社會經濟、科技發展迅速促使人才需求越來越多元，現在社會已逐漸擺脫過去單一專才與分工的思維，對於跨領域的人才需求越來越多。教學場域中該如何培育具備跨領域思維與能力的人才成為現今教育上的重要議題，而該依循什麼指標進行課堂教學設計也是延伸出的議題之一。本研究根據Carr等人於2018提出的跨領域評估框架，以及國內牛涵釗於2017提出的技術型高中跨領域指標內容來作為主要指標參考，設計一份國內的跨領域課程設計指標。
本研究採用層級分析法(analytic hierarchy process, AHP)將文獻探討中所得出的構面指標進行權重分配與決策分析，綜合國內進行跨領域課程的大學教授及大學生意見，在得出指標權重後，來瞭解並比較兩者所得出之構面指標的差異。綜合兩者研究結果顯示，構面是與學生能力端相關的「自我學習歷程」最為重要，項目指標則是「引導學習」權重值最高，顯示出雖然學生個人能力相當重要，進行跨領域學習的過程中仍需要教師的引導。大學教授在構面上同時重視教師端相關的「社會資本歷程」及學生能力端的「自我學習歷程」；大學生則在構面上看重學生能力端的「自我學習歷程」，與大學教授不盡相同。在項目指標上兩者則同樣重視「引導學習」，認同教師在跨領域課程的引導角色重要性。

The rapid development of social economy and science and technology has promoted the demand for more and more talents. Now the society has gradually got rid of the thinking of single professionals and division of labor in the past, and there is more and more demand for talents across fields. How to cultivate talents with interdisciplinary thinking and ability in the teaching field has become an important issue in education today, and what indicators should be followed for classroom teaching design is also one of the extended issues. Based on the cross-domain assessment framework proposed by Carr et al. In 2018 and the technical high school cross-domain indicator content proposed by Niu Hanzhao in 2017 as the main indicator reference, this study designed a domestic cross-domain curriculum design indicator.
This study uses analytic hierarchy process (AHP) to analyze the weight distribution and decision-making of the faceted indicators obtained from the literature discussion. Based on the opinions of university professors and college students conducting cross-disciplinary courses in Taiwan, after obtaining the indicator weights to understand and compare the difference in facet indicators between the two. Comprehensive research results show that the facet is the most important "self-learning process" related to the student's ability, and the project indicator is the "guidance of learning" with the highest weight value. Teacher guidance is still needed in the process. University professors at the same time attach importance to the "social capital process" related to the teacher's end and the "self-learning process" of the student's ability; college students value the "self-learning process" of the student's ability in the aspect, which is different from university professors. In terms of project indicators, both places equal emphasis on "led learning" and agree on the importance of teachers' guiding role in cross-curricular courses.

第一章 緒論--------------1
第一節 研究背景與動機-----1
第二節 研究目的與問題-----3
第三節 名詞解釋----------4
第四節 研究範圍與限制-----5
第五節 研究貢獻----------5
第二章 文獻探討----------6
第一節 知識建構、社會建構與跨領域---6
第二節 跨領域與課程設計------------9
第三節 跨領域相關研究--------------13
第三章 研究方法--------------------20
第一節 研究架構--------------------20
第二節 研究對象--------------------22
第三節 研究工具--------------------24
第四節 研究流程--------------------25
第五節 資料處理--------------------26
第四章 研究結果--------------------30
第一節 綜合大學生、大學教授之專家問卷分析結果------30
第二節 大學教授之專家問卷分析結果------38
第三節 大學生之專家問卷分析結果------46
第五章 結論與建議------54
第一節 結論------54
第二節 建議------58
參考文獻------61
壹、中文部分------61
貳、英文部分------63
附錄------66
附錄一、層級分析法問卷同意書(大學教授)------66
附錄二、層級分析法問卷同意書(大學生)------67
附錄三、AHP正式問卷(大學教授)------68
附錄四、AHP正式問卷(大學生)------75

壹、中文部分
丁振豐 (2000)。教育大辭書【國家教育研究院】。取自http://terms.naer.edu.tw/detail/1306998/
牛涵釗（2017）。以品質機能展開探討技術型高中跨領域課程發展指標之研究。國立臺灣師範大學工業教育學系博士論文，台北市。 取自https://hdl.handle.net/11296/4p894z
司 琦（1991）。課程導論。台北市：五南圖書出版有限公司。
邱微棋（2004）。跨領域課程設計之實證個案：以世新傳播管理為例。世新大學傳播管理學系碩士論文，臺北市。 取自https://hdl.handle.net/11296/ntk236
辛幸珍 (2010)。以問題導向學習(PBL)整合跨領域學習於通識「生命與倫理」課程之教學成效. [Using PBL to Integrate Multidisciplinary Learning in General Education "Life and Ethics"]. 通識教育學刊(6), 89-107. doi:10.6360/tjge.201012.0089
杜侑陵（2012）。建構手機軟體開發人員能力框架之研究。國立臺灣科技大學數 位學習與教育研究所碩士論文，台北市。取自https://hdl.handle.net/11296/hjdhhw
吳清山, & 林天祐 (2005)。教育新辭書: 臺北市: 高等教育.
