题名

從教學者為主體到學習者為主體：普通高中校訂必修課程教師的難題

并列篇名

Shifting From a Teacher-Centered System to a Learner-Centered System: Dilemmas of Teaching Compulsory School-Developed Courses in Senior High Schools

DOI

10.6925/SCJ.202306_19(2).0002

作者

陳斐卿(Fei-Ching Chen)

关键词

課綱 ； 校訂必修 ； 意識型態的難題 ； 教師專業發展 ； curriculum guideline ； compulsory school-developed course ； ideological dilemma ； teacher professional development

期刊名称

教育研究與發展期刊

卷期/出版年月

19卷2期（2023 / 06 / 30）

页次

47 - 77

内容语文

繁體中文;英文
中文摘要

「教師不易改變」是教育改革中伴隨的一種印象。本文以2019年課程改革之「校訂必修」課程為例，探究教師集體備課與授課遭逢了什麼困難以致於不易改變。以2020年一所普通高中校訂必修課程之26次共備會議與160小時觀課為田野資料，以「意識型態的兩難」為概念工具，採用言談分析法揭露教師們經營校訂必修課程所顯現的意識型態難題。研究發現教師從過往的「教學者為主體」授課到校訂必修的「學習者為主體」授課之轉變並非易事，教師們的發言在「社群慣有」與「專業思考」這兩個隱含對立的意識型態之間徘徊，兩難的意識型態至少有三組：「進度」與「進步」、「教導」與「引導」、「給分」與「評量」。第一組是面臨學生之間進行專題學習的「進度」不一，教師應該趕整體的進度、還是該注重學生個別的「進步」；第二組是面臨學生做專題的種種問題，教師該積極「教導」學生、還是該給予學生所需的「引導」；第三組是面臨評定期末成績，教師應在各方周延考量下「給分」、還是建基於專業規準「評量」。三組意識型態的兩難具有時間軸的次序性，能完整描述授課教師從課程啟動到收尾的動態性兩難遭逢歷程，本文亦針對這些難題提出具體建議，希冀對於各校校訂必修課程之設計、教學與評量有所助益。
英文摘要

