美國八年研究：歷程暨參與學校之課程實驗事例分析

Abstract

由進步教育協會於1930年代發起，以迄1940年代初告一段落的八年研究，是美國教育史上規模最大且最具重要性的課程實驗之一。當時一般而言的中學課程，因受到大學入學規定所限制，顯得缺乏彈性，而參與研究的教育人員，則得到大學院校的許可，能夠嘗試自由地進行課程革新實驗。 本研究旨在分析八年研究的歷程，並舉例分析參與學校的實驗課程，再據以探討八年研究在課程史上的意義與啟示。所採用之研究方法，為課程的歷史探究。所分析之實例，乃從芝加哥的Francis W. Parker學校談起，並對照分析Dalton學校及其他四所私立學校的經驗。本研究所獲致的結論如下： 其一，八年研究的歷程相當複雜，具有隨時間之進展而不斷演化的特質。當中最為可貴者，在於透過在實驗過程裡自由探索的機會，造就學界、研究機構、大學與中學的集思廣益，在創新、衝突與妥協當中持續學習。 其二，許多人曾以不同的觀點評論八年研究，而各種觀點反映了論者自身的旨趣。研究者不盡同意前人的論點，並指出八年研究的可取之處，在於參與人員嘗試革新、從作中學的歷程；此外，研究者對八年研究的負面評價，乃主要著眼當初所謂的「民主」概念，並未能落實於對社會正義的關懷。 其三，探討八年研究的有關議題，宜將探討觀點置於時間與地域脈絡中，以免囿於一方之見，並更為掌握事件表象背後的本質。透過還諸八年研究情境的探討，研究者發現八年研究發起機構的理想與精神，與參與學校的課程實驗取向之間存有落差。而被用來分析八年研究的關鍵概念，如「進步教育」、「民主」、「實驗」、「青少年需求」，以及一些課程重組的用語，乃是動態地交織虛構與實質意涵。此外，有關教育階段之定位，應著重共同或者分殊的層面，乃是未有定論的議題。The Eight-Year Study sponsored by the Progressive Education Association (PEA) from 1930 to early 1940s was one of the most comprehensive and important curriculum experiments in the history of education in America. The pattern of the secondary curriculum was mostly determined by college entrance requirements; however, the secondary educators who participated in this study were granted the freedom to do their curriculum revision.

This study aimed at analyzing the evolution of the Eight-Year Study and the experimental curriculum examplars of the participant schools. The inquiry of curriculum history was chosen as research method. As to the participant schools, Francis W. Parker School was the first to discuss and the analysis of meanings in conflicts was made by referring the experiences in Dalton Schools and other four private schools. Then the discussion of implications on curriculum history was made. Three conclusions drawn from the exploration were summarized as follows.

First, the Eight-Year Study evolved continuously and complicatedly. During each stage, the most precious experience was that the academic field, the research institution, the colleges and schools learned from one another by co-working, and by creating and adapting their abilities.

Second, many people tried to make comments on the Eight-Year Study, and each of them reflected the commentator’s interest. I did not totally agree with the comments made by some contemporary curriculum historians. My main critique was that the so-called “democracy” in this experiment was not fully exerted since the social justice issue was never addressed seriously by the participants.

Third, issues about curriculum history should be discussed in contexts. By contextualizing the analysis, I found that the curriculum orientation was different between the research institutions and the schools. And, some key concepts such as progressive education, democracy, experiment, needs of adolescents and many other terms used as means of curriculum reorganization were dynamically intermingled with fictitious and realistic meanings. Besides, issues on the position of each different educational stage were not fixed and worthy of rethinking.