另類的課程組識－自我組織

Alternative Organization of the Curriculum Self-Organization

10.6388/JES.200208.0123

莊淑琴(Shu-Chin Chuang)

課程組織 ； 課程設計 ； 自我組織理論 ； curriculum organization ； curriculum design ； self-organization-theory

教育科學期刊

2卷1期（2002 / 08 / 01）

123 - 136

繁體中文

課程知識不是一種產品或是一種結果，而是一個持續的歷程，以學生的興趣及意向為出發點，讓學生自發性的將課程知識組織成有意義的知識系統，相較傳統他組織的課程，自我組織的模式描繪出更主動、更具有創造力的、更動態開放的課程圖像。 本文首先介紹課程組織的意義、課程組織的模式；接著說明自我組織理論的基本概念，最後提出自我組織課程的實踐策略，期望在師生增權、增能之後，帶給課程更大的彈性、更大的空間，以符合學生的需要，重燃學生心中的希望。

Curriculum knowledge is not viewed as a product or an outcome but rather as an ongoing process. The students' interests are as a starting point of the curriculum. The students could organize the curriculum knowledge spontaneously as a meaningful system of knowledge. The curriculum of self-organization is more active, more creative and more dynamic. Thus, the purpose of the article is to explore alternative organization of the curriculum self-organization. First, the meanings and the patterns of curriculum organization were discussed. Next, the basic theses of self-organization-theory were explored. Finally, the practical devices of self-organization- curriculum were posed.

1. Beane, J.(1997).Curriculum integration: Designing the core of democratic education.New York:Teachers College Press.
2. Clark, E. T.,R. Miller (Ed.)(1991).New directions in education: Selections form Holistic Education Review.Brandon, VT:Holistic Education.
3. Doll, W.(1993).A postmodern perspective on curriculum.New York:Teacher College Press.
4. Eisner, E. W.,P. W. Jackson (Ed.)(1992).Handbook of research on curriculum.New York:Macmillan.
5. Goodlad, J. I.,Su, Z.,P. W. Jackson (Ed.)(1992).Handbook of research on curriculum.New York:Macmillan.
6. Jantsch, E.(1980).The self-organizing universe: Scientific and human implications of the emerging paradigm of evolution.New York:Pergamon.
7. Klein, M. F.,T. Husen,T. N. Postlethwaite (Ed.)(1985).International Encyclopedia of education.Oxford:Pergamon.
8. Lauritzen, C.,Jaeger, M.(1997).Integrating learning through story: The narrative curriculum.New York:Delmar.
9. Meier, S. L.,Hovde, R. L.(1996).Problem solving: Teachers’ perceptions, content area models, and interdisciplinary connections.School Science & Mathematics,96(5),230-238.
10. Millar, R.(1989).Constructive criticisms.International Journal of Science Education,11(5),87-596.
11. Pate, P. B.,Homestead, E. R.,McGinnis, K. L.(1997).Making integrated curriczlum work.New York:Teachers College Press.
12. Waidrop, M. M.(1992).Complexity: The emerging science at the edge of or derand chaos.New York:Simon & Schuster.
13. 幸曼玲主編(1996)。皮亞傑與維高斯基的對話。台北:台北市立師範學院兒童發展中心。
14. 陳新轉(2001)。課程統整－理論與設計解說。台北:商鼎。
15. 馮朝霖(2000)。教育哲學專論－主體、情性與創化。台北:元照。
16. 黃永和(2001)。從現代課程理論之研究。台北:師大書苑。
17. 黃政傑(1991)。課程設計。台北:東華。
18. 黃琡惠(2000)。學生中心統整課程設計。教師之友，41(4)，18-24。
19. 甄曉蘭(1995)。合作行動研究－進行教育研究的另一種方式。嘉義師範學院學報，9，298-318。

1. 黃婉玲,莊書寧(2019)。魚與熊掌不可兼得？小琉球居民的自願性環境行動。中國行政評論，25(2)，1-30。