Volume 52 No.2 - 2006-06-30

Pedagogical Practice and Student Identity: The Comparison of an Art Class and a Regular Class in a Junior High School

教學實踐與學生身分認同⎯⎯ 國中美術班與普通班的比較

Author：
Yin-Hung Hsu / 許殷宏
Keyword：
ability grouping by art, pedagogical practice, identity / 藝能編班、教學實踐、身分認同
  • Summary
  • Chinese Summary
  • Reference
  • Scholarly references
This study focuses on how teachers exert an influence on students’ identity formation and future development through their pedagogical strategies, classroom interaction with students, behavior management and student-teacher relationships. Students in an art class in a junior high school in Taipei County were compared with students in a regular class in the same school and same grade. Observations, interviews and document analysis were employed. Teachers were found to have different expectations for students in the two classes. Students in the art class were regarded as being college-bound and highly regarded in every respect. Their counterparts in the regular class, in contrast, were only asked to behave themselves; they were considered relatively passive and lacking in self-confidence. In consequence, students in the art class had a higher degree of self-esteem and self-confidence; students in the regular class appeared less optimistic, with a lower level of motivation. As for career planning, students in the art class had a clear goal: to attend public senior high schools; students in the regular class were only expected by their teachers to have hands-on skills and to go to vocational schools.
本文旨在分析教師如何透過不同的教學理念、課堂互動、行為管理、師生關 係等，影響學生的自我能力觀與未來發展，藉此探討教學實踐與學生身分認同的 關係。經驗研究資料主要來自臺北縣一所設立美術班的國中，同時選取另一普通 班級作為參照，透過觀察、訪談與文件調查等方式蒐集資料。研究結果發現，任 課教師對於兩班學生的期許與要求有所不同，導致學生能力表現與評價產生差 異。在身分認同的建構過程中，美術班對班級與自我皆抱持正面態度與高度認同 感，普通班則因缺少肯定而顯得悲觀，產生學習意願低落甚至自我放棄的情形。 在未來生涯規劃方面，美術班被期許往升學之路邁進，以考上公立高中為首選， 普通班則被鼓勵養成生活與工作能力，多數學生以高職為目標。
人本教育基金會（2003）。人本2003年各縣市升學編班狀況調查報告。人本教育札記，173，
38-44。
周新富（2004）。家庭社經地位、家長參與學習與國中生能力分組關係之研究。臺灣教育
社會學研究，4（2），113-153。
徐享良（1978）。臺中市立居仁國民中學實施能力分班對教師態度及學生態度影響之研究。
教育學院學報，3，261-283。
張春興（1985）。國中編班教學問題之調查研究（二）：國中生對現行編班教學方式的看法。
教育心理學報，18，17-38。
張煌熙（1974）。國中編班方式與學生學習動機之關係。國立臺灣師範大學教育學系碩士
論文，未出版，臺北市。
張德銳（1986）。臺北市國民中學三年級學生次級文化與違規犯過行為的關係。國立臺灣
師範大學教育學系碩士論文，未出版，臺北市。
許錫珍（1978）。能力分班教學情境下前、後段班級氣氛之比較研究。教育心理學報，11，
141-158。
陳昺麟（1995）。國中教育的選擇和社會化功能與學生自我概念關係之研究。國立臺灣師
範大學公民訓育學系碩士論文，未出版，臺北市。
陳博政（1983）。國中能力分班、教師期望與教師教學態度之研究。國立臺灣師範大學教
育學系碩士論文，未出版，臺北市。
楊國樞（1976）。能力分班對學業成績與心理健康的影響。科學發展月刊，4（1），5-27。
鄭淵全（1993）。臺北市國民中學學生實驗常態編班暨導師抽籤配班調查。教育研究資訊，
1（1），49-65。
謝小芩（1993）。教育活動與學校組織。載於張笠雲、吳乃德、孫中興、謝小芩、顧忠華
（合著），社會組織（頁251-310）。臺北縣：國立空中大學。
Abraham, J. (1989). Testing Hargreaves’ and Lacey’s differentiation: Polarisation theory in a
setted comprehensive. British Journal of Sociology, 40(1), 46-81.
Ball, S. J. (1981). Beachside comprehensive: A casestudy of secondary schooling. Cambridge,
UK: Cambridge University Press.
Boaler, J. (1997). Setting, social class and survival of the Quickest. British Educational Research
Journal, 23(5), 575-596.
Boaler, J., William, D., & Brown, M. (1997). Students’ experiences of ability grouping: Disaffection,
polarization and construction of failure. British Educational Research Journal,
26(5), 631-648.
Brewer, D. J., Rees, D. I., & Argys, L. M. (1995). Detracking America’s schools: The reform
without cost ? Phi Delta Kappan, 77(3), 210-215.
Broaded, C. M. (1997). The limits and possibilities of tracking: Some evidence from Taiwan.
