H. M. Kliebard的課程史研究及其啟示
No Thumbnail Available
Date
2004-03-??
Authors
Journal Title
Journal ISSN
Volume Title
Publisher
國立台灣師範大學教育學系
Department od Education, NTNU
Department od Education, NTNU
Abstract
早期課程研究具有「非歷史的」現象。60年代後，課程的歷史研究才逐漸受到教育學者的重視，而Kliebard正是課程歷史研究的重要奠基人之一。Kliebard認為課程史研究旨在培育吾人批判慎思的習性；而課程作為一種選擇之文化財，其選擇過程應是課程史研究的重點所在。Kliebard的論述中實有民主與博雅教育兩個核心議題。且其認為隱喻可幫助吾人理解課程理論。Kliebard課程史研究的範圍，主要集中於19世紀末以迄20世紀中這段期間。在此時期，實係四股力量為著主導美國課程發展的爭鬥期。取資Kliebard的觀點省思吾人的現況，吾人的課程研究實亦有著非歷史的現象，因此有改變之必要。其次，從事課程的歷史研究可補充教育史研究。再者，課程史研究有助於瞭解課程改革失敗的因由。最後，吾人應以螺旋觀代替鐘擺觀來從事課程問題的解析，以掌握其本質。
Academic curricula had seldom been the object of historical studies until Kliebard emphasized the study of curriculat history. This article presents his curricular history studies and their implications for education. Kliebard's studies focus on two interrelated themes, democracy and liberal education. He argues that the best way to understand curriculum theory is by way of metaphor. His studies mainly examine curricular development from the 1890s to the 1950's, a period in which four groups struggled for the control of curriculum development in the USA. Kliebard shows how curricular history studies may increase our critical sensitivity to phenomena which we normally take for granted. Current curriculum studies in Taiwan should also be examined “historicized.” The author suggests that the study of curricular history can provide a more comprehensive understanding of educational history and clarify the problem of educational reform. He finally urges the adoption of a“spiral” model of curricula to replace the so-called“pendulum swing” curricular model.
Academic curricula had seldom been the object of historical studies until Kliebard emphasized the study of curriculat history. This article presents his curricular history studies and their implications for education. Kliebard's studies focus on two interrelated themes, democracy and liberal education. He argues that the best way to understand curriculum theory is by way of metaphor. His studies mainly examine curricular development from the 1890s to the 1950's, a period in which four groups struggled for the control of curriculum development in the USA. Kliebard shows how curricular history studies may increase our critical sensitivity to phenomena which we normally take for granted. Current curriculum studies in Taiwan should also be examined “historicized.” The author suggests that the study of curricular history can provide a more comprehensive understanding of educational history and clarify the problem of educational reform. He finally urges the adoption of a“spiral” model of curricula to replace the so-called“pendulum swing” curricular model.