本研究希望能結合當代藝術教育理念，將「重要觀念」融入影音學習，進行視覺文化藝術教育課程建構與實踐評估，為國內藝術教育理論的落實，提供有力的教學實踐依據，並希望學生能藉由正向的動態影像學習活動，提高視覺素養，並為未來相關課程提供參考依據及相關建議。本研究所獲得的結論如下：

課程內涵方面：一、必須強化動態影像方面的學習，提高視覺素養，以免學生的價值觀受到日常生活中大量影像的負面影響。二、必須考量視覺藝術教育與資訊科技、全球多元文化及學生社區生活之間做有意義的連結，才能與當代藝術教育理念相契合。三、必須加強與其他學科領域的統整結合，並確保有藝術學科的自主地位，以符合視覺文化藝術教育的跨領域統整趨勢。四、必須加強學生在人際社會經驗與學生自我生活之連結，以提供高中生在人際關係階段成長的需求。

實務困境方面：一、教師藝術教育專業不足，將影響本課程的實施推動。二、教師跨領域專業不足，是發展本課程的一大阻礙。三、教學設備及器材不足，是落實本課程的嚴苛挑戰。四、教師的課堂經營能力，將扮演本課程順利實施的推手。五、升學課業的壓力，仍影響本課程的教學正常化。六、教師的教學態度，將扮演本課程的決定關鍵。

教學成效方面：一、本課程具有影像專業認知上的教學及學習成效。二、本課程能有效提升學生關懷周遭環境與關注社會相關議題。三、本課程能讓學生運用資訊科技媒介，創造出關懷社會的影像作品。

根據以上結論提出如下的建議：

對教學實務的建議：一、藝術教師必須採取主動與積極的教學態度，隨時精進自我的專業成長，擴大教學參與層面，才能彰顯藝術教育的教學績效，並獲得家長、社會、學校及教育行政單位多方的支持。二、以藝術為核心的視覺文化藝術教育課程，由於跨越不同的學科領域，教師在跨領域統整的專業上，必須主動尋求在職進修管道與其他學科領域專業上的協同教學。三、「重要觀念」融入視覺文化藝術教育課程時，要能掌握其根本精神，因地制宜，靈活變通，才能真正發揮其最大的教學成效。四、藝術教學現場亟待專業教學評鑑的輔導，透過學術觀點，能針對藝術教學的教師專業、課程品質、學生學習各方面提出專業評估，除了可以彌補學術與實務間的間隙，更是教師與學校及教育行政當局最佳的交流對話平台。

對教育當局及師資培育進修機構的建議：一、整合不同學科領域教師的培育及進修管道，以符合視覺文化藝術教育的跨領域需求，並考量教學現場實際需求。二、整合不同學科領域教學設備資源的提供管道，強化教學資源設備的共享，以補有限的教學資源與設備。三、鼓勵教師參與國內外各類型的藝術教育學術交流學會，並強化藝術教師交流學習的平台，以促進教師藝術教育學術理念的俱時精進，並縮短理論與實務的鴻溝。四、強化當代藝術教育師資的培育計畫，並控管藝術教師的新舊交替與供需平衡，同時讓新一代的藝術師資能抵達教學現場。

對後續研究的建議：一、研究對象可擴及至數位落差較大的鄉村地區。二、持續本課程的發展實施，並繼續研發其他視覺文化相關課程。

This study hopes to incorporate the Big Ideas of contemporary art education into audiovisual learning and assess the construction and practice of visual culture art curriculums. In the end, this study aims to offer a solid foundation on which to build practical teaching methods for domestic art education. It is hoped that through positive visual learning strategies, students will improve their visual literacy. In addition, this study also seeks to provide a frame of reference and relevant suggestions for future art education courses. The conclusions of this study are as follows:

The content of this curriculum revolves around four major points. First, more emphasis should be laid on learning through videos. This will improve students’ visual literacy and reduce the negative impact of large quantities of daily visual images on students’ value systems. Second, a meaningful link has to be forged to connect visual art, information technology, global cultural diversity, and students’ community life so that the curriculum will dovetail well with the concepts of contemporary art education. Thirdly, other subjects/courses should be incorporated to retain the autonomy of art subjects and to keep pace with the interdisciplinary trends of visual culture based art education. Fourthly, a stronger link has to be established between students’ social experiences and their personal lives so that they are provided with support for maintaining good interpersonal relationships.

Six main concerns are raised about current difficulties in the practical application of art education: first, the promotion of this curriculum will be difficult for want of teachers’ specialty expertise in art education; second, teachers’ inadequate interdisciplinary knowledge is a major obstacle to the curriculum’s development; thirdly, the lack of teaching equipment and aids has posed a serious challenge to the curriculum’s implementation; fourthly, teachers’ ability to manage the classroom will be a determinant of the curriculum’s progress; fifthly, the pressure of academic pursuit will still hinder this curriculum from being normalized in teaching. Ultimately then, the success of this curriculum will be determined by the decisive factor of each instructor’s attitude toward teaching.

This curriculum has three effects: first, it facilitates the teaching and learning of professional visual image concepts; second, it effectively prompts students to pay attention to issues in their immediate surroundings and society as a whole; thirdly, in this kind of curriculum, students learn to utilize information technology mediums to create films that manifest concern for society.

