主題式教學在美國行之有年，而其教學成效和益處在各項研究中也多次提到，然而主題式教學在臺灣的應用卻多停留在單一學科課程，且在技職教育的應用甚少。開平餐飲學校自2001年開始以餐飲科為媒介，推行主題企劃課程至今已將近二十年，故本研究以開平餐飲學校為例作主題式教學成效之探究。本研究目的為 (1) 透過柯氏四層次學習評估模式 (Kirkpatrick Model) 探討學生於開平主題式教學下的成效。(2) 綜合不同角色觀點，評核學校在課程內容、課程節奏、學校設備、學校文化、學校師資現況之滿意度，提出未來校務發展建議。(3) 依研究結果提出建議，提供他校餐飲科欲發展主題式教學之借鏡。
本研究以Kirkpatrick的四層次學習評估模式為基礎，進行質性與量化混合式 (mixed-methods) 的研究。資料蒐集在質性部分訪談開平餐飲學校108學年度學生、家長、老師和畢業校友及校外實習單位主管共32位；量化部分以開平餐飲學校108學年度二、三年級學生為施測對象，共收回有效問卷為221份。資料分析在量化部分採人口統計變量分析、單因子變異數分析 (One-Way ANOVA) 檢驗不同餐組及會考成績之同學在主題式學習成效差異情形、以皮爾遜積差相關 (Pearson product-moment correlation) 分析柯氏模型四層次間的相關程度，以找出具統計顯著意義之影響因素。質性分析部分則以內容分析法進行編碼分析。
綜合質性與量化結果，親師生對開平主題式教學法整體平均滿意度為高，更勝於傳統講授型的教學（反應層次），學生在開平主題式教學下能具體說出學習能力和習得場域（學習層次），學生在開平主題式教學法下能有立即性或經過一段時間之行為遷移，應用之場域從課堂、日常生活到職場皆能應用（行為層次），學生在開平主題式教學下對餐飲業界之正向效益與貢獻部分能具體觀察，然多數業者提及畢業兩年內學生資歷尚淺，實質效益較難評估（結果層次）。透過Kirkpatrick模式在質性與量化的評估結果，肯定開平主題式教學下學生學習成效和課程的價值。

Thematic Teaching has implemented for years in America, and its teaching effectiveness and performance have also been mentioned many times in research. However, the application of thematic teaching in Taiwan has mostly happened in single subject course, and there are few applications in vocational education. Kai-ping Culinary School has started thematic teaching courses in food and beverage department for around 20 years since 2001. Therefore, this research takes Kai-ping Culinary School as case study to explore students’ learning effectiveness of thematic teaching. The purpose is to (1) Explore the learning effectiveness of students in Kai-ping thematic teaching by Kirkpatrick Evaluation Model. (2) Based on the perspectives of different roles, evaluate the school's satisfaction with curriculum content, curriculum rhythm, school equipment, school culture, teachers, and school affairs suggestions. (3) Based on the findings of the study, providing suggestions for other vocational catering schools to develop thematic teaching.
This research is based on Kirkpatrick's four-level learning evaluation model, and use mixed-methods design for conducting research. For the qualitative evaluation design, we interviewed 32 people, including students, parents, teachers, alumni and managers of catering industry which are internship partners with Kai-ping, in 2019 academic year. For the quantitative evaluation design, the survey was conducted in the second and third grade students in Kai-ping and returned to 221 valid questionnaires
In the quantitative analysis, demographic variables analysis and One-Way ANOVA analysis were used to test the differences in thematic learning performance of students with different specialties and the scores in Comprehensive Assessment Program for Junior High School Students. Pearson product-moment correlation was used to analyze the correlation process between the four levels of the Kirkpatrick's model to find out the influencing factors with statistical significance. The qualitative analysis part uses the content analysis method for coding analysis.
