原住民社區本位學校的理想與實踐 ― 臺灣原住民完全中學之分析 Community-based Education in a Taiwan Aboriginal Complete School
Bibliographic record
Abstract
社區本位教育是1970年代以後，美國以及太平洋地區原住民重要的抵殖民運動之一。近年來，臺灣教育改革運動強調加強社區與學校之互為支持的關係，而完全中學設立的目的也是在發展社區中學，提供原住民學生更多的就學機會。然而，原住民社區本位教育的理念在臺灣地區究竟如何體現？本研究透過一所原住民完全中學的實地觀察與訪談，探討「社區本位教育」在原住民完全中學的實踐情形，並促進原住民社區本位教育理想之實踐。根據實地觀察與社區、學校成員訪談的結果，目前臺灣地區的原住民社區本位教育，在追求自決的過程中，僅止於「學習空間」的爭取。對於學校與社區文化的銜接，學生因為自信對本地「熟悉」而產生了不利學習的依賴心理；學校限於資源，必須透過「篩選」的機制選擇學生，無法讓社區具意願的學生全數進入學校，而學生也面臨留在社區或出外就學的抉擇。關於原住民社區本位教育的看法及態度，社區與學校均表贊同，但家長的參與仍須由學校主動接觸，不希望學生在肩負文化傳承使命的同時，成為一種負擔。透過外來的學生，教師則發現社區以外的文化對社區本位教育也有正面的幫助。未來，有待教育體制的改革，透過原住民族的自決與批判，使學生在其生活情境脈絡中能獲得成功的教育經驗。 After 1970s, community-based education has become one of the main de-colonial campaign of those indigenous people living in America, Canada and south Pacific area. In recent decade, the educational revolution campaigns at Taiwan focus on the reciprocal and supportive relationships between schools and their communities. Being a new type of school, complete schools were set up as a kind of community school, creating more further education opportunities for aboriginal students at post secondary education. Through interviews and participative observations taken, this paper aims to explore the praxis on community-based education (CBE) built in an aboriginal complete school in Taiwan. Limited by system, the CBE only strive for the learning-space during the process of pursuing self determination. Because of being familiar with school, students are excessively relied on teacher for support. Because of limited by shortage of resources, the school can't hold all students from the community, then mechanism for student selection must be set up, caused that not all aboriginal students are able to register in the school. School and community all approve CBE, however, the parents are not so voluntary to participate in school. Even have an aboriginal complete school in the community, students may choose the urban school. In the future, through reform of education, we expect CBE will built bi-cultural identity in aboriginal students` minds and bring them successfully academic achievement.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.007 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.005 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.014 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".