課程的美學探究範疇之建構－當前的問題與未來的方向

Inquiry for Curriculum-Current Problems and Future Directions

10.6384/CIQ.200504.0001

周淑卿(Shu-Ching Chou)

美學探究 ； 美感經驗 ； 課程美學 ； aesthetic inquiry ； aesthetic experience ； aesthetics of curriculum

課程與教學

8卷2期（2005 / 04 / 01）

1 - 14

繁體中文

教育的研究一直是科學取向的，而在實證科學典範的長期領導下，教育政策與學校實務難免落入效率與控制的魔咒中，創造了學校的工業文化。然而，許多教育事務的決定並不是根據科學研究所得的原則，而是反映教師的感受。課程的研究者應該承認此種現象，並且願意與之共存。美學探究是對於課程情境中隱默的、潛藏的、深層的美感特質的系統探究，並試圖確認那些情境的特色，及影響我們反應的經驗性質。其價值在於提供課程問題研究的方法論取向，作為一種解釋課程訊息的互補觀點。並且，協助眾人看見這些美感經驗的特質，因而更充分地理解課程問題。目前對於課程的美學研究仍方興未艾，有待進一步論證與探討的問題諸如：如何確證課程中的美感經驗或美的性質？將課程與藝術概念作類比之後，如何進一步討論其美學內涵？未來若欲進一步建構課程美學，應由美學理論中的不同觀點再探討課程現象中美的性質、美感經驗的形成，並由各個藝術領域中的美學論述討論課程與教學之藝術性。

The field of education has predicated its practices on a platform of scientifically grounded knowledge. Under the paradigm of positivism, schools were to become effective and efficient manufacturing plants. However, many decisions in educational practice are not based on scientific rules, but on teachers' sensitivities and predispositions. Researchers must admit this state of affairs and is willing to work with it.Aesthetic inquiry is the systematic inquiry into the implicit and hidden qualities of any given curricular situation, especially the qualities that shape our reaction to the situation. The important point is that aesthetic inquiry into a curriculum problem must leave us free to respond to qualities that may take us by surprise. The value of the inquiry is to provide another methodology for researchers to understand curriculum. Through the vision, people will see the aesthetic quality that they have not seen in curriculum.The approach of the inquiry is not so popular in curriculum field that many unclear concepts should be clarified. To construct the domain of aesthetic inquiry for curriculum, many statements and suppositions should be argued, especially based on aesthetics theory.

1. ad, H(1944).Education through art.London:Pantheon.
2. Barone, T.,Eisner, E.(1997).Curriculum methods for research in education.Washington, D.C.:AERA.
3. Dewey, J.(1934).Art as experience.New York:Capricorn Book.
4. Eisner, E.(1981).The role of the arts in cognition and curriculum.Phi Delta Kappan,63(1),48-52.
5. Eisner, E.(1996).Changing research and practice: Teachers' professionalism identities and knowledge.Philadelphia:The Palmer Press.
6. Eisner, E.(1994).The educational imagination- On the design of evaluation of school programs.New York:Macmillan.
7. Eisner, E.(1983).The arts and craft of teaching.Educational Leadership,40(4),4-13.
8. Eisner, E.(2002).What can education learn from art.Journal of Curriculum and Supervision,18(1),4-16.
9. Eisner, E.(2002).The arts and the creation of mind.New Haven:Yale University Press.
10. Eisner, E.(1991).Reflections from the heart of educational inquiry: Understanding curriculum and teaching through the arts.
11. Greene, M.(1991).Texts and margins.Harvard Educational Review,61(1),27-39.
12. Huebner, D.(1975).Curriculum theorizing- The reconceptualist.Berkeley, CA:McCutchan.
13. lance, E.(1991).Forms of curriculum inquiry.Albany:State University of New York Press.
14. Pinar, W. F.,Reynolds, W. M.,Slattery, P.,Taubman, P. M.(1995).Understanding curriculum: An introduction to the study of historical and contemporary curriculum discourses.New York:Peter Lang.
15. 王世德主編(1985)。美學辭典。北京:知識出版社。
16. 李澤厚(2001)。美學四講。台北:三民。
17. 陳伯璋(1987)。課程研究與教育革新。台北:師大書苑。
18. 馮朝霖(2000)。教育美學。台北:五南。
19. 黃政傑(1987)。課程評鑑。台北:師大書苑。
20. 葉朗(2002)。現代美學體系。北京:北京大學出版社。
21. 劉文潭(1996)。現代美學。台北:台灣商務印書館。
22. 劉文潭譯、W. Tatakiewicz原著(2001)。西洋六大美學理念史。台北:聯經。

1. 陳玲璋(2013)。全觀性美感體驗對學校教學意涵之探究。藝術教育研究，25，109-135。
2. 陳淑娟(2013)。負數史與負數教學中的美感意涵。教育實踐與研究，26(2)，133-160。
3. (2012)。課程美學研究在台灣：議題與問題。教育學報，40(1-2)，31-44。
4. (2012)。台灣課程美學研究之現況與未來趨勢。教育學報，40(1-2)，45-66。
5. (2017)。《漢寶德談美》中美感教育思想初探及其對課程美學之啟示。中正教育研究，16(2)，1-36。