法國社會學家Bourdieu認為博物館/美術館的學習行為，並非與生俱有，是必須透過教育而產生出來；諸多文獻也證明多數人初次到博物館參觀，多半都是在學校求學的階段，相關學校和博物館關係的理論與模式亦因應而生。而學校和博物館的合作發展，簡稱為「館校合作」，此型態不但是21世紀博物館的發展趨勢，亦是二十一世紀學校藝術教育發展的新典範。
然而館校合作的型態眾多，究竟何種型態適合台灣？本研究利用實地觀察、文件資料蒐集等方式，剖析英國、美國兩國，館校合作的實務案例，評析、比較出「學校主導」的型態，在台灣實施的優勢；並利用「行動研究」的方式具體實踐，透過訪談、觀察、評量等等資料，檢視「學校主導」的合作型態，在台灣實施的優缺點。

以下則簡述本研究目的、結論與建議：

一、本研究目的為：
（一）探討與分析「館校合作」的理論基礎與合作內涵。
（二）藉由國外成功模式評介何種合作型態較適合台灣發展。
（三）透過行動研究建構「學校主導」的館校合作型態。
（四）檢視「學校主導」的館校合作型態實施之優缺點。

二、本研究結論為：
（一）透過理論與實務的整合，館校合作的實踐有其基本理論和合作內涵
就理論面而言，館校合作的實施，應從社會教育學、博物館教育和藝術教育三個角度來思考。就實務面而言，館校合作的實施，應與學校課程、學校教師、學生需求、學習評量等等面向，有密切的關聯性。

（二）從英美館校合作的案例，評析出「學校主導」的型態在台灣實施的可行性
英國「學校主導」的型態，歸功於國家課程的制定；美國「博物館主導」的型態，歸功於社會教育的優勢；而國內的教育現況，實施「學校主導」的型態，可行性優於「博物館主導」的型態。

（三）教學者可以透過行動研究的歷程和特質，發展「學校主導」的館校合作課程
學校教師可以利用行動研究的歷程「計畫、行動、觀察、反省」等循環，實踐合作教學的步驟。並可以利用行動研究的特質，「提出需求—尋求溝通—建立共識—雙方互動—共同成長」，與館方建立合作關係。

（四）「學校主導」的館校合作，在台灣有其實踐的優勢，其困境則需要制定政策方能解決
「學校主導」的館校合作，在台灣實踐，有其直接效益和潛在效益的優勢，然而實施的困境，則包括直接問題和潛在問題，必須透過政策的制定，方能有效解決。

