题名

實驗教育學校校長轉化型課程領導之研究

并列篇名

The Study of the Transformative Curriculum Leadership for the Principals of Experimental Education School

DOI

10.6925/SCJ.202112_17(4).0001

作者

曾煥淦(Huan-Kan Tseng)；謝傳崇(Chuan-Chung Hsieh)

关键词

另類教育 ； 課程領導 ； 實驗教育 ； 實驗教育學校 ； 轉化型課程領導 ； alternative education ； curriculum leadership ； experimental education ； experimental education school ； transformative curriculum leadership

期刊名称

教育研究與發展期刊

卷期/出版年月

17卷4期（2021 / 12 / 31）

页次

1 - 31

内容语文

繁體中文
中文摘要

臺灣的實驗教育法案藉由法令鬆綁，許可不同類型實驗教育學校進行全校性的課程實驗，在此變革過程中，校長課程領導成為發展新教育模式的重要取徑。本研究針對地方政府指定辦理、具有轉型需求及公辦民營等三類型實驗教育學校，進行質性研究。選擇曾獲校長領導或教學卓越獎、多次參加實驗課程發表或新課程模式獲家長認同之成功轉型學校校長、主任、組長與教師共計12人進行訪談，並佐以校園觀察與文件分析法，以探究校長進行轉化型課程領導之模式與內涵。研究發現個案學校校長透過轉化型的課程領導行為，能有效改變教師教學意識、課程發展機制與學校文化，從而建立不同於主流教育的課程典範，並構築臺灣實驗教育學校校長轉化型課程領導模式。此模式表明校長基於辦學動機、教育理念與學校背景脈絡等要素，透過覺察、澄清、對話與溝通，共塑課程願景；再以課程願景為核心擴散出的教師教學素養、課程設計、課程評鑑與學校文化等範疇之轉化型領導作為，引領學校成功轉型。本研究據此提出相關建議作為，以利更多新課程模式的建立。
英文摘要

