改進課程研究：爭議、問題與省思

Improving Curriculum Inquiry: Issues, Problems, and Prospect

10.6384/CIQ.200707.0063

張嘉育(Chia-Yu Chang)

課程研究 ； 研究典範 ； 研究方法論 ； curriculum inquiry ； curriculum research ； research paradigm ； research methodology in curriculum

課程與教學

10卷3期（2007 / 07 / 01）

63 - 73

繁體中文

1969年Joseph Schwab宣稱「課程領域正瀕臨垂死邊緣」（The field of curriculum is moribund），指出課程界應從對普世通則、理論的探尋，轉變成對實用性（practical）、準實用性（quasi-practical）以及折衷性（eclectic）等三類推理活動的追求，才能讓課程領域獲致重生。此番論述間接帶動了當時課程研究的發展，使得近四十年來課程研究無論在內容與方法上皆比以往更為多元。然而，在更多元的研究方法可茲運用、研究人力大量投入，以及研究論述迅速累增的同時，課程研究也存在若干爭議與問題。這些爭議與問題有的存在已久，有些卻是隨著近來大量課程研究論述展開後才逐漸浮現。唯不論何者，這些爭議與問題在在關係著課程研究的未來與改進方向，亟待深入檢視與澄清。本文旨在分析當前課程研究中應予關心的爭議與問題，希望喚醒課程研究界對這些爭議與問題的關注，並作為課程研究界進一步聚焦研討的素材，同時也期盼文中對課程研究問題的揭露，能促進課程研究人員其從事研究時的反思與具體改進行動。

Joseph Schwab, in his article published in 1969, declared that the field of curriculum was moribund and there would be a renascence of the field of curriculum only if curriculum energies could be diverted from theoretic pursuits to three other modes of operation, the practical, the quasi-practical, and the eclectic. Since then, the field of curriculum inquiry has been advanced and characterized as the multiplicity and creativity of the research paradigm and research questions. However, as the field of curriculum has been greatly burgeoning, there are still issues and problems confronting curriculum researchers. As these issues and problems are not properly addressed in the current curriculum studies, this paper aims to identify some major ones, with an intention of contributing to the improvement the curriculum inquiry.

1. Haggerson, N. L.(1988).Reconceptualizing inquiry in curriculum: Using multiple research paradi gms to enhance the study of curriculum.Journal of Curriculum Theorizing,8(1),81-103.
2. Huebner, D.(1991).Notes toward a framework for curriculum inquiry.Journal of Curriculum and Supervision,6(2),145-160.
3. Johnson, M.(1970).Appropriate research directions in curriculum and instruction.Curriculum Theory Network,6,24-37.
4. Kimpston, R. D.,Rogers, K. B.(1986).A framework for curriculum research.Curriculum Inquiry,16(4),463-474.
5. King, J. A.(1981).Methodological pluralism and curriculum inquiry.Curriculum Inquiry,11(2),167-174.
6. Macdonald, J. B.,Raths, J. D.(1963).Curriculum research: Problems, techniques, and prospects.Review of Educational Research,33(3),322-329.
7. Milburn, G.(1992).Perspectives and imperatives: Do curriculu m studies have a future?.Journal of Curriculum and Supervision,7(3),302-318.
8. Mortimore, P.(2000).Does educational research matter?.British Educational Research Journal,26(1),5-24.
9. Posner, G. J.(1989).Making sense of diversity: The current state curriculum research.Journal of Curriculum and Supervision,4(4),340-361.
10. Reid, W. A.(1992).The state of curriculum inquiry.Journal of Curriculum Studies,24(2),165-177.
11. Reynolds, W. M.(2003).Rejoinder: Debate, nostalgia, and resentment.Journal of Curriculum Studies,35(4),445-451.
12. Schubert, W. H.(1986).Curriculum: Perspective, paradigm, and possibility.New York:Macmillan.
13. Schubert, W. H.,Schubert, A. L.,A. Lewy (Ed.)(1991).The international encyclopedia of curriculum.New York:Pergamon.
14. Schwab, J. J.(1969).The practical: A language for curriculum.School Review,78(5),1-23.
15. Schwab, J. J.(1970).The practical: A language for curriculum.Washington, DC:National Education.
16. Short, E. C.(1991).A research agenda: Setting priorities in curriculum research.Journal of curriculum and supervision,6(4),358-365.
17. Short, E. C.(Ed.)(1991).Forms of curriculum inquiry.NY:SUNY.
18. Walker, D. F.,A. W. Foshay (Ed.)(1980).Considered action for curriculum improvement.Washington, DC:Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
19. Wraga, W. G.,Hlebowitsh, P. S.(2003).Commentary: Conversation, collaboration, and community in the US curriculum field.Journal of Curriculum Studies,35(4),453-457.
20. 黃顯華、李子建(1996)。課程：範式、取向和設計。台北:五南。

1. 陳品華(2017)。課程的靈性觀點:來自 William James 實用主義與英 國 SMSC 教育的啟發。清華大學教育與學習科技學系學位論文。2017。1-178。