研究， 21 ' 91.III 0
[Huang, C. S. (2004). What are between
“
action research" and "curriculum and teaching reform"? Some action researcher's reflections. Research in Applied Psychology,21, 91-II!.]黃志雄、陳明聰 (2008 )。阿明的電腦夢:重度障礙學生輔助溝通介入之行動研究。
特殊教育學報·27 ' 129-156 。
[Huang,C. H.,& Chen,M.C. (2008). The action process and effects of augmentative and alternative communication intervention on a student with severe disabilities. Journal of SpecialEducation， 刃， 129-156.]
楊深坑(1 999 )。教育學門成就評估報告。人文與社會科學簡訊· 2 (3) ,20-33 。 [Yang, S. K. (1999). An evaluation repo此 ofthe achievements in the field of education.
Humanities and Social Sciences NewsletterQuarter鈔" 2(3),20-33.]
甄曉蘭(
2001)。行動研究成果的評估與呈現。載於中華民國課程與教學學會(主
編) ，行動研究與課程教學革新(頁 199-221 )。臺北:揚智文化。80
(當代教育研究〉季刊第十九卷第四期 m 川;r.IT;TITI:r=pmI r:T'i"r.1 1;而向忘了三[Chen, S. L. (2001). The evaluation and presentation for the efforts of action research. In Association for Curriculum and Instruction,Taiwan,R.O.C. (Ed.),Action research and the innovation of curriculum and instruction (pp. 199-221). Taipei,Taiwan: Yang Chih Book.]
劉仲冬( 1996)。量與質社會研究的爭議及社會研究未來的出路。載於胡幼慧(主 編) ，質性研究:理論、方法及本土女性研究實例(頁 121-140 )。臺北:巨流。
[L凹，C. T. (1996). The controversies between quantitative and qualitative social research and the prospects of social research. InY.H. Hu (Ed.),Qualitative research: Themηy，method and localexam伺lple，臼's o.fj羚b切切n叩7
潘世尊 (ο20∞03幻) 0 一個行動研究者的雙重追尋:改善教學與對行動研究的認識。國立 面雄師範大學教育學系博士論文，未出版，高雄。
[Pan,T.工 (2003). The dual pursuit of an action researcher: The improvement of instruction and the recognition to action research. Unpublished doctoral dissertation,Department of Education,NationalKaohsiung Normal University,Kaohsiung,Taiwan.]
潘世尊 (2005 )。教育行動研究一一一理論、實踐與反省。臺北:心理。
[Pan, T. T. (2005). Educational action research: Theory, practice, andr，拼'ection. Taipei, Taiwan: Psychology.]
潘世尊 (2007) 0 教育、理論與行動研究。畫北:華騰文化。
[P阻，T. T.(2007).Education,theory and action research.Taipei,Taiwan: Fartemg.]
蔡清田 (2000 )。教育行動研究。臺北:五南圖書。
[Ts缸，C. T.(2000).Educational action research.Taipei,Taiwan: Wu-Nan Book.]
蔡j育田 (2004 )。透過行動研究，推動課程發展。載於蔡清田(主編) ，課程發展行動 研究(頁 1-29 )。臺北:五南圖書。
[Tsai,C.T.(2004). Promote the development of curriculum through action research. InC. T.
Tsai (Ed.),Action research of curriculum development(pp. 1-29). Taipei,Taiwan: Wu-Nan Book.]
簡良平( 1992) 。赫思特教育理論之建立。現代教育， 7 (1=25) ,7-86 。
[Juan,L. P. (1992). The construction ofHi訓'seducational theory.Contemporary Education Quarterly,7(1=25),7-86.]
薛梨真 (2008 )。私立科技大學教師有效教學之行動研究。課程與教學季刊， 11 ( 1) '265-286 。
時路骷髏飄翩-;圖自E伊 i喬世尊
這幫會誓言
81
[Hsueh, L. C. (2008). Action research for effective teaching in a private university of technology. Curriculum& InstructionQuarter秒" 11(1),265-286.]
蕭昭君 (2004 )。國內教育行動研究解放了什麼?一個師資培育者的閱讀與困惑。載 於潘慧玲(主編) ，教育研究方法論:觀點與方法(頁 457-494 )。臺北:心理 o
[Hsiao, 1.l. (2004). What has been liberated by action research in Taiwan? The reading and confusion of a teacher educator. In H. L. Pan (Ed.), Methodology of educational research: Perspectives and methods(pp. 457-494). Taipei,Taiwan: Psychology.]
Argyris, c., Putnam, R., & Smith, D. M. (1985). Action science: Concept:宮， methods, and skillsfornιsearchand intervention. San Francisco,CA: lossey-Bass.
Argyris,C可&Schon,D.A.(1974).Theoη inpractice: Increasingprofessional 吃ffectiveness
San Francisco,CA: lossey-Bass.
Aristotle (2000). Nicomachean ethics. (R. Crisp,Trans.). New York: Cambridge University Press. (Original work published 350B.c.)
