:::

詳目顯示

回上一頁
題名:國小教師實施重大議題課程政策:釋意理論的多重個案研究
作者:葉明政
作者(外文):Ming-Cheng Yeh
校院名稱:國立臺中教育大學
系所名稱:教育學系
指導教授:郭玉霞
學位類別:博士
出版日期:2014
主題關鍵詞:重大議題課程政策課程政策實施釋意理論crucial issuescurriculum policycurriculum policy implementationsensemaking theory
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(0) 博士論文(1) 專書(0) 專書論文(0)
  • 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:54
本研究以釋意理論探究重大議題課程政策的實施問題,旨在瞭解基層實施者如何對這項複雜的課程政策產生釋意,以求對其實施變異現象提出適當的解釋。本研究先剖析重大議題課程政策內涵,其次援引Karl Weick, David Cohen與James Spillane所提出的釋意理論,以認知、微觀角度分析三位國小教師對重大議題課程政策的釋意過程,再分析其個人因素、所處環境脈絡(學校、地方層級)對其釋意之影響,最後針對釋意理論應用於課程政策實施研究提出檢討與反省。
為達上述目的,本研究以質性個案研究進行研究設計,透過訪談、文件蒐集以及間接觀察等方式,蒐集相關資料加以整理、分析。本研究依據研究發現,歸納重要結論如下:
一、重大議題課程政策欲從知識、態度及行動著手,體現各自的社會改革價值;期望雖高,但策略模糊,且訴求規範性。
二、個案教師多以原有心智模式來面對重大議題課程政策(包括微調前後),且其釋意深受個人因素之影響。
三、學校及地方層級的環境脈絡均不重視重大議題課程,是致使個案教師續以原有心智模式來對應的原因之一。
四、重大議題概念複雜,又具有變動性,個案教師對此訓練不足,增加其理解之困難。
五、重大議題課程處於邊緣地位,加上政策設計無固定教學時段及具體教材,增加實施之難度。
六、運用釋意理論可增進對課程政策實施過程中實施者個人釋意的瞭解。
The main purpose of this study is to inquiry the problematic implementation of the curriculum policy of the crucial issues (CPCI) based on sensemaking theories. The policy contents of the CPCI were analyzed first. Secondly, sensemaking theories proposed by Karl Weick, David Cohen, and James Spillane were adopted to investigate how three elementary school teachers made sense of the CPCI from cognitive and microscopic perspectives. Thirdly, the factors that influenced three teachers’sensemaking process, at the individual level, school level and local education administration level, were revealed from research data. Finally, the implications of sensemaking theories in curriculum policy implementation research were discussed.
For attaining the research purposes, this study adopted qualitative multi-case study method. Data were collected by interviews, document analysis and observations. The conclusions were drawn as followings:
1. The goals of CPCI comprise knowledge, attitudes and social action components and embody the value of social reform. CPCI implies high expectations for implementers. However, the strategies designed were vague and regulations were ordered.
2. The teachers choose to interpret and enact the CPCI with their original mental models, and their sensemaking of the CPCI was deeply influenced by their
personal factors.
3. The school authority and the local education government pay little attention to the CPCI which is one of the main reasons for the phenomena mentioned
above.
4. The concepts in CPCI are very complex and have many variations. The teacher inservice training is inadequate according to these concepts. As a
result, the teachers have difficulties to understand the CPCI.
5. CPCI is located at the marginal place of school curriculum. The policy designer do not arrange fixed period of teaching time and relevant materials
which bring about more difficulties to implementation.
6. The sensemaking theories are useful for understanding how individual teachers make sense of the implementation process of the curriculum policy.
