本研究目的在於了解一位已任職於幼稚園將近二十年之久的老師，其全語言理念是如何形成的，以及是如何實踐於實務教學之中，在過程中又曾遇到哪些困境。為了有脈絡地呈現本研究對象理念的形塑歷程，並理解理念與實務之間的關係，所以選擇個案研究作為研究方法，採用訪談、觀察，和相關文件蒐集研究資料，經由資料整理與分析後得到下列發現：

一、研究個案的理念形成
　　(一)擁有開放信念是成為全語言老師的重要基礎
　　研究個案未接觸全語言前，就已經實踐開放教育的精神於教學中，原先既
有的教育理念讓他迅速地掌握全語言教育的精神。
(二)持續探索新知是全語言老師教學創新的必要條件
　　研究個案喜愛閱讀，以及積極參與各樣式的研習與訓練課程，使他成為一
位具有教學創新能力的全語言老師。
(三)相同理念同儕的相互激勵是提升專業成長的重要元素
　　為了讓自己成長，研究個案不斷調校找尋他想要的教學環境，以學習者的
　　身份持續進修，運用同儕互動激勵與提升自己全語言專業的成長。
二、研究個案全語言的理念實踐
　　(一)透過連結聽、說、讀、寫的活動以提供孩子學習完整語言學習的機會
　　研究個案在教室裡提供多元的活動，希望孩子可以在沒有壓力的情況下，
透過活動的安排有機會產生聽、說、讀、寫的行為。
　　(二)安排與生活經驗相關活動讓孩子進行有目的性與功能性的語言學習
　　為了使語言的學習有意義，所以研究個案非常注重教學活動與孩子生活經
驗的關聯性。
　　(三)提供機會讓孩子成為為課程的建構和共構者
　　研究個案跟著全語言成長團體所訂定「放手讓孩子做」的學習目標，嘗試
賦權給孩子，因而從中發現孩子有能力提供意見，並與老師共同發展課
程。
　　(四)融合各種認同的教育觀點形塑個人的全語言教學方式
　　研究個案將就學期間所學，以及透過閱讀認識的幼教楷模的理念應用於教
學中，這些理念不但沒有相互衝突，反而使其教學更具特色。

三、全語言教學所面臨的困境及解決策略
　　(一)與家長進行多元溝通及邀請家長參與活動是讓家長認同全語言教學的
　　有效途徑
　　為了讓家長認識自己的教育理念，研究個案把握與家長接觸的機會，鼓勵
參與班上活動，並發行班刊，讓無法親自參與活動的家長得到班級活動的
訊息。
　　(二)在缺乏同儕教師協助下運用有效的紀錄方式檢討和反思教學有其必要
性在缺乏同儕教師協助、不認同研究個案教學模式的情況下，研究個案
調整做教學記錄的習慣，改以運用有效的紀錄方式，並檢討和反思教學，
讓教學更有效率。
　　(三)瞭解孩子想法及隨時了解孩子需求可以增進孩子參與全語言教學活動
　　意願研究個案秉持著全語言教育最基本的尊重孩子、以孩子為主的信念，
透過不斷的自我反省與調整，體會孩子想法和在乎孩子的感受，因而提升
孩子的學習意願與動機。

The purpose of this study is to understand a kindergarten teacher who has worked for nearly twenty years, how she formed the whole language concept and practiced in teaching. In order to present the teacher’s whole language concept and practice, I chose case study as research method and used interviews, observation, data and related documents collection to gather the research data .The main findings of this study are listed below:
1. The formation of whole language concept
(1) Having the notion of open education is an important
foundation forbecoming a whole language teacher.
Before the case teacher knew about whole language, she
has been practicing the notion of open education in her
teaching. Because of her previous experience,the case
teacher mastered the spirit of whole language faster.
(2) Keep going on exploring new knowledge is an essential
condition for an innovative whole language teacher.
Enthusiasm for reading and participating in different
workshops and training courses
made the case teacher an innovative whole language
teacher.
(3) Peer’s encouragement is an important element for
promoting a teacher’s professional development.
For self development, the case teacher changed the
schools in order to find her ideal teaching environment
and colleagues. She regards herself as learner and
pursues future education continually. And she promotes
her professional through interaction with the colleagues
having the same concept.

