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
From Neo-Marxism to Post-structuralism: Reconceptualizing Sociological Studies of Curriculum
- 關鍵字：
- 新馬克思主義、後結構主義、課程社會學 / Sociology of the curriculum、Neo-Marxism、Post-structuralism
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
本篇論文以再概念化的概念，剖析臺灣在過去20年中，發展的課程社會學研究之歷史語境，並佐以美國的課程社會學研究的轉折，分析課程社會學研究在過去是什麼，而現在極有可能的將會是什麼。這篇論文藉助後結構主義的權力∕知識和主體的概念，挑戰既有課程社會學研究的思考模式，嘗試提出後結構主義取向的課程分析架構雛形，提供臺灣的課程社會學研究者另外一種理論的工具和分析的策略，以超越過去課程研究僅問「誰的課程？誰受益？」之類的問題，進一步問：「發生了什麼？」這類具有經驗意味的問題。文章最後指出課程與主體（或認同）建構的關係，是未來課程社會學研究在探索課程知識、形式和社會關係外的另一重要研究課題。
Inspired by William Pinar’s notion of reconceptualization， this article analyzes the shifting discourse of the sociology of curriculum in the USA and Taiwan. By analyzing the shifting ground of the sociology of the curriculum， the author proposes the adoption of a post-structuralist perspective on the curriculum as a theoretical tool and analytical strategy for researchers who are interested in the sociological study of curricula. This post-structuralist perspective goes beyond asking “Whose curriculum and who benefits from it?” to ask， “What happens in the curriculum”—the latter being an experience- oriented question. The author concludes that the relationship between the curriculum and the educated “subject” (or identity construction) will be a crucial theme for curriculum studies in the future.