中文部分
尹弘飈、李子建(2008)。課程變革:理論與實踐。台北市:高等教育。
天下雜誌(1996)。環境台灣。台北市:天下文化。
方德隆(2002)。課程理論與實務。高雄市:麗文文化。
方德隆、游美惠(2009)。2008 國中小性別平等教育課程與教學實施現況調查。台北市:教育部。
王百合、游美惠(2003)。教育界的勞動後備軍:已婚女性代課教師之初探性研究。教育研究集刊,49(4),61-92。new window
王恭志(2006)。克拉克的教育理念及其對教師班級經營之啟示。研習資訊,23(2),49-55。
王儷靜(2010)。性別主流化在教育機構的實踐:我們可以做些什麼?城市發展半年刊,性別主流專刊,26-44。new window
王儷靜(2013)。重探性別融入教學之「融入」意涵。女學學誌:婦女與性別研究,32,1-41。new window
卯靜儒(2001)。台灣近十年來課程改革之政治社會學分析。台灣教育社會學研究,1(1),79-102。
卯靜儒(2004)。從新馬克斯到後結構主義:課程社會學研究的再概念化。教育研究集刊,50(1),119-142。new window
卯靜儒、甄曉蘭、林永豐(2012)。高中課程改革之政策形塑與實施的歷程分析:以95 課程暫綱為例。課程與教學季刊,15(3),181-206。new window
田耐青(2011)。新興及重大議題課程發展方向之整合性研究(子計畫四):新興與重大議題實施方式研究。國家教育研究院委託之整合型研究計畫研究報告(編號:NAER-97-05-A-2-06-00-2-25),未出版。新北市:國家教育研究院。
白亦方(2011)。新興及重大議題課程發展方向之整合性研究(子計畫三):新興議題與領域課程、重大議題關係之研究。國家教育研究院委託之整合型研究計畫研究報告(編號:NAER-97-05-A-2-06-00-2-25),未出版。新北市:國家教育研究院。
朱敏鳳(2009)。國小二年級以性別角色為主題之行動研究(未出版之碩士論文)。國立台北教育大學社會科教育學系碩士班,台北市。
江文瑜、吳密察(主編)(1994)。體檢小學教科書。台北市:前衛出版。
行政院教育改革審議委員會(1996)。教育改革總諮議報告書。台北市:行政院。
何明修(2006)。綠色民主:台灣環境運動的研究。台北市:群學出版。
何明修、蕭新煌(2006)。臺灣全志卷九:社會志社會運動篇。南投縣:國史館台灣文獻館。
何榮桂(2001)。九年一貫資訊教育課程規劃與相關問題。載於何榮桂、戴維揚(主編),資訊教育課程設計(頁124-133)。台北市:師大書苑。
吳定(2008)。公共政策。台北市:五南圖書。
宋文里(1995)。「批判教育學」的問題陳顯。通識教育季刊,2(4),1-15。
李子建(2010)。環境教育與課程改革:理論與實踐。教育學報,38(1),119-132。
李允傑、丘昌泰(2003)。政策執行與評估。台北市:元照出版。
李偉斌、戴佳君、魏素鄉(2013)。性別平等教育中「釐清性與愛的迷思」融入健康與體育領域課程之行動研究。教師專業研究期刊,5,31-48。
李淑菁(2010a)。「開啟」教育變革的起點:後結構女性主義理論對教育政策研究的挑戰。國家與社會,9,111-150。
李淑菁(2010b)。有沒有「關係」有關係?學校田野工作的特殊性及其倫理問題。載於周平、林昱瑄(主編),質性/別研究(頁249-278)。台南市:巨流圖書。
李淑菁(2011)。性別教育的論述角力:教師的詮釋與想像。教育與社會研究,22,39-92。
李淑菁(2012)。用「尊重」矇混過關?性別識讀能力的質性指標初探。性別平等教育季刊,58, 62-68。
李淑菁(2013)。「性」與「性別」教育的分合與競逐:臺灣與英國相關概念發展之比較。台東大學教育學報,24(2),67-103。
李雪菱(2011)。教師性別意識與教學困境:反思中小學教師的性別教育課程設計與教學實踐。女學學誌:婦女與性別研究,28,133-174。
李翠萍(2006)。社會福利政策執行網絡探析。台北市:秀威資訊。
周淑卿(2002)。課程政策與教育革新。台北市:師大書苑。new window
周淑卿(2005)。課程政策研究成果分析。載於國立台南大學(主編),94 年度國科會教育學門課程與教學領域專題計畫成果發表會會議手冊(頁23-33)。台南市:編者。
周儒(2012)。實踐環境教育:環境學習中心。台北市:五南圖書。
周麗玉(2007,5 月)。台灣中小學性別平等教育之課程發展。論文發表於教育部主辦:性別平等教育專業發展研討會。台北市:世新大學。
林昱瑄(2013)。教育改革的治理方式與實作過程:以台北市推展性別平等教育為例。教育學刊,41(1),87-122。
林昱瑄、劉淑雯(2009,10 月)。新自由主義與性別平等的交戰:以台北市推展性別平等教育為例。論文發表於國立高雄師範大學、台灣女性學學會合辦:第三屆亞太性別平等教育論壇。高雄市:國立高雄師範大學。
林倖妃(2010)。自然,變天了:最難教的一堂課。天下雜誌,460,266-272。
林家五(1999)。企業主持人的釋意歷程及其影響(未出版之博士論文)。國立台灣大學商學研究所,台北市。
侯勝宗、蕭瑞麟(2008)。科技意會:衛星創新派遣服務。台北市:培生教育集團。
柯禧慧(2000)。教室安靜的潛在教育學之研究:以一個六年級開放教室為例(未出版之碩士論文)。國立台南師範學院國民教育研究所,台南市。
洪如玉(2010)。九年一貫課程七大議題正當性之批判性檢視。教育研究與發展期刊,6(2),33-58。new window
范信賢(2002)。「擁擠的樂園」:再思九年一貫融入議題課程。載於財團法人國立台南師範學院校務發展文教基金會、台灣教育社會學學會(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(頁393-406)。高雄市:復文圖書。
