臺灣博碩士論文加值系統

摘要
科學教育的學習面臨多元化，不在僅限於學校教室內，學生所接觸的東西也
不僅是課本上的學習，應增強對周遭生活環境人事物的深入探究。本研究以學校
為主體和以社區為輔助發展模式，對社區化教育的理念過去分析不同的見解，對
社區教育的認識有更進一步理解。首先發展社區教育方針，先從邏輯上的改變，
提升對社區教育化關鍵性認識才能發揮作用，如何有效強化社區教育模式與制度
規範；建立社區教育組織，完善社區教育資源；整合學校教育範疇，建構社區教
育資源配置；建立評估體系，促進社區教育發展；並積極探索且加強社區教育理
論研究以落實學校科學教育的策略。
本研究係以德爾菲法為本研究歷程所主要使用的研究工具，兼具量化研究與
質性研究的科技整合研究方法。發放專家問卷總共12 份，其中政府機關學者專
家4 位;學校教育單位學者專家4 位;社區發展學者專家4 位。三項評估構面分別
為：「社區意識」、「社區參與」、「社區教育化」，權重值由大到小順序為：(1) 社
區教育化(2) 社區參與(3) 社區意識。呈現高度共識的準則中，社區意識方面有
「科學教育獲益」、「科學教育知識延伸」、「科學教育互補」、「科學教育概念」、
「科學教育融合」。其次，社區參與方面有「社區參與品質」、「社區歸屬」、「社
區居民積極度」、「社區服務功能」。最後，社區教育化有「社區教育活動理念」、
「社區教育活動形式」、「社區社會福利參與度」。綜合九項評估準則權重值由大
到小順序為：(1) 社區教育文化(2) 社區社會福利(3) 社區需求(4) 社區服務
(5) 社區關懷(6) 社區組織(7) 社區教育活動(8) 社區認同(9) 社區結構。
透過研究從社區教育理論談學校科學教育社區化策略過程，本研究建議教育
社區化要與社區教育、社區治理、社區文化建設緊密結合，不斷創新教育社區化
的模式。且教育社區化的建設面對的是類型眾多的社區居民，不同社區具備的條
IV
件也有較大差異，尤其要注意開發適應不同地區和人群的教育社區化新模式。其
次，教育社區化資訊化建設需要廣大公眾的參與，社區居民不僅作為參與者，更
應該成為管理者，有提出科學教育需求、發起科學教育活動和組織實施等權利。
最後，將國際上有關教育社區化方面值得借鑒的典型經驗梳理出一個系統，供吸
收借鑒。諸如教育社區化與社區教育、學校教育、社會治理融合發展的理念。

Abstract
The learning of science education is faced with diversification, not only in the
classroom, but also in the textbook. We should strengthen the in-depth exploration of
people and things in the surrounding living environment. Based on the school-based
and community-based development model, this study analyzes different views on the
concept of community-based education in the past, so as to further understand the
understanding of community education. First of all, the development of community
education policy, first from the logical change, to enhance the understanding of the key
of community education can play a role, how to effectively strengthen the community
education model and system norms; establish a community education organization,
improve community education resources; integrate the scope of school education,
construct the allocation of community education resources; establish evaluation system,
promote the development of community education; and actively explore We should
strengthen the theoretical research of community education to implement the strategy
of school science education.
This research takes Delphi method as the main research tool in this research
process, and it is a science and technology integration research method of quantitative
research and qualitative research. A total of 12 expert questionnaires was distributed,
including 4 government scholars and experts; 4 scholars and experts from school
education units; 4 community development scholars and experts. The three evaluation
dimensions are "community awareness", "community participation" and "community
education". The order of weight values from large to small is: (1) education community
(2) community participation (3) community awareness. Among the criteria with high
VI
consensus, community awareness includes "benefit of science education", "extension
of science education knowledge", "complementarity of science education", "concept of
science education" and "integration of science education". Secondly, community
participation includes "community participation quality", "community ownership",
"community residents' enthusiasm" and "community service function". Finally,
community education includes "concept of community education activities", "form of
community education activities" and "participation in community social welfare". The
weight values of the nine comprehensive evaluation criteria in descending order are: (1)
community education culture (2) community social welfare (3) community needs (4)
community service (5) community care (6) community organization (7) community
education activities (8) community identity (9) community structure.
Through the research on the process of school science education community
strategy from the community education theory, this study suggests that education
community should be closely combined with community education, community
governance and community culture construction, and constantly innovate the model of
education community. Moreover, the construction of educational community is facing
many types of community residents, and the conditions of different communities are
also quite different. In particular, we should pay attention to the development of a new
educational community model suitable for different regions and people. Secondly, the
construction of educational community and information needs the participation of the
general public. Community residents should not only be participants, but also become
managers. They have the right to put forward the needs of science education, initiate
science education activities and organize implementation. Finally, it sorts out a system
for reference from the typical experience of international education communalization.
