Basic Search / Detailed Display

Author: 王昭傑
Wang, Jhao-Jie
Thesis Title: 臺灣公辦公營實驗國民小學轉型歷程與運作模式之探究-才能發展構念
A Study on the Transformational Process and Operational Model of the Experimental Education in Public Elementary Schools in Taiwan- From Construct of Talent Development
Advisor: 陳美芳
Chen, Mei-Fang
Degree: 博士
Doctor
Department: 特殊教育學系
Department of Special Education
Thesis Publication Year: 2020
Academic Year: 108
Language: 中文
Number of pages: 355
Keywords (in Chinese): 實驗教育公辦公營學校型態實驗教育才能發展學校轉型
Keywords (in English): Experimental Education, the Publicly-Owned School, School-Based Experimental Education, Talent Development, School Transformation
DOI URL: http://doi.org/10.6345/NTNU202000447
Thesis Type: Academic thesis/ dissertation
Reference times: Clicks: 399Downloads: 59
Share:
School Collection Retrieve National Library Collection Retrieve Error Report
  • 本研究旨在探究臺灣公辦公營實驗國民小學轉型歷程與運作模式,以質性研究為主要研究方法,於才能發展的構念基礎下,訪談臺灣北、中、南、東共計七所公辦公營實驗國民小學之變革促進者計16人。研究資料包括半結構訪談、相關實驗轉型資料及文獻報告,據以整合轉型歷程之運作模式,並檢視其與才能發展構念之關係。
    本研究第一部分先依據相關文獻,聚焦形成學校轉型模式之模板,由需求發現、共識凝聚、願景形塑、資源盤點、教師增能、課程建構、組織調整、評量調整及動態調整等九大面向進行訪談,據以匯聚公辦公營實驗國民小學可行之轉型歷程因素共計18項,分別為:1.社區參與、創價共同使命,行政整合需求;2.學生本位、回應學生才能,凝聚轉型動力;3.走入群體,發現真實困難,系統分析主軸;4.雁行領頭,運用八二法則,結合在地特色;5.厚植基礎,透過研習共備,釐清修正願景;6.認知轉型,回應在地需求,落實差異考量;7.在地引入,拓展課程效益,篩選永續資源;8.發掘困境,反思專案價值,付費資源互補;9.建立鷹架,跨域合作,形塑群組增能;10.專家導入,核心培力,建立系統共備;11.始於在地,成於跨域,結構主題課程;12.區分學習,易教樂學,著眼永續傳承;13.維持文化,處室整併,建立專責制度;14.跨域區分,分進合擊,學生本位考量;15,提供舞台、尊重差異,著重學生展能;16.紙筆固本、操作檢核,強調多元評量;17.確保共識、開放教室,著眼親師統合及18.跨域反思、系統規劃,確保品質微調,並據以彙整相關可行具體策略。
    本研究第二部分由全校性充實模式(SEM)及多層次服務才能發展方案(LoS)形成分析架構,進行相關轉型歷程與才能發展構念之比對。結果發現各實驗轉型學校在執行構念上與才能發展構念多有連結,但發展目標是否以學生才能發展為主要依歸則難以論斷。此外,於實驗教育轉型歷程則尚未發現對學生高層次課程建構思考,推斷學校目前或仍於轉型磨合期,課程尚未穩固,雖有課程調整之作法,然仍屬萌芽階段。惟本研究在學生才能發展之發現仍屬推論,需進一步相關研究進行探究。
    本研究第三部分揉合並調整學校改革運作模式、實驗轉型模板及才能發展構念等之要素,提出「VIEW學校轉型模式」,分別為-充「實」知能,係指進行教師專業發展及系統增能;「 驗」證跨域,係指考量課程的跨域整合、差異化、多元性及延續性;「轉」化資源,係指尋找資源的轉化挹注,與實驗核心的結構連結,及「型」塑共識,指實驗理念的共識共榮,團體動力的激發。「VIEW學校轉型模式」包含8項具體轉型構念,包括:1.專家典範、核心培力;2.系統鷹架、跨域共備;3.尊重差異、多元展能;4.跨域統合、易教樂學;5.在地融合、活化連結;6.專案注入、拓展資源;7.社區參與、系統分析 及8.雁行領頭、整合需求,並提出18項轉型策略,以利轉型參照。
    最後,本研究並針對教育主管機關、公辦公營學校轉型者及後續研究者提以下建議:1.透過追蹤研究探究轉型實驗學校的執行歷程轉變;2.進行轉型實驗學校教師及家長對於轉型的問卷調查;3.深入探究轉型因素及後續課程建構動力研究;4.進行轉型實驗學校學生學習狀況探究分析;5.建構才能發展問卷以進行分析;6.進行相關執行歷程策略的勾稽調查;7.進行VIEW學校轉型模式檢核建立;8.進行公私立實驗教育學校的執行策略分析;9.申辦公辦公營學校轉型歷程的相關建議;10.建構系統且具體的實驗學校輔導及成效評估機制及11.成立實驗教育師資跨域培育機構等。

    Using a qualitative research method and based on the concept of talent development, this research is to explore the transformation process and operational mode of the public experimental elementary schools in Taiwan. This paper drew on semi-structured interviews with 16 reform promoters at seven public schools located in the north, middle, south and east of Taiwan, as well as transformation data and literature reports, to analyze and explore the transformation process and establish a feasible transformation operational model.
    This research first focuses on the formation of templates for the school transformation model based on relevant literature, focusing on the following nine major aspects: of needs discovery, belief cohesion, vision shaping, resource inventory, teacher empowerment, curriculum construction, organizational adjustment, evaluation adjustment and dynamic adjustment. A total of 18 feasible measures during transformation processes for preliminary integration of public experimental elementary schools were identified, namely: 1. Community participation; 2. Applying student-centered learning and responding to students’ needs; 3. Immersing into the community to discover the real difficulties; 4. Applying the 80-20 rule by looking for the peer-leader of the community to facilitate tasks; 5. Clarifying the revised vision by study and preparation with school staff; 6. Responding to local needs by transforming cognition and considering differences; 7. Resorting to local resources to maximize curriculum benefits and select sustainable resources; 8. Identifying dilemmas, reflecting on project value, and complementing paid resources; 9. Establish scaffolding with cross-domain cooperation to empower the group; 10. Establishing systematic preparation by introducing experts as well as core training; 11. Structuring subject courses with interdisciplinary concepts from local resources; 12. Focusing on sustainability by differentiating learning to facilitate teaching and learning; 13. Establishing a special responsibility system, integrating sections while maintaining the school culture; 14. Student-centered consideration with interdisciplinary distinction; 15. Focusing on students’ ability, respecting differences and providing a stage; 16. Assessing student's abilities with paper tests, multiple assessment and operational activities; 17. Focusing on the integration of teachers and parents by ensuring consensus with an open classroom and;18. Interdisciplinary reflection, system planning, to ensure the quality, and to summarize relevant and feasible specific strategies accordingly.

    The second part of the research utilizes the whole school-based enrichment model (SEM) and multi-level service talent development program (LoS) as the main analysis framework, and compares the transformation process with the talent development conception. Many links are found between the school's relevant history and the concept of talent development, while it is difficult to judge whether the development goal is based on the development of students' ability. Therefore, it is still necessary to follow up the research for in-depth exploration and analysis. In addition, in the course of the transformation of experimental education, thoughts on the construction of high-level courses for students have not been found yet. It is inferred that the school is still in the transition period, and the curriculum is not yet stable. Although there are ways to adjust the curriculum, it is still in its infancy. However, this is still an inference, and further related research is needed.
