:::

詳目顯示

回上一頁
題名:教師課程實施關注階段與使用層次之研究--以二所國民小學為例
作者:劉祐彰
作者(外文):Yu-chung Liu
校院名稱:國立中正大學
系所名稱:課程研究所
指導教授:蔡清田
學位類別:博士
出版日期:2010
主題關鍵詞:使用層次關注階段課程實施levels of usestages of concerncurriculum practice
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(1) 博士論文(1) 專書(0) 專書論文(1)
  • 排除自我引用排除自我引用:0
  • 共同引用共同引用:0
  • 點閱點閱:133
教師課程實施關注階段與使用層次之研究-以二所國民小學為例
摘 要
九年一貫課程實施至今出現許多的問題困難值得深入探究與解決,爰此本研究運用課程實施關注階段以及課程實施使用層次的理論作為研究架構,進行國小教師實施九年一貫課程的質化研究。研究目的有四,分別是:
一、了解九年一貫課程改革國小教師課程實施的關注階段。
二、分析九年一貫課程改革國小教師課程實施的使用層次。
三、分析比較二所國小教師課程實施關注階段和使用層次的差異。
四、歸納文獻探討與研究發現,反省修正「關注本位採用模式」(CBAM), 並提出對我國國小教師課程實施關注階段和使用層次之理論與實務研究的啟示。
在研究方法方面,本研究屬於比較個案研究,採用質化研究中的參與觀察、深度訪談,以及文件分析為方法。研究結論如下:
壹、教師關注的問題包括如何轉化教科書課程內容為在地課程文本、審定版教科書淪為另一類型文本權威、品德教育融入各學習領域實施成效不佳、審定版教科書忽略課程內容縱向銜接和學習領域橫向統整,以及活動課程太多導致教師趕課與學生學習成效不佳;知覺到教科書商巧妙運用課程內容的銜接連貫藉以綁約、複製課程計畫光碟對於教師專業成長的影響、九年一貫課程欠缺哲學中心思想與知識價值觀、缺乏政策論述和教師參與、家長沒辦法教導孩子學業,以及學生學業成就M型雙峰的現象;感受到能力指標太過複雜阻礙教師課程設計、地方教育當局過度干預學校課程發展以及用行政命令強制教師進修研習成效不佳等問題。
貳、教師課程實施所遭遇的問題困難包括學校本位課程實施受到課程發展歷史經驗與行政支援經費挹注的影響、國語和數學領域教學節數嚴重不足、中高年級數學領域課程銜接不良、實施補救教學和課後輔導的成效不佳、教師習慣服膺文本權威、過分強調課程統整變成為了統整而統整、課程組織的運作功能影響教師專業與學校課程發展、地方教育當局外加課程嚴重排擠壓縮各領域的授課節數,以及教學輔導團對於解決教師課程教學問題的實質幫助不大。另一方面,教師教學行為與教學技巧的改變主要是因為學校課程發展歷史經驗和學校規模大小的因素所造成,在教學行為的改變包括教師進行課程設計的能力、課程討論與研究的風氣、實施協同教學的方式、教學省思和備課時間、測驗試題的分析與反省、運用多元評量方式。而在教學技巧的改變則包括:考量學生學習能力差異調整作業的份量和難度、靈活變換教學方法策略、讓精熟知識技能的學生擔任小老師、運用資訊融入教學提升學生的學習動機和興趣。
參、參與過九年一貫課程試辦的太陽國小教師其課程實施關注階段主要集中在第5合作的階段,且具有第6再關注階段的傾向,明顯高於未參與課程試辦的希望國小教師其課程實施關注階段集中在第4後果的階段,具有第5合作階段的傾向。太陽國小教師關注教師如何有效運用學年的協同合作進行學校本位課程設計與發展、改良教學和學習評量的方式、以及創新研發綜合活動領域課程教材。希望國小教師則是較為關注九年一貫課程改革對於學生學習的衝擊和影響,主要的焦點在於學生學習能力與學習成果的評鑑、改進學生學習所需的教學方式、學生學習的適切性等三大面向。
在課程實施的使用層次方面,參與過九年一貫課程試辦的太陽國小教師主要落點集中在第七統整的層次,亦明顯高於未參與課程試辦的希望國小教師其主要落點集中在第六精緻化的層次。希望國小教師在精緻化的層次,根據九年一貫課程短期和長期的實施成效,運用教學省思靈活變換教學方法和班級經營策略,並且善用教具營造學習情境,依據評量結果改進課程實施成效,關懷學生的課業學習,進一步將資訊融入各學習領域教學設法提升學生的學習動機和興趣。太陽國小教師在統整的層次,教學團隊經常分工合作協同討論,思考如何更有效運用統整課程設計在學校本位課程和戶外教學活動的實施。
肆、檢視本研究結果並對照比較相關文獻,反省修正「關注本位採用模式」(CBAM)的要點如下:(一)潛藏科學控制和科學解釋的價值信念,過於強調教師個人的改變,忽略了學校正式組織的改變,以及學校所處的政治、社會、文化脈絡的影響。(二)關注本位採用模式未能明確區分論述課程改革方案特徵本身的優劣,以及與學校課程領導與課程發展相關重要人員的影響,無法完整描繪課程實施的整體面貌。(三)關注階段與使用層次受限於固定的階段和層次,無法完全徹底區分不同學校不同教師如何不同地實施一項新課程,也可能降低各個革新課程方案之間的差異。
最後,本研究根據研究發現與研究結論,從課程實施「關注本位採用模式」的修正、課程變革特徵因素、學校組織發展特徵因素、學校外在因素等四層面提出研究建議,以俾提供相關單位與人員作為實施九年一貫課程之參酌,也提供國民小學持續推動九年一貫課程之依據。
關鍵詞:課程實施、關注階段、使用層次
A Study On Stages of Concern and Levels of Use of Elementary School Teachers’ Curriculum Practice
Abstract
Since the practice of Grade 1-9 Curriculum, there are many issue and difficulties to be further explored and solved so far; therefore, in this research, stages of concern and levels of use used in curriculum practice are used as the framework of the research, to carry out the qualitative research of the practice of Grade 1-9 Curriculum in elementary schools. There are four goals of this research:
1. To understand the stages of concern of Grade 1-9 Curriculum reform from elementary school teachers’ practice.
2. To analyze the levels of use of Grade 1-9 Curriculum reform from elementary school teachers’ practice.
3. To analyze and compare the difference between stages of concern and levels of use of elementary school teachers’ practicing curriculum in two schools.
4. By concluding the discussion of documentary and the finding of the research for the review and correct CBAM, the inspiration on stages of concern and levels of use of elementary school teachers and practical research are addressed.
In the aspects of study method, this study belongs to more like case study, by using attending observation in qualitative research, deep interview and document analysis as methods. The conclusions are as followed:
1. Issues drown teachers’ concern includes: how to transfer the content of text books to local curriculum text; the approved version becoming the authority of the other type of version; the ineffectiveness of practice from the morality education blending in all learning fields; the text books in approved version ignore the vertical connection of curriculum content and horizontal integration of learning fields; too many activity curriculum cause the problem on teachers’ rush to class and students’ ineffectiveness of learning; text book sellers skillful manipulate the coherence of the curriculum content for getting the contract; the influence on teachers’ profession growth from the copy of curriculum program discs; Grade 1-9 Curriculum is lack of the core thought of philosophy, knowledge value, policy narration, and teachers’ participation; parents are not capable of teaching children’s study; students’ study achievement appears as two peaks of M-model; the capability indication is too complicated and becomes the barrier for teachers to design courses; local education authority over interfere schools for the development of curriculum, and force teacher to go further study by using executive order with the result of ineffectiveness.
2. Problems and difficulties encountered by teachers curriculum practice include the practice of school-based curriculum is influenced by historical experience of curriculum development and executive support on finance; teaching hours are seriously inadequate in subjects of Chinese and Math; math-field lessons are not well-connected in 3 to 6 grade; the ineffective practice of remedial instruction and after-school tutoring; teachers are used to rely on the authority of the text; over emphasis on curriculum integration becomes to integrate just for integration’s sake; the function of curriculum organization influences teachers’ profession and curriculum development in school; local education authority seriously push teaching hours of all fields out by adding extra curriculums; tutoring groups are not actually helpful for solving teachers’ teaching problems. Besides, changes of teachers’ teaching behavior and teaching skill are mainly because of the historical experience of curriculum development in school and the size of schools. Changes on teaching behavior includes teachers’ ability on designing curriculums, curriculum discussion and atmosphere of study, ways of practicing collaborative teaching, teaching examination and preparation time, analysis and review on questions of tests, and ways of using multiple evaluation. Changes on teaching skills include by the consideration on differences on students’ learning ability to adjust loading of homework and difficulty, to flexibly change teaching policy, to appoint students with knowledge and skill as tutors, to use information to add teaching for strengthening students learning motivation and interests.