Combining qualitative and quantitative results, the overall average satisfaction of parents, teachers and students mentions the students in Kai-ping thematic teaching is higher than that of traditional lecture-based teaching (Reaction level). Students can specifically describe their learning abilities and where they learn in Kai-ping thematic teaching (Learning level). Transfer of learning are immediately happened under the Kai-ping thematic teaching method, the application field can be applied from the classroom, daily life to the workplace (Behavior level). Only few of students’ performance can be observed clearly in catering industries, while most managers mentioned that the qualifications of students within two years of graduation are still shallow, and the actual benefits are more difficult to evaluate (Result level). Through the qualitative and quantitative evaluation of the Kirkpatrick model, it is affirmed that the students' learning effectiveness and the value of the curriculum under Kai-ping thematic teaching.

國家教育研究院課程及教學研究中心 (2015)。十二年國民基本教育領域課程綱要核心素養發展手冊。臺北市：作者。
天下雜誌 (2012，3月)。國中學習力調查：1/4不能完全聽懂上課內容。天下雜誌。引自https://www.cw.com.tw/article/5031643。
方德隆 (2001)。學校本位課程發展的理論基礎。課程與教學，4(2)，1-24。
王文科 (2007)。課程與教學論。臺北市：五南圖書出版股份有限公司。
王金國 (2018)。以專題式學習法培養國民核心素養。臺灣教育評論月刊，7(2)，107-111。
王惠英 (2018，3月)。未來教育臺灣100-教室應該不一樣。未來親子學習平台。引自https://futureparenting.cwgv.com.tw/family/content/index/10950
王瑞振 (2004)。主題式教學對低學業成就學生學習態度之影響 (未出版碩士論文)。國立臺灣師範大學，臺北市。
白家儀、賴志峰 (2014)。少子化衝擊下私立高級中等學校教師工作壓力與教學效能關係之研究。學校行政，93，185-209。
任慶儀 (2009)。課程統整的設計與應用。社會科教育研究，14，151-169。
江承曉、劉嘉蕙 (2008)。青少年壓力調適，情緒管理與心理健康促進之探討。嘉南學報 (人文類)，34，595-607。
何金針 (2006)。我國高級職業學校教育發展及其問題之研究 (未出版碩士論文)。國立臺灣師範大學，臺北市。
何琦瑜、賓靜蓀、張瀞文 (2012，4月)。十二年國教新挑戰：搶救「無動力世代」。親子天下。引自https://www.parenting.com.tw/article/5031634-/?page=2。
吳明隆、涂金堂 (2005)。SPSS與統計應用學習實務。臺北市：五南圖書出版股份有限公司。
吳明隆、張毓仁 (2014)。SPSS (PASW) 與統計應用分析Ⅰ。臺北市：五南圖書出版股份有限公司。
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，258，42-58。
吳清山 (2018)。素養導向教師教育內涵建構及實踐之研究。教育科學研究期刊，63(4)，261-293。
