| 摘要: | 本研究以甫於 2013年 10月底完成的〈【杜威教材論的評析】研究成果報告書〉（以下 簡稱〈原報告書〉）為基礎，以二年的時間、亦即自 2014年 8月至 2016年 7月間，完成【杜 威教材組織論有關問題的探討】之計畫。 本研究旨在針對杜威教材組織論有關的五個問題進行探討。這五個問題，不止於與杜威 「教材組織論」直接有關的問題，還包括了範圍較大的杜威「教材論」的問題，甚至範圍更 大的杜威「課程論」的問題。茲簡述之如下： 第一，杜威在不同著作中的教材組織論之比較。該問題在檢視杜威有關教材組織的論 述，以明白其學說立論是否有所精進？或者，換一個方式來說，其主張是否因應當時的情況， 有所調整或修正？〈原報告書〉僅略加論列而未深究，因而有必要再作進一步探討。 第二、克伯屈與柏德對於杜威教材組織論的闡釋。受篇幅所限，〈原報告書〉僅以三段 文字說明二人持續闡釋杜威的教材組織論。然而，二人究竟如何針對杜威的教材組織論進行 延伸與衍繹？這些延伸與衍繹的論述與杜威原初的主張相比，是否有所精進？或者，是否形 成「太過」或「不及」的偏失？又，二人的主張有何異同？皆有待進一步的探討。 第三、評論吳俊升對於杜威教材論的批判。〈原報告書〉僅對於杜威與赫思特二人主張 的歧異有所評析，而未對吳俊升所作的批評作出任何的回應。然而，吳俊升對於杜威教材組 織論乃至整個教材論所作的批判，固有切中要害者，亦有值得商榷者。本計畫乃將細加探究 與解析，並作必要的辯駁與釋疑，以便彰顯杜威教材組織論乃至教材論的真義。 第四、杜威對十九世紀末葉各種課程論的反思。〈原報告書〉在探討杜威心理化主張的 緣起時，只著力於杜威的經驗與背景之縷述，而未觸及其主張的學理分析。本計畫將就杜威 有關論著，檢視其對於傳統論、赫爾巴特論，乃至兒童研究論等課程論的反思，作一番仔細 的梳理，俾便更完整地理解其課程論的要義，並且彰顯其主張在課程史上的關鍵地位。 第五、杜威以「工作活動」作為一種課程的意義與內涵。〈原報告書〉指出，杜威以學 習者的經驗為出發點，主張教材依工作活動、知識或訊息、有組織的教材等三個階段漸進發 展；而此一主張成為其實驗學校辦學的課程理論依據。然而，〈原報告書〉並未對此一在杜 威課程論中佔有重要地位的工作活動，有實質的探討。本計畫乃決定，就其意義與內涵作一 較深入的研究，以便更進一步理解杜威重視「工作活動」的緣由、目的，俾便完整地掌握在 杜威的心目中，「工作活動」作為一種課程的真諦。 最後，必須說明者，本人在探討這些與杜威教材組織論有關的問題之同時，會將之置於 歷史演進的脈絡之中，理解其課程史的意義，並且說明其對當今臺灣課程改革作法的啟示。 又，本計畫於預定的二年期程內，完成一篇不少於六萬字的報告書，並且改寫為不少於三篇 的學術論文，投稿於國內 TSSCI學術期刊。
Based on the research results of the former project, this one aims at investigating five related problems of John Dewey’s thoughts on subject matter organization. It is scheduled to be executed in two years. The research questions center not only on Dewey’s thoughts on subject matter organization but also, in a broader scale, on subject matter, and curriculum, even broader. Firstly, a comparison of Dewey’s thoughts on subject matter organization in his various works. It examines if Dewey’s ideas have made progresses, adaptations or modifications along the way in fifty some years of time range. Secondly, an analysis of Kilpatrick and Bode’s interpretation of Dewey’s thoughts on subject matter organization. The research questions will be: How do the two followers extend or explicate Dewey’s thoughts on subject matter organization? Are there any differences between their interpretations and Dewey’s original notions? Have they gone too far or not? And, what are the differences between their interpretations. Thirdly, a critical analysis of Ou Tsuin-sen’s criticisms of Dewey’s thoughts on subject matter. It is argued that Ou’s criticisms of Dewey’s thoughts on subject matter organization or subject matter in a broader scale partly hit the right points and partly not. A deep understanding of Dewey’s thoughts on the matters is expected to be obtained if the research questions are answered. Fourthly, Dewey’s reflection on the extant curriculum theories in later half of 19 century. By examining Dewey’s reflection on the curriculum theories developed by traditionalists, Herbartianists, and child study scholars, a thorough understanding of his own insights will be revealed. And the place of Dewey’s curriculum theory in Amercian history of curriculum is to be explicated for the research question. Fifthly, the significance and contents of “occupations” as a curriculum by Dewey. It is mentioned in the former project that occupational activities are the main body of curriculum in Dewey School, while nothing has been surveyed about the substance of the notion. It is decided to do an in-depth research to this impotant term to understand more about Dewey’s thoughts on the real meaning of it as a curriuculum. Last but not least, the research will be executed on account of the historical development of education in general and curriculum in particular to seriously recognize its importance and implications for Taiwan. No less than 60,000-word final report will be written, and no less than three papers will be adapted and submitted to TSSCI scholarly journal in two years. |
