臺灣與美國科技課程發展之比較研究

A Comparative Study on Curriculum Development of Technology Education between Taiwan and the United States of America

林坤誼(Kuen-Yi Lin)

指導教授 ： 李隆盛

國立臺灣師範大學/科技學院/工業科技教育學系/博士(2005年)

摘要

面對新世紀的來臨，世界各國莫不致力於教育改革工作，並以提升國家競爭力為主要目標。臺灣主要以「綠色矽島」聞名世界，需要透過科技教育以持續培育高科技人才，因此中小學的科技教育便扮演重要的角色。臺灣的科技課程改革常會參照美國的發展趨勢，以現階段美國科技課程的發展趨勢而言，正如美國全民科技教育專案領導人Dugger所言，正逐漸朝向標準本位的潮流邁進。而當論及美國的標準本位教育改革時，加州可謂是此次美國標準本位教育改革的先驅，故其經驗應值得我國參考。有鑑於此，本研究主要採用比較研究法做為主要的研究途徑，並運用文件分析、深度訪談等研究方法進行研究，藉此一方面深入了解臺灣與美國加州科技課程發展的現況，另一方面則比較臺灣與美國加州科技課程發展的現況，以藉此找出臺灣科技課程發展的問題。透過上述比較研究的途徑，本研究除了獲致臺灣與美國加州科技課程發展的現況外，主要亦研提出有待改進的問題包含：（一）中小學科技標準方面：(1)臺灣科技標準研訂理念的關切焦點僅限於學生，而美國加州科技標準則較忽略以學生為中心；(2)臺灣科技標準研訂過程缺乏相關規準與評鑑團隊，而美國加州科技標準研訂過程則缺乏確認學生應具備的基本科技能力；(3)臺灣科技標準研訂成果缺乏具體表現標準與參考活動示例，而美國加州科技標準研訂成果則缺乏與設計相關的重要國際趨勢。（二）中小學科技課程教科書發展方面：(1)臺灣科技課程教科書發展理念未能全面地反應科技教育的學習價值，而美國加州科技課程教科書發展理念則較少考量學生的經費負擔能力；(2)臺灣與美國加州科技課程教科書發展者的理念與科技教師發展科技課程的理念有差距；(3)臺灣科技課程教科書的發展採用標準關聯程序導致內容無法涵蓋所有能力指標，而美國加州由於科技教師常兼採數本教科書，故能否適切地達致科技標準的要求仍須考量；(4)臺灣科技課程教科書的內容侷限於課程綱要且教師手冊的功能不夠明確，而美國加州科技課程教科書的內容由於必須兼顧各地區需求，故較難反應單一學區特殊需求。（三）中小學科技教師課程發展方面：(1)臺灣科技教師課程發展的理念缺乏考量社區工業的需求，而美國加州科技教師課程發展的理念則缺乏考量學校現況；(2)臺灣科技教師課程發展的程序並不符合標準本位的理念，而美國加州科技教師課程發展的程序較符合標準本位的理念，但可能對科技教師而言會有較大的負擔；(3)臺灣科技教師課程發展的成果缺乏文獻探討與評量導板（rubrics）的規劃，而美國加州科技教師課程發展的成果則缺乏學習報告的規劃。（四）專業團體方面：(1)臺灣專業團體缺乏強化生活科技教師的專業成長，而美國加州專業團體則缺乏實際至教學現場輔導的規劃；(2)臺灣專業團體缺乏熟悉教育改革的成員以協助教師專業成長，而美國加州專業團體則缺乏由表現優異的科技教師進行示範教學；(3)臺灣專業團體缺乏善用資訊與傳播科技以提供教師多元的進修管道，而美國加州專業團體則缺乏製作相關的教材以供科技教師選用。（五）科技學會方面：(1)臺灣科技學會缺乏促進會員專業成長及與工業間互動的機制，而美國加州科技學會則缺乏影響學校排課的機制；(2)臺灣與美國加州科技學會在如何提升師資需求方面皆需要持續努力。依據上述研究結論，臺灣科技課程發展若能針對上述問題進行改善，應可使我科技教育發展更為蓬勃。

