課程研究面向的轉變：課程理解典範的人文傳統表徵

The Changing of Curriculum Research Approach: The Representation of Humanistic Tradition in Curriculum Understanding Paradigm

10.6450/ER.200606.0085

許芳懿(Fang-Yi Hsu)

課程研究 ； 課程理解典範 ； 人文傳統 ； curriculum research ； curriculum understanding paradigm ； humanistic tradition

教育學刊

26期（2006 / 06 / 01）

85 - 108

繁體中文

依Jackson的《課程研究手冊》一書之分類，課程研究面向可分為科學傳統與人文傳統，兩者的差異在於普遍性對特殊性、標準化對脈絡化、價值中立對價值衝突等基本假定的不同。從科學傳統到人文傳統的轉變，與1970年代Pinar推動概念重建運動有關。概念重建也是課程理解典範之始，因此，概念重建、課程理解典範在人文傳統的發展上有其重要意義。本文旨在闡述課程研究的轉向與變化，並探討課程理解典範與人文傳統的密切關聯。首先進行科學傳統特徵、貢獻、限制與問題的評析，再述及科學傳統轉變到人文傳統的過程，接著探討人文傳統的特徵，還有概念重建運動、課程理解典範與人文傳統的關係，並提出結語。

Curriculum research approaches are classified into scientific and humanistic traditions in ”Handbook of Research on Curriculum” edited by Philip Jackson. The differences of these two traditions stem basically from the assumptions of universality versus particularity, standardization versus contextualization, value-free versus value-involving. The chang from scientific tradition to humanistic tradition was related with reconceptualization Pinar suggested in 1970s. Reconceptualization was the beginning of curriculum understanding paradigm. So, reconceptualization and curriculum understanding paradigm played the significant roles in humanistic tradition. This article aims to illustrate the changing of curriculum research and to explore the significant relation between curriculum understanding paradigm and humanistic tradition. Four dimensions were explored as follows: (1) the features, contributions, limitations and problems of scientific tradition; (2) the changing process from scientific tradition to humanistic tradition; (3) the features of humanistic tradition, and (4) the relations among reconceptualization, curriculum understanding paradigm, and humanistic tradition. Conclusion was proposed in relation to further research directions and focuses.

1. Apple, M.,Pinar, W.F. (Ed.)(1975).Curriculum theorizing: The reconceptualists.Berkely, CA:McCutchan.
2. Bloom, B.,Tyler, R. (Ed.)(1968).Educational evaluation: New means, new roles, sixty-sixth yearbook.Chicago:National society for the study of education.
3. Darling-Hammond, L.,Snyder, J.,Jackson, P. W. (Ed.)(1992).Handbook of research on curriculum: A project of the American Education Research Association.New York:Macmillan.
4. Eisner, E. W.(1981).On the differences between scientific and artistic approaches to qualitative research.Educational Research,10(4),5-9.
5. Eisner, E. W.,Peshkin, A.(1990).Qualitative inquiry in education: The continuing debate.New York:Teachers College of Columbia University Press.
6. Gage, N. L.(1989).The paradigm wars and their aftermath: A historical sketch on research on teaching since 1989.Teachers College Record,91(2),135-150.
7. Giroux, H. A.,Penna, A. N.,Pinar, W.(1981).Curriculum & instruction: Alternatives in education.Berkeley, CA:McCutchan.
8. Giroux, H. A.,Penna, A. N.,Pinar, W. (Eds.)(1981).Curriculum & instruction: Alternatives in education.Berkeley, CA:McCutchan.
9. Huebner, D.,Pinar, W. F. (Ed.)(1975).Curriculum theorizing: The reconceptualists.Berkely, CA:McCutchan.
10. Jackson, P. W. (Ed.)(1992).Handbook of research on curriculum: A project of the American Education Research Association.New York:Macmillan.
11. Kliebard, H. M.,Pinar, W. (Ed.)(1975).Curriculum theorizing: The Reconceptualists.Berkeley, CA:McCutchan.
12. Kliebard, H. M.,Pinar, W. (Ed.)(1975).Curriculum theorizing: The reconceptualists.Berkeley, CA:McCutchan.
13. Kliebard, H. M.,Pinar, W. (Ed.)(1975).Curriculum theorizing: The reconceptualists.Berkeley, CA:McCutchan.
14. Kliebard, H. M.,Pinar, W. (Ed.)(1975).Curriculum theorizing: The reconceptualists.Berkeley, CA:McCutchan.
15. Lincoln, Y. S.,Jackson, P. W. (Ed.)(1992).Handbook of research on curriculum: A project of the American Education Research Association.New York:Macmillan.
16. Macdonald, J. B.,Pinar, W. (Ed.)(1988).Contemporary curriculum discourse.Scottsdale, AZ:Gorsuch Scarisbrick.
17. Pinar, W.(1988).The reconceptualization of curriculum studies 1987: A personal retrospective.Journal of Curriculum and Supervision,3(2),157-167.
18. Pinar, W.(1981).`Whole, bright, deep with Understanding`: Issues in qualitative Research and autobiographical method.Journal of Curriculum Studies,13(3),173-188.
19. Pinar, W. (Ed.)(1975).Curriculum theorizing: The reconceptualists.Berkeley, CA:McCutchan.
20. Pinar, W. (Ed.)(1988).Contemporary curriculum discourse.Scottsdale, AZ:Gorsuch Scarisbrick.
21. Pinar, W. (Ed.)(1975).Curriculum theorizing: The reconceptualists.Berkeley, CA:McCutchan.
22. Pinar, W.,Grumet, M. R.,Lawn, M.,Barton L.(Eds.)(1981).Rethinking curriculum studies: A radical approach.New York:Halsted Press.
23. Pinar, W.,Miller, J. L.(1982).Feminist curriculum theory: Notes on the American field 1982.The Journal of Educational Thought,16(3),217-224.
24. Pinar, W.,Reynolds W. M.,Slattery, P.,Taubman, Peter, M.(1995).Understanding curriculum: An introduction to the study of historical and contemporary curriculum discourse.New York:Peter Lang.
25. Schwab, J. J.(1970).The practical: A language for curriculum.Washington, DC:National Educational Association.
26. Tyler, R.W.(1949).Basic principles of curriculum and instruction.Chicago:University of Chicago Press.
27. Walker, D. F.,Jackson, P. W. (Ed.)(1992).Handbook of Research on Curriculum: A project of the American Education Research Association.New York:Macmillan.
28. Wraga, W. G.(1998)."Interesting, if true": Historical perspectives on the "reconceptualization" of curriculum studies.Journal of Curriculum and Supervision,14(1),5-28.
29. 莊明貞主編(2004)。課程改革－反省與前瞻。台北:高等教育。
30. 陳伯璋(1983)。課程研究的「第三勢力」－美國「再概念化」學派課程理論的評介。師大教育研究所集刊，25，179-226。