In response to the aforementioned observations, suggestions are as follows: Four suggestions are proposed for the improvement of practical teaching: first, art teachers must adopt a positive, active attitude toward teaching, cultivate their professional skills whenever possible, and inject more energy into teaching so as to demonstrate the educational efficacy of the curriculum; meanwhile, these measures will also help teachers receive support from multiple groups, including parents, society, school, and administration authorities; second, because the art-based integrated curriculum involves multiple fields, art teachers should take the initiative to seek channels for advancement in their fields while on the job, and also find time to supplement their studies with education and training in other specialties; thirdly, when teachers incorporate Big Ideas into the curriculum, they need to grasp the essential principles of these concepts and allow flexibility and adjustment regarding their practical application; in this way, the value of teaching will be maximized; fourthly, art education classrooms have a pressing need for professional teaching evaluations, which can provide specialist assessments of every aspect from an academic point of view, including teachers’ specialty expertise in art education, course qualities, and students’ learning effectiveness. Such assessments will not only bridge the gap between academic theory and practical implementation, but also serve as the best communicative platform for exchanges between teachers and school administrators.

There are also suggestions regarding the concerned educational authorities and teacher cultivation/progressive training organs: first, subject/course boundaries in traditional teacher education curriculums should be done away with in order to meet the interdisciplinary needs of contemporary art education—the practical and actual needs of the classroom must not be overlooked; second, the teaching equipment and resources of different subjects/courses should be integrated so as to be available to all— in this way the problem of limited resources will be resolved; thirdly, teachers should be encouraged to participate in different kinds of art education seminars both at home and abroad; channels for exchanges between art teachers should be reinforced to ensure that their academic principles follow current trends, as well as to narrow the huge gap between theory and practice; fourthly, effective programs should be introduced to train contemporary art educators; meanwhile, efforts should also be made to maintain the supply-demand equilibrium of art teachers so that new generations of art educators can have access to classrooms.

Suggestions for further study: First, the research target can be expanded to the countryside where the digital gap is wider. Second, focus can continue to be placed on the development and implementation of this curriculum, but the design of other courses related to visual culture is also needed.

