Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item:
|Other Titles:||The Development and Controversy of Reconceptualization: The Importance of Reconceptualization on Curriculum Understanding Paradigm|
Office of Research and Development
|Abstract:||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.
|Appears in Collections:||師大學報|
Items in DSpace are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.