三、本研究建議為：
（一）給教育決策單位的建議
教育決策單位必須透過博物館學者與學校學者，共同制定課程綱要，並研擬相關配套措施。

（二）給博物館單位的建議
館方成立專屬團隊，有計畫分期進行館校合作的個案研究，以建立館方的合作型態。

（三）給學校單位的建議
學校應建立分享制度，鼓勵學校團隊進行館校合作課程的行動研究。

（四）給學校教學者的建議
學校教師的「生存心態」，必須有所重構，方能落實文化實踐。

Action Research about “School-Leading” Model
of Museum-School Collaboration

Abstract

French Socialist Bourdieu considers that learning behaviors of museum/art museum is not inherent but stimulated by education. Documentations testify that the first time experience of visiting museum for most of people is when they are in schools. Various theories and models about relationship between museums and schools thus are generated. The model of museum-school collaboration is one of them. Particularly, this model not only becomes tendency for developing museums in 21st century but also a new paradigm for developing school art education.
However, there are several types of museum-school collaboration, including museum-leading type, school-leading type, and so on. This research aims to find out which model better fits into Taiwan’s educational environment. By observation and documentation, this research analyses cases of museum-school collaboration in England and in the U. S. and concludes that school-leading model is better to be practiced in Taiwan. Besides, by methods used in action research, such as interviewing, observing, evaluating, etc. this study examines the model of school-leading museum-school collaboration and its strength and weakness if applied in Taiwan.
1. Purposes of this research
（1）Discovering and analyzing the base of theories of museum-school collaboration and contents of them.
（2）Finding out which model of museum-school collaboration is better to develop in Taiwan through referring to successful experiences applied abroad.
（3）Constructing “school-leading” model in museum-school collaboration by action research
（4）Examining the strength and weakness of “school-leading” model in museum-school collaboration
2.Conclusions
（1）Through integrating both of theories and implementations, this research is able to confirm that practice of museum-school collaboration has its base for developing theories and its contents for cooperation.
From theoretical aspect, the implement of museum-school collaboration should be emphasizes from perspectives of social education, museum education, and art education. From practicing aspect, applying the model of museum-school collaboration should be tightly interrelated with school curriculums, teachers, needs of students, learning evaluation, etc.
（2）By analyzing cases in England and in the U. S., this research is able to conclude that “school-leading” model has its feasibility if applied in Taiwan.
The success of “school-leading” museum-school collaboration in England is due to that museum education is set as part of national curriculums, and the success in the U. S. is due to its surpassing social education compared with school education. For Taiwan’s educational situation in current, implementing “school-leading” model is better than implementing “museum-leading” model.
（3）Through practicing steps of action research, teachers are able to develop curriculums for the model of “school-leading” museum-school collaboration.
Teachers can make use of elements of action research—planning, acting, observing and reflecting—to implement teachings in museum-school collaboration. At the same time, efficiently using characteristics of action research—proposing demands, searching communications, establishing common believes, mutual interacting, and growing all together—teachers are able to development cooperation relationship with museums.
（4）The model of “school-leading” museum-school collaboration has its strength if applied in Taiwan, but its weakness needs to be resolved by setting policies.
There are direct benefits and potential benefits for implementing the model of “school-leading” museum-school collaboration in Taiwan. However, the difficulties of practicing this model, including problems for now and for long term, need to be resolved through setting related policies.
3.Suggestions
（1）To education department in government
Education department in government, museums scholars, and teachers should work together to set up standards of curriculums and related policies and systems.
（2）To museums
Museums should organize special teams to periodically and systematically conduct studies of museum-school collaboration in order to have a better foundation in mutual cooperation.
（3）To schools
School should encourage teachers to organize teams to do action research about
museum-school collaboration and share their accomplishments with each others.
（4）To teachers
Teachers’ habitus needs to be reconstructed in order to carry out culture practice.

