期刊專區/ Periodical Section

從教學者為主體到學習者為主體：普通高中校訂必修課程教師的難題

Shifting From a Teacher-Centered System to a Learner-Centered System: Dilemmas of Teaching Compulsory School-Developed Courses in Senior High Schools

所屬期刊：	第19卷第2期 主編：國立彰化師範大學教育研究所教授 龔心怡
系統編號：	vol073_02
主題：	師資培育
出版年份：	2023
作者：	陳斐卿
作者(英文)：	Fei-Ching Chen
論文名稱：	從教學者為主體到學習者為主體：普通高中校訂必修課程教師的難題
論文名稱(英文)：	Shifting From a Teacher-Centered System to a Learner-Centered System: Dilemmas of Teaching Compulsory School-Developed Courses in Senior High Schools
共同作者：
最高學歷：
校院名稱：
系所名稱：
語文別：
論文頁數：	42
中文關鍵字：	課綱；校訂必修；意識型態的難題；教師專業發展
英文關鍵字：	curriculum guideline； compulsory school-developed course；ideological dilemma；teacher professional development
服務單位：	國立中央大學學習與教學研究所暨師資培育中心特聘教授
稿件字數：	24321
作者專長：
投稿日期：	2023/2/26
論文下載：
摘要(中文)：	「教師不易改變」是教育改革中伴隨的一種印象。本文以2019年課程改革之「校訂必修」課程為例，探究教師集體備課與授課遭逢了什麼困難以致於不易改變。以2020年一所普通高中校訂必修課程之26次共備會議與160小時觀課為田野資料，以「意識型態的兩難」為概念工具，採用言談分析法揭露教師們經營校訂必修課程所顯現的意識型態難題。研究發現教師從過往的「教學者為主體」授課到校訂必修的「學習者為主體」授課之轉變並非易事，教師們的發言在「社群慣有」與「專業思考」這兩個隱含對立的意識型態之間徘徊，兩難的意識型態至少有三組：「進度」與「進步」、「教導」與「引導」、「給分」與「評量」。第一組是面臨學生之間進行專題學習的「進度」不一，教師應該趕整體的進度、還是該注重學生個別的「進步」；第二組是面臨學生做專題的種種問題，教師該積極「教導」學生、還是該給予學生所需的「引導」；第三組是面臨評定期末成績，教師應在各方周延考量下「給分」、還是建基於專業規準「評量」。三組意識型態的兩難具有時間軸的次序性，能完整描述授課教師從課程啟動到收尾的動態性兩難遭逢歷程，本文亦針對這些難題提出具體建議，希冀對於各校校訂必修課程之設計、教學與評量有所助益。
摘要(英文)：	It seems that teachers are reluctant to change their teaching practices when major educational reforms are introduced, hindering the efforts of education policymakers to bring about changes. This study analyzed the professional discussions of teachers during course-preparation meetings to understand how they responded to proposed reforms and to identify the challenges affecting the implementation of these reforms. Specifically, this study examined the discussions conducted across 26 course-preparation meetings for compulsory school-developed courses, which are a new type of course mandated by Taiwan’s 2019 curriculum reform. Drawing from the concept of ideological dilemmas (i.e., lived ideology vs. intellectual ideology), this study conducted discourse analysis and identified three dilemmas (i.e., progress tracking vs. progress making, didactic teaching vs. facilitative teaching, and contingency-based grading vs. rubric-based evaluation). These dilemmas highlight the mental inertia experienced by teachers when they switch from a teacher-centered system to a learner-centered system. This paper provides suggestions to schoolteachers and administrators on how to design, instruct, and conduct assessments for compulsory school-developed courses while navigating such ideological dilemmas.
參考文獻：	王竹梅、丁一顧（2022）。中小學跨領域教學的困境與反思。臺灣教育評論月刊，11（4），78-83。http://www.ater.org.tw/journal/article/11-4/topic/12.pdf 周淑卿、王郁雯（2019）。從課程統整到跨領域課程：台灣二十年的論述與問題。 教育學報，47（2），41-59。 林怡君、陳佩英（2020）。一所高中的校訂必修發展歷程研究：行動者網絡理論取 徑。中等教育，71（3），17-29。https://doi.org/10.6249/SE.202009_71(3).0018 范信賢、薛雅慈、尤淑慧、王智弘（2018）。喚醒夢想．釋放天賦：臺灣實驗教育 的另類課程實踐。國家教育研究院。 孫細、洪偉豪（2022）。問題導向學習法（PBL）之教學活動設計與實踐：以地理 視野─南方區域為例。地理研究，75，81-110。https://doi.org/10.6234/JGR.202205_(75).0004 張文耀（2020）。體驗教育融入校訂必修課程之規劃與實施。臺灣教育評論月刊， 9（8），79-85。http://www.ater.org.tw/journal/article/9-8/topic/13.pdf 張志維（2020）。校訂必修社群實務與省思─以臺北市立南湖高中為例。中等教 育，71（3），94-100。https://doi.org/10.6249/SE.202009_71(3).0023 教育部（2014／2021 修訂）。十二年國民基本教育課程綱要總綱。https://www.naer.edu.tw/upload/1/16/doc/288/(111學年度實施) 十二年國教課程綱要總綱.pdf 曼海姆（Mannheim, K.）（2005）。意識型態與烏托邦（張明貴，譯）。桂冠。（原 著出版年：1936） 陳建銘（2021）。普通型高中創新課程的規劃、實踐與啟示：以忠明高中為例。教 育科學期刊，20（1），1-18。 傅木龍、林佩璇（2022）。深度學習：素養豈能速養？康大學報，12，1-14。 彭佳偉（2021）。臺中一中 108 課綱的課程新面貌。臺灣教育評論月刊，10（8）， 36-41。http://www.ater.org.tw/journal/article/10-8/topic/06.pdf 曾慶玲、黃春木、簡邦宗、童禕珊（2021）。專題探究課程素養導向實作評量之發 展─以建中專題寫作與表達課程為例。臺灣教育評論月刊，10（5），167-191。