始著手，議題中再納入探討藝術相關議題與活動的課程。
三、 台灣地區社區本位藝術教育模式，主要是由社區本位藝術教育的推動動機、推動組織與方案設計、資源整合、課程規劃、學習歷程、學習成果、社區成效及其相互的關係所組成。
四、 台灣地區社區本位藝術教育目標表現在藝術與社區兩個層次，最終以達成社區的文化認同、社區美化、生活品質提升為主，頗能符合多元文化的精神。
五、 由不同的組織推動的社區本位藝術教育，其推動動機、資源的運用、以及成果的展現均有所不同。
依據上述結論，本研究亦從社區本位藝術教育的推動要領、社區資源的整合方式、課程的規劃與實施、學校與社區單位合作方式等方面提供具體可行的建議。

Art education plays an important role on multicultural education because it uses arts as media to facilitate aesthetics and make connection between daily life and culture. Community-based art education is a specific type of art education which emphasizes on both viewing community as education audience and using community art resources as education materials. The objective of community-based art education is not only for community (as aesthetics) but also for culture awareness and life quality improvement. How to effectively perform community-based art education becomes an important issue. This study establishes a theoretical community-based art education model to reveal the nature and contents of community-based art education in Taiwan and verify if the community-based art education in Taiwan satisfies the multicultural criteria of equity and democracy.
This study firstly uses philosophy research method to come out a temporary community-based art education model by comprehensive literature review. Secondly, the study conducts a multiple cases study for each type of community-based art education, namely school-based, community-based, and cooperated. Data are collected and analyzed by grounded theory approach. Based on the results, the temporary model is improved and modified to a specific community-based art education model for Taiwan.
Based on the constructed model, we conclude that:
(1) The nature of community-based art education is an interactive learning mediated by community art.
(2) The implementation of community-based art education should cover the critical community issues, and accordingly design art related courses.
(3) The model of community-based art education in Taiwan includes the factors of model include motivation, resource integration, curriculum planning, learning processes, learning results, community performance and the inter-relationships of these factors.
(4) The objective of community-based art education in Taiwan includes both levels of art and community. At art level, the objectives are art skill, meaning interpretation, critical reflection and creation. At the community level, the objectives include cultural identity, community aesthetics, and improved life quality. Thus, we can conclude that community-based art education in Taiwan is complied with the trend of multicultural education.
(5) The motivation, resources used, courses contents, teaching methods and performances are different for each type of community-based art education.
Based on the conclusion above, some helpful suggestions concerning the planning, execution and implementation of community-based art education are also provided.

摘 要 ……………………………………………………………………i
目 次 …………………………………………………………………... v
表目次……………………………………………………………………vii
圖目次 …………………………………………………………………viii
附 錄…………………………………………………………………… ix
第一章 緒論……………………………………………………….…….1
第一節 研究背景…………………………………………….…………1
第二節 研究動機、目的與問題………………..……………….………..3
第三節 研究限制………………………………………….……………5
第四節 研究流程…………………………………………….…………7

第二章 文獻探討 ………………………………….…………………8
第一節 後現代及多元文化主義 …………………….……….…………9
第二節 多元文化教育 ……………………………..….…..………… 13
第三節 多元文化藝術教育 ………………………………………… 16
第四節 社區 …………………………………………………………23
第五節 社區本位藝術教育…………………………………………… 31

第三章 研究方法 ……………………………………………………55
第一節 研究方法之選擇………………………………….……………55
第二節 紮根理論的進行步驟 …………………………………………60
第三節 信賴度的考量…………………………………………………73


第四章 資料分析………………………………………………………79
第一節 個案選擇 …………………………………………………… 79
第二節 開放編碼………………………………………………………94
第三節 主軸編碼………………………………………………………95
第四節 選擇性編碼……………………………………………………114
第五節 跨個案分析……………………………………………………127
第六節 研究發現 ……………………………………………………130