參 考 文 獻
中文部份
王文科（1994）。質的教育研究法。台北：師大書苑。
王永志（2001）。「藝術與人文學習領域」教師運用美術館資源之研究。嘉義南華大學美學與藝術管理研究所碩士論文，未出版，嘉義。
王秀雄（1990）。美術與教育。台北：台北市立美術館。
王秀雄（1993）。社教機構（美術館）美術鑑賞教育之理論與實務研究。臺灣省加強社會美術欣賞教育學術研討會論文專集（頁145-306）。台中：台灣省立美術館。
台北市立美術館（2004）。展覽訊息。2004年8月25日，取自http://www.tfam.gov.tw.
左曼熹(1998)。博物館參觀教學與國立自然科學博物館展示參觀活動單。非制式與專題導向科學教育研習會研習手冊（頁134-141）。彰化：國立彰化師範大學。
左曼熹(2004)。中小學生團體在博物館中的學習。公務出國報告資訊網。2004年8月20日，取自http://report.nat.gov.tw/cgi-bin/index.
朱則剛（1994）。教育工學的發展與派點演化。台北：師大書苑。
呂燕卿（1999）。藝術與人文學習領域與統整式課程設計之觀念。美育月刊，106，34。
呂秀玉（1998）。故宮博物院學生文物教育的理念與實務。博物館與學校合作實務研討會論文集（頁117-128）。台中：國立自然科學博物館。
呂秀玉（2001）。博物館與學校互動與成長。九十年度學校利用博物館教育成果報告（頁137-139）。台東：國立台灣史前博物館。
林芳平（2000）。「行動美術館」課程設計與執行之個案研究。國立彰化師範大學藝術教育研究所碩士論文，未出版，彰化。
周靜儀。（2003）。美術館推廣教育之國小課程設計研究。屏東師範學院視覺藝術教育研究所碩士論文，未出版，屏東。
邱天助（2002）。布爾迪厄文化再製理論。台北：桂冠圖書。
許功明（2001）。一個社區博物物館展演活動的聯想：從博物館與學校的互動談起。原住民季刊，23期，105-117。
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（1999）。國立社會教育機構推展終身教育辦法。2002年12月8日，取自http://www.edu.tw/EDU-WEB/Wed/E0001/index.htm.
教育部（2003）。國民中小學九年一藝術與人文領域課程綱要。2004年9月20日，取自http://www.edu.tw/EDU_WEB/Web/EJE/index.htm.
夏林清等（譯）（1997）。H.Altrichter, P.Poch,& B.Somekh著。行動研究方法導論。台北：遠流出版社。
高宣揚（2002）。布爾迪厄。台北：生智圖書。
高宣揚（2003）。當代法國思想五十年。台北：五南圖書。
高慧芬（譯） (1991)。博物館的實物學習。博物館學季刊，5(4)，29-36。
高慧芬（1997）。博物館資源、學校教師與多元化的教育。博物館與學校合作實務研究研討會（頁59）。台中：國立自然科學博物館。
秦裕傑（1992）。博物館絮語。台北：漢光書局。
秦裕傑（1998）。博物館法公聽會後記。博物館學季刊，12(4)，105-112。
陳其南（2004）。公民美學在台灣。2004年10月14日，取自http://www.ntso.gov.tw/publish/period/pbs063/pbs063-p08.htm.
陳淑敏（1994）。Vygotsky的心理發展理論和教育。屏東師院學報，7，119-163。
陳慕迪（2002）。國小教師利用科學博物館教育發展學校本位課程的合作模式之研究。國立台中師範學院自然科學教育學系碩士論文，未出版，台中。
陳瓊花（2001）。從美術教育的觀點探討課程統整設計之模式與案例。視覺藝術教育，4，4-22。
陳箐繡（2002）。社區本位藝術課程與教師專業發展之研究。嘉義：金三裕印刷。