Such as the concept of integrated development of educational communitization and
community education, school education and social governance.

目 錄
中文摘要·························································································Ⅰ
Abstract···························································································II
目錄·······························································································V
圖目錄·························································································· VII
表目錄·························································································· VIII
第一章 緒論·················································································1
第一節 研究背景與動機····························································1
第二節 研究目的與問題····························································5
第三節 名詞釋義………····························································7
第四節 研究範圍與限制····························································9
第二章 文獻探討········································································· 10
第一節 社區教育理論的相關研究·············································· 10
第二節 科學教育··············································· ····················18
第三節 教育社區化································································ 24
第四節 小節········································································· 31
第三章 研究方法與設計································································32
第一節 研究架構····································································32
第二節 研究假說···································································34
第三節 研究對象···································································35
第四節 研究工具·································································· 39
第五節 研究之流程與步驟·······················································63
第六節 資料分析方法·····························································65
第四章 研究結果與分析································································66
第一節 德爾非法第一次問卷結果分析········································68
第二節 德爾非法第二次問卷結果分析········································77
第三節 確立研究評估構面與準則··············································90
VIII
第四節 AHP層級分析法分析····················································91
第五章 研究結論與建議································································98
第一節 研究結論··································································· 98
第二節 研究建議··································································102
參考文獻·······················································································104
中文部分·················································································104
外文部分·················································································106
附錄·····························································································111
附錄一專家問卷第一次問卷·························································111
附錄二專家問卷第二次問卷·························································116
附錄三專家問卷第三次問卷·························································121
IX
圖目次
圖3-1-1 本研究架構圖·····································································33
圖3-4-1 AHP 層級結構示意圖·····························································48
圖3-4-2 層級分析法流程圖·······························································56
圖3-5-1 研究流程圖········································································64
圖4-3-1 從社區教育理論談學校科學教育社區化策略準則衡量項目層級架構
圖····················································································89
X
表目次
表2-1-1 英國社區教育不同派別分析表···············································13
表3-3-1 專家問卷名單介紹······························································36
表3-4-1 層級分析評估尺度意義及說明···············································52
表3-4-2 隨機指數表·······································································54
表3-4-3 社區意識量表題項······························································58
表3-4-4 社區參與量表題項······························································59
表3-4-5 社區教育化量表題項···························································61
