領導全球公民教育：整合全球公民教育、教師能動性與三向度幸福感的理論架構與對我國課綱之啟示

Leading Global Citizenship Education: Integrating Global Citizenship Education, Teacher Agency, and Three-Dimensional Well-Being for Taiwan’s Curriculum Reform

今日在面臨全球多元挑戰的情境下，全球公民教育（Global Citizenship Education,GCED）逐漸被視為實現永續發展目標第四項（Sustainable Development Goal 4, SDG4）尤其是子目標4.7的核心路徑之一（United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization [UNESCO], 2015）。然而，GCED在學校實踐層面經常呈現「概念清楚、實務模糊」的落差，若缺乏系統性的教育領導與教師能動性支持，其批判與轉化潛能往往難以落實。近年來，GCED文獻開始關注師資培育與教學現場如何在全球化與在地化交織下的社會脈絡形塑教師身分認同與能動性，但「領導」與「幸福感」仍較少被一併納入系統性討論。因此，本研究以「領導全球公民教育」（Leading Global Citizenship Education）的視角出發，整合UNESCO所提出之GCED三大學習領域、經濟合作暨發展組織（Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, OECD）「教學羅盤」（Teaching Compass）中的教師能動性與教師幸福感，以及三維幸福（個人、集體與環境）的分析架構，並與我國《十二年國民基本教育課程綱要總綱》之「自發、互動、共好」願景進行對話。首先，本研究從GCED的認知、社會情意與行為三大學習領域出發，界定「為GCED而領導」、「透過GCED而領導」與「領導GCED實踐」三重意涵，說明教育領導如何在政策論述、學校文化與教學行動中轉化全球公民理念。其次，本研究依據OECD教學羅盤與近期教師能動性研究成果，區分個人能動性、共同能動性與集體能動性，並分析其與GCED三大學習領域之系統對應關係。本研究亦納入教師認知、社會情緒與身體三向幸福感，說明教師幸福感如何作為教師能動性與三維幸福之間的中介機制。本研究也透過芬蘭、韓國等國案例，指出不同制度情境中GCED與教育領導的實作路徑，並對我國教育實務提出校本課程設計、教師專業發展與學校領導三層面的具體啟示。在理論整合基礎上，本研究建構一個「領導GCED×教師能動性×教師幸福感×三維幸福」之整合概念模型，主張GCED並非僅可外加於課綱之上的國際議題，而可視為轉化課綱精神的策略性作為之一。最後，本研究建議未來可從實證模型建構、跨文化比較與課程實作研究三方向，進一步提出驗證與深化本整合架構之理論與實務意涵的可行性。

In the context of multiple global challenges, Global Citizenship Education (GCED) has been increasingly recognized as a core pathway to achieving SDG 4– especially target 4.7. Yet empirical studies reveal a persistent gap between clear conceptualizations and ambiguous practices at the school level. Without systematic educational leadership and support for teacher agency, GCED’s critical and transformative potential often stays unrealized. This article proposes the concept of Leading Global Citizenship Education, integrating UNESCO’s three learning domains of GCED with the OECD Teaching Compass– teacher agency and teacher well-being– and a three-dimensional framework of well-being (individual, collective, environmental), and places these in dialogue with Taiwan’s Curriculum Guidelines of 12-Year Basic Education (“spontaneity, interaction, common good”). We articulate three meanings– leadership for GCED, leadership through GCED, and leading GCED practice– and map individual, shared, and collective teacher agency to GCED’s cognitive, socio-emotional, and behavioral domains. We further argue that teacher well-being (cognitive, socio-emotional, physical) functions as a mediating mechanism linking teacher agency and students’ three dimensional well-being. Drawing on cases from Finland and Korea, we offer practical implications for school-based curriculum design, professional development, and school leadership. We conclude with a merged model– Leading GCED × Teacher Agency × Teacher Well-being × Three-dimensional Well-being– and suggest directions for future empirical, comparative, and design-based research.