國家課程與教學推動網絡的困境與想像
No Thumbnail Available
Date
2010-12-??
Authors
Journal Title
Journal ISSN
Volume Title
Publisher
國立台灣師範大學教育學系
Department od Education, NTNU
Department od Education, NTNU
Abstract
本研究以縣市層級的「國民教育輔導團」為對象，訪談了四個分布於北、中、南、東縣市的相關行政人員、輔導團員及相關人員。結果發現，目前國家課程與教學的推動面臨四大困境:一、缺乏完善的「行政」與「課程與教學」間的分工與對話機制;二、缺乏課程與教學政策的整合與轉化機制;三、偏重領域學科教學，忽略課程意識的發展;四、對學校層級的課程與教學影響有限。面對此四大困境，我們建議或許應超越過去「輔導團」為主的課程與教學推動模式，而重新想像一套未來可能的「國家課程與教學推動網絡」。
This study focused on the“Compulsory Education Advisory Groups” at county and city levels, and thereof interviewed administrative staffs , members of the advisory group， and related personnel in the counties and cities of northern, central, southern, and eastern Taiwan. Results showed that, the four obstacles currently facing the National Curriculum and Instruction Promotion Network are: 1) lack of complete division of labor and conversation mechanism between "administration" and "curriculum and instruction" members; 2) lack of integration and transformation mechanism between curriculum and instruction policies; 3) partial emphasis on subject teaching, while neglecting the development of course consciousness; 4) limited influence on curriculum and instruction at the school level. To overcome those four obstacles, this study suggests that the curriculum and teaching promotion model which focuses on the "advisory groups" should be replaced by a new "National Curriculum and Instruction Promotion Network."
This study focused on the“Compulsory Education Advisory Groups” at county and city levels, and thereof interviewed administrative staffs , members of the advisory group， and related personnel in the counties and cities of northern, central, southern, and eastern Taiwan. Results showed that, the four obstacles currently facing the National Curriculum and Instruction Promotion Network are: 1) lack of complete division of labor and conversation mechanism between "administration" and "curriculum and instruction" members; 2) lack of integration and transformation mechanism between curriculum and instruction policies; 3) partial emphasis on subject teaching, while neglecting the development of course consciousness; 4) limited influence on curriculum and instruction at the school level. To overcome those four obstacles, this study suggests that the curriculum and teaching promotion model which focuses on the "advisory groups" should be replaced by a new "National Curriculum and Instruction Promotion Network."