本研究的主要目的在透過調查來瞭解國中教師對體育課程之價值取向情形，並進而就個人背景中的不同性別、任教科別、教育背景、服務年資以及擔任不同職務等變項，採用Ennis & Chen （1993）所發展出來的價值取向量表（Value Orientation Inventory，簡稱VOI）為研究工具；以台北市九十學年度現職之健康教育與體育教師為研究對象，並依分層比例叢集抽樣原則，抽出270人為受測者，回收有效問卷213份。將所得資料統計分析後經χ2考驗，獨立樣本t考驗（t-test）及獨立樣本單因子變異數分析（One-way ANOVA），深入探討台北市國中教師對體育課程價值取向之學科精熟（DM），學習過程（LP），自我實現（SA），社會重建（SR），生態整合（EI）的差異情形。顯著水準為α =.05，結果歸納如下：一、台北市國中教師對體育課程取向之優先順序依次為學科精熟（DM），生態整合（EI），自我實現（SA），學習過程（LP），社會重建（SR）。二、就全體受測教師，具有一個課程價值取向者有59人，佔31.89%；具有二個課程價值取向者有2人，佔1.08%。三、就個人背景因素，其對體育課程價值取向在不同性別、任教科別、服務年資下，並沒有存在差異性。四、在不同教育背景因素下，達顯著差異性，經事後比較發現師範院校非本科系組教師與師範院校本科系組教師以及非師範院校本科系組教師在社會重建價值取向上存有差異性。五、在擔任不同職務因素下，專任教師與導師在學科精熟價值取向上存有差異性。研究結果建議：一、學校應提昇教師個人課程價值取向之認知以因應九年一貫課程學校本位課程之發展。二、因應九年一貫課程之實施，針對國民中小學教師研發出一套「健康與體育」之系統化的課程價值取向。 The purpose of this study is to investigate the Value Orientation of Physical Education Curriculum (VOPEC) of junior high school teachers in Taipei City. The instrument used was Ennis & Chen’s (1993) Value Orientation Inventory (VOI). The independent variables included teacher’s individual history, gender, subject matters they taught, educational background, years of service, and administrative work they served. The 270 participants in the study were selected by stratified clusters from Health and Physical Education teachers of the year 90 (2001) in Taipei City, and there were 213 retrieved valid questionnaires. All the data obtained from the valid questionnaires were analyzed statistically by χ2 test, independent t-test, and One-way ANOVA to test the differences of teachers’ Disciplinary Mastery (DM), Learning Process (LP), Self-Actualization (SA), Social Responsibility (SR), and Ecological Integration (EI) of the VOPEC. The significant level was set at α =0.05. The findings were summarized as follows. 1. The rank order of the VOPEC of teachers in Taipei City was DM, EI, SA, LP, and SR. 2. Of all the selected teachers, 59 teachers (31.89%) had one value orientation of curriculum; and 2 teachers (1.08%) had two value orientations of curriculum. 3. The statistical tests revealed no significance on VOPEC in the areas of gender, subject matters they taught, and year of service. 4. The statistics revealed that teacher’s (scores on) VOPEC significantly associated with their (scores on) VOPEC. Further posterior comparisons indicated that the difference existed within SR between teachers graduated from teachers colleges who taught their major subject and teachers graduated from teachers colleges who did not taught their major subject and teachers graduated from non-teachers colleges who taught their majors. 5. For the factor of different administrative work, it was found that (the scores on) DM were significantly different between part-time teachers and full-time teachers. Suggestions for the findings: 1. Schools should promote teacher’s understanding of the value orientation of curriculum to meet the need of school-based development of nine-year coherent curriculum. 2. To adapt the policy of nine-year coherent curriculum, it is necessary to develop a systemized value orientation of curriculum of Health and Physical Education for elementary school (1-9) teachers.

The purpose of this study is to investigate the Value Orientation of Physical
Education Curriculum (VOPEC) of junior high school teachers in Taipei City.　
The instrument used was Ennis & Chen’s (1993) Value Orientation Inventory (
VOI).　The independent variables included teacher’s individual history,
gender, subject matters they taught, educational background, years of service,
and administrative work they served.　The 270 participants in the study were
selected by stratified clusters from Health and Physical Education teachers of
the year 90 (2001) in Taipei City, and there were 213 retrieved valid
questionnaires. All the data obtained from the valid questionnaires were
analyzed statistically by χ2 test, independent t-test, and One-way ANOVA to
test the differences of teachers’ Disciplinary Mastery (DM), Learning
Process (LP), Self-Actualization (SA), Social Responsibility (SR), and
Ecological Integration (EI) of the VOPEC. The significant level was set at α =
0.05.