郭禎祥（2001）。新世紀藝術教育變動。新世紀藝術教育理論與實務國際學術研討會（頁33-48）。台北：國立台灣師範大學。
黃光男（1994）。美術館廣角鏡。台北：台北市立美術館。
黃光男（1999）。博物館新視覺。台北：正中書局。
黃政傑（1997）。課程設計。台北：東華大學。
黃鈺琴（2000）。休館中的博物館教育服務。2000博物館教育國際學術研討會論文集（頁113-120）。南投：國立暨南大學。
黃鈺琴（2004）。教改之下，美術館你的位置在哪裡？博物館學季刊，18（1），41-54。
國立台灣史前博物館（2002）。教育學習:博物館與學校。2002年12月8日，取自http://www.nmp.gov.tw/main/05/5-4/01.htm.
國立台灣史前博物館（2001）。九十年度學校利用博物館教育成果報告。台東：國立台灣史前文化博物館。
國立自然科學博物館（1998）。博物館與學校合作實務研究研討會—「學校利用博物館資源網絡之建立」實施計畫。台中：國立自然科學博物館。
國立自然科學博物館（2002）。科學教育：學校與教師。2002年12月8日，取自http://www.nmns.edu.tw/cindex-6-2.php.
國立海洋生物博物館（2003）。九十二年度全國國民中小學校利用博物館教育實施計畫。2003年10月8日，取自http://www.nmmba.gov.tw
張美玉（2000）。歷程檔案評量的理念與實施。科學教育（師大），231，58-63。
張譽騰（1994）。走在博物館的時空裏。台北：稻鄉出版。
張譽騰（2000）。當代博物館探索。台北：南天書局。
張鑫熙（2003）。專題博物館學習方案之研究—以北關農場螃蟹博物館為例。國立台灣師範大學美術研究所碩士論文，未出版，台北。
靳知勤（1997）。以博物館情境為例探討國小自然科教師運用社會教育資源充實教學之個案研究。科學教育學刊，7（2），111-133。
靳知勤（1998）。教師對科學博物館教學資源認知、運用之現狀與障礙。教育研究資訊，5(4)，101-118。
甄曉蘭（1995）。合作行動研究―進行教育研究的另一種方式。嘉義師院學報，9，197-318。
甄曉蘭（2003）。課程行動研究實例與方法解析―國小戲劇創作課程之教學轉化。台北：師大書苑。
趙惠玲（2001）：視覺文化統整課程初探。新世紀藝術教育理論與實務國際學術研討會（頁411-433）。台北：國立台灣師範大學。
廖敦如（1997）。美術館兒童教育活動之理論與實務。國立台灣師範大學美術研究所碩士論文，未出版，台北。
廖敦如（2003）。社區取向藝術教育—博物館與學校合作之統整課程設計。美育雙月刊，135，35-41。
廖敦如（2004）。戀戀英倫—記英國博物館參訪。美育雙月刊，137，30-36。
劉豐榮（1991）。艾斯納藝術教育思想研究。台北：水牛出版。
劉婉珍（1997）。美術館與學校的合作互動。博物館學季刊，11（3），11-18。
劉婉珍（1999）。二十一世紀美術館與中小學校的合作。美育，107，26-31。
劉婉珍（2002）。美術館教育理念與實務。台北：南天書局。
劉國華（2002）。美術館教育人員與學校合作發展教育活動之探討。台南藝術學院博物館學研究所碩士論文，未出版，台南。
蔡幸伶（2003）。國小教師與美術館導覽互動之理論與實務。南華大學美學與藝術管理研究所碩士論文，未出版，嘉義。
蔡清田（2000）。教育行動研究。台北：五南圖書。
謝文和（譯）（1991）。利用學習類型設計資優生教學活動—一項學校與博物館的合作教學計畫。博物館學季刊，4（5），45-53。
蘇瑜琪（1998）。博物館與國小教學互動之研究。國立台灣師範大學美術研究所碩士論文，未出版，台北。
顧啟賢（1999）。國中美術教師對美術館教師研習活動需求之研究。國立政治大學圖書資訊研究所碩士論文，未出版，台北。