It seems that teachers are reluctant to change their teaching practices when major educational reforms are introduced, hindering the efforts of education policymakers to bring about changes. This study analyzed the professional discussions of teachers during course-preparation meetings to understand how they responded to proposed reforms and to identify the challenges affecting the implementation of these reforms. Specifically, this study examined the discussions conducted across 26 course-preparation meetings for compulsory school-developed courses, which are a new type of course mandated by Taiwan's 2019 curriculum reform. Drawing from the concept of ideological dilemmas (i.e., lived ideology vs. intellectual ideology), this study conducted discourse analysis and identified three dilemmas (i.e., progress tracking vs. progress making, didactic teaching vs. facilitative teaching, and contingency-based grading vs. rubric-based evaluation). These dilemmas highlight the mental inertia experienced by teachers when they switch from a teacher-centered system to a learner-centered system. This paper provides suggestions to schoolteachers and administrators on how to design, instruct, and conduct assessments for compulsory school-developed courses while navigating such ideological dilemmas.
主题分类 社會科學 > 教育學
参考文献
  1. 林怡君、陳佩英（2020）。一所高中的校訂必修發展歷程研究：行動者網絡理論取徑。中等教育，71（3），17-29。https://doi.org/10.6249/SE.202009_71(3).0018
    連結：
  2. 孫細、洪偉豪（2022）。問題導向學習法（PBL）之教學活動設計與實踐：以地理視野―南方區域為例。地理研究，75，81-110。https://doi.org/10.6234/JGR.202205_(75).0004
    連結：
  3. 張志維（2020）。校訂必修社群實務與省思―以臺北市立南湖高中為例。中等教育，71（3），94-100。https://doi.org/10.6249/SE.202009_71(3).0023
    連結：
  4. 王竹梅、丁一顧（2022）。中小學跨領域教學的困境與反思。臺灣教育評論月刊，11（4），78-83。http://www.ater.org.tw/journal/article/11-4/topic/12.pdf
  5. 周淑卿、王郁雯（2019）。從課程統整到跨領域課程：台灣二十年的論述與問題。教育學報，47（2），41-59。
  6. 范信賢、薛雅慈、尤淑慧、王智弘（2018）。喚醒夢想．釋放天賦：臺灣實驗教育的另類課程實踐。國家教育研究院。
  7. 張文耀（2020）。體驗教育融入校訂必修課程之規劃與實施。臺灣教育評論月刊，9（8），79-85。http://www.ater.org.tw/journal/article/9-8/topic/13.pdf
  8. 教育部（2014／2021 修訂）。十二年國民基本教育課程綱要總綱。https://www.naer.edu.tw/upload/1/16/doc/288/(111學年度實施)十二年國教課程綱要總綱.pdf
  9. 曼海姆（Mannheim, K.）（2005）。意識型態與烏托邦（張明貴，譯）。桂冠。（原著出版年：1936）
  10. 陳建銘（2021）。普通型高中創新課程的規劃、實踐與啟示：以忠明高中為例。教育科學期刊，20（1），1-18。
  11. 傅木龍、林佩璇（2022）。深度學習：素養豈能速養？康大學報，12，1-14。
  12. 彭佳偉（2021）。臺中一中 108 課綱的課程新面貌。臺灣教育評論月刊，10（8），36-41。http://www.ater.org.tw/journal/article/10-8/topic/06.pdf
  13. 曾慶玲、黃春木、簡邦宗、童禕珊（2021）。專題探究課程素養導向實作評量之發展―以建中專題寫作與表達課程為例。臺灣教育評論月刊，10（5），167-191。http://www.ater.org.tw/journal/article/10-5/monography/02.pdf
  14. Billig, M., Condor, S., Edwards, D., Gane, M., Middleton, D., & Radley, A. (1988). Ideological dilemmas: A social psychology of everyday thinking. Sage.
  15. Cluley, V., Pilnick, A., & Fyson, R. (2022). Talking about learning disability: Discursive acts in managing an ideological dilemma. SSM-Qualitative Research in Health, 2, 100088. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ssmqr.2022.100088
  16. Engeström, Y. (2007). From stabilization knowledge to possibility knowledge in organizational learning. Management Learning, 38(3), 271-275. https://doi.org/10.1177/1350507607079026
  17. Ericsson, C., & Lindgren, M. (2011). The conditions for establishment of an ideological dilemma: Antagonistic discourses and over-determined identity in school music teaching. Discourse: Studies in the Cultural Politics of Education, 32(5), 713-728. https://doi.org/10.1080/01596306.2011.620754
  18. Friedman, E. S. (2023). Gray matters in institutional ideology: How ideological dilemmas affect orthodox teachers in North American community schools. Journal of Jewish Education, 89(2), 145-173. https://doi.org/10.1080/15244113.2023.2188321
  19. Holmberg, L. (2018). The future of childhood studies? Reconstructing childhood with ideological dilemmas and metaphorical expressions. Childhood, 25(2), 158-172. https://doi.org/10.1177/0907568218759788
  20. Lee, M., Ong, Y. H., & Martimianakis, M. A. (2022). Ideological dilemmas of healthcare professionals who do not speak up at interprofessional team meetings. Journal of Interprofessional Care, 37(1), 1-10. https://doi.org/10.1080/13561820.2022.2037530
  21. Lester, J. N., Paulus, T. M., & Scherff, L. (2015). Ideological dilemmas inherent in informal learning spaces: A discourse analysis of preservice teacher talk. The Qualitative Report, 20(6), 830-846. https://doi.org/10.46743/2160-3715/2015.2162
  22. Murakami, K., Kondo, S., & Hong, J. (2022). Teachers’ ideological dilemmas during the pandemic at higher education institutions: A discursive psychological approach. Human Arenas. https://doi.org/10.1007/s42087-022-00292-9
  23. Norwich, B. (1993). Ideological dilemmas in special needs education: Practitioner’s views. Oxford Review of Education, 19(4), 527-546.
  24. Patterson, A., Roman, D., Friend, M., Osborne, J., & Donovan, B. (2018). Reading for meaning: The foundational knowledge every teacher of science should have. International Journal of Science Education, 40(3), 291-307. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2017.1416205
  25. Potter, J. (2012). Discourse analysis and discursive psychology. In P. M. Camic, J. E. Rhodes, & L. Yardley (Eds.), Qualitative research in psychology: Expanding perspectives in methodology and design (pp. 73-94). American Psychological Association. https://doi.org/10.1037/10595-005
  26. Rainio, A. P., & Hofmann, R. (2021). Teacher professional dialogues during a school intervention: From stabilization to possibility discourse through reflexive noticing. Journal of The Learning Sciences, 30(4-5), 707-746. https://doi.org/10.1080/10508406.2021.1936532
  27. Smith, M. B., Early, M., & Kendrick, M. (2022). Teachers’ ideological dilemmas: Lessons learned from a Language Introduction Program in Sweden. Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development. https://doi.org/10.1080/01434632.2022.2126485
  28. Venäläinen, S. (2020). “What about men?” : Ideological dilemmas in online discussions about intimate partner violence committed by women. Feminism & Psychology, 30(4), 469-488. https://doi.org/10.1177/0959353520914238
  29. Wiggins, S. (2017). Discursive psychology, theory, method and applications. Sage. https://doi.org/10.4135/9781473983335
  30. Ziehe, T. (1986). Ny ungdom. Om ovanliga lä roprocesser [New youth: On unusual learning processes]. Norstedts.
print cancel