第五章 結論與建議 …………………………………………………133
第一節 研究結論 ……………………………………………………133
第二節 建議…………………………………………………………137

參考文獻………………………………………………………………143




















表目次
表2-1 社區本位藝術教育的五大內容要點 ……………………………36
表3-1哲學研究結果彙整表 …………………………………………57
表4-1 選擇性編碼與說明 ……………………………………………116















圖目次
圖 1-1研究流程 ……………………………………………………… 7
圖 2-1文獻回顧內容關係圖 ……………………………………………8
圖 3-1初步之研究架構圖 … ………………………………………… 56
圖 4-1 各主軸編碼之關聯：社區本位藝術教育的推動動機 …………… 97
圖 4-2 各主軸編碼之關聯：社區本位藝術教育的推動與規劃 ………… 98
圖 4-3 各主軸編碼之關聯：社區文化資產的納入………………………100
圖 4-4 各主軸編碼之關聯：學習動機的引發 ………………………… 101
圖 4-5 各主軸編碼之關聯：學習引導………………………………… 102
圖 4-6 各主軸編碼之關聯：課程實施………………………………… 104
圖 4-7 各主軸編碼之關聯：學習動機…………………………………105
圖 4-8 各主軸編碼之關聯：學習態度…………………………………107
圖 4-9 各主軸編碼之關聯：學習者參與程度 ………………………… 109
圖 4-10各主軸編碼之關聯：學習成果…………………………………111
圖 4-11各主軸編碼之關聯：社區本位藝術教育成效 …………………112
圖 4-12社區本位藝術教育模式：主軸編碼關係圖 ……………………113
圖 4-13社區本位藝術教育模式：選擇性編碼關係圖 ………………… 117








附錄
附錄一 受訪者基本資料 …………………………………………152
附錄二 資料編碼方式 ……………………………………………153
附錄三 開放編碼—概念命名……………………………………… 154
附錄四 開放編碼—範疇……………………………………………157
附錄五 主編碼與說明 ……………………………………………159
附錄六 全部個案社區訪談關聯性分析說明…………………………162