Carabin巴， 1. (2001). Unmarried motherhood 1830-1990: A genealogical analysis. In M Wetherell,S. Taylor, & S. l. Yates (Eds.),Discourse as data: A guidefor analysis (pp.
267-310). London,UK: Sage.
Carr, W. (1995). For education: Towards critical educational inquiry. Buckingham, UK:
Open University Press.
C缸， W. (2006). Philosophy, methodology and action research. Journal of Philosophy of Education,40(4),421-435.
Carr, W., & Kemmis, S. (1986). Becoming critical: Education, knowledge, and action research. London,UK.Falmer.
Carr, w., & Kemmis,S. (2005). Staying critical.Educational Action Research, 13(3), 347-357.
Clandinin, D. 1., & Connelly, F. M. (2000). Narrative inquiry: Experience and story in qualitative research. San Francisco,CA: lossey-Bass.
Detardo-Bora,K. A. (2004). Action research in a world of positivist-oriented review boards.
Action Research,2(3),237-253.
Elliott, 1. (1987). Educational theory, practical philosophy and action research. British Journal ofEducational Studies,XITV(2),149-169.
Ellio役，1.(1991). Action researchfor educational change. Buckingham,UK: Open University
82
(當代教育研究〉季刊第十九卷第四期苟明而~示川
Press.
Ellio仗， 1. (2007). Assessing the quality of action research. R臼earch Papers in Education,
22(2),229 -246.
and the J: Reason
始 l.
Feldm阻， A. (2007). Validity and quality in action research. Educational Action Research, J5(1),21-32.
Green,K. (1999). Defining the field of literature in action research: A personal approach.
Educational Action Research,7(1),105-123.
Habermas, 1. (1984). The theoη of communicative act酬，
rationalization ofsocie砂. (T. McCarthy,Trans.). Boston,MA: Beacon. (original work published 1981)
Heikkinen,H. L. T., Huttunen,R.,& Syrjal且， L. (2007). Action research as narrative: Five principles for validation. Educational Action Research, J5(1)，于 19
Hir哎， P. H. (1983). Educational theory. In P. H. Hirst (Ed.), Educational theory and its foundation disciplines (pp. 3-29). London,UK: Routledge& Kegan Paul.
Jennin醉， L.G , & Graham, A. P. (1996). Exposing discourses through action research. In O.
Zuber-Skerritt (Ed.),New directions in action research (pp. 165-182). London, UK:
Falmer.
Kemm的， S.(1996). Emancipatory aspirations in a postmodem era. In O. Zuber-Skerritt (Ed.),
New directions in action research (pp. 199-242). London,UK: Falmer.
Lyotard,1. F.(1984). The postmodern condition: A report on knowledge.(0.Bennington& B.
MassUI凹， Trans.). Minneapol蹈， MN: University of Minnesota Press. (Original work published 1979)
Marti, 1., & Villasante, T. R. (2009). Quality in action research: Reflections for second-order inquiry. Systemic Practice and Action Research, 22(5),383-396.
McMahon, T., & Jefford, E. (2009). Assessing action-research projects within formal academic programmes: Using Elliott's context-related criteria to resolve the rigour versus flexibility dilemma. Educational Action Research,J7(3),359-371.
McNi缸;1.,& Whitehead, 1.(2009). Doing and writing action research. London,UK: Sage.
Melrose,M. J. (2001). Maximizing the rigor of action research: Why would you want to?
How could you? Field Methods,J3(2),160-180.
Newman, S. (1999). Constructing and critiquing reflective practice. Educational Action
TEli前軍事冒冒1戶1=聶由結 1看世尊
穹 83
Research,7(1), 145-162,
O'Connor,D,1.(1973),The nature and scope ofeducational theory(I). In G Langford& D.
1. 0'Connor (Eds扎 New essays in the philosophy of education (pp. 47-65). London, UK: Routledge& Kegan Paul.
Reason, P. (2006). Choice and quality in action research practice. Journal of Management
Inqu的" 15(2),187-203
Saugsta缸， T. (2002). Educational theory and practice in an Aristotelian perspective.
Scandinavian Journal ofEducational Research,46(4),373-390.
Schon, D. A. (1983). The n可7ective practitioner: How professionals think in action. New York: Basic Books.
Some尬，B. (2006). Action research: A methodolo，訂戶rchange and development. London, UK: Open University Press.
Winter,R.(1996). Some principles and procedures for the conduct of action research. In O.
Zuber-Skerritt (Ed.), New directions in action research (pp. 13-27). London, UK:
Falmer.
Winter, R. (2002). Truth or fiction: Problems of validity and authenticity in narratives of action research. Educational Action Research,1O( 1),143-154.
Winter, R., & Badley, G. (2007). Action research and academic writing: A conversation Educational Action Research,15(2),253-270.
Zeni、1. (1998). A guide to ethical issues and action research. Educational Action Research,
6(1),9-19.