新加坡小學華文「校本單元」 課程決定之個案研究 新加坡小學華文「校本單元」 課程決定之個案研究

Abstract

新加坡於2004年2月開展了新一輪的華文教育改革，遂決定於2007年開始實施的新小學華文課程中採納「單元模式」，首次在中央課程的架構內設置「校本單元」，鼓勵學校自行設計華文校本課程。此舉在素來以中央為主導的課程發展模式下，可謂教育開放的重要里程碑。

課程發展之權力從中央初步過渡至學校，後者在運用該權力時所作的課程決定，及其背後的影響因素，是耐人尋味的。為深入描述及探討此內容，本研究採取質性研究方法，以新加坡的新亞小學為個案研究對象，透過訪談與文件分析的方式，以期達至三項研究目的，即瞭解新亞小學「校本單元」課程發展團隊的組成與運作、分析該團隊所作的課程決定，以及探究課程決定的影響因素。訪談對象為新亞小學課程發展團隊的成員，包括學校教師、校群特級教師、教育部課程規劃員，以及新加坡著名劇團的戲劇專家。團隊成員來自校內、外各層級領域，其身分與立場之迥異是如何在磨合之後落實為課程決定，課程決定又是如何由背後的影響因素所形塑，經整理與分析後，供本研究作討論之用，最後提出建議，以供參酌。本研究主要發現如下： 一、課程發展團隊的組成與運作方面：課程發展團隊的組成主要由學校外部發展所促成；由於課程發展團隊主要由專業人士組成，學校因相信其專業能力而未建立完善的校內支援系統；團隊內部在運作方面各司其職，呈現相對多元的視角。然而，此視角仍因為總體課程框架的設計而趨向共識，甚至隱約透露中央思維的傾向。 二、課程決定的面向與內涵方面：課程決定的關懷主要偏向內容與理念的考量；課程決定議題的主軸即中央與校本之間的定位；學校內部溝通有待加強。 三、課程決定的影響因素方面：課程發展團隊對課程決定有實質的影響；不同層面的影響因素與課程決定面向有所關聯；中央與外在思維主導課程決定的校本意志。

In 2004, Singapore initiated its new review of the Chinese Language(CL) curriculum, which led to the adoption of a “modular approach” by the Primary CL curriculum. Under this approach, schools were granted curriculum space and autonomy to design their own Chinese “school-based module”. As this fell within the structure of the mainstream curriculum and that CL was a core subject at the national examinations, it was considered a milestone for Singapore’s education.

The context within which a school administers its newfound autonomy, and how the latter translates the autonomy into actual curriculum practice and decision-making is of great research value. Using Xinya Primary School’s Chinese “school-based module” as a case study, the objectives of this research would therefore be to explore the composition and workings of the module’s curriculum development team, the nature and content of the team’s curriculum decisions, as well as their factors of influence.

Methods of interview and document analysis were adopted in the collection of data. Interviewees included members of the module’s curriculum development team, made up of school teachers, a master teacher from the school cluster, curriculum planning officers from Singapore’s Ministry of Education, and a renowned drama specialist. The diverse background and attributes of these team members come together as they formulate curriculum decisions, which are further influenced by other factors, ultimately serving as evidence for analysis and fodder for discussion.

The research concludes with the following findings: (1) Compositional nature and workings of the module’s curriculum development team: (a) Formation of the team was largely due to forces external to the school. (b) As the team was largely made up of professionals, there was much respect for their authority, hence a lack of support system within the school. (c) Team members had their own areas of specialization and exhibited relatively diverse perspectives. However, this diversity lay beneath a veil of mutual understanding, which divulged an inclination towards a centralized mode of thinking, rather than a school-based one. Much of this was due to the overarching curriculum framework. (2) Nature of curriculum decision-making: (a) It was geared towards the area of content, ideas and philosophy. (b) The main theme of curriculum decision-making issues was related to centralized and school-based stances. (c) Communication with school members could have been improved. (3) Influences on curriculum decision-making: (a) Characteristics of the curriculum development team were deemed substantive enough to be considered a relevant source of influence. (b) Different areas of influence were aligned to different areas of curriculum decisions. (c) Centralized and external thinking tended to dominate school-based thinking.