教師的課程詮釋如何回饋到政策學習？以新北市多元活化課程為例

How Teachers' Curriculum Interpretations Affect Policy Learning: A Case Study on Multi-Activation Curriculum in New Taipei City

10.3966/207136492017121003005

林鈺文(Yu-Wen Lin)

多元活化課程 ； 在地知識 ； 政策詮釋 ； 政策學習 ； Multi-Activation Curriculum ； local knowledge ； policy interpretation ； policy learning

師資培育與教師專業發展期刊

10卷3期（2017 / 12 / 01）

119 - 146

繁體中文

本研究旨在應用詮釋途徑探討新北市英語教師對多元活化課程的詮釋與實施方式，並對後續的政策學習提供建議。新北市領先全臺辦理活化課程，其中基層教育官員對政策的詮釋與本身的在地知識（local knowledge）皆難透過調查研究的數據展現，但這些因素卻影響實際辦理方式與成效，故採用詮釋途徑，呈現不同觀點。雖然此政策歷經轉向，到現在已吹熄燈號，然而這項獨特的「新北經驗」應足以供未來相關的政策發展借鏡。本研究從97學年度參與活化試辦的學校中，選取三間大、中、小不同類型的學校，以立意抽樣及滾雪球抽樣的方式，分別訪談校內願意進入本研究的英語教師、導師與行政人員共十二人。研究發現，受在地知識與政策脈絡影響，英語教師對多元活化課程政策目標有超越政策文本之詮釋。實施方式則能據專業判斷擬定方案，輔以在地知識執行，但受組織恆常性、政策彈性大影響。英語教師肯定自己辦理多元活化課程之成效，其實施困境來自政策脈絡與在地知識。最後，根據本研究結果，對後續政策學習提出建議，包括維持並持續提升基層教育官員的專業自主能力、政策發展過程應保留對話空間與消化時間、政策應訂定具體政策目標與評鑑指標，供教育決策當局參考之。

The purpose of this study is to investigate the application of the interpretive method to the curriculum interpretations and implementations of Multi-Activation Curriculum by English teachers in New Taipei City, and to provide suggestions for future policy learning. While New Taipei City takes the lead in implementing a Multi-Activation Curriculum in Taiwan, the street-level bureaucrats' interpretations as well as their local knowledge of the process of implementing policy are difficult to demonstrate through empirical research data. These factors, however, did affect the actual teachers' implementations and their results. Therefore the interpretation method was applied to analyze this policy from different aspects. Although this policy had changed three times and ended, this unique experience should be worthy as reference for related policies in the future. In this study, three schools of different types were chosen from the schools that had participated in the previous English Enrichment Curriculum. Purposive Sampling and Snowball Sampling methods were used to interview twelve people, including English teachers, homeroom teachers and administrative staff who were willing to participate. The results of the study found that these English teachers, affected by their local knowledge and policy contexts, interpreted the objectives of the Multi-Activation Curriculum beyond the texts of the policy. The ways that these English teachers implemented the policy were based on their professional competence and local knowledge, yet they were affected by the organization constancy and policy flexibility. Based on the results, this study provides the following suggestions to the policy authorities for future policy learning: maintaining and elevating the professional competence of street-level bureaucrats, providing space for policy discourse and time to digest along the process of policy development, in addition to framing the concrete policy objectives and evaluation indicators.

1. 陳序廷、黃東益(2011)。為什麼創新先驅成為後進者？臺北市政府的行車倒數計時顯示器政策學習過程。公共行政學報，40，77-110。
   連結：
2. 賴彥全、王麗雲(2014)。地方政府教育課責系統現況與成效探究。教育科學研究期刊，59(3)，97-132。
   連結：
3. 新北市政府教育局（2011）。新北市國民中小學英語課程綱要。取自http://tesag.ntpc.edu.tw/mediafile/1380004/fdownload/186/80/2012-2-8-19-21-26-80-nf1.pdf [New Taipei City Government Education Department . (2011). Curriculum guidelines for New Taipei City's elementary and junior high schools. Retrieved from http://tesag.ntpc.edu.tw/mediafile/1380004/fdownload/186/80/2012-2-8-19-21-26-80-nf1.pdf]
4. 臺北縣政府教育局（2008）。臺北縣國中小英語課程97 暫行綱要。取自http://tesag.ntpc.edu.tw/fdownload/fdlist.asp?a=1&PageNo=2&id={A766F7F9-07D2-4509-B409-4555E9C2B7AA}[Taipei County Government Education Department . (2008) . The 2008 tentative guidelines for Taipei county's elementary and junior high schools curriculum. Retrieved from http://tesag.ntpc.edu.tw/fdownload/fdlist.asp?a=1&PageNo=2&id={A766F7F9-07D2-4509-B409-4555E9C2B7AA}]
5. Atkins, E.(1988).Reframing curriculum theory in terms of interpretation and practice: A hermeneutical approach.Curriculum Studies,20(5),437-448.
6. Broadfoot, P.(2000).Comparative education for the 21st century: Retrospect and prospect.Comparative Education,36(3),357-371.
7. Evans, M.,Davies, J.(1999).Understanding policy transfer: A multi-level, multi-disciplinary perspective.Public Administration,77(2),361-385.
8. Fischer, F.(Ed.),Miller, G. J.(Ed.),Sidney, M. S.(Ed.)(2007).Handbook of public policy analysis: Theory, politics, and methods.Boca Raton, FL:CRC Press.
9. Greene, M.(1971).Curriculum and consciousness.Teachers College Record,73(2),253-270.
10. Levinson, B. A. U.,Sutton, M.,Winstead, T.(2009).Education policy as a practice of power theoretical tools, ethnographic methods, democratic options.Educational Policy,23(6),767-795.
11. Petković, K.(2008).Interpretive policy analysis and deliberative democracy: Should we politicize analysis?.Croatian Political Science Journal,45(2),27-53.
12. Rose, R.(1991).What is lesson-drawing?.Journal of Public Policy,11(1),3-30.
13. Tee, N. P.(2008).Education policy rhetoric and reality gap: A reflection.International Journal of Educational Management,22(6),595-602.
14. Yanow, D.(2000).Conducting interpretive policy analysis.Thousand Oaks, CA:Sage.
15. Yanow, D.(1993).The communication of policy meanings: Implementation as interpretation and text.Policy Science,26,41-61.
16. 王麗雲(2007)。地方教育治理模式分析。教育政策論壇，10(1)，189-228。
17. 吳定(1998)。自政策學習觀點論政府再造之推動。公教資訊季刊，3(1)，10-23。
18. 吳靖國(2000)。教育理論。臺北市=Taipei:師大書苑=Shita Book。
19. 阮新邦編(1993)。批判詮釋論與社會研究。香港=Hong Kong:八方文化=Global Publishing。
20. 高淑清(2008)。質性研究的18 堂課－首航初探之旅。高雄市=Kaohsiung:麗文文化=Liwen。
21. 曾榮光(2007)。教育政策研究：議論批判的視域。北京大學教育評論，5(4)，2-30。
22. 黃武雄(2003)。學校在窗外。新北市=New Taipei City:左岸文化=Rive Gauche。
23. 甄曉蘭(2004)。課程理論與實務—解構與重建。臺北市=Taipei:高等=Higher Education。
24. 潘慧玲編(2009)。教育研究的取徑：概念與應用。臺北市=Taipei:高等=Higher Education。
25. 謝美慧(2001)。臺北市=Taipei，國立臺灣師範大學=National Taiwan Normal University。