大學通識教育的潛在課程分析：以兩所大學的兩門通識課程為例

Abstract

本研究之研究目的在於探討大學通識教育中的潛在課程，由大學通識教育制度與課程決定歷程，以及正式課程的課堂經驗兩大層次瞭解影響通識教育落實的潛在因素為何。 為深入瞭解潛在課程，本研究採取質性研究方法，以課堂觀察、訪談與收集文件等方式獲取資料；研究對象方面，則在一所公立大學與一所私立大學中挑選通識教育課程進行上述資料收集工作，其中前者屬於合開課程，後者由教師單獨開課。根據資料詮釋與分析的結果，本研究歸納結論如下： （一）大學的通識教育制度隱含工具理性、教授核心、科系本位的規則，將通識教育整合至專業科系體系之下，維持專業科系的優勢地位。合開的通識課程的課程決定歷程中蘊含了行政科層結構、學術位階結構與各系所教師教學權威平衡等潛在課程運作；而教師獨自開課的通識課程則延續了教授核心、科系本位的潛在規則。 （二）課堂經驗中，教師實施的教學行動、學生面臨的「權力—支配」關係，以及疏離的課堂氛圍等潛在課程，形成零碎的知識論、工具理性的方法論，以及形式主義的價值論的通識教育。 上述之潛在課程的運作，最後造成通識教育在大學中「低階知識化」的結果。Abstract

The purpose of this study is to explore the hidden curriculum of general education in universities in Taiwan. There are two parts in the study : the decision-making process of general education curriculum d and teaching and learning experiences created by teachers and students. Content analysis, participant observation in courses, interviews and literature review are adopted as the methods of data collection. The two courses are selected as research targets, one from public university and the other from private one The former one, Introduction to the Study of Society, is taught by a team of teachers; the later one, Introduction to Sociology, by one teacher. There are two major findings in the study:: 1. Generally speaking, general education in the two universities shows that the characteristics of instrumental rationality, faculty-centered and discipline-oriented are adopted to maintain the disciplinary leadership in the design of general education curriculum while integrating the professional education into general education.. Moreover, the decision-making process of hidden curriculum in “ Introduction to Sociology” by a team of teachers contains the institutional and academic bureaucratic operation in university and the faculty power from all programs in School of Social Science only . In addition, , faculty-centered and discipline–oriented features are implemented in “Introduction to Sociology” . 2. In the two courses, the learning experience in class embracing hidden curriculum as pedagogical action, “power-control” relationship between faculty and students, and atmosphere of alienation in classroom result in fragmentation in epistemology, instrumental rationality of methodology, and formalism in theory of value.