第七十一輯．第三期「108課綱回顧與前瞻」專刊－下（Open Access） - 2025-09-30

（一般論文）【研究論文】H. L. Caswell對課程研究專業化的貢獻

（General Paper）【Research Paper】H. L. Caswell’s Contribution to the Professionalization of Curriculum Studies

作　者：
鍾鴻銘 / Horng-Ming Jong
關鍵字：
Caswell、專業化、課程史、課程發展、課程發展與視導協會 / Caswell, professionalization, curriculum history, curriculum development, ASCD
  • 摘要
  • 英文摘要
  • 參考文獻
  • 全文下載
（1）研究目的：本研究旨在探究Caswell課程成為專業化研究領域過程中所做出的貢獻。（2）主要理論或概念架構：一門學術研究領域從草創到被學術殿堂認可為專業學術研究領域，有其一定的歷程。首先，須積累一定的專業知識，此種知識應有別於其他專業領域的知識，構成其專業知識的獨特性。其次，大學乃專業知識的學術殿堂，被其他既立的專業知識學術領域認可足以構成專業學術領域，方可在此立足。是以，能否在大學設立相關系所，便是此研究領域能否被接納為專業化學術領域的另一重要指標。再者，應建立其專業組織，對內可凝聚專業人員的凝聚力，且成為專業知識分享的園地：對外則可透過專業組織，提供專業諮詢與服務。（3）研究設計／方法／對象：本研究旨在透過歷史研究法，探究課程在成為專業化研究領域過程中，課程學者Caswell所做出的獨特貢獻。研究的史料包括Caswell個人遺留的課程學術著作與Caswell對課程朝向專業化發展過程的見證與評價等直接史料，以及晚近解析其學術生涯與對課程領域的貢獻、門生對其評價等間接史料。此外，尚有課程專業組織的成立與發展過程和哥倫比亞大學成立課程相關學系過程的相關著作等，由於論文作者們皆曾親身經歷這些組織與機構的發展過程，故所述內容應頗符史實，故具參考價值。（4）研究發現或結論：就專業知識而言，Caswell與Campbell合作的《課程發展》（Curriculum Development）乃為第一本綜要式課程專著，此著作對課程發展一詞的通俗化具有重大貢獻，對課程專業知識的積累亦有其推進作用。其次，畢業後參與課程修訂計畫的卓越表現，加諸母校教師的極力推薦，Caswell得以成為第一個課程相關學系即哥倫比亞大學師範學院課程與教學系的首任系主任。Caswell對此一學系的行政建構，成為此後其他學校爭相仿效的對象。再者，美國現行課程專業組織「課程發展與視導協會」（Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development, ASSD）乃由「課程研究學會」（Society for Curriculum Study）與「視導人員與教學主任部」（Department of Supervisors and Directors of Instruction）合併而來。成立前，Caswell同時身為兩個組織的重要成員，他排除反對聲浪，力主兩個組織應進行合併。「課程發展與視導協會」的成立，代表兩個組織功能上的整合。顯見，課程發展應結合視導工作，方能有效提升課程實施的成效。（5）理論或實務創見／貢獻／建議：在美國，課程研究成為專業化研究領域，曾經經歷一段形成期。由此反觀臺灣，我國課程研究在解嚴後漸受重視。在短期間內，許多大學紛紛成立課程相關系所。且「中華民國課程與教學學會」專業組織亦已於1996年亦成立。課程專業知識在第一代課程學者黃政傑等人的努力下，已奠定一定基礎。其後，在第二代課程學者的努力下，課程知識亦不斷迭增。建議後進學者應採理論與實務並進，強化國內課程研究。
(1) Purpose: This research aims to examine Caswell’s contribution to the professionalization of curriculum studies. (2) Main Theories or Conceptual Frameworks: An academic research field typically undergoes a formative period, from its inception to being recognized by other academic areas as a professional studies field. This process includes the accumulation of a body of professional knowledge, which should be distinct from that of other professional areas and constitute the uniqueness of its professional knowledge. Moreover, universities should play a crucial role as academic palaces of professional knowledge. Whether relevant institutes can be established in universities is another important indicator of whether this research field is accepted as a professional field since a field of knowledge will only be recognized by other established academic fields when it is professional enough to constitute a professional academic field. Internally, professional organizations should be established to gather the cohesion of professionals and become a forum for sharing professional knowledge; externally, professional consultation and services can be provided through professional organizations. (3) Research Design/Methods/Participants: Through historical research methods, this research explores Caswell’s contribution to the professionalization of curriculum as an academic field. The historical materials studied include direct historical materials such as Caswell’s academic works on curriculum and his witness and evaluation of the process of curriculum development towards professionalization, as well as indirect historical materials such as recent analysis of his academic career and contributions to the curriculum field and the evaluation about him by his students. In addition, related works on the establishment and development process of curriculum professional organizations and the process of Columbia University establishing curriculum-related department were also examined. Since the authors of these papers have personally experienced the development process of these organizations and institutions, the content described should be quite consistent with historical facts and