中文部份
大前研一（2005）。思考的技術。商周出版。
大前研一（2006）。M型社會：中產階級消失的危機與商機。商周出版。
王驥（2006）。企業文化基因研究。2007.11.7，取自：棲息谷管理人網路社區，http://www.21manager.com/dispbbs.asp?n=147,84456,0,0,0,0,0,0
王麗雁（2009）。藝術教育發展現況綜述－師資、課程、教材教法評量。2008台灣藝術教育年鑑。國立台灣藝術教育館。
國立台灣藝術教育館（2003a）。臺灣地區國民中小學一般藝術教育現況普查及問題分析。2010.1.29，取自：台灣藝術教育網／專題研究http://ed.arte.gov.tw/eng/Book/content_1.aspx?AE_SNID=583
國立台灣藝術教育館（2003b）。我國藝術教育現況與發展策略。2007.11.17，取自：台灣藝術教育網／專案研究http://ed.arte.gov.tw/index3.aspx?p1=Trust_menu&p2=Trust_List
中華民國統計資訊網（2007）。文化與休閒統計表。2007.11.18，取自：中華民國統計資訊網／社會指標／文化與休閒統計表，http://www.stat.gov.tw/ct.asp?xItem=17952&ctNode=538。
中華民國統計資訊網（2008）。人口統計表。2008.5.3，取自：中華民國統計資訊網／社會指標／人口統計表，http://www.stat.gov.tw/ct.asp?xItem=17952&ctNode=538。
台北市立南港高級中學（2007）。校史簡介。2007.11.30，取自：臺北市立南港高級中學／港中風情／校史簡介，http://web.nksh.tp.edu.tw/releaseRedirect.do?unitID=183&pageID=3038。
行政院研究發展考核委員會(2009)。數位落差調查統計報告。2010.2.28，取自：http://www.rdec.gov.tw/ct.asp?xItem=4024389&ctNode=12062&mp=100
行政院研究發展考核委員（2009）。98年個人家戶數位落差調查報告。2010.2.28，取自：行政院研究發展考核委員會／歷年數位落差調查報告。http://www.rdec.gov.tw/ct.asp?xItem=4024389&ctNode=12062&mp=100
行政院青少年事務促進委員會 (2005)。青少年政策白皮書網領。台北：行政院青少年事務促進委員會。
向陽公益基金會（2001）。ｅ世代青少年網咖經驗調查報告。2009.6.8，取自：向陽公益基金會，http://www.tosun.org.tw/database.asp?P=3&word。
江君慧（2004）。培養教師為擴大的藝術環境做好準備：研究與省思。藝術教育國際研討會「視覺文化‧終身學習」研討會手冊。台北：國立臺灣藝術教育館。
呂佳真（2003）。高雄縣國民小學藝術與人文學習領域實施現況調查與分析。屏東師範學院音樂教育學系碩士論文（未出版）。
何俊青（2000）。建構式概念教學在國民小學社會科的實驗研究。國立高雄師範大學教育系博士論文。（未出版）
何英煒（2007）。全球最大影音分享網：YouTube繁體中文版將上線。2008.6.22取自：中時理財網，http://news.chinatimes.com/CMoney/News/News-Page/0,4442,content+120609+122007101900638,00.html
李依培（2004）。高屏地區國民中學藝術與人文領域教學實施現況及其可行策略之研究。國立高雄師範大學教育學系碩士論文。（未出版）
李咏吟、單文經（1997）。教學原理。台北市：遠流。
李坤崇（2000）。主題統整課程之理念與設計。中華民國課程與教學學會主編：課程統整與教學，255-286。台北：揚智文化。
李雪莉（2007）。世紀的課題－青少年關鍵十年：學獨立、闖世界。天下雜誌，第384期，32-42。
李雪莉、丁嘉琳（2007）。教改2.0－優質老師帶出創意學生。天下雜誌，第384期，78-84。
邱雅綺（2007）。學生性別與對自然科學習態度及學習成效之探究。臺北市立教育大學科學教育研究所碩士論文。（未出版）
吳舜文（2002）。建構主義運用音樂教學之理念與作法。戴維洋主編，新課程建構式教學理論與實踐，294-309。台北：國立台灣師範大學。
周仁尹、曾春榮（2006）。從弱勢族群的類型談教育選擇權及教育財政革新。教育研究與發展期刊，2(3)，頁93-121。
周芳華（2002）。從性別與學習風格探討傳統教材與多媒體輔助教材對電腦硬體組裝學習成效之研究—以國中二年級學生為例。國立交通大學理學院碩士論文。（未出版）
周佩儀（1999）。當代課程理論的新趨勢：從社會批判到後現代。教育部台灣省國民學校教師研習會，國教學報，第十一期，259-282。
周佩儀（2000）。課程統整與課程分化。中華民國課程與教學學會主編：課程統整與教學，3-26。台北：揚智文化。
林宏達（2007）。學校沒教的大能力。商業周刊，第1028期，116-122。
林惠敏（2002）。國小教師美術教學態度及其相關因素之研究。國立臺灣師範大學美術研究所碩士論文（未出版）。
林碧雲（2000）。問題解決教學的設計模式。中華民國課程與教學學會主編：課程統整與教學，133-159。台北：揚智文化。
封四維（2005）。批判思考教學的原理與設計。李咏吟主編，多元教學設設：課程改革的實踐，85-131。台北：高等教育。
洪志成（1990）。建構主義初探：兼論其在教育上的啟示。台灣省第一屆教育學術論文發表論文集。
洪蘭（2006）。大腦的主張。台北市：天下雜誌。
胡幼慧、姚美華（1996）。一些質性方法上的思考。質性研究，胡幼慧主編。台北：巨流圖書，141-158。
馬東梅（2006）。文化研究視域下的－新媒介技術對受眾的影響。2007.5.20，取自：華夏電視網／傳媒視線／電視理論／理論前沿（轉載自傳媒學術網)，http://www.ctvbiz.com/showart.asp?cat_id=15&art_id=215
林素卿（2001）。學校行動研究在九年一貫課程統整與實施上之應用。行動研究與課程教學革新，中華民國課程與教學學會主編。台北：揚智文化出版。49-74。
徐仁全（2006）。2015關鍵報告。遠見雜誌，245期，182-191。
徐明珠（2004）。行動研究在教育改革中的問題與價值。國家政策論壇季刊，春季號。
許癸鎣、李雪莉（2007）。青年學生夢想大調查：夢想的M型－階級決定機會。天下雜誌，第384期，94-105。
孫嘉妤（2006）。台東縣國民小學藝術與人文學習領域課程實施現況之調查研究。國立屏東教育大學視覺藝術教育學系碩士論文。（未出版）
黃于珍（2005）。國民中學藝術與人文學習領域課程綱要實施現況之調查研究。國立臺灣師範大學教育學系碩士論文。（未出版）
黃玉佳（2002）。概念構圖與摘要策略對不同性別學生學習成效之影響。國立成功大學教育研究所碩士論文。（未出版）
黃威葳（2007）。2007台灣青少兒網路安全素養。網護情報，第15期。台北市：財團法人台灣網站分級推廣基金會。
教育百科辭典 (1994)。教育百科辭典編審委員會編。台北：五南。
