篇名 | 課程概念重建的發展與爭議—兼論其在課程理解典範之重要性 |
---|---|
卷期 | 51:2 |
並列篇名 | The Development and Controversy of Reconceptualization: the Importance of Reconceptualization on Curriculum Understanding Paradigm |
作者 | 許芳懿 |
頁次 | 195-217 |
關鍵字 | 概念重建 、 課程理論 、 課程理解典範 、 reconceptualization 、 curriculum theory 、 curriculum understanding paradigm 、 TSSCI |
出刊日期 | 200610 |
概念重建論者質疑課程發展典範的泰勒原理已成為技術工具,及憂心1960 年代概念實徵的法則推論方式,無法顧及個體及情境差異。因此,提出概念重建來強調個體與歷史、情境脈絡的關聯,重視理論扮演的思考引導角色,也關心價值涉入的課題。概念重建為課程理解典範之始,可分為探討鉅觀面的社會結構、微觀面的自我意識與主體性兩種向度。論及概念重建的發展與壯大,William Pinar 可謂居功厥偉。本文即就「概念重建」一詞的意義、起源背景、Pinar 與概念重建的關係,及概念重建對課程理解典範的重要性、所具特色與面對的爭議,分別進行探討、分析和評論。
“Reconceptualization” prompted by William Pinar in 1970’s is divided two dimensions: one is the macro-social structure, another is the micro-self-consciousness and individuality. The reconceptualists had doubted the “Tyler Rational” as a technological instrument, and argued that the individuality of students would be detracted from the generalizations which were emphasized by concept-empiricism. The tenet of reconceptualization has been suggested that we must insist on the relationships among individuality with history , culture and social milieu. Thus the self-reflection of the individual with the social structure is important. Three dimensions of the article are explored as follows: (1)the meaning, origins and characteristics of “reconceptualization”,(2)the importance of reconceptualization on the paradigm of “curricular understanding,”(3)the controversy about reconceptualization. Finally, the author suggests some directions for further reflection and research.