    The third part of the study combines the elements of the school's reform operation mode, experimental transformation template and talent development concept, and adjusts the focused research template to propose the "VIEW school transformation model"(Verification, Interdisciplinary, Empowerment, Wield resources), respectively stand for teacher's in-service academic improvement and system empowerment; considering the cross-domain integration, differentiation, diversity, and continuity of the curriculum; looking for the conversion of resources, connecting with the core structure of the experiment, and sharing the common prosperity of the experimental concept as well as motivating the group. The model also consists of the following concepts, 1. Expert model and core strength; 2. System scaffolding and interdisciplinary preparation; 3. Respect for differences and diversified performance; 4. Interdisciplinary integration to facilitate teaching and learning; 5. Integrating native environment resources and activating the connections between resources; 6.Project injection and resource expansion; 7.Community participation, system analysis and 8. Looking for peer leadership, integrating needs. The model also puts forward 18 transformation strategies for the transformation reference.

    Finally, the following specific research suggestions are proposed for education authorities, public school transtainers and follow-up researchers, namely: 1. Exploring the transformation of the implementation process of the experimental school of transformation through follow-up research; 2. Conducting questionnaire survey on transformation of the experimental school with the teachers and parents; 3.In-depth exploration of transformation factors and follow-up curriculum construction motivation research;4.Inquiry and analysis of the learning progress of students in transformation experiment schools; 5.Constructing ability development questionnaire analysis; 6.Conducting a check investigation of relevant execution process strategies; 7.Carrying out the review and establishment of the VIEW school transformation model; 8.Analyzing the implementation strategy of the public and private experimental education schools;9.Compiling relevant suggestions on the transformation process of public schools;10.Constructing a systematic and specific experimental school counseling and effectiveness evaluation mechanism and 11.Establishing interdisciplinary training institutions for experimental education teachers.

    目次 第一章 緒論……………………………………………………………1 第一節 研究背景與動機 …………………………………………1 第二節 研究目的與待答問題……………………………………13 第三節 名詞釋義 ………………………………………………15 第四節 研究範圍與限制 ………………………………………17 第二章 文獻探討 ……………………………………………………19 第一節 國內外實驗教育的相關論述……………………………20 第二節 教育的本質與概念思維影響……………………………39 第三節 適性揚才的教育趨勢及其論述…………………………56 第四節 才能發展與學校教育……………………………………68 第五節 學校改革及模式探究……………………………………81 第三章 研究方法 …………………………………………………..101 第一節 研究架構………………………………………………..102 第二節 研究流程 ………………………………………………104 第三節 研究參與者 ……………………………………………105 第四節 研究工具 ………………………………………………110 第五節 資料處理與分析 ………………………………………116 第六節 研究倫理 ………………………………………………123 第四章 研究結果 …………………………………………………125 第一節 精緻實小的全人美學之旅 ……………………………126 第二節 創新實小的山野體驗探索 ……………………………147 第三節 公義實小的自主共學教育 ……………………………165 第四節 永續實小的生活傳承經驗 ……………………………182 第五節 適性實小的雙語里海學習 ……………………………199 第六節 有效實小的在地走讀課程 ……………………………216 第七節 多元實小的國際CEO養成……………………………233 第八節 實驗轉型歷程的綜合分析 ………………………………249 第九節 才能發展構念連結與轉型模式建構…………………………283 第五章 研究結論與建議 …………………………………………313 第一節 研究結論 ……………………………………………313 第二節 研究建議 ……………………………………………319 參考文獻 ……………………………………………………………323 附錄 …………………………………………………………………355 研究參與同意書 ……………………………………………………355

    一、中文部分:
    丁志權(2016):臺灣非學校型態實驗教育體制分析。上海教育科研,9,75-80。
    毛連塭(2001):如何實施資優教育。臺北:心理。
    王文科主編(2015):特殊教育導論。臺北:五南。
    王如哲(2017):從國際觀點剖析實驗教育的發展趨勢。台灣教育,704,12-18。
    王炎川(2008):台灣另類學校家長教育選擇權意識發展之研究─以宜蘭慈心華德福學校為例。國立政治大學學校行政在職專班碩士論文(未出版)。
    王昭傑(2012 a):國小階段奧林匹亞數學的教材分析-以因數倍數為例。資優教育季刊,122,24-32。