教育部（1998）。國民教育階段九年一貫課程總綱綱要。台北市：教育部。
教育部（2002）。創造力教育白皮書。台北市：教育部。
教育部（2005）。藝術教育政策白皮書。台北市：教育部。
教育部十二年國民基本教育資訊網（2007）。2008.2.8，取自： http://epaper.edu.tw/12edu/index.php。
教育部（2009）。中華民國教育現況簡介。2009.12.12，取自：教育部／教育部重大教育政策，http://www.edu.tw/secretary/content.aspx?site_content_sn=21048。
莊明貞（1997），國小課程的改進與發展─真實性的評量。載於「道德教學與評量─多元文化教育觀點」，189-198。台北：師大書苑。
莊素玉、黃亦筠（2007）。超越貧窮線：為什麼富者愈富，貧者愈貧。天下雜誌，387期，164-176。
陳伯璋（2001）。學校本位課程發展與行動研究。行動研究與課程教學革新。中華民國課程與教學學會主編。台北：揚智文化出版，33-47。
陳冠伶（2005）。國民中學「藝術與人文領域」教師教學困擾及其因應策略之研究—以雲嘉南地區為例。國立彰化師範大學藝術教育研究所碩士論文。（未出版）
陳啟明（1984）。國民小學自然科教具自製、運用、管理、改進之研究。台北師專學報，11，61-111。
陳建伶、鐘政岳（2003）。藝術核心統整課程理論與實務。國際藝術教育學刊，第一卷第二期，112-137。國立台灣藝術教育館。
陳瓊花（2002）。反向思考－從評量學生的藝術學習進行課程設計。美育雙月刊，128期，22-29。台北：國立台灣藝術教育館。
郭重吉（1992）。從建構主義的觀點探討中小學數理教學的改進。科學發展月刊，20 (5)，548-570。
郭禎祥（1999）。台灣藝術教育現況及改進之道。1999 InSEA研討會論文集。
郭禎祥（2000）。教育改革下的藝術教育藍圖。2000亞太區美術教育會議論文集。香港：香港教育學院。
郭禎祥（2004）。藝術教育的變動與展望。2004 INSEA亞洲地區會議論文集（頁56-71）。北京：首都師範大學。
郭禎祥（2007）。當代藝術教育的省思—創造力、視覺文化與當代藝術。2007第三屆亞太藝術教育國際研討會。花蓮教育大學藝術學院。
國立台灣藝術教育館（2002）。臺灣地區高級中等學校暨大專院校一般藝術教育現況普查及問題分析。2007.11.17，取自：台灣藝術教育網／專案研究http://ed.arte.gov.tw/index3.aspx?p1=Trust_menu&p2=Trust_List
國立台灣藝術教育館（2003a）。臺灣地區國民中小學一般藝術教育現況普查及問題分析。2010.1.29，取自：台灣藝術教育網／專題研究http://ed.arte.gov.tw/eng/Book/content_1.aspx?AE_SNID=583
國立台灣藝術教育館（2003b）。我國藝術教育現況與發展策略。2007.11.17，取自：台灣藝術教育網／專案研究http://ed.arte.gov.tw/index3.aspx?p1=Trust_menu&p2=Trust_List
張川木（1996）。學童科學概念與課程設計。科學月刊，314期。台北市：科學月刊雜誌社。
張伍庭（2007）。影響高中職學生學習成效因素之研究影響高中職學生學習成效因素之研究。大葉大學設計研究所碩士論文。（未出版）
張春興（1988）。知之歷程與教之歷程：認知心理學的發展及其在教育上的應用。教育心理學報。台北：師大教育心理與輔導學系。
張春興（1996）。教育心理學。台北市：東華書局。
張展毓（2007）。高屏地區國小藝術與人文領域教學實施現況及其可行策略之研究。高雄師範大學教育學系碩士論文。（未出版）
普通高中課程學科中心（2009）。課程網要，2009.12.12，取自：教育部普通高中課程學科中心網站，http://arts.a-team.com.tw/artsnewweb/03_course/coursepage.html。
資策會（2009）。家庭上網調查／2009年我國家庭寬頻應用現況與需求調查—應用行為。2009.12.22，取自：資策會FIND網站，http://www.find.org.tw/find/home.aspx?page=many&id=214。
經濟部（2009）。2008/12/09台灣家戶網路應用調查。2009-12-22，取自：經濟部通訊產業發展推動小組，http://www.communications.org.tw/getdetail.php?n_unit=861。
遠見雜誌（2006）。預見未來：從6大趨勢看到10年後的世界。遠見雜誌，245期，205-218。
葉玉珠（2006）。創造力教學－過去、現在與未來。台北市：心理出版社。
葉謹睿（2005）。數位藝術概論－電腦時代之美學、創作及藝術環境。台北市：藝術家出版社。
楊馥如（2005）。當代藝術統整課程理論與實踐之研究。國立台灣師範大學美術研究所博士論文。（未出版）
鄒川雄（2005）。從創新導向之本土化觀點論經典教育的意義－大學基進經典教育論綱。教育與社會研究，第8期，1-36。
詹志禹（2002）。認識與知識：建構論VS.接受觀。詹志禹主編：建構論理論基礎與教育應用，12-27。台北：正中書局。
趙惠玲（2004）。 拼圖與解譯：台灣兒童及青少年視覺文化素養初探。藝術教育國際研討會「視覺文化‧終身學習」研討會手冊。台北。國立臺灣藝術教育館。
趙惠玲（2005）。視覺文化與藝術教育。台北：師大書苑。
甄曉蘭（2001）。行動研究成果的評估與呈現。行動研究與課程教學革新。中華民國課程與教學學會主編。台北：揚智文化出版，199-221。
潘世尊（2005）。教育行動研究：理論、實踐與反省。台北市：心理出版社。
簡順永（2000）。高二學生力概念的運用調查分析。台灣師範大學物理系碩士論文。（未出版）
謝攸青（2006）。後現代藝術教育：理論建構與實例設計。嘉義市：濤石文化出版。
聯合報（2007）。師「賠」…流浪教師4萬多人。聯合報2007.04.11。
歐用生（1999）。從「課程統整」的概念評九年一貫課程。教育研究資訊，7(1)，22-32。
歐用生（2001）。行動研究與課程教學革新（序）。中華民國課程與教學學會主編。台北：揚智文化出版，序5-6。
鄭麗玉（1993）。認知心理學—理論與運用。台北市：五南圖書公司。
劉豐榮（2001）。當代藝術教育論題之評析。視覺藝術，4，59-96。
藝術生活學科中心（2009）。課程網要，2009.12.12，取自，高中藝術生活學科中心，http://artlife.hs.ntnu.edu.tw/artlife/index.php。
美術學科中心（2010）。99課綱：普通高級中學美術課程綱要修訂理念與特色。2010.6.12，取自，高中美術學科中心，http://arts.a-team.com.tw/artsnewweb/03_course/coursepage.html
鍾聖校（1994）。對科學教育錯誤概念研究之省思。教育研究資訊，2(3)，89-110。
藍采虹（2006）。台北市國民小學視覺藝術教師對教學專業知能自我省思之研究。國立臺灣師範大學美術學系碩士論文。（未出版）
饒見維（2004）。知識場論：認知、思考與教育的統合理論（三版）。台北：五南圖書。

