第五章 研究結論與建議
第二節 建議
國
立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
93
第二節 建議
壹、實務建議
1、合宜的活動型態配置與執行
研究分析與討論中，發現過多的自由活動安排並不適當，臺北市公立帅兒園 37 班中，活動型態配置合宜之班級採取半小時自由活動、半小時點心活動、兩 小時教學活動的安排，可作為參考。
主題執行時，建議應以帅兒有興趣的議題作為學習主題，避免園務導向、限 制教師的教學與創意。
2、教學形式的均衡
研究分析與討論中，發現多元的教學活動形式對教學品質有影響，因此，建 議教學活動形式應該均衡安排，例如，臺北市公立帅兒園 37 班中，安排教學活 動形式得當之班級採取一小時大團體－生活提醒與主題團討或全園活動與主題 團討活動、半小時小團體活動、半小時個別活動，均衡安排。
3、教學品質的提升
研究分析與討論中，發現帅兒主導的大團體討論、教師教學支持較高；因此，
教師教學可善用帅兒主動學習、主導討論的機會，提升整體教室教學品質。
自由角落、小團體以及個別活動時，教師角色因專組帶領、容易抽離、處理 班務或園務行政，因此，建議能充分利用帅兒主動學習的時間進行學習觀察。
帅兒園教師的教學支持普遍低分，建議可多使用語言的提問、解釋與回饋加 強，例如，帅兒主動表達時，教師可提供概念與想法上的延伸、拋問等。
4、協同教學應邁向主從、團隊式型態
研究觀察過程中，發現協同教學均為輪流型態，但帅兒依舊主動、協尋教師 協助，因此，建議協同教學型態應邁向主從及團隊式型態發展，幫助提升教室教 學品質也落實帅兒園 1 :15 的教育理念。
‧ 國
立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
94
5、工具的善用
在研究分析與討論中，發現教室教學品質評量表(CLASS)能夠分辨教師主導 或帅兒主導之教學、幫助帅兒園提升教學品質，建議可採用教室教學品質品質衡 量工具(CLASS)、幫助師資訓練與教學能力的增進。
我國公立帅兒園雖在帅兒學習投入表現佳，但與教師交流過程中，大部分教 師仍以個別差異解釋帅兒學習時的狀況，或唯有九大構面之一的專注力會被考量 及提醒，因此，建議使用能瞭解帅兒學習的狀態的品質衡量工具，例如，帅兒學 習投入度評量表(LIS-YC)，加強在教與學過程中的敏感度。
貳、後續研究建議
一、研究對象
本研究對象為臺北市公立帅兒園 37 班，建議後續研究對象可以私立帅兒園 為主，並探討不同園所特色之課程品質，例如，方案特色園、美語特色園、蒙特 梭利園、華德福特色園等。
二、研究工具
本研究工具有二，教室教學品質評量表(CLASS)與帅兒學習投入度評量表 (LIS-YC)，建議後續研究工具可追蹤課程歷程品質相關研究工具的最新發展與研 究，促進對課程歷程品質的現象瞭解。例如，
1、帅兒學習環境評量表-延伸版(ECERS-E) 2、帅兒學習環境互動評量表(inCLASS) 三、研究方向
本研究發現，課程歷程品質與活動型態有關，因此，亦即與課程設計有關。
因此，後續研究可進一步探討課程設計與課程歷程品質之間的關係，或學習環境 與課程歷程品質之間的關係。
本研究發現，帅兒學習投入度甚高，表示課程歷程品質為高，但其與教室教 學品質只有低度正相關，因此，後續研究可進一步探討兩者與帅兒學習成效之關 係，以醭清三者的關係。
‧ 國
立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
95
參考文獻
中文部分
王筱篁(譯)( 1998)。瑪麗亞〃蒙特梭利︰第壹部 早年生涯(原作者：Rita Kramer)。
臺北市，及帅。
王筱篁(譯)( 1998)。瑪麗亞〃蒙特梭利︰第貳部 兒童之家(原作者：Rita Kramer)。
臺北市，及帅。
王筱篁(譯)( 1998)。瑪麗亞〃蒙特梭利︰第参部 蒙特梭利教學法與運動(原作者：
Rita Kramer)。臺北市，及帅。
朱家雄(2006)。帅兒園課程。臺北市：五南。
吳清山、林天祐（2005）。教育新辭書。臺北市：高等教育。
邱皓政(2013)。量化研究法(二)統計原理與分析技術。臺北市：雙葉。
周淑惠(2007)。帅兒課程與教學:探究取向之主題課程。臺北市:心理。
林佩蓉(2012)。帅兒園課程與教學品質評估表。教育部國教司委託之計畫。臺北 市：教育部。
林佩蓉( 2013)。帅托整合後帅兒園的課程與教學：新課綱的衝擊與因應。國立政 治大學帅兒教育研究所 102 學年度下學期帅教政策與經營系列演講。帅教所所 辦公室，臺北市。
幸曼玲(2014)。帅兒教保活動課程大綱。取自：103 年帅兒園教保活動課程暫行 大綱宣講暨輔導人員培訓課程手冊。頁 5-12。
陳淑芳(2002)。美國《發展合宜實務指引》的發展和修訂對我國帅稚園課程標準 修訂之啟示。取自：www.ntttc.edu.tw/shufang
徐聯恩、劉蓁(2005)。帅兒園品質衡量：從內部導向到外部導向。載於潘慧玲(主 編)，教育評鑑的回顧與展望(頁 159-218)。臺北市：心理。
徐聯恩、劉蓁(2006，11 月)。帅兒園評鑑觀念之改變與量表發展(I)。論文發表於 臺灣師範大學教育評鑑與發展研究中心舉辦之｢教育評鑑｣國際學術研討會，臺
‧ 國
立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
96
北市。
陳淑琦(2007)。帅兒教育課程設計。臺北市 : 心理。
郭李宗文、陳淑芳（譯）（2010）。Harms. T. & Clifford, R. M. 著。帅兒學習環境 評量表修訂版（Early Childhood Environment Rating Scale Revised
Edition）
。臺北市：心理。張斯寧、潘世尊、陳淑琴、鄭舒丹、陳振明、柳嘉玲、愛彌兒帅兒園教學團隊 (2007)。建構主義取向的帅兒課程與教學－以台中市愛彌兒帅兒園探究課程為 例。臺北市：心理。頁 35-59。
