自一九九八年教育部公佈「國民教育九年一貫課程總綱」以來，課程統整成了教改中重要的課題。基於對未來藝術教育的關切，本研究乃針對藝術與人文學習領域，進行有關課程統整方面的研究，提供藝術教師未來實施九年一貫藝術與人文領域教學之參考。
本研究的目的，除了瞭解如何於藝術與人文學習領域進行課程統整外，亦希望瞭解目前試辦課程統整的學校之教學現況。此外，更進一步研發藝術與人文領域之課程，以供藝術教師參酌。
本研究採文獻探討的方式，以瞭解九年一貫藝術與人文學習領域課程統整相關層面之內涵，做為本研究之理論基礎，再以觀察研究法與調查研究法，以瞭解目前試辦課程統整的學校之教學現況；最後進行藝術與人文領域課程之研發。本研究所得之結果如下：
一、藝術的學習從學生和學習成果、學校和教師及教學、社會和
學校、國家方面而言，都有其獨到之價值與功能，必須列為
核心課程，在教改中充分發揮藝術在教育改革的力量。
二、後現代的藝術教育是以藝術品為媒介，促進學生對社會、文
化的了解。後現代的各種現象、多元文化、各種議題都可以
成為討論的對象，讓學生在整體社會環境中學習表達能力，
並建構自己的價值觀。
三、教改的目的是為了讓學生有帶著走的能力，有獨立思考與判斷的
能力，與對事物的探究能力，而透過藝術的學習是達到此目的
最佳的途徑；此外，藝術與人文領域的學習是課程統整最好的
橋樑，所以藝術在教改中扮演了重要的角色，是教改中最可利
用的資源。
四、進行藝術與人文領域之課程統整，首先必須找出課程內容之
核心議題，議題要考量是否對學生有意義，以議題的學習作
為課程方向，以課程之討論重點(essential question)進行教學活
動的設計。教師要擺脫傳統「媒材－技法」取向的教學及傳
統精緻文化形式主義的觀點對藝術品做單一的判斷標準，要
能讓學生思考藝術品和人類文化環境的關係，喚起學生對自
身文化之認同與對社會、環境之參與感，並珍視文化之價值。
根據文獻探討及研究結果，提出結論及建議，以供參酌。

The Ministry of Education promulgated the “Overall Nine-year Consistent Curriculum for Compulsory Education” in 1998. Since then, curriculum integration has played a significant role in educational reform. With fervent concern about education on arts, the study aims at arts and humanities area with studies on curriculum integration in an effort to provide handy reference to future instructors of arts in nine-year consistency and arts and humanities area.
The study focuses on the purposes of coming to know of how to proceed with curriculum integration in arts and humanities area in the hope to the status quo on schools currently in trial process of curriculum integration. Besides, it does further R&D on curricula in arts and humanities area to provide reference to teachers of arts.
By means of probes into literatures, the study is to look into the connotation of nine-year consistency in curriculum integration of arts and humanities areas as the very rationales of the study. It, subsequently, by means of observation study approach and survey approach, tries to look into the educational status quo of schools currently in trial process of curriculum integration. Finally, it proceeds with R&D on arts and humanities area. The study yields the following conclusions:
I. Learning in arts provides unique values and functions toward students, learning results, faculty, education, society, schools and the nation. It must be taken as the core curricula, playing significant powers of arts in educational reform.
II. The post-modern arts-oriented education takes art works as the media to help students better understand the society and cultures. All post-modern phenomena, diverse cultures and various issues could be taken as subjects of discussion to enable students to learn the ability of expression in the overall social environments to build their own values.
III. The efforts of educational reform are intended to help students build competence in independent thinking and judgement and in probing into issues. Learning of arts is the optimal shortcut toward such goals. Besides, learning of arts and humanities area functions as the best bridge in curriculum integration. In turn, arts play a pivotal role in educational reform, as the resources best advisable amidst educational reform.
IV. In the proceeding in curriculum integration in arts and humanities area, one must, first of all, locate the core issues in the curricula. The issues must be significant to students and taken as the orientation of learning, taking essential question for design of educational activities. Schoolteachers are advised to rid themselves of “media materials-techniques” oriented teaching and the conventional refined cultures and formalities as the unitary criterion of judgement. It is advisable to call students into thinking of the interrelations between art works and humanities environments and students’ consensus on cultures and participation in the society and environments, and into added cherishing of the values of cultures.
On grounds of the literature probe and study results, the study offers conclusions and proposals as handy references.