一、中文部份

Zimmerman,E.(2001).Blending Multicultural, community-Based,and Global Approach to Teaching intercultural Art Education. 2001 國際藝術教育學會 亞洲地區學術研討會，第三屆海峽兩岸美術教育交流研討會論文集。彰化：國立彰化師範大學美術系，藝術教育研究所。
大元國小（2006）。大元國小全球資訊網。2006年3月20日，取自http://163.17.162.1/modules/news/
台中縣鄉土教材（2006）。2006年6月09日，取自http://www.smes.tcc.edu.tw/Country/main.htm
台灣社區通（2006）。2006年6月09日，取自http://www.hometown.org.tw/01_community/list.
李侑芳（2004）：社區文化商品的符號運用—以湖本村文化創意產業為例。國立雲林科技大學工業設計系碩士班民國九十三年六月碩士論文。
李長俊(1997，11月) 。藝術與文化認同的省思。論文發表於台北市立美術館主辦， 1997藝術教育國際學術研討會藝術與文化認同國際學術研討會論文集。台北。
李苹綺譯（1998）。J. A.Banks著（1994）。多元文化教育概述（Multicultural Education.）。台北：藝術館。
林宗德譯（2004）。Philip Smith著。文化理論的面貌（Cultural theory：an introduction）（頁236-237）。臺北縣：韋伯文化。
林振春（1996）。社區意識與教育改革。教育研究，51（10），14-22。
林書筠（2003）。過溪築夢進行曲一個想要成為桃花源的都市型社區。九十二年度行政院文建會新故鄉社區營造「打造過溪桃花源」—興龍橋週邊生活營造成果報告書。
林書筠（2004）。社區美學研究—嘉義市興村里社區總體營造的美學歷成與詮釋。南華大學美學與藝術管理研究所九十三年六月碩士論文。
邱美嬌（2000）。國小鄉土美勞課程與教學研究—以高雄市光武國小美勞科教學為例。屏東師範學院國民教育研究所八十九年碩士論文。
洪麗珠等譯（2000）。惠特曼原著（1996）。藝術教育的本質。台北：五觀藝術管理有限公司。
徐宗國譯（1997）。Strauss, A.and Corbin, J.著。質性研究概論。臺北：巨流圖書。
徐震（1980）。社區與社區發展。台北：正中書局。
國家文藝基金會（2006）。台中20號倉庫。2006年2月23日，取自http://www.ncafroc.org.tw/news/index_news.asp
郭禎祥（1994）。Multiculturalism and Art Education. Subic Bay, Philippine: The Second In SEAPAC Regional Congress.
郭禎祥（1995）。Multiculturalism and Art Education. In 35th NAEA Convention.
郭禎祥（1997）。藝術在通識教育中的角色。載於中華民國藝術教育研究發展學會會訊，1（1）， 4-8。
郭禎祥（2001）。新世紀藝術教育的變動。載於新世紀藝術教育理論與實務國際學術研討會論文。台北市 : 國立台灣師範大學美術系。
郭禎祥譯（1989）。Eisner, E, W. （1972）。藝術視覺的教育（Educating Artistic Vision）。台北：文景。
陳向明（2002）。社會科學質的研究。台北：五南出版社。
陳其南（1997）。社區總整營造的意義。社區總體營造與生程學習。宜蘭：仰山基金會。
陳枝烈（1999）。多元文化教育。高雄市：復文圖書出版社。
陳美如（2002）。差異多元的開展─多元文化課程的認識論基礎。教育研究，45，68。
陳榮瑞（2002）。社區本位藝術教育統整課程設計研究─以台北市北投地區公共藝術為例。國立彰化師範大學藝術教育研究所民國九十一年八月碩士論文。P23-25
陳箐繡（2004）。社區本位藝術教育之理論探討。國立嘉義大學人文藝術學院美術系系刊，創刊號，10-13。
黃政傑主譯（1997）。James Lynch原著。多元文化課程。台北市：師大書苑。
詹棟樑（1993）。多元文化教育理論與實際探討。中國教育會主編。多元文化教育。台北市：台灣書店。
劉可強（1994）（頁14）。環境品質與社區參與。
劉豐榮（2002）。藝術教育之社會觀點探析與省思。藝術與人文教育（上），台北：桂冠圖書。
潘淑滿（2003）。質性研究：理論與應用。台北：心理出版社。
鄭明憲 (2002)。藝術領域課程統合的意涵：一個整合模式的建議。發表於國立台中師院美勞教育學系主辦，九年一貫國小藝術與人文領域統整課程教學活動設計研習會手冊，31。
鄭熙彥（1985）。學校教育與社區發展。高雄：復文圖書出版社。
鄧天德 (2000) ：九年一貫課程與鄉土教育。課程與教學季刊，3(3)，17- 30。
藍麗娟（2006）。車龍埔斷層保存館—傷口上長出來的驕傲。天下雜誌，338，160-162。
羅秀芝譯（2003）。Sue Clark著。人為的文化環境。載於Ruth Rentschler（主編），文化新形象（Shaping Cultural）（頁185）。臺北市：五觀。
羅明珍（2000）。結合社區文化資源之藝術教育課程設計研究─以宜蘭縣為例─。國立彰化師範大學藝術教育研究所民國八十九年六月碩士論文。