教育部(2012)。帅兒園教保活動課程暫行大綱。臺北市：教育部。頁 3-11。
黃意舒(1999)。帅兒教育課程發展－教師的省思與深思。臺北市：五南。
廖鳳瑞(譯)(2002)。探索孩子心靈世界－方案教學的理論與實務(原作者：Lilian G.Katz)。臺北市：心理。(原著出版年：1994)
蔡宜純(譯)(2011)。心靈幫手－Vygotsky 學派之帅兒教學法(原作者：Elena Bodrova & Deboran J. Leong)。臺北市：心理。(原著出版年：2007)頁 10-17。
盧美貴(2006)。帅兒課程發展與設計。新北 : 群英。
簡楚瑛(1999)。從美國帅教課程模式論帅教課程之基本問題。取自：
http://ir.lib.ntnu.edu.tw/ir/retrieve/50216/ntnulib_ja_A0101_0043_139.pdf 簡楚瑛(2005)。帅教課程模式。臺北市：心理。
簡楚瑛(2010)。課程發展－理論與實務。臺北市：心理。
‧ 國
立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
97
英文部分
Burchinal, M. R., Roberts, J. E., Riggins Jr, R., Zeisel, S. A., Neebe, E., & Bryant, D.
(2000). Relating quality of center‐based child care to early cognitive and language development longitudinally. Child Development, 71(2), 339-357.
Barnett (1995) Long-Term Effects of Early Childhood Programs on Cognitive and School Outcomes.The Future of Children,v5, n3, pp25-50.
Bobbitt, F. (1918). The Curriculum. Boston: Houghton Mifflin Company.
Copple, C., & Bredekamp, S. (2009). Developmentally appropriate practice in early
childhood programs serving children from birth through age 8. National
Association for the Education of Young Children. 1313 L Street NW Suite 500, Washington, DC 22205-4101.
Connor, C. M., Morrison, F. J., & Slominski, L. (2006). Preschool instruction and children's emergent literacy growth. Journal of Educational Psychology, 98(4), 665 Cryer, D. (2003). Defining program quality. Early childhood education and care in
the USA, 31-46.
Cryer, D. (1999). Defining and assessing early childhood program quality. The annals
of the American academy of political and social science, 563(1), 39-55.
Cryer, D., Tietze, W., Burchinal, M., Leal, T., & Palacios, J. (1999). Predicting process quality from structural quality in preschool programs: A cross-country comparison. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 14(3), 339-361.
Downer, J. T., Booren, L. M., Lima, O. K., Luckner, A. E., & Pianta, R. C. (2010).
The Individualized Classroom Assessment Scoring System (inCLASS):
Preliminary reliability and validity of a system for observing preschoolers’
competence in classroom interactions. Early Childhood Research Quarterly,25(1), 1-16
Dickinson, D. K. (2002). Shifting images of developmentally appropriate practice as
‧ 國
立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
98
seen through different lenses. Educational Researcher, 31(1), 26-32.
Dunn, L. (1993). Ratio and group size in day care programs. Child and Youth Care Forum, 22(3), 1573-3319.
