Ralph W. Tyler模式之批判、澄清與建議

Ralph W. Tyler's Model-Critique, Clarification and Suggestions

10.6384/CIQ.200507.0091

黃俊儒(Chun-Ju Huang)

Tyler模式 ； 批判之道 ； 論述形構 ； discursive formation ； principles of critique ； Tyler's model

課程與教學

8卷3期（2005 / 07 / 01）

91 - 104

繁體中文

Ralph W. Tyler－既是課程領域舉足輕重的奠基者，也是當前許多課程學者的主要批判對象。從若干批判論述裏，可見到Tyler總是不可避免的背負著當時智性特徵的原罪，以及後續極端發展之弊的責任。但事實上，其中有部份可能是批判者過度簡化或斷章取義所造成的誤解。本文將先行舉出若干批判論述裏所指責的Tyler或Tyler模式之惡，隨後進一步分析批判性的論述形構如何透過策略直接或間接賦予Tyler及Tyler模式負面的形象與意義。接著從Tyler《課程與教學基本原則》裏舉出相關論述，以澄清負面形象裏的代罪羊實情。最後，再從批判者的感嘆裏為從事課程批判者提出若干「批判之道」的建議。

Although Ralph W. Tyler played a decisive role in the curriculum field, he had been the target of critical discourses. Critiques were attributed to both the sin of contemporary intellectual characteristics and the extreme development of Tyler's model to himself. But in fact, some of these critiques might base on excessive simplification and garbled accounts of the text. This article is to exemplify the negative image and meaning of Tyler and Tyler's model in some critical discourses; then it analyzes how the tactics of discursive formation made the negative image and meaning of Tyler and Tyler's model. After that, some relevant discourses will be presented to clarify the truth of the scapegoat. Finally, the author will bring up some suggestions of ”principles of critique”.

1. Appignanesi, R.、Garratt, C.、黃訓慶譯(1996)。後現代主義。台北縣:立緒文化。
2. Ball, J. S.(Ed.)(1990).Foucault and edcuation: Disciplines and knowledge.London:Routledge.
3. Cherryholmes, C. H.(1988).Power and criticism: Poststructural investigations in education.Columbia University:Teacher College.
4. Doll, W. E.(1998).Curriculum toward new identities.New York:Garland.
5. Foucault, M.,A. M. S. Smith, Trans.(1972).The archaeology of knowledge.New York:Pantheon Books.
6. Foucault, M.,R. Howard, Trans.(1973).Madness and civilization: A history of insanity in the age of reason.New York:Random House.
7. Giroux, H. A.(1981).Curriculum & Instruction: Alternatives in education.Berkeley, California:McCutchan.
8. Huebner, D.(1975).Curriculum theorizing: The reconceptualists.California:McCutchan.
9. Pinar, W. F.(1981).Curriculum & Instruction: Alternatives in education.Berkeley, California:McCutchan.
10. Pinar, W. F.(Ed.)(1995).Understanding curriculum.New York:Peter Lang Publish.
11. Slattery, P.(1995).Curriculum development in the postmodern Era.New and London:Garland.
12. Tyler, R. W.(1969).Basic principles of curriculum and instruction.Chicago:University of Chicago.
13. Tyler, R. W.(1981).Curriculum & Instruction: Alternatives in education.Berkeley, California:McCutchan.
14. 徐崇溫(1989)。結構主義與後結構主義。台北:谷風。
15. 張華、石偉平、馬慶發(2000)。課程流派研究。濟南市:山東教育。
16. 黃俊儒(2003)。。
17. 黃炳煌(1981)。課程與教學的基本原理。台北市:桂冠。
18. 黃嘉雄(2004)。釐清泰勒的課程評鑑觀。國立台北師範學院學報，17(1)，27-50。

1. (2007)。重看Ralph Tyler的課程思想。教育研究與發展期刊，3(2)，83-112。
2. (2014)。重新理解美國課程史中的社會效率。教育研究月刊，238，35-48。