英文部分
Ackland Art Museum. (2004). Museum history. Retrieved February 2, 2004, from http://www.ackland.org/visit/history.html.
Art and Design. (2003). Retrieved November 26, 2003, from http://www.nc.uk.net/AD-home.htm.
Ballengee-Morris, C. & Stuhr, P. (2001). Multicultural art and visual culture education in a changing world. Art Education, 54(4), 6-13.
Berry, N. (1998). A focus on art museum/school collaboration. Art Education, 51(2), 8-14.
Bitgood, S. (1993). What do we know about school field trips. What research says about learning in science museums, Vol. 2, 12-16.
Blandy, D.(1992). A community art setting inventory for elementary art and classroom teachers: Towards the community integration of students experiencing disabilities. In A. Hohnson(Ed.), Art Education: Elementary. Reston, VA: National Art Education Association, NAEA.
Blandy, D., & Hoffman, E. (1993). Toward an art education of place. Studies in Art Education, 35（1）, 22-33.
Bourdieu, P. (1983). The forms of capital. In handbook of theory and research for the sociology of education. New York: Greewood Press.
Bourdieu, P. (1984). Distinction: A social critique of the judgment of taste. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Bourdieu, P. (1989). Practical reason: On the theory of action. California: Stanford University Press.
Bourdieu, P. (1990). The logic of practice. Stanford: Stanford University Press.
Bourdieu, P. (1993). The field of cultural productive. Cambridge: Polity Press.
Bourdieu, P., & Wacquant, L. (1992). An invitation to reflexive sociology. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Burcaw, G. E. (1997). Introduction to museum work. London: AltaMira Press, A Division of Sage Publications Inc.
Carr, W., & Kemmis, S. (1986). Becoming critical: Education, knowledge and action research. London: Flamer.
Carter, C. J. (1990). Writing a museum education policy. Journal of education in museums, 11 , 26-29.
Chesebrough, D. E. (1998). Museum partnership: Insights from the literature and research. Museum News, 77(6), 55-53.
Clark, C. (1996). A report: Survey on art museum / school collaborations. Denton, Tx: University of North Texas. National Center for Art Museum/School Collaboration.
Clark, E. (1986). Option learning: The integrative education model to the classroom. Columbus: Merril Publishing Company.
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.
Commission On Museum for a New Century. (1984). Museums for a new century. Washington, DC: The American Association of Museum, AAM.
Coleman, L. V. (1939). The museum in American. Vol.2. Washington, DC: The American Association of Museums, AAM.
Cuddy, C. (1992). The regional workshop program: Museums and schools working together: In AAM(Ed.), The sourcebook 1992 annual meeting: Vision & reality(pp.315-318). Washington, DC: The American Association of Museums, AAM.
Falk, J., & Dierking, L. D. (1992). The museum experience. Washington, DC：Whalesback Books.
Falk, J., & Dierking, L. D. (2000). Learning from museum：Visitor experience and the masking of meaning. New York: Altamira Press.
Efland, A. D. (1995). The spiral and the lattice: Changes in cognitive learning theory with implications. Studies in Art Education, 36(3), 134-153.
Efland, A. D.（2002）. Art and cognition: Integrating the visual arts in the curriculum. New York: Teachers College Press.
Eisner, E. (1992). A slice of advice. Educational Researcher, 21(5), 29-30.
Eisner, E. W., & Dobbs, S. M. (1986). The uncertain profession: Observations on the state of museum education in twenty American art museums. Los Angeles, CA: The Getty Center for Education in the Arts.
Fredette, B. (1982). Viewpoint creating bridges between schools and museum. School Arts, 81(8), 16-17.
Gardner, H. (1993). Multiple intelligences: The theory in practice. New York: Basic Books.
Garoian, C. R. (1992). Art history and the museum in the schools: A model for museum-school partnership. Visual Arts Research, 18(2), 62-73
Griffin, J. (1999). An Exploration of learning in informal settings. Paper presented at National Association for Research in Science Teaching Annual Conference, Boston, March 28-31.
Grinder, A., & McCoy, E. (1985). The good guide: A sourcebook for interpreters, docents and tour guides. Scottsdale(USA): Ironwood Publishing.
Grundy, S., & Kemmis. S. (1981). Educational action research in Australia: The state of the art. In S. Kemmis & R. McTaggart (Eds.), The Action research reader ( pp. 321-334). Victoria: Deakin University.