3. Teachers in Sun Elementary school joined the trial of Grade 1-9 Curriculum, their concern stages in practicing curriculum are mainly focused on the fifth cooperation stage, with the intention of the sixth repetitive concern stages, which apparently are higher than teachers in Hope Elementary school who did not join the trial of Grade 1-9 Curriculum, from whose concern stages in practicing curriculum are mainly focused on the on the fourth outcome stage, with the intention of the fifth cooperation stage. Sun Elementary school teachers emphasize more on how teacher effectively use collaboration of semester year to carry out the design and development of school-based curriculum, teaching reform and learning evaluation, and innovative conduct curriculum material of comprehensive activities. Hope Elementary school teachers concerned more on the impact and influence on students’ learning from the reform of Grade 1-9 Curriculum. Their main focus is on students’ learning ability and the evaluation of learning achievement, the improvement of teaching ways fit for students’ learning, the appropriateness of students’ learning.
In the aspect of levels of use of curriculum practice, teachers in Sun Elementary school joined the trial of Grade 1-9 Curriculum mainly fell on the seventh integration level, which is apparently higher than teacher in Hope Elementary school who did not join the trial of Grade 1-9 Curriculum mainly fell on the sixth delicacy level. In the aspect of the delicacy level, teachers in Hope Elementary school used teaching examination to flexibly change ways of teaching by both short-term and long-term results from practicing Grade 1-9 Curriculum, and utilized teaching equipment to form learning situation based on the outcome of evaluation to improve the result of curriculum practice, and cared students’ learning, then further had information blended into teaching of all fields, in hoping to strengthen students learning motivation and interest. In the aspect of integration level, teachers in Sun Elementary school often had teaching group cooperate and discuss, thinking how to be more effectively use the integrated curriculum design on school-based curriculum and the practice of outdoor teaching activities.
4. To review the outcome of this research and compare the related document, the points of the examination adjustment “CBAM” are as followed: A. The evaluation and belief with scientific control and explanation hidden would over stress on the personal changes of teachers, with the ignorance of changes on schools’ formal organization, and political, social, cultural influences in schools. B. concerns-based adoption model cannot clearly distinguish the advantages and disadvantages from curriculum reforming policy of narration curriculum, and influence of curriculum leadership and curriculum development-related important people, and cannot completely describe the whole face of curriculum practice. C. Concern stage and use level are limited in the fixed stages and levels, which cannot fully distinguish how to carry out a new curriculum from different schools, teachers, and places, and also possibly reduce the differences between all reforming policies of curriculums.
In summary, this research is based on the finding and conclusion of the research, from Concerns-Based Adoption Model of curriculum practice, features and elements of curriculum reform, features and elements of organization development in schools, external elements of schools, the suggestions of research are proposed accordingly, in hoping to provide reference for the authority concern and people to carry out Grade 1-9 Curriculum, as well as the basis of continuously getting Grade 1-9 Curriculum for elementary schools.
Key words: curriculum practice, stages of concern, levels of use
參考書目
方永泉(2002)。當代思潮與比較教育研究。臺北:師大書苑。new window
方永泉(2003)。詮釋學理論與教育研究的關係-以呂格爾的詮釋學理論為例。發表於教育研究方法論學術研討會論文集。國立台灣師範大學主辦,2003年4月19-20日。
方德隆(2001)。學校本位課程發展的理論基礎。課程與教學季刊,4(2),new window
1-24頁。
方德隆(2003)。九年一貫課程改革的理論與實務。高雄:麗文文化。
王全興(2009)。九年一貫課程改革理論構念落實之評估研究。國立中正大學課程研究所博士論文,未出版,嘉義縣。new window
王昭正、朱瑞淵譯(1999),Jorgensen, D. L. 著。參與觀察法。臺北:弘智文化。
王嘉陵(2006)。國小場域九年一貫課程實施之探究-批判教育學觀點。國立高雄師範大學教育研究所博士論文,未出版,高雄市。new window
王慧蘭(2002)。重複性思維/創造性思維:學校生活世界的邏輯和教育改革。載於財團法人國立臺南師院校務發展文教基金會。臺灣教育社會學學會(主編)九年一貫課程與教育改革議題:教育社會學取向的分析(135-154頁)。高雄:復文圖書。
尹弘飈、李子建(2008)。課程變革:理論與實踐。臺北:高教出版社。
白亦方(2007)。IT課程的應然與實然。載於中華民國教材研究發展學會舉辦 之「邁向課程新紀元-九年一貫課程」研討會論文集(下冊)(頁217-242),台北縣。new window
宋文里(2004)。批判教育學導論。Barry Kanpol著--Critical Pedagogy:An
Introduction。張盈堃、彭秉權、蔡宜剛、劉益誠合譯。臺北:心理出版社。
李子建、黃顯華(1996)。課程:範式、取向和設計。臺北:五南圖書出版公司。new window
李坤崇、歐慧敏(2000)。統整課程理念與實務。臺北:心理出版社。
李坤崇(2002a)。多元化教學評量。載於教育部主編:國中小教師基礎研習手冊,120-162。臺北:教育部。
李坤崇(2002b)。多元化教學評量理念與推動策略。教育研究月刊,91,24-36。new window
李坤崇(2002c)。國民中小學成績評量準則之多元評量理念。載於教育部主編:國中小校長與督學培訓手冊,137-154。臺北:教育部。
李奉儒(2000)。批判理論及其在教育研究上的應用。載於中正大學教育學研究所(主編)質的研究方法(頁335-367)。高雄:麗文文化。
李奉儒(2003a)。P. Freire的批判教學論對於教師實踐教育改革的啟示。教育研究集刊,49(3),1-30。new window
李奉儒(2003b)。從教育改革的批判談教師作為實踐教育正義的能動者。臺灣教育社會學研究,3(2),113-150。new window
李奉儒(2004)。九年一貫課程中實施道德教育的困境與突破。學生輔導,92,38-55。
李俊湖(1992)。國民小學教師專業成長與教學效能關係之研究。國立臺灣師範大學教育研究所碩士論文,未出版,臺北市。
李雅菁(2004)。教育改革外一章:從教師角色及教師授課時數的角度來談教育改革出了什麼問題?應用心理研究,21,123-137。new window