二、西文部份

Adejumo, C. O. (2002). Considering multicultural art education. Art Education, 55(2), 33-39.
Argiro, C. (2004). Teaching With Public Art. Art Education, 57(4), 25-32.
Attenborough, D. (2002), There’s More to It Than Just Looking: The Art Museum As An Integrated Learning Environment, in Gaudelius, Y. & Speirs, P. ed. (2002), Contemporary Issues in Art Education. Upper Saddle River, N.J. : Prentice Hall.
Baker, C., Wuest, J., Stern, P.N., (1992), “Method Slurring the Grounded Theory—Phenomenology Example,” Journal of Advancing Nursing, 17:11, pp. 1355-1360.
Ballengee-Morris, C. & Stuhr, P. L. (2001). Multicultural art and visual cultural education in a changing world. Art Education, 54(4), 6-13.
Bank, James A.（2001）. Multicultural Education : Characteristics and Goals. In Banks, James A. ＆ Banks, Cherry A.（Eds.）,Multicultural Education: Issues ＆Perspectives. （pp3）. New York: John Wiley＆Sons, Inc.
Barnard (1998). How May It Be Studied? . Art, Desing and Visual Culuture.（pp41）. New York : St. Martin's Press.
Barrett,T.（2002）. Interpreting Art：Building Communal and Individual Understandings. In Gaudelius, Y. & Speirs, P. （Eds.）, Contemporary Issues in Art Education.（pp.294）. New Jersey: Prentice-Hall.
Bastos, F. M. C.（2002）. Making the Familiar Strange： A Community-Based Art Education Framework. In Gaudelius, Y. &Speirs, P.（Eds.）,Contemporary Issues in Art Education.（pp70-83）New Jersey: Prentice-Hall.
Berns, R. M.（1997）. Child, family, school, community: Socialization and support（4th）. Fort Worth, TX: Harcourt Brace College Publishers.
Blandy, D.（2001）. Community As Place Introduction. Histories of Community-Based Art Education.（pp6）. Reston, VA:National Art Education Association.
Blandy, D. & Congdon, K. G（1987）. Art in a democracy.New York:Teachers College Press.
Blandy, D.（1992）. A community art setting inventory for elementary art and classroom teachers: Towards the community integration of students experiencing disabilities. In Hohnson, A. (ED.). Art Education: Elementary. Reston, VA: National Art Education Association.
Bolin, P. E.（2001）. Community As Learning Group Introduction. Histories of Community-Based Art Education.（pp69）. Reston, VA:National Art Education Association.
Carrier, D. (1998). Postmodern art education: An approach to the curriculum/Art education: Issues in postmodern pedagogy. Journal of Aesthetic Education, 32(1), 99-101.
Chalmers, F. G. (1974). A cultural foundation for art education in the arts. Art Education, 17(1), 9-13.
Chanda, J. & Basinger, A. M. (2000). Understanding the cultural meaning of selected African Ndop statues: The use of art history constructivist inquiry methods. Studies in Art Education, 42(1), 67-82.
Chanda, J. & Daniel, V. (2000). Recognizing works. Art Education, 53(2), 6-11.
Chenitz, W. C. & Swanson, J. M. (1986), From Practice to Grounded Theory: Qualitative Research in Nursing, Menlo Park, California: Addison-Wesley.
Cho, M. M. (1998). Mask-making and the art in multicultural art education. Art Education, 51(1), 69-74.
Clark, G. & Zimmerman, E. (2000). Greater understanding of the local community. Art Education, 53(2), 32-39.
Congdon K. G.. （2001）. Community As Ethnic and Family Identification Introduction. Histories of Community-Based Art Education. （pp127）. Reston, VA:National Art Education Association.
Congdon K. G.., Blandy, D. & Bolin, P. E.（2001）. Introduction. Histories of Community-Based Art Education.（pp3-4）. Reston, VA:National Art Education Association.
Cook, T. D., & Campbell, D.T., (1978), Quasi-Experimentation: Design and Analysis Issues for Field Settings, Boston: Houghton Mifflin.
Davenport, M. (2000).Culture and education: Polishing the lenses. Studies in Art Edicaton,41(4), 369.
Denzin, N. K., (1970), The Research Act, Chicago: Aldine Publishing.