西文部份
Anderson, R. (1999).Universal Access to E-mail: Feasibility and Societal Implication. Rand Corporation (ED401884).
Annenberg Institute for School Reform. (2003). The arts and school reform: Lessons and possibilities from the Annenberg Challenge arts projects. RI: Brown University.
Ausubel, D. P. (1968). Educational psychology: A cognitive view. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.
Avgerinou, M. D. (2001). In visual literacy: anatomy and diagnosis, an unpublished doctoral dissertation. In Turning Trees, selected readings from The International Visual Literacy Association, International Conference, 2003.
Ballengee-Morris, C. & Stuhr, P. (2001). Multiculture art and visual culture education in a changing world. Art Education. 54(4), 6-13.
Banks, J. (1988). Multiethnic education; theory and practice. Boston: Allyn and Bacon.
Barnard, M. (1998). Art, design, and visual culture: An introduction. New York: St. Martin’s Press.
Bauman, Z. (1992). Intimations of postmodernity. London: Routledge.
Beane, J. (1997). Curriculum integration: designing the core of democratic education. New York: Teachers College, Columbia University.
Beck, A. T. (1976). Cognitive therapy and emotional disorders. New York: International Universities Press.
Benyon, J. & Dunkerley, D. (Eds.) (2000). Globalizatioin: the reader. London: Athlone Press.
Bernstein, B. (1990). The Structuring of Pedagogic Discourse. NY: Routledge.
Berryman, J. C., Hargreaves, D., Herbert, M. & Taylor, A. (1994). Developmental psychology and you. Londres: British Psychological Society and Routledge.
Blakemore, S. J. & Frith, U. (2005). The learning brain. Oxford: Blackwell.
Blandy, D. & Hoffman, E.(1993). Toward an art education of place. Studies in Art Education, 35(1), 22-33.
Bloome, D. (Ed.) (1989).Classrooms and literacy. Ablex Publishing Coporation: Norwood, New Jersey.
Boston, B. O. (1996). Connections: the arts and the integration of the high school curriculum. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No, ED 407317).
Boughton, D. (1986). Visual Literacy: Implications for Cultural Understanding through Art Education. Journal of Art and Design Education, 5(1) & 5(2).
Boughton, D. (2004). Learning visual culture: the important relationship of curriculum and assessment. The International Journal of Arts Education, 2(4). 76-102. Taipei: National Taiwan Arts Education Center.
Braden, R. (1996). Visual literacy. In D. Jonassen (Ed.), Handbook of research for educationl communications and technology. 1107-1135. New York: MacMillan.
Bresler, L. (1995). The subservient, co-equal, affective, and social integration styles and their implications for the arts. Arts Education Policy Review, 96(5), 31-36.
Brown, I. (2004). Global trends in art education: new technologies and the paradigm shift to visual literacy. The International Journal of Arts Education, 2(3), 50-71. Taipei: National Taiwan Arts Education Center.
Bruffee, K. A. (1984). Collaborative learning and the conversation of mankind. College English, November, 635-652.
Burton, D. (1998). A survey of assessment and evaluation among U.S. K-12 teachers of art. Meeting of the NAEA task force on demographic research. NAEA convention, Chicago IL., April 2.
Burton, D. (2005). The integrity of personal, experience, or, the presence of life in art. The International Journal of Arts Education, 3(2), 9-56. Taipei: National Taiwan Arts Education Center.
Canton, J. (2006). The extreme future: the top trends that will reshape the world. New York: Penguin Group.
Carr, W. (1995). For education: towards critical educational inquiry. Buckingham: Open University Press.
Carr, W. & Kemmis, S. (1983). Becoming critical: Knowing through action research. Australia: Deakin University.
Carter, R. (1998). Mapping the mind. Univ. of California Press, Berkeley.
Castells, M. (2001). The Internet Galaxy: Reflections on the Internet, Business, and Society. New York: Oxford University Press.
Chalmers, G. (2004). Art education in a world where old boundaries, old truth, and old certainties are no. longer valid. The International Journal of Arts Education, 2(2), 8-21. Taipei: National Taiwan Arts Education Center.
Chapman, L. (2001, March). Conference presentation: Studies of the mass arts. NAEA Visual Culture Panel. New York.
Christopherson, J. (1997). The growing need for visual literacy at the university. Vision Quest: Journeys Toward Visual Literacy Association. Wyoming: International Visual Literacy Association.
Clark, G & Zimmerman, E. (1997). Project arts: Programs for ethnically diverse, economically disadvantaged, high ability, visual arts students in rural communities. Bloomington, IN: Indiana University.
Clinton, W. (1999).Memorandum on Narrowing the Digital Divide. Weekly Compilation of Presidential Documents, 35(49), 25-26.
Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1996). Creativity: Flow and the psychology of discovery and invention. New York: HarperCollins Press.
Dawkins, R. (2006). The Selfish Gene: 30th Anniversary Edition. New York: Oxford University Press.