李嘉齡(2002)。批判俗民誌與比較教育研究。國立臺北師範學院學報,15,213-231。new window
李順詮、王月美(2002)。跨越學校本位課程發展的鴻溝-一個教育現場的反思。載於中華民國課程與教學學會(主編)新世紀教育工程-九年一貫課程再造(55-75頁)。臺北:揚智。
阮光勛(1999)。國民小學課程實施之研究。國立中正大學教育研究所碩士論文,未出版,嘉義縣。
林進財(1999)。從形式課程到實質課程-論教師層面的課程實施及其對師資培育的啟示。中等教育,50(1),34-45。
林佩璇等(譯)(2000)。課程統整。臺北:學富。
林佩璇(2004)。學校課程實踐與行動研究。臺北:高教出版社。
周珮儀(1999)。從社會批判到後現代-季胡課程理論之研究。臺北:師大書苑。new window
周珮儀(2001)。追求社會正義的課程理論-H. A. Giroux課程理論之探究。教育研究集刊,46(1),1-29。new window
周珮儀(2002)。國小教師解讀教科書的方式。國立臺北師範學院學報,15,115-155。new window
周淑卿(1999)。論九年一貫課程的「統整」問題。載於中華民國課程與教學學會主編,九年一貫課程之展望,53-78。臺北:揚智。new window
周淑卿(2001)。課程決定的賦權迷思-集中化與離中化的探討。教育研究集刊,47,91-105。new window
周淑卿(2002)。課程政策與課程改革。臺北:師大書苑。
周淑卿(2003)。國小教師在課程領域的專業身分認同研究。臺北:師大書苑。new window
周淑卿(2004)。課程發展與教師專業。臺北:高教出版社。
吳曲輝等譯(1996)。Turner, J. H. 著:The Structure of Sociological Theory。臺北:桂冠。
吳芝儀(2000)。建構論及其在教育研究上的應用。載於中正大學教
育學研究所(主編)質的研究方法(頁183-220)。高雄:麗文文化。
吳芝儀譯,Bogdan, R. C. & Biklen, S. K.著(2001):資料分析。載於黃光雄主譯,李奉儒等譯,質性教育研究(頁219-263)。 嘉義:濤石。
吳芝儀、李奉儒譯,Patton, M. Q.著(1995):質的評鑑與研究。臺北:桂冠。
呂錘卿(2000)。國民小學教師專業成長的指標及其規劃模式之研究。國立高雄師範大學教育學系博士論文,未出版,高雄市。new window
沈翠蓮(1994)。國民小學教師專業成長、教學承諾與教學效能關係之研究。國立高雄師範大學教育研究所碩士論文,未出版,高雄市。
林生傳(1999)。九年一貫課程的社會學評析。載於中華民國課程與教學學會(主編)九年一貫課程之展望(3-28頁)。臺北:揚智。
林生傳(2004)。九年一貫課程的實踐系統之解析。載於林生傳(主編)九年一貫課程理論基礎叢書(281-292頁)。臺北:教育部。
林明地(2000a)。質的研究實例舉隅:校長領導的參與觀察。載於中正大學教育學研究所(主編)質的研究方法(頁51-91)。高雄:麗文文化。
林明地(2000b)。校長課程領導與學校本位課程發展。載於臺南師院主編:九年一貫課程:從理論、政策到執行。高雄:復文。
林佩璇(1999)。學校本位課程發展的研究:台北縣鄉土教學活動的課程發展。國立臺灣師範大學教育研究所博士論文,未出版,臺北市。new window
林佩璇(2000)。個案研究及其在教育研究上的應用。載於中正大學教育學研究所(主編)質的研究方法(頁239-263)。高雄:麗文文化。
林佩璇(2004)。學校課程實踐與行動研究。臺北:高教出版社。
林奇賢(1998)。網路學習環境的設計與應用。資訊與教育,67,34-49。
林清江、蔡清田(1997)。國民中小學課程發展共同原則之研究。嘉義國立中正大學教育學程中心。教育部委託專案。
林進材(2000)。從課程改革論教師層面的課程實施-以九年一貫課程為例。載於財團法人國立台南師院校務發展文教基金會(主編),九年一貫課程:從理論、政策到執行(頁99-116)。高雄:復文。
胡幼慧、姚美華(2005)。一些質性方法上的思考。載於胡幼慧(主編)質性研究-理論、方法及本土女性研究實例(頁141-158)。臺北:巨流圖書。
姜添輝(2002)。九年一貫課程政策影響教師專業自主權之研究。教育研究集刊,48(2),157-197。new window
洪志成、廖梅花譯(2002),Krueger, R. A., & Casey, M. A. 著。焦點團體:研究實用手冊。嘉義:濤石。
夏林清(2005)。實踐取向的研究方法。載於胡幼慧(主編)質性研究-理論、方法及本土女性研究實例(頁99-120)。臺北:巨流圖書。
高新建(1991)。國小教師課程決定之研究。國立臺灣師範大學教育研究所碩士論文,未出版,臺北市。
高新建(1998)。我國實施社會科課程統整的若干經驗與實驗。教育研究,62,12-17。new window
孫國華、蔡培村(1995)。我國中小學教師生涯發展之實證分析。教育概論座談會議資料。new window
徐易男(2005)。小型學校整併之可行性分析-以高雄縣為例。學校行政,37,182-195。
徐振邦等譯,L. Cohen, L. Manion & K. Morrison合著(2004):教育研究法。臺北:韋伯文化。
張建成(2002)。批判的教育社會學研究。台北:學富。
張茂源(2003)。九年一貫課程試辦國小教師工作壓力訪談研究。國立嘉義大學國民教育研究所碩士論文,未出版,嘉義市。
張清良(2004)。地方政府執行九年一貫課程政策之研究。國立政治大學教育研究所博士論文,未出版,臺北市。new window

張盈堃、陳慧璇(2004)。矛盾:基層教師生活世界的宰制與抗拒。應用心理研究,21,35-62。new window
張盈堃等譯(2004),Kanpol, Barry著。批判教育學導論。臺北:心理。
教育部(1998)。國民教育階段九年一貫課程總綱綱要。取自:民89,1,4
教育部(2000)。國民中小學九年一貫課程暫行綱要。取自:民90,1,2new window
教育部編印(2003)。國民中小學九年一貫課程綱要社會學習領域。
教育部(2009)。教育部補助國民中小學及幼稚園弱勢學生實施要點。2009年4月26日,取自http://www.edu.tw/files/regulation/B0055/五合一要點全文.doc
許朝信(2000)。高屏地區國小教師教室內教學困擾之研究。教育與心理研究,23,47-72。new window
許朝信(2002)。國小教師課程設計能力之研究。國立中正大學教育研究所博士論文,未出版,嘉義縣。new window
畢恆達(1999)。詮釋學與質性研究。載於胡幼慧(主編)質性研究-理論、方法及本土女性研究實例(頁27-45)。臺北:巨流圖書。
莊明貞(2003)。當前台灣課程重建的可能性:一個批判教育學的觀點。載於莊明貞(主編)課程改革-反省與前瞻(24-28頁)。臺北:高等教育。new window
郭至和(2002)。誰抓得住我-課程改革中的教師角色和定位。花蓮師院學報,14,1-24頁。new window
陳之華(2008)。沒有資優班,珍視每個孩子的芬蘭教育。臺北:木馬文化事業。
陳向明(2000)。質的研究方法與社會科學研究。北京:教育科學。new window
陳向明(2002)。社會科學質的研究。臺北:五南圖書出版公司。new window
陳伯璋(1990)。教育研究方法的新取向-質的研究方法(增訂版)。臺北:南宏圖書公司。
陳伯璋(1999a)。九年一貫課程的理念與理論分析。載於中華民國教材研究發展學會舉辦之「邁向課程新紀元—九年一貫課程」研討會論文集(上)(頁10-18),臺北縣。new window
陳伯璋(1999b)。九年一貫新課程綱要修訂的背景及內涵。教育研究資訊,7(1),1-13。new window
陳伯璋(1999c)。九年一貫課程的理念、內涵與評析。載於新世紀中小學課程改革與創新教學學術研討會。高雄市:國立高雄師範大學。〔Online〕.Available: http://www.nknu.edu.tw/~edu/item2-article7.htm(2000,03,23)
陳伯璋(2001a)。新世紀課程改革的挑戰與省思。臺北:師大書苑。new window
陳伯璋(2001b)。學校本位課程發展與行動研究。載於中華民國課程與教學學會(主編),行動研究與課程教學革新(頁33-48)。臺北:揚智文化。
陳美如(2001)。教師作為課程評鑑者:從理念到實踐。課程與教學季刊,4(4),93-111。new window
陳康宜(2005,5月12日)。北市擬增加小學國語授課時數。國語日報新聞報。2002年5月15日,取自tw-letter@yahoo.com.tw
陳啟榮(2006)。裁併小班小校教育議題之分析。臺灣教育,638,38-41。
陳奎熹(1990)。教育社會學研究。臺北:師大書苑。
陳健生(2007)。課程統整:理論與實際的差距在哪?。載於中華民國教材研究發展學會(主編),第九屆「兩岸三地課程理論研討會」課程理論與課程改革(上)(頁210-224)。臺北:中華民國教材研究發展學會。
陳麗華(1993)。國小實習教師的社會科教學推理之研究-結構與意識的辯證。國立臺灣師範大學教育學系博士論文,未出版,臺北。new window
單文經(2004)。Rugg 及 Bruner 社會領域課程改革經驗的啟示。發表國立屏東師範學院主辦第十一屆課程教學論壇學術研討會:《邊陲與發聲—課程與教學的文化政治與社會正義》。245-267。國立屏東師範學院。new window
梁恆正(1974)。布魯納認知理論在課程組織中的應用。教育研究集刊,17,413-485。
曾秀鳳(2002)。國小教科書選用及相關問題之研究。嘉大國教所國民教育研究學報,9,15-45。new window
馮朝霖(1998)。教師文化的轉化。社教雙月刊,87,5-7。
馮朝霖(2002)。自我賦權、公民社會與教育改革:台灣近十年教育改革的理論與反思。亞洲研究,42,53-74。new window
黃永和(2005)。教學文化的概念探討。課程與教學,8(3),27-40。new window
黃光雄、蔡清田(1999)。課程設計。臺北:五南圖書出版公司。
黃光雄、蔡清田(2004)。課程設計:理念與實作。臺北:五南圖書出版公司。
黃光雄、蔡清田(2009)。課程發展與設計。臺北:五南圖書出版公司。
黃光雄、楊龍立(2000)。課程設計。臺北:師大書苑。
黃秀穎(2001)。兩位教師參與九年一貫試辦經驗之研究。國立臺北師範學院國民教育研究所碩士論文,未出版,臺北市。
黃政傑(1988)。教育理想的追求。臺北:心理出版社。
黃政傑(1991)。課程設計。臺北:東華。
黃政傑(1997)。課程改革的理念與實踐。臺北:漢文。new window
黃政傑(1999)。永續的課程改革經營。發表於國立高雄師範大學教育系主辦「迎向千禧年-新世紀中小學課程改革與創新教學」學術研討會。1999年12月18日。屏東悠活飯店。
黃瑞琴(1991)。質的教育研究方法。臺北:心理出版社。
黃嘉雄(1999)。落實學校本位課程發展的行政領導策略。國民教育,44(1),29-34。new window
黃嘉雄(2000)。轉化社會結構的課程理論:課程社會學的觀點。臺北:師大書苑。new window
游淑燕(1993)。國民小學教師課程決定權取向及其參與意願之研究。國立政治大學教育研究所博士論文,未出版,臺北市。new window
詹志禹、蔡金火(2001)。九年一貫課程改革與教師行動研究。載於中華民國課程與教學學會(主編),行動研究與課程教學革新(頁75-99)。臺北:揚智文化。
楊深坑(1988)。理論、詮釋與實踐:教育學方法論論文集。臺北:師大書苑。new window
楊智穎(2003)。國民小學鄉土語言課程實施之研究-以三所國民小學為例。國立臺灣師範大學教育研究所博士論文,未出版,臺北市。new window