The findings were summarized as follows.
1. The rank order of the VOPEC of teachers in Taipei City was DM, EI, SA, LP,
and SR.
2. Of all the selected teachers, 59 teachers (31.89%) had one value orientation
of curriculum; and 2 teachers (1.08%) had two value orientations of curriculum.
3. The statistical tests revealed no significance on VOPEC in the areas of
gender, subject matters they taught, and year of service.
4. The statistics revealed that teacher’s (scores on) VOPEC significantly
associated with their (scores on) VOPEC.　Further posterior comparisons
indicated that the difference existed within SR between teachers graduated
from teachers colleges who taught their major subject and teachers graduated
from teachers colleges who did not taught their major subject and teachers
graduated from non-teachers colleges who taught their majors.
5. For the factor of different administrative work, it was found that (the
scores on) DM were significantly different between part-time teachers and full-
time teachers.
Suggestions for the findings:
1. Schools should promote teacher’s understanding of the value orientation of
curriculum to meet the need of school-based development of nine-year coherent
curriculum.
2. To adapt the policy of nine-year coherent curriculum, it is necessary to
develop a systemized value orientation of curriculum of Health and Physical
Education for elementary school (1-9) teachers.

一、中文部分
王春堎　(民88)。彰化縣國小教師對體育課程價值取向暨課程決定之調查研究。國立台灣
體育學院體育研究所碩士論文
朱森楠　(民73)。價值澄清對國中生價值觀歸納方式之影響。國立台灣師範大學輔導研究
所碩士論文。
行政院教育改革委員會　(民85)。教育改革總諮議報告書。台北：行政院教改會。
李子健、黃顯華　(民85)。課程－範式、取向和設計。台北：五南。
杜祖貽　(民71)。論外來教育理論的限制與今日教育學研究的路向，載於楊國樞、文崇一
主編，社會及行為科學研究的中國文化。（頁189-208）。台北：　中央研究院民族學研究
所。
林清財　(民 79)。我國國民小學教師教育信念之相關研究。國立政治大學教育研究所博士
論文。
周宏室　(民 83)。台北市學生對體育課程目標認知之調查研究。台北：文鶴。
周宏室　(民 83)。Mosston(摩斯登)體育教學光譜的理論與應用。台北：師大書苑。
吳聰賢　(民 69)。態度量表的建立。載於楊國樞等人主編，社會及行為科學研究法。（頁
463-486）。台北：東華。
吳清山　(民 85)。教育發展與教育改革。台北：心理出版社。
教育部　(民 87)。國民教育階段九年一貫課程總綱綱要。台北：教育部。
教育部　(民 89)。國民中小學九年一貫課程暫行綱要－「健康與體育」學習領域課程綱要
。台北：教育部。
教育部　(民 89)。學校本位課程發展基本理念實施策略。中華民國課程與教學學會主編。
台北：教育部。
高新建　(民 88)。學校本位課程發展的多樣性。載於學校本位課程與教學創新。中華民國
課程與教學學會主編。台北：楊智文化。
許義雄，徐元民　(民 88)。中國近代學校體育(上冊)。　台北：師大書苑。
黃金柱　(民 90)。九年一貫體育教學研究新知分享－教師對身體活動與適能教學態度之調
查研究。花師院刊，37期，19-26。
黃政傑　(民 74)。課程改革。台北：東華。
黃政傑　(民 80)。設程設計。台北：東華。
黃炳煌　(民 71)。課程理論之基礎。台北：文景。
張奉箴　(民 78)。概論價值。教育文粹，18期，6-11。
張德銳　(民84)。台北縣教育改革經驗－學校中心的管理。高雄：復文。
張春秀　(民 87)。體育課程理論。載於許義雄主編，運動教育與人文關懷（下）。（頁1-
19）。台北：師大書苑。
張春秀　(民 89)。體育教師課程價值取向對學生體育學習思考於學習態度之影響。國立台
灣師範大學體育研究所博士論文。
楊國樞　(民 83)。中國人的價值觀－社會科學觀。台北：桂冠。
歐用生　(民 70)。課程研究發展論。高雄：復文。
郭為藩　(民 61)。價值理論及其在教育學上的意義。師大教育研究所集刊，14輯，39-61
。
葉憲清 （民75）。大專興趣分組體育教學行政與研究。高雄：復文。
蔡貞雄 （民78）。國民小學體育教學研究。台北：五南。
蔡貞雄　(民 90)。體育的理念。高雄：復文。
藍金香　(民 86)。台北市國小教師對體育課價值取向之調查研究。國立體育學院體育研究
所碩士論文。
二、英文部分：
Allport,G.W.(1961). Personal and social encounter. Boston：Beacon.press
Athos, A.G,&Gabarro, J.J.(1978). The individual Frame of reference In A.G.