林金定, 嚴嘉楓, & 陳美花 (2005)。質性研究方法：訪談模式與實施步驟分析. [Qualitative Research Method: Models and Steps of Interviewing]. 身心障礙研究季刊, 3(2), 122-136. doi:10.30072/JDR.200506.0005
金繼春(2016年7月28日)。跨領域教學的理念與設計【台灣護理教育學會】。取自http://www.tane.org.tw/download/%E7%AC%AC28%E6%9C%9F%E8%B7%A8%E9%A0%98%E5%9F%9F%E6%95%99%E5%AD%B8%E7%9A%84%E7%90%86%E5%BF%B5%E5%8F%8A%E8%AA%B2%E7%A8%8B%E8%A8%AD%E8%A8%88(%E9%87%91%E7%B9%BC%E6%98%A5).pdf
曹雅筑（2016）。運用跨領域教學提升國中學生自我認同之行動研究。國立臺灣藝術大學藝術與人文教學研究所碩士論文，新北市。 取自https://hdl.handle.net/11296/3uu8ah
張靜嚳 (1995)。何謂建構主義. 中部地區科學教育簡訊, 建構與教學 (3). 國立彰化師範大學科教育研究所.
曾正宜 (2015)。學習科學之核心議題與研究趨勢. 教育研究集刊, (61: 3), 105-121.
曾正宜 (2018)。知之為不知, 不知為知之, 學習也: 論不知本位教與學. 教育研究集刊, (64: 4), 107-138.
湯堯, 徐慧芝,& 蘇建洲 (2016)。大專院校理工科系跨領域課程品質評估量表發展之研究. 教育科學研究期刊, 61(1), 91-113.
黄光雄,& 蔡清田 (1999)。課程設計: 理論與實際. 五南圖書出版股份有限公司.
楊竣傑 (2017年10月1日)。史丹佛2025，重塑學習生態系統【線上論壇】。取自https://www.cheers.com.tw/article/article.action?id=5085593&page=1
劉玉玲 (2003)。課程發展與設計. 桂冠.
劉宏文 (1996)。建構主義的認識論觀點及其在科學教育上的意義.科學教育月刊.
謝文祥（2016）。新北市終身學習機構績效評估指標之建構。國立臺北教育大學教育經營與管理學系博士論文，台北市。 取自https://hdl.handle.net/11296/6vdurv
戴世祐（2015）。臺灣高等教育跨設計領域課程現況之研究-以一般大學為例。國立臺灣師範大學設計學系碩士論文，台北市。取自https://hdl.handle.net/11296/tjtqyv
貳、英文部分
Ackermann, E. (2001). Piaget’s constructivism, Papert’s constructionism: What’s the difference. Future of learning group publication, 5(3), 438.
Apostel, L. (1972). Interdisciplinarity Problems of Teaching and Research in Universities.
