本研究旨在探討高職電機科教師對99課綱學校本位課程規劃與實施之意見，研究方法採用文獻分析以及問卷調查法，對於電機科99課綱、學校本位課程以及高職電機科本位課程規劃組織先進行文獻的探討，進而編訂問卷，並將台灣地區分為北、中、南、東四區，進行問卷填答。
研究工具為編訂之「高職電機科教師對99課綱學校本位課程規劃與實施調查問卷」，以台灣地區北、中、南、東四區共三十八所公私立高級職業學校電機科教師為調查對象，回收問卷經整理統計合計有效問卷為 275 份。以次數百分比、平均數、標準差、t考驗、單因子變異數分析等統計分析方法進行分析並加以討論，本研究經探討分析後，歸納出以下結論：
壹、大部分的電機科教師都能了解學校本位課程在規劃的過程中相關組
織單位。
貳、課程規劃中，業界代表、社區人員以及家長代表參與課程發展委員
會需加強。
參、電機科教師願意積極參與學校本位課程規劃的相關活動。
肆、學校本位課程所需的資源設備需要加強。
伍、學校本位課程仍偏重於升學。
陸、私立學校電機科教師在99課綱學校本位課程規劃與實施的評價上
高於公立學校電機科教師。
柒、不同學校區域、年資、教育背景以及學歷的電機科教師在99課綱學
校本位課程規劃與實施之意見並無明顯差異。

The purpose of this study is to investigate the Electrical Engineering Department teachers’ views on the design and implementation of school-based curriculum within 2010 Curriculum Framework for vocational high schools. The study adopts literature review and questionnaire survey. First, the literature review proceeds from the 2010 Curriculum Framework, school-based curriculum and the Electrical Engineering Department-based curriculum design layouts. Then, the questionnaire is compiled and carried out the stated purpose to four areas, north, central, south, and east, nationwide in Taiwan.
The major instrument of this study is the complied questionnaire sent to teachers from the Electrical Engineering Department in 38 public and private vocational high schools. The valid returned questionnaires are 275 copies. The data is analysed and discussed by means of frequency percentage, means, standard deviation, t-test, single factor analysis of variance and so on. The followings are the conclusion of this study:
1. Most of Electrical Engineering Department teachers know the relevant parties involved in the design of the the school-based curriculum.
2. The inclusive of industrial representatives, community members and representatives of Parent Teacher Association (PTA) in curriculum design should be strengthened.
3. The Electrical Engineering Department teachers are willing to participate in school-based curriculum design.
4. The teaching resources and facilities required for the school-based curriculum need to be reinforced.
5. The school-based curriculum still puts more emphasis on students’ academic performance.
6. The Electrical Engineering Department teachers in private schools have more positive comments on the design and implementation of school-based curriculum within 2010 Curriculum Framework than those in public schools.
7. There is no significant differences among Electrical Engineering Department teachers from different schools, teaching experience, educational background and qualifications in terms of the views on the design and implementation of school-based curriculum within 2010 Curriculum Framework.