吳樎椒、張宇樑 (2009)。幼稚園教師對主題統整課程的知覺研究。教育研究學報，43(2)， 81-105。
吳曉玲 (2016)。應用Kirkpatrick模式評量護理臨床教師培訓課程之實施成效 (未出版碩士論文)。國立臺北健康護理大學，臺北市。
吳璧純 (2017)。素養導向教學之學習評量。臺灣教育評論月刊，6(3)，30-34。
李坤崇、歐慧敏 (2000)。統整課程理念與實務。臺北市：心理。
李建興 (2018，2月)。55.4％上班族學非所用 技職學用落差高於普大。遠見雜誌。引自https://www.gvm.com.tw/article/42808。
李隆盛、李信達、陳淑貞 (2010)。技職教育證照制度的回顧與展望。教育資料與研究雙月刊，93，31-52。
李隆盛、黃同圳 (2000)。人力資源發展。臺北市：師大書苑。
辛炳隆（2011）。強化人力資本提升青年就業力。就業安全，10(1)，10-14。
周珮儀 (2003)。課程統整。高雄市：復文圖書出版社。
林人龍 (1997)。行動的開始-主題式生活科技學習活動設計。中學工藝教育，30(3)，8-14。
林文惠 (2001)。主題式教學中的合作學習行為 (未出版碩士論文)。國立臺灣師範大學：臺北市。
林奇賢 (2017)。創世代的創新學習模式：互聯網+ PBL 理論與實施操策略。臺北市：高等教育出版社。
林怡伶 (2017)。技術型高級中等學校餐飲科學生學習進路問題與改進策略之探究。臺灣教育評論月刊，6(1)，165-170。
林哲瑩 (2018)。個案教學法應用於社會工作專精課程之成果評估研究。臺灣教育評論月刊，7(8)，234-251。
林哲瑩、鄭晏甄 (2016)。運用個案研討會建構充權式的居家服務督導模式。發展與前瞻學報，(13)，51-66。
林進財、陳瑞全、陳啟斌、歐陽玉萍 (2007)。E-learning學習績效運用模糊法評估。東華大學資訊管理學報，14(2)，247-271。
范毓娟、郭重吉 (1995)。在國中理化課程中試行建構主義之個案研究。科學教育，6，67-87。
夏惠汶 (2015)。【2015開平經驗實踐報告書】。未出版之原始資料。
夏惠汶 (2017)。PTS教學法：微型社會中的主題式教與學。臺北市：學富文化。
徐新逸 (2001)。如何利用網路幫助孩子成為研究高手? 網路專題式學習與教學創新。臺灣教育，607，25-34。
高翠霞 (1998)。主題式教學的理念--國小實施課程統整的可行策略。教育資料與研究，25，9-11。
國立台中師範學院附設實驗國民小學 (2000)。【九年一貫課程試辦成果彙編】。未出版之原始資料。
康軒文教集團 (2019)。108課綱核心素養滾輪。取自https://e108in.knsh.com.tw/article.asp。
張乃文 (2018)。國小主題式學習自造教育的行動研究：以環境教育為例 (未出版碩士論文)。國立臺北教育大學，臺北市。
張宇樑、陳菀菁、劉怡眞 (2009)。教育研究人員對當代課程與教學之哲學、理論與實務的知覺研究。明道學術論壇，5(1)，46-62。
張志明、譚宇隆 (2000)。花蓮縣國民小學總務主任工作倦怠因素之探討。花蓮師院學報，(10)，145-170。
張迺貞、周天 (2015)。運用 Kirkpatrick 模式評估資訊法律課程在數位學習環境中之學習成效。教育資料與圖書館學，52(4)，417-450。
張彬益、蕭漢良 (2019)。探討廚藝技能之學習行為與學習成效-以高職餐飲科西餐廚藝 為例。德霖學報，32，179-196。
張嘉育、曾淑惠 (2012)。技職教育課程後設評鑑之必要性及其實施途徑。課程與教學，15(3)，27-52。
教育部 (2018，9月)。課程綱要-108課綱重點。教育部十二年國民基本教育資訊網。引自https://12basic.edu.tw/
教育部(2014)。學校型態實驗教育實施條例。引自全國法規資料庫https：//law.moj.gov.tw/LawClass/LawAll.aspx？pcode=H0070060
梁志平、佘曉清 (2006)。建構主義式的網路科學學習對國中生力的概念學習之研究。科學教育學刊，14(5)，493-516。
莊明貞 (2001)。當前臺灣課程重建的可能性：一個批判教育學的觀點。國立臺北師範學院學報，(14)，141-162。
郭振昌 (2012)。柯氏訓練評估模式的修正與反省。臺灣勞工季刊，29，115-124。
陳文典 (1997)。STS 理念下之教學策略。物理教育，I (2)，85-95。
陳伯璋 (1995)。我國中小學課程統整與連貫問題之檢視。台灣教育，540，11-15。