關鍵字

科技教育 ； 課程發展 ； 比較研究 ； 標準本位

並列摘要

With the coming of the new century, the educational reform is conducted widely all over the world for the purpose of promoting competitiveness in every country. Taiwan is famous on the name of “Green Silicon Island,” and technology education has played an important role in developing high-tech human resources. When it is mentioned to the educational reform of technology education in Taiwan, the trends of technology education in the United States are always considered definitely. As for the major trend of technology education in the United States, William E. Dugger who is the leader of “Technology for All American Project” believes that it is moving to the standard-based education. California is the first participant in the stansards-based education reform, so there must be many valuable experiences could be offered to us. Therefore the approach of comparative study is utilized and two research methods, literature review and in-depth interview, are also employed in this study to explore the state of curriculum development of technology education in Taiwan as well as in California and to find out the real problems in Taiwan. Through this study, the state-of-the-art of curriculum development of technology education in Taiwan and California are explored and the real problems of curriculum development of technology education in Taiwan and California are proposed: (1) Technology standards: (a) The ideal of technology standards is limited in students in Taiwan; meanwhile, the ideal of technology standards is lacking of the needs of students in California. (b) The developmental process of technology standards is lacking of criteria and evaluation team in Taiwan; meanwhile, the developmental process of technology standards is lacking of verifying students’ basic competency in each learning grade in California (c) The results of technology standards are lacking of specific standards and the examplar of technological activities in Taiwan; meanwhile, the results of technology standards are lacking of concerning the international issue of design in California. (2) Technology textbook: (a) The ideal of technology textbook do not reflect the value of leaning technology in Taiwan; meanwhile, the ideal of technology textbook do not concern the students’ financial support in California. (b) The ideal of technology textbook editor is not corresponding to the ideal of technology teacher in Taiwan and California. (c) The technology textbook is utilized the process of standards-related curriculm development and its content can not cover all competency indicators in Taiwan; meanwhile, the technology teachers always utilize many textbooks and it is needed to confirm that the learning content can meet all the technology standards in California. (d) The content of technology textbook is limited in technology standards and the design of teachers’ handbook is not good enough in Taiwan; meanwhile, the content of technology textbook is needed to meet the needs of all districts, but it is hard to meet all needs of each district in California. (3) Curriculum development: (a) The ideal of curriculum development of technology education is lacking of considering the needs of industry in Taiwan; meanwhile, the ideal of curriculum development of technology education is lacking of concerning the status of school in California. (b) The process of currirculum development of technology education do not match the ideal of standard-based curriculum development in Taiwan; meanwhile, the process of curriculum development of texhnology education is corresponding to the ideal of standard-based curriculum development, but it may be a heavy working load to technology teachers. (c) The results of curriculum development are lacking of integrating literature review and rubric with technological activities in Taiwan; meanwhile, the results of curriculum development are lacking of the planning of learning portfolio in California. (4) Professional group: (a) The tasks of professional group in Taiwan are lacking of offering the professional learning opportunities; meanwhile, the tasks of professional group in California are lacking of ont the spot mentoring in schools. (b) The professional group in Taiwan is lacking of the member with familiar of educational reform in assisting technology teachers’ professional learning; meanwhile, the professional group in California is lacking of outstanding technology teachers’ exemplary teaching. (c) The professional group in Taiwan is lacking of utilizing the information and communication technology in offering the professional learning opportunities; meanwhile, the professional group in California is lacking of developing teaching materials for technology teachers to utilize in their classroom. (5) Technology association: (a) The technology association in Taiwan is lacking of the mechanism of professional learning and mutual communication with industry; meanwhile, the technology association in California is lacking of the mechanism of influcing the curriculum planning in schools. (b) The technology associations in Taiwan and California still have to work hard in promoting the teaching opportunities. According to the result of this study, if the problems mentioned above were solved, the technology education in Taiwan will have a more properous future.

並列關鍵字

technology education ； curriculum development ； comparative study ； standard-based

參考文獻

李隆盛（1996）。科技與職業教育的課題。台北：師大書苑。

黃政傑（1991）。課程設計。台北：東華。

林人龍、游光昭（2005）。水平整合的思考：以MST為導向的九年一貫生活科技課程設計。生活科技教育月刊，38（8），24－41。

陳玫良（2005）。台北市國民教育輔導團自然與生活科技輔導小組現況與展望。生活科技教育月刊，38（3），3－7。

余鑑（2003）。工藝教育思想的流變。生活科技教育月刊，36（8），3－11。