楊智穎(2004)。文化歷史觀點的課程改革研究。載於單文經(主編)課程與教學新論(121-140頁)。臺北:心理。
楊龍立(2003)。九年一貫課程與文化。臺北:五南。
楊龍立、潘麗珠(2001)。統整課程的探討與設計。臺北:五南。
甄曉蘭(2000a)。批判俗民誌及其在教育研究上的應用。載於中正大學教育學研究所(主編)質的研究方法(頁369-393)。高雄:麗文文化。
甄曉蘭(2000b)。新世紀課程改革的挑戰與課程實踐理論的重建。教育研究集刊,44,61-90。new window
甄曉蘭、簡良平(2001)。學校本位課程發展之社會學批判。發表於課程與教學論壇。民國九十年十月二十、二十一日,嘉義:國立中正大學。
劉玉玲(2005)。課程發展與設計。臺北:新文京開發文化。
劉育忠(2002)。自覺、批判與轉化-從批判教育學中「抗拒」概念之意涵試論其在課程改革中之實踐途徑。載於中華民國課程與教學學會(主編)新世紀教育工程-九年一貫課程再造(213-229頁)。臺北:揚智。
劉祐彰(2007)。中小學教師進行課程行動研究的困境與省思。中等教育,58(6),22-35。new window
劉祐彰(2008)。國民中小學實施試辦教師專業發展評鑑計畫可能面臨的困境與可行途徑。教育學術彙刊,2(1),81-103。new window
劉筱琳(2001)。國小教師對統整課程實施之意見調查研究。國立嘉義大學國民教育研究所碩士論文,未出版,嘉義縣。
歐用生(1996a)。課程與教學革新。臺北:師大書苑。
歐用生(1996b)。教師專業成長。臺北:師大書苑。
歐用生(1997)。教科書事件平議。國民教育,37(3),3-10。
歐用生(1999)。從課程統整的概念評析九年一貫課程。教育研究資訊,7(1),128-138。new window
歐用生(2000)。課程改革。臺北:師大書苑。
歐用生(2002)。披著羊皮的狼?-九年一貫課程實施的深度思考。載於中華民國課程與教學學會編:新世紀教育工程-九年一貫課程再造。臺北:揚智出版社。
歐用生(2003a)。教師是轉型的知識份子-聲音的「政策」與「教學」。載於歐用生(著)課程典範再建構(頁61-76)。高雄:麗文文化。new window
歐用生(2003b)。快樂學習或安樂死。體驗學習的批判教育學意涵。載於歐用生(著)課程典範再建構(頁39-59)。高雄:麗文文化。new window
歐用生(2003c)。台灣中小學的課程管理:理念與實踐。載於歐用生(著)課程典範再建構(頁95-110)。高雄:麗文文化。new window
歐用生(2004)。課程領導:議題與展望。臺北:高等教育。
歐用生(2006)。課程理論與實踐。臺北:學富文化。
歐用生(2007)。課程理論與實際的「辯證」-一條漫長的課程改革之路。載於中華民國教材研究發展學會主編課程理論與課程改革。臺北:中華民國教材研究發展學會。又載於周淑卿與陳麗華主編課程改革的挑戰與省思(1-26)。黃光雄教授七十大壽祝壽論文集。高雄:麗文文化。
歐用生(1998)。當前課程改革的檢討。載於歐用生、楊慧文(合著)新世紀的課程改革—兩岸觀點(頁221-241)。臺北:五南圖書出版公司。new window
潘淑滿(2003)。質性研究理論與應用。臺北:心理出版社。
潘道仁(2003)。國民中學九年一貫課程實施現況調查研究。國立高雄師範大學教育研究所碩士論文,未出版,高雄市。
翟本瑞(2001)。網路文化。臺北:揚智。
蔡清田(1999)。九年一貫國民教育課程改革與教師專業發展之研究。載於中華民國課程與教學學會(主編),九年一貫課程之展望(頁147-169)。臺北:揚智文化。
蔡清田(2001)。課程改革實驗。臺北:五南圖書出版公司。
蔡清田(2002)。學校整體課程經營。臺北:五南圖書出版公司。
蔡清田(2003)。課程政策決定。臺北:五南圖書出版公司。
蔡清田等(2004)。課程發展行動研究。臺北:五南圖書出版公司。new window
蔡清田等(2005)。課程領導與學校本位課程發展。臺北:五南圖書出版公司。new window
蔡清田(2006)。課程創新。臺北:五南圖書出版公司。
蔡清田等(2007)。學校本位課程發展的新猷與教務課程領導。臺北:五南圖書出版公司。new window
蔡清田(2008)。課程學。臺北:五南圖書出版公司。
蔡清田、劉祐彰(2007)。國小教師課程設計的實踐與難題。課程研究,3(1),59-85。new window
蔡敏玲(2004)。我看教育質性研究創塑意義的問題與難題:經歷、剖析與再脈絡化。國立臺北師範學院學報,17(1),493-518。new window
蔡慶賢(1997)。進入方案教學的世界(II)。臺北:光佑。
蔡瑞君(2004)。成為一個「被認可的」教師:三位國小教師的敘說分析。載於張盈堃、蔡瑞君、郭瑞坤、蔡中蓓(合著)誰害怕教育改革-結構、行動與批判教育學(頁221-241)。臺北:洪葉文化。
鄭同僚審定(2004),Phil Francis Carspecken著。教育研究的批判俗民誌-理論與實務指南。臺北:高教出版社。
鄭明長(1997)。課程實施與教室談話歷程的詮釋分析-以國小五年級社會科教育觀察為例。國立政治大學教育研究所博士論文,未出版,臺北。
黎萬紅、盧乃桂(2002)。權力下放與教師的專業自主-港台兩地教育改革的經驗與思考。教育研究集刊,48(4),53-74。new window
蕭昭君、陳巨擘譯(2003),McLaren, Peter著。學校生活:批判教育學導論。臺北:巨流。
蕭富元等著(2008)。芬蘭教育,世界第一的秘密。臺北:天下雜誌。new window
薛梨真(2000)。國小教師統整課程實施成效之評估。課程與教學季刊,3(1),39-58。new window
謝廣錚(2007)。斑級社會學方法論的新取向:批判俗民誌的運用與反思。載於陳伯璋、張盈堃(主編)學校教師的生活世界:批判教育學的在地實踐(頁65-97)。臺北:師大書苑。new window
羅厚輝(2002)。課程發展的理論基礎。臺北:學富。
簡良平(2001)。中小學學校課程決定之個案研究。國立臺灣師範大學教育學系博士論文,未出版,臺北。new window
顏銘志(1996)。國民小學教師教學信念、教師效能與教學行為之相關研究。國立屏東師範學院國民教育研究所碩士論文,未出版,屏東縣。
饒見維(1999)。九年一貫課程與教師專業發展之配套實施策略。載於中華民國教材研究發展學會舉辦之「邁向課程新紀元-九年一貫課程」研討會論文集(下冊)(頁305-323),台北縣。
饒見維(2001)。九年一貫課程與教師專業角色的省思。教師天地,113,7-13。
顧瑜君(譯)(2000)。 Wolcott, H. F.著。質性研究寫作。臺北:五南圖書出版公司。
Adler, P. A., & Adler, P. (1994). Observational Techniques. In: Denzin, N. K., & Lincoln, Y. S. (Eds.), Handbooks of Qualitative Research. (pp. 377-392). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Altheide, D. L. & Johnson, J. M. (1994). Criteria for Assessing Interpretive Validity in Qualitative Research. In Denzin, N. K. & Lincoln, Y. S. (Eds.), Handbook of Qualitative Research. (pp. 485-499). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Anderson, G. L. (1989). Critical ethnography in education: Origins, current
status, and new directions. Review of Educational Research, 59(3),
249-270.
Anderson, S. E. (1997). Understanding teacher change: Revisiting the concerns based adoption model. Curriculum inquiry, 27(3), 331-367.
Anderson, G. (1998). Fundamentals of educational research. (2nd). London: Falmer Press.
Anderson, B., & Odden, A. (1986). State initiatives can foster school improvement. Phi Delta Kappan, 67(8).578-581.
Anderson, G. L., & Irvine, P. (1993). Informing Critical Literacy with Ethnography. C. Lankshear & P. McLaren(eds.), Critical Literacy: Politics, Praxis, and Postmodern(pp.81-104). Albany, NY: State University of New York Press.
Angrosino, M. V. & Mays de Perez, K. A. (2000). Rethinking observation from method to context. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of qualtative research, 2nd (pp. 673-702). CA: Sage Publications.
Aoki, T.T. (1988). “Toward a Dialectic Between the Conceptual World and the Lived World.” In W. Pinar (ed.), Contemporary Curriculums Discourse (pp.402-416). Scottsdale. AZ: Gorsuch Scarisbrick.
Aoki, T.T. (2003). Locating living pedagogy in teacher “research”: Five metonymic moments. In E. Hasebe-Ludt & W. Hurren(Eds.), Curriculum intertext: Place, language, pedagogy(pp.1-10). New York: Peter Lang.
Apple, M.W. (1982). Education and power. London: RKP.
Apple, M.W. (1983). Curricular form and the logic of technical control. In M. W. Apple & L. Weis (Eds), Ideology and practice in schooling. (pp.143-166). Philadelphia: Temple University Press.
Apple, M.W. (1986). Teachers and texts: A political economy of class and gender relations in education. London: RKP.
Apple, M. W. (1989a). Teachers and texts: A political economy of class and gender relations in education(2nd ed.). New York: Routledge.