范信賢(2010)。作品與作業:教師課程改革敘事的省思。研習資訊,22(5),56-59。
國立台灣師範大學教育研究中心(主編)(1996)。新興課程領域系列學術研討會論文集。2010 年3 月5 日,取自http://www.cer.ntnu.edu.tw/www/new_web/website/plan/view.aspx?num=0135
國立編譯館(2000)。教育大辭書。台北市:文景書局。
國家教育研究院(2014)。十二年國民基本教育課程綱要總綱(草案)、Q&A 及說明手冊。2014 年5 月15 日,取自http://www.naer.edu.tw/files/15-1000-6033,c1174-1.php
張怡欣(2013)。台北市閱讀教育政策執行之研究:意會取向(未出版之碩士論文)。國立台北教育大學教育經營與管理學系,台北市。
張芬芬(2007)。後現代質性研究:特徵及其對課程研究的蘊義。課程與教學,10(3),31-48。new window
張芬芬(2010)。質性資料分析的五步驟:在抽象階梯上爬升。初等教育學刊,35,87-120。new window
張清良(2003)。地方政府執行九年一貫課程政策之研究(未出版之博士論文)。國立政治大學教育研究所,台北市。
張嘉育(2011)。課程政策。新北市:冠學文化。
張嘉育、徐明志(2011)。新興及重大議題課程發展方向之整合性研究(子計畫一):重大及新興議題課程實施現況調查研究。國家教育研究院委託之整合型研究計畫研究報告(編號:NAER-97-05-A-2-06-00-2-25),未出版。新北市:國家教育研究院。
張嘉育、葉興華(2010)。中小學課程政策之整合研究(子計畫二):學校本位課程與重大議題探究。國家教育研究院籌備處委託之整合型研究計畫研究報告(編號:NAER-98-12-A-1-02-00-3-01),未出版。台北縣:國家教育研究院籌備處。
教育部(2011a)。國民中小學九年一貫課程綱要(重大議題)修訂(微調)問答集。台北市:教育部。new window
教育部(2011b)。國民中小學九年一貫課程綱要(重大議題)修訂(微調)說明。台北市:教育部。new window
教育部(2011c)。聽!校園裡的綠色樂章:教育部環保小組20 年的回顧與展望。台北市:教育部。
教育部(2012)。國民中小學九年一貫課程微調綱要(重大議題)。2013 年6 月14 日,取自: http://140.111.34.54/EJE/content.aspx?site_content_sn=15326。new window
莊明貞(2002)。九年一貫課程社會新興議題:政策到實施的反省。國民教育,43(1),7-13。
莊明貞(2008)。九年一貫重大議題課程變革之探析。教育研究月刊,175,75-82。new window
莊明貞(2012)。課程改革:理念、趨勢與議題。台北市:心理出版。
許美瑞(2001)。國民中小學九年一貫課程「家政教育」之回顧與展望。中等教育,52(6),4-18。new window
陳向明(2000)。質的研究方法與社會科學研究。北京市:教育科學。new window
陳伯璋(2003)。新世紀課程研究與發展。國家政策季刊,2(3),149-168。
陳幸仁、余佳儒(2011)。一所國小學校特色課程發展之微觀政治分析。教育資料與研究,103,143-171。new window
陳健生、甘國臻、霍秉坤(2009)。課程的「軟」和「硬」政策實施:教師層面的理解。課程研究,4(1),1-21。new window
彭富源(2002)。我國國民中小學課程政策執行模式之建構:以九年一貫課程為例(未出版之博士論文)。國立政治大學教育研究所,台北市。new window
曾本馨、楊幸真(2012)。性教育外一章:國小高年級教師的性教育焦慮與教學實作。教育學刊,38,29-64。new window
曾肇文(2010)。國民中小學性別平等教育議題課程綱要制定文化政治性之分析(未出版之博士論文)。國立台北教育大學課程與教學研究所,台北市。new window
游美惠(2005)。性別教育最前線:多元文化的觀點。台北市:女書文化。new window
游美惠(2012)。性別與多元文化教育。載於譚光鼎、劉美慧、游美惠(主編),多元文化教育(三版)(頁453-465)。台北市:高等教育。
湯梅英(2001)。人權教育的課程與教學:一個重要卻受忽視的新興議題。課程與教學季刊,4(4),1-20。new window
黃政傑(1991)。課程設計。台北市:東華書局。
黃政傑(1995)。多元社會課程取向。台北市:師大書苑。new window
黃政傑(1997)。課程改革的理念與實踐。台北市:漢文書店。
黃政傑(2005)。課程改革新論:教育現場虛實探究。台北縣:冠學文化。
黃政傑(2013)。課程轉化整合探究之概念架構研析。課程與教學季刊,16(3),1-29。new window
黃嘉雄、黃永和(2011)。新興及重大議題課程發展方向之整合性研究。國家教育研究院委託之整合型研究計畫研究報告(編號:NAER-97-05-A-2-06-00-2-25),未出版。新北市:國家教育研究院。
楊巧玲(2006)。不一樣的教學原理:從自我認識到社會參與。台北市:心理出版。
楊巧玲(2011)。國民中小學九年一貫課程中之性別平等教育議題。教育資料與研究,98,79-100。
楊怡婷(2010)。國民中小學品德教育課程政策之實施與問題研究(未出版之博士論文)。國立台南大學教育經營與管理研究所,台南市。new window
楊智雄(2010)。從基模理論分析學校層級政策執行問題。學校行政雙月刊,66,169-184。
楊滿玉、卯靜儒(2009)。從性別平等的角度來看教育應有的變革。載於蘇永明、方永泉(主編),面對未來挑戰的教育發展(頁231-254)。台北市:學富文化。
