摘要
新世紀的來臨，高科技的發展使得全球化成了未來的趨勢，在全球化的過程中，全世界的生產、金融、政治、安全、文化與意識型態結構，皆出現快速的變遷，這種高度複雜而不確定的外在環境需要優秀的人力資源，才能使國家具備競爭力。優秀的人力資源與教育改革息息相關，因此世界各國莫不致力於教育改革的工作。以全球化的教育改革觀點而言，標凖導向(standard-based)的趨勢將更受重視。我國九年一貫課程改革所訂定的能力指標，即是依據此一潮流所發展而出，然而由於在改革過程中，受限於時問的因素，因此缺乏以宏觀、整體性的角度作考量，故教改便易流於形式化、月面化的改革。就生活科技學域而言，其能力指標的研訂受限於多方面因素的限制，而在此種限制的環境中所發展出的生活科技學域之能力指標，許多專家學者、基層教師與家長難以體認能力指標所代表的真實意涵。追溯此一現況的根本而言，我國的能力指標企圖同時取代傳統的「課程標準」與美國全民科技教育(Technology for All Americans, TfAA)專案所提出的「內容標準」(content standard)，因此形成焦點模糊、難以辨別的窘境。本文主要針對生活科技學域第四階段（七至九年級）的能力指標為主要研究內涵，進而發展出「具體能力指標」以詮釋各相關的能力指標，期能藉此幫助生活科技教師在未來發展課程內涵、教學活動單元與評量方式時能夠有所參照。
並列摘要
With the corning of new century, the development of high technology made globalization become one of the major trends in the future. Through the process of globalization, the structure of production, finance, politics, security, culture and conscience shifted more and more rapidly. The needs of excellent human resource would increase in the highly complicate and uncertain environment for the purpose of qualifying competition. The excellent human resource is correlated with the educational reform; therefore, every country focused on the work of educational reform. In the global viewpoint of educational reform, standard-based reform must be emphasized greatly. The ability indicators in the nine-year curriculum reform were developed according to the national trends. As the limitation of time, the nine-year curriculum reform lacked of general and overall consideration. In this reason, the curriculum reform was apt to leading failure. Take living technology for example, the process of making ability indicators was not strictly enough, so many scholars, teachers and parents couldn't realize the true meanings of the ability indicators. Examining the source of this condition, the ability indicators tried to contain the ”curriculum standards” as before in Taiwan and ”content standards” as Technology for All Americans in U.S.A. As a result, the ability indicators became hard to recognize. The research focused on developing ”detailed ability indicators” for the purpose of analyzing the present ability indicators in the field of living technology. We hoped that the results of this study would be useful for living technology teachers in developing curriculum, activity and evaluation.