Athos, & J.J.Gabarro.(Eds.). Interpersonal behavior-communications and
understanding in relationship, (pp137-148). Englewood Cliffs, NJ：Prentice Hall
Cothran.D.J.(1996). Students' and teachers' values in physical education.
Unpublished doctoral dissertation,　University of Maryland.
Cothran,D.J., & Eisner,E.W.(1988).Curricula of mutual worth：Comparisons of
Students' and teachers' curricular goals. Journal of Teaching in Physical
Education, 17, 303-326.
Ennis,C.D.(1994).Knowledge and beliefs underlying curricular expertise Quest,
46,164-175.
Ennis,C.D.(1992). Curriculum theory as practiced ：Case studies of
operationalized value orientations. Journal of Teaching in Physical Education,
11 , 358-375.
Ennis,C.D., & Zhu, W.(1991). Value orientation：A description of teachers'
goal for student learning.　Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport, 62(１),
33-40.
Ennis,C.D., & Chen, A.(1993). Domain specifications and content representatives
of the revised value orientation inventory. Research Quarterly for Exercise
and Sport. 64(４), 436-446.
Ennis, C. D., Mueller, L.K,& Hopper,M.(1990). The influence of teacher value
orientation on curriculum planning within the parameters of atheoretical
framework . Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport, 61, 360-368.
Ennis,C.D.(1994). Urban secondary　teachers' value orientations ：delineating
curriculum goals for social responsibility . Journal of Teaching in Physical
Education, 13, 163-179.
Ennis,C.D., & Chen, A. (1995). Teachers' value orientation in urban and rural
school settings. Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport, 66(１), 41-50.
Ennis,C.D., & Chen, A. (1996). Teaching value -laden curriculum in physical
education. Journal of Teaching in Physical Education, 15, 338-354.
Ennis,C.D.,Ross, J., & Chen Ang.(1992). The role of value orientations in
curricular decision making ：A rationale for teachers' goal and expectations .
Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport,63(１)，38-47.
Glatthorn, A.A.(1992). Curriculum Leadership, Glenview Scott, Foreman and
Company.
Hart,G.M. (1978). Values Clarification for Counselors, Springfield. １11.
Charles C. Thomas.press.
Havelock, R.G.(1971). Planning of Innovation Through the Dissemination and
Utilization of Knowledge,　Ann Arber, Michigan ：Center for Research and
Utilization of Knowledge.
Hqwthorne.(1987). Classroom Curriculum ： Balancing autonomy and obligation. (
Eric ED 2808409)
Jewett, A.E., & Bain,L.L., & Ennis, C.D.(1995). The curriculum process in
physical education, （2ed.）.Dubuque, IA: Wm .C.Brown Publishers.
Jewett, A.E., & Bain,L.L.(1985). The curriculum process in physical education.
Dubuque, IA ：Wm.C.Brown publishers.
Jewett, A.E., & Ennis, C.D.(1990). Ecologcial integration as a value
orientation for curriculum decision making. Journal of Curriculum and
Supervision, 5, 120-131.
Matin,V.P.(1993). Educational value orientation and physical education goals.
Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport, 64, (supply) A-89.
Paris, S.G., Lipson, M., &Wixson, K.(1983). Becoming a strategic reader.
Contemporary Education Psychology, 8, 293-316.
Rokeach,Milton.(1973). The nature of human value. New York：The free press, A
division of macmilan publishing Co. Inc.
Solmon, A .,& Ashy,H.(1995). Value orientation of preservice teachers Research
Quarterly for Exercise and Sport, 66(3), 219-230.