臺港兩地體驗教育領域引導員認證制度比較研究

Abstract

本研究旨在探討台灣與香港兩地現行推動體驗教育領域引導員認證制度之異同，並對於台灣目前推行體驗教育領域引導員認證制度提出建議。 台灣體驗教育領域發展是由台灣師大公民訓育系李義男教授於1991年開始提倡，最初命名為探索教育；體驗教育由最初只運用在教育領域發展到現在被廣泛運用在各個領域。在鄰近我國的香港地區，則是在2001年初由一些愛好野外活動的教育工作者、社工及青年輔導員，開始發展歷奇輔導課程。因此，本研究藉由兩地推行引導員認證制度之文獻收集並加以比較分析其異同，以對台灣現行引導員認證制度提出建議為目的。 本研究採用貝瑞德的比較教育研究法，收集了台灣與香港現行體驗教育領域引導員認證制度資料，並輔以９位專家的訪談進行比較分析，發現兩地引導員認證制度最大的不同點在於其發展目標，因而設計出來的認證課程也就有所不同，但兩地的認證課程參與資格與認證架構則為相同；最後，在對兩地目前所面臨的問題加以比較之後，本研究提出以下對於台灣目前發展體驗教育領域認證制度的建議：

一、與政府單位合作，以利提升推動單位組織之公信力。 二、證照審核制度的改良。 三、認證課程講師依照背景區分。 四、可進行認證課程成效評估。 五、增加副引導員及正引導員之人數。 六、對於體驗教育領域引導員認證制度理念的統整。The purpose of this study was to discuss the similarities and dissimilarities between the certification systems of Experiential Education facilitators in Taiwan and in Hong Kong, and some suggestions were provided to the present certification system used in Taiwan. In Taiwan, the idea of Experiential Education n was first brought up by Li Ynlee , a professor at Department of Civic Education and Leadership in NTNU, in 1991. Because of the conservative attitude of the society at that period, it was translated as Experiential Education, instead of Adventure Education. Experiential Education was only exercised in the educational system in the beginning, but now it is widely used in various fields. As regards Hong Kong, which is very close to our country, the courses of Adventure Counseling started in the early 2001 and were developed by some lovers of outdoor activities, including educators, social workers and youth counselors. As a result, by collecting the literatures on advancing the certification systems of the facilitators in these two places, this study aimed to analyze and compare the similarities and differences of the systems. The main target was to give some practical suggestions to the certification system of Experiential Education facilitators which is utilized in Taiwan nowadays. George Bereday's Comparative Method was adopted in this study. The diverse information about the present certification systems of Experiential Education facilitators in Taiwan and in Hong Kong was gathered. Nine experts in this field were interviewed. Together with all the above data, the analysis showed that the most important difference between the certification systems in the two places was the goal, which would certainly affect the courses which were designed to assist the certification process. However, the qualifications to attend the certification courses and the basic frame of the certification were the same in the two places. Last but not least, after comparing the difficulties which Taiwan and Hon Kong are encountering now, some suggestions to the present certification system in Taiwan were provided in this study as follows,

1.Cooperate with the government in order to boost the organization’s credibility. 2.Better the certification system. 3.Separate the lecturers of the certification courses according to their background. 4.Evaluate the effects of the certification courses. 5.Increase the numbers of the facilitators and vice-facilitators. 6.Integrate the ideas of the certification system of Experiential Education Facilitators.