    王昭傑(2012 b):法令政策與研究證據的互動-由他山之石檢視臺灣資優教育政策的擬定與修正。資優教育季刊,124,31-40。
    王昭傑(2013):由學生因素與課程因素構築的資優數學樣貌。資優教育季刊,127,23-32。
    王昭傑、陳美芳(2014,11月)。回應學生才能發展需求的學校行政規劃與策略分析:以台北市五所特色小學為例。中華民國特殊教育學會46週年年會暨學術研討會-融合教育之回顧與展望。臺北:國立臺灣師範大學。
    王昭傑(2015):圖像式情境脈絡數學教材對國小資優生的學習成效與基模影響之實驗研究。特殊教育研究學刊,40(3),59-88。
    王儷潔(2007):另類學校教師在教育美學的開展-以慈心華德福學校為例之研究。國立臺北教育大學藝術學系碩士班(未出版)。
    丘愛鈴(2013):成就每一個學生:差異化教學之理念與教學策略。
    教育研究月刊,231,18-33。
    尹錫珉、李溱鎔(2017):論道家的兒童哲學與人性教育的方法論:以《老子》和《莊子》為主。哲學與文化,44(12),59-74。
    伍振鷟主編(2010):教育哲學。臺北:五南。
    但昭偉 (2006):教師的教育哲學。臺北:高等教育。
    但昭偉 (2018):實驗教育法與教育實驗。臺灣教育評論月刊,7(1),8-10。
    李玉琇、蔣文祁(譯)(2010):認知心理學(R. J. Sternberg著: Cognitive Psychology)。臺北市:雙葉。(原著出版於2008)
    李化成(2003):佛陀教育:淨空老和尚的佛教思想。哲學與文化 ,30(7),69-76。
    李佳倫(2011):臺灣與西班牙義務教育階段公辦民營學校之比較研究。國立暨南大學比較教育學系碩士論文(未出版)。
    李奉儒、高淑清、鄭瑞隆、林麗菊、吳芝儀、洪志成、蔡清田合譯(2001):質性教育研究:理論與方法(R. C. Bogdan & S. K. Biklen 著: Qualitative Research For Education)。嘉義:濤石文化(原著出版於1998)。
    李宜蓁、張益勤(2017):什麼是蒙特梭利?培養穩定度,再發展創意。親子天下,29,26-29。。
    李柏佳(2016):學校型態實驗教育實施條例解析-國民教育階段為例。學校行政雙月刊,101,15-33。
    李軍(1997):中國宗教教育史上的一座豐碑—葛洪《抱樸子》道教教育理論探析。哲學與文化,24(2),149-157。
    弘明實驗高中(2017):弘明實驗高中理念。取自:http://www.holdm-ean.org.tw/index.php/school-profile/school-profile.html
    邱兆偉主編(2010):教育哲學。臺北:師大書苑。
    余亭薇(2016):新北市國小教師對學校型態實驗教育認同度與衝擊評估之研究。臺北市立教育大學教育行政與評鑑研究所學校行政碩士學位班碩士論文(未出版)。
    宋承恩(2017):學校型態實驗教育家長選擇權與學校滿意度之研究。國立政治大學學校行政碩士在職專班碩士論文(未出版)。
    洪儷瑜(2014,11月):邁向融合教育之路-回顧特殊教育法立法三十年。融合教育之回顧與展望-2014中華民國特殊教育學會年刊(21-31頁)。臺北:國立臺灣師範大學。
    俞懿嫻(2006):教育哲學的傳統與現代-古典人文主義與J. Dewey。教育研究集刊,52(3),1-20。
    周怡君(2015):個別化原則與台灣融合教育:聽障青年的融合教育經驗分析。社會分析,10,47-86。
    周義雄(2011):家長學校選擇權與體制內另類教育學校經營之研究
    。國立中山大學高階公共政策碩士論文(未出版)。
    吳明哲(2006):宜蘭縣公辦民營學校之研究。國立花蓮教育大學學校行政碩士論文(未出版)。
    吳武典(2013):資優教育中的爭議與平議:全球視野,在地行動。資優教育論壇,11,1-15。
    吳武典(2014):臺灣特殊教育綜論(三):挑戰與展望。特殊教育季刊,132,1-8。
    吳美瑤(2016):中華文化與教育。載於簡成熙主編,新教育哲學(25-42頁)。臺北:五南。
    吳清山(2004):學校創新經營的理念與策略。教師天地,128,30-44。
    吳清山、林天祐(2007):實驗教育。教育研究月刊,155,168。
    吳清山、林天祐(2008):教育本質。教育資料與研究雙月刊,82,193-194。
    吳清山、陳伯璋、洪若烈、郭雄軍、范信賢、李文富(2011):理念
    學校之論述建構與實踐研究報告。國家教育研究院委託之研究報告。
    吳清山(2012):差異化教學與學生學習。國家教育研究院電子報,
    38。取自http://epaper.naer.edu.tw/index.php?edm_no=38&content
    _no=1011
    吳清山(2015):「實驗教育三法」的重要內涵與策進作為。教育研究月刊,258,42-57。
    吳清基(2000,11月)。學習型學校的領導理念與策略之回應。教
    育改革與轉型-領導角色、師資培育、伙伴關係學術研討會。臺北:淡江大學。。
    吳淑敏(2010):從資優生融合教育的觀點談班級經營。資優教育季刊,115,8-16。
    吳善揮(2015):孟子的特殊教育思想及其對香港融合教育的啟示。
    淮陽師範學院學報,37,414-418。
    吳錦惠、吳俊憲(2018):實驗教育如何取經華德福學校的辦學經驗。臺灣教育評論月刊,7(1),72-75。
    吳瓊芬(2017):轉型公辦公營實驗學校辦學現況之探討-以臺南市三 所實驗小學為例。私立長榮大學經營管理研究所碩士論文(未出版)。
    林玉珠(2020):實驗教育Waldorf:Movement in Taiwan:解決教育落差的教育途徑。臺灣經濟研究月刊,43(1),88-94。
    林水木(2003):國民小學學校行政組織運作之探析。學校行政雙月
    刊,24,65-80
    林安梧(2003):“心性之學”在教育上的運用-儒、道、佛義下的“生活世界”與其相關的“意義治療”。新世紀宗教研究 ,1(4),27-61。
    林志賢、陳慧秋(2013,5月):家長選擇華德福教育體系動機之研究-以山峰國小為例,2013經營管理與企業創新研討會。臺北:中華科技大學。
    林吟霞(2010):自主學習取向之適性課程與教學研究—台灣小學與德國小學「方案教學」個案比較。課程與教學季刊,13(3),47-76。
    林彩岫、游自達、陳延興、賴志峰、曾榮華、李彥儀、林妤蓁(2017):臺中市實驗教育實施現況、困難與建議之研究。學校行政,112,208-227。
    林佩蓉、倪鳴香、黃心怡(2011):家長教育選擇權意識之研究:以「台北市自主學習實驗計畫」家長生命經驗為例。另類教育,1(1),67-92。
    林佩璇(2015,5月):回應學生差異的階層教學。十二年國民基本
    教育課程與教育革新學術研討會。臺南:南臺科技大學。
    林佩璇、高翠鴻、許燕萍(2016):差異化教學的矛盾與轉化:活動理論觀。中等教育,67(4),7-20。
    林俊成(2015):實驗教育相關法規對當前之影響及公立學校經營策 略。臺灣教育評論月刊,4(1),172-178。
    林海清(2016):實驗教育向前行。師友月刊,593,14-20。
    林錫恩、范熾文、石啟宏(2018):學校型態實驗教育經營策略之探析。臺灣教育評論月刊,5(11),135-142。
    林聰賢(2017):教育,是教人思考:我要成為怎樣的人。親子天下,29,52。
    林騰蛟(2015):實驗教育-灑下多元種籽,開創繽紛未來。新北市教育,14,4。
    施又瑀(2017):從法規演變談我國國民教育階段實驗教育發展趨勢,學校行政雙月刊,109,172-187。
    施宜煌(2010):教育哲學:起源、重要性與建議。東海教育評論,6,47-61。
    高廣孚(1989):教育哲學。臺北:五南。
    高韻曲(2017):國民小學學校型態實驗教育的創新經營與組織效能
    關係之研究─以校長領導行為為中介變項。國立政治大學學校行政在職專班碩士論文(未出版)。
    郭鈺羚(2015):家長教育選擇權與家長參與之研究 ─以南部一所華德福小學為例。國立中正大學教育學研究所碩士論文(未出版)。
    郭靜姿(2009):普通班中的區分性課程設計。「校本資優教育適才服務方案」執行推動手冊(69-74頁)。臺北:教育部。
    郭靜姿(2013):如何實施資優學生的區分性教學?資優教育季刊,127,1-11。
    郭駿武(2017):一段從接納孩子到接納自我的歷程。親子天下,29,
    50-51。
    莊惠如、王菀詩、吳怡慧(2014):同異質分組並行之差異化教學。中等教育,65(3),117-131。
