課程概念重建的發展與爭議－兼論其在課程理解典範之重要性

The Development and Controversy of Reconceptualization: the Importance of Reconceptualization on Curriculum Understanding Paradigm

10.29882/JTNUE.200610.0009

許芳懿(Fang-Yi Hsu)

概念重建 ； 課程理論 ； 課程理解典範 ； reconceptualization ； curriculum theory ； curriculum understanding paradigm

師大學報：教育類

51卷2期（2006 / 10 / 01）

195 - 217

繁體中文

概念重建論者質疑課程發展典範的泰勒原理已成為技術工具，及憂心1960年代概念實徵的法則推論方式，無法顧及個體及情境差異。因此，提出概念重建來強調個體與歷史、情境脈絡的關聯，重視理論扮演的思考引導角色，也關心價值涉入的課題。概念重建為課程理解典範之始，可分為探討鉅觀面的社會結構、微觀面的自我意識與主體性兩種向度。論及概念重建的發展與壯大，William Pinar可謂居功厥偉。本文即就「概念重建」一詞的意義、起源背景、Pinar與概念重建的關係，及概念重建對課程理解典範的重要性、所具特色與面對的爭議，分別進行探討、分析和評論。

”Reconceptualization” prompted by William Pinar in 1970's is divided two dimensions: one is the macro-social structure, another is the micro-self-consciousness and individuality. The reconceptualists had doubted the ”Tyler Rational” as a technological instrument, and argued that the individuality of students would be detracted from the generalizations which were emphasized by concept-empiricism. The tenet of reconceptualization has been suggested that we must insist on the relationships among individuality with history, culture and social milieu. Thus the self-reflection of the individual with the social structure is important. Three dimensions of the article are explored as follows: (1)the meaning, origins and characteristics of ”reconceptualization”,(2)the importance of reconceptualization on the paradigm of ”curricular understanding,”(3)the controversy about reconceptualization. Finally, the author suggests some directions for further reflection and research.