陳姿伶、蔣憲國、劉伊霖 (2012)。運用 Kirkpatrick 四層次模式推行公部門訓練成效評估之研究。農業推廣學報，(29)，24-44。
陳聖謨 (2003)。主題式統整課程的設計與實施。教師之友，44(1)，44-58。
陳寶山 (2010)。九年一貫課程政策執行評析。教育資料與研究，(92)，47-74。
陳寶芳 (1983)。社會工作員的工作疲乏。工作滿意與工作意願之研究 (未出版碩士論文)。東吳大學，臺北市。
黄麗儀 (2014)。開展主題探究式學習活動面臨的困惑與應對措施。生活教育，(12)，32-34。
曾祥榕 (2016)。跨領域統整的教與學。發表於邁向十二年國教新課綱：學生學習與學校本位課程發展研討會，臺北市，臺灣。引自https：//www.naer.edu.tw/ezfiles/0/1000/img/89/414127595.pdf
游美惠 (2000)。內容分析-文本分析與論述分析在社會研究的運用。調查研究-方法與應用，(8)，5-42。
游家政 (2000)。校課程的統整及其教學。課程與教學季刊，3(1)，19-38。
開平餐飲學校(2013)。順性發展。取自http://wiki.kpvs.tp.edu.tw/index.php/%E9%A0%86%E6%80%A7%E7%99%BC%E5%B1%95
開平餐飲學校教學中心 (2019)。【開平餐飲學校教學中心三年課程計畫V6】。未出版之原始資料。
黃永和 (1998)。Fogarty 的十種課程統整方式。教師之友，39(4)，10-21。
黃永和 (1999)。課程統整的理論與方式之探討。新竹師院學報，12，231-260。
黃姮棻 (2018)。實驗教育的挑戰與因應策略。臺灣教育評論月刊，7(1)，68-71。
黃聖桂、程小蘋 (2005)。青少年自主展現之研究-一個開放家庭的分析。輔導與諮商學報，27(1)，23-45。
黃譯瑩（1999）。從課程統整的意義與模式探究九年一貫課程之結構。公教資訊，3(2)，19-37。
詹傑勝 (2014，6月)。『台灣教育長期追蹤資料庫』後續調查（TEPS-B）2009年電訪追蹤調查結果簡介。TEPS-B電子報。引自https://tepsb.nccu.edu.tw/teps-b%E9%9B%BB%E5%AD%90%E5%A0%B1%E7%AC%AC1%E6%9C%9F/。
劉淑芬 (2007)。企業教育訓練評鑑方法應用之研究-Kirkpatrick 四層次模式理論分析的觀點 (未出版博士論文)。國立中正大學，嘉義。
歐用生 (1999)。從課程統整的概念評九年一貫課程。教師天地，101，15-24。
蔡清田 (2015)。課程發展與設計的關鍵 DNA：核心素養。臺北市：臺灣五南圖書出版股份有限公司。
蔡清田、許素秋 (2004)。James A. Beane 課程統整理論之評析。中正教育研究，3(2)，49-68。
蔡清田、陳延興 (2013)。國民核心素養之課程轉化。課程與教學，16(3)，59-78。
蔡清田、詹盛如、鄭瑞隆、李藹慈、洪志成、李奉儒、林玉瓊 (2012)。社會科學研究方法新論。臺北市：五南圖書出版公司。
蔡進雄 (2010)。中小學校園危機事件與媒體互動關係之研究：傳播學者的觀點。學校行政，(66)，20-29。
蔡進雄 (2010)。國民中小學學校行政人員研究所在職進修成效評鑑之研究： Kirkpatrick 評估模式之應用。教育行政與評鑑學刊，10，1-25。
蔡福興 (2001)。主題式教學於國小科技教育課程實施之運用。生活科技教育月刊，34(5)，7-16。
賴光真 (2013)。課程組織銜接性原則之再探討。臺灣教育評論月刊，2(5)，42-48。
錢富美 (2008)。國小職前教師社會領域課程統整設計與教學實例之研究。社會科教育研究，13，245-263。
駱明儀、陳榮政 (2019)。歐洲耶拿學校之創新教學與特色分析。教育脈動，(17)，1-9。
戴錫瑩、孫躍東、李岩 (2009)。基於Kirkpatrick 評估模式的網絡學習績效評價模式設計。中國遠程教育，(1)，45-48。
薛梨真 (2000)。國小教師統整課程實施成效之評估。課程與教學，3(1)，39-58。
江勁毅、陳貞綉、黃淑惠 (2018)。具備何種特質的餐旅業員工能獲得更多報酬? 觀光與休閒管理期刊，6(2)，60-77。
Armstrong, F. (1998). Curricula, ‘Management’ and special and inclusive education. In Peter Clough (Ed.), Managing Inclusive Education: From Policy to Experience (pp. 48-63). London, England：SAGE.