Apple, M. W. (1989b). The political economy of text publishing . In S. Castell, A. Luke & C. Luke (Eds), Language, authority and criticism—Readings on the school textbook (pp. 155-169). London: The Falmer Press.
Apple, M. W. (1996). Cultural Politics and Education, N. Y: Teachers College.
Apple, M. W. (2000). Curriculum, Teaching and the Politics of Educational Reform. 發表於第二屆課程與教學論壇暨「中小學課程與教學革新」學術研討會。2000.10.28台東師院主辦。
Armstrong, D. G. (1989). Developing and Documenting the Curriculum. Boston: Allyn & Bacon.
Aronowitz, S. & Giroux, H. A. (1985). Education under siege: The conservative, liberal and radical debate over schooling. Massachusette: Bergin & Garvey.
Aronowitz, S. & Giroux, H. A. (1991). Postmodern Education-Politics, Cultures and Social Criticism. Oxford: Minnesota U.P.
Aronowitz, S. & Giroux, H. A. (1993). Education still under siege(2nd. Ed.). Connecticut: Bergin & Garvey.
Bailey, D. B., & Palsha, S. A. (1992). Qualities of the stages of concern questionnaire and implications for educational innovations. Journal of Educational Research, 85(4), 226-232.
Banks, D. & Stave, A. (1998). Modeling curriculum integration with secondary preservice teachers: A case study. Eduactional Research Quarterly, 22(1), 47-57.
Bascia, N. (1998). Teacher unions and educational reform. In A. Hargreaves, A. Lieberman, M. Fullan, & D. Hopkins (Eds.), International handbook of educational change, Part I (pp. 895-951). Dordrecht, Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
Bashutshi. B. (1995). Support provided for teachers implementing CORE curriculum. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service NO. ED391220)
Beane, J. A .(1998). Curriculum integration: Designing the core of democratic education. New York: Teachers College Press.
Benz, C. R., Bradley, L., Alderman, M. K., & Flowers, M. A. (1992). Personal teaching efficacy: Development relationship in education. Journal of educational research, 85, 274-285.
Berman, R. & Mclaughlin, M. W. (1975). Federal programs supporting educational change: Vol . IV. The findings in review. Santa Monica, CA: Rand Corporation.
Bernstein, B. (1971). Class, codes and control. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.
Bernstein, B. (1975). Class, codes and control. Vol. 3: Toward a theory of educational transmission. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.
Bernstein, B. (1977). Class, codes and control. Vol. 1: Theoretical Studies towards a Socuology of Language. London, Henley & Boston: Routledge & Kegan Paul.
Bernstein, B. (1990). The structure of pedagogical discourse. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.
Biklen, S.K. (1995). School work: Gender and the cultural construction of teaching. New York: Teachers College Press.
Bogdan, R. (1983). Teaching fieldwork to educational researchers. Anthropology & Education Quarterly, 14(3), 171-178.
Bogdewic, S. (1992). Participant Observation. In Crabtree, B. F., and Miller, W. L. (Eds.), Doing Qualitative Research (pp. 45-69). Newbury Park: Sage.
Bourdieu, P. & Passerson, J. C. (1977). Reproduction in Education, Society and Cutural. tran. By R. Nice, London & Beverly Hills: Stage.
Bourdieu, P. (1993). The Field of Cutural Productive, Cambridge: Polity Press.
Bradley, H. (1991). Staff development. London: Falmer.
Brennan, Catherine (1997). Max Weber on Power and Social Stratification-An Interpretation and Critique. Athenaeum Press, Ltd., Gateshead, Tyne & Wear.
Brophy, J. E. (1982). How teachers influence what is taught and learned in classroom. The Elementary School Journal, 83(1), 1-13.
Bruner, J. S. (1960). The process of education. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Bruner, J. S. (1996). The culture of education. Cambridge, MA: President and Fellows of Harvard College.
Bryk, A., & Driscoll, M. (1988). The high school as community: Contextual influences and consequences for students and teachers. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Calderhead, J., & Robson, M. (1991). Images of teaching: student teachers’ early conceptions of classroom practice. Teaching and Teacher Education, 7(1), 1-8.
Cavers, L. (1989). Teacher efficacy:Its relationship to school level organizational condition and teacher demographic characteristics, Dissertation Abstracts International, 49, 3563A.
Cheung, D. (2002). Refining a stage model for studying teacher concerns about educational innovations. Australian Journal of Education, 46(3), 305-322.
Chapman, J., & Boyd, W. L. (1986). Decentralization, devolution, and the school principal: Australian lessons on statewide educational reform. Educational Administrative Quarterly, 22(4), 28-58.
Clandinin, D. J. & Connelly, F. M. (1992). Teachers as curriculum makers. In Jackson, P. (ed.) Handbook of research on curriculum. (pp.363-401). N.Y.: Macmillan.
Clark, C. M., & Peterson, P. L. (1986). Rhythms in teaching: The narrative study of Teachers’ personal practical knowledge of classroom. Teaching and Teacher Education, 2(4), 377-387.
Cohen, L., Manion, L., & Morrison, K. (2000). Research methods in education. London: Routledge.
Connelly, F. M., & Clandinin, D. J. (1992). Teachers as curriculum makers. In P. W. Jackson (Eds.), Handbook of research on curriculum (pp. 363-401). New York: Macmillan.
Cox, P. L. (1983). Complementary roles in successful change. Educational Leadership, 14(3), 10-13 .
Crandall, D. (1983). The Teacher''s Role in School Improvement. Educational Leadership, 14(3), 4-9.
Crandal, D. P., Bauchner, J. E., Loucks, S. F. & Schmidt, W. H. (1982). Models of the School Improvement Process: Factors Contributing to Success, paper presented at American Educational Research annual meeting (New York City , March 1982), ED251918.
Crandall, D. P., Eiseman, J. W. & Louis, K. S. (1986). Strategic planning issues that bear on the success of school improvement efforts. Educational Administration Ouarterly, 22(3), 21-53.
Creswell, J. W. (1994). Research Design: Qualtative & Quantitative Approaches. Sage.
Cronbach, L. (1963). Course improvement through evaluation. Teachers’ College Record. 64(8), 672-683.
Cuban, L. (1993). How teachers taught (2nd ed.). New York: Teachers College Press.
Dalin, P. & Mclaughlin, M. W. (1975). Strategies for innovation in higher education. Educational Research Symposium on Strategies for Research and Development in Higher Education. Stockholm, Sweden.
David, J. L. & Peterson, S. M. (1984). Can schools improve themselves? A study of school-based improvement programs. Palo Alto, CA: Bay Area Research Group.
Deal, T. E. (1987). The culture of schools. In L.T. Sheive & M.B. Schoenheit (Eds.), Leadership: Examining the elusive (pp. 3-15). Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
Denzin, N. K. (1978). Sociological methods: A sourcebook. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Desimone, L. (2002). How can comprehensive school reform models be successfully implemented? Review of Educational Research, 72(3), 433-479.
Dey, I. (1993). Qualitative data analysis: A user-friendly guide for social scientists. London: Routledge.
Doll, R. C. (1996). Curriculum leadership: Its nature and strategies. In Doll. R. C. Curriculum improvement: Decision making and process (pp. 489-544). Boston: Allyn and Bacon.
Doll, W. E. (1993). A post-modern perspective on curriculum. New York: Teacher College, Columbia University.
Dow, I. I., Whitehead, R. Y. & Writh, R. L. (1984). Curriculum implementation: A framework for action. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service NO. ED256 715).
Doyle, W., & Ponder, G. (1977/1978). The practicality ethic in teacher decision-making. Interchange, 8(3), 1-12.
Drake, S. M. (1993). Planning integrated curriculum: The call to adventure. Alexandrix, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
Drake, S. M. (1998). Creating integrated curriculum: Proven ways to increase student learning. California: Corwin.
Edwards, G. (1983). Processes in the secondary school: MACOS and Beyond. In Blenkin, G. M. & Kelly, A.V.(1983eds.) The primary curriculum in action(pp279-308). London: Paul Chapman Publishing Ltd.
Eisner, E. W. (1992). Educational Reform and the Ecology of Schooling. Teachers College Record, 93(4), 610-627.
Eisner, E. W. (1994). The educational imagination. (3rd ed.) New York: Macmillan.
Eisner, E. W. (2000). Those Who Ignore the Past…12 Easy Lessons for the Next Millennium. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 32(2), 343-357.
Elliott, J. (1993). Action Research for Educational Change. Open University Press.
Ellis. (1984). The work-life experience of teachersand orientation toward professional growth and development. Paper presentation at the Annua Meeting of the American Educational Research Association.
Eraut, M. (1994). Developing professional practice and competence. London: Falmer Press.
Evans, R. (1993). The human face of reform. Educational Leadership, 51(1), 19-23.
Evans, C., Stewart, P. M., Mangin, M., & Bagley, C. (2001). Teacher quality: Issues and research. Education, 122(1), 200-204.
Fensham, P. J. (Ed.).(1988). Development and dilemmas in science education. London: Falmer Press.
Fernandez, A. (2000). Leadership in an era of change: Breaking down the barriers of the culture of teaching. In C. Day, A. Fernandez, T. E. Hauge, and J. Moller(eds), The Life and work of teachers: International perspectives in changing times. pp.239-255. London: Falmer Press.
