學校本位課程發展的個案研究:
台北縣鄉土教學活動的課程發展
摘要
依據教育部八十七年九月公布的九年一貫「國民教育階段課程總綱綱要」, 學校本位課程發展將成為未來重要課程發展模式。研究者認為任何教育改革無論是來自中央或民間的勢力, 除非能落實到教室的課程和教學層面及教師主動地參與, 否則所有的努力都只會流於短暫的口號。然而, 以往當課程的政策由中央決定時, 教師鮮有機會了解課程發展的過程; 當課程改革由行政及學者主導時, 少有研究注意到草根式的課程革新。本研究旨在藉由鄉土教學活動作為個案來探索學校本位課程發展的歷史背景、課程發展的過程, 教師參與的角色任務, 並分析影響課程發展的因素。
學校本位課程會因應不同學校、地區文化、學生特質展現不同的發展特性, 因此, 本研究採用自然研究典範的個案研究途徑以探討多元的觀點和了解人際互動過程。研究過程主要分為兩個階段: 初步研究及正式研究。初步研究在協助研究者進入研究場境並了解重要的研究問題; 正式研究再深入探索研究問題。
研究發現學校本位課程發展是一個很複雜的過程, 它不僅關心課程教材內容編寫而已, 同時也包含了分析、試教、評鑑、修正、師資培育、人際溝通協商等活動。因此, 教師在學校本位課程發展中, 同時具備研究者、協商者、諮詢者、和評鑑者等多重角色任務。探討影響學校本位課程發展的因素, 研究結論單靠國家課程政策權由中央轉移到地方教育機構, 並不能保證學校及教師能有效或主動地參與學校本位的課程發展。學校本位課程發展必須建立在幾點基礎上: (1)國家課程政策及理念必須有效地傳達給學校及教師; (2)教師的專業覺醒和反思, 並主動參與課程決策; (3)學校氣氛的建立; (4)教育行政機構和外在系統的支持。
分析研究設計, 研究者認為學校本位課程發展在台灣尚屬起步階段, 通則化的研究尚不適合於了解現階段的的課程發展。日後的研究仍可採用自然典範的研究設計為主, 運用深度的個案研究和參與觀察來探索學校本位課程的發展。研究範圍則可擴及不同的學校層級和學習科目, 對課程發展的不同活動再深入探討。
最後, 本研究提出一些建議, 以改進未來學校本位課程發展的實施。這些建議包含擬具鼓勵學校和教師參與課程發展的具體政策方針、擴充補助地方教育單位和學校課程發展所需的經費、成立課程發展專門諮詢單位、結合課程評鑑與課程發展、教師主動參與課程行動研究、學校校長以專業領導取代行政領導、教師培育應著重課程發展和反省思考能力的培養。

A Case Study of School-Based Curriculum Development:
Taipei County's Local Culture Initiative
Abstract
Like many western countries with centralized education systems have recently adopted policies of encouraging schools to take a greater part in curricular decision-making, in Taiwan, school-based curriculum development (SBCD) has been instituted as a future national curriculum policy and has been expected to be implemented in 2001. The main reasons for the trend towards SBCD stem from disappointment with the curricular renewal through large-scale national projects, recognition that curricula should better reflect the needs of each particular school, and concern about the teacher professional autonomy.
However, under a centralized educational structure, curriculum development has not belonged to teachers' professional activities and teachers have been effectively confined to their classroom merely to implement the nation-wide curriculum with rigorous fidelity in Taiwan. This study aims to investigate several questions: If schools exercise greater control over curriculum development, how do they decide on curriculum strategies to implement? To what extent do teachers actually participate in curriculum decision-making?
To understand the particular details of a case and various perspectives about SBCD instead of formulating generalizeable regulations for describing SBCD, this study adopts a naturalistic case study with a long-term engagement in research site in order to interpret the meanings of participants' situated actions in, and reactions to, SBCD.
This study concludes that SBCD cannot be gained very simply by removing or easing the limitations or constraints set up by central authorities. The theoretical assumptions that inform this study --curriculum theory and practice can not be isolated to each other; any curriculum innovation has to take account of teachers' active participation in decision-making process--allow much discussion among curriculum decision-making process, teachers' role in curriculum development, and crucial factors influencing SBCD.