Gurian, E. H. (1981). Museums' relationship to education. In ICOM/CECA（Eds.）, Museum and Education. Copenhagen: ICOM/CECA.
Hein, G. E. (1998). Educational theory. Learning in the museum(pp.14-40). by Routledge in London and New York.
Hicks, E. C. (1986). Museum and schools as partnerships. (ERIC Document Reproducation Service No. ED278380）
Hooper-Greenhill, E. (1991). Museum and gallery education. London and New York: Leicester University Press.
Hooper-Greenhill, E. (1994). Museum education. In Hooper-Greenhill(Ed.), The educational role of museum (pp. 237-238). London: Routledge.
Hodgson, F. J. (1986). Teaching teachers museums team up with schools and universities. Museum News, 6（2）, 29-35.
Jacobs, H. H. (1989). Interdisciplinary curriculum: Design and implementation. Alexandria, VA: ASCD.
Jacobs, H. (1997). Refining the map through essential questions. Mapping the big picture: Integrating curriculum and assessment K-12. Alexandria, VA: ASCD.
Janesick, V. J. (1998). The dance of qualitative research design. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln(Eds.), Strategies of qualitative inquiry（pp.119-125）. California, LA: Sage.
London, p. (1994). Step outside: Community-based art education. Portsmouth, NJ: Heinemann.
Liu, W. C. (1999). An exploratory, descriptive study of art museum educators’ attitudes in regard to art museum—elementary school collaboration. Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation from university of British Columbia, Vancouver, Canada.
Liu, W. C. (2000). Art museum educators attitude toward the role of the teacher in art museum-elementary school collaboration. Visual Arts Research, 26(1), 75-84.
Katter, E. (1995). Multicultural connections, craft and community. Art Education, 49(1), 9-13.
King, K. S. (1996). Alternative educational systems: A multi-case study in museum schools. Retrieved November 26, 2003, from
http://www.indiana.edu/-educr795/prop2.html.
Korn, R.（1989）. Introduction to evaluation: Theory and methodology. In N. Berry & S. Mayer (Eds.), Museum education history, theory, and practice(pp.219-229). Reston, VA: National Art Education Association, NAEA.
Kubota, C. A., & Olstad, R. G. (1991). Effects of novelty-reducing preparation on exploratory behavior and cognition learning in a science museum setting. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 28(3), 225-234.
MacDonald, S. (1995). The outing of school art: art & design & community. INSEA NEWS, 2(2), 20-23.
Marschalek, D.（1989）. A new approach to curriculum development in environmental design. Art Education, 42(4), 8-17.
Mathewson, D. (2003). Reconceptualising the role of art education in their engagements with art museums. Retrieved November 26, 2003, from
http://www.aare.edu.au/conf03nc/ma03010z.pdfHTML.
McFee, J. K., & Degge, R. (1977). Art, culture and environment: A catalyst for teaching. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth Publishing Company.
Merriam, S. B. (2001). Qualitative research and case study applications in education. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Minneapolis Institute of Arts. (2004). Museum history. Retrieved February 4, 2004, from http;//www.artsmia.org/collection/
Morris, C. B. (1998). Cultural ecology: Arts of the mountain culture. Art Education, 51(3), 14-19.
Moffat, H. (1992). The use of museum resources by young children in England. Journal of Museum Education, 17(1), 4-6.
Museum, Libraries and Archives Council（2004）. Inspiring learning for all. Retrieved September 29, 2004, from http://www.inspiringlearningforall.gov.uk/introduction/default.aspx.
National Curriculum online. (2003a). programmers of study and attainment targets. Retrieved November 26, 2003, from
http://www.nc.uk.net.
National Curriculum online. (2003b). Subjects and key stages. Retrieved November 26, 2003, from
http://www.nc.uk.net.
National Center for Art Museum/ School Collaboration. (1996). Retrieved November 20, 2002, from
http://www.art.unt.edu/ntieva/ncamsc.
National Gallery, DC. (204). Museum history. Retrieved March 3, 2004, from http://www.nga.gov/.
National Gallery, London.（2004）. Museum history. Retrieved February 3, 2004, from http://www.nationalgallery.org.uk/.
Neperud, R. (1995). Texture of community: An environmental design education. In R. Neperud(Ed.), Context, content, and community in art education(pp.222-247). New York: Teachers College Press.
