技術型高級中等學校專業群科課程綱要研修委員對課程綱要審議滿意度之研究

本研究藉由課程綱要審議機制、審議運作及審議結果之分析，了解首次參與課程審議會之技高專業群科課綱研修委員，對課綱審議滿意度之情形。本研究採問卷調查法，有意願參與調查之研修委員共155人，正式發放之問卷為155份，回收問卷為139份，回收率達89.7%，有效問卷計139份，有效問卷回收率達100%。根據研究結果及綜合討論，本研究之結論有以下七點：一、二階段審議立意良好，惟執行上耗費龐大人力及時間；二、民主審議與專業性審議產生扞格。三、審議方式大致偏向滿意，惟程序審議有重複審議之慮。四、審議流程滿意度良好，議事效率及討論氛圍滿意度相對較低。五、技高課綱研修委員對審議結果大致偏向滿意，惟部分群對「類群科歸屬、教學科目與學分數、核心素養、課程架構及技能領域」偏向不滿意。六、技高課綱研修委員對錯漏字勘誤修正意見滿意度最高；對技能領域修正意見滿意度最低，有待後續研究進行探討。七、課審會參與情形不同之技高課綱研修委員對課綱審議滿意度有顯著差異，有待後續研究進行探討。綜合研究結論，本研究提出之具體建議如下：一、檢視現行二階段審議之必要性及合適性。二、研議民主審議與專業性審議間取得平衡。三、檢討課審會程序審議方式，以提升議事效率。四、宜建立研修與審議事前溝通之機制。五、技高課綱之課審會成員，宜納入業界代表。

關鍵字

技術型高級中等學校；專業群科；課程綱要審議；滿意度

並列摘要

This study aims to investigate the satisfaction level of the deliberation on curriculum guidelines among revision members of the Curriculum Guidelines for the Vocational Cluster and Department of Vocational Senior High Schools (Curriculum Guidelines for Vocational High Schools, for short). Through the analysis of the mechanism, operation, and results of the curriculum guideline deliberation, this study obtains an understanding of the satisfaction level of curriculum guideline deliberation among revision members of the Curriculum Guidelines for the Professional Clusters/Departments in their first attendance at Curriculum Deliberation Council (CDC). According to the results of the questionnaire survey, in which a total of 155 revision members agreed to participate, 155 copies of the formal questionnaire were distributed, 139 samples were recovered, and all 139 returned samples were valid, with a recovery rate of 89.7% and a valid recovery rate of 100%, respectively. Based on the research results and summarized findings, this study has concluded the following seven points: 1.The two-stage mechanism of deliberation, though well-intentioned, took massive amounts of manpower and time to execute. 2.Democratic deliberation and professional deliberation were contradictory. 3.Revision members were generally satisfied with deliberation methods, except that procedural deliberation might present an issue of repeated deliberation. 4.The satisfaction level of the deliberation process was high, whereas the satisfaction level of deliberation efficiency and discussion atmosphere was comparatively low. 5.Revision members of the Curriculum Guidelines for Vocational High Schools were generally satisfied with the deliberation results, except that dissatisfaction was presented in some clusters regarding “classifications of categories, clusters, and departments,” “academic credits by domain/subject,” “core competencies,” “curriculum framework,” and “skill domain.” 6.Revision members of the Curriculum Guidelines for Vocational High Schools showed the highest satisfaction level toward revision suggestions for correction of errors and omissions, and displayed the lowest satisfaction level with revision suggestions for the skill domain, which requires further discussion in follow-up research. 7.Revision members of the Curriculum Guidelines for Vocational High Schools with varying degrees of involvement in the CDC presented significant differences in their satisfaction level with curriculum guideline deliberation, which requires further investigation in follow-up research. Based on the aforementioned research conclusions, this study proposes the following specific recommendations: 1.Examine the necessity and appropriateness of the current two-stage deliberation mechanism. 2.Study how to strike a balance between democratic deliberation and professional deliberation. 3.Review the procedural deliberation methods adopted by the CDC with the aim of improving deliberation efficiency. 4.Establish a mechanism of communication prior to revision and deliberation. 5.Representatives from relevant industries should also be included as members of the CDC deliberating the Curriculum Guidelines for Vocational High Schools.