论幼儿园的园本课程开发

随着课程改革的深入和发展，学校和地方将会得到更多的课程决策权。形势的发展为我国校本课程的开发提供了契机。中小学校对校本课程的渴望与期待，直接地感染着幼儿园教育。为此，本拟就幼儿教育阶段的校本课程（即园本课程）的有关问题作一些分析。     

The functions of curriculum development

The inadequacies of “top-down” technological strategies of curriculum development, and of local user-based curriculum development, result from a confusion of the ends, starting points, methodologies, and functions of external and user development. The function of external development is to elaborate theoretical conceptions of society, knowledge, teacher, and learner, and to translate these conceptions into coherent curriculum materials, each of which serves as a clear-cut alternative available to teachers. The function of user development is to construct images of particular instructional settings by matching a variety of theoretical conceptions with the exigencies of these settings, and to translate these images into a curriculum-in-classroom use. The harmonious realization of these functions would yield a measure of progressive improvement in school curriculum practices.     

Reconsidering curriculum development: A framework for co-operation

Conventional approaches to curriculum development employed in western countries have proved to be unsatisfactory. Much of the literature as well as the practice of curriculum development have focussed on two traditional stances — the administrative and grass-roots models — and neither has been able to accommodate concurrently the theoretical and practical objectives, skills, and needs of central administrators, teachers, and curriculum specialists. In this paper, a brief examination of the characteristics, prevalence, benefits, and major shortcomings of these two models provides a basis for describing an approach that may better fulfil the multiple and competing demands of educational administrators and users. The article elaborates upon and defends a theoretical plan for involving administrators and educators in co-operative curriculum development, and specifies additional organizational requirements and constraints which would need to be dealt with in order to effect its intent.     

职业学校校本课程的开发

职业学校开设校本课程，增强了课程对学生的适应性，有利于实现培养目标，开发职业学校校本课程，必须树立新的教育理念，即：校本课程的开发要指向人的发展，指向学生专业知识和专业技能的提高，指向学生职业素质的提高和个性的张扬，在开发时，还应该注重学校办学实际，专业特色以及专业知识和技能的研究性，结合性和创新性。     

课程资源:观念重建与校本开发

课程资源开发和利用是课程改革关注的重点,学校和教师需要对课程资源做观念上的更新,建立现代的、科学的、视野广阔的课程资源观。课程资源的开发要以学生的发展和教师专业提升为价值取向,扩大学校课程资源开发的范畴。学校要关注校本的课程资源开发和管理,形成课程资源开发的有效途径。     

幼儿园课程与教师的课程开发

对于幼儿园教育课程的理解,正如它的上位概念--课程一样,人们的看法很不一致.过去人们通常认为它指语言、常识、计算、体育、音乐、美术六大学科,近些年来,全国各地的幼儿园课程改革异常活跃,大多已改变了过去六科的分科课程结构而代之以健康、语言、科学、社会、艺术五大领域的领域(广域)课程(有些地方正在实行的综合课程也基本是这五大领域的简单组合).     

The road taken: professional pathways in innovative curriculum development

This article describes the phases that teachers went through in their engagement with innovative teaching strategies as part of a school‐based research consortium linked to a university department of education in England. The teachers recorded their experiences and responses in diaries which gave access to their dominant feelings and concerns during the innovation. The diaries were analysed to investigate changes in the entries over time. The six phases were: initiation, novice, concerns, consolidation, expansion and commitment. The analysis also indicates the changing nature of professional support that was important during each of these phases. The conditions that characterized the ‘working space’ created by the teachers are discussed and particular emphasis is given to the fact that they collaborated with each other and with outside agents. Evidence from later interviews is used to suggest that these conditions have had a lasting impact on the schools. Further these conditions are related to the concept of social capital and the school research coordinator exploiting a ‘hole’ in the organization. It is argued that social capital among teachers and school leaders is critical to large‐scale change.     

A cybernetic model for curriculum development

The task of the curriculum developer is to design instructional systems which will produce consistently high levels of learning despite wide variation in pupil characteristics. This can be viewed as a cybernetic question of regulating variety in a system to produce stable and high level output. Six cybernetic principles—goal orientation, limitation of input, monitoring, control decisions, restoration of equilibrium, and positive feedback—are described, and their application to curriculum discussed. It is concluded that a cybernetic model can guide curriculum developers in designing effective learning systems.     