表4-1-1 德爾菲法專家問卷第一次數據構面問卷結果表··························68
表4-1-2 德爾菲法社區意識專家問卷第一次數據準則問卷結果表··············69
表4-1-3 德爾菲法社區參與專家問卷第一次數據準則問卷結果表··············71
表4-1-4 德爾菲法社區教育化專家問卷第一次數據準則問卷結果表···········73
表4-2-1 德爾菲法專家問卷第二次數據構面問卷結果表··························78
表4-2-2 德爾菲法社區意識專家問卷第二次數據準則問卷結果表··············81
表4-2-3 德爾菲法社區參與專家問卷第二次數據準則問卷結果表··············84
表4-2-4 德爾菲法社區教育化專家問卷第二次數據準則問卷結果表···········87
表 4-2-5 德爾菲法從社區教育理論談學校科學教育社區化策略準則衡量專家
問卷之構面標準差二次比較表··············································88
表 4-2-6 德爾菲法從社區教育理論談學校科學教育社區化策略準則衡量專家
問卷之準則標準差二次比較表··············································89
表4-4-1 從社區教育理論談學校科學教育社區化策略準則衡量項目構面層權
重與排
序·················································································· 93
表4-4-2 社區意識構面下準則層權重與排序·········································94
表4-4-3 社區參與構面下準則層權重與排序·········································94
表 4-4-4 社區教育化構面下準則層權重與排序······································95
表 4-4-5 從社區教育理論談學校科學教育社區化策略準則衡量項目整層級權
重比···············································································96

參考文獻
一、中文文獻
1. 沈華海和林俊彥（2000）。學校社區化經營的理念與策略。高中教育,12,
47-52。
2. 吳淑滿（2005）。以企業特區觀點探討都市再發展策略。台北市：國立政
治大學地政研究所碩士論文(未出版)。
3. 李國彥(2019)。淺析小學科學教學中的生活化教學實施對策。學生周刊,
2019(21), 29。
4. 林明地（2000）。學校與社區關係。台北市：五南。
5. 林瑞欽(1994)。社區意識的概念-測量與提振策略。社區發展研究學刊, 31,
1-21。
6. 林俊光（1998）。建構結合層級分析法與德菲法之群體決策支援環境。台
南市：國立成功大學工業工程研究所碩士論文(未出版)。
7. 林振春（1997）。學校社區化。國民教育, 37(6), 7-15。
8. 林振春（1999）。台灣社區教育發展之研究。台北市：師大師苑。
9. 邱天助（1996）。推展社區學校教育落實終生教育理念。載於中華民國社
區教育學會主編：學校社區化（137-150 頁）。台北市：師大書苑。
10. 洪秀容（1989）。屏東縣三地鄉居民社區教育需求及其相關因素之研究。
台北市：國立臺灣師範大學社會教育研究所碩士論文(未出版)。
11. 黃富順(1994)。加強社區意識，建立祥和社會的途徑。社區成人教育社會
發展研究學刊, 1, 23-33。
12. 許翠媛（1998）。從預防青少年偏差行為的觀點談「親職教育、親師合作
和學校社區化」。北縣國教輔導, 6, 60-63。
13. 陳玉賢（1997）。學校社區化、社區學校化是「教育改革工程」的良藥。
臺灣教育, 558, 47-50。
104
14. 陳其南（1996）。學校、社區與地方的教育學習體系。教改通訊, 17/18, 19-
21。
15. 廖珈慧(2017)。離島國民小學環境保護教育社區化之研究─以連江縣莒
光鄉國小為例。台北市：銘傳大學公共事務學系碩士在職專班碩士論文
(未出版)。
16. 張紹勳（2016）。模糊多準則評估法及統計，初版。台北市：五南圖書出
版。
17. 詹棟樑（1997）。學校社區化的兒童教育因素。教育資料與研究, 15, 19-
20。
18. 劉仲成（2000）。學校社區化新探討。南投文教, 13, 76-83。
19. 藍立雅(2019)。高雄市立社會教育館之營運探究兼論社區教育與社區本
位的藝術教育。高雄市：國立中山大學劇場藝術學系碩士論文(未出版)。
20. 鄧振源和曾國雄（1989a）。層級分析法（AHP）的內涵特性與應用（上），
中國統計學報, 27(6), 13707-13724。
21. 鄧振源和曾國雄（1989b）。層級分析法（AHP）的內涵特性與應用（下），
中國統計學報, 27(7), 13767-13786。
22. 厲以賢（1998）。社區教育的理念。載於98 上海社區成人教育學術研討
會論文集。上海市：上海市社區教育研究中心。6-15。
23. 蔡瑞榮（1996）。「學校社區化，社區學校化」的理念和做法。載於中華
民國社區育學會主編。學校社區化（83-107 頁）。台北市：師大書苑。
24. 謝臥龍、駱慧文(2004)。德懷研究。載於謝臥龍主編，質性研究(319-382
頁)。台北市：心理。
二、英文文獻
1. Abell, S. K., & Lederman, N. G. (2007). Handbook of research on science
105
education. New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
2. Baki, H. (2020). Regional Differences in the Educational Infrastructure –
Changes and Challenges. Economic Studies journal, 6: 44-78.
3. Brookfield, S. (1985). Community adult education: A comparative analysis of
theory and practice. Comparative Education Review, 29(2): 232-239.
4. Brookfield, S. (1984). Adult learners, adult education and the community.
British: Open University. 84-89.
5. Bulmer, M. (1987). The Social Basis of Community Care. London: Allen and
Unwin.
6. Dana, N. F., & Yendol-Hoppey, D. (2009). Teacher Inquiry Defined. Chapter
1. In The Reflective Educator‘s Guide to Classroom Research: Learning to
Teach and Teaching to Learn Through Practitioner Inquiry. [Paperback]
Second Edition. Corwin. Retrieved April 30, 2012 from
http://www.sagepub.com/upm-data/7119_da na_ch_1.pdf
7. Donovan, M. S., Bransford, J. D., & Rellegrino, J. W. 1999）.How People
Learn: Bridging Research and Practice.Washington, DC：National Academy
of Sciences.
8. Encyclopedia Britannica (2002). Merriam-Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary.
Retrieved October 6, 2002 , from http://www.britannica.com/
9. Fraser, B., & Tobin, K. G. (1998). International handbook of science education.
Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
10. Fraser, B. J., Tobin, K., & McRobbie, C. J. (2012). Second international
handbook of science education. Springer. Retrieved April 30, 2012 from
http://www.springerlink.com/content/978-14020 -9041-
7#section=1002231&page=1
106
11. Halsey, A. (1972). Educational Priority volume 1. EPA Problems and Policies.
London, HMSO.