therefore should be valuable for historical reference. (4) Research Findings or Conclusions: In terms of professional knowledge, Curriculum Development written by Caswell and Campbell was the first synoptic work in curriculum. This work made a significant contribution to the popularization of the term curriculum development and also contributed to the accumulation of curriculum professional knowledge. Caswell was able to head the first curriculum-related department, namely the Department of Curriculum and Teaching at Teachers College, Columbia University due to his outstanding performance in participating in the curriculum revision project after graduation, and the strong recommendation of teachers at his alma mater. His administrative constructions for this department was a model adopted by other schools. Furthermore, the current curriculum professional organization, Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development (ASCD) in the United States, was formed from the merger of the Society for Curriculum Study and the Department of Supervisors and Directors of Instruction. Before its establishment, Caswell was an important member of both organizations. He overcame any opposition and advocated that the two organizations should be merged. Significantly, the establishment of the ASCD represents the functional integration of the two organizations, and therefore curriculum development should be combined with supervision work to effectively improve the effectiveness of curriculum implementation. (5) Theoretical or Practical Insights/Contributions/Recommendations: In the United States, curriculum studies experienced a formative period before being regarded as a professional field of study. In Taiwan, by contrast, curriculum research has gradually received more attention after the lifting of martial law. Over a relatively short period, many universities have established curriculum-related institutes; the professional organization Association for Curriculum and Instruction, Taiwan, R.O.C. was also established in 1996. Curriculum professional knowledge has laid a solid foundation under the efforts of the first generation of curriculum scholars, including Huang Zhen-Jie and others. Later, with the efforts of the second generation of curriculum scholars, curriculum knowledge has been continuously increased. It is recommended that latter curriculum scholars should advance theory and practice simultaneously and strengthen domestic curriculum research.
Kliebard, H. M.（2020）。美國中小學課程競逐史（1893-1958）（單文經，譯注）。心
　　理。（原著出版於2004）
[Kliebard, H. M. (2020). The struggle for the American curriculum, 1893-1958 (W.-J. Shan,
　　Trans. & Annotate). Psychological. (Original work published, 2004)]
Tyler, R. W.（1981）。課程與教學的基本原理（黃炳煌，編譯）。桂冠。（原著出版於
　　1949）
[Tyler, R. W. (1981). Basic principles of curriculum development and instruction (Z.-J. Huang,
　　Trans. & Compile). Laureate. (Original work published, 1949)]
單文經、鍾鴻銘（2005）。《二十六期年刊》在課程史上的意義。課程與教學，8
　　（4），77-90。https://doi.org/10.6384/CIQ.200510.0077
[Shan, W-J., & Jong, H.-M. (2005). The significance of the 26th Yearbook of NSSE in history
　　of curriculum. Curriculum & Instruction Quarterly, 8(4), 77-90. https://doi.org/10.6384/
　　CIQ.200510.0077]
黃政傑（1991）。課程設計。東華。
[Huang, Z.-J. (1991). Curriculum design. Tung Hua.]
鍾鴻銘（2004）。H. M. Kliebard的課程史研究其及啟示。教育研究集刊，50（1），91-
　　118。https://doi.org/10.6910/BER.200403_(50-1).0004
[Jong, H.-M. (2004). H. M. Kliebard’s curricular history studies and their implications. Bulletin
　　of Educational Research, 50(1), 91-118. https://doi.org/10.6910/BER.200403_(50-1).0004]
Alexander, W. M. (1985). Hollis L. Caswell. Kappa Delta Pi Record, 22, 11-13. https://doi.org/
　　10.1080/00228958.1985.10517738
Board of Directors. (1943a). Program of the department of supervision and curriculum
　　development. Curriculum Journal, 14(5), 197-206.