Ávila-Robinson, A., & Sengoku, S. (2017). Multilevel exploration of the realities of interdisciplinary research centers for the management of knowledge integration. Technovation, 62-63, 22-41. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.technovation.2017.01.003
Borrego, M., & Cutler, S. (2010). Constructive Alignment of Interdisciplinary Graduate Curriculum in Engineering and Science: An Analysis of Successful IGERT Proposals. Journal of Engineering Education, 99(4), 355-369. doi:10.1002/j.2168-9830.2010.tb01068.x
Borrego, M., & Newswander, L. K. (2008). Characteristics of Successful Cross-disciplinary Engineering Education Collaborations. Journal of Engineering Education, 97(2), 123-134. doi:10.1002/j.2168-9830.2008.tb00962.x
Carr, G., Blanch, A. R., Blaschke, A. P., Brouwer, R., Bucher, C., Farnleitner, A. H., . . . Blöschl, G. (2017). Emerging outcomes from a cross-disciplinary doctoral programme on water resource systems. Water Policy, 19(3), 463-478. doi:10.2166/wp.2017.054
Carr, G., Loucks, D. P., & Blöschl, G. (2018). Gaining insight into interdisciplinary research and education programmes: A framework for evaluation. Research Policy, 47(1), 35-48. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2017.09.010
Cheng, Y. P. (2016). Reimaging University Education: The Shifting Learning Ecosystems in Stanford 2025. Jiaoyu Yanjiu Yuekan= Journal of Education Research, (266), 96.
Gorev, P. M., & Masalimova, A. R. (2017). Development of Meta-subject Competencies of the 7-9 Grades Basic School Students through the Implementation of Interdisciplinary Mathematical Courses. Eurasia Journal of Mathematics Science and Technology Education, 13(7), 3919-3933. doi:10.12973/eurasia.2017.00764a
Haapasaari, P., Kulmala, S., & Kuikka, S. (2012). Growing into Interdisciplinarity
How to Converge Biology, Economics, and Social Science in Fisheries Research? Ecology and Society, 17(1).
Hibbert, P., Siedlok, F., & Beech, N. (2016). The role of interpretation in learning practices in the context of collaboration. Academy of Management Learning & Education, 15(1), 26-44.
Howlett, C., Ferreira, J.-A., & Blomfield, J. (2016). Teaching sustainable development in higher education. International Journal of Sustainability in Higher Education, 17(3), 305-321. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/IJSHE-07-2014-0102
Imafuku, R., Kataoka, R., Mayahara, M., Suzuki, H., & Saiki, T. (2014). Students’ experiences in interdisciplinary problem-based learning: A discourse analysis of group interaction. Interdisciplinary Journal of Problem-Based Learning, 8(2), 1.
Ivanitskaya, L. C., Deborah ; Montgomery, George ; Primeau, Ronald. (2002). Interdisciplinary Learning: Process and Outcomes. Innovative Higher Education, 27(2), 95-111. doi:10.1023/A:1021105309984
Jacob, W. (2015). Interdisciplinary Trends in Higher Education (Vol. 1).
Newell, W. H. (1994). Designing interdisciplinary courses. New directions for teaching and learning, 1994(58), 35-51.
Kafai, Y. B. (2006). Constructionism. In R. K. Sawyer (Ed.), The Cambridge handbook of learning sciences (pp. 35-46). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
Madinabeitia, S. C. (2007). The integrated curriculum, CLIL and constructivism. Revista española de lingüística aplicada, (1), 55-66.
Mansilla, V. B., Lamont, M., & Sato, K. (2013). Successful interdisciplinary collaborations: The contributions of shared socio-emotional-cognitive platforms to interdisciplinary synthesis.
Papert, S., & Harel, I. (1991). Situating constructionism. Constructionism, 36(2), 1-11.
Ramirez, R. R., & Palos-Sanchez, P. R. (2018). Willingness to Comply with Corporate Law: An Interdisciplinary Teaching Method in Higher Education. Sustainability, 10(6), 21. doi:10.3390/su10061991
Savas, B., Senemoglu, N., & Kocabas, A. (2012). The effects of integrated unit and constructivist based teaching learning process on fourth grades students’ learning levels, attitudes towards learning, academic self-confident. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 46, 2811-2815.
Siedlok, F., Hibbert, P., & Sillince, J. (2015). From practice to collaborative community in interdisciplinary research contexts. Research Policy, 44(1), 96-107. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2014.07.018
Stokols, D., Fuqua, J., Gress, J., Harvey, R., Phillips, K., Baezconde-Garbanati, L., . . . Colby, S. M. (2003). Evaluating transdisciplinary science. Nicotine & Tobacco Research, 5(Suppl_1), S21-S39.