Arthur Jr, W., Bennett Jr, W., Edens, P. S., & Bell, S. T. (2003). Effectiveness of training in organizations: A meta-analysis of design and evaluation features. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88(2), 234.
Ausubel, D. P., Novak, J. D., & Hanesian, H. (1968). Educational psychology：A cognitive view. New York, NY: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.
Baran, M., & Maskan, A. (2011). The effect of project-based learning on pre-service physics teachers electrostatic achievements. Cypriot Journal of Educational Sciences, 5(4), 243-257.
Bauer, M. W. (2000). Qualitative researching with text, image and sound. In Martin W. Bauer & George Gaskell (Eds.), Classical content analysis: A review (pp. 131-151). London, England：Martin W. Bauer.
Beane, J. A. (1997). Curriculum integration： Designing the core of democratic education. New York, NY: Teachers College Press.
Berelson, B. (1952). Content analysis in communication research. New York, NY: Free Press.
Besley, T. (2001). Foucauldian influences in narrative therapy: An approach for schools. The Journal of Educational Enquiry, 2(2), 72-93.
Blazar, D. (2015). Effective teaching in elementary mathematics: Identifying classroom practices that support student achievement. Economics of Education Review, 48, 16-29.
Blume, T. W. (2006). Becoming a family counselor: A bridge to family therapy theory and practice. Hoboken, NJ：John Wiley & Sons.
Bubb, S., & Earley, P. (2007). Leading & managing continuing professional development: Developing people (1st ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
Buck Institute for Education [BIE] (2017). What is project based learning (PBL). Retrieved from http://www.bie.org/about/what_pbl
Caine, R. N., & Caine, G. (1997). Education on the Edge of Possibility. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
Chen, Y. (2012). The effect of thematic video-based instruction on learning and motivation in e-learning. International Journal of Physical Sciences, 7 (6), 957-965.
Clark, R. M. (2015). Family life and school achievement：Why poor black children succeed or fail. London, England: University of Chicago Press.
Cloonan, A. (2015). The feasibility of implementing cross-curricular studies of Asia. In Christine Halse (Ed.), Asia Literate Schooling in the Asian Century (pp.133-150). London, England: Routledge.
Comrey, A. L. (1988). Factor-analytic methods of scale development in personality and clinical psychology. Journal of Consulting and clinical psychology, 56(5), 754.
Darling-Hammond, L. (2000). Teacher quality and student achievement. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 8, 1-44.
Davies, M. & Shankar-Brown, R. (2011). A programmatic approach to teaming and thematic instruction. North Carolina Middle School Association Journal, 26 (1), 1-17.
De los Ríos-Carmenado, I. G. N. A. C. I. O., Lopez, F. R., & Garcia, C. P. (2015). Promoting professional project management skills in engineering higher education: Project-based learning (PBL) strategy. International Journal of Engineering Education, 31(1), 184-198.
Deetz, S. (1992). Democracy in an age of corporate colonization: Developments in Communication and the Politics of Everyday Life. New York, NY: SUNY Press.
Delisle, R. (1997). How to use problem-based learning in the classroom. Alexandria,VA: ASCD.
Dewey, J (1916). Democracy and Education: An Introduction to the Philosophy of Education. New York, NY: Macmillan.
Doll Jr, W. E. (1993). A post-modern perspective on curriculum (1st ed.). New York, NY: Teachers College Press.
Domínguez, C., & Jaime, A. (2010). Database design learning: A project-based approach organized through a course management system. Computers & Education, 55(3), 1312-1320.
Downing, J. H., & Lander, J. E. (1997). Fostering critical thinking through interdisciplinary cooperation: Integrating secondary level physics into a weight training unit. NASSP Bulletin, 81(591), 85-94.
Drake, S. M. (1998). Creating Integrated Curriculum: Proven Ways To Increase Student Learning. Thousand Oaks, CA：Corwin Press.
Drake, S. M., & Burns, R. (2004). Meeting standards through integrated curriculum. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
Finch, C. R., Frantz, N. R., Mooney, M., & Aneke, N. O. (1997). Designing the Thematic Curriculum: An All Aspects Approach. Berkeley, CA：National Center for Research in Vocational Education.