Field, K. (1979). Teacher development: A study of the stages in the development of teachers. Brookline, MA: Teacher Center Brookline.
Fielding, G., & Schalock, H. (1985). Promoting the professional development of teachers and administrators. Eugene, OR: ERIC Clearinghouse on Educational Management. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. EA017747)
Fitz, J. (2003). The politics of accountability: A perspective from England and Wales. Peabody Journal of Education, 78(4), 230-241.
Finnan, C., & Levin, H. M. (2000). Changing school culture. In H. Alltrichter & J. Elliott (Eds.), Images of educational change (pp.87-98). Buckingham: Open University Press.
Fontana, A & Frey, J. H. (2003). The interview from structured questions to negotiated text. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), Collecting and interpreting qualitative materials (2nd ed., pp. 61-106). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Foshay, A. W. (2000). The curriculum: purpose, substance, practice. NY: Teachers’ College Press.
Fullan, M. G. & Pomfret, A. (1977). Research on curriculum and instruction implementation. Review of Educational Research, 47(1), 335-397.
Fullan, M. G. (1989). Implementing educational change: what we know. Ottawa: Education and Employment Division, Population and Human Resource Department, World Bank.
Fullan, M. G. (1991a). Curriculum implementation. In A. Lewy(Eds.), The international encyclopedia of curriculum(pp. 378-384). New York: Pergamon Press.
Fullan, M. G. (1991b). The new meaning of education change. New York: Teacher College Press.
Fullan, M. G. (1992). Successful School Improvement: The Implementation Perspective and Beyond. Buckingham: Open University Press.
Fullan, M. G. (1993). Innovation, reform, and restructuring strategies. In G. Cawelti (Ed.), Challenges and achievements of American education (pp. 116-133). Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
Fullan, M. G. (1998). The meaning of educational change: A quarter of a century of learning. In A. Hargreaves, A. Lieberman, M. Fullan, & D. Hopkinss(Eds.), International handbook of educational change, Part I (pp. 214-228). Dordrecht, Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
Fullan, M. (2003). Change forces with a vengeance. London: Routledge Falmer.
Fullan, M., & Park, P. (1981). Curriculum implementation. Ontario: The Ontario Government Bookstore.
Fullan, M. G., Bennett, B., & Rolheiser-Bennett, C. (1990). Linking classroom and school improvement. Educational Leadership, 47(8), 13-19.
Fullan, M., & Miles, M. (1992). Getting reform right: What works and what doesn’t. Phi Delta Kappan, 73(10), 744-752.
Fullan, M., & Stiegeblbaner, S. (1995). The new meaning of educational change. London: Cassell.
Fuller, F. F. (1969). Concerns of teachers: A developmental conceptualization. American Educational Research Journal, 6(2), 207-226.
Gadamer, H. (1976). Philosophical hermeneutics. Berkeley: University of California Press.
Garmston, R. (1987). How administrators support peer coaching. Educational Leadership, 44(5), 18-26.
Gatewood, T. (1998). How valid is integrated curriculum in today’s middle schools. Middle School Journal, 29(4), 38-41.
Geertz, C. (1973). The interpretion of cultures. New York: Basic Books.
Gibson, S., & Brown, R. (1982). The development of a teacher’s personal responsibility. N. Y.: American Education Research Association.
Gibson, S., & Dembo, M. H. (1984). Teacher efficacy: A construct validation. Journal of Educational Psychology, 76(4), 569-582.
Giroux, H. A. (1981). Hegemony, resistance and the paradox of educational reform. In H. Giroux, A. N. Penna, & W. F. Pinar, (eds.), Curriculum & nsrtuction (pp. 400-430). California: McCutchan.
Giroux, H. A. (1983). Theory & Resistance in Education: A Pedagogy for the Opposition. South Hadley, MA: Bergin & Garvey.
Giroux, H. A. (1988). Teachers as intellectuals: Toward a critical pedagogy of learning. Massachusette: Bergin & Garvey.
Giroux, H. A. (1989). Schooling for democracy: Critical pedagogy in the modern age. London: Routledge.
Giroux, H. A. (1991). Postmodernism, Feminism and Cultural Politics. (ed.). SUNY.
Giroux, H. A. (1992). Border crossings: Cultural workers and the politics of education. New York: Routledge.
Giroux, H. A. (1994). Living dangerously: Identity politics and the new cultural racism. In H. A. Giroux & P. McLaren (Eds.), Between borders: Pedagogy and the politics of cultural studies (pp. 29-55). New York: Routledge.
Giroux, H. A. (1997). Pedagogy and the Politics of Hope: Theory, Culture and Schooling. Boulder, CO: Westview.
Glaser, B. C. (1978). Theoretical sensitivity: Advances in the methodology of grounded theory. Mill Valley, CA: Sociology Press.
Glaser, B. C. & Strauss, A. L. (1967). The discovery of grounded theory. Chicago: Aldine.
Glatthorn, A., Carr, J. F., & Harris, D. E. (2001). Planning and organizing for curriculum renewal. Alexandria, VA,: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
Glatthorn, A. A. (1987). Curriculum leadership. Glenview, III.: Scott, Foresman & Co.
Glatthorn, A. A. (1990). Supervisory leadership. New York: Harper Collins.
Glatthorn, A. A. (2000). The principal as curriculum leader: Shaping what is taught and tested. Thousand Oaks, California: Corwin.
Goldman, G., & Newman, J. B. (1998). Empowering students to transform schools. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press, Inc.
Goodlad, J. (1984). A place called school: Prospects for the future. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Goodson, I. F. (1992). Sponsoring the teacher’s voice: Teachers’ lives and teacher development. In A. Hargreaves & M.G. Fullan (Eds.), Understanding teacher development (pp. 110-121). New York: Teachers College Press.
Goodson, I. F. (1998). Storying the Self-Life Politics and the Study of the Teacher’s Life and Work. In W. Pinar(1998). Curriculum-Toward New Identity. N.Y.: Garland Pub.
Gorrell, J., & Capron, E. (1991). Cognitive modeling and self-efficacy: Effect on preservice teachers’ learning of teaching strategies. Journal of teacher education, 41(4), 15-22.
Gramsci, A. (1971). Selections from the Prison Notebook. (ed. and translated)by Q. Hoare and G. Smitg. New York: International publishers.
Green Wood, G. F., Olejnik, S. F., & Parkay, F. W. (1990). Relationship between four teacher efficacy belief patterns and selected teacher characteristics. Journal of Research and Development in Education, 23(2), 102-106.
Greene, M. (1984). ”How Do We Think About Our Craft?”, Teachers College Record, 86(1):55-67.
Greene, M. (1988). The artistic-aesthetic and curriculum. Curriculum Inquiry, 6(4), 283-296.
Gross, N., Giacquinta, J., & Bernstein, M. (1971). Implementing organizational innovations. New York: Basic Books.
Grossman, P. L. (1995) . Teachers’ knowledge. In L.W. Anderson(Ed.), International encyclopedia of teaching and teacher Education (2nd ed), pp 20-24. Kidlington, Oxford, UK: Elsevier Science Ltd..
Guba, E. G. (1990). The alternative paradigm dialog. In Cuba, E.G. (Ed.), The Paradigm Dialog. London: Sage Publications.
Guba, E. G. & Lincoln, Y. S. (1984). Naturalistic Inquiry. Newbury Park: Sage.
Guba, E. G. & Lincoln, Y. S. (1994). Competing Paradigms in Qualitative Research. In Denzin, N.K. & Lincoln, Y. S. (Eds.), Handbook of Qualitative Research (pp. 105-117). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Gustavsen, B. (2002). Theory and practice: The mediating discourse. In P. Reason & H. Bradbury (Eds.), Handbook of action research: Participative inquiry and practice (pp. 17-26). London: Sage.
Habermas, J. (1979). Communication and the evolution of society. Boston: Beacon.
Hall, G. E. (1991). Local educational change process and policy implementation. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 334700)
Hall, G. E., & Hord, S.M. (1987). Change in schoo: Facilitating the process. New York: State University of New York Press.
Hall, G. E., & Hord, S.M. (2001).Implementing change: Patterns, principles, and potholes. Boston: Allyn and Bacon.
Hall, G. E., & Loucks, S. F. (1977). A developmental model for determining whether the treatment is actually implemented. American Educational Research Journal, 14(3), 263-276.
Hall, G. E., Wallace, R. C. & Dossett, W. F. (1973). A developmental conceptualization of the adoption process within educational institutions. Unpublished paper. Austin: University of Texas, Research and Development Center for Teacher Education.
Hall, G. E., George, A. & Rutherford, W. L. (1977). Measuring stages of concern about the innovation: A manual for of the SoC Questionnaire. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service NO. ED 147342).
Hammerness, K., & K. Moffett. (2000). The subjects of debate., in S. Wineberg, P. Grossman. (2000). Interdisciplinary curriculum-challenges to implementation. N.Y.: Teachers College.
Hammersley M. (1990). Reading Ethnographic Research: A Critical Guide. London: Longman.
Hammersley, M., & Atkinson, P. (1983). Ethnography: Principles in practice. London: Tavistock.