葉明政(2011,11 月)。課程政策實施概念架構初探:認知/釋意的觀點。論文發表於國家教育研究院籌備處主辦:2011 年建構中央-地方-學校課程與教學推動網絡學術研討會。台北市:國家教育研究院籌備處台北院區。
甄曉蘭(2007)。課程研究的趨勢與方法論議題。課程與教學季刊,10(3),49-62。
劉美慧(1998)。議題中心教學法之理論與實際。花蓮師院學報,8,173-200。
劉美慧(2012)。多元文化教育的基本概念。載於譚光鼎、劉美慧、游美惠(主編),多元文化教育(三版)(頁1-37)。台北市:高等教育。
劉美慧、陳幸苡(2008)。議題融入課程之研究趨勢:議題中心取徑之轉化與反思。教育研究月刊,176,15-26。new window
歐用生(2003)。課程典範再建構。高雄市:麗文文化。new window
歐用生(2004)。課程領導:議題與展望。台北市:高等教育。
歐用生(2006)。課程理論與實踐。台北市:學富文化。
歐用生(2010)。課程研究的新視野。台北市:師大書苑。
潘慧玲、張淑涵(2014)。策劃學校發展的資料運用:一所高中的個案研究。教育科學研究期刊,59(1),171-195。new window
鄭淑慧(2012)。國小一年級教學文化研究(未出版之博士論文)。國立台北教育大學課程與教學研究所,台北市。new window
鄭淵全(2011)。新興及重大議題課程發展方向之整合性研究(子計畫二):重大議題課程綱要彼此及其與領域課程綱要內涵關係之研究。國家教育研究院委託之整合型研究計畫研究報告(編號:NAER-97-05-A-2-06-00-2-25),未出版。新北市:國家教育研究院。
蕭昭君(2006)。如何討論嘻嘻娘娘腔。載於蘇芊玲、蕭昭君(主編),擁抱玫瑰少年(頁164-167)。台北市:女書文化。
蕭昭君、王儷靜、洪菊吟(主編)(2012)。我們可以這樣教性別。台北市:教育部。
蕭新煌(2006)。台灣社會大轉型的脈絡軌跡與政策回應:社會志總論。載於何明修、蕭新煌,臺灣全志卷九:社會志社會運動篇(頁1-33)。南投縣:國史館台灣文獻館。
錢清泓(2001)。有地無位、有名無實?:九年一貫重大議題課程實施困境之探討。國教學報,13,1-17。
霍秉坤、甘國臻與陳健生(2010)。學校課程決定的基礎:政策制訂者對課程政策的理解。教育政策論壇,13(1),143-176。new window
謝小芩、李淑菁(2008)。性別教育政策的形成:從行政院教改會到九年一貫課程改革。研究台灣,4,119-148。new window
簡宏江(2004)。九年一貫課程政策的執行困境與對策:政策設計觀點。教育政策論壇,7(1),19-40。new window
簡宏江(2006)。國民小學學校本位課程政策執行評估之研究(未出版之博士論文)。國立台北教育大學教育政策與管理研究所,台北市。new window
顏國樑(1997)。教育政策執行理論與應用。台北市:師大書苑。
魏汎珊(2007)。教師評鑑政策執行之研究:意會的取向(未出版之碩士論文)。國立台北教育大學教育政策與管理研究所,台北市。
Hutchens, D. (2004). 洞穴人的陰影:洞察限制組織發展的信念(Shadows of the neanderthal: Illuminating the beliefs that limit our organizations)(劉兆岩、郭進隆譯)。台北市:天下文化(原作1999 年出版)。
Kahneman, D. (2012). 快思慢想(Thinking, fast and slow)(洪蘭譯)。台北市:天下文化(原作2011 年出版)。
Miles, M. B., & Huberman, A. M. (2006). 質性研究資料分析(Qualitative data analysis: An expanded sourcebook, 2nd ed.)(張芬芬譯)。台北市:雙葉書廊(原作1994 年出版)。
Potton,W. M. (2008)。質的評鑑與研究(Qualitative research and evaluation methods, 3rd ed.)(吳芝儀、李奉儒譯)。嘉義市:濤石文化(原作2002 年出版)。
Runyan,W. M. (2002)。生命史與心理傳記學:理論與方法的探索(Life histories and psychobiography: Explorations in theory and method)(丁興祥、張慈宜、賴誠斌等譯)。台北市:遠流出版(原作1982 年出版)。
Senge, P. M. (2010). 第五項修練:學習型組織的藝術與實務(增訂版)(The fifth discipline:The art and practice of the learning organization, revised edition.)(郭進隆、齊若蘭譯)。台北市:天下文化(原作2006 年出版)。
Smith, K. B. & Larimer, C. W. (2010)。公共政策入門(The public policy theory primer)(蘇偉業譯)。台北市:五南圖書(原作2009 年出版)。

英文部分
Anagnostopoulos, D., & Rutledge, S. (2007). Making sense of school sanctioning policies in urban high schools: Charting the depth and drift of school and classroom change. Teachers College Record, 109(5), 1261-1302.
Ball, S. J. (1994). Education reform: A critical and post-structural approach. Buckingham: Open University Press.