1. Gadamer, H-G(1991).Truth and method.New York:Crossroad.
2. Giroux, H. A.,Penna, A. N.,Pinar, W.(1981).Curriculum & instruction: Alternatives in education.Berkeley, CA:McCutchan.
3. Hlebowitsh, P.(1999).The burdens of the new curricularist.Curriculum Inquiry,29(3),343-354.
4. Hlebowitsh, P.(1992).Amid behavioral and behavioristic objectives: Reappraising appraisals of the Tyler Rationale..Journal of Curriculum Studies,24(6),533-547.
5. Hlebowitsh, P. S.(1999).More on the ``burdens of the new curricularis``.Curriculum Inquiry,29(3),369-373.
6. Huebner, D.(1975).Curriculum theorizing: The reconceptualists.Berkely, CA:McCutchan.
7. Huebner, D.(1976).The moribund curriculum field: Its wake and our work.Curriculum Inquiry,6(2),153-176.
8. Jackson, P. W.(1992).Handbook of research on curriculum: A project of the American education research Association.New York:Macmillan.
9. Jackson, P. W.(1980).Curriculum and its discontents.Curriculum Inquiry,1(1),28-43.
10. Kliebard, H. M.(1975).Curriculum theorizing: The reconceptualists.Berkeley, CA:McCutchan.
11. Kliebard, H. M.(1995).The struggle for the American curriculum 1893-1958.New York:Routledge.
12. Kliebard, H. M.(1975).Curriculum theorizing: The reconceptualists.Berkeley, CA:McCutchan.
13. Lincoln, Y. S.(1992).Handbook of research on curriculum.New York:Macmillan.
14. Morrison, K. R. B.(2004).The poverty of curriculum theory: A criticque of Wraga and Hlebowitsh.Journal of Curriculum Studies,36(4),487-494.
15. Ornstein, A. C.,Hunkins, F. P.(2004).Curriculum: Foundations, principles, and issues.Boston:Allyn & Bacon.
16. Pinar, W.(1980).A reply to my critics.Curriculum Inquiry,10(2),199-205.
17. Pinar, W.(1975).Curriculum theorizing: The reconceptualists.Berkeley, CA:McCutchan.
18. Pinar, W.(2004).What is curriculum theory?.Mahwah, NJ:Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
19. Pinar, W.(1999).Response Gracious submission.Educational Researcher,28(1),14-15.
20. Pinar, W.(1979).What is the reconceptualization?.The Journal of Curriculum Theorizing,1(1),93-104.
21. Pinar, W.(1978).Qualitative evaluation: concepts and cases in curriculum criticism.Berkeley, CA:McCutchan.
22. Pinar, W.(1998).Curriculum: Toward new identities.New York:Garland.
23. Pinar, W.(1978).Notes on the curriculum field 1978.Educational Researcher,7(8),5-12.
24. Pinar, W.(1978).The reconceptualization of curriculum studies.Journal of Curriculum Studies,10(3),205-214.
25. Pinar, W.(1988).The reconceptualization of curriculum studies 1987: A personal retrospective.Journal of Curriculum and Supervision,3(2),157-167.
26. Pinar, W.(1988).Contemporary curriculum discourse.Scottsdale, AZ:Gorsuch Scarisbrick.
27. Pinar, W.(2000).Curriculum studies: The reconceptualization..NY:Educator's International Press.
28. Pinar, W.(1975).Curriculum theorizing: The reconceptualists.Berkeley, CA:McCutchan.
29. Pinar, W.(1975).Curriculum theorizing: The reconceptualists.Berkeley, CA:McCutchan.
30. Pinar, W.(1999).Not burdens-breakthroughs.Curriculum Inquiry,29(3),365-367.
31. Pinar, W.,Grurnet, M. R.(1981).Rethinking curriculum studies: A radical approach.New York:Halsted Press.
32. Pinar, W.,Miller, J. L.(1982).Feminist curriculum theory: Notes on the American field 1982.The Journal of Educational Thought,16(3),217-224.
33. 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:
34. Reid, W. A.(1998).``Reconceptualist`` and ``dominant`` perspectives in curriculum theory: What do the they have to say to each other?.Journal of Curriculum and Supervision,13(3),287-296.
35. Reynolds, W. M.(2003).Rejoinder: Debate, nostalgia and resentment.Journal of Curriculum Studies,35(4),445-451.
36. Schubert, W. H.(1986).Curriculum: Perspective, paradigm, and possibility.New York:Macmillan.
37. Schwab, J. J.(1970).The Practical: A language for curriculum.Washington, DC:National Educational Association.
38. Tanner, D.(1989).A brief historical perspective of the struggle for an integrative curriculum.Educational Horizons,68(1),6-11.
39. Tanner, D.,Tanner, L. N.(1979).Emancipation from research: The reconceptualist prescription.Educational Researcher,8(6),8-12.
40. Urban, W. J.(2003).What makes a renaissance?.Journal of Curriculum Studies,35(4),439-444.
41. Willis, G.,Schubert, W. H.,Bullough, R. V.,Jr.,Kridel, C.,Holton, J. T.(1993).The American curriculum: A documentary history.Westport:Greenwood Press.
42. Wraga, W. G.(1998).``Interesting, if true``: Historical perspectives on the ``reconceptualization`` of curriculum studies.Journal of Curriculum and Supervision,14(1),5-28.
43. Wraga, W. G.(1999).The continuing arrogation of the curriculum field: A rejoinder to Pinar.Educational Researcher,28(1),16.
44. Wraga, W. G.(1999).``Extracting sun-beams out of cucumbers``: The retreat from practice in reconceptualized curriculum studies.Educational Researcher,28(1),4-13.
45. Wraga, W. G.,Hlebowitsh, P. S.(2003).Toward a renaissance in curriculum theory and development in USA.Journal of Curriculum Studies,35(4),425-437.
46. 莊明貞(2004)。課程改革－反省與前瞻。台北:高等教育。
47. 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
48. 甄曉蘭(2004)。課程理論與實務：解構與重建。台北:高等教育。
49. 歐用生(1994)。課程發展模式探討。高雄:復文。

1. 楊巧玲(2022)。性別平等教育議題融入課程與教學之意義與爭議及對師資培育之啟示。課程與教學，25(2)，1-27。