我國高職工業類課程與日本高等學校工業專門學科課程比較之研究

The Comparison of Industrial Curriculum between Taiwan Senior Vocational School and Japan Upper Secondary School

張嘉穗(Chia-Sui CHANG)

指導教授 ： 饒達欽 ； 陳明堂

國立臺灣師範大學/科技學院/工業教育學系/碩士(2006年)

摘要

本研究旨在探討我國高職學校工業類與日本高等學校工業專門學科課程之制定沿革背景、目標、架構、科目間的異同。為達研究目的，本研究採取文獻分析與比較之教育研究，茲將研究之結論臚列如下：
一、課程沿革及其背景修訂過程，皆有相同發展方式，課程修訂最高指導單位機關也雷同；相異之處在於：我國課程修訂時間較晚，課程型態規劃不同。又在課程的權限劃分，日本較為彈性且多元化，及行政授權寬裕度較大，可以自行發展特色。
二、課程目標之訂頒機關與指導機關皆為「部」級，兩國同樣著重於職業的知能與道德，以及學生的適性發展之培養。對工業類課程目標而言，皆重視實用技能，與基礎基本知識與能力的培養。目標結構皆由先規定整體的目標到分項具體的目標；相異處係因後期中等教育目標之取向不同：日本的整體課程方面銜接性較強，其工業課程目標的特色主要在培養中堅技術人員，與我國初期僅重視培養工業基層技術人才的重點不同。
三、課程架構方面，皆將必修科目數縮減，逐漸調整為擴增選修科目，並有最低畢業學分數的要求。至於實習科目的比重亦逐漸遞減。相異處則為我國民87年之後，到民95年課程暫行綱要的課程架構演變中，新增校定必選修與活動科目，然而日本在校訂必選修方面則逐漸變為合併計算；活動科目部分我國是合併班會與綜合活動成一大科目，然而在日本，卻是將班會與聯課活動分成兩科目，並未合併成一科目，因此分配不同。此外，日本有A、B兩種類型課程可供選擇，A類型以取得就職的資格為主，而B類型課程則同時重視普通教科與專門科目，偏向升學為主。
四、課程科目方面，相同處在於兩國的科目皆隨著時代與目標需求而做調整；相異處在於對於科目的選擇幅度、科目名稱與科目的數目不同，且日本對於工業基礎基本科目的重視之下再細分為四大類型(「工業技術科目」、「各學科原則履修科目」、「各學科共通基礎科目」與「各學科選擇基礎科目」)。
根據上述結論，針對我國高職的工業課程制定沿革與背景、工業類課程目標、工業類課程架構及工業類課程科目等四方面提出建議為以下幾點：
一、對我國高職工業類課程制定沿革與背景之建議：
建議能以更前瞻的眼光深入瞭解先進國家的課程改革動態，並考量
我國的工業人力需求，提早規劃適合我國的課程。可參考日本行之
已久的學校本位的課程形式，以讓我國初起步的新課程順利步上軌
道。
二、對我國高職工業類目標之建議：
建議重視教育一貫的銜接性，並加強學生基礎基本能力、問題解決
能力與創造思考能力的培養。
三、對我國高職工業類課程架構之建議：
就課程架構的分配而言，可以更彈性化，讓課程架構表則由各校自
行設定。並參考日本分為A、B不同類型，讓學校與學生選擇適合自
我進路發展的課程，此外在學分數的安排亦可調降畢業學分數，並
放寬校訂必選修的幅度。
四、對我國高職工業類科目之建議：
1.在普通科目上可以提供更多的科目讓學校參考選定適合該校發展
的科目，擴大選擇幅度。並強調保健、家政科目。以及增列書法
為藝術科目之選擇科目以保留我國國粹。
2.在我國工業類專門學科上可以參考日本，重視基礎基本的科目。
讓校本課程執行時能清楚基礎與專業科目不同之分野。

關鍵字

高職 ； 日本高等學校 ； 工業類課程 ； 比較研究

並列摘要

The purpose of this research was to explore the similarities and differences of industrial curriculum in Taiwan’s and Japan’s senior high schools.This research focused on the curriculum histories, backgrounds, objectives, curricular structures, and its relative subjects. Literature review and educational comparative method were used for the advanced analysis. The main conclusions are as follows:
1.From the historical and background aspects, both of nations are similar in the developmental approaches,the backgrounds,and the administrative conducting procedures. Several differences are indicated that the reform stage for Taiwan’s curriculum-making usually later than Japan’s, and also in the procedures of formulation and the compartmentation of the limits of empowerment for schools.
2.From the curricular objectives aspect, their curricular objectives of these two nations are made and conducted by the supreme offices. Both of them emphasize the occupational knowledge and business ethnics for curriculum. Besides, both of them also pay special attention to the career development of students. While in the industrive objectives, we find that both of their transitions are from practical skills to the general basic abilities, and they all have the definitions from the whole objectives to the individual concrete objectives.However, Japan’s curriculum show better articulation and cooperation with industries, but each one has their own characteristics.
3.From the curricular structures aspect, they are all focused on the flexible design of the structures which indicates the transition from enforcing students to register, to encourage student to choose by themselves. Besides they both have the requisitions of the minimum graduation credit hours. And the proportions of practical subjects both of them are gradually decreased. The differences have been shown on the distributions and the amounts of credit hours. In addition, in Japan, there are two kinds of curriculum,i.e., structure A and B, kind A is suitable for job employment, kind B is suitable not only for employment but also for entering higher education.
4.From the courses made of curricular subjects aspect, both of them are similar in the development by the period and the objects. The differences are in their chosen scope, the names and the numbers of subjects. Besides the apparently different is that there are four types of basic subjects in Japan provided for students to choose, according to their interests and needs.
According to the above findings, some suggestions are listed as follows for reference:
1. For our curriculum histories, backgrounds:
This research suggests the curriculum designers shold
have foresight to observe the advanced countries’
curriculum innovations, and also consider the demands
for industrial manpower for our country. Additionally,
we can refer to the school-based curriculum which has
been acted for a long time in Japan to assist new
curriculumplanning and implementation successfully.
2. For our curriculum objectives
This research suggests the curriculum designers must
value the unity of linking, and to strengthen the
cultivation of students’ basic ability, problem
solving ability, and creative ability, etc..
3. For the curricular structures
This research suggests the empowerment for schools to
set their own curricula. To refer to particular A style
and B style curriculum of Japan, to make schools and
students could choose compatible curricula. Besides, the
arrangement of decreasing the credit number of
graduation. And open up the more selection subjects of
school required or provide more optional subjects.
4. For the curricular subjects
(1)This research suggests the curriculum designers should
provide more general education subjects for schools
choosing, and to emphasize these subjects of healthy
and household management.By the way, we can add the
subject of calligraphy to keep the quintessence of
Chinese culture.
(2)This research suggests the curriculum designers can
refer to Japan’s technical subjects to value the basic
subjects.From this way ,when we administer school-based
curriculum,the school will know what is basic and what
is technical subject.

並列關鍵字

Senior Vocational School ； Upper Secondary School ； Industrial Curriculum ； Comparative Study

參考文獻

王作榮(1999)。日本高工課程之簡介。技術及職業教育雙月刊第53期。教育部技術及職業教育司。頁15-24。

江文雄(1995)。技術及職業教育概論。台北市： 師大書苑。

邱兆偉(1982)。我國職業教育目標之演變與檢討。技術及職業教育的目標及計畫，頁1-23。

學會主編，學校本位課程發展與教學創新。台北市：揚智文化。

高新建(2001)。學校本位課程發展的理念與實務。教育研究月刊，88，15-23。