王秀雄(1986)：美術教育的功能探討。刊登於國立教育資料館主
編：教育資料集刊,第十一輯,頁20。台北：教育資料館。
艾斯納著、郭禎祥譯(1991)：藝術視覺的教育。台北：文景書局。
李長俊(1998)：美術史、美術教育、文化建設。美育,93期,頁13-
22。
李長俊(1999)：最好=最新？傳統與創新之爭及其他重要文化議題。刊登於「世界文化百年」論文集。台北市：歷史博物館。
林曼麗(2000)：藝術、人文、新契機－視覺藝術教育課程理念之思考。美育,113期,頁71-80。
袁汝儀(2000a)：國民教育階段「藝術與人文」領域之思考。刊登於國立教育資料館主編：現代教育論壇﹐頁23-33。台北：教育資料館。
袁汝儀(2000b)：論文化與教育。文化視窗,18卷,頁20-27。
許信雄(1999)：課程統整的基本認識。教師天地,100期,頁58-65。
榮淑華(2000)：表演藝術在藝術與人文學習領域應扮演的角色。台北市茶山國中試辦九年一貫藝術與人文學習領域課程設計觀摩會之會場講義。
望月真一著,何芳子、楊雅玲譯(1997) ：公共藝術與都市設計。空間雜誌,108期,頁59-63。
郭禎祥(1993)：透過藝術教育達成全國教育之重整。刊登於當代美勞教學理論與實務學術研討會論文集。台北市：台北市立師範學院。
郭禎祥(1994)：多元文化觀與藝術教育。師大學報,39期,頁545-
582。
郭禎祥(1999a): 廿一世紀藝術教育的展望。美育,106期,頁1-9。
郭禎祥(1999b)：描繪新世紀藝術教育藍圖。美育,110期,頁1-9。
教育部(1998)：國民教育階段九年一貫課程總綱綱要。台北：教育部。
教育部(2000)：九年一貫課程與教學。由URL：
http://teach.eje.edu.tw 取得。
黃政傑(1991)：以科際整合促進課程統整。教師天地,52卷,頁38-43。
黃政傑(1994a)：課程設計。台北：東華。
黃政傑(1994b)：課程評鑑。台北：師大書苑。
黃譯瑩(1999)：九年一貫課程中課程統整相關問題探究。教育研究資訊,7卷5期,頁60。
陳瓊花(2000)：二十一世紀藝術教育圖像－談文化因素對審美教育之省思。文化視窗,18卷,頁14-19。
歐用生(1999)：從「課程統整」的概念評九年一貫課程。教師天地﹐101期﹐頁17。
歐用生,楊慧文(1999)：國民教育課程綱要的內涵與特色。師友,379期,頁10-15。
蘇振明(1999)：20世紀美術教育史的回顧與啟示：「藝術與人文」學習領域的相關思考。刊登於國立教育資料館主編：現代教育論壇﹐頁71-88。台北：教育資料館。
二、英文部分
Barrett,T.(1994).Criticizing art, understanding the contemporary. Mountain View, CA.：Mayfield Publishing Co.
Barton,K.C. & Smith,L.A.(2000).Themes or motifs?Aiming for coherence through Interdisciplinary outlines.The Reading Teacher,54(1),
54-63.
Beattie, D.K.(1997).Assessment in art education. Worcester,
Massachusetts：Davis publication, lic.
Bennett, W.J.(1988).Why the arts are essential. Education Leadership, 45(4), 4-5.
Blandy,D. & Congdon,K.G.(1987).Art in a democracy. New York：Teachers College Press.
Blandy,D.(1992).A community art inventory for elementary art and classroom teachers：towards the community integration of students
experiencing disabilities. In Hohnson,A.(Ed).Art Education：
Elementary.Reston,VA：National Art Education Association.
Brazee, E.N.&Capelluti,J.(1995).Dissolving boundaries：toward an integrative curriculum.(ERIC Document Reproduction Service NO.ED 397982)
Chalmers,F.G.(1974).A cultural foundation for art education in the arts.Art Education,17(1),20-25.
Chanda,J. & Daniel,V.(2000).ReCognizing works of art：the essences of contextual understanding. Art Education, 53(2), 6-11.
Cross,K.(1999).Southwestern art from a thematic approach. Arts and Activities, 126(4),15-16.
Davis,M.(1999a).Design's inherent interdisciplinarity：the arts in integrated curricula. Arts Education Policy Review, 101(1), 8-13.
Davis,M.(1999b).Design knowledge：broadening the content domain of art education.Arts Education Policy Review, 101(2), 27-32.
Duncum,P.(2001).Visual culture：developments, definitions, and directions for art education. Studies in Art Education,42(2),101-112.
Eddy,J.(1974).The upside down curriculum.In G.Hardiman & T.Zernich(Eds.), Curricular considerations for visual arts education：rationale, development, and evaluation. pp.52-60.Champaign,IL：Stipes.
Efland,A.D.(1970).Conceptualizing the curriculum problem. Art Education, 3(2), 7-16.