Hargreaves, A. ( 1992). Cultures of teaching: A focus for change. In A. Hargreaves & M. Fullan (Eds.), Understanding teacher development (pp. 216-240). New York: Teacher College Press.
Hargreaves, A. (1994). Changing teachers, changing times: Teachers’ work and culture in the postmodern age. London: Cassell.
Hargreaves, A. (1995). Beyond collaboration: Critical teacher development in the post-modern age. In J. Smyth(ed), Critical discourses on teacher development, pp.149-180. London: Cassell.
Hargreaves, A., & Fullan, M. G. (1992). Understanding teacher development. New York: Teachers College Press.
Hargreaves, A., & Evans, R. (1997). Teachers and educational reform. In A.
Hargreaves & R. Evans (Eds.), Beyond educational reform: Bringing
Hargreaves, A., L. Earl, S. Moore, S. Manning(2001). Learning to change-Teaching beyond subjects and standards. S.F.: Jossey-Bass.
Harris, R. L., Ellicott, A. M., & Holmes, D. S. (1986). The timing of psychosocial transitions and changes in women’s lives: An examination of women aged 45-60. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51(2), 409-416.
Hartley S. (1997). Reschooling Society. N. Y.: The Falmer Press.
Harvey, L. (1990). Critiacl Social Research. London: Unwin Hyman.
Henderson, J. G., & Hawthorne, R. D.(1995). Transformative Curriculum Leadership. N. J.: Prentice Hall.
Henderson, J. G., & Kesson, K. R. (1999). Understanding Democratic Curriculum Leadership. New York: Teachers College Press.
Hinde, E. R. (2005). Revisiting curriculum intergration: A fresh look at an old idea. The Social Studies, 96(3), 105-111.
House, E. (1979). Technology versus Craft: a Ten Year Perspective on Innovation. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 11(1), 1-15.
Huberman, M. (1993). The lives of teachers. New York: Teachers College Press.
Huberman, A. M. & Miles, M. B. (1984). Rethinking the quest for school improvement: Some findings from the DESSI study. Teachers College Record, 86(1), 34-54.
Ingersoll, R. (2003). Who controls teachers’ work? Power and accountability in America’s schools. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Jacobs, H. (1989). Interdisciplinary curriculum: Design and implementation. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
Jorgensen, D. (1989). Participant Observation: A Methodology for Human Studies. Newbury Park: Sage.
Kanpol, B. (1991). Teacher group formation as emancipatory critique: Necessary conditions for teacher resistance. The Journal of Educational Thought, 25(2), pp.134-149.
Keedy, J., & Rogers, K. (1991). Teacher collegial groups: A structure for promoting professional dialogue conducive to organization change. Journal of School Leadership, 1, 65-73.
Kimpston, R. D., & Anderson. D. (1988). Factors affecting teachers’ and principals’ stages of concern over carrying out benchmark testing. Journal of Curriculum and Supervision, 3(4), 321-334.
Klein, M. F. (Ed.)(1991). The politics of curriculum decision-making: Issues in centralizing the curriculum. State University of New York Press.
Knight, J. (1996). A study of teachers’ concerns and use of a curriculum innovation. A dissertation submitted to the Aubum University in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy.
Krupp, J. A. (1989). Staff development and the individual. In S.D. Caldwell(Ed.), Staff development: A handbook of effective practices. (pp. 44-57). Oxford, OH: National Staff Development Council.
Lather, P. (1992). Critical frames in education research: Feminist and poststructural perspectives. Theory into Practice, 31 , 2-13.
Lee, C. K. J. (2000). Teacher receptivity to curriculum change in the implementation stage: The case of environmental education in Hong Kong. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 32(1), 95-115.
Leistyna, P., Woodrum, A. and Sherblom, S. A. (1996). Breaking Free. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Educational Review.
Leithwood, K. A. (1981). Managing the implementation of curriculum innovations. Knowledge: Creation, Diffusion, Utilization, 2(3), 341-360.
Leithwood, K. A. (1982a). Continuation of a curriculum innovation: Salient and alterable variables. Journal of Curriculum and Supervision, 4(1), 52-64.
Leithwood, K. A. (1982b). Implementing curriculum innovation. In K. A. Leithwood (Ed.), Studies in curriculum decision making (pp.245-267). Toronto: OISE Press.
Leithwood, K., Jantzi, D. & Steinbach, R. (1999). Changing Leadership for Changing Times. Philadelphia: Open University Press.
Levin, B. (2000). Putting students at the centre in educational reform. Journal of Educational Change, 1(2), 155-172.
Levinson, D. J., Darrow, C., Klein, E., Levinson, M., & McKee, B. (1978). The seasons of a man’s life. New York: Alfred A. Knopf.
Lincoln, T. S., & Guba, E. (2000). Paradigmatic controversies, contradictions, and emerging confluences. In Handbook of qualitative research (2nd). Denzin & Lincoln (Eds.), pp.163-187.California:Sage.
Loucks, S. F. & Miles, M. B. (1991). Toward Effective Urban High School: The Importance of Planning and Coping. In Bliss, J. R., Firestone, W. A. & Richard, C. E.(eds.), pp.91-111.
Lukacs, G. (1971). History and class consciousness: Studies in Marxist dialectics. London: Merlin.
MacDonald, B. &Walker, R. (1976). Changing the Curriculum. London: Open Books.
Manen, M. (1982). Phenomenological Pedagogy. Curriculum inquiry, 12(3), 283-299.
Maxwell, J. A. (1996). Qualitative Research Design: An Interactive Approach. London: Sage.
Maxwell, J. A., & Miller, B. A. (1996). Categorization and contextealization in qualitative data analysis. Manuscript submitted for publication.
Marshall, C.& Rossman, G. B. (1989). Designing qualitative resarch. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Marsh, C., Day, C., Hannay, L., & McCutcheon, G. (1990). Reconceptualizing school-based curriculum development. London: The Falmer Press.
Marsh, C. (1987). Implementation of a social studies curriculum in an Australian elementary school. Elementary school Journal, 87(4), 476-486.
Marsh, C. (1992). Key concepts for understanding curriculum. New York: Falmer.
Marsh, D., & Penn, D. (1988). Engaging students in innovative instruction: An application of the stages of concern framework to studying student engagement. Journal of Classroom Interaction, 23(1), 8-14.
Marsh, C. & Willis, G. (1995). Curriculum: Alternative approaches, ongoing issues. Englewood Cliffs, N. J.: Nerrill.
Marsh, C. & Huberman, M. (1984). Disseminating curricula: a look from the top down. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 16(1),. 53-66.
McLaren, P. (1989). On ideology and education: Critical pedagogy and the cultural politics of resistance. In H. A. Giroux & P. McLaren(Eds.), Critical pedagogy, the state, and cultural struggle(pp. 174-202). New York: State University of New York.
McLaren, P. (1995). Critical Pedagogy and Predatory Culture: Oppositional politics in the postmodern era. New York: Routledge.
McLaren, P. & Giroux, H. A. (1995). Radical pedagogy as cultural politics: Beyond the discourse of critique and anti-utopianism. In P. McLaren, Critical pedagogy and predatory culture: Oppositional politics in a postmodern era (pp. 29-57). London: Routledge.
McLaughlin, M. W. & Marsh, D. D. (1978). Staff Development and School Change. Teachers College Record, 80(1), 69-94.
Merriam, S. B. (1988). Case study research in education: A qualitative approach. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Meyer, J., & Rowan, B. (1983). The structure of educational organizations. In J.V. Baldridge & T. E. Deal (Eds.), Dynamics of organizational change in education (pp. 60-87). Berkeley: McCutchan.
Miles, M. B. (1983). Unraveling the Mystery of Institutionalization. Eduactional Leadership, 41(3), 14-19.
Miles, M. B., & Huberman, A. M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis: An expanded sourcebook. California: Sage.
Morgan, D. L. (1988). Focus Group as Qualitative Research. Sage.
Morrow, R. A. (1994). Critical Theory and Methodology. Thousand Oaks: Sage.
Muther, C. (1985). What every textbook evaluator should know. Educational Leadership, 42(7), 4-8. Derived from EBSCO host.
Nias, J., Southworth, G. & Campbell, P. (1992). Whole school curriculum development in the primary school. London: Falmer.
Noddings, N. (1986). Fidelity in teaching, teacher education, and research for teaching. Harvard Educational Review, 56(4), 496-510.
Oliva, P. F. (1988). Developing the Curriculum. Illionis: Socott, Foresman and Company.
Ornstein, A. C. & Hunkins, F. P. (1998). Curriculum: Foundations, principles, and issues. Boston: Allyn and Bacon.
Parsons, C. (1987). The curriculum change game. London: Falmer Press.
Patton, M. (1990). Qualitative research and evaluation methods. (2nd ed.). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Peters, T. J., & Waterman, R. H., Jr. (1982). In search of excellence. New York: Harper & Row.
Pinar, W. F., Reynold, W. M., Slattery, P., & Taubman, P. M. (1995). Understanding Curriculum: An Introduction to Study of Historical and Contemporary Curriculum Discourses. New York: Peter Lang.
Poole, M. G. & Okeafor, K. R. (1989). The effects of teacher efficacy and interactions among educators on curriculum implementation. Journal of Curriculum and Supervision, 4(2), 146-161.