2. The practice of whole language
(1) Provide the opportunity for children to connect
hearing, speaking, reading and writing activities and to
learn complete language.
The case teacher provides multi-dimensional activities in
classrooms, so that children can get the opportunity to
bring up the ability of listening, speaking, reading and
writing without pressure.
(2) Provide children life related courses and let them
experience meaningful and functional language learning.
In order to make language learning becoming more
valuable, the case teacher concentrates on the
relationship between teaching activities and children’s
daily life experiences.
(3) Provide children the opportunity to become
constructor and co-constructor of curriculums.
The case teacher followed the goal “let the children do”
that was given by the whole language support group and
gave children more rights to make decisions. She
discovered the children have a lot of abilities and they
can develop the
curriculum with theachers.
(4) Combine different education concepts to form personal
whole language teaching style.
The case teacher applied what she has learnt during the
studying and the educational ideas of the preschool
models that she learned through reading in her teaching.
These education concepts do not conflict each other, but
make her teachings more characteristic.

3. The dilemma and solution during practice of whole language
(1) Communicate with parents and invite them to
participate activities are effective ways to let them
know the idea of whole language.
In order to make parents to know her teaching concepts,
the case teacher holds the opportunity to communicate
with parents, and encourage them to participate in
kindergarten activities. She also issues class
newsletter, to provide new messages of class activities
for those parents who can’t participate personally.
(2) Apply effective record methods and teaching
reflections are essential to solve the problem of non-
assistance teacher.
Under the condition of lacking of assistance and support
from co-teacher, the case teacher adjusted her working
style and recorded teaching in more effective way.
She also wrote reflection after teaching, in order to
make her teaching more efficient.
(3) Understanding the children’s thinking and needs can
increase them to participate the whole language
activities.
The case teacher followed the main concepts of whole
language – to respect children, to do teaching
reflection, to feel children’s need, to adjust teaching
according children’s interesting and ideas. In this way,
the children’s learning willing and motivation increased.

參考文獻
中文
李佩純（2004）。一位初任教師在幼稚園實施全語言教育的歷程。國立臺北師範
學院幼兒教育所碩士論文，未出版，臺北市。
李連珠(1996)。再談幼兒教室之情境佈置-創造推動讀寫活動之環境。國教之
友，48(3)，14-19。
李連珠(2000)：全語言與幼稚園實施全語言之探討。國立台東師範學院「K-12
語文教育與統整性課程」國際學術研討會論文集，141-157。
李連珠、林慧芬(2001)。適合發展的幼兒語文課程。臺南師院學報，34，443-
474。
李連珠(2006)。全語言教育。臺北市：心理。
李連珠(譯)(1998）。Goodman, K.著。全語言的「全」全在哪裡？（What’s Whole
in Whole Language？)。臺北市：信誼。
谷瑞勉(譯)(1999）。L.E.Berk ＆ A.Winsler著。維高斯基與幼兒教育
(Scaffolding children’s learning：Vygotsky and early childhood
education)。臺北市：心理。
幸曼玲、林佩蓉、歐姿秀、蔡延治（1995）。重要的一小步－如何幫孩子選擇幼
稚園。臺北市：臺北市教育局。
林佩蓉(譯)(1999）。Fisher,B.著。快樂的學習：全語言幼稚園的一天。(Joyful
Learning：A Whole Language Kindergarten)。中和市：光佑。
林惠娟(2004)。幼托園所全語言教學實施概況之初探研究。朝陽人文社會學刊，
2(1)，149-214。
林麗卿、邱蓮春、張巧妙、黃詩穎、洪筑芸、吳嫈華、白宜芳、莊秋芬、洪俐如
（2005）。全語言的新思維—小小文字探索家。臺北市：華騰。
施麗雅(2002)。幼稚園全語言教學之協同行動研究。國立新竹師範學院幼兒教育
研究所碩士論文，未出版，新竹市。
洪櫻萍(2007)。全語文課程改革之行動研究。國立新竹教育大學幼兒教育研究
所碩士論文，未出版，新竹市。
高敬文（1996）。質化研究方法論。臺北市：師大書苑。
陳昭吟(2008a)。全語文理念融入幼兒園主題課程之探究。國立新竹教育大學幼
兒教育研究所碩士論文，未出版，新竹市。
陳昭吟（2008b）。全語文理念融入幼兒園主題課程之實踐。中華民國全語言教
育發展研究會九十七年度教學研討會專輯，1-21。
陳淑琴（1998)。語文教學的另類選擇-全語言教學觀。國教世紀，179，11-14。
陳淑琴（2000）。幼兒語言發展與語言獲得理論探討。幼兒教育年刊，12，93-
112。
陳淑琴(2006)。幼兒語文教材教法：全語言教學觀。中和市：光佑。
陳詩莉(2010)。應用全語文策略進行幼兒數概念教學之行動研究。國立新竹教育
大學幼兒教育研究所碩士論文，未出版，新竹市。
黃光雄、簡茂發(2000)。教育研究法。臺北市：師大書苑。
黃瑞琴(1993)。幼兒的語文經驗。臺北市：五南。
黃瑞琴(1995)。幼兒讀寫萌發的課程取向。臺北師院學報，8，503-528。
黃瑞琴(1997)。幼兒讀寫萌發課程。臺北市：五南。
黃瑞琴(2005)。質的教育研究方法。臺北市：心理。
黃繼仁(1997)。美國小學全語言教學之研究。國立台灣師範大學教育研究所碩士
論文，未出版，臺北市。
張明麗(1992)。花蓮師院幼師科學生自我概念與成就動機之研究。幼兒教育學
報，1，77-104。
曾月紅(1998)。從兩大學派探討全語文教學理論。教育研究資訊，6(1)，76-90。
潘淑滿(2003)。質性研究-理論與應用。臺北市：心理。
潘璿如(2006)。全語教學的理論與迷失。網路社會學通訊月刊，52。
鄭雅丰(2005)。以全語教學提升幼兒讀寫能力之行動研究。國立嘉義大學教育
學院國民教育研究所碩士論文，未出版，嘉義市。
鄭雅丰(2008)。適合發展的幼兒語言教育觀-全語言教學。國教之友，59(3)，
54-59。
蔡宜玲(2002)。一位全語文教師之教學信念的詮釋與實踐。國立臺北師範學院課
程與教學研究所碩士論文，未出版，臺北市。
薛曉華（譯）（1997）。Raines, S.C.＆Canady, R.J.著。全語言幼稚園－教學
之理論與實務。(The Whole Language Kindergarten)。中和市：光佑。
簡楚瑛(2003)。幼教課程模式：理論取向與實務經驗。臺北市：心理。
顏綺貞(2008)。鷹架幼兒書寫能力之行動研究全語言取向的教室活動。國立臺南
大學幼兒教育研究所碩士論文，未出版，臺南市。