With the liberalization of Taiwan's experimental education act, experimental education schools have been able to conduct school-wide curriculum experiments. In the process of developing this new educational model, transformative curriculum leadership has become an important pathway for principals. This research conducts qualitative research on three types of experimental education schools, including schools designated by local governments, those with transformed needs, and privately-managed public schools. Each one is a sample which is successful transformation school that has won the principal's leadership or teaching excellence award, participated in the publication of experimental courses many times, or the new curriculum model has been recognized by parents. This study conducted interviews with twelve people, including the principals, directors, group leaders and teachers, and used campus observation and document analysis methods to explore the model and contents of principals' transformative curriculum leadership in experimental schools. The study finds that the school principals are able to establish a different curriculum model from the mainstream education, mainly through transformational curriculum leadership to change teachers' pedagogical awareness, curriculum development mechanism, and school culture, which in turn built a model of transformational curriculum leadership for principals of experimental education schools. This model suggests that principals create a shared vision of the curriculum through awareness, clarification, and communication based on the motivation, educational philosophy, and context of the school; then use the vision as the core to expand the transformational leadership in the areas of teacher teaching literacy, curriculum design, curriculum evaluation, and school culture to lead the school to successful transformation. Finally, according these findings, recommendations are proposed for developing more new curriculum models.
主题分类 社會科學 > 教育學
参考文献
  1. 林彩岫、游自達、陳延興、賴志峰、曾榮華、李彥儀、林妤蓁（2017）。臺中市實驗教育實施現況、困難與建議之研究。學校行政，112，208-227。http://doi.org/10.3966/160683002017110112010
    連結：
  2. 陳延興、朱秀麗（2018）。一所學校型態創新混齡實驗教育學校的成長與蛻變。師資培育與教師專業發展期刊，11（3），109-136。http://doi.org/10.3966/207136492018121103005
    連結：
  3. 詹志禹（2019）。臺灣實驗教育師資培育的困境與希望。中等教育，70（1），8-16。http://doi.org/10.6249/SE.201903_70(1).0001
    連結：
  4. 楊瑞珠（2014）。從革新的課程領導談學校體育課程管理。政大體育研究，23，31、33-42。https://doi.org/10.30411/CTTYYC.201410_(23).0002
    連結：
  5. 謝傳崇、曾煥淦、張莉君（2019）。另類教育創新取徑：臺灣公立實驗學校現況之探討。學校行政，122，185-205。http://doi.org/10.6423/HHHC.201907_(122).0011
    連結：
  6. United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization. (2016). Education 2030: Incheon declaration and framework for action. http://uis.unesco.org/sites/default/files/documents/education-2030-incheon-framework-for-action-implementation-of-sdg4-2016-en_2.pdf
  7. Walker, D. F. (1990). Fundamentals of curriculum. Harcourt Brace Jovanovich.
  8. Yazan, B. (2015). Three approaches to case study methods in education: Yin, Merriam, and Stake. The Qualitative Report, 20(2), 134-152. https://doi.org/10.46743/2160-3715/2015.2102
  9. Yin, R. K. (2009). Case study research: Design and methods (4th ed.). Sage.
  10. Ylimaki, R. M. (2010). Critical curriculum leadership: A framework for progressive education. Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203835050
  11. 丁一顧（2014）。國小校長教練式領導與教師專業學習社群關係之研究。教育政策論壇，17（3），117-151。https://doi.org/10.3966/156082982014081703005
  12. 吳清山（2015）。「實驗教育三法」的重要內涵與策進作為。教育研究月刊，258，42-58。https://doi.org/10.3966/168063602015100258004
  13. 陳世修（2003）。課程領導的理論與實踐─專訪國立臺北師範學院課程與教學所歐用生教授。教育研究月刊，113，5-13。
  14. 陳伯璋、李文富（2011）。尋找教育的桃花源─理念學校的發展與實踐。載於陳伯璋（主編），教育的藍天─理念學校的追尋（頁 4-15）。國家教育研究院。https://teric.naer.edu.tw/wSite/ct?ctNode=645&mp=teric_b&xItem=2045145
  15. 教育部國民及學前教育署（2020）。109 實驗教育簡報。https://www.k12ea.gov.tw/files/common_unit_id/d8533636-0498-4fd6-b456-2bcda3a8b4d9/doc/109實驗教育簡報.pdf
  16. 許宏儒（2017）。實驗教育之精進：由法國教育學家 R. Cousinet 的新教育思想分析。教育研究月刊，277，33-47。https://doi.org/10.3966/168063602017050277003
  17. 斯特勞斯 ‧ 安塞爾姆、科賓 ‧ 茱莉葉（1997）。質性研究概論（徐宗國譯）。巨流。（原著出版於 1990）
  18. 曾煥淦（2020）。臺灣實驗學校校長轉化型課程領導之個案研究（博士論文，國立清華大學）。臺灣博碩士論文知識加值系統。https://hdl.handle.net/11296/49ec9u
  19. 甄曉蘭（2005）。學校課程領導的行政思維。現代教育論壇，14，26-29。
  20. 蔡進雄（2019）。中小學校長教練式領導理論與實務演練：從師傅到教練。教育行政論壇，11（1），1-14。http://140.127.82.166/handle/987654321/19860
  21. 劉鎮寧（2018）。偏鄉小校推動學校型態實驗教育：從契機到實踐的困境與出路─以臺東縣為例。教育研究月刊，287，52-65。https://doi.org/10.3966/168063602018030287004
  22. 藺亞瓊（2016）。多個案比較法及其對高等教育研究的啟示。高等教育研究，11，39-50。
  23. 嚴春財（2004）。轉型課程領導對九年一貫課程改革的啟示。教育資料與研究，56，54-59。https://teric.naer.edu.tw/wSite/ct?ctNode=655&mp=teric_b&xItem=2052248
  24. Acun, V., & Yilmazer, S. (2019). Combining grounded theory (GT) and structural equation modelling (SEM) to analyze indoor soundscape in historical spaces. Applied Acoustics, 155, 515-524. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apacoust.2019.06.017
  25. Aronowitz, S., & Giroux, H. A. (1993). Education still under siege (2nd ed.). Bergin & Garvey.
  26. Aronson, S. R. (1995). Alternative learning environments (Summary of alternative education legislation). Insights on Educational Policy, Practice, and Research, 6. http://www.sedl.org/policy/insights/n06/index.html
  27. Bellibas, M. S., & Liu, Y. (2017). Multilevel analysis of the relationship between principals’ perceived practices of instructional leadership and teachers’ self-efficacy perceptions. Journal of Educational Administration, 55(1), 49-69. https://doi.org/10.1108/JEA-12-2015-0116
  28. Bourdieu, P., & Wacquant, L. J. D. (1992). An invitation to reflexive sociology. The University of Chicago Press.