Daniel, V. (2003). The kwanzaa playground narrative: an anchor for integrated curriculum in art education. The International Journal of Arts Education, 1(2), 6-33. Taipei: National Taiwan Arts Education Center.
Davenport, M. (2000). Culture and education: politics the lenses. Studies in Art Education, 41(4). 361-375.
Day, M. (2004a). Modern art, postmodern art, and visual culture in art education. 2004 International Symposium on Art Education: Visual Culture & Life-long Learning. Taipei: National Taiwan Arts Education Center.
Day, M. (2004b). Teaching culture understanding within comprehensive art education. The International Journal of Arts Education, 3(1), 37-67. Taipei: National Taiwan Arts Education Center.
De Bono, E. (1992). Teach your child how to think. London: Viking.
Dick, B. (2008). Action research: action and research. Available: http://www.scu.edu.au/schools/gcm/ar/arp/aandr.html. 2008.1.27.
Discovery. (2008). Human Body: Pushing the Limits. Available: Taiwan Discovery Channel. 2008/4/3/23:00 – 00:00
Dobbs, S. M. (1998). Learning in and through art: A guide to discipline-based art education. Los Angeles: The Getty Education Institute for the Arts.
Doll, W. E. (1989). Foundations for a post-modern curriculum. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 21(3), 243-253.
Doll, W. E. (1998) Curriculum and concepts of control, In W. F. Pinar (Ed.), Curriculum: Toward new identities. 295-323. New York: Garland.
Dorn, C. M. (2004). The teacher as stakeholder in student art assessment and art program evaluation. The International Journal of Arts Education, 2(4), 6-26. Taipei: National Taiwan Arts Education Center.
Drake, S.M. (1998). Creating Integration Curriculum: Proven Ways to Increase Student Learning。Thousand Osks California: Corwin Press, Inc.
Duncum, P. (2001a). Visual culture: Development, definitions, and directions for art education. Studies in Art Education, 42(2), 101-112.
Duncum, P. (2001b). Theoretical foundations for an art education of global culture and principles for classroom practice. International Journal for Education & the Arts, 2(3), 1-32.
Duncum, P. (2002a). Clarifying visual culture art education. Art Education, 55(3), 6-11.
Duncum, P. (2002b). Visual culture art education: Why, what and how. The International Journal of Art & Design Education, 21(1), 14-23.
Duncum, P. (2005) . Running head: navigating approaches to visual culture. The International Journal of Arts Education, 3(1), 136-164. Taipei: National Taiwan Arts Education Center.
Efland, A. (1995). The spiral and the lattice: Changes in cognitive learning theory with implications for art education. Studies in Art Education, 36(3), 134-153.
Eflend, A. (1996). Postmodern theory: Changing conceptions of art, culture, and education. In A. Efland, K. Freedman, and P. Stuhr (Eds.), Postmodern art education, pp115-125. Reston, Virginia: National Art Education Association.Reston.
Efland, A. (2003). Imagination in cognition: the purpose of the arts. The International Journal of Arts Education, 1(1), 26-66.
Efland, A.& Freedman, K.＆ Stuhr, P. (1996). Postmodern art education: An approach to curriculum. Reston,VA: National Art Education Association.
Egan, K. (1992). Imagination in teaching and learning: the middle school years. Chicago: Chicago University Press.
Egan, K. (1997). The educated mind: how cognitive tools shape our understanding. Chicago: Chicago University Press.
Egan, K. (1999). Children’s minds, talking rabbits, & clockwork oranges: Essays on education. NY: Teachers College Press.
Eisenstein, Z. (2000). ‘Cyber inequities’ in John Benyon and David Dunkerley (Eds.), Globalizatioin: the reader. London: Athlone Press
Eisner, E. W. (2001). The educational imagination: On the design and evaluation of school program (3rd ed.). New York: Macmillan.
Eisner, E. W. (2003). What do the arts teach. The International Journal of Arts Education, 1(1)，7-25. Taipei: National Taiwan Arts Education Center.
Erickson, H. L. (2001). Concept-based learning. Journal of Arts Education, 123, 94-95. Taipei: National Taiwan Arts Education Center.
Feist, J. (1999). The influence of personality on artictic and scientific creativity. In R. J. Sternberg (Ed.), Handbook of Creativity, 273-296. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Festinger, L. (1957). A Theory of Cognitive Dissonance. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
Flood, A. (2008). Mind the gap. a presentation to the World Alliance for Art Education 2008 World Creativity Summit. Taipei.
Fisher, R. (1995). Teaching children to think. Stanley Thornes.
Fiske, J. (1989). Understanding popular culture. Winchester, Mass: Unwin Hyman Inc.
Freedman, K. (2002). The world is not enough: contemporary life and the visual arts. Presentation at the 2002 InSEA World Congress, New York.
Freedman, K. (2003). Teaching visual culture: Curriculum, aesthetics and the social life of art. New York: Teachers College Press.
Freedman, K. (2004). Teaching Visual Culture: Visiting New Realms and Returning Home. Paper presentation at the International Symposium on Art Education, Taipei, Taiwan, ROC.