Board of Directors. (1943b). Program of the department of supervision and curriculum
　　development. Educational Method, 22(8), 344-353.
Bobbitt, F. (1918). The curriculum. Houghton Mifflin.
Bobbitt, F. (1924a). The new technique of curriculum-making. The Elementary School Journal,
　　25(1), 45-54. https://doi.org/10.1086/455642
Bobbitt, F. (1924b). Functions of the high-school principal in curriculum-making. NASSP
　　Bulletin, 8, 10-17. https://doi.org/ 10.1177/019263652400800103
Bobbitt, F. (1924c). The technique of curriculum-making in arithmetic. The Elementary School
　　Journal, October, 127-143. https://doi.org/10.1086/455660
Bobbitt, F. (1925). Difficulties to be met in local curriculum-Making. The Elementary School
　　Journal, 25(9), 653-663. https://doi.org/10.1086/455785
Bobbitt, F. (1927). The orientation of the curriculum-making. In G. M. Whipple (Ed.), The
　　foundations and technique of curriculum-construction (Part II: The foundations of
　　curriculum-making, pp. 41-55). Public School.
Burlbaw, L. M. (1989). Hollis Leland Caswell’s contributions to the development of the
　　curriculum field [Unpublished doctoral dissertation]. University of Texas at Austin.
Burlbaw, L. M. (2003). Hollis Leland Caswell: Teacher, principal, professor, dean, president,
　　mentor, and friend. In S. L. Field & M. J. Berson (Eds.), They led by teaching (pp. 18-27).
　　Kappa Delta Pi.
Burlbaw, L. M. (2005). More than 10,000 teachers: Hollis L. Caswell and the Virginia
　　curriculum revision program. In L. M. Burlbaw & S. L. Field (Eds.), Explorations in
　　curriculum history research (pp. 53-71). Information Age.
Caswell, H. L. (1934). Practical application of mechanistic and organismic psychologies to
　　curriculum making. Journal of Educational Research, 28(1), 16-24. https://doi.org/
　　10.1080/00220671.1934.10880457
Caswell, H. L. (1937). The relation of the curriculum and the course of study. In H. L. Caswell
　　& D. S. Campbell (Eds.), Readings in curriculum development (pp. 663-666). American
　　Book. (Original work published 1934)
Caswell, H. L. (1950). Sources of confusion in curriculum theory. In V. E. Herrick & R. W. Tyler
　　(Eds.), Toward improved curriculum theory (pp. 110-117). University of Chicago Press.
Caswell, H. L. (1966). Emergence of the curriculum as a field of professional work and study. In
　　H. F. Robinson (Ed.), Precedents and promise in the curriculum field (pp. 1-11). Teachers
　　College Press.
Caswell, H. L. (1978). Persistent curriculum problems. The Educational Forum, 43(1), 99-110.
　　https://doi.org/10.1080/00131727809338314
Caswell, H. L. (1979). The revisionist historian and educational practice. In E. Short (Ed.), The
　　society for the study of curriculum history: Meetings and papers 1977-1991. https://eric.
　　ed.gov/?id=ED342736
Caswell, H. L., & Associates (1950). Curriculum improvement in public school systems. Bureau
　　of Publications, Teachers College, Columbia University.
Caswell, H. L., & Campbell, D. S. (1935). Curriculum development. American Book.
Caswell, H. L., & Campbell, D. S. (Eds.). (1937). Reading in curriculum development. American
　　Book.
Charters, W. W. (1922). Activity analysis and curriculum construction. Journal of Educational
　　Research, 5(5), 357-367. https://doi.org/10.1080/00220671.1922.10879264
Charters, W. W. (1923). Curriculum construction. Macmillan.
Charters, W. W. (1924). Functional analysis as the basis for curriculum construction. Journal of
　　Educational Research, 10(3), 214-221. https://doi.org/10.1080/00220671.1924.10879496
Charters, W. W. (1927). A technique for the construction of a teacher-training curriculum.
　　Journal of Educational Research, 15(3), 176-180. https://doi.org/10.1080/00220671.1927.
　　10879731
Charters, W. W. (1928). The use of activity analysis in curriculum construction. Educational
　　Research Bulletin, 7(16), 339-342, 355-356.