Finnish National Board of Education [FNBE] (2016). National core curriculum for basic education 2014 (English ed.). Helsinki, Finland: Author.
Fogarty, R. (1991). Ten ways to integrate curriculum. Educational Leadership, 49(2), 61-65.
Fong-Yee, D., & Normore, A. H. (2004, April). The impact of quality teachers on student achievement. Paper presented at the 3rd Annual South Florida Education Research Conference, Miami, FL.
Gamberg, R., Kwak, W., Hutchings, M. A., & Altheim, J. J. & Edwards, G.(1988). Learning and loving it: Theme studies in the classroom. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
Han, S., Capraro, R., & Capraro, M. M. (2015). How science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) project-based learning (PBL) affects high, middle, and low achievers differently: The impact of student factors on achievement. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 13(5), 1089-1113.
Harris, C. J., & Rooks, D. L. (2010). Managing inquiry-based science: Challenges in enacting complex science instruction in elementary and middle school classrooms. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 21(2), 227-240.
Hmelo-Silver, C. E. (2004). Problem-based learning：What and how do students learn？. Educational Psychology Review, 16(3), 235-266.
Jeffres, L. W., Atkin, D., & Neuendorf, K. A. (2002). A model linking community activity and communication with political attitudes and involvement in neighborhoods. Political Communication, 19(4), 387-421.
Johnson, D.W., Johnson, R.T., & Holubec, E. J. (1998). Cooperation in the classroom. Boston, MA: Allyn and Bacon Publishing.
Judge, S., & O’Bannon, B. (2008). Faculty integration of technology in teacher preparation: Outcomes of a development model. Technology, Pedagogy and Education, 17(1), 17-28.
Kaldi, S., Filippatou, D., & Govaris, C. (2011). Project-based learning in primary schools：Effects on pupils' learning and attitudes. Education, 39(1), 35-47.
Kassarjian, H. H. (1977). Content analysis in consumer research. Journal of Consumer Research,4(1), 8-18.
Kemp, J. E. (1985). The instructional design process. New York, NY: Harpercollins College Division.
Kirkpatrick, D. L. (1975). Evaluating training programs: A collection of articles from the Journal of the American Society for Training and Development.Madison, WI: ASTD.
Kirkpatrick, D. L. (1998). Another look at evaluating training programs: Fifty articles from training & development and technical training: Magazines cover the essentials of evaluation and return-on-investment. Alexandria, VA: ASTD.
Kirkpatrick, D., & Kirkpatrick, J. (2006). Evaluating training programs: The four levels. San Francisco, CA：Berrett-Koehler Publishers.
Kirkpatrick, J. D., & Kirkpatrick, W. K. (2016). An Introduction to the New World Kirkpatrick Model. Newnan, GA: Kirkpatrick Partners.
Krippendorff, K. (2004). Reliability in content analysis: Some common misconceptions and recommendations. Human Communication Research, 30(3), 411-433.
Lee, D., Huh, Y., & Reigeluth, C. M. (2015). Collaboration, intragroup conflict, and social skills in project-based learning. Instructional Science, 43(5), 561-590.
Lipson, M. Y., Valencia, S. W., Wixson, K. K., & Peters, C. W. (1993). Integration and thematic teaching: Integration to improve teaching and learning. Language Arts, 70(4), 252-263.
Liu, M. C., & Wang, J. Y. (2010). Investigating Knowledge Integration in Web-based Thematic Learning Using Concept Mapping Assessment. Educational Technology & Society,13(2), 25-39.
Loewenthal, K. M., & Lewis, C. A. (2018). An introduction to psychological tests and scales. New York, NY: Psychology Press.
Meinbach, A., Rothlein, L., & Fredricks, A. (1995). The complete guide to thematic units. Creating the integrated curriculum. Norwood, MA: Christopher-Gordon.
Mills, J. E., & Treagust, D. F. (2003). Engineering education—Is problem-based or project-based learning the answer. Australasian Journal of Engineering Education, 3(2), 2-16.
Min, K.C., Rashid, A.M., & Nazri, M.I. (2012). Teachers’ understanding and practice towardsthematic approach in teaching integrated living skills. International Journal of Humanities and Social Science, 2(23), 273-281.