Duncum, P.（2001）.Visual culture: Developments,definitions, and directions for art education. Studies in Art Education,42(2),101-112.
Ecker, D. W. (1990). Cultural identity, artistic empowerment, and the future of art in the schools. Design for Arts in Education, 91(3), 14-20.
Efland, A. D., Freedman,K., & Stuhr, P. (1996). Postmodern art education: An approach to curriculum.Reston,VA:The National Art Education Association.
Fehr, D. E. (1997). Clutching the lectern, or shouting from the back of hall: A comparison of modern and postmodern arts education. Arts Education Policy Review, 98(4), 27-31.
Floyd, M.(2002). More than just an field trip …Making relevant curricular connections through museum experiences. Art Education,55(5),39-45.
Freedman, K.（2003）, Teaching Visual Culture , New York: Teachers College Press.
Gaudelius, Y. & Speirs, P.（2002）. Introduction. In Gaudelius, Y. & Speirs, P.（Eds.）, Contemporary Issues in Art Education . (pp6-15). Upper Saddle River, N.J. : Prentice Hall.
Glaser, B. & Struss, A., (1967), The Discovery of Grounded Theory, Chicago: Aldine Press.
Glasser, , B., (1978), Theoretical Sensitivity, Mill Valley, CA: Sociology Press.
Glasser, B., (1992), Emergence vs. Forcing: Basics of Grounded Theory Analysis, Mill Valley, CA: Sociology Press.
Gollnick, D. M.＆ Chinn, P. C. （1998）. Multicultural education in a pluralistic society. New Jersey: Prentice-Hall, Inc.
Hammersley, M., (1989), The Dilemma of Qualitative Method: Herbert Blumer and the Chicago Tradition, Routledge, London, New York.
Jeffers（2002）. Tools for Exploring Social Issues and Visual Culture. In Gaudelius, Y. & Speirs, P. （Eds.）, Contemporary Issues in Art Education（pp.158-161）. Upper Saddle River, N.J. : Prentice Hall.
Jeffers, C. (1999). When children take the lead in exploring art museums with their adult partners. Art Education,52(6),45-51.
Kindler, A. M. & Irwin, R. L.（1999）.Introduction Art Education Beyond School Boundaries: Identifying Resources, Exploring Possibilities. In Kindler, A.M. & Irwin, R.L.(Eds.), Beyond The School : Community and Institutinal Partnerships in Art Education. Reston, Va.:National Art Education Association.
Kirk, J. & Miller, M., (1986), Reliability, Validity and Qualitative Research, Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
Ladon-Billings, G. (1995). But that’s just good teaching! The case for culturally relevant pedagogy. Theory into Practice. 32(3),159-165.
Lai, A. ＆ Ball, E. C. (2002). Home is where the art: Exploring the places people live through art education. Studies in Art Education, 44(1), 47-66.
Lai, A. (2002). From classrooms to chatrooms: Virtualizing art education. Art Education, 55(4), 33-39.
London, P. & Baker, D. W (1994). Step Out side: Community-Based Art Education. Portsmouth, N.H. : Heinemann.
Love, A. R. & Goldberg, E. (2003). From here to there: A sequence for introducing southern art to young children (Sense of Place in Art). Art Education, 56(4),25-32.
M.Hoffman, E. (1988). Toward an art education of place.Studies in Art Education, 35(1),22-33
Marche, T. (2000). Toward A Community Model of Art Education History. Studies in Art Educational,42(1), 51-53.
Marche, T.（1998）.Looking outward, looking in: Community in art education.Art education,51(3), 6-13.
Marshall, J.（2002）.Exploring Culture and Identity Through Artifacts：Three art Lessons Derived From Contemporary Art Practice. In Gaudelius, Y. & Speirs, P.（Eds.）, Contemporary Issues in Art Education（pp.286）. Upper Saddle River, N.J. : Prentice Hall.
Maxwell, J.A., (1996), Qualitative Research Design: An Interactive Approach, Sage.
McClenaghan, P. (2000). Social Capital: exploring the theoretical foundations of community development education. British Educational Research Journal, 26(5), 567.