  29. Brown, T. M. (1988). How fields change: A critique of the “Kuhnian” view. In W. F. Pinar (Ed.), Contemporary curriculum discourses (pp. 16-30). Gorsuch Scarisbrick.
  30. Denzin, N. K. (1994). The art and politics of interpretation. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research (pp. 500-515). Sage.
  31. Dewey, J. (1963). Experience and education. Collier
  32. Dewey, J. (1989). Freedom and culture. Prometheus.
  33. Diem, S., & Carpenter, B. W. (2012). Social justice & leadership preparation: Developing a transformative curriculum. Planning and Changing, 43(1/2), 96-112.
  34. Eisner, E. W. (1994). Cognition and curriculum reconsidered (2nd ed.). Teachers College Press.
  35. Glatthorn, A. A., Boschee, F., Whitehead, B. M., & Boschee, B. F. (2018). Curriculum leadership: Strategies for development and implementation (5th ed.). Sage.
  36. Habermas, J. (1971). Knowledge and human interests (J. J. Shapiro, Trans.). Beacon Press. (Original work published 1968)
  37. Habermas, J. (1979). Communication and the evolution of society (T. McCarthy, Trans.). Beacon Press. (Original work published 1976)
  38. Habermas, J. (1996). Three normative models of democracy. In S. Benhabib (Ed.), Democracy and difference: Contesting the boundaries of the political (pp. 21-30). Princeton University Press. https://doi.org/10.2307/j.ctv1nxcvsv.4
  39. Henderson, J. G., & Hawthorne, R. D. (2000). Transformative curriculum leadership (2nd ed.). Prentice Hall.
  40. Hsieh, C.-C., Tseng, H.-K., & Chen, R. J.-C. (2021). Transformation from traditional schools to alternative schools: Curriculum leadership of the principals of Taiwanese aborigines. Asia Pacific Education Review, 22(1), 53-66. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12564-020-09663-9
  41. Kirby, P. C. (1992). Shared decision making: Moving from concerns about restrooms to concerns about classrooms. Journal of School Leadership, 2(3), 330-344. https://doi.org/10.1177/105268469200200308
  42. Lee, D. H. L., & Chiu, C. S. (2017). “School banding”: Principals’ perspectives of teacher professional development in the school-based management context. Journal of Educational Administration, 55(6), 686-701. https://doi.org/10.1108/JEA-02-2017-0018
  43. Leithwood, K., Harris, A., & Hopkins, D. (2020). Seven strong claims about successful school leadership revisited. School Leadership & Management, 40(1), 5-22. http://doi.org/10.1080/13632434.2019.1596077
  44. Midwest Comprehensive Center. (2018, September). Transforming systems for high levels of learning for all students: Personalized learning in Wisconsin. American Institutes for Research. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED589979.pdf
  45. Moreeng, B., & Tshelane, M. (2014). Transformative curriculum leadership for rural ecologies. Mediterranean Journal of Social Sciences, 5(23), 850-858. https://doi.org/10.5901/mjss.2014.v5n23p850
  46. Nagata, Y. (2007). Alternative education: Global perspectives relevant to the Asia-Pacific region. Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4020-4986-6
  47. Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. (2018a). The future of education and skills: Education 2030. https://www.oecd.org/education/2030/E2030%20Position%20Paper%20(05.04.2018).pdf
  48. Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. (2018b). Teaching for the future: Effective classroom practices to transform education. https://doi.org/10.1787/9789264293243-en
  49. Pajak, E., & McAfee, L. (1992). The principal as school leader, curriculum leader. NASSP Bulletin, 76(547), 21-30. https://doi.org/10.1177/019263659207654704
  50. Patton, M. Q. (2014). Qualitative research & evaluation methods: Integrating theory and practice (4th ed.). Sage.
  51. Pont, B., Nusche, D., & Moorman, H. (2008). Improving school leadership: Volume 1: Policy and practice. Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. https://www.oecd.org/education/school/44374889.pdf
  52. Sanders, M. G. (2014). Principal leadership for school, family, and community partnerships: The role of a systems approach to reform implementation. American Journal of Education, 120(2), 233-255. https://doi.org/10.1086/674374
  53. Shay, M. (2016). Seeking new paradigms in aboriginal education research: Methodological opportunities, challenges and aspirations. Social and Education History, 5(3), 273-296. http://doi.org/10.17583/hse.2016.2299
  54. Shields, C. M. (2009). Transformative leadership: A call for difficult dialogue and courageous action in racialised contexts. International Studies in Educational Administration (ISEA), 37(3), 53-68.
  55. Smith, M. B., Koppes Bryan, L., & Vodanovich, S. J. (2012). The counter-intuitive effects of flow on positive leadership and employee attitudes: Incorporating positive psychology into the management of organizations. The Psychologist-Manager Journal, 15(3), 174-198. https://doi.org/10.1080/10887156.2012.701129
  56. Sun, H., Wang, X., & Sharma, S. (2014). A study on effective principal leadership factors in China. International Journal of Educational Management, 28(6), 716-727. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJEM-11-2013-0173
  57. Timonen, V., Foley, G., & Conlon, C. (2018). Challenges when using grounded theory: A pragmatic introduction to doing GT research. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 17(1), 1-10. https://doi.org/10.1177/1609406918758086
被引用次数
  1. 許舒皓,林明地(2023)。九陶實驗教育及學校與社區夥伴關係之個案研究。學校行政，145，40-60。
  2. (2022)。一所華德福實驗教育學校校長課程領導之研究。臺東大學教育學報，33(1)，107-140。
print cancel