體育教師課程決定重要議題與解決策略之探討

The Issues and the Solutions about PE Teacher's Curriculum Decision Making

10.6569/NTUJPE.201209_(23).0004

黃志成(Chih-Cheng Huang)；陳昭宇(Chao-Yu Chen)；王傑賢(Jye-Shyan Wang)

課程意識 ； 意識形態 ； 體育課程發展 ； 實務知識 ； 價值取向 ； curriculum consciousness ； ideology ； PE curriculum development ； practical knowledge ； value orientation

臺大體育學報

23輯（2012 / 09 / 01）

37 - 44

繁體中文

體育教師課程決定歷程中，最主要的關鍵在於學習活動選擇的規準，決策關乎身體活動所強調的內容，同時也需重視活動的連貫性。實際上，不同決定的背後經常隱藏著各種勢力的角逐與意識形態的衝突，此時必須藉由行動者的經驗知識與實踐智慧，以討論、對話、思辨、與分析作為整合思考與行動的條件，並協助課程決定的推展。本文從以下三個面向：傳統哲學觀與文化對體育教師價值取向的影響、社群缺少對話延緩體育課程的發展、全球化對在地化體育課程的影響等進行分析與討論，釐清現階段體育教師課程決定的相關問題，並進一步以「教師是課程設計者」的隱喻，強調課程是在教室活動中浮現的，是透過教師與學生互動中建構的，外來的教材、教學策略等等都只是教師和學生用以建構教室經驗的工具，課程是學校與教室中老師與學生生活的結合。換言之，體育教師應先建立體育教師課程決定的主體性，釐清體育教師在課程決定中的角色與定位，進而喚醒體育教師的課程意識，讓學校體育課程回歸到以教師為主體性，呼應學生需求的樣貌，展現體育課程的彈性與創新。

During the process of PE curriculum decisions, the crucial factors are the criterion of selecting learning activities, the contents decided by policies, and the continuity of the physical activities. In fact, behind those different decisions often include all kinds of power and inflicts among ideologies. Therefore, we should have discussion, dialogue, dialectic, and analysis to integrate our thinking and action in order to develop the process of curriculum decision making. In this paper, we discuss and analyze three issues, which are PE teachers' value orientation affected by traditional philosophy and inherent culture, PE curriculum development are suspended by lack of dialogue between groups, local PE curriculum affected by globalization. Furthermore, ”teachers are curriculum designers” are the metaphor, which emphasize that PE curriculum are constructed by teachers and students during classes. Outer curriculum, material, instructional strategies are the tools for teachers and students to build the learning experiences. To take one step ahead, PE curriculum are combines with the lives of the teachers and students in the classroom. In other words, PE teachers should establish the subjectivity of curriculum decision making, figure out the role and the position in curriculum decision making, and then waken the curriculum consciousness of PE teachers. In short, PE curriculum should bake to the PE teachers' subjectivity and respond to the students' needs to unfold the innovation and the flexibilities of PE curriculum.

1. Dewey, J. (1938). Experience and education. New York: Collier Books
2. Ayers, W.,Shubert, W. H.(1989).The normative and the possible: Values in the curriculum.Educational Forum,53,355-364.
3. Eisner, E.(2002).The arts and the creation of mind.New Haven:Yale University Press.
4. Eisner, E. W.,Vallance, E.(1974).Conflicting conceptions of curriculum.Berkeley, CA:McCutchan.
5. Ennis, C. D.(1992).Curriculum theory as practiced: Case studies of operationalized value orientation.Journal of Teaching in Physical Education,11,358-375.
6. Freire, P.,Ramos, M. B.(Trans.)(1970).Pedagogy of the oppressed.New York:Herder and Herder.
7. Habermas, J.(1972).Knowledge and human interests.London:Heinemann.
8. Houlihan, B.、吳崇旗譯、劉宏裕譯(2005)。運動社會學導論。臺北市:師大書苑。
9. Jackson, P.(Ed.)(1992).Handbook of research on curriculum.New York:Macmillan.
10. Jewett, A. E.,Bain, L. L.,Ennis, C. D.(1995).The Curriculum Process in Physical Education.Georgia:Wm. C. Brown Publishers.
11. Kliebard, H. M.(1989).Problems of definition in curriculum.Journal of Curriculum and Supervision,5(1),1-5.
12. Pinar, W.(Ed.)(1974).Heightened consciousness, culture revolution, and curriculum theory.Berkeley, CA:McCutchan.
13. Pinar, W.(Ed.)(1988).Contemporary curriculum discourse.Scottsdale, AR:Gorsuch Scarisbrick.
14. Schwab, J. J.(1969).The practical: A language for curriculum.School Review,78(1),1-23.
15. Sears, J. T.(Ed.),Marshall, J. D.(Ed.)(1990).Teaching and thinking about curriculum.New York:Teachers College Press.
16. Shils, E.(Ed.)(1991).Remembering the university of Chicago: Teachers, scientists, and scholars.Chicago:University of Chicago.
17. Siedentop, D.,Herkowitz, J.,Rink, J.(1984).Elementary physical education methods.Englewood Cliffs, NJ:Prentige-Hall.
18. Silverman, S. J.(Ed.),Ennis, C. D.(Ed.)(2003).Student learning in physical education.Champaign, IL:Human Kinetics.
19. Thomas, J. R.,Lee, A. M.,Thomas, K. T.(1988).Physical education for children: concept into practice.Champaign, IL:Human Kinetics.
20. 武文瑛(2004)。全球化與在地化概念辯證、分析與省思。教育學苑，7，43-58。
21. 張春秀(2000)。臺北市，國立臺灣師範大學體育學系。
22. 許義雄(2003)。臺灣身體文化與體育的出路。學校體育雙月刊，13(2)，135-144。
23. 陳伯璋(2001)。新世紀課程改革的省思與挑戰。臺北市:師大書苑。
24. 陳昭宇(2008)。國中體育教師的反思、轉型與成長。學校體育雙月刊，18(6)，64-70。
25. 甄曉蘭(2004)。課程理論與實務：解構與重構。臺北市:高等教育。
26. 甄曉蘭(2002)。中小學課程改革與教學革新。臺北市:高等教育。
27. 劉一民(2005)。運動哲學新論。臺北市:師大書苑。
28. 簡良平(2004)。不同課程取向中教師課程實踐角色得探討。課程與教學研究之發展與前瞻，臺北市:
29. 簡良平(2002)。學校課程決定─理論與實證。臺北市:師大書苑。