Buitink, J. (2009). What and how do student teachers learn during school-based teacher education. Teaching and Teacher Education, 25(1), 118-127.
Callison, V. A. (2009). The use of a cognitive perspective to inform the revision of a professional growth teacher evaluation policy (Doctoral dissertation, University of Washington).Retrieved from ProQuest Dissertations and Theses (UMI No. 3394277).
Carraway, J. (2012). Principals' sensemaking of the implementation of skillful observation and coaching laboratory (Doctoral dissertation, North Carolina State University). Retrieved from http://repository.lib.ncsu.edu
Chan, K. S. J., Kennedy, K. J. & Fok, P. K. (2008). 'Hard' and 'Soft' policy for the school curriculum: The changing role of teachers in the 'Learning to learn' reform. In J. Lee, L. Lo & L. P. Shiu (Eds.), Developing teachers and developing schools in changing contexts (pp.135-153). Hong Kong: Chinese University Press.
Chan, K.S. J.. (2010). Teachers’ responses to curriculum policy implementation: Colonial constraints for curriculum reform. Educational Research for Policy and Practice, 9(2),93-106.
Coburn, C. E. (2001). Collective sensemaking about reading: How teachers mediate reading policy in their professional communities. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis,23(2), 145-170.
Coburn, C. E. (2005). Shaping teacher sensemaking: School leaders and the enactment of reading policy. Educational Policy, 19(3), 476-509.
Cohen, D.K. (1990). A revolution in one classroom: The case of Mrs. Oublier. Education Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 12(3), 311-329.
Cohen, D.K., Moffitt, S.L., & Goldin, S. (2007). Policy and practice: The dilemma. American Journal of Education, 113(4), 515-548.
Coldren, F. A. (2006). From Sensemaking to Knowledge Creation: A comparison of teacher learning across two school subjects (Doctoral dissertation, Northwestern University).Retrieved from http://www.distributedleadership.org/
Creswell, J. W. (2007). Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five traditions(2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Cuban, L. (1996). Curriculum stability and change. In P. W. Jackson (Ed.), Handbook of research on curriculum (2nd ed, pp. 216-247). New York: Macmillan.
Datnow, A., & Park, V. (2009). Conceptualizing policy implementation: Large-scale reform in an era of complexity. In D.N. Plank, B. Schneider, & G. Sykes (Eds.), Handbook of education policy research (pp. 348-361). Washington, DC: American Educational Research Association.