    傅天韻、張芬芬(2017):協同學習運用於國小四年級社會領域對學習自我效能之影響。國教新知,64(3),4-20。
    殷童娟(2016):實驗教育法制之教育核心價值及省思。通識教育在線,65,27-28。
    翁福元、廖昌珺(2018):從解構與建構看實驗教育發展趨勢。臺灣教育評論月刊,7(1),53-56。
    秦孟群、溫子欣、莊俊儒(2017):實驗教育之特色及對現行教育的
    啟示。台灣教育,704,2-11。
    秦嘉彌(2017):什麼是華德福?追求真善美的教育。親子天下,29,20-22。
    徐宗林(1991):西洋教育史。臺北:五南。
    許金鳳(2012):一位華德福教育工作者經驗歷程之個案研究。國立
    新竹教育大學教育學系碩士論文(未出版)。
    許茹菁(2015):談實驗教育三法及其在公立學校實現之可能與挑戰。 教師天地,197,34-40。
    許碧端譯(1998)。我與你(M.Buber著:I and Thou)。香港:基督教文藝出版社。(原著出版於1923)
    陳木金(1999):從學校組織文化塑造談如何增進學校領導效能。學校行政,3,14-29。
    陳世聰(2016):理念學校績效評估之探討。經濟管理學刊,11,
    67-86。
    陳長益(2011):潛能開發-談資優生適異性教學。教師天地,171,21-26。
    陳延興、朱秀麗(2018):一所學校型態創新混齡實驗學校的成長與蛻變。師資培育與教師專業發展期刊,11(3),109-135。
    陳美芳、林容萱(2016):中學國文差異化教學的有效策略:以高中職國文科教學範例分析。中等教育, 67(4),21-37。
    陳美芳、洪儷瑜(2012,11月):差異化教學策略設計要領。2012國中種子教師工作坊。臺北:教育部。
    陳美芳、黃楷茹(2015):台灣資優教育的現況、挑戰與展望: 回應學校需求的論述。資優教育論壇,13,17-34。
    陳佩英、曾正宜(2011):探析專業學習社群的展化經驗與課程創新
    行動-活動理論取徑。教育研究集刊,57(2),39-84。
    陳迺成(2001):教育哲學導論-人文、民主與教育。臺北市:心理。
    陳俊毓(2009):特許學校在屏東地區可行性之研究。國立屏東教育大學教育行政研究所碩士論文(未出版)。
    陳惠邦(2011):入林見樹,觀樹知林 - 學校教育實驗的回顧與展望。學校實驗教育研討會,1-12。
    陳雅慧(2017a):實驗教育大爆發。親子天下,29,12-19。
    陳雅慧(2017b):什麼是民主學校?相信孩子可以學。親子天下,29,30。
    陳雅慧(2017c):實驗教育真的那麼好嗎親子天下?親子天下,29,10。
    陳照雄(2001):西洋教育哲學導論。臺北:心理。
    陳聖謨(2013):國民核心素養與小學課程發展。課程研究,8(1),
    41-63。
    陳毅鴻(2016):公辦公營學校型態實驗教育機構轉型歷程之研究
    。私立明道大學課程與教學研究所碩士論文(未出版)。
    陳錫鴻(2014):我國十二年國教資優教育政策制定與發展。資優教育季刊,130,9-16。
    陳麗美(2006):臺中市國民中小學教育公辦民營可行性之研究。國立臺中師範學院國民教育研究所碩士論文(未出版)。
    梁福鎮(2016):教育哲學:起源、內涵與問題的探究。臺北:五南。
    麥錦雅(2010):從Waldorf學校發展談桃園仁美華德福學校教育實踐。研習資訊,27(3),29-37
    彭雅靖(2017):校長課程領導與課程建構之研究─以屏東縣一所原住民族實驗教育小學為例。國立屏東大學文教事業經營在職碩士專班碩士論文(未出版)。
    教育部國民及學前教育署(2014):教育部十二年國民基本教育-成就每一個孩子:臺北:教育部。
    教育部(2020)。107學年度各級教育統計概況分析。2020年2月22日,取自:http://stats.moe.gov.tw/statedu/chart.aspx?pvalue=51
    黃文樹(2016):梁啟超對佛學的汲取及其在教育觀的應用。屏東大學學報-人文社會類 ,1,61-94。
    黃政傑(1991):課程設計。臺北:東華。
    黃政傑(1999,12月):永續的課程改革經營。迎向千禧年-新世紀中小學課程改革與創新教學學術研討會。國立高雄師範大學。
    黃政傑(2018):實驗教育三法修法宜審慎研議。臺灣教育評論月刊,7(1),11-17。
    黃政雄(2017):教改卡住,是因為大人不信任孩子。親子天下,29,42-43。
    黃俊熹、邱文雀(2007):國小校園空間創意設計與教學導入之研究。研究與動態,16,207-227。
    黃崇銘(2012):教育實驗法制之研究-以日本為比較對象。國立臺北教育大學文化法律研究所碩士論文(未出版)。
    黃姮棻(2018a):實驗教育的挑戰與因應策略。臺灣教育評論月刊,7(1),68-71。
    黃姮棻(2018b):從另類教育到實驗教育的發展與省思。國家教育研究院教育脈動電子季刊,14,1-15。
    黃瑞琴(1994):質的教育研究方法。臺北:心理。
    黃瑞珍、楊孟珠、徐淑芬、黃彩霞、曾彥翰、蕭素禎、鄭詠嘉(2007):優質 IEP-以特教學生需求為本位的設計與目標管理。臺北:心理。
    黃繼仁(2018):特色課程就是實驗教育嗎?臺灣教育評論月刊,
    7(1),56-62。
    馮朝霖(2015):把根紮深、把夢作大-台灣實驗教育發展願景。新北市教育,14,13-18。
    馮朝霖(2016):台灣教育的藍天。推薦序輯於果哲(2016),台灣敎育的另一片天空:二十年民間實驗教育的里程碑(4-13頁)。臺
    北:大塊文化。
    鈕文英(2008):擁抱個別差異的新典範-融合教育。臺北:心理。
    游惠音(2016):從「學校型態實驗教育實施條例」談公立國民小學轉型與創新經營的策略。學校行政雙月刊,102,161-174。
    溫子欣(2018):實驗教育機構、學校之共同辦學特色分析。國家教育研究院:教育脈動,14。取自:https://webcache.goog-
    leusercontent.com/search?q=cache:V5eGGxz7ZdIJ:https://pulse.naer.edu.tw/Home/PrintPdf/d11593a1-161c-4b48-9323-1afec7dc6380+&cd=2&hl=zh-TW&ct=clnk&gl=tw
    溫明麗(2018):實驗教育真能引領教育走出新篇章?臺灣教育評論月刊,7(1),18-24。
    湯志民(2010):2010年優質學校校園營造指標及其意涵。載於吳金盛主編,優質典範學校―校園營造情境與資源篇(220-233頁)。臺北:臺北市教師研習中心。
    張芬芬(2001a):生活中的學習資源:讓在家教育更精采。國教新知,47(3),8-17。
    張芬芬(2001b):台北與美國在家教育家長的意識型態比較。初等教育學刊,10, 57-88。
    張芬芬(2010):質性資料分析的五步驟:在抽象階梯上爬升。初等教育學刊,35, 87-120。
    張美華、簡瑞良(2010):直觀教學法觀念在融合教育教學策略設計的運用。中華民國特殊教育學會年刊,21-44。
    張益勤(2014):「擇校世代」來臨:實驗教育法三讀通過,華德福, 另類學習將進入公校體制。取自:http://www.parenting.com.tw
    /article/arti cle.action?id=5062231&page=2。
    張明輝(1998):學校改革的研究內涵與學理基礎。教育研究集刊,
    1(40),1-21。
    張明惠(2013):德國華德福教育之在地化過程:以雲林山峰華德福
    學校為例。南華大學教育社會學研究所碩士論文(未出版)。
    張春興(1991):現代心理學。臺北:東華。
    張奕華、顏弘欽(2012):學校分散式領導構面之探析:領導者、追隨者與情境三元互動之檢證。教育實踐與研究,25(2),225-253。
    張堯卿(2017):高中化學科差異化教學課程設計與實踐。中等教育,67(4),131-145。
    張碧如(2018):學校型態實驗教育開啟教育改革的可能性。教育脈動,14,1-7。
    張蓓莉(2009):臺灣的融合教育。中等教育,60(4),8-18。
    張淑芳(2017):實驗教育經營理念實踐與辦學經營的另類思維。台灣
    教育,704,19-21。
    張嘉文(2008):二十世紀末期英國障礙與特殊教育的社會學觀點。
    網路社會學通訊,72。取自:http://www.nhu.edu.tw/~society/
    e-j/72/72/72-13.htm.
