課程概念重建的發展與爭議──兼論其在課程理解典範之重要性

The Development and Controversy ofReconceptualization: the Importance of Reconceptualization on Curriculum Understanding Paradigm

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.