探究教學的教育關懷：安默斯特課程方案研究

Educational Concerns of Inquiry Teaching: A Study on the Amherst Curriculum Project

10.6910/BER.202403_70(1).0002

鍾鴻銘(Horng-Ming Jong)

安默斯特方案 ； 原初材料 ； 探究 ； 新社會科 ； 歷史教育 ； Amherst Project ； raw materials ； inquiry ； new social studies ； history education

教育研究集刊

70:1期（2024 / 03 / 31）

37 - 72

繁體中文;英文

本文旨在運用歷史研究法探討新社會科運動中的安默斯特課程方案，一個旨在變革美國史課程與教學的改革計畫。安默斯特方案認為歷史並非僅是知識的集合體，更是一種探究。也因此，探究的學習理論成為方案的理論基礎。此方案以確立歷史的普遍性問題作為編製課程單元的起始，再根據此問題蒐羅歷史材料編製成課程單元。課程材料僅是學習的資材，學生探究所得才是課程內容。安默斯特方案採模組化課程設計，教師可從眾多課程單元中選擇想要的單元，安插進其學程中使用。安默斯特方案認為學生如同歷史學者，是主動的探究者。教師除助長學生探究學習外，自身亦是探究者。將直接與間接史料當作課程材料，是安默斯特方案的重要特色。文末則是依據安默斯特方案的特色，省思臺灣的課程改革，並提出一些建議。

This article uses historical research to explore the Amherst Curriculum Project within the context of the new social studies movement, a reform program aiming at revolutionizing the curriculum and the teaching of American History. Inquiry learning theory became the theoretical basis of the Amherst Project because the project saw history not mere as bodies of knowledge but as an inquiry. The Amherst Project started with the universal problems of history, compiling curriculum units based on historical materials. Curriculum materials were only materials for learning, and the curriculum content was what students learned through the inquiry process. The Amherst Project adopted a modular curriculum design, allowing teachers to select specific units from these curriculum units and integrate them into their courses. The students acted as historians and active inquirers. Both teachers and students were encouraged to inquire learning based on direct and indirect historical sources. Finally, this article reflects on Taiwan's curriculum reform in light of the characteristics of the Amherst Project, offering suggestions for improvement.

