:::

詳目顯示

回上一頁
題名:課程決定的賦權迷思--集中化與離中化的探討
書刊名:教育研究集刊
作者:周淑卿 引用關係
作者(外文):Chou, Shu-ching
出版日期:2001
卷期:47
頁次:頁91-106
主題關鍵詞:九年一貫課程教師專業賦權Grade 1-9 curriculum frameworkTeacher professionalizationEmpowerment
原始連結:連回原系統網址new window
相關次數:
  • 被引用次數被引用次數:期刊(5) 博士論文(7) 專書(0) 專書論文(0)
  • 排除自我引用排除自我引用:5
  • 共同引用共同引用:32
  • 點閱點閱:230
英、美、紐、澳等英語系國家在90年代藉由全國課程與測驗的架構,加強中央的控制權;其課程政策顯現出課程權力集中化的趨勢。然而在學校管理方面,則遵行私有化、市場化原則,強化學校自主管理,以促進其服務品質,表現出「離中化」的傾向。然而,全國測驗成績提供家長選校的依據,市場機制促使學校遵行國定課程。於是象徵離中化的自由市場與代表集中化的國定課程(及全國測驗),共同加強了中央政府的課程集權,間接造成教師的去專業化。我國的九年一貫課程提倡「學校本位課程發展」,使我國的課程呈現出權力離中化的傾向,象徵我國的教師「賦權」時代來臨。但我國與前述國家的課程架構近似,不宜簡單地宣稱:離中化等於賦權。 本文指出在九年一貫課程下,教師並未增加一些前所未有的課程決定權;由其課程決定的層次看來,也難以跳脫課程執行者的角色;受限於績效責任的要求,而使教師的責任多於權力。與其說在目前的課程改革中產生了「教師賦權」,不如說中央藉此政策要求「教師增能」。 然而,若教師未能充分發展其專業知能,擴權只會適得其反;目前有限的賦予權責,未必不宜。賦權(empowerment)非但是讓教師「擴權」,更須「增能」。政策上對教師授權的多寡,應依教師能力而調整,方有利於教師成為真正的專業人員。
In the 1990s, the centralization in curriculum policy was strengthened in some English-speaking countries, such as the United Kingdom, America, New Zealand and Australia. National curriculum and national testing became the common means to control school curriculum. In addition, the decentralization trend is observed from privatization, marketization and site-based management. However, parents usually choose schools for children according to the performance indicators such as “examination league tables”. Consequently the schools must follow the national curriculum. The marketization signifying decentralization and the national curriculum representing centralization altogether strengthen the state authority over schools and result in teacher de-professionalization. In Taiwan, school-based curriculum development has become the symbol of decentralization and teacher empowerment. However, the real power of curriculum decision-making is not granter to teachers. The teacher role is still the executer. It is not appropriate to claim that school-based curriculum development results in teacher empowerment. This paper asserts that the real empowerment should involve growing of professional competence and increase of power.
期刊論文
1.沈姍姍(19980600)。教育改革趨向與影響因素分析--國際比較觀點。教育資料集刊,23,39-53。new window  延伸查詢new window
2.McGee, C.(1995)。The development of a new National Curriculum in New Zealand。The Educational Forum,60,56-63。  new window
3.Robertson, S.(1996)。Markets and teacher professionalism: Apolitical economy analysis。Melbourne Studies in Education,37(2),23-39。  new window
4.Cuban, L.(1990)。Four stories about national goals for American education。Phi Delta Kappan,72(4),264-271。  new window
5.Ferris, J. M.(1992)。School-based decision making: A principal-agent perspective。Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis,14(4),333-346。  new window
6.Seddon, T.(1997)。Education: Deprofessionalised? or reregulated, reorganized and reauthorized?。Australian Journal of Education,41(3),228-246。  new window
會議論文
1.Apple, M. W.(2000)。Markets, Standards, and Inequality in Education: Can Critical Pedagogies Interrupt Rightist Policies?。0。  new window
2.Apple, M. W.(2000)。Curriculum, teaching, and politics of educational reform。Taitung。  new window
3.Whitty, Geoff(2000)。Making Sense of Contemporary Education Reform: A Sociologist's Perspective。0。  new window
圖書
1.Klein,M. F.(1991)。The Politics of Curriculum Decision Making: Issues in Centralizing the Curriculum。Albany:State University of New York。  new window
2.DES(1983)。Teaching quality。London:HMSO。  new window
3.Department of Education and Science(1989)。National curriculum: From policy to practice。London:HMSO。  new window
4.Lawton, D.(1980)。The Politics of the School Curriculum。London:Roudedge & Kegan Paul。  new window
5.Marsh, Colin J.、Day, Christopher、Hannay, Lynne、McCutcheon, Gail(1990)。Reconceptualizing school-based curriculum development。The Falmer Press。  new window
6.黃政傑(1989)。課程改革。台北:漢文書店。  延伸查詢new window
7.McCulloch, G.(1997)。Teachers and the National Curriculum in England and Wales: Socio-historical frameworks。Teachers and the National Curriculum。London, UK。  new window
8.姜添輝(1999)。轉向中央集權模式的英國教育改革:1860年代至1990年代初期。教育研究與政策之國際比較。臺北:揚智文化。  延伸查詢new window
9.House, Ernest R(1998)。School for sale: why free market policies won't improve America's schools, and what will。New York, NY:Teachers College Press。  new window
10.Lawton, D.(1992)。Education and Politics in the 1990s: Conflict or Consensus?。Education and Politics in the 1990s: Conflict or Consensus?。London, UK。  new window
11.Dearing, R.(1994)。The National curriculum and its assessment: Final Report。The National curriculum and its assessment: Final Report。London, UK。  new window
12.Scheffler, I.(1977)。Justifying curriculum decisions。Curriculum and evaluation。Berkeley。  new window
13.Skilbeck, M.(1989)。A changing social and educational context。Policies for the curriculum。London, UK。  new window
14.Woods, B. J.、Troman, G.、Boyle, M.(1997)。Restructuring schools, reconstructing teachers - Responding to change in the primary school。Restructuring schools, reconstructing teachers - Responding to change in the primary school。Buckingham。  new window
 
 
 
 
第一頁 上一頁 下一頁 最後一頁 top
:::
無相關著作
 
QR Code
QRCODE