Efland,A.D.(1995a).Culture, society, art and education in a
postmodern world. 1995 INSEA-ASIAN regional congress. Culture. society. art education,Taiwan museum of art.
Efland,A.D.(1995b).The spiral and the lattice：changes in cognitive learning theory with implication. Studies in Art Education,36(3),134-153.
Efland,A.& Freedman, K. & Stuhr,P.(1996).Visions of progress in 20th century art education. Chapter 3 of postmodern art education.The National Art Education Association.
Efland,A.D.(1999).Mapping the postmodern：a vision of 21st century art education.An internation symposium in art education.The prospects of art education in the 21st century,Taiwan museum of art.
Efland,A.D.(2000a).Metaphor and cognition. Art,Cognition and
Curriculum, pp.217-231.Unpublished manuscript as July 2000.
Efland,A.D.(2000b).The city as metaphor for integrated learning in the arts. Studies in Art Education.41(3), 276-295.
Eisner,E.W.(1972).Education artistic vision. New York：Macmillan Publishing Co.
Erickson,M.(1996).Our place in the world. In Stories of Art(online).
Available ArtsEDNet URL：http://www.artsednet.getty.edu.
Fogarty, R.(1991).Ten ways to integrate curriculum. Educational Leadership, 49(2), 61-65.
Fogarty, R. & Stoehr,J.(1995).Integrating curruculum with multiple intelligences：teams,themes, and threads. (ERIC Document Service NO.ED 383435)
Freedman,J.(1995).An integrated transdisciplinary approach through art education：at primary school. 1995 INSEA-ASIAN regional congress.Culture. society. art education,Taiwan museum of art.
Gablik,S.(1991).The reenchantment of art. New York intelligences：Thames and Hudson.
Garoian,C.R.(1999).Performing pedagogy.Albany:State University of New York.
Irwin,R. & Rogers,T. & Wan,Y.(1999).Making connections through cultural memory, performance, and cultural translation. Studies in Art Education, 40(3), 198- 209.
Jacobs,H.(1989).Interdisciplinary curriculum：design and
implementation.(ERIC Document Reproduction Service NO.ED 316506)
Jacobs,H.(1997).Refining the map through essential question. Chapter 4 of Mapping the big picture：integrating curriculum and assessment K-12. Alexandria, VA：ASCD.
Lainer,V.(1984).Eight guidelines for selecting art curriculum content. Studies in Art Education, 25(4), 232-237.
Lavanoker,J.(1988).Another look at multicultural education. Texas Trends in Art Education, Fall, 5-10.
Lowenfeld,V. & Brittain,W.L.(1968).Creative and mental growth. New York：Macmillan.
Mcfee,J.K.(1991).Art education progress：a field of dichotomies or a network of mutual support.Studies in Art Education, 32(2), 78-81.
Mcfee,J.& Degge,R.(1977).Art,culture,and environment: a catalyst for teaching.Dubuque,lowa:Kendall/Hunt.
Millie,C.(1996).Integrating the curriculum：background, middle, foreground. Arts and Activities, 120(2), 27-28.
Mirzoeff,N.(1998).What is visual culture? In N.Mirzoeff(ED.),The visual culture reader. London:Routledge.
Parsons,M.J.(1998).Integrated curriculum and our paradigm of cognition in the arts.Studies in Art Education, 39(2), 103-116.
Parsons,M.J.(1999).What we learn through art：habits of mind and multiplicity.An internation symposium in art education. The prospects of art education in the 21st century,Taiwan museum of art.
Parsons,M.J.(2000).Changes in art education in the USA：a special summer program.The Ohio State University course packet.
Patchen,J.H.(1999).Education in and through the arts for the 21st century.An international symposium in art education. The prospects of art education in the 21st century,Taiwan museum of art.
Schubert,M.B. & Melnick,S.A.(1997).The arts in curriculum
integration.(ERIC Document Rrproduction Service No.424151)
Slattery,P.(1995).Curriculum development in the postmodern era. New York & London：Garland Publishing.
Smith,R.(1995).On the third realm-integrated and interdisciplinary learning in arts education. The Journal of Aesthetic Education, 29,Spring, 1-4.
Susan,L. (1999).Intellectual tension：connecting biology and visual art in the secondary curriculum. American Secondary Education,27(3), 3-16.
Tchudi,S. & Lafer﹐ S.(1996).The interdisciplinary teacher's
handbook：a guide to integrated teaching across the curriculum.
Portsmouth﹐NH：Boynton/Cook Publishers.
Ulbricht,J.(1998).Interdisciplinary art education reconsidered.Art Education, 51(4), 13-17.
Walker,S. & Parsons,M.(2000).Commentary：educational change and the arts. Arts Education Policy Review, 101(4), 31-34.
Wilson,B.(1995).The movement toward integrated curriculum：should we be making connections? Presentation given at the National Art Education Association Conference,Houston.TX.