Sociology of Education, 70(1), 36-53.
Brophy, J. E., & Good, T. L. (1970). Teachers’ communication of differential expectations for
children’s classroom performance: Some behavioral data. Journal of Educational Psychology,
61(5), 365-374.
Collins, J. (1986). Differential instruction in reading groups. In J. Cook-Gumprez (Ed.), The 
social construction of literacy (pp. 117-138). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Crosby, M. S., & Owens, E. M. (1993). The disadvantages of tracking and ability grouping: A
look at cooperative learning as an alternative. A Series of Solutions and Strategies, 5, 2-9.
Entwisle, D., & Hayduk, L. (1988). Lasting effects of elementary schooling. Sociology of Education,
61(3), 147-159.
Gamoran, A. (1992). Is ability grouping equitable? Educational Leadership, 50(2), 11-17.
Gamoran, A., & Berends, M. (1987). The effects of stratification in secondary schools: Synthesis
of research and ethnographic research. Review of Educational Research, 57, 415-435.
Hallam, S. (2000). Children’s socialization into schools: Ability grouping in the primary school.
Paper presented at the annual conference of the American Educational Research Association,
New Orleans, LA.
Hargreaves, D. H. (1967). Social relations in a secondary school. London: Tinling.
Ireson, J., & Hallam, S. (1999). Raising standards: Is ability grouping the answer? Oxford Review
of Education, 25(3), 344-360.
Keddie, N. (1971). Classroom knowledge. In M. F. D. Young (Ed.), Knowledge and control:
New directions for the sociology of education (pp. 133-160). London: Collier-Macmillan.
Lacey, C. (1970). Hightown Grammar. Manchester, UK: Manchester University Press.
Loveless, T. (1999). Will tracking reform promote social equity? Educational Leadership, 56(7),
28-32.
Metz, M. H. (1978). Classrooms and corridors: The crisis of authority in desegregated secondary
schools. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.
Oakes, J. (1985). Keeping track: How schools structure inequality. New Haven, CT: Yale University
Press.
Ogbu, J. U. (1994). Overcoming racial barriers to equal access. In J. I. Goodlad & P. Keating
(Eds.), Access to knowledge: The continuing agenda for our nation’s schools (pp. 59-89).
New York: College Entrance Examination Board.
Page, R. N. (1991). Lower-track classrooms: A curricular and cultural perspective. New York:
Teachers College Press.
Pallas, A. M., Entwisle, D. R., Alexander, K. L., & Stluka, M. F. (1994). Ability-group effects:
Instructional, social, or institutional? Sociology of Education, 67(1), 27- 46.
Rosenbaum, J. E. (1975). The stratification of socialization processes. American Sociological
Review, 40(Feb.), 48-54. 
Rosenbaum, J. E. (1976). Making inequality: The hidden curriculum of high school tracking.
New York: Wiley.
Rosenthal, R., & Jacobson, L. (1968). Pygmalion in the classroom: Teacher expectation and
pupils’ intellectual development. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.
Schwartz, F. (1981). Supporting or subverting learning: Peer group patterns in four tracked
schools. Anthropology and Education Quarterly, 12(1), 99-121.
Sukhnandan, L. (1998). Streaming, setting and grouping by ability. London: National Foundation
for Educational Research.
Welner, K. G. (2001). Legal rights, local wrongs: When community control collides with educational
equity. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press. 

EndNote
下載可匯入格式