    張嘉文(2010):台灣校長對特殊教育需求定義的觀點之社會學研究。特殊教育研究學刊,35(2),1-27。
    張嘉文(2012):學習通用設計(Universal Design for Learning)-美國融合教育教材教法的改革,中華民國特殊教育學會年刊,207-231。
    張錫勳(2016):差異化教學的桃花源:國中課堂學習共同體的差異
    化教學設計與實踐。中等教育,67(4),85-111。
    張瀞文(2015):實驗學校,招生中。親子天下,71,102-127。
    楊怡婷(2018):公辦公營實驗學校轉型之問題與省思。臺灣教育評論月刊,7(1),83-86。
    楊深坑(2011):教育哲學研究歷史發展之國際比較。教育研究集刊,57(3),1-35。
    楊國賜(1982):進步主義教育哲學體系與應用。臺北:水牛。
    楊振昇(2015):從實驗教育三法析論我國中小學教育之發展。教育研究月刊,258,15-27。
    楊振昇(2018):我國實驗教育的實施與前瞻。臺灣教育評論月刊,7(1),1-7。
    道禾實驗學校(2017):道禾實驗學校課程理念。取自:http://www.na-tural-way.com.tw/morning-games/
    鄔昆如(1971):西洋哲學史。臺北:正中。
    趙國慶(2013):思維教學研究百年回顧。現代遠程教育研究,6,39-49。
    賈馥茗(2003):教育哲學。臺北:三民。
    董俞伯(2011):理念學校的校務評鑑法制:以宜蘭慈心華德福為例。國立臺北教育大學文教法律研究所碩士論文(未出版)。
    劉育忠(2016):後現代/後結構哲學思想與教育:走向多元、差異、創造與流變。載於簡成熙主編,新教育哲學(93-107頁)。臺北:五南。
    劉佳宜(2011):非學校型態實驗教育機構辦學現況之研究-以臺灣中部四所實驗教育機構為例。私立淡江大學教育政策與領導研究所碩士論文(未出版)。
    劉若凡(2013):運動中的另類學校:學校變革的組織分析。臺北市:國立臺灣大學社會學研究所碩士論文(未出版)。
    漢寶德(2005):談校園營造。教師天地,139,4-8。
    蔡淑玲、張本文(2008):組織學習與行政效能關係之研究。學校行政雙月刊,56,54-79。
    鄭章華、林成財、蔡曉楓(2016):國中數學差異化教材設計與實施初探。中等教育,67(4),38-56。
    鄭聖敏(2009):社會文化殊異資優教育-我們已經做了什麼?我們應該做些什麼?資優教育季刊,113,1-9。
    鄭燕祥(2004):教育領導與改革:新範式。臺北:高等教育。
    鄭燕祥(2006):教育範式轉變:效能保證。臺北:高等教育。
    鄭彩鳳、鄭玉菁(2014):校長轉型領導、教師對組織變革接受度與學校競爭優勢關係之研究。當代教育研究季刊,22(1),1-46。
    鄭崇趁(2012):教育經營學-六說、七略、八要。臺北:心理。
    詹志禹(2016):臺灣實驗教育經驗及未來發展――從國際脈絡來分析其對台灣未來教育的意義。發表於第二屆台灣實驗教育論壇。台北市:國立政治大學。
    詹志禹(2019):臺灣實驗教育的困境與希望。中等教育,70(1),8 – 16。
    詹麗嫦(1990):培根及其哲學。臺北:巨流圖書。
    歐陽教(2005):教育哲學導論。臺北:麗文文化。
    薛雅慈(2011,8月):地方政府對另類學校(或實驗學校)之友善程度指標建構計畫。2011「另類教育與未來社會」國際研討會(1-50頁)。臺北:國立臺灣師範大學。
    鮑瑤鋒(2018):公立小學推動學校型態實驗教育面面觀。臺灣教育評論月刊,7(1),76-82。
    賴志峰(2008):華德福學校的三元組織架構及評析。學校行政,55,1-14。
    謝琇媚(2017):公辦公營實驗小學轉型歷程與影響之研究。私立靜宜大學教育研究所碩士論文(未出版)。
    謝秉蓉(2017):臺灣偏鄉小學辦理學校型態實驗教育校務行政變革之個案研究。國立政治大學教育行政與政策研究所碩士論文(未出版)。
    謝傳崇、曾煥淦(2016):偏鄉公立學校之轉型新路?解析《學校型
    態實驗教育實施條例》。學校行政,106,157-177。
    謝傳崇、曾煥淦、張莉君(2019):另類教育創新取徑:臺灣公立實驗學校現況之探討解析。學校行政,122,185-205。
    簡成熙(2016):教育和哲學,載簡成熙主編:新教育哲學(3-21頁)。 臺北:五南。
    簡紅珠(2006):優質教學釋義與啟示。教育研究與發展期刊,2(2),
    1-17。
    簡紅珠(2007):教師專業發展與改善:借鏡日本小學教師的學課研究。教育研究月刊,158,130-140。
    簡茂發(2000):資優概念與資優教育。載於中華資優教育學會主編:資優教育的全方位發展(25-40頁)。臺北:心理。
    蔣明珊(2010):普通班裡的資優教育之一─我的研究經驗與觀點。資優教育季刊,115,1-7。
    蘇鈺楠(2016):R. Steiner的教育階段論對華德福課程之蘊義及省
    思。高雄師大學報,40,1-17。

    二、英文部分:
    Ainscow, M., Booth, T., & Dyson, A. (2006). Improving schools, developing inclusion. London, Routledge.
    Ainscow, M., & Miles, S. (2008). Making education for all inclusive: where next? Prospects, 37 (1), 15-34.
    American Montessori Society. (2017). Retrieved from: https://amshq.org/
    Events/AMS-Annual-Conference/Past-Conferences/2017-Annual-C
    Onference.
    Anastasiou, D., & Kauffman, J. M. (2011). A social constructionist approach to disability: Implications for special education. Exceptional Children, 77(3), 367-384.
    Anastasiou, D., & Kauffman, J. M. (2012). Disability as cultural difference: Implications for special education. Exceptional Children, 33(3), 139-149.
    Bailey, J., & du Plessis, D. A. (1997). Understanding principals’ attitudes towards inclusive schooling. Journal of Educational Administration, 35(5), 428–438.
    Baker, E. L. (2007). The end(s) of testing. Educational Researcher, 36, 309-317.
    Barron, B. (2006). Interest and self-sustained learning as catalysts of development: A learning ecology perspective. Human Development, 49, 193–224.
    Bennett, C. (1979). Teaching students as they would be taught: The importance of cultural perspective, Educational Leadership, 36, 259-268.
    Bernstein, B. (2004). Social class and pedagogic practice. In S. Ball (Ed.),The routledge falmer reader in sociology of education (pp. 196-217). New York and London: Routledge Falmer.
    Bigge, M. L. (1982). Learning theories for teachers. New York, NY:
    Harper & Row.
    Bigge, J. L., Stump, C. S., Spagna, M. E., & Silberman, R. K. (1999).
    Curriculum, assessment, and instruction for student with disabilities.
    New York, NY: Wadsworth.
    Booth, T., & Ainscow, M. (2002). Index for inclusion: developing learning and participation in schools (2nd ed.). Bristol: Centre for Studies on Inclusive Education.
    Borland, J. H. (2003). The death of giftedness: Gifted education without gifted children. In J. H. Borland (Ed.), Rethinking gifted education (pp. 105-126). New York, NY: Teachers College Press.
    Borland, J. H. (2005). Gifted education without gifted children: The case for no conception of giftedness. In R. J. Sternberg & J. E. Davidson (Eds.), Conceptions of giftedness(2nd ed., pp. 1-19). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
    Borland, J. H. (2009). Gifted education without gifted programs or gifted students: An anti-model. In J. S. Renzulli, E. J. Gubbins, K. S. McMillen, R. D. Eckert, & C. A.Little (2 nd Eds.), Systems and models for developing programs for the gifted and talented- Second edition (pp. 105–118). Waco, TX: Prufrock Press.
    Borko, H., Jacobs, J., & Koellner, K. (2010). Contemporary approaches to teacher professional development. In E. Baker, B. McGaw, & P. Peterson (Eds.), International encyclopedia of education part 7 (pp. 548-556). Oxford: Elsevier Scientific Publishers
    Butts, R. F. (1955). A cultural history of western education(2d ed).
    New York, NY: Mcgraw Hill.
    Carter, K. R., & Hamilton, W. (2004).Formative evaluation of gifted programs: A process and model. Gifted Child Quarterly, 29 (1), 5-11.