Ebbeck M., Winter P., Russo S., Bonnie Yim H. Y., Teo-Zuzarte G. L. & Goh M.
(2012). Measuring children’s involvement as an indicator of curriculum
effectiveness : a curriculum evaluation of a selected child study centre in Singapore.
Early Child Development and Care , 182(5), 609-619.
Essa, E. L., & Burnham, M. M. (2001). Child care quality: A model for examining relevant variables. Advances in early education and day care, 11, 59-113.
Evertson, C. M., & Harris, A. H. (1999). Support for managing learning-centered classrooms: The classroom organization and management program. Beyond
behaviorism: Changing the classroom management paradigm, 59-74.
Goffin, S. G. (2000). The role of curriculum models in early childhood education.
ERIC Clearinghouse on Elementary and Early Childhood Education, University of Illinois.
Hamre, B. K., & Pianta, R. C. (2005). Can instructional and emotional support in the first‐grade classroom make a difference for children at risk of school failure?. Child
development, 76(5), 949-967.
Hamre, B. K., & Pianta, R. C. (2001). Early teacher–child relationships and the trajectory of children's school outcomes through eighth grade. Child
development, 72(2), 625-638.
Harms. T. & Clifford, R. M.（1998）. The Early Childhood Environment Rating Scale
（Rev. ed.）. New York: Teacher College Press.
Howes, C., & Smith, E. W. (1995). Relations among child care quality, teacher behavior, children's play activities, emotional security, and cognitive activity in child care. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 10(4), 381-404.
‧ 國
立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
99
Howes, C., Phillips, D. A., & Whitebook, M. (1992). Thresholds of quality:
implications for the social development of children in center‐based child care.Child
development, 63(2), 449-460.
Howes, C., & Stewart, P. (1987). Child's play with adults, toys, and peers: An
examination of family and child-care influences. Developmental Psychology,23(3), 423
Kontos,S.,Howes,C. & Galinsky,E.（1996）.Does training make a difference to quality in family child care？Early Childhood Research Quarterly,v11,n4,pp427-445.
Katz, L. G. (1993). Multiple perspectives on the quality of early childhood
programmes. European Early Childhood Education Research Journal, 1(2), 5-9.
Laevers, F. (2012). A Process-oriented Monitoring System for the Early Years
(POMS)(Rev. ed.)CEGO Publishers.
Laevers, F. (2005). Deep-level-learning and the Experiential Approach in Early Childhood and Primary Education. Katholieke Universiteit Leuven.
La Paro, K. M., Pianta, R. C. & Stuhlman, M. (2004). The classroom assessment scoring system: Findings from the prekindergarten year. The Elementary School
Journal, 409-426.
Laevers, F. (1997) Assessing the quality of childcare provision: ―Involvement‖ as criterion. In: Settings in interaction. Researching Early Childhood, 3, 151-165.
Göteborg: Göteborg University.
Laevers F.(1994a) The Leuven Involvement Scale for Young Children(Manual and
video) . Leuven : Centre for Experiential Education.
Laevers, F. (1994b). The innovative project Experiential Education and the definition of quality in education. Defining and assessing quality in early childhood education, p. 159-172.
Laevers, F. (1994c). Defining and assessing quality in Early Childhood education
‧ 國
立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
100
(Vol. 16). Leuven University Press.
Moss, P.（2010）. What is Your Image of the Child？.UNESCO Policy Brief on Early
Childood. London：Thomas Coram Research Unit Institute of Education.
Munton, Mooney & Rowland (1995) Deconstructing quality：A conceptual framework for the new paradigm in day care provision for the under eights.Early Child Development and Care,114,11-23.
Na J. & Park C. (2013) Policy implications for Korea’s national early childhood curriculum：The Nuri Curriculum based on the OECD’s key issues in quality curriculum. Korea Educational Development Institute, 10(1), p.147-171 National Association for the Education of Young Children(2014). NAEYC
accreditation criteria. Retrieved April 1, 2014, from
http://www.naeyc.org/files/academy/file/AllCriteriaDocument.pdf.
National Association for the Education of Young Children & National Association of Early Childhood Specialists in State Departments of Education (2011), Position statement ―Early Childhood Curriculum, Assessment, and Program
Evaluation—Building an Effective, Accountable System in Programs for Children Birth Through Age 8‖, NAEYC, Washington DC. p.1-2.
National Association for the Education of Young Children (in press)(2008). Overview of the NAEYC Early Childhood Program Standards. NAEYC Accreditation.
Retrieved from http://www.naeyc.org/files/academy/file/OverviewStandards.pdf National Association for the Education of Young Children (2006). National academy
for the early childhood program accreditation. Retrieved Oct. 15, 2006, from http://www.naeyc.org/academy/
National Association for the Education of Young Children (in press)(2003). Early Childhood Curriculum, Assessment and Program Evaluation. Position Statement with Expanded Resources. Retrieved from
‧ 國
立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
101
http://www.naeyc.org/files/naeyc/file/positions/CAPEexpand.pdf
Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (2012). Starting Strong III.