Freedman, K. & Stuhr, P. (2004). Curriculum change for the 21st century: Visual culture in art education. In Eisner, E. W. & Day, M. D. (Eds.). Handbook of Research and Policy in Art Education. (pp. 815-828). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Friedman, T. (2006). The world is flat. Ars Longa Press.
Gardner, H. (1999). Intelligences reframed: multiple intelligences for the 21st century. New York: Basic Books.
Gardner, H. (2004). Frames of mind: The theory of multiple intelligences. New York: Basic Books.
Gardner, H. (2006). Five Minds for the Future. Boston: Harvard Business School Press.
Geertz. C. (1973). The interpretation of culture. New York: Basic Books.
Glynn, S. M. , Yeany, R. H. & Britton, B. K. (1991). The Psychology of Learning Science. Hillsdale, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
Guba, E. G. & Lincoln, Y. S. ( 1994). Competing paradigms in qualitative research. In Denizin, N.K. & Lincoln, Y. S. (eds.). Handbook of qualitative research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Pp.105-117.
Hammersley, M. (1990). Reading ethnographic reseach: a critical guide. London: Longman.
Harel, I. & Papert, S. (Eds). (1991). Constructionism. N.J.: Ablex Pub. Corp.
Hawking, S. W. (1988). A brief history of time: From big bang to black holes. New York: Bantam Books.
Hicks, L. (1989). Cultural literacy as social empowerment. The Journal of Social Theory in Art Education ,9 , 45-58.
IVLA. (2007). What is "Visual Literacy?" by Maria Avgerinou. Available: IVLA/ Organization. http://www.ivla.org/org_what_vis_lit.htm, 2007/9/10
Jacobs, H. (1989). Interdisciplinary curriculum: Design and implementation. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development (ASCD).
Jacobs, H. (1997). Mapping the big picture: integrating curriculum and assessment K-12. Alexandria, VA: ASCD.
Johnson A. P. (2005). A short guide to action research. Boston: Pearson Education, Inc.
Kaufman, D. M., & Mann, K. V.（1996）. Comparing student attitudes in a problem-based curriculum. Academic Medicine, 71(10), 1096-1099.
Kemmis, S., & McTaggart, R. (1988). The action research planner (3rd Ed). Australia: Deakin University Press.
Krug, D. H. & Cohen- Evron, N. (2000). Curriculum integration positions and Practices in art education. Studies in Art Education, 41(3), 258-275.
Krug, D. H. (2004). What Colors are the Stars in the Universe? Journal of Arts Education, 139, 24-35. Taipei: National Taiwan Arts Education Center.
Ladson-Billings, G. (1995). But that’s just good teaching! The case for culturally relevant pedagogy. Theory into Practice. 32(3), 159-165.
Lankford, E. L. (1992). Aesthetics: Issues and inquiry. Reston, Virginia: National Art Education Association.
Lanier, V. (1969, February). The teaching of art as social revolution. Phi delta kappan. 314-319.
Loveless, A.（1997）. Visual literacy and digital technology. Poster presentation at the British Educational Research Association Annual Conference. (September 11-14 1997: University of York)
Lyotard, J, (1984). The postmodern condition: a report on knowledge. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.
Mace, M. A. (1997). Toward an understanding of creativity through a qualitative appraisal of contemporary art making. Creativity Research Journal, 10(2) & (3), pp265-278.
Manifold, M. C. (2005). Learning from aesthetic experiences of tumult. The International Journal of Arts Education, 3(1), 105-135 Taipei: National Taiwan Arts Education Center.
Mason, R. (2004). Cultural and multicultural education in Europe a personal critique. The International Journal of Arts Education, 2(2), 22-42. Taipei: National Taiwan Arts Education Center.。
Marche, T. (1998). Looking outward, looking in: community in art education. Art Education, 51(3), 6-13.
Martin, J. (2006). The meaning of the 21st century. New York: Loretta Barrett Books
May, W. T. (1997). Action research partⅠ & Ⅱ. Research methods and methodology for art education. 223-245.
McTighe, J. & Wiggins, G. (1998). Understanding by design. Alexandria, VA: ASAD.
Medin, D. L. & Ross, H. B. (1990). Cognitive psychology. Philadelphia: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich College
Meredith, R. (2007). The elephant and the dragon- the rise of India and China and what it means for all of us. New York : W. W. Norton & Company.
Mirzoeff, N. (1999). An introduction to visual culture. London: Routledge.
Mirzoeff, N. (2002). Ghostwriting: Working out visual culture. In M. A. Holly & K. Moxey (Eds.), Art history, aesthetics, visual studies (pp. 189-202). Williamstown, MA: Sterling and Francine Clark Art Institute.
Mitchell, W. J. T. (1994). Picture Theory, Chicago, IL, Chicago University Press.
Morris, C. B. (2004). Telling many stories. The International Journal of Arts Education, 2(2), 98-125. Taipei: National Taiwan Arts Education Center.
Muir, S., & Wells, C. (1983). Informal evaluation. Social Studies, 74(3), 95-99
National Art Education Association. (1994). National Standards for the Visual Arts. Reston, VA: NAEA.
National Arts Education Consortium. (2003). Education Through the Arts Challenge: Final Project Report. Ohio: NAEC.
Naisbitt, J. (2006). Mind set! Reset your thinking and see the future. New York: Harper Collins Publishers.