    Centre for Educational Research and Innovation (2017). Schooling for tomorrow. Retrieved from: http://www.oecd. org/edu/ceri/
    Christina, H., Christiana, K., Panayiotis, A. (2018). Successful
    components of school improvement in culturally diverse schools.
    School Effectiveness & School Improvement. 29 (1), 91-112.
    Clark, B. (2013). Growing up gifted: Developing the potential of children at home and at school (8th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson.
    Coleman, L.J., & Cross, T. L. (2005). Definitions and models of giftedness. In being gifted in school(2nd ed., pp. 1-25). Waco, TX: Prufrock Press.
    Cronbach, L. J. (1982). Designing evaluation of educational and social programs. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
    Cross, T. L., & Coleman, L.J. (2014).School-based conception of giftedness. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 37(1), 94-103.
    Cuttance, P. F. (1994). Monitoring educational quality through performance indicators for school practice. School Effectiveness and School Improvement, 5(2), 101–126.
    Creswell, J. W.(2005). Education al research: Planning, conducting, and evaluating quantitative and qualitative research (2nd ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Education, Inc.
    Davis, G. A. (2006). Gifted children and gifted education: A handbook for teachers and parents. AZ: Great Potential Press.
    Dai, D. Y. (2010). The nature and nurture of giftedness: A new framework for understanding gifted education. New York, NY: Teachers College Press.
    Dai, D. Y. (2011). Hopeless anarchy or saving pluralism? Reflections on our field in response to Ambrose, VanTassel-Baska, Coleman, and Cross. Journal for the Education o f the Gifted, 34, 705-731.
    Dai, D. Y., & Chen, F. (2014). Paradigms of gifted education. Waco, TX: Prufrock Press.
    Darling, J. R., & Heller, V. C. (2009). Organization development in an era of socioeconomic change: A focus on the key to successful management leadership. Organization Development Journal, 27(2), 9-26.
    Dax, T., Strahl, W., Kirwan, J. and Maye, D. (2016). The leader programme 2007-2013: Enabling or disabling social innovation and neo-endogenous development? Insights from Austria and Ireland. European Urban and Regional Studies, 23 (1), 56-68.
    Deal, T. E., & Peterson, K. D. (2016). Shaping school culture(3rd ed.), San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
    Dewey, J. (1948). Reconstruction in philosophy (Enlarged ed.), Boston: The Bacon Press..
    DuFour, R., DuFour, R., & Eaker, R. (2008). Revisiting professional learning communities at work. Bloomington, IN: Solution Tree.
    Dunn, R., & Dunn, K. (1978). Teaching students through their individual learning styles: A practical approach. Reston, VA: Reston.
    Diane, H. (2002). Differentiating instruction in the regular classroom: How to reach and teach all learners, grades 3-12. Minneapolis, MN: Free Spirit.
    Engeström, Y., & Sannino, A. (2010). Studies of expansive learning: foundations, findings and future challenges. Educational Research Review, 5, 1-24.
    Entwistle, N. J. (1981). Styles of learning and teaching: An integrated outline of educational psychology for students, teachers and lecturers. Chichester.: Wiley.
    Ford, J. (1991). Envision the future: Imagining deal scenarios. In J. Ford(Ed.), Producing chanf in organization: Readings(pp.15-27). Columbus, OH: The Ohio State University.
    Fullan, M. (1991) The New Meaning ofEducational Change(2nd ed.). Toronto: and New York: OISE Press and Teachers College Press.
    Fullan, M. (2007). The new meaning of educational change(4th ed.). New York, NY: Teachers College Press.
    Fuhrman, S. H., Elmore, R. F.(1990). Understanding local control in the wake of state education reform. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 12, 82-96.
    Gagné, F. (2007). Ten commandments for academic talent development. Gifted Child Quarterly, 51(2), 93-118.
    Gagné, F. (2009a). Building gifts into talents: Detailed overview of the DMGT 2.0. In B. MacFarlane & T. Stambaugh, (Eds.), Leading change in gifted education: The festschrift of Dr. Joyce VanTassel-Baska (pp. 61–80). Waco, TX: Prufrock Press.
    Gagné, F. (2009b). Debating giftedness: Pronat vs. Antinat. In L. Shavinina (Ed.), International handbook on giftedness (pp. 155–198). Dordrecht, Netherlands: Springer Science & Business Media.
    Gagné, F. (2010). Motivation within the DMGT 2.0 framework, High Ability Study, 21(2), 81-99.
    Gallagher, J. J. (2015). Political issues in gifted education. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 38(1), 77–89.
    Gardner, H. (1983). Frames of mind : The theory of multiple intelligences. New York, NY: Basic Books.
    Gardner, H. (2006a). Multiple intelligences: New horizons in theory and
    practice. New York, NY: Basic Books.
    Goodlad, J.I., Klein, M.F., & Tye, K.A. (1979). The domains of curriculum and their study. In J. I. Goodlad (ed.), Curriculum inquiry (pp. 43-76). New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.
    Guarnieri, R., & Kao, T. (2008). Leadership and CSR-a perfect match: How top companies for leaders utilize CSR as a competive advantage. People and Strategy, 31(3), 34-41.
    Hargreaves, A. (1994). Changing teachers, changer times: Teachers’ work and culture in the postmodern age. London: Cassell.
    Harris, A., & Bennett, N. (Eds.). (2004). School effectiveness and school improvement. New York: Continuum.
    Harris, A., & Muijs, D. (2005). Improving schools through teacher leadership. New York, NY: Open University Press.
    Hertzog, N. B. (1998). The changing role of the gifted education specialist. Teaching Exceptional Children, 30, 39-43.
    Hertzog, N. B. (2005). Equity and access: Creating general education
    classrooms responsive to potential. Journal for the Education of the
    Gifted, 29(2), 213-257.
    Hertzog, N. B. (2009), The arbitrary nature of giftedness, L. V. Shavinina, International handbook on giftedness, 205-214. New York, NY: Springer.
    Hill, C. E., Thompson, B. J., & Williams, E. N. (1997). A guide to conducting consensual qualitative research. The Counseling Psychologist, 25(4), 517–572.
    Hirst, P. H. (1998). Philosophy of education: The evolution of a
    discipline. In G. Haydon (Ed.), 50 years of philosophy of
    education (pp. 1-22). London: Institute of education.
    Hopkins, D., & Lagerweij, N. (1996). ”The school improvement
    knowledge base’ In D. Reynolds, R. Bollen, B. Creemers, D. Hopkins, L. Stoll & N. Lagerweij(Eds). Making good schools(p.72). New York, NY: Routledge.
    Hopkins, D. (2001). Instructional leadership and school improvement. Nottingham: National College for School Leadership (NCSL).
    Illeris, K. (2009). Contemporary theories of learning. New York, NY: Routledge.
    James, W. (1990). Paragmatism, in great books of the western world.(2nd ed.). Chicago: Encyclopaedia Britannica
    Jao, L., & McDougall, D. E. (2015). The collaborative teacher inquiry project: A purposeful professional development initiative.Canadian Journal of Education, 38(1), 1-22 .
    Johnson, D. W. & Johnson, R. T. (1999). Make cooperative learning. Theory Into Practice, 38(2), 67-74.
    Kalyanpur, M. (2011). Paradigm and paradox: Education for all and the
    inclusion of children with disabilities in Cambodia. International
    Journal of Inclusive Education, 15(10), 1-19 ·  
    Knutson, Gay G. (2017). Alternative high schools: Models for the future? Retrieved from http://horizon.unc.edu/ projects/HSJ/Knutson.html
    Kruse, S. D., Louis, K. S. & Bryk, A. (1995). An emerging framework for analyzing school-based professional community. In Louis, K. S. & Bryk, A. (Eds.), In professionalism and community: Perspectives on reforming urban schools (pp. 23-42). Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin.
