期刊文獻資料庫

論文查詢

論文詳細資料內容:
未授權全文
論文基本資料
篇  名 由課程改革觀點與課綱發展原則談高中課綱微調之爭議
並列篇名 Controversial Issue on Adjustment of High-School Curriculum Guidelines:Reflecting from Curriculum Reform and Standard Development Guideline
作  者 張宇樑
發表期刊 教育研究月刊
出版年份 2014 年
卷  期 244 期
頁  次 p.18~30
關鍵字 高中 ; 課程改革 ; 課綱發展 ; 課綱微調 ; high school ; curriculum reform ; curriculum guideline development ; curriculum guideline revision
語言別 中文
中文摘要

日前教育部於2014 年 2 月發布高中國文及社會領域(地理、歷史、公民與社會)課綱微調內容,但引起百餘位學者共同發表聯合聲明,質疑此次歷史課綱修訂之決策過程,檢核小組成員之代表性,以及課綱內容用字遺詞等問題。 針對此一爭議,教育部亦陸續針對爭議之內容進行回應,以期能解決爭端及凝聚共識。基於高中課程改革之沿革與前述爭議,本文擬先以知識與權力間關係之論點出發,探討意識型態對當代課程改革之影響 。其次 · 再由回歸課程本質及課綱發展原則來看課程改革,同時以美國中小學歷史課程標準發展及自然科學課程標準修訂為例,以檢視與評估我國未來課綱發展與調整之應有作為,最後,歸納課程綱要變革之可能潛在問題,以期能真正落實課程改革之具體目標。

英文摘要

Recently, slight revisions of the High School Curriculum Guideline in Chinese and Social Studies (including geography, history, civics, and social science) Domains were announced by the Ministry of Education on February 2014. The content revision of history led to hundreds of scholars declared a joint statement, which queried the decision making processing of this revision, the representativeness of the evaluation team members, and the wording in the volume of Taiwanese history. In accordance with these controversial issues, the Ministry of Education acknowledged and provided responses correspondingly. Based on the past history of our high school curriculum reform and the current controversial issues, this article first argues the influence of ideology on contemporary curriculum reform, which is based on the relationship between knowledge and authority. In addition, it is to discuss the curriculum reform through drawing back to nature of cuniculuin and standard development guidelines. Besides, it intends to provide valuable insights from reviewing examples of both the development of American history curriculum standards and the revision of next generation science standards. Finally, possible potential probIems in the revision of the curnculum guideline are generalized from previous studies in order to reach the ultimate goals for future improvement of our curriculum reform.

本文被引用次數:0瀏覽...

說明:為本資料庫所收錄文章

本文參考文獻資料:

卯靜儒 (2013), 選什麼?如何選?為何而選?高中教師選擇歷史教科書之研究, 教育科學研究期刊, 058(002), 0123-0147. 

卯靜儒、甄曉蘭、林永豐 (2012), 高中課程改革之政策形塑與實施的歷程分析:以 95 課程暫綱為例 , 課程與教學季刊, 015(003), 0181-0206. 

行政院 (1996), 教育改革總諮議報告書, 臺北市: 作者.

何思瞇、何怡君 (2012), 高中歷史教科書統編本的「臺灣書寫」(1953至1998年), 教育研究月刊, 000(217), 0038-0051. 

周淑卿 (2002), 課程政策與教育革新, 臺北市: 師大書苑.

陳伯璋 (2001), 新世紀課程改革的省思與挑戰, 臺北市: 師大書苑.

陳怡靜 (2014), 140 學者連署促撤黑箱課綱 , 自由時報電子報 取自http://news.ltn.com.tw/news/focus/paper/760784.

莊明貞 (2001), 當前台灣課程重建的可能性:一個批判教育學的觀點, 國立臺北師範學院學報, 000(014), 0141-0162. 

教育部 (2003), 國民中小學九年一貫課程綱要, 臺北市: 作者.

教育部 (2005), 普通高級中學課程暫行綱要, 臺北市: 作者.

教育部 (2011), 十二年國民基本教育實施計畫, 臺北市: 作者.

教育部 (2014), 教育部全球資訊網:即時新聞 , 取自http ://www.edu.tw/news1./Iist.aspx? Node=1088&Type=1&Index=1&WID=6635a4e8-f0de- 4957-aa3e-c3b15c6e6ead.

教育部國民及學前教育署 (2013), 普通高級中學國文及社會領域課程綱要微調公聽會手冊, 臺北市: 作者.

張宇樑 (2012), 國小數學教科書研究之回顧與前瞻, 教育研究月刊, 000(217), 0074-0087. 

單文經 (2005), 美國中小學歷史課程標準爭議始末(1987-1996), 師大學報:教育類, 050(001), 0001-0025. 

歐用生 (2006), 台灣教科書政策的批判論述分析, 當代教育研究季刊 , 014(002), 0001-0026. 

蔡清田 (2003), 課程政策決定:以國家教育改革法案為依據的課程決策 , 臺北市: 五南.

譚光鼎、康瀚文 (2006), 論九五高中課綱改革-意識形態與課程的辨證關係, 課程與教學季刊, 009(001), 0019-0031. 

Apple, M. W. (1986), Teachers and texts: A politicaI economy of class and gender relations in education, New York, NY: Routledge.

Apple, M. W. (1993), The politics of official knowledge: Does a national curriculum make sense?, Teacher college Record, 95(2), 222-241.

Apple, M. W. (2000), Official knowledge (2nd ed.), New York, NY: Routledge.

Elmore, R., & Sykes, G. (1992), Curriculum Policy, In P. Jackson (Ed.), Handbook of research on curriculum, 185-215, New York, NY: Macmillan.

Foucault, M. (1980), Power/knowledge: Selected interviews and other writings, 1972-1977, New York, NY: Pantheon.

Glickman, C. D. (2011), Dichotomizing educational reform, In A. C. Ornstein, E. F. Pajak, & S. B. Ornstein (Eds.), Contemporary issues in curriculum (5th ed.), 328-335, Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson.

Mc Laren. P. (1995), Critical pedagogy and predatory culture: Oppositional politics in a postmodern era, New York, NY: Routledge.

National Research Council (2012), A framework for k-12 science education: Practices, crosscutting concepts, and core ideas, Washington, DC: National Academies Press.

NGSS Lead States (2013), Next generation science standards: For states, by states, Washington, DC: National Academies Press.

Porter, A. C., & Smithson, J. L. (2001), Defining, developing, and using curriculum indicators, Philadelphia, PA: Consortium for Policy Research in Education, University of Pennsylvania, (CPRE Research Report Series RR-048).

Schiro, M. S. (2012), Curriculum theory: Conflicting visions and enduring concerns (2nd ed.), Thousand Oaks. CA: Sage.

Tyler, R. W. (1949), Basic principles of curriculum and instruction, Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.

Walker, B. F. (1976), Curriculum evolution as portrayed through old textbooks, Terre Haute, IN: Indiana State University.

White, H. (1987), The content of the form: Narrative discourse and historical representation, Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press .

Wixson, K. K., Dutro, E., & Athan, R. G. (2003), The challenge of developing content standards, Review of Research in Education, 27(), 69-107.