Learning-based curriculum development

This article is written to inspire curriculum developers to centre their efforts on the learning processes of students. It presents a learning-based paradigm for higher education and demonstrates the close relationship between curriculum development and students’ learning processes. The article has three sections: Section “The role of higher education (HE) institutions” presents a discussion of the role of higher education in the knowledge society. Section “Contextual learning” presents the paradigm of contextual learning which we see as a useful foundation for curriculum development. Section “Curriculum development in practice—the BETA course” shows how a particular course in Business Economic Theory and Analysis has been developed using this paradigm. The article will be of interest to all academics interested in students’ learning processes but is especially relevant to those responsible for curriculum development.     

The warp and woof of curriculum development

Conclusions What conclusions can be reached on the basis of the kind of project I have described. First, there is an alternative to the large, expensive curriculum development models that were popular in the 1960s. A small, clinical model has many advantages. A project can begin with a general curriculum idea in several classrooms, or even one classroom, without becoming trapped in a web of quantitative data, logistical problems, and fund-raising, and work from that point towards a polished model for wider summative evaluation.Second, teachers and children need not be mere consumers of curricula developed by publishing houses or schools of education, nor even play the passive role of testing a formalized model developed outside classrooms. They can actively participate in elaboration of the conceptual content, the pedagogical strategies, and the specific lessons and materials of a new model.Third, there are university scholars who are willing and able to collaborate in bringing recently discovered knowledge to elementary school children; they do this by helping shape curricula and by making their departmental resources available to enterprising teachers or principals. Many scholars with youngsters themselves have a deep interest in communicating their knowledge to children. This group includes not only educational psychologists but scholars in traditional disciplines like biology and anthropology. David Pilbeam's research in human evolution, Goodall's research on primates, Cousteau's research on whales are a few examples of the rich variety of knowledge that can be shaped into pedagogical forms —experiments, audio-visual materials, readers, etc. — appropriate for children at varied levels of development.Fourth, children have a far broader range of intellectual interests than has generally been recognized. Bringing them into contact with fields of knowledge, methods of inquiry in these fields, and the processes of logical reasoning at a time when they have a natural receptivity can have a fundamental impact on their intellectual confidence, which will serve them well in later school years. The content of elementary education need not be trivial nor composed totally of tedious work on the traditional basic skills. There is room enough for children to exercise higher level cognitive abilities suggested by their own questions.Fifth, children are a primary source of ideas, theories, interests; feelings, and questions, which can be tapped systematically in the service of sensitive and accurate teaching. Interviews, discussions, and observations of children manipulating materials and ideas are relatively simple ways for teachers and curriculum developers to keep their ears to the ground, and to discover, keep alive, and cultivate the intellectual interests and capacities of children.Roger Landrum is a doctoral candidate at Harvard's Graduate School of Education, with a general interest in theoretical models of education based on human development theory and a research interest in measurable effects of classroom programs based on Piagetian theory. He has directed teacher education programs for the Peace Corps, The Teacher's Inc., and Yale's Institution for Social and Policy Studies.     

校本课程开发的策略及实施

本期“学校科研”栏目编发的文章是北京市海淀区培星小学“主体教育视野下小学校本课程的实验与开发研究”课题组负责人在开展研究的过程中写成的。本栏目将继续为从事各级各类校本研究的中小学校提供发表成果、交流经验的平台,欢迎投稿。     

Environment in the science curriculum: The politics of change in the Pan-Canadian science curriculum development process

This paper draws on the experience of the Pan-Canadian science curriculum development process as an instance of the more general problem of integrating science and environmental education. It problematizes the issue of incorporation of social and environmental dimensions within the science curriculum in terms of both policy and practice. The agenda of environmental education, as eco-philosophical and eco-political, provides a radically different base from which to explore the impact of change on science teachers and schools. Thus, the very idea of environmental education as an educational policy goal must be examined in light of conflicting agendas of science and environmental education. This paper argues that transforming structures and processes of school science to enable different teacher and student roles involves closing the gap between curriculum (policy) development and professional development as well as reconceptualizing science education, but from more overtly open moral value and political perspectives than have been considered in the literature of science education.