Datnow, A., Park, V. & Kennedy-Lewis, B. (2012). High school teachers' use of data to inform instruction. Journal of Education for Students Placed at Risk, 17(4), 247-265.
DeMatthews, D. E. (2012). Principal sensemaking of inclusion: A multi-case study of five urban school principals (Doctoral dissertation, University of Maryland). Retrieved from http://drum.lib.umd.edu/.
Denzin, N. K. & Lincoln, Y. S. (2005). Introduction: The discipline and practice of qualitative research. In N. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), The Sage handbook of qualitative research(3rd ed) (pp. 1-32). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Dorner, L. M. (2006). Constructing a dual language policy in a new immigrant community: Conflicts, contexts, and kids (Doctoral dissertation, Northwestern University). Retrieved from ProQuest Dissertations and Theses database. (UMI No. 3237791)
Dorner, L. M. (2012). The life course and sense-making: Immigrant families’journeys toward understanding educational policies and choosing bilingual programs. American Educational Research Journal, 49(3), 461-486.
Eisner, E.W, (2002). The educational imagination: On the design and evaluation of school programs (3rd ed.). New Jersey: Prentice Hall.
Elmore, R., Sykes, G., & J. Spillane. (1996). Curriculum policy. In P. W. Jackson (Ed.) Handbook of research on curriculum (2nd ed, pp. 185-215). New York: MacMillan.
Evans, A. E. (2007). School leaders and their sensemaking about race and demographic change. Educational Administration Quarterly, 43(2), 159-188.
Fendt. C. (2010). Teacher sensemaking and the implementation of a district-wide curricular and instructional reform (Doctoral dissertation, University of Illinois at Chicago). Retrieved from ProQuest Dissertation and Theses database. (UMI No. 3417344)
Fok, P. K., Kennedy, K. J. & Chan, K. S. J. (2010). Teachers, policymakers and project learning: The questionable use of "hard" and "soft" policy instruments to influence the implementation of curriculum reform in Hong Kong. International Journal of Education Policy and Leadership, 5(6), 1-14.
Forrest, S. N. (2010). Making sense of exit exam policies: A phenomenological study of english language development teachers. (Doctoral dissertation, Walden University). Retrieved from ProQuest Dissertations and Theses (UMI No. 3427684).
Fowler, F. C. (2009). Policy studies for educational leaders: An introduction (3rd ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson.
Frey, K. (1991). Curriculum politics. In A. Lewy. (ed.) The introduction encyclopedia of curriculum (pp. 116-117). Oxford: Pergamon Press.
Fullan, M. (2008). Curriculum implementation and sustainability. In F. M. Connelly, He, M. F., & J. Phillion, (Eds.), The SAGE handbook of curriculum and instruction (pp. 113-122). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Gauyan, B. F. (2009). Making sense of two conflicting literacy initiatives: A case study of two principals in one northwest school district (Doctoral dissertation, University of Washington). Retrieved from ProQuest Dissertations and Theses (UMI No. 3370491).
Glesne, C. (2006). Becoming qualitative researchers: An introduction (3rd ed.). Boston, MA:Allyn & Bacon.
Grubb, S. W. (2006). Making sense of reform: Understanding how school administrators use instructional letters to improve instruction in a northwestern district (Doctoral dissertation, University of Washington). Retrieved from ProQuest Dissertations and Theses database(UMI No. 3205855).
Guba, E. G., & Lincoln, Y. S. (2005). Paradigmatic controversies, contradictions and emerging confluences. In N. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), The Sage handbook of qualitative research (3rd ed) (pp. 191-215). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Haggerson ,N.L. (2000). Expanding curriculum research and understanding: A mytho-poetic perspective. New York: Peter Lang .
Herbert, K. S. (2010). Making sense of performance pay: Sensemaking and sensegiving in teachers' implementation of compensation reform (Doctoral dissertation, The University of Texas at Austin). Retrieved from http://repositories.lib.utexas.edu/
Hill, M. & Hupe, P. (2009). Implementing public policy: An introduction to the study of operational governance (2nd ed.). Los Angeles: Sage.
Honig, M.I. (2006). Complexity and policy implementation: Challenges and opportunities for the field. In M. I. Honig (Eds.) New directions in education policy implementation: Confronting complexity (pp. 1-23). Albany, NY: The State University of New York Press.
Honig, M.I. (2009). What works in defining “what works” in educational improvement: Lessons from education policy implementation research, directions for future research. In D.N. Plank, B. Schneider, & G. Sykes (Eds.), Handbook on education policy research (pp.333-347). Washington, DC: American Educational Research Association.