1. 單文經（2020）。作為美國新社會科課改要項的結構與發現二辭之意涵評析。課程與教學季刊，23（2），153-184。https://doi.org/10.6384/CIQ.202004_23(2).0007
   連結：
2. 單文經（2021）。J. Dewey探究理論與有關教學主張解析。課程與教學季刊，24（2），89-122。https://doi.org/10.6384/CIQ.202104_24(2).0004
   連結：
3. Bohan, C. H., & Feinberg, J. R. (2008). The authors of the Harvard Social Studies Project: A retrospective analysis of Donald Oliver, Fred Newmann, and James Shaver. Social Studies Research and Practice, 3(2), 54-67. https://doi.org/10.1108/SSRP-02-2008-B0005
   連結：
4. Brown, R. H. (1996). Learning how to learn: The Amherst Project and history education in the schools. The Social Studies, 87(6), 267-273. https://doi.org/10.1080/00377996.1996.10114499
   連結：
5. Keohane, R. E. (1945). Use of primary sources in United States history for high-school pupils. The School Review, 53(10), 580-587.
   連結：
6. Keohane, R. E. (1946). The use of primary sources in the teaching of local and high school. The Mississippi Valley Historical Review, 33(3), 455-460.
   連結：
7. Krug, M. M. (1970). Primary sources in teaching history. The History Teacher, 3(3), 41-49.
   連結：
8. Lybarger, M. B. (1983). Origins of the modern social studies: 1900-1916. History of Education Quarterly, 23(4), 455-468.
   連結：
9. McAninch, S. A. (1990). The educational theory of Mary Sheldon Barnes: Inquiry learning as indoctrination in history education. Educational Theory, 40(1), 45-52.
   連結：
10. Osborne, K. (2003). Fred Morrow Fling and the source-method of teaching history. Theory and Research in Social Education, 31(4), 466-501.
    連結：
11. Wineburg, S., Martin, D., & Monte-San, C. (2016). 像史家一般閱讀：在課堂裡教閱讀素養（宋家復，譯）。國立臺灣大學出版中心。（原著出版於2012）
12. 林慈淑（2023）。歷史如何教？從閱讀到探究。三民。
13. 教育部（2018）。十二年國民基本教育課程綱要：國民中小學暨普通型高級中等學校—社會領域。國家教育研究院。
14. 歐用生（2019）。黑暗中書寫：歐用生的學思旅程。師大書苑。
15. Bennett, P. S. (1967). What happened on Lexington Green: An inquiry into the nature and methods of history. Teacher and student manuals (ED032333). ERIC. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED032333.pdf
16. Beyer, B. K. (2018). Inquiry as thinking process and teaching practice. In G. Scheurman & R. W. Evans (Eds.), Constructivism and the new social studies: A collection of classic inquiry lessons (pp. 55-85). Information Age.
17. Bohan, C. H., & Chisholm, J. A., Jr. (2011). Mary Sheldon Barnes: An educator’s life in historical context. Social Studies Research and Practice, 6(2), 85-94.
18. Bohan, C. H., & Davis, O. L., Jr. (1998). Sources in history instruction: Evidence in the history teacher’s magazine. Journal of the Midwest History of Education Society, 25(1), 55-60.
19. Bohan, C. H., & Feinberg, J. R. (2010). The contributions of Donald Oliver, Fred Newmann, and James Shaver to the Harvard Social Studies Project. In B. S. Stern (Ed.), The new social studies: People, projects, and perspectives (pp. 111-132). Information Age.
20. Brown, R. H. (1966a). History as discovery: An interim report on the Amherst project. In E. Fenton (Ed.), Teaching the new social studies in secondary schools; An inductive approach (pp. 443-451). Holt, Rinehart and Winston.
21. Brown, R. H. (1966b). History and the new social studies. Saturday Review, October, 80-81, 92.
22. Brown, R. H. (1967). Richard H. Brown Replies. Social Education, November, 584-587.
23. Brown, R. H. (1969). The Amherst project workshops in discovery learning: An institute “on the road”. In Hampshire College, The Amherst Project. Final report (pp. 37-40). Office of Education (DHEW) Bureau of Research.
24. Brown, R. H. (1970). The historian and new approaches to history in the schools. Teachers College Record, September, 73-80.
25. Brown, R. H. (1973). History teaching/learning and the communications revolution (ED135679). ERIC. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED135679.pdf
26. Brown, R. H. (1977). Opportunities for wider use of archival and manuscript repositories (ED134529). ERIC. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED134529.pdf
27. Brown, R. H. (2018). The Amherst approach to inquiry learning. In G. Scheurman & R. W. Evans (Eds.), Constructivism and the new social studies: A collection of classic inquiry lessons (pp. 213-220). Information Age.
28. Bruner, J. (1960). The process of education. Harvard University Press.
29. Committee on the Study of History. (1969a). The Amherst Project. Final report. Hampshire College.
30. Committee on the Study of History. (1969b). The Amherst Project education development teams. General information. Hampshire College.
31. Cuban, L. (1965). Social relations, Pre-civil war. Teacher and student manuals (ED028199). ERIC. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED028199.pdf
32. Cuban, L. (2016). Teaching history then and now: A story of stability and change in schools. Harvard Education Press.
33. Eamon, M. (2006). A “genuine relationship with the actual”: New perspectives on primary sources, history and the internet in the classroom. The History Teacher, 39(3), 297-314.
34. Evans, R. W. (2004). The social studies wars: What should we teach the children? Teachers College Press.
35. Evans, R. W. (2011a). The tragedy of American school reform: How curriculum politics and entrenched dilemmas have diverted us from democracy. Palgrave Macmillan.
36. Evans, R. W. (2011b). The hope for American school reform: The cold war pursuit of inquiry learning in social studies. Palgrave Macmillan.
