《十人委員會報告》在高中課程改革史中的意涵探析

A Study on the Implications of the Report of the Committee of Ten in High School Curriculum Reform History

10.6384/CIQ.201610_19(4).0004

楊智穎(Chih-Ying Yang)

課程史 ； 高中課程 ； 十人委員會報告 ； curriculum history ； high school curriculum ； the Report of the Committee of Ten

課程與教學

19卷4期（2016 / 10 / 01）

93 - 112

繁體中文

在美國中等學校的課程改革史中，全國教育協會於1893 年公布的《十人委員會報告》具有重要的歷史意義，其除意謂國家力量對高中課程的介入，強化高中課程的標準化，同時也促成後續各種課程改革與研究的發展。因此，本文乃以該報告書作為研究對象，首先解析《十人委員會報告》制定的歷史脈絡及重要內涵，其次，探討《十人委員會報告》的歷史意義，並針對相關議題進行分析，包括學校課程回應社會變遷的方式、政策文本背後的價值信念和可能的爭議，以及在特定歷史脈絡中課程知識形成的運作機制。期望透過本研究的進行，對《十人委員會報告》有深入與寬廣的理解，進而累積課程史研究的成果，同時從該報告的發展歷程及相關議題的分析結果，提供臺灣推動高中課程改革的參考。

Throughout the history of secondary school curriculum reform in USA, the Report of the Committee of Ten issued by the National Education Association in 1893 bears great significance. It not only stood for the intervention of state power in high school curriculum and an emphasis on the standardization of high school curriculum, but also has triggered the development of all kinds of curriculum reforms and studies that followed. The purpose of this study is to explore the Report as a whole. Firstly, it analyzes the historical context and important implications of the Report. Secondly, it discusses its historical meaning by analyzing relevant issues including the way in which the school curriculum has responded to social changes, the values, beliefs and possible limitations in the context of policies, and how curriculum knowledge has taken its shape in specific historical contexts. This study expects to enhance a deeper and more thorough understanding of the Report, and hope to add more to the curriculum history research. By making some reflections on the Report and its relevant reform projects in USA since then, this study also expects to provide suggestions for reforms currently being conducted for high school curriculum in Taiwan.

1. 鍾鴻銘(2005)。美國課程改革的歷史辯證。課程與教學季刊，8(4)，1-18。
   連結：
2. National Education Association. (1894). Report of Committee of Ten on Secondary School Studies. New York, NY: American Book.
3. Rugg, H. (1926). Three decades of mental disciple: Curriculum-making via national committees. In G. M. Whipple (Eds.), The foundations and technique of curriculum-construction, part I. Curriculum-making past and present. The Twenty-sixth yearbook of the National Society for the Study of Education (pp.33-65). New York, NY: Arno Press & The New York Times.
4. Alkin, M. C.(Ed.)(1992).Encyclopedia of educational research.New York, NY:Macmillan.
5. Bellack, A. A.(1969).History of curriculum thought and practice.Review of Educational Research,39(3),283-292.
6. Burlbaw, L. M.(Ed.),Field, S. L.(Ed.)(2005).Explorations in curriculum history research.Greenwich:Information Age.
7. Davis, O. L., Jr.(Ed.)(1976).Perspectives on curriculum development 1776-1976.Washington, DC:Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
8. Eliot, C. W.(1969).Educational reform.New York, NY:Arno Press.
9. Evans, R. W.(2004).The social studies wars: What should we teach the children?.New York, NY:Teacher College Press.
10. Goodson, I. F.(1995).The making of curriculum.London:Falmer.
11. Herbst, J.(1996).The once and future school: Three hundred and fifty years of American secondary.New York, NY:Routledge.
12. Jackson, P. W.(Ed.)(1992).Handbook of research on curriculum.New York, NY:Macmilan Publishing Company.
13. Jackson, P.(Ed.)(1992).Handbook of curriculum research.New York, NY:Macmillan.
14. Kliebard, H. M.(2002).Changing course: American curriculum reform in the 20th century.New York, NY:Teachers College Press.
15. Kliebard, H. M.(1986).The struggle for the American curriculum.Boston, MA:Routledge & Kegan Paul.
16. Kliebard, H. M.(1992).Forging the American curriculum: Essays in curriculum history and theory.New York, NY:Routledge.
17. Kridel, C.(Ed.)(2010).Encyclopedia of curriculum studies.Los Angeles, CA:Sage.
18. Krug, E.(1972).The shaping of the American high school 1920-1941.Madison, WI:University of Wisconsin.
19. Krug, E. A.(Ed.)(1961).Charles, W. Eliot and popular education.New York, NY:Teachers College.
20. Marshall, J. D.,Sears, J. T.,Schubert, W. H.(2000).Turning points in curriculum: Contemporary American memoir.New York, NY:Prentice-Hall.
21. Ornstein, A. C.,Hunkin, F. P.(1998).Curriculum: Foundation, principles, and issues.Needham Heights, MA:Allyn & Bacon.
22. Ponder, G. A.(1974).The curriculum: Field without a past?.Educational leadership,February,461-464.
23. Popkewitz, T. S.(1987).The formation of the school subjects.New York, NY:Falmer.
24. Ravitch, D.(2001).Left back: A century of battles over school reform.New York, NY:Simon & Schuster.
25. Ravitch, D.(1985).The schools we deserve: Reflection the educational crises of our time.New York, NY:Basic Books.
26. Saxe, D. W.(1991).Social studies in school: A history of the early years.Albancy, NY:State University of New York Press.
27. Sizer, T.(1964).Secondary schools at the turn of the century.New Haven:Yale University.
28. Tanner, D.,Tanner, L. N.(1990).History of the school curriculum.New York, NY:Macmillan.
29. Tanner, D.,Tanner, L. N.(1980).Curriculum development: Theory into practice.New York, NY:Macmillan.
30. Wesley, E. B.(1957).NEA: The first hundred years.New York, NY:Harper & Row.
31. Wile, J.,Bondi, J. C.(1984).Curriculum development: A guide to practice.Columbus:C. E. Merrill.
32. Willis, G.(Ed.),Schubert, W. H.(Ed.),Bullough, R. V., Jr.(Ed.),Kridel, C.(Ed.),Holton, J. T.(Ed.)(1994).The American curriculum: A documentary history.Westport, CT:Greenwood.
33. Wraga, W. G.(1998)."Interesting, if true": Historical perspectives on the reconceptualization of curriculum studies.Journal of Curriculum and Supervision,14,5-28.
34. 周婉窈譯、Block, M.(1989)。史家的技藝。臺北市:遠流。
35. 林玉體(1980)。西洋教育史。臺北市:文景。
36. 楊智穎(2015)。課程史研究。臺北市:復文。
37. 甄曉蘭(2004)。課程理論與實務─解構與重建。臺北市:高等教育。
38. 歐用生(1994)。課程發展的基本原理。高雄市:復文。