McFee, J. K. (1961). Preparation for art. San Francisco, CA : Wadsworth.
McFee, J. & Degge, R. (1977). Art, culture, and environment: A catalyst for teaching Dubuque,Iowa: Kendall/Hunt.
Minichiello, V., Aroni, R., Timewell, E., Alexander, L., (1995), In-Depth Interviewing: Principles, Techniques, Analysis, 2nd Edition, Addison Wesley Longman, Sydney.
Olson, J. L. (2003). Children at the center of art education. Art Education, 56(4), 33-42.
Oxford Advanced Leanerr’s Dictionary of Current English.（1974）.London：Oxford University.
Pace, S., (2004), “A Grounded Theory of the Flow Experience of Web Users,” International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 60, pp. 327-363.
Parry, K. W., (1998), “Grounded Theory and Social Process: A New Direction for Leadership Research,” Leadership Quarterly, 9:1, pp. 85-105.
Pettegrew, A. M., (1990), “Longitudinal Field Research on Change: Theory and Practice,” Organization Science, 1:3, pp. 267-292.
Semple, A.（2000）. Learning theories and their influence on the development and use of educational technologies. Australian Science Teachers Jouranal,46(3), 21-28.
Sergiovanni, T. J.（1994）. Building community in schools. San Francisco,CA：Jossey-Bass Publishers.
Silverman, D., (1993), Interpreting Qualitative data: Methods for Analyzing Talk, Text, and Interaction, London: Sage.
Smith, P J.（2003）.Visual culture studies versus art education. Art Education Policy Review, 104(4), 3-8.
Stankiewicz, M. Z. 1997. Historical Researches in Art Education.In La Pierre and Zimmerman （Eds.）,Research Methods and Methodologies for Art Education . Reston, Va.:National Art Education Association.
Stinespring, J. A. (2001). Preventing art education from becoming “a handmaiden to the social studies”. Arts Education Policy Review, 102(4), 11-19.
Stout, C. J. （1997）. Multicultural reasoning and the appreciation of art. Studies in Art Education, 38(2),96-111.
Struss, A. & Corbin, J., (1990), Basics of Qualitative Research: Grounded Theory Procedures and techniques, Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications.
Sturhr, P. (1995). Social reconstuctionist multicural art curriculum design: Using the Powwow as an example. In R. Neperud (Ed.), Context, content, and community in art education (pp.193-221). New York : Teachers College Press.
Sullivan（2002）. Ideas and Teaching：Making meaning from Contemporary Art. In Gaudelius, Y. & Speirs, P.（Eds.）, Contemporary Issues in Art Education（pp.23-37）. Upper Saddle River, N.J. : Prentice Hall.
Taylor, P. G. (2002). Service-learning as postmodern art and pedagogy. Studies in Art Education, 43(2), 124-140.
Taylor, S. J. ＆ Bogdan, R., (1998), Introduction to Qualitative Research Methods: A Guidebook and Resource, 3rd Edition, Wiley, New York.
Tenny, E. (1991). Bridging a timeless story to life through art. Unpublished manuscript.
Thurber, F. E.(1997). A site to behold: Creating curricula about local urban environmental art. Art Education,50(6),33-39.
Tompkins, L. J. (2005). A Case for Community-Based Education. The Science Teacher, 72(4), 34.
Ulbricht, J.（2005）.What is Community-Based Art Education? .Art Education, 58(2), 6-12.
Warren, M. R. (2005).Community and schools: A New View of Urban Education Reform. Harvard Educational Review,75(2),135-136.
Xanthoudaki, M. (1998). Educational provision for young people as independent visitors to art museums and galleries: Issues of learning and training. Museum Management and Curatorship, 17(2), 159-172
Yin, R. K. (1994), Case Study Research: Design and Methods, Sage
Yokley, S. H. （2002）. If an Artwork Could Speak, What Would It Say? Focusing on Issues for Elementary Art Education. In Gaudelius, Y. & Speirs, P.（Eds.）, Contemporary Issues in Art Education（pp.200-201）. Upper Saddle River, N.J. : Prentice Hall.