一、中文部份
立院聯席會表決通過提案-教育部兩年內全面開放審定本教科書。(民國83年6月10日)。台灣時報, 第4版。
司琦(民60)。小學課程的演進。台北: 正中書局。
行政院教育改革審議委員會(民85)。教育改革總諮議報告書。
吳靖國(民84)。民間教育教革意識形態之研究。未出版碩土論文, 國立台灣師範大學教研所。
李錫津(民87)。新世紀學校本位之課程實施。載於中華民國民國課程與教學學會(主編), 學校本位課程與教學創新(頁1-22)。台北: 揚志。
林秀容(民87)。淺談學校本位的課程與教學。載於中華民國民國課程與教學學會(主編), 學校本位課程與教學創新(頁50-60)。台北: 揚志。
林清江(民87)。國民教育九年一貫課程規劃專案報告。立法院教育委員會第三屆第六會期。
林瑞榮、黃光雄(1986)。我國國民小學鄉土教育實施與發展之研究 (I)-理論與實踐的對話。行政院國科會研究計畫成果報告。
高新建(民87)。學校本位課程發展的多樣性。載於中華民國民國課程與教學學會(主編), 學校本位課程與教學創新(頁63-70)。台北: 揚志。
國小教科書, 多處違反兒童人權。(民82年4月15日)。中國時報, 第17版。
國小課本編的離譜。(民國78年6月20日)。台灣新生報, 第2版。
教育部(民57)。教育部實施九年國民教育籌備工作報告。
教育部(民82)。國民小學課程標準。
教育部(民84)。國民小學鄉土教學教學活動課程標準。
教育部(民84)。國民小學鄉土輔助教材大綱專案研究報告。
教育部(民87)。國民教育階段九年一貫課程總綱綱要, 民國87年9 月30日。
許雪姬(民79 )。鄉土教材的檢討。人文及社會學科教學通訊, 一卷一期, 121-129。
黃政傑 (民83)。躍登課程改革的政治舞台。於中國教育學會(主編), 教育改革(頁125-163)。
黃振國(民68)。各國義務教育課程比較研究。台灣省國民學校教師研習會。
張素貞(民87)。三年級鄉土教學活動課程發展研究。台北縣政府專案研究。
張嘉育(民88)。國民中小學學校本位課程發展。博士論文, 國立台灣師範大學教研所。
臺灣省國民學校教師研習會(民84)。國民小學新課程標準的精神與特色。
歐用生(民84)。鄉土教育的理念與設計。於黃政傑、李隆盛(主編), 鄉土教育(頁10-21）。台北: 復文。
歐用生等(民85)。國民小學鄉土教學活動概念綱領及課程設計模式研究。教育部專案。
歐用生等(民88)。落實學校本位的課程發展。國民教育, 39(4), 2-7。
教科書「全面民營化」。(民國82年10月31日)。聯合報, 第6版。
二、英文部份
Ariva, T (1987). 'Centralised' school based development-a contradiction in terms. In N. Sabar, J. Rudduck, & W. Reid (Eds.), Partnership and autonomy in school-based curriculum development: Policies and practice in Israel and England (pp. 42-50). Sheffield, UK: Division of Education, University of Sheffield.
Beane,J., Toepfer, Jr.C.F., Alessi, Jr. S.J. (1986). Curriculum planning and development. Boston: Allyn and Bacon.
Ben-Peretz, M. (1975). The concept of curriculum potential. Informal Section/ Curriculum Theory Network, 5(2), 151-159.
Ben-Peretz, M., & Dor, B. Z. (1986, April). Thirty years of school-based curriculum developemnt: A case study. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association. San Francisco, CA. (ERIC Document No. ED 274 096)
Bezzina, M. (1989a). Teachers' perceptions and their participation in school-based curiculum development. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Macquarie University, Australia.
Bezzina, M. (1989b, Dec.). Does our reach exceed our grasp? A case study of school based curriculum development. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the Australia Association for Research in Education. Adelaide, South Australia, Australia. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 366 109)
Bezzina, M. (1991, July). Being free and feeling free: Primary teachers' perceptions of participation in curriuclum development. Paper presented at the Annual Conference of the Australian Curriuculum Studies Association, Adelaide, South Australia. (ERIC Document No. ED 368 693)
Bezzina, M., Koop, T. (1991, Jul). Educational Reform in NSW: Mismatched Freedoms? Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the Australian Curriculum Studies Association. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 366 106)
Biklen, S. K & Bogdan, R. C. (1992). Qualitative research for education: An introduction to theory and methods (2nd ed.). Boston: Allyn and Bacon:
Bogdewic, S. (1992). Participant observation. In B. F. Crabtree, & W. L. Miller (Eds.), Doing qualitative research. Sage.