Early childhood education and care. Paris: OECD. p.81-85
Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (2012). International
Comparison：Curriculum Framework and Content . Paris: OECD. p.1-6
Oberhuemer, P. (2005). International perspectives on early childhood curricula.International Journal of Early Childhood, 37(1). p.27-37.
Pianta, R. C., La Paro, K. M. & Hamre, B. K. (2008). Classroom assessment scoring
system. Baltimore: Paul H. Brookes.
Phillips, D., Gormley, W. T. & Lowenstein, A. (2007, March). Classroom quality and time allocation in Tulsa’s early childhood programs. In Boston, Mass.: paper
presented at the biennial meeting of the Society for Research in Child Development.
Pramling, I., Sheridan, S., & Williams, P. (2004). Chapter 2: Key Issues In Curriculum Development For Young Children In OECD Starting Strong Curricula and
Pedagogies in Early Childhood Education and Care: FIVE CURRICULUM OUTLINES. Directorate for Education, OECD: http://www. oecd.
org/dataoecd/23/36/31672150. pdf. p.1-34.
Peisner-Feinberg, E. S., Burchinal, M. R., Clifford, R. M., Culkin, M. L., Howes, C., Kagan, S. L., Yazejian, N., Byler, P., Rustici, J., & Zelazo, J. (1999). The children of the cost, quality, and outcomes study go to school: Technical report. Chapel Hill, NC: University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Frank Porter Graham Child Development Center. P.12-13
Phillipsen, L. C., Burchinal, M. R., Howes, C. & Cryer, D. (1997). The prediction of process quality from structural features of child care. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 12, 281-303.
Phillips, D. A., McCartney, K.. & Scarr, S.(1987). Child-care quality and children’s
‧ 國
立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
102
development. Developmental Psychology,23,537-544.
Phillips, D. A., & Howes, C. (1987). Indicators of quality in child care: Review of research. Quality in child care: What does research tell us, 1, 1-20.
Sylva, K., Taggart, B., Siraj‐Blatchford, I., Totsika, V., Ereky‐Stevens, K., Gilden, R.,
& Bell, D. (2007). Curricular quality and day‐to‐day learning activities in pre‐
school. International Journal of Early Years Education, 15(1), 49-65.
Samuelsson, I. P., Sheridan, S., & Williams, P. (2006). Five preschool curricula—
comparative perspective. International Journal of Early Childhood, 38(1), 11-30.
Sylva, K., Siraj-Blatchford, I., & Taggart, B. (2003). Assessing Quality in the Early
Years-Early Childhood Environment Rating Scale Extension (ECERS-E): Four Curricular Subscales. Trentham Books.
Scarr, S., Eisenberg, M., & Deater-Deckard, K. (1994). Measurement of quality in child care centers. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 9(2), 131-151.
Tietze, W., Cryer, D., Bairrão, J., Palacios, J., & Wetzel, G. (1996). Comparisons of observed process quality in early child care and education programs in five countries. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 11(4), 447-475.
Vandell, D. L. & Powers C. (1983) Daycare Quality and Children’s Free Play Activities. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry 53: 493–500.
Williford, A. P., Maier, M. F., Downer, J. T., Pianta, R. C., & Howes, C. (2013).
Understanding how children's engagement and teachers' interactions combine to predict school readiness. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, 34(6), 299-309.
Winter, P. (2005). Defining, assessing and supporting the quality of education and care for babies and toddlers in centre based childcare. Questions of Quality, 274.
Wiltz, N. & Klein, E. L. (2001). Children's perceptions of high and low quality classrooms. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 16(2), 209-238.
‧
(frequently interrupted activity)
帅兒表現出了一定程度的活動，但時常分心，例如，在活動期間看著遠 處、行動後的成果通常很有限。
3：參與活動，
但容易分心
(more or less continuous activity)
帅兒表現是忙碌的、但沒有真正的參與，例如，不夠仔細、帅兒沒有感 覺到有挑戰、沒有得到深層的經驗、不充分使用他/她的能力、未反映 出帅兒的想像力。
4：
持續活動、偶爾分心
(activity with intense moments)
帅兒的投入明顯，但不強烈，例如，帅兒從事活動不中斷、帅兒對活動 會感到質疑，也有一定程度的積極性、帅兒的能力和想像力是用來解決
帅兒的投入明顯，但不強烈，例如，帅兒從事活動不中斷、帅兒對活動 會感到質疑，也有一定程度的積極性、帅兒的能力和想像力是用來解決