英文
Cavner, D. & Gould, E. (2003). Whole Language in the Music Classroom: Part 1 of
2. Music Educators Journal,89,39-44
Clay, M. M. (1975). What did I write? Auckland, New Zealand: Heinemann.
Durkin, D. (1966). Children who read early. New York: Teacher College Press.
Froese, V. (1996). Introduction to whole-language teaching and learning. In V. Froese (Ed.), Whole-language: Practice and theory (pp. 1-16). Boston: Allyn and Bacon.
Freeman, Y. S., & Freeman, D. E. (1992). Whole Language for second language learners. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
Freppon, P. A.＆ Dahl, K. L.(1991). Learning about Phonics in a Whole Language Classroom. Language Arts, 68(3), 190-97.
Goodman, K. S. (1986). What is whole in whole language . Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
Goodman, K. S. (1989). Whole-language research： foundations and development. The Elementary School Journal, 90(2), 207-221.
Goodman, K.S. (1992). I didn't found whole language. The Reading Teacher, 46, 188-199.
Goodman, K.S. (2005). What is whole in whole language . Berkeley, CA: RDR Books.
Gunderson, L. & Shapior, J. (1988). Whole language instruction: Writing in two grade one classroom. The Reading Teacher, 41, 430-437.
Halliday, M. A. K. (1977). Explorations in the functions of language. Portsmouth,
NH: Heinemann.
Newman, J. M. & Church, S. M. (1991). 19 ways to misread whole language.
Education Digeat, 56(8), 25-29.
Pierce, V. (1984). Bridging the gap between language research/theory and practice:
A Case study. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Texas Woman's University,
Denton.
Roehrig, Gillian H.; Kruse ＆ Rebecca(2005). The Role of Teachers' Beliefs and
Knowledge in the Adoption of a Reform-Based Curriculum. School Science &
Mathematics,105, p412-422
Smith, F. (1981). Demonstrations, engagement, and sensitivity: A revised approach to
language learning. Language Arts, 58, 103-112.
Teale, W., & Sulzby, E. (1986). Introduction: Emergent literacy as a perspective for
examining how young children become writers and readers. In W. Teale & E.
Sulzby (Eds.), Emergent literacy: Writing and reading. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
Taylor, M. (2007). Whole language teaching is wholehearted activism. In M.
Taylor(Ed.), Whole language teaching, whole-hearted practice: Looking back,
looking forward(p. 1-10).New York: Peter Lang.
Vygotsky, L.S. (1978). Mind in society. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.