Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item:
A Comparative Study on Curriculum Development of Technology Education between Taiwan and the United States of America
With the coming of the new century, the educational reform is conducted widely all over the world for the purpose of promoting competitiveness in every country. Taiwan is famous on the name of “Green Silicon Island,” and technology education has played an important role in developing high-tech human resources. When it is mentioned to the educational reform of technology education in Taiwan, the trends of technology education in the United States are always considered definitely. As for the major trend of technology education in the United States, William E. Dugger who is the leader of “Technology for All American Project” believes that it is moving to the standard-based education. California is the first participant in the stansards-based education reform, so there must be many valuable experiences could be offered to us. Therefore the approach of comparative study is utilized and two research methods, literature review and in-depth interview, are also employed in this study to explore the state of curriculum development of technology education in Taiwan as well as in California and to find out the real problems in Taiwan. Through this study, the state-of-the-art of curriculum development of technology education in Taiwan and California are explored and the real problems of curriculum development of technology education in Taiwan and California are proposed: (1) Technology standards: (a) The ideal of technology standards is limited in students in Taiwan; meanwhile, the ideal of technology standards is lacking of the needs of students in California. (b) The developmental process of technology standards is lacking of criteria and evaluation team in Taiwan; meanwhile, the developmental process of technology standards is lacking of verifying students’ basic competency in each learning grade in California (c) The results of technology standards are lacking of specific standards and the examplar of technological activities in Taiwan; meanwhile, the results of technology standards are lacking of concerning the international issue of design in California. (2) Technology textbook: (a) The ideal of technology textbook do not reflect the value of leaning technology in Taiwan; meanwhile, the ideal of technology textbook do not concern the students’ financial support in California. (b) The ideal of technology textbook editor is not corresponding to the ideal of technology teacher in Taiwan and California. (c) The technology textbook is utilized the process of standards-related curriculm development and its content can not cover all competency indicators in Taiwan; meanwhile, the technology teachers always utilize many textbooks and it is needed to confirm that the learning content can meet all the technology standards in California. (d) The content of technology textbook is limited in technology standards and the design of teachers’ handbook is not good enough in Taiwan; meanwhile, the content of technology textbook is needed to meet the needs of all districts, but it is hard to meet all needs of each district in California. (3) Curriculum development: (a) The ideal of curriculum development of technology education is lacking of considering the needs of industry in Taiwan; meanwhile, the ideal of curriculum development of technology education is lacking of concerning the status of school in California. (b) The process of currirculum development of technology education do not match the ideal of standard-based curriculum development in Taiwan; meanwhile, the process of curriculum development of texhnology education is corresponding to the ideal of standard-based curriculum development, but it may be a heavy working load to technology teachers. (c) The results of curriculum development are lacking of integrating literature review and rubric with technological activities in Taiwan; meanwhile, the results of curriculum development are lacking of the planning of learning portfolio in California. (4) Professional group: (a) The tasks of professional group in Taiwan are lacking of offering the professional learning opportunities; meanwhile, the tasks of professional group in California are lacking of ont the spot mentoring in schools. (b) The professional group in Taiwan is lacking of the member with familiar of educational reform in assisting technology teachers’ professional learning; meanwhile, the professional group in California is lacking of outstanding technology teachers’ exemplary teaching. (c) The professional group in Taiwan is lacking of utilizing the information and communication technology in offering the professional learning opportunities; meanwhile, the professional group in California is lacking of developing teaching materials for technology teachers to utilize in their classroom. (5) Technology association: (a) The technology association in Taiwan is lacking of the mechanism of professional learning and mutual communication with industry; meanwhile, the technology association in California is lacking of the mechanism of influcing the curriculum planning in schools. (b) The technology associations in Taiwan and California still have to work hard in promoting the teaching opportunities. According to the result of this study, if the problems mentioned above were solved, the technology education in Taiwan will have a more properous future.
|Appears in Collections:||學位論文|
Files in This Item:
|n089171001001.pdf||353.2 kB||Adobe PDF||View/Open|
|n089171001002.pdf||529.4 kB||Adobe PDF||View/Open|
|n089171001003.pdf||324.5 kB||Adobe PDF||View/Open|
|n089171001004.pdf||490.88 kB||Adobe PDF||View/Open|
|n089171001005.pdf||477.85 kB||Adobe PDF||View/Open|
|n089171001006.pdf||338.82 kB||Adobe PDF||View/Open|
|n089171001007.pdf||173.87 kB||Adobe PDF||View/Open|
|n089171001008.pdf||419.53 kB||Adobe PDF||View/Open|
Items in DSpace are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.