37. Evans, R. W. (2018). Old, new, and newer: Historical context of the new social studies. In G. Scheurman & R. W. Evans (Eds.), Constructivism and the new social studies: A collection of classic inquiry lessons (pp. 21-54). Information Age.
38. Francis, A. T. (2014). Diffusing the social studies wars: The Harvard Social Studies Project, 1957-1972. American Educational History Journal, 41(2), 373-392.
39. Halsey, V. R. (1963). American history: A new high school course. Social Education, May, 249-252.
40. Halvorsen, A. (2013). A history of elementary social studies; Romance and reality. Peter Lang.
41. Harris, J. (1965). Hiroshima: A study in science, politics and the ethics of war. Teacher and student manuals. (ED032335). ERIC. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED032335.pdf
42. Hertzberg, H. W. (1981). Social studies reform, 1880-1980 (ED211429). ERIC. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED211429.pdf
43. Keohane, R. E. (1948a). Mary Sheldon Barnes and the origin of the source method of teaching history in the American secondary school, 1885-1896. American Heritage, October, 68-72.
44. Keohane, R. E. (1948b). Mary Sheldon Barnes and the origin of the source method of teaching history in the American secondary school, 1885-1896 (Part II). American Heritage, December, 109-112.
45. Keohane, R. E. (1949). The great debate over the source method. Social Education, 13(5), 212-218.
46. Keohane, R. E. (1950) Using primary sources in teaching history. The Journal of General Education, 4(3), 213-220.
47. Kliebard, H., & Wegner, G. (1987). Harold Rugg and the reconstruction of the social studies curriculum: The treatment of the “Great War” in his textbook series. In T. S. Popkewitz (Ed.), The formation of school subjects (pp. 268-287). Falmer.
48. Kline, W. A. (1966). The gospel of work: A study in values and value change. Teacher and student manuals (ED028197). ERIC. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED028197.pdf
49. Kline, W. A. (1969). Property in America: The balance of private rights and public interest. Teacher and student manuals (ED041806). ERIC. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED041806.pdf
50. Kline, W. A. (1974). The “Amherst Project”: A case study of a federally sponsored curriculum development project [Unpublished doctoral dissertation]. Stanford University, Stanford, CA.
51. Lybarger, M. B. (1991). The historiography of social studies: Retrospect, circumspect, and prospect. In J. P. Shaver (Ed.), Handbook of research on social studies teaching and learning (pp. 3-15). Macmillan.
52. Monteverde, F. E. (2002). Mary Downing Sheldon Barnes. In M. S. Crocco & O. L. Davis, Jr (Eds.), Building a legacy: Women in social education 1784-1984 (pp. 25-27). National Council for Social Studies.
53. Mounts, J. L. (1972). 1.Amherst College, The Committee on the Study of History, units in American history. Social Education, November, 723-724.
54. Samec, C. (1976). A history of the Amherst Project: Revising the teaching of American history 1959 to 1972 [Unpublished doctoral dissertation]. Loyola University of Chicago, Chicago, IL.
55. Samec, C. (1980). The “new social studies” and curriculum innovation: The Amherst Project experience, 1959-1972. Midwest History of Education Society, 8, 3-14.
56. Saxe, D. W. (1991). Social studies in schools: A history of the early years. Albany, State University of New York Press.
57. Scheurman, G. (2018a). Evanescence and permanence: The future of social studies in the rearview mirror. In G. Scheurman & R. W. Evans (Eds.), Constructivism and the new social studies: A collection of classic inquiry lessons (pp. 3-20). Information Age.
58. Scheurman, G. (2018b). From behaviorist to constructivist teaching and revisiting Lexington Green. In G. Scheurman & R. W. Evans (Eds.), Constructivism and the new social studies: A collection of classic inquiry lessons (pp. 101-126). Information Age.
59. Scheurman, G., & Evans, R. (Eds.). (2018). Constructivism and the new social studies: A collection of classic inquiry lessons. Information Age.
60. Scheurman, G., & Parliament, S. (2018). Hiroshima: A model and template for creating document-based inquiry. In G. Scheurman & R. W. Evans (Eds.), Constructivism and the new social studies: A collection of classic inquiry lessons (pp. 221-258). Information Age.
61. Scheurman, G., & Reynolds, K. (2010). The “history problem” in curricular reform: A warning to constructivists from the new social studies movement. In B. S. Stern (Ed.), The new social studies: People, projects, and perspectives (pp. 341-359). Information Age.
62. Stern, B. S. (Ed.). (2010). The new social studies: People, projects, and perspectives. Information Age.
63. Templeton, R. K. (1968). The new history? Social Education, December, 800-803.
64. VanSledright, B. A. (2011). The challenge of rethinking history education: On practices, theories, and policy. Routledge.
65. Weber, W. (2017). The Amherst Project and reform of history education, 1959-1972. The History Teacher, 51(1), 37-64.
66. Welsh, B. H., & Brooks, N. J. (2008). The con/text of Mary Sheldon Barnes (1850-1898): A hermeneutic inquiry. Curriculum and Teaching Dialogue, 10(1/2), 101-115.
67. Whelan, M. (1997). A particularly lucid lens: The Committee of Ten and the social studies committee in historical context. Journal of Curriculum and Supervision, 12(3), 256-268.