http://www.ater.org.tw/journal/article/10-5/monography/02.pdf Billig, M., Condor, S., Edwards, D., Gane, M., Middleton, D., & Radley, A. (1988). Ideologicaldilemmas: A social psychology of everyday thinking. Sage. Cluley, V., Pilnick, A., & Fyson, R. (2022). Talking about learning disability: Discursive acts in managing an ideological dilemma. SSM-Qualitative Research in Health, 2, 100088. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ssmqr.2022.100088 Engestrom, Y. (2007). From stabilization knowledge to possibility knowledge in organizational learning. Management Learning, 38(3), 271-275. https://doi.org/10.1177/1350507607079026 Ericsson, C., & Lindgren, M. (2011). The conditions for establishment of an ideological dilemma: Antagonistic discourses and over-determined identity in school music teaching. Discourse:Studies in the Cultural Politics of Education, 32(5), 713-728. https://doi.org/10.1080/01596306.2011.620754 Friedman, E. S. (2023). Gray matters in institutional ideology: How ideological dilemmas affect orthodox teachers in North American community schools. Journal of Jewish Education, 89(2), 145-173. https://doi.org/10.1080/15244113.2023.2188321 Holmberg, L. (2018). The future of childhood studies? Reconstructing childhood with ideological dilemmas and metaphorical expressions. Childhood, 25(2), 158-172. https://doi.org/10.1177/0907568218759788 Lee, M., Ong, Y. H., & Martimianakis, M. A. (2022). Ideological dilemmas of healthcare professionals who do not speak up at interprofessional team meetings. Journal of Interprofessional Care, 37(1), 1-10. https://doi.org/10.1080/13561820.2022.2037530 Lester, J. N., Paulus, T. M., & Scherff, L. (2015). Ideological dilemmas inherent in informal learning spaces: A discourse analysis of preservice teacher talk. The Qualitative Report, 20(6), 830-846. https://doi.org/10.46743/2160-3715/2015.2162 Murakami, K., Kondo, S., & Hong, J. (2022). Teachers’ ideological dilemmas during the pandemic at higher education institutions: A discursive psychological approach. Human Arenas. https://doi.org/10.1007/s42087-022-00292-9 Norwich, B. (1993). Ideological dilemmas in special needs education: Practitioner’s views. Oxford Review of Education, 19(4), 527-546. Patterson, A., Roman, D., Friend, M., Osborne, J., & Donovan, B. (2018). Reading for meaning:The foundational knowledge every teacher of science should have. International Journal of Science Education, 40(3), 291-307. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2017.1416205 Potter, J. (2012). Discourse analysis and discursive psychology. In P. M. Camic, J. E. Rhodes,& L. Yardley (Eds.), Qualitative research in psychology: Expanding perspectives in methodology and design (pp. 73-94). American Psychological Association. https://doi.org/10.1037/10595-005 Rainio, A. P., & Hofmann, R. (2021). Teacher professional dialogues during a school intervention:From stabilization to possibility discourse through reflexive noticing. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 30(4-5), 707-746. https://doi.org/10.1080/10508406.2021.1936532 Smith, M. B., Early, M., & Kendrick, M. (2022). Teachers’ ideological dilemmas: Lessons learned from a Language Introduction Program in Sweden. Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development. https://doi.org/10.1080/01434632.2022.2126485 Venalainen, S. (2020). “What about men?” : Ideological dilemmas in online discussions about intimate partner violence committed by women. Feminism & Psychology, 30(4), 469-488. https://doi.org/10.1177/0959353520914238 Wiggins, S. (2017). Discursive psychology, theory, method and applications. Sage. https://doi.org/10.4135/9781473983335 Ziehe, T. (1986). Ny ungdom. Om ovanliga la roprocesser [New youth: On unusual learning processes]. Norstedts.