12. Hains, B. J., Hains, K. D., & Knobloch, N. A. (2021) Examining the Dynamics
of Field Philosophies and Epistemologies within Community Development
Education. International Journal of Community Well-Being, 4(1): 17-31.
13. Heller, K., Price, R. H., Reinharz, S., Riger, S., & Wandersman, A. (1984)
Psychology and Community Change. Dorsey, IL.: Homewood. Journal of
Environmental Education, 32(4): 16-21.
14. Holden, M. C., & Wedman, J. F. (1993). Future issues of computer-mediated
communication: The results of a Delphi study. Educational Technology
Research and Development, 41(4): 5-24.
15. Knowles, M. S. (1980). The modern practice of adult education: From
pedagogy to andragogy. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Cambridge Adult Education.
16. Liu, C. H., Bano, M., Zowghi, D. & Kearney, M. (2021) Analysing User
Reviews of Inquiry-Based Learning Apps in Science Education. Computers &
Education, 164: 1-14.
17. Muralidhar, K. R., Santhanam, & Wilson, R. L. (1990). Using the Analytic
Hierarchy Process for Information System Project Selection. Information and
Management, 18(2): 87-95.
18. Merz, C. & Furman, G. C. (1997). Community and schools: Promise and
paradox. New York: Teachers College Press.
19. Michaels, S., Shouse, A. W., & Schweingruber, H. A. (2008). Ready, set,
science! Putting research to work in k-8 science classrooms. Board on Science
Education, Center for Education, Division of Behavioral and Social Sciences
and Education. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.
107
20. Midwinter, E. (1972). Priority Education: An account of the Liverpool project.
London, Penguin.
21. Murry, J. W., & Hammons, J. O. (1995). Delphi: A Versatile methodology for
Conducting Qualitative Research. Review of Higher Education, 18(4): 423-
436.
22. National Research Council. (2000). How people learn: Brain, mind,
experience, and school. Bransford, J. D., Brown, A. L., and Cocking, R. R.
(eds.). Washington, DC: National Academy Press. Also available at
http://books.nap.edu/catalog/6160.html.
23. National Research Council. (2005). How students learn: History, mathematics,
and science in the classroom. Committee on How People Learn, A Targeted
Report for Teachers, M. S. Donovan and J. D. Bransdord, Editors. Division of
Behavioral and Social Science and Education. Washington, DC: The National
Academies Press.
24. National Research Council. (2007). Taking science to school: Learning and
teaching science in grades k-8. Committee on Science Learning, Kindergarten
Through Eighth Grade. Richard A. D., Heidi A. S., and Andrew W. S., (eds.).
Board on Science Education, Center for Education. Division of Behavioral and
Social Science and Education. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
(Free Executive Summary available online at
http://www.nap.edu/catalog/11625.html).
25. National Research Council. (2012). A framework for k-12 science education:
Practices, crosscutting concepts, and core ideas. Committee on a Conceptual
Framework for New K-12 Science Education Standards. Board on Science
Education, Division of Behavioral and Social Sciences and Education.
108
Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.
(http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_ id=13165&page=1)
26. Ö zcan, E. C., Ü nlüsoy, S., & Eren, T. (2017). A combined goal programming
– AHP approach supported with TOPSIS for maintenance strategy selection in
hydroelectric power plants, Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews,
78(C): 1410-1423.
27. Pinnegar, S., & Hamilton, M. L. (2009). Self-Study of Practice as a Genre of
Qualitative Research--Theory, Methodology, and Practice. Springer.
28. Saaty, R.W. (1987). The Analytic Hierarchy Process—What It Is and How It
Is Used. Mathematical Modelling, 9: 161-176.
29. Schulz, R. (2010). Inquiry-Oriented Teacher Education. In B. McGaw, E.
Baker, & P. Peterson (Editors-in-Chief), International Encyclopedia of
Education Eight-Volume Set. Elserier Ltd.
30. Sheng, Y. K. (1989). Community Participation in Low-income Housing
Projects: problems and prospects. Community Development Journal, 25(1):
56-65.
31. Shahba, S., Arjmandi, R., Monavari, M., & Ghodusi, J. (2017). Application of
Multi-Attribute Decision-Making Methods in SWOT Analysis of Mine Waste
Management (case study: Sirjan's Golgohar iron mine, Iran). Journal of
Resources Policy, 51: 67-76.
32. Thomas, D.N.（1983）.The making of community work. London: George Allen
and Unwin.
33. Vaske, J. (2001) Place Attachment and Environmentally Responsible Behavior.
The Journal of Environmental Education, 32(4): 16-21.
34. Chkoniya, V. (2021) Success Factors for Using Case Method in Teaching
109
Applied Data Science Education. European Journal of Education, 4(1): 29-38.