Newsom, B. Y. & Silver, A. Z. (1978). The art museum as educator：A collection of studies as guides to practice and policy. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.
National Research Center for the Arts. (1974). Museum USA. Washington, DC: Summary of Highlights Published by the National Endowment（NEA）.
Palmer, J. M. (1991). Planning wheels turn curriculum for more effective learning by primary students in Costa Rica. (ERIC Document reproduction service. No. ED363420)
Parsons, M. J. (2002). The movement toward an integrated curriculum: Some background influences in art education in the USA. Unpublished manuscript, Columbus, OH.
Pitman-Gelles, B. (1981). Museum magic & Children: Young Education in museums. Washington, DC: The Association of Museums, AAM.
Qualifications and Curriculum Authority. (1999). The revised national curriculum for 2000. What has changed？Retrieved November 26, 2003, from
http://www.qca.org.uk/ changes-to-the-nc/main.htm.
Ramsey, G. F. （1938）. Educational work in museums of the United States. New York: H. W. Wilson.
Ring, P. S. & Van de Ven, A. H. (1994). Developmental Processes of Cooperative Interorganizational Relationships. Academy of Management Review, 1(19), 90-118.
Sahasrabudhe, P. (1992). Multicultural art education: A proposal for curriculum content, structure and attitudinal understandings. Art Education, 45(3）, 41-47.
Schemes of Work. (2003). Retrieved November 26, 2003, from
http://www.standards. dfee.gov.uk/schemes2/art. Art and design at key stage 3.
Sebolt, A. (1980). Learning in museums. Rountable Reports, 5(3), 9-12.
Solomon Guggenheim Museum. (2001). Museum history. Retrieved November 20, 2002, from http://www.guggonhein.org/new-york-index.html.
Sternberg, S. (1989). The art of participation. In N. Berry & S. Mayer(Eds.), Museum education history, theory and practice(pp.154-171). Reston, VA: National Art Education Association, NAEA.
Stone, D. L. (1992). A descriptive study of the art museum relative to schools. Visual Arts Research, 19(2), 51-61.
Stone, D. L. (1993). The secondary art specialist and the art museum. Studies in Art Education, 35(1),45-54.
Stone, D. L. (1994). Facilitating cooperative art museum-school relationships: museum educators' suggestions. Visual Arts Research, 20(39), 79-83.
Stuhr, P. L. (2002). Multicultural art education in a changing world. Unpublished manuscript, Columbus, OH.
Tamir, P. (1990). Factors associated with the relationship between formal, informal and non-formal science learning. Journal of Environmental Education, 22(2), 34-42.
Tate Britain & Tate Modern gallery. (2004). Museum history. Retrieved March 3, 2004, from http://www.tate.org.uk.
The American Association of Museums. (1992). Excellence and equity: Education and the public dimension of museums. Washington, DC: The American Association of Museums, AAM.
The Institute of Museum and Library Services. (1996). True needs true partners: Museums and schools transforming education. Washington, DC: Institute of Museum and Library Services, IMLS.
The Institute of Museum and Library Services. (1998). True needs true partners: Museums and schools transforming education. Washington, DC: Institute of Museum and Library Services, IMLS.
The Institute of Museum and Library Services. (2001). True needs true partners: Museums and schools transforming education. Washington, DC: Institute of Museum and Library Services, IMLS.
The J. Paul Getty Museum. (2004). Museum history. Retrieved February 5, 2004, from http://www.getty.edu/museum.
The National Curriculum Council. (2003). The national curriculum council a guide for staff of museums, galleries, historic houses and sites. Copyright: National Curriculum Council, NCC.
Victoria & Albert Museum. (2004). Museum history. Retrieved February 2, 2004, from http://www.vam.ac.uk..
Visiting a museum, gallery or site. (2003). Retrieved November 26, 2003, from
http://www.standardards.dfes.gov.uk/schemes2/art/museum.
Walsh-piper, K. A. (1989). Museum Education : History, Theory, and Practice.　USA : The National Art Education Association, NAEA.
Walker, S. R. (2001). Teaching meaning in artmaking. Worcester, Mass: Davis Publications.
Walling, D. R. (2000). Rethinking how art is taught: A critical convergence. Thousand Oaks, Calif: Corwin Press.
Wittlin, O. (1963). The museum and art education . Museum News, 41(10), 20-23.