一、中文部分
白雲霞（2003）。學校本位課程發展理論、模式。台北市：高等教育。
李隆盛、賴春金(2007)。 國家菁英季刊 第三卷 第一期技職教育現況
及其未來發展。
李隆盛(2004),職校課程綱要的規劃現況與展望。技術及職業教育雙月刊，81。
李遠哲（2002）。教育-百年樹人。2006年10月5日，取自於
http://www.wearn.com/life0203/topic.asp?
吳明隆（2000）。SPSS統計應用實務。台北：松崗。
吳明隆、涂金堂（2008）。SPSS與統計應用分析修定版。台北：五南。
吳春和（2007）職業學校電機科專業科目教師對95課程綱要規劃與實施
看法之研究。國立彰化師範大學工業教育研究所碩士論文。
吳清山、林天佑（2000）。全人教育。教育資料與研究，33，76-78。
林佩璇（2000）。學校本位課程發展的背景探討。研習資訊，17（1），頁50-62。
林佩璇（2004）。學校本位課程發展脈絡與現況研究。國立台北師範學院學報，第十七卷第二期（九十三年九月）35～56。台北：國立台北師範學院。
林清江（1981） 教育社會學新論。臺北：五南。
黃廷合（2000）。發展學校本位課程之策略與重要性。技術及職業教育雙月刊，59，2-7。
黃政傑（1997）。課程改革的理念與實踐。台北：漢文書局。
黃政傑（1985）。課程改革。臺北：漢文書局。
教育部（2000）技職教育白皮書。台北，教育部。
張嘉育（1999）。九年一貫課程的學校課程自主特色與範圍。中華民國課程與教學學會主編，九年一貫課程之展望，80-123。台北：揚智。
張嘉育（1999）。國民中小學學校本位課程發展。國立台灣師範大學教研所博士論文。
趙志揚、劉豐旗、莊智鋒、黃振盛（2003）。建構以學生為中心之高職新課程教學策略之研究。台北：教育部技術及職業教育司。
劉嘉韻（2005）。杜正勝：升學導向讓技職教育失去特色。大紀元。
盧俊宇（2009）高職教師對職業學校群科課程綱要之學校本位課程認知與
態度研究－以中部地區為例。國立彰化師範大學工業教育研究所碩士
論文。

蕭錫錡、陳宏斌、胡武誌（2005）。第四屆離島資訊技術與應用研討會論文集。澎湖：國立澎湖科技大學。

二、英文部分
Beasley,B.（1981）.School based curriculum development.Curriculum Perspectives,2（1）,53-56
Cohen, D. (1985). School-based curriculum decision making. In J. Husen, & T. N. Postlethwaite(Eds.), The international encyclopedia of education research and studies (1st ed.). Oxford: Pergamon.
Craig, A. (1980). Teacher perceptions of curriculum autonomy. (ERIC Document reproduction Service No. ED190498)
Eggleston, J.(1980). School-based curriculum development in Britain. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.
Harrison,M.（1981）. School-base curriculum decision-making:A personal viewpoint. Curriculum Perspectives, 2(1),47-52.
Kelly, A. V. (1977). The Curriculum－Theory And Practice. London: A. Wheaton & Company Limited.
Marsh , C., Day, C., Hannay, L. & McCutcheon, G .（1990）Reconceptualizing school-based curriculum development . London : The Falmer Press.
McMullen, I. (1973). School-based curriculum development.
OECD/CERI mimeographed.OECD(1979). School-based curriculum development. Paris: OECD.
Ornstein, A.C., & Hunkins, F.P. （1988）. Curriculum: Foundations, principles, and issues. New York: Prentice-Hall.
Ryan,A.S.＆Williams,M.C.（1978）.A cause of action：Support for school based curriculum development.Education（WA）,27（2），16-20.
Sabar, N. (1985). School-Based Curriculum Development: Reflections from an International Seminar. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 17(4), 452-454.
Sabar, N. (1991). School –based curriculum development. In A. Lawey(Ed.), The international encyclopedia of curriculum (pp.367-371). New York: Pergamon Press.
Schubert, W. H.(1986). Curriculum: Perspective, paradigm, and possibility. New York: Macmilian
Simpson, M. (1986). School-based and centrally directed curriculum development development: The uneasy middle ground. Scottish Education Review, 18(2), 76-85.
Skilbeck, M. (1984). School-based curriculum development. London:Harper ＆ Row.
Stenhouse,L.（1975）.An Introduction to curriculum Research and Development. London:Heinemann.
Taylor,C.A.（1984）. School-based curriculum development. Paper presented at the International Conference: Education for the Gifted “Ingenium 2000”. Stellenbodch, Republic of South Africa.（ERIC Document No. ED 292 221）
Walton, J., & Welton, J. (Eds.). (1976). Rational curriculum planning: Four case studies. London: Ward Lock Educational.