Hughes, A. S. (1991). Curriculum policies. In A. Lewy. (ed.) The introduction encyclopedia of curriculum (pp. 137-138). Oxford: Pergamon Press.
Ikemoto, G. S. (2007). Supports for principals' sensemaking: Lessons from the Institute for Learning's Instructional Leadership Program in Baltimore, Maryland (Doctoral dissertation, University of Maryland). Retrieved from http://drum.lib.umd.edu/
Jackson, P. W. (1996). (Ed.) Handbook of research on curriculum (2nd ed). New York:Macmillan.
Kennedy, K. J., Chan, K. S. J. & Fok, P. K. (2011). Holding policy-makers to account: Exploring soft and hard policy and the implications for curriculum reform. London Review of Education, 9(1), 41-54.
Kioukis. G. (2008). From “nonsense” to “making sense:” How education leaders interpret and implement supplemental educational services (Doctoral dissertation, The University at Albany, State University of New York). Available from ProQuest Dissertation and Theses database. (UMI No. 3336697)
Koo, W. S. (2009). The sense-making process of teachers in institutional change in curriculum: A case study on the implementation of the subject liberal studies in Hong Kong (Doctoral dissertation, The Chinese University of Hong Kong). Retrieved from ProQuest Dissertations and Theses (UMI No. 3447730).
Kvale, S. (2007). Doing interviews. London: Sage.
Lehman, T. E. (2008). Sunshine or twilight? School administrator interpretation of florida's multicultural education standards (Doctoral dissertation, The Florida State University). Retrieved from ProQuest Dissertations and Theses (UMI No. 3358346)
Lincoln, Y. S. (1996). Curriculum studies and the traditions of inquiry: The humanistic tradition. In P. W. Jackson (Ed.), Handbook of research on curriculum(2nd ed, pp.78-97). New York:Macmillan.
Lombard, J. J. (2012). Arts and culture teachers' experiences of and responses to curriculum change (Doctoral dissertation, Stellenbosch University, New Zealand). Retrieved from https://scholar.sun.ac.za/
Luttenberg, J., van Veen, K. & Imants, J. (2013). Looking for cohesion: The role of search for meaning in the interaction between teacher and reform. Research Papers in Education, 28(3), 289-308.
Mak, K. W. (2011). Making sense of new senior secondary liberal studies in Hong Kong curriculum reform: Teacher perspectives (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). The Chinese University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong.
Marsh, C. J. (2009). Key concepts for understanding curriculum (4th ed.). London: Routledge.
Marz, V., & Kelchtermans, G. (2013). Sense-making and structure in teachers’ reception of educational reform: A case study on statistics in the mathematics curriculum. Teaching and Teacher Education, 29, 13-24.
Maxwell, J. A. (2005). Qualitative research design: An interactive approach (2nd ed.) .Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
McDonnell, L. M., & Elmore, R. F. (1991). Getting the job done: Alternative policy instruments.In A.R. Odden (Ed.), Education policy implementation (pp. 157-183). Albany, NY: State University of New York Press.
McLaughlin, M.W. (2006). Implementation research in education: Lessons learned, lingering questions, and new opportunities. In M. I. Honig (Eds.) New directions in education policy implementation: Confronting complexity (pp. 209-228). Albany, NY: The State University of New York Press.
Merriam, S. B. (2009). Qualitative reserach: A guide to design and implementation. Sacramento, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Morris, P. & Adamson, B. (2010). Curriculum, schooling & society in Hong Kong. Hong Kong:The Hong Kong University Press.
Odden, A. R. (Ed.) (1991). Educational policy implementation. Albany, NY: State University of New York.
Oulton, C., Dillon, J., & Grace, M. M. (2004). Reconceptualizing the teaching of controversial issues. International Journal of Science Education, 26(4), 411-423.
Park, V. (2008). Beyond the numbers chase: how urban high school teachers make sense of data use (Doctoral dissertation, University of Southern California).Retrieved from http://digitallibrary.usc.edu/
Perkins, C. B. (2009). Reform without multiple-choice? Making sense of low-stakes mandates promoting civics and authentic intellectual work (Doctoral dissertation, University of Washington). Retrieved from ProQuest Dissertations and Theses (UMI No. 3356652).
Quinn. J. R. (2009). Teacher sense-making and policy implementation: A qualitative case study of a school district's reading initiative in science (Doctoral dissertation, University of Maryland). Retrieved from http://drum.lib.umd.edu/.
Reynolds, W, M. & Webber, J. A. (2004). Introduction: Curriculum theory dis/positon, In W. M. Reynolds & J. A. Webber (Eds.), Expending curriculum theory: Did/Position and lines of fligh (pp.1-18). New Jersey: Lawrence.
Sanjakdar, F. (2005, November). Controversy in our classrooms: Problems, perspectives and possibilities. Paper presented at the annual conference of the Australian Association for Research in Education, Retrieved Aug. 20, 2010, from http://www.aare.edu.au/data/publications/2005/san05041.pdf
Schubert, W. H. (2008). Curriculum inquiry. In F. M. Connelly, He, M. F., & J. Phillion, (Eds.),The SAGE handbook of curriculum and instruction (pp. 306-326). Thousand Oaks, CA:Sage.
Schubert, W. H. (2010). Definitions and dimensions of curriculum studies. In C. Kridel (Ed.),Encyclopedia of curriculum studies (pp. 229-237). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Short, E. C. (2008). Curriculum policy research. In F. M. Connelly, He, M. F., & J. Phillion,(Eds.), The SAGE handbook of curriculum and instruction (pp.420-430). Thousand Oaks,CA: Sage.
Silvestre, G. J. (2008). A case study of the tensions between policy-making and implementation of higher education reform policies that affect the professoriate at two argentinean universities (Doctoral dissertation, University of Pittsburg). Retrieved from ProQuest Dissertations and Theses (UMI No. 3335830).
Snyder, J., Bolin, F., & Zumwalt, K. (1996). Curriculum implementation. In P. W. Jackson(Ed.), Handbook of research on curriculum (2nd ed, pp.402-435). New York: Macmillan.
Spillane, J. P. (1998a). A cognitive perspective on the role of the local educational agency in implementing instructional policy: Accounting for local variability. Educational Administration Quarterly, 34(1), 31-57.
Spillane, J. P. (1998b). State policy and the non-monolithic nature of the local school district: Organizational and professional considerations. American Educational Research Journal,35(1), 33-63.
Spillane, J. P. (2000). Cognition and policy implementation: District policymakers and the reform of mathematics education. Cognition and Instruction, 18(2), 141-179.
Spillane, J. P. (2004). Standards deviation: How schools misunderstand education policy.Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Spillane, J. P., & Callahan, K. A. (2000). Implementing state standards for science education: What district policy makers make of the hoopla. Journal of Research in Science Teaching,37(5), 401-425.
Spillane, J. P., & Miele, D. B. (2007). Evidence in practice: A framing of the terrain. Yearbook of the National Society for the Study of Education, 106(1), 46-73.
Spillane, J. P., Reiser, B. J., & Gomez, L. M. (2006). Policy implementation and cognition: The role of human, social, and distributed cognition in framing policy implementation. In M. Honig (Ed.), New directions in education policy implementation: Confronting complexity(pp. 47-64). Albany: SUNY Press.
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.
Stake, R. (2005). Qualitative case studies. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), The Sage handbook of qualitative research (3rded., pp. 433-466). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Taylor, S., Rizvi, F., Lingard, B., & Henry, M. (1997) Educational policy and the politics of change. London: Routledge.
Walker, D. F. (1996). Methodological issues in curriculum research. In P. W. Jackson (Ed.), Handbook of research on curriculum (2nd ed, pp.98-118). New York: Macmillan.
Walshaw, M., & Anthony, G. (2007). Policy implementation: Integrating the personal and the social. Mathematics Teacher Education and Development, 8, 5-22.
Wan, W. F. (2012). Policy implementation and teacher cognition: ICT in education in Hong Kong secondary schools (Doctoral dissertation, The Chinese University of Hong Kong). Retrieved from ProQuest Dissertations and Theses (UMI No. 3538889).
Weick, K.E. (1995). Sensemaking in organizations. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Weick, K. E. (2005). The experience of theorizing: Sensemaking as topic and resource. In K. G. Smith & M. A. Hitt (Eds.), Great minds in management: The process of theory development(pp. 394-413). New York: Oxford University Press.
Weick, K.E., Sutcliffe, K.M., & Obstfeld, D. (2005). Organizing and the process of sensemaking. Organization Science, 16(4), 409-421.
Wellington, J.J. (Ed.) (1986). Controversial issues in the curriculum. England: Basil Blackwell.
Yamashita, M. Y. (2011). How does high stakes testing influence teachers'classroom instruction? Institutional pressures and classroom instruction (Doctoral dissertation, University of Pittsburgh). Retrieved from http://d-scholarship.pitt.edu/
Yin, R. K. (2009). Case study research: Design and methods (4th ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA:Sage.
 
 
 
 
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