Booth, E. O. (1984). An ethnographic evaluation of the integration of a primary school's curriculum: Two years on at Warrawong (Elementary, school-based change, Australia). Unpublished doctoral dissertation. University of Hawaii.
Bowers, B. (1991). Teacher involvement in curriculum development. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 331 153)
Boud, D. J., & Donovan, W. F. (1982). The facilitation of school-based evaluation: A case study. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 14(4), 359-370.
Brady, L. (1985a). Status in school based curriculum development. The Journal of Educational Administration, XXIII (2), 219-228.
Brady, L. (1985b). The supportiveness of the principal in school-based curriculum. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 17(1), 95-97.
Brady, L. (1987). Explaining school-based curriculum satisfaction: A case study. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 1987, 19(4), 375-378.
Brunner, I., & Guzman, A. (1989). Participatory evaluation: A tool to assess projects and empower people. In R. F. Coner & M. Hendricks (Eds.), International innovations in evaluation methodology. New Directions for Programs Evaluation, 42, 9-17. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Bullough, B. V., Gitlin, A. N., & Goldstein, S. L. (1984). Ideology, teacher role, and resistance. Teacher College Record, 86(2), pp.339-358.
Casewell, H. L., & Campbell, D. S. (1935). Curriculum Development. New York: American Book Company.
Carr, W., & Kemmis, S. (1986). Becoming critical: Education, knowledge and action research. London: Flamer.
CERI/OECD (1979). School-based curriculum development. Organisation for economic cooperation and development (OECD).
Connelly, M. (1972). The functions of curriculum development. Interchange, 3(2-3), 161-177.
Connelly, M., & Ben-Peretz, M. (1980). Teachers' roles in Using and Doing of Research and Curriculum Development. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 12(2). 95-107.
Conelly, F. M., & Ben-Peretz, M. (1997). Teachers, research, and curriculum development. In D. J. Flinders & S. J. Thornton (Eds.), The curriculum studies reader (pp.178-187).New York: Routledge.
Cook, T. (1978a). School based curriculum: Some considerations for curriculum development in the Northern Territory. Developing Education, 5(5), 10-12.
Cook, T. E. (1978b). School-based curriuclum development in aboriginal studies. The Aboriginal Child at School, 6(1), 48-53.
Corey, S. M. (1953). Action research to improve school practices. New York: Teachers College Press.
Cousins, J. B., & Leithwood, K.A. (1986). Current empirical research on evaluation utilization. Review of Educational Research, 56, 331-335.
Craig, A. (1980). Teacher perceptions of curriculum autonomy. (ERIC Document No. ED 190498)
Doll, R. C. (1996). Curriculum improvement (9th ed.). Boston: Allyn and Bacon.
Duignan, P. (1988). School-based curriculum development: Math or reality. Australian Educational Research, 15(4), 9-21.
Duke, D. L., Showers, B. K., & Imber, M. (1980). Teachers and shared decision making: The costs and benefits of involvement. Educational Administration Quarterly, 16(1), 93-42.
Eggleston, J. (Ed.). (1980). School-based curriculum development in Britain. London: Routledge & kegan Paul.
Eisner, E. W. & Peshkin, A. (1990). Qualitative inquiry in education. New York: Teachers College.
Elbaz, F. (1981). The teacher's "practical knowledge": Report of a case study. Curriculum Inquiry, 11, 43-71.
Elliot, J. (1991). Action research for educational change. Philadelphia: Open University Press.
Elliot, J. (1992). What have we learned from action-research in school-based evaluation. In A. M. Indrebo, L. Monsen, &T. Alvik (Eds.), Theory and practice of school based evaluation: A research perspective (publication, no. 77). Lillehammer: Oppland College
Elliot, J. (1997). School-based curriculum development and action research in the United Kingdom. In S. Hollingsworth (Ed.), International action research: A casebook for educational reform (pp.17-28). London: Falmer.
Fetterman, D. M. (1994). Empowerment evaluation. Evaluation Practice, 15(1), 1-15.
Franke-Wikberg. S. (1992). Scandinavian experience concerning school-based evalaution and its impact on the development of curricula, classroom processes, and teachers competency. In A. M. Indrebo, L. Monsen, &T. Alvik (Eds.), Theory and practice of school based evaluation: A research perspective (publication, no. 77). Lillehammer: Oppland College
Garaway, G. B. (1995). Participatory evaluation. Studies in Educational Evaluation, 21, 85-102.