Cogan, M. L. (1953). Toward a definition of profession. Harvard Educational Review, Winter,
　　33-50.
Cremin, L. A. (1975). Curriculum making in the United States. In W. F. Pinar (Ed.), Curriculum
　　theorizing: The reconceptualists (pp. 19-35). McCutchan.
Cremin, L. A., Shannon, D. A., & Townsend, M. E. (1954). A history of Teachers College,
　　Columbia University. Columbia University Press.
Cutright, P. (1937). Critical analysis of curriculum development in city school systems. In H.
　　Harap (Ed.), The changing curriculum (pp. 221-251). D. Appleton-Century.
Davis, O. L. (1978). Symbol of a shift from status to function: Formation of the Association for
　　Supervision and Curriculum Development. Educational Leadership, May, 609-614.
Deegan, P. A. (1989). Professionalism in the curriculum field [Unpublished doctoral
　　dissertation]. Stanford University.
Doyle, W. (1976). Education for all: The triumph of professionalism. In O. Davis Jr. (Ed.),
　　Perspectives on curriculum development 1776-1976. Association for Supervision and
　　Curriculum Development yearbook, 1976 (pp. 17-75). Association for Supervision and
　　Curriculum Development.
Draper, E. M., & Zeller, D. (1942). Merger approved. Educational Method, 22(2), 92.
Foshay, A. W. (1987). Hollis Leland Caswell: An appreciation. Teaching Education, 1(1), 76-79.
　　https://doi.org/10.1080/1047621870010119
Foshay, A. W. (1996). Hollis Caswell and the practice of education. In C. Kridel, R. V. Bullough,
　　Jr., & P. Shaker (Eds.), Teachers and mentors: Profiles of distinguished twentieth-century
　　professors of education (pp. 199-205). Garland.
Fraley, A. E. (1981). Schooling and innovation: The rhetoric and the reality. Tyler Gibson.
Franklin, B. M. (1977). Curriculum history: Its nature and boundaries. Curriculum Inquiry, 7(1),
　　67-79. https://doi.org/10.2307/1179401
Heller, T. H. (1976). Hollis Caswell, builder of the curriculum field. In O. L. Davis (Ed.),
　　Perspectives on curriculum development 1776-1976 (pp. 240-241). Association for
　　Supervision and Curriculum Development.
Henderson, H. R. (1943). A message from the president. Educational Leadership, 1(1), 39.
Hobson, C. S. (1943). Franklin Bobbitt: Pioneer in curriculum making. Curriculum Journal,
　　14(1), 14-17.
Kliebard, H. M. (1966a). Dimensions of meaning in classroom discourse. Journal of Teacher
　　Education, 17(2), 233-244. https://doi.org/10.1177/002248716601700216
Kliebard, H. M. (1966b). The patterning of classroom discourse. Journal of Teacher Education,
　　17(4), 469-480. https://doi.org/10.1177/002248716601700412
Kliebard, H. M. (1966c). The observation of classroom behavior (ED028112). ERIC. https://
　　files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED028112
Kliebard, H. M. (1968). The curriculum field in retrospect. In P. W. F. Witt (Ed.), Technology and
　　the curriculum (pp. 69-84). Teachers College Press.
Kliebard, H. M. (1979). Systematic curriculum development, 1890-1959. In J. Schaffarzick & G.
　　Sykes (Eds.), Value conflicts and curriculum issues: Lessons form research and experience
　　(pp. 197-236). McCutchan.
Kliebard, H. M. (1992). Constructing a history of the American curriculum. In P. W. Jackson
　　(Ed.), Handbook of research on curriculum (pp. 157-184). Macmillan.
Kliebard, H. M. (2004). The struggle for the American curriculum, 1893-1958 (3rd ed.).
　　Routledge Falmer.
Knudsen, C. W. (1937). Critical analysis of curriculum development in state and county school
　　systems. In H. Harap (Ed.), The changing curriculum (pp. 178-220). D. Appleton-Century.
Kridel, C. (1991). Biographical and archival research in curriculum. Journal of Curriculum and
　　Supervision, 7(1), 100-108.
Kridel, C. (Ed.). (1998). Writing educational biography: Explorations in qualitative research.
　　Routledge.
Kridel, C. (2008). Biographical meanderings: Reflections and reminiscences on writing
　　educational biography. Vitae Scholasticae, 5-16.
