課程領域中應用範式概念之爭議
The Debate over the Application of “Paradigm” in Curriculum Studies
- 關鍵字：
- 課程範式、墨頓、孔恩 / Curriculum paradigm、R. K. Merton、T. Kuhn
第五十輯．第ㄧ期 - 2004-03-31
繪本教學在師資培育上的應用--以「班級經營」為例王千倖
Using Picture Books to Teach Prospective Teachers How to Manage Their ClassroomsChien-Hsing Wang
中小學教師資訊融入教學發展模式及檢核工具之研究 徐新逸、林燕珍
A Study of the Developmental Model and Practical Guidelines for Technology-Integrated Instructional Design for Elementary and High School TeachersHsin-Yih Shyu Yen-Chen Lin
國民小學九年一貫課程試辦成效之綜合評鑑--以桃竹苗地區為例謝金青
An Evaluation Study of the Grade 1-9 Coherent Curriculum Program Employed by Elementary Schools in Northern TaiwanKing-Ching Hsieh
從新馬克思主義到後結構主義--課程社會學研究的再概念化卯靜儒
From Neo-Marxism to Post-structuralism: Reconceptualizing Sociological Studies of CurriculumChin-Ju Mao
H. M. Kliebard的課程史研究及其啟示鍾鴻銘
H. M. Kliebard's Curricular History Studies and Their ImplicationsHorng-Ming Jong
課程連結理論之探究：課程標準、教學與評量之關係賴志峰
An Analysis of Curriculum Alignment Theory: The Relationship among Curriculum Requirements, Instruction and AssessmentChih-Feng Lai
課程領域中應用範式概念之爭議霍秉坤、黃顯華
The Debate over the Application of “Paradigm” in Curriculum Studies Ping-Kwan FOK Hin-Wah Wong
論革新課程實驗之難成 單文經
On the Problems in Experimenting with Curricular TransformationWen-Jing Peter Shan
- 摘要
- 英文摘要
- 參考文獻
- 全文下載
不少中、西學者都在課程領域應用範式一詞，一方面促成百家爭鳴，另一方面引發不少爭論。本文的目的不是統整學者對課程範式的看法，也不是說明各課程範式的內容；而是從範式的定義入手，對課程範式的概念加以探討。首先，本文從墨頓（Merton）及孔恩（Kuhn）對範式的意涵入手，探討課程領域的範式應用；然後分析範式概念在課程領域的應用；最後，綜合課程範式的爭論焦點。探討的結果可以歸納為兩個要點：一是爭論的源起多來自範式的定義和特性的不同，二是爭論未來發展會否趨於統一。因此，筆者建議必須小心使用範式一詞，在應用時亦應清楚說明其操作型定義，同時應用時亦需留意這名詞特性。對於未來的課程範式之間的爭論，筆者認為不會出現一統的學說，爭論應會持續不斷。然而，筆者對這種持續爭論的局面抱持樂觀的態度，認為這種爭論是一種機遇，可以為課程領域帶來更多方面的探討。
“Paradigm” is a term widely used by Chinese and Western scholars in curriculum studies. This term has led to much discussion and has recently aroused considerable controversy. This article inquires into R. K. Merton’s and T. Kuhn’s conceptions of paradigm， then illustrates and discusses the application of paradigms in curriculum studies， and， finally， presents the debates regarding the different conceptions of “paradigm” assumed by scholars in their curriculum studies. The analysis reveals that the debates have mainly originated from different definitions， and different assumptions regarding the characteristics， of the paradigm. The authors suggest that， when applying a “paradigm” to curriculum studies， scholars should pay special attention to this paradigm’s characteristics， and provide an operational definition of it. They contend that while a single and unique conception of “paradigm” is not likely to appear， these debates will lead to further and deeper inquiries into the various dimensions of curricular study.