    Leithwood, K., Jantzi, D., & Steinbach, R. (2000). Changing leadership for changing times. PA: Open University Press.
    Lerner, J. W., & Kline, F. (2006). Learning disabilities and related disorders: Characteristics and teaching strategies. Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin.
    Lezotte, L. W., & Bancroft, B. (1985). Growing use for effective school model for school improvement. Educational Leadership, 42(3), 23-27.
    Lieberman, A., & Miller, L. (2003). Teacher leadership. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
    Linn-Cohen, R., & Hertzog, N. B. (2007). Unlocking the GATE to differentiation: A qualitative study of two self-contained gifted classes. Journal for the Education of the Gifted. 31(2), 227-259.
    Luhmann, N. (2002). How can the mind participate in communication? In W. Rasch (Ed.), Theories of distinction: redescribing the descriptions of modernity (pp. 169–184). Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
    Maker, C. J. (1982). Teaching models in education of the gifted (pp. 3-9). Rockville, Maryland: An Aspen.
    Malloy, W. W. (1994). Inclusion: An educational reform strategies for all children. Reston, VA: The Council for Exceptional Children (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 379856).
    McCluskey, K. W., Treffinger, D. J., Baker, P. A., & Lamoureux, K. (2013). The amphitheater model for talent development: recognizing and nurturing the gifts of our lost prizes.International Jounal for Tanent Development and Creativity, 1(1), 99-112.

    McMahon, K. A. (2017). Relations between accountability and school
    improvement practices in New York city’s children first networks.
    Education Policy Analysis Archives, 25(122), 1-28.
    Merriam, S. B. (1998). Qualitative research and case study applications in education. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
    Miles, M.B. (1983). Unraveling the mystery of institutionalisation. Educational Leadership, 143(3), 14-22.
    Miles, S. & Singal, N. (2010). The education for all and inclusive education debate: conflict, contradiction or opportunity? International Journal of Inclusive Education, 14(1), 1-20.
    Miller, L. C., & Hansen, M. (2010). Rural schools need realistic improvement models. Retrieved from http:// www.urban.org/
    url.cfm?ID=901342
    Miller, R. (2017). A map of the alternative education landscape. Retrieved from http://www.educationrevolution.org/store/
    resources/alternatives/mapoflandscape/
    Miller, M. W. & Carbtree, B. F. (1992). Doing qualitative research. (1st. ed.). London: Sage.
    Militarua, M., Ungureanua, G., & Chenic, A. S. (2013). The prospects of implementing the principles of Total Quality Management (TQM) in education. Procedia – Social and Behavioral Science, 93, 1138-1141.
    Molway, L. (2019). It’s all about coping with the new specifications: Coping professional development – the new CPD. London Review of Education, 17 (2), 97–111. DOI https://doi.org/10.18546/LRE.17.2.01
    Morris, V.C. (1966). Existentialism in education. New York, NY: Harper and Row.
    Morris, V. C. & Pai, Y. (1976). Philosophy and the American school.
    Boston: Houghton Mifflin Co.
    Morse, J. M. (1994). Designing qualitative research. In N. K. Denzin &. Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of qualitative inquiry (pp. 220-235).
    Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
    Moss, J. (2003). Inclusive schooling policy: An educational detective story. Australian Educational Researcher, 30(1), 63-81.
    Murphy, J. (1994). Transformational change and the evolving role of the principal: Early empirical evidence. In J. Murphy & K. S. Louis (Eds.), Reshaping the principalship: Insights from transformational reform efforts (pp. 3-19). Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
    Nagata, Y. (2007). Alternative education: Global perspectives relevant to
    the Asia Pacific region. Dordrecht, Netherlands: Springer
    Neely, S. R. (2015). No child left behind and administrative costs: A resource dependence study of local school districts. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 23(26), 1-23.
    Nevo, D. (1995). School-based evaluation: A dialogue for school
    Improvement. New York, NY: Elsevier Science.
    Noddings, N. (1999). Philosophy of education. Boulder, Colo: Westview
    Press.
    Oliver, M. & Barnes, C. (2012). The new politics of disablement. New York, NY: Palgrave Macmillan.
    Olszewski-Kubilius, P.(2010). Special schools and other options for gifted STEM students. Roeper Review, 32 (1), 61-70.
    Olszewski-Kubilius, P.,& Thomson, D. (2015). Talent development as a framework for gifted education. Gifted Child Today, 38(1), 49-59.
    Olszewski-Kubilius, P., & Calvert, E. (2016). Implications of the talent development framework for curriculum design. In T. Kettler (Ed.) Modern Curriculum for Gifted and Advanced Academic Students. Waco, TX: Prufrock Press.
    Pamela, B., & Pamela, O. (2013). Usage of selected resources for inclusive education in mainstream primary schools-issues and challenges from a kenyan perspective. Problems of Management in the 21st Century, 8, 16-24.
    Pask, G. (1976). Styles and strategies of learning. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 46, 128-148.
    Patton, M. Q. (1990). Qualitative evaluation and research methods. Newbury Park. CA: Sage.
    Peters, R. S. (1966). Ethics and Education. London: George Allen and
    Unwin.
    Polloway, E. A., Patton, J. R., & Serna, L. (2005). Strategies for teaching
    learners with special needs. Upper Saddle River, NJ: prentice Hall.
    Reeve, J. (2013). How students create motivationally supportive learning environments for themselves: The concept of agentic engagement. Journal of Educational Psychology, 105, 579 –595.
    Renzulli, J. S. (1994). New directions for the schoolwide enrichment
    model. Gifted Education International, 10, 33-36.
    Renzulli, J. S., & Reis, S. M. (1997). The schoolwide enrichment model: A how-to guide for educational excellence (2nd ed.). Mansfield Center, CT: Creative Learning Press.
    Renzulli, J. S. (2005). The three-ring conception of giftedness: A developmental model for promoting creative productivity. In R. J. Sternberg, & J. E. Davidson (Eds.), Conceptions of Giftedness (pp. 246-279). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
    Renzulli, J. S. (2002). Expanding the conception of giftedness to include co-cognitive traits and to promote social capital. Phi Delta Kappan, 84(1), 33-58.
    Reis, S. M., & Renzulli, J. S.( 2009). Myth 1: The gifted and talented constitute on single homogeneous group and giftedness is a way of being that stays in the person over time and experiences. Gifted Child Quarterly, 53(4), 233-235.
    Reynolds, C. H. B.(1995). Sinhalese: an introductory course. London: School of Oriental and African Studies.
    Robbins, S.P. (1992). Organizational behavior:concept, controversies, and application. NJ: Prentice Hall.
    Royse, D., Thyer, B. A., & Padgett, D. K. (2015). Program evaluation: An introduction to an evidence-based approach. (6th ed.) Boston, MA: Cengage Learning.
    San Diego Virtual School (2017). Future trends of alternative education. Retrieved from https://medium.com/SanDiegoVirtualSchool/
    future-trends-of-alternative-education-14725703b6d6#.4b3vpqsy3
    Sashkin, M., & Egermeier, J. (1993). School change models andprocesses: A review and synthesis of research and practice. Washington, DC: Office of Educational Research and Improvement.
    Sawyer, R.K. (2006). Cambridge handbook of the learning sciences. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
    Schein, E. H. (1996). Organizational culture and leadership. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
    Schmeck, R. R. (1982), Inventory of learning processes, Reston, VA: National Association of Secondary School Principals.
    Schroth, S. T., Collins, C. L., & Treffinger, D. J. (2011). Talent development: From theoretical conceptions to practical applications. In T. L. Cross & J. R. Cross (Eds.), Handbook of counselors serving students with gifts and talents (pp. 39-52). Waco, TX: Prufrock Press Inc.