Kridel, C., & Newman, V. (2003). A random harvest: A multiplicity of studies in American
　　curriculum history research. In W. F. Pinar (Ed.), International handbook of curriculum
　　research (pp. 637-650). Lawrence Erlbaum.
Melby, E. O. (1937). Organizing educational forces for curriculum development. In H. Harap
　　(Ed.), The changing curriculum (pp. 125-142). D. Appleton-Century.
Miel, A. (1993). Who was first? Educational Leadership, 50(6), 75.
　　Monroe, W. S. (Ed.). (1941). Encyclopedia of educational research: Prepares under the auspices
　　of the American Educational Research Association. Macmillan.
National Conference on Educational Method. (1921). Constitution of the national conference on
　　educational method. The Journal of Educational Method, 1(1), 38-39.
Newlon, J. H., & Threlkeld, A. L. (1927). The Denver curriculum-revision program. In G.
　　M. Whipple (Ed.), The foundations and technique of curriculum-construction (Part I:
　　Curriculum-making: Past and present. The twenty-sixth yearbook of the National Society
　　for the Study of Education, pp. 229-240). Public School.
Noonan, R. B. (1984). The emergence of the professional curriculum specialist: A historical
　　interpretation of the Society for Curriculum Study [Unpublished doctoral dissertation].
　　Columbia University.
Peltier, G. L. (1967). Teacher participation in curriculum revision: An historical case study.
　　History of Education Quarterly, 7(2), 209-219. https://doi.org/10.2307/367562
Pinar, W. F., Reynolds, W. M., Slattery, & Taubman, M. (1995). Understanding curriculum:
　　An introduction to the study of historical and contemporary curriculum discourses. Peter
　　Lang.
Rankin, P. T. (1937). Planning for curriculum development. In H. Harap (Ed.), The changing
　　curriculum (pp. 112-124). D. Appleton-Century.
Saylor, G. (1986). ASCD and its beginnings. In W. Van Til (Ed.), ASCD in retrospect (pp. 5-14).
　　Association Supervision and Curriculum Development.
Schubert, W. H. (2008). Curriculum inquiry. In F. M. Connelly, M. F. He, & J. Phillion (Eds.),
　　The SAGE handbook of curriculum and instruction (pp. 399-419). age.
Seguel, M. L. (1966). The curriculum field: Its formative years. Teachers College Press.
Smith, E. E. (1925). The heart of the curriculum. Doubleday, Page & Company.
Stephens, W. R. (1967). Jesse Newlon. The Educational Forum, 32(1), 71-80. https://doi.
　　org/10.1080/00131726709340344
Tanner, D., & Tanner, L. (2007). Curriculum development: Theory into practice (4th ed.).
　　Pearson Merrill/Prentice Hall.
Threlkeld, A. L. (1925). Curriculum revision: How a particular city may attack the problem. The
　　Elementary School Journal, 25(8), 573-582. https://doi.org/10.1086/455768
Threlkeld, A. L. (1928). The place of the classroom teacher in curriculum revision. NASSP
　　Bulletin, 12, 93-95. https://doi.org/10.1177/019263652801202011
Tyler, R. W. (1986). The five most significant curriculum events in the twentieth century.
　　Educational Leadership, December, 36-38.
Walker, D. (1975a). The curriculum field in formation: A review of the twenty-sixth yearbook of
　　the National Society for the Study of Education. Curriculum Theory Network, 4(4), 263-
　　280. https://doi.org/10.2307/1179265
Walker, D. (1975b). Straining to lift ourselves: A critique of the foundations of the curriculum
　　field. Curriculum Theory Network, 5(1), 3-25. https://doi.org/10.2307/1179325
Whipple, G. M. (Ed.). (1927a). The foundations and technique of curriculum-construction (Part
　　I: Curriculum-making: Past and present. The twenty-sixth yearbook of the National Society
　　for the Study of Education). Public School.
Whipple, G. M. (Ed.). (1927b). The foundations and technique of curriculum-construction (Part
　　II: The foundations of curriculum-making. The twenty-sixth yearbook of the National
　　Society for the Study of Education). Public School.
Zeller, D. & Draper, E. M. (1942). Announcement of merger. Curriculum Journal, 13(8), 337.

 

全文下載