Gergen, K. J. (1985). The social constructionist movement in modern psychology. American Psychologist, 40(3), 266-275.
Gillett, J. (1981). What is the case for school based curriculum. Pivot, 8(1), 15-20.
Greene, J., & Southare, M. (1995 Apr.). Participatory approaches to Evaluation for supporting school management: Three case studies. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association. San Francisco, CA. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 384634)
Glesne, C., & Peshkin, A. (1992). Becoming qualitative researchers: An introduction. Longman.
Gress, J. R. & Purpel, D. E. (Eds.). (1978). Curriculum: An introduction to the field. Berkeley: MrCutchan.
Grundy, S. (1982). Three modes of action research. In S. Kemmis & R. McTaggart (1988), (Eds.), The Action research reader (3rd ed., pp. 353-364). Victoria: Deakin University.
Grundy , S., & Kemmis. S. (1981). Educational action research in Australia: The state of the art (an overview). In S. Kemmis & R. McTaggart (1988), (Eds.), The Action research reader (3rd ed., pp. 321-334). Victoria: Deakin University.
Habermas, J. (1971). Knowledge and human interests. Translated by Jeremy J. Shapiro. Boston: Beacon.
Hannay, L., & Seller, W. (1991). The curriculum leadership in facilitating curriculum deliberation. Journal of Curriuclum and Supervision, 6(4), 340-357.
Hargreaves, A. (1982). The Rhetoric of school-centred innovation. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 14(3), 251-266.
Harrison, M. (1979). Toward empirical based curriculum theory: A participant observation study of school-based curriculum decision-making. Unpublic doctoral dissertation. Macquarie University. Australia.
Harrison, M. (1981). School-based curriculum decision-making: A personal viewpoint. Curriculum Perspectives, 2(1), 47-52.
Harrison, J. A., Glaubman, R., & Yonai, H. (1987). Integrating the curriculum-an initiative involving four schools. In N. Sabar, J. Rudduck, & W. Reid (Eds.), Partnership and autonomy in school-based curriculum development: Policies and practice in Israel and England (pp. 62-70). Sheffield, UK: Division of Education, University of Sheffield.
Hart, P., Taylor, M., & Robottom, I. (1994). Dilemmas of participatory enquiry: A case study of method-in-action. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 19(3), 201-214.
Hawthorne, R. D. (1990). Analyzing school-based collaborative curriculum decision making. Journal of Curriculum and supervision, 5(3), 279-286.
Hong, H. J. (1996). Possibilities and limitations of teacher participation in curriculum development under a loosely centralized national curriculum: The case of the Korean primary school curriculum. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Wisconsin-Madison.
Hopkins, D. (1992). A new "era" for school self-evaluation. In A. M. Indrebo, L. Monsen, & T. Alvik (Eds.), Theory and practice of school-based evaluation: A research perspective (publication no.77). Lillehammer: Oppland College.
House, E. R. (1992, June). Future policy for school-based evaluation. In A. M. Indrebo, L. Monsen, & T. Alvik (Eds.), Theory and practice of school-based evaluation: A research perspective (publication no.77). Lillehammer: Oppland College.
Imber, M. (1983). Increased decision making involvement for teachers: Ethical and Practical considerations. The Journal of Educational Thought, 17(1), 36-41.
Keiny, S., & Weiss, T. (1986). A case study of a school-based curriculum development as a model for INSET. Journal of Education for Teaching, 12(2), 155-162.
Keiny, S., & Weiss, T. (1987). School-based curriculum development in environmental education: A teacher's persticetive. In N. Sabar, J. Rudduck, & W. Reid (Eds.), Partnership and autonomy in school-based curriculum development: Policies and practice in Israel and England (pp. 56-61). Sheffield, UK: Division of Education, University of Sheffield.
Kelly, A.V. (1989). The curriculum: Theory and practice (3rd ed.). London: Paul Chapman.
Kemmis, S. (1988). Action research in retrospect and prospect. In S. Kemmis & R. McTaggart (Eds.), The Action research reader (3rd ed., pp. 27-46). Victoria: Deakin University.
Kemmis, S., & McTaggart, R. (1988). Introduction. In S. Kemmis & R. McTaggart (Eds.), The Action research reader (3rd ed., pp. 1-23). Victoria: Deakin University.
Kennedy, K. J. (1992). School-based curriculum development as a policy for the 1990s: An Australian Perspective. Journal of Curriculum and Supervision, 7(2), 180-195.