Neuman, W. L. (2014). Basics of social research. Boston, MA: Pearson Education.
Newstorm J.W.(1978). The Problems of Incomplete Evaluation of Training. Training & Development Journal, 32(11), 24.
Oni, J. O. (2014). Teacher quality and student academic achievement in basic technology in junior secondary schools in South-West, Nigeria. Journal of Educational and Social Research, 4(3), 397-397.
Pithers, R. T. (1995). Teacher stress research: problems and progress. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 65(4), 387-392.
Pope, D., Brown, M., & Miles, S. (2015). Overloaded and underprepared: Strategies for Stronger Schools and Healthy, Successful Kids. San Francisco, CA: John Wiley & Sons.
Posavac, E. J. (2015). Program evaluation: Methods and case studies. New York, NY：Routledge.
Retnawati, H., Munadi, S., Arlinwibowo, J., Wulandari, N. F., & Sulistyaningsih, E. (2017). Teachers’ difficulties in implementing thematic teaching and learning in elementary schools. The New Educational Review, 48, 201-212.
Ronan, W. W., & Latham, G. P. (1974). The reliability and validity of the critical incident technique: A closer look. Studies in Personnel Psychology, 6(1), 53-64.
Sarbin, T. R. (1986). Narrative psychology：The storied nature of human conduct. Washington, DC: Greenwood Publishing Group.
Sari, F. K., Rakimahwati, R., & Fitria, Y. (2019). Development of 2013 Curriculum Integrated Thematic Teaching Materials With A Scientific Approach in Class 1 Elementary School. International Journal of Educational Dynamics, 1(2), 125-131.
Selye, H. (1978). Stress, cancer, and the mind. In Cancer, Stress, and Death. Boston, MA: Springer.
Snyder, J., Bolin, F., & Zumwalt, K. (1992). Curriculum implementation. In W. P. Jakson (Ed.), Handbook of research on curriculum. New York, NY: Macmillan Publishing Company.
Stufflebeam, D. (2001). Evaluation models. New Directions for Evaluation, 2001(89), 7-98.
Sylwester, R. (1995). A Celebration of Neurons: An Educator's Guide to the Human Brain. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
Tyler, R. W. (2013). Basic principles of curriculum and instruction. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
UNESCO Institute for Education (1996). Learning: The treasure within：report to UNESCO of the International Commission on Education for the Twenty-first Century (1st ed.). France, Paris: Author.
UNESCO Institute for Education (2003). Nurturing the treasure: vision and strategy 2002-2007 (1st ed). Hamburg, Germany: Author.
Van Buren, M. E., & Erskine, W. (2002). The 2002 ASTD state of the industry report. Alexandria, VA: American Society of Training and Development.
Van Rooij, S. W. (2009). Scaffolding project-based learning with the project management body of knowledge. Computers & Education, 52(1), 210–219.
Veenman, S., Kenter, B., & Post, K. (2000). Cooperative learning in Dutch primary classrooms. Educational Studies, 26(3), 281-302.
Verlinden, N. (2017). 7 personality traits to look for in hospitality applicants. Retrieved from https://blog.harver.com/7-personality-traits-to-look-for-in-hospitality-applicants
Wamsley, G. L., & Wolf, J. F. (1996). Refounding democratic public administration. London, England: SAGE.
Wardani, N. F. K. (2020). Thematic Learning in Elementary School: Problems and Possibilities. Social Science, Education and Humanities Research, 397, 791-800
Wardani, N. F. K., Sunardi, S., & Suharno, S. (2020). Context-Based Thematic Teaching Materials to Improve Elementary Students’ Learning Achievements. Journal Pendidikan Indonesia, 9(2), 193-202.
White, R. M. (1995). How thematic teaching can transform history instruction. The Clearing House, 68(3), 160-162.
Wu, Shi-Jiuan (1993). An ethnography of chinese families in america: Implications for family therapy (Order No. 9414039). Available from ProQuest Dissertations & Theses A&I. (304042825). Retrieved from https://0-www.proquest.com.opac.lib.ntnu.edu.tw/dissertations-theses/ethnography-chinese-families-america-implications/docview/304042825/se-2?accountid=14228