體育師資培育課程概念重建之反思：以再概念化學派之觀點

A reflection on the reconceptualization of physical education teacher education curriculum from the standpoint of curriculum reconceptualists

10.3966/102473002018063202001

魏豐閔(Feng-Min Wei)；施登堯(Deng-Yau Shy)；沈劍威(Raymond Kim-Wai Sum)

課程研究 ； 概念重建 ； 批判理論 ； 解放 ； 理論化 ； curriculum study ； reconceptualization ； critical theory ； emancipation ； theorizing

中華體育季刊

32卷2期（2018 / 06 / 01）

85 - 94

繁體中文

本文以一系列提問與回應串聯起來，旨在澄清課程研究的再概念化思想如何擴散且影響著體育師資培育領域，特別是這個領域的課程研究。本文先藉由闡述課程理論再概念化學派的發展背景、研究立場與持續影響，標示出其理論價值，並以之作為本文研究反思之依據；其次，在嘗試處理再概念化運動對教育領域的影響效力之問題時，本文突顯出研究領域和學科屬性在進行學術討論過程中的重要意義，藉以聚焦研究範疇至體育師資培育的課程研究；再次，經蒐尋與分析學術刊物之研究文獻，本文得以討論再概念化課程研究成果對體育師資培育課程研究產生了何種作用之問題，指明一種單面向的認識偏態後，再與再概念化的解放精神進行對話；最後，本文建議未來的體育師資培育課程研究應轉而關注其發生情境與經驗內涵，同時採取其它描述方法進行現象的紀錄與研究，以展現此種課程現象的經驗特殊性並促發其理論化進程。

This paper connected a serious of questions and corresponding responses aiming to clarify how the curriculum reconceptualists' thinking diffused and influenced the field of physical education teacher education (PETE), especially those curriculum studies in this field. First, this paper delineated the historical background, academic standpoint and continuous impact of reconceptualization paradigm in curriculum theory, identifying its theoretical value and adopting it as the basis of reflection. Second, in order to understand the impact of the reconceptualization movement on the field of education, this paper highlighted the important meanings of the differences of the field of inquiry and attribute of discipline in the process of academic debate, and narrow down our scope of inquiry to the curriculum studies in PETE. Third, by collecting and analyzing the research literature published in a renowned journal, this paper was able to discuss the question of what effects the research of curriculum reconceptualization had on the curriculum studies of PETE and the issue of emancipation advocated by reconceptualists after pointing out one-dimensioned skewness of knowing in contemporary discourse. Last, this paper suggested that future PETE curriculum studies should turn to concern the lived circumstances and the connotation of experiences which make PETE curriculum being itself, and to utilize descriptive method as a way of capturing and studying it for both revealing the specificity of experiences of PETE curriculum and initiating its theorizing process.

1. 卯靜儒(2004)。重新馬克思主義到後結構主義─課程社會學研究的再概念化。教育研究集刊，50(1)，119-142。
   連結：
2. 宋秋美、周啟葶(2010)。Macdonald 課程理論之探究。教育學刊，35，31-63。
   連結：
3. 劉育忠(2009)。再思課程本質：以美國再概念化學派所引發的爭論為線索。課程與教學季刊，12(1)，139-156。
   連結：
4. Ayers, S.,Housner, L. D.(2008).A descriptive analysis of undergraduate PETE programs.Journal of Teaching in Physical Education,27(1),51-67.
5. Dimmock, C.(2000).Designing the learning-centred school: A cross-cultural perspective.London:Falmer.
6. Garfield, E.(2006).The history and meaning of the journal impact factor.The Journal of American Medicine Association,295(1),90-93.
7. Grundy, S.(1987).Curriculum: Product or praxis.Philadelphia, PA:The Falmer.
8. Holmes Group(1986).Tomorrow's teachers: A report of the Holmes Group.East Lansing, MI:Author.
9. Houston, W. R.(ed.),Haberman, M.(ed.),Sikula, J. P.(ed.)(1990).Handbook of research on teacher education.New York:Macmillan.
10. Kirk, D.(1986).A critical pedagogy for teacher education: Toward an inquiry-oriented approach.Journal of Teaching in Physical Education,5(4),230-246.
11. Kirk, D.(1992).Physical education, discourse, and ideology: Bringing the hidden curriculum into view.Quest,44(1),35-56.
12. Kirk, D.(Ed.),MacDonald, D.(Ed.),O'Sullivan, M.(Ed.)(2006).The handbook of physical education.London:Sage.
13. Knight, S. L.,Lloyd, G. M.,Arbaugh, F.,Edmondson, J.,Nolan, J., Jr.,McDonald, S. P.,Whitney, A. E.(2013).Talking across the disciplines.Journal of Teacher Education,64(5),376-377.
14. Macdonald, D.,Tinning, R.(1995).Physical education teacher education and the trend to proletarianization: A case study.Journal of Teaching in Physical Education,15(1),98-118.
15. McKay, J.,Gore, J. M.,Kirk, D.(1990).Beyond the limits of technocratic physical education.Quest,42(1),52-76.
16. Milgram, S.(1963).Behavioral study of obedience.The Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology,67(4),371-378.
17. Pacheco, J. A.(2012).Curriculum studies: What is the field today?.Journal of the American Association for the Advancement of Curriculum Studies,8
18. Pinar, W. F.(1989).A reconceptualization of teacher education.Journal of Teacher Education,40(1),9-12.
19. Pinar, W. F.(Ed.)(1994).Autobiography, politics and sexuality: Essays in curriculum theory 1972-1992.New York:Peter Lang.
20. Pinar, W. F.(Ed.)(1975).Curriculum theorizing: The reconceptualists.Berkeley, CA:McCutchan.
21. Pinar, W.(Ed.)(1975).Curriculum theorizing: The reconceptualists.Berkeley, CA:McCutchan.
22. Slattery, P.(2006).Curriculum development in the postmodern era.New York:Routledge.
23. Tinning, R.(1991).Teacher education pedagogy: Dominant discourse and the process of problem setting.Journal of Teaching in Physical Education,11(1),1-20.
24. Ward, P.,Ko, B.(2006).Publication trends in the Journal of Teaching in Physical Education from 1981 to 2005.Journal of Teaching in Physical Education,25(3),266-280.
25. Wittrock, M. C.(Ed.)(1986).Handbook of research on teaching.New York:Macmillan.
26. 吳清山(2006)。師資培育的理念與實踐。教育研究與發展期刊，2(1)，1-32。
27. 許芳懿(2006)。再概念化：課程改革的邏輯與實踐。課程研究，1(2)，47-67。
28. 陳伯璋(2005)。從課程改革省思課程研究典範的新取向。當代教育研究季刊，13(1)，1-34。
29. 陳伯璋(1983)。課程研究的「第三勢力」─美國「再概念化」學派課程理論之評介。國立臺灣師範大學教育研究所集刊，25，179-226。
30. 楊深坑(1999)。知識形式與比較教育。臺北市:揚智。

1. 潘敏,許琇琳,徐偉庭,柯重宇,尚憶薇(2022)。體育師資培育生學科學習之探究：以三重效能模式為基礎。體育學報，55(3)，309-321。
2. 詹恩華,掌慶維,陳萩慈(2023)。師資培育者在體育教材教法課自我研究的發展與實踐歷程。體育學報，56(S)，37-58。