Kennedy, K. J., Sabar, N., & Shafriri, N. (1985). Knowledge utilization and the process of curriculum development: A report. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 17(1), 103-106
Kirk, D. (1986). Structure and agency as two problematics in school-based curriculum development: A case study. Australian Journal of Education, 30(3), 285-299.
Kirk, D. (1988). Ideology and school-centred innovation: A case study and a critique. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 20(5), 449-464.
Kirk, D. (1990). School knowledge and the curriculum package-as-text. Journal of curriculum studies, 22(5), 409-425.
Koopman, G. R. (1966). Curriculum development. New York: The Center for Applied Research in Education.
Krathwohl, D. R. (1993). Methods of educational and social science research: An integrated approach. New York: Longman.
Lewy, A. (1987). Can teachers produce high quality curriculum material? In N. Sabar, J. Rudduck, & W. Reid (Eds.), Partnership and autonomy in school-based curriculum development: Policies and practice in Israel and England (pp. 84-86). Sheffield, UK: Division of Education, University of Sheffield.
Lincoln, Y. S. & Guba, E. G. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
Lincoln, Y. S. & Guba, E. G. (1986). But is it rigorous? Trustworthiness and authenticity in Naturalistic evalaution. In D. D. Williams (Ed.), Naturalistic Evaluation (pp.73-84). New Directions for Program Evaluation, 30. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Marsh, C., Day, C., Hannay, L., & McGutcheon, G. (1990). Reconceptualizing school-based curriculum development . London: The Falmer Press.
Marsh, C.,& Colin, G. (1997). Planning, meaagement and ideology: Key concepts for understanding curriculum. London: The Falmer Press.
Martin, D. S., & Saif, P. J. (1984, Jun). Curriculum change form the grass roots. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the Association for Supervision and Curriculum development. Chicago. (ERIC Document No. ED 254 913)
May, S. A. (1991). Making the different for minority children: The development of an holistic language policy at Richmond Road school, Auchland, New Zealand. Language, Culture and Curriculum, 4(3), 201-217.
Mayo, K. E. (1995). Teachers as innovators: A Case study of teacher change through site-based curriculum development. Unpublished EDD dissertation. East Texas state University.
McCutcheon, G. (1997). Curriculum and the work of teachers. In D. J. Flinders & S. J. Thornton (Eds.), The curriculum studies reader (pp.188-197). New York: Routledge.
McKernan J. (1996). Curriculum action research: A handbook of methods and resources for the reflective practitioner (2nd Ed.). Kogan Page.
Munn, P. (1985). Teacher's perceptions of school-based curriculum development: Some evidence from multi-disciplinary courses. Scottish Educational Review, 17(2), 82-91.
Nevo, D. (1995). School-based evaluation: A dialogue for school improvement. New York: Elsevier Science.
Nixon, J. (1992). Evaluating the whole curriculum. Milton Keynes: Open University Press.
Noffke, S. E.(1997). Themes and tensions in US action research: Towards historical analysis. In S. Hollingsworth (Ed.), International action research: A casebook for educational reform (pp.2-16). London: Falmer.
Norris, N. (1990). Understanding educational evaluation. New York: St. Martin's Press.
Oliva, P. F. (1992). Developing the curriculum (3rd ed.) New York: HarperCollins.
Ornstein, A. C., & Hunkins, F. (1993). Curriculum: Foundations, principles, and theory (2nd ed.) Boston: Allyn and Bacon.
Patton, M. Q. (1990). Qualitative evaluation and research methods (2nd ed.), Sage.
Perry, P. D., & Backus, C. A. (1995). A different perspective on empowerment in evaluation: Benefits and risks to the evaluation process. Evaluation Practice, 16(1), 37-46.
Prideaux, D. (1985). School-based curriculum decision making in South Australia: Change of policy or change of Action. Curriculum Perspective 5 (2), 7-10.
Prideaux, D. (1993). School-based curriculum development: partial, paradoxical and piecemeal. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 25(2), 169-178.
Pursley, L. A. (1996). Empowerment and utilization through participatory evaluation. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Cornell University.
Rappaport, J. (1987). Terms of empowerment/exemplars of prevention: Toward a theory for community psychology. American Journal Community Psychology, 15(2), 121-148.
Reynolds, D (1992). From school effectiveness to school development: Problems and possibilities. In A. M. Indrebo, L. Monsen, & T. Alvik (Eds.), Theory and practice of school-based evaluation: A research perspective (publication no.77). Lillehammer: Oppland College.
Reynolds, J., & Skilbeck, M. (1976). Culture