OPVA (2007). TETAC. Available: OPVA Phase II. http://arted.osu.edu/OPVA/ab_2_2.htm. 2007/11/12
Parsons, M. (2001). An account of an integrated curriculum unit. 2001 InSEA-Asian Regional Congress: Art Humanity Technology. Sun Moon Lake, Youth Activity Center, Taiwan.
Parsons, M. (2003). Endpoints, repertoires, and toolboxes: Development in art as the acquisition of tools. The International Journal of Arts Education, 1(1), 7-17. Taipei: National Taiwan Arts Education Center.
Parsons, M. (2004). Assessment and artmaking: the case of Amy, Bo and Chi. The International Journal of Arts Education, 2(4), 27-49. Taipei: National Taiwan Arts Education Center.
Patchen, H. J. (1999). Education in and through the art for 21st century. 1999 International Symposium in Art Education, Changhua: TAEA Press.
Phenix, P. (1964). Realms of meaning: A philosophy of the curriculum for general education. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Pink, D. H. (2005). A whole new mind: Moving from the information age to the conceptual age. New York: Penguin Group.
Rokeach, M. (1973). The nature of human values. New York: Free Press.
Schirato, T. & Webb, J. (2003). Understanding globalization. London: Sage Publications.
Shulman, S. (1999). Owning the future. NY: Houghton Mifflin Company
Slattery, P. (1995). Curriculum development in the postmodern era. New York & London: Garland Publishing.
Squire, L. R. & Kandel, E. R. (2000). Memory: from mind to molecules. NY: Scientific American Library.
Steers, J. (2004). Orthodoxy, creativity and opportunity. The International Journal of Arts Education, 2(3), 24-49. Taipei: National Taiwan Arts Education Center.
Steers, J. & Swift, J. (1999). A manifesto for art in schools. Journal of Art & Design Education, 18(1)，7-14. Oxford: Blackwell Publishers.
Sternberg, R. J. & Lubart, T. I. (1999). Concept of creativity: prospects and paradigms. in R. J. Sternberg (Ed.), Handbook of Creativity, 3-15. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Stuhr, P. L. (2004). Considering Visual Culture, Life-long Learning and Issues of Social Justice. 2004 International Symposium on Art Education: Visual Culture & Life-long Learning. Taipei: National Taiwan Arts Education Center.
Sturken, M. & Cartwright, L. (2001 ). Practices of Looking: An Introduction to Visual Culture. New York: Oxford University Press.
Suraco, T. L. (2006). An Interdisciplinary Approach in the Art Education Curriculum. Unpublished master’s thesis, Georgia State University.
Tapscott, D. (1998). Growing up digital: The rise of the Net generation. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Tavin, K. M. (2003). Wrestling with angles, searching for ghosts: Toward a critical pedagogy of visual culture. Studies in Art Education, 44(3), 197-213.
Taylor, P. (2000). Madonna and hypertext: liberatory learning in art education. Studies in Art Education, 41(4), 376-389.
Tomhave, R. D. (1992). Value bases underlying conceptions of multicultural education: an analysis of selected literature in art education. Studies in Art Education, 34(1), 48-60.
Tomlinson, J. (1999). Globalization and culture. Cambridge: Polity Press.
Ulbricht, J. (1998). Interdisciplinary art education reconsidered. Art Education, 51(4), 13-17.
Vygotsky, L. (1961). Thought and language. Cambridge, MA: M. I. T. Press.
Walker, S. R. (1996). Designing studio instruction: Why have students make artwork? Art Education, 49(5), 11-17.
Walker, S. R. (2001). Teaching meaning in artmaking. Worcester, MA: Davis.
Walker, S. R. (2004). Designing Art Curriculum with Big Ideas. Journal of Arts Education,139, 52-55。Taipei: National Taiwan Arts Education Center.
Walker, S. R. (May 2004). Big ideas: understanding the artmaking process- reflective practice. Journal of Art Education, 6-12.
Walker, J. A., & Chaplin, S. (1997). Visual culture as a field of study, and the origins of visual culture studies. In J. A. Walker, & S. Chaplin, Visual culture: An introduction, pp. 31-50. New York: Manchester University Press.
Warnier, J. P. (2003). La mondialisation de la culture. Paris: La Découverte.
Waters, M. (1995). Globalization. London: Routledge.
Wiggins, G. (1989). A true test: Toward authentic and equitable assessment. Phi Delta Kappan, 71(9), 703-313.
Wikipedia. (2008). (2008.3.5)http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ideology. 2008.3.5.
Wolfinger, D. M. & Stockhard, J. W. (1997). Elementary methods: an integrated curriculum. N.Y.: Longman.
Woods, W. A. (1981). Procedural semantics as a theory of meaning. In A. Joshi., & B. Webber. (eds.). Computational aspects of linguistic structure and discourse setting. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Zimmerman, E. (2004). It’s kind of a give and take thing: conducting assessments by sitting down and talking to students. The International Journal of Arts Education, 2(4), 50-75. Taipei: National Taiwan Arts Education Center.
Zimmerman, E. (2005). It takes effort and time to achieve new ways of thinking: creativity and art education. The International Journal of Arts Education, 3(2), 57-87. Taipei: National Taiwan Arts Education Center.