    Sergiovanni, T. J. (2000). The lifeworld of leadership: Creating culture, community, and personal meaning in our schools. CA: Jossey-Bass.
    Sliwka, A. (2008). The contribution of alternative education. In CERI
    (Ed.), Innovating to learn, learning to innovate. Paris: OECD.
    Smith, L. M. & Campbell, R. J. (2015), So-called giftedness and teacher
    education: issues of equity and inclusion, Teachers and Teaching:
    theory and practice.
    Snow-Renner, R., & Lauer, P. (2005). Professional development analysis. Denver, CO: Mid-Continent Research for Education and Learning.
    Spillane, J. P. (2006). Distributed leadership. San Francisco, CA : Jossey-Bass.
    Stanley, J.C.(1979). How to use a fast-pacing math mentor. ITYB, 5(6), 1-2.
    Steiner,R.(1965).The education of the child ; in the light of anthropodophy.(George & M.Adams,Trans.). London: Rudolf Steiner
    Press.(Original work published 1909).
    Steiner,R.(1989). Education and modern spiritual life. New York, NY:Garber Communications.(Original work published 1928)
    Steiner, R. (1994). Theosophy. New Yrok, NY: Anthroposphic Press.
    Sternberg, R. J. (1985). Beyond IQ: A triarchic theory of human intelligence. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
    Sternberg, R. J. (2003). Wisdom, intelligence, and creativity synthesized. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
    Stoll, L., Bolam, R., McMahon, A., Wallace, M., & Thomas, S. (2006). Professional learning communities: A review of the literature. Journal of Educational Change, 7(4), 221-258.
    Stoll, L. & Louis, K. S. (Ed.) (2007). Professional learning communities: Divergence, depth and dilemmas. Berkshire, England: Open University Press.
    Strauss, A., & Corbin, J. (1998). Basics of qualitative research: techniques and procedures for developing grounded theory. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, Inc.
    Subotnik, R., & Coleman, L. (1996). Establishing the foundations for a talent development school: Applying principles to creating an ideal. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 20, 175–189.
    Subotnik, R. F., Kolar, C., Olszewski-Kubilius, P., & Cross, T. L.( 2010). Specialized science high schools: exploring contributions of the model to adolescent talent development. Roeper Review, 32(1), 5-6.
    Subotnik, R. F., Olszewski-Kubilius, P., & Worrell, F. C. (2011). Rethinking giftedness and gifted education: A proposed direction forward based on psychological science. Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 12, 3-54.
    Sukys, S., Dumciene, A., & Lapeniene, D. (2015). Parental involvement in inclusive education of children with special educational needs. Social Behavior and Personality: An international journal, 43, 327-338.
    Terman, L.M. (1925). Mental and physical traits of a thousand gifted
    children. Genetic studies of genius. Stanford University Press,
    Stanford.
    Tewksbury, J. L. (2001). Alternative programs in public elementary
    schools. Theory Into Practice.15 (2), 134-141.
    The Canadian Network for Innovation in Education (2017). Mission and values. Retrieved from http://cnie-rcie.ca/index.php/cnie/mission
    -and-values/
    The National Alternative Education Association (2017). Mission & vision. Retrieved from http://www.the-naea.org/ NAEA/about-us/
    mission-vision/
    The Journal of Experimental Education (2017). Aims and scope. Retrieved from http://www.tandfonline.com/action/ journalInformation?show=aimsScope&journalCode=vjxe20
    Thomas, G., Walker, D. & Webb, J. (1998). The making of the inclusive school. London: Routledge.
    Tomlinson, C. A. (1999a). The differentiated classroom: Responding to the needs of all learners. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
    Tomlinson, C. A. (1999b). Mapping a route toward differentiated instruction. Educational Leadership, 57(1), 12-16.
    Tomlinson, C. A. (2001). How to differentiate instruction in mixed-ability
    classrooms. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and
    Curriculum Development.
    Tomlinson, C. A. (2003). Fulfilling the promise of the differentiated
    classroom: Strategies and tools for responsive teaching. Alexandria,
    VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
    Tomlinson,C. A. (2007). Differentiated instruction. In National
    Association for Gifted Children(Ed.), Critical issues and practices in
    gifted education: What the research says (pp. 167-177). Waco, TX:
    Prufrock Press.
    Tomlinson, C. A. (2009). The parallel curriculum model: A design to
    develop potential and challenge high-ability learners. In J. S.
    Renzulli, E. J. Gubbins, K. S. McMillen, R. D. Eckert, & C. A. Little
    (Eds.), Systems and models for developing programs for the gifted
    and talented (pp. 571-598). Mansfield Center, CT: Creative Learning
    Press.
    Tomlinson, C. A., & McTighe, J. (2006). Integrating differentiated
    instruction. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and
    Curriculum Development.
    Tomlinson, C. A., Kaplan, S. N., Renzulli, J. S., Purcell, J., Leppien, J., &
    Burns, D. (2002). The parallel curriculum: A design to develop high
    potential and challenge high-ability learners. Thousand Oaks, CA:
    Corwin Press.
    Tomlinson, S. (2010). A tribute to Len Barton. British Journal of Sociology of Education, 31(5), 537-546.
    Tomlinson, S. (2012). The irresistible rise of the SEN industry. Oxford Review of Education, 38(3), 267-286.
    Treffinger, D. J. (1998) From gifted education to programming for talent development. Phi Delta Kappan, 79, 752-755.
    Treffinger, D. J., Young, G. C., Nassab, C., & Wittig, C. (2002). Student action planning for talent development toward a new paradigm for "identification." Creative Learning Today, 11(1), 11.
    Treffinger, D. J., Selby, E. C., & Isaksen, S. G. (2008). Understanding individual problem-solving style: A key to learning and applying creative problem solving. Leaning and Individual Differences, 18(4), 390–401.
    Treffinger, D. J., & Selby, E. C. (2009). Giftedness, creativity, and style. In E. Polyzoi & C. Froese-Klassen (Eds). Reaching gifted and talented children: Global initiatives (pp. 49–55). Winnipeg, MB, Canada: World Council for Gifted and Talented Children.

    VanTassel-Baska, J. (1998). Excellence in educating gifted and talented learners. Denver: Love.
    Waitoller, F. R., & Kozleski, E. B. (2015). No stone left unturned: Exploring the convergence of new capitalism in inclusive education in the U.S. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 23(37), 1-29.
    Whitehurst, G. J. (2012). The value of experiments in education.
    Education Finance and Policy, (p. 107-123). Washington, DC:
    Association for Education Finance and Policy.
    Wikipedia (2017a). Alternative education. Retrieved from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alternative_education
    Wikipedia (2017b). Homeschooling. Retrieved from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homeschooling
    Wile, J. & Tierney, R. J. (1996). Tensions in assessment: the battle over portfolios, curriculum and control. In R. Calfee & P. Perfumo (Eds.), Writing portfolios in the classrooms: policy and practice, process and peril (pp.203-218). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
    Wilson, C., & Irvine, K. N. (2013). Bottom-up communication: Identifying opportunities and limitations through an exploratory field-based evaluation. Energy Efficiency, 6(1), 91-104.
    Yiasemina, K., Thekla, A., Vassiliki, A., Marianna, K., Loizos, S. (2018).‘Out of the Box’ leadership: action research towards school improvement. Educational Action Research, 26(2), 239-257.
    York-Barr, J., & Duke, K. (2004). What do we know about teacher leadership? Findings from two decades of scholarship. Review of Educational Research, 74(3), 255-316.

    下載圖示
    QR CODE