Popkewitz, T. S. (2000). Globalization/ Regionalism, Knowledge and the Educational Practices. In Popkewitz, T. S. Educational Knowledge-Changing Relationship Between the State, Civic Society and the Educational Community. SUNY.
Portelli, J. P. (1987). Making sense of diversity: The current state of curriculum research. Journal of Curriculum and Supervision, 4(4), 340-361.
Posner, G. F. (1992). Analyzing the Curriculum. N. Y. : McGraw-Hill.
Pratt, D. (1994). Curriculum planning: A handbook for professionals. Orlando, FL: Harcourt Brace College Publishers.
Quantz, R. A. (1998). On critical ethnography(with some postmodern considerations). In. N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), The Landscape of qualitative research (pp. 447-505). Newbury Park: Sage.
Quartz, K. H. (1995). Sustainng new educational communities-toward a new culture of school reform. In Oakes, Quartz, ibid.
Reynolds, D. (1992). From school effectiveness to school development: Problems and possibilities. In A. M. Indrebo, L. Monsen, & T. Alvik (Eds.), Theory and practice of school-based evaluation: A research perspective (publication, No. 77). Lillehammer: Oppland College.
Reynolds, J. C. (1979). Controversy involving selection of science and humanities textbook. Education, 99(3), 250-256. Derived from EBSCOhost.
Richardson, V., Anders, P., Tidwell, D., & Lloyd, C. (1991). The relationship between teacher’s beliefs and practices in reading comprehension instruction. American Educational Research Journal, 28(3), 559-586.
Richardson, V., & Placier, P. (2001). Teacher change. In V. Richardson(Ed.), Handbook of research on teaching (4th ed.) (pp. 905-944). Washington, DC: American Educational Research Journal, 28(3), 559-586.
Richardson, L. (2000). Writing: A method of inquiry. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research, 2nd ed(pp. 923-948). CA: Sage Publications.
Riksaasen, R. (1994). Models of two professional cultures: Teacher training for kindergartens and primary schools. In Carlgren, G. Handal and S. Vaage(eds), Teachers’ minds and actions: Research on teachers’ thinking and practice.(pp.201-214). London: The Falmer Press.
Robinson, F. G. (1982a). Superordinate Curriculum Guidelines: Their Role in Classroom Decision Making. In Leithwood, K. A. (ed.), pp.54-132.
Robinson, F. G. (1982b). Strengthening Guidelines and Related Policies of Implementation and Review. In Leithwood, K. A. (ed.), pp.82-163.
Rosenblum, S., & Louis, K. (1979). Stability and change : Innovation in an educational context. Cambridge, MA: ABT Associate.
Rosenholtz, S. J. (1989). Teachers'' Workplace: The Social Organization of School. New York: Longman.
Rutter, M., Maughan, B., Mortimore, P., Ouston, J., & Smith, A. (1979). Fifteen thousand hours. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
Sabar, N. (1983). Towards school-based curriculum development: Training
school curriculum co-ordinators. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 15(4),
31-34.
Sabar, N. (1985). School-based curriculum development: Reflections from an international seminar. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 15(4), 431-434.
Sarason, S. (1971). The culture of the school and the problem of change. Boston: Allyn & Bacon.
Schubert, W. H.(1986) .Curriculum: Perspective, paradigm, and possibility. New York: Macmillan Publishing Company.
Schwab, J. (1983). The Practice 4: Something for curriculum professors to do.Curriculum Inquiry, 13(3), 239-265.
Scott, J. (1990). Domination and the arts of resistance-Hidden transcripts. New Haven: Yale University Press.
Scott, D. & Usher, R. (1999). Researching education: Data, methods and theory in educational enquiry. London: Cassell.
Shulman, L. S. (1986). Paradigms and research programs in the study of teaching: A contemporary perspective. In M. C. Wittrock (Ed.), Handbook of research on teaching, (3rd ed.). (pp.3-36). New York: Macmillan.
Sikes, P. (1985). The life cycle of the teacher. In S. Ball & I. Goodson(Eds.), Teachers’ lives and careers (pp.27-60). Philadelphia: Falmer Press.
Simkins, M. (1999). Project-based learning with multimedia. Thrust for Educational Leadership, 28(4), 10-14.
Simons, H. (1971). Innovation and the case-study of schools. Cambridge Journal of Education, 3, 118-123.
Simons, H. (1987). Getting to know schools in a democracy: The politics and process of evaluation. London: The Falmer Press.
Simon, R. & Dippo, D. (1986). On critical ethnography. Anthropology and Education Quarterly, 17(4), 195-202.
Simpson, G. (1990). Keeping it alive: Elements of school culture that sustain innovation. Educational Leadership, 47(8), 34-37.
Sirotnik, K. A. (1991). Critical inquiry: A paradigm for praxis. In E. C. Short (Ed.), Forms of curriculum inquiry (pp.243-258). New York: State University of New York.
Skilbeck, M. (1984). School-based curriculum development. London: Harper & Row.
Smyth, J., Dow, A., Hattam, R., Reid, A., & Shacklock, G. (2000). Teachers’ work in a globalizing economy. London: Falmer Press.
Sparks, D., & Loucks-Horsley, S. (1989). Five models of staff development for teachers. Journal of Staff Development, 10(4), 41-58.
Spillane, J. P., Reiser, B. J., & Reimer, T. (2002). Policy implementation and cognition: Reframing and refocusing implementation research. Review of Educational Research, 72(3), 387-431.
Spradley, J. P., & McCurdy D. W. (1988). The cultural experience: Ethnography in complex society. Chicago: Science Research Associates.
Stake, R. (1988). Case study methods in educational research: Seeking sweet water. In R.M.Jaeger (ed.). Complementary methods for research in education. pp. 253-278. Washington, DC: American Educatuonal Research Association.
Stake, R. (1994). Case studies. In: Denzin, N. K., and Lincoln, Y. S.(Eds.), Handbooks of Qualitative Research.(pp.236-247). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Stake, R. (1995). The art of case research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Stenhouse, L. (1975). An introduction to curriculum research and development. London: Heinemann.
Synder, J., Bolin, F., & Zumwalt, K. (1992). Curriculum implementation. In P. W. Jackson(Eds.), Handbook of research on curriculum.(pp.402-435). N. Y.: Macmillan.
Tanner, D. & Tanner, L. N. (1995). Curriculum Development: Theory into Practice (3nd ed.). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Thomas, J. (1993). Doing critical ethnography. Newbury Park: Sage.
The Education Trust (2004, February 25). The real value of Value-added: Getting effective teachers to the students who need them most. Retrieved October 15, 2004 from http://www2.edtrust.org/EdTrust/Press+Room/value+added.htm
Townley, C. (1979). “Man: A Course of Study”. ATSS Journal 183-189. also in CARE: MACOS archives.
Tyack, D. & Tobin, W. (1994). The Grammar of schooling: Why has it been so hard to change? American Educational Research Journal, Fall 31(3), 453-479.
Uris, A., & Tarrant, J. J. (1983). Career stages: surmounting the crises of working life. New York: Seaview/Putnam.
Vaillant, G. E., & Milofsky, E. (1980). Natural history of male psychological health: IX Empirical evidence for Erikson’s model of the life cycle. American Journal of Psychiatry, 137(11), 1348-1359.
Van Den Akker, J. J. (1988). The teacher as learner in curriculum implementation. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 20(1), 47-55.
Van Den Berg, R. (1993). The concerns-based adoption model in the Netherlands, Flanders and United Kingdom: State of the art and perspective. Studies in Educational Evaluation, 19, 51-63.
Venezky, R. L. (1992). Textbooks in school and society. In P. W. Jackson (Ed.), Handbook of research on curriculum: A project of the American Educational Research Association (pp. 436-461). New York: Macmillan Publishing Company.
Verma, C. & Mallick, K. (1999). Researching education: Perspectives and techniques. London: Falmer Press.
Waugh, R. F. (2000). Towards a model of teacher receptivity to planned system-wide educational change in a centrally controlled system. Journal of Educational Administration, 38(4), 350-367.
Whiteside, T. (1978). The sociology of educational innovation. London: Methuen & Co Ltd.
Williams, V. (1995). Towards 2000: Organization and relationships. In: William, V. (ed.), Towards self-managing schools: A secondary schools perspective (pp. 137-165). London: Cassell.
Willis, P. (1977). Learning to Labour: How Working Class Kids Get Working Class Jobs. Farnborough: Saxon House.
Willis, P. (2003). Foot Soldiers of Modernity: The Dialectics of Cultural Consumption and the 21st-Century School, Harvard Education Review, 73(3), 390-415.
Yin, R. (1989). Case study research: Design and methods (Rev. ed.). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
Yin, R. (1994). Case study research: Design and methods (2nd ed.). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
Young, M. F. D. (1971). An Approach to the Study of Curricula as Socially Organized Knowledge. In M. F. D. Young (ed.) Knowledge and Control. London: Collier Macmillan.
Young, J. H. (1990). Curriculum implememtation: An organization perspective. Journal of curriculum and supervision, 5(2), 132~149.
 
 
 
 
第一頁 上一頁 下一頁 最後一頁 top
:::
無相關著作
 
無相關點閱
 
QR Code
QRCODE