課程在本世紀以來，已被視為是社會重建的主要媒介之一。換言之，學校教育被認為是形塑人類行為和勾勒美好社會的主要制度之一。雖然，學校教育中所蘊含的政治內涵已被大多數教育工作者所承認，但是社會重建主義在主流課程理論中的論述，仍處於少數或邊陲的地位。 基於此，本文主要論述社會重建主義與最近積極建構其理論的批判教育學（Critical Pedagogy）對台灣現階段課程重建的影響。並闡述其如何陳顯於教育脈絡中發揮其可能性。從社會重建主義與批判教育學的論述，可以得知二者之間有顯著的關聯，其皆專注於學校教育中的政治性質及批判學校階級利益的再製；換言之，學校教育有抗拒支配秩序的潛能，而教師作為轉化型知識份子可促進社會向上提昇的力量，而意識型態不能只視為是錯誤意識，它也是人類知識建構的基本內涵；採取倫理的位階並拒絕將教育視為中立或激進相對；課程重建的過程試圖融入並調和實用主義及歐洲激進主義，使得批判教育學理論呈現融合新社會學、批判理論、新馬克斯主義、女性主義、文化研究、新實用主義、後現代主義的萬花筒形貌<是本文論述的重點。這其中，實踐性判斷能力是課程再概念化論者所關注的焦點，它不但存在於基本的人類旨趣中，也應該是教育的主要目的。 本文首先論及台灣當前九年一貫課程改革的圖像，次則從社會重建理論的觀點，詮釋其對台灣本土當前課程重建的可能性意涵。本文將從批判教育學五個層面加以釐清與再思考：一、轉化與傳遞的知識二元論；二、意識型態在課程所扮演的角色；三、後結構主義反霸權的實踐論述；四、全球化與本土化課程發展的願景；五、教師作為一轉化型知識份子的定位；最後，作成結論。

　　　　　In the 20th century curriculum has been seen as vehicle for social reconstruction. In other words, schooling has become one of the major institutions for shaping human behavior and designing a preferred society. Though mainstream educators acknowledge the political dimension of schooling, nevertheless social reconstrcutionism per se remains as marginal thinking viewed by mainstream curriculum theorists and practitioners. The purpose of this paper is to address an implication of exploring the connection between various approaches to critical pedagogy and the reconstructionist legacy for current Taiwan’s curriculum reform. Critical pedagogy consists of various sources including new sociology of education, critical theory, neo-Marxism, phenomenology, feminism, cultural studies, neo-pragmatism, and postmodernism. This paper will discuss the blueprint of current Taiwan’s Grade 1-9 Compulsory Curriculum Reform. It will reinterpret implications of Taiwan’s curriculum reform from socio-reconstructionist point of view. With regard to a reinterpretation of critical pedagogy, there are five dimensions that must be considered. First, the transformation/ transmission dichotomy: we need to reconsider the implication for socio-cultural transformation as the goal of social reconstruction. Secondly, the role of ideology in curriculum theory still remains rooted in the framework of false consciousness. Thirdly, we must reconsider the implication for counter-hegemonic praxis by postmodern theory. Fourth, the vision of globalization and localization on curriculum development should be considered. Fifth, it is important to identify teachers as intellectuals. Finally, the author will discuss current Taiwan’s Grade 1-9 Compulsory Curriculum Guideline that touches upon the relevance of critical pedagogy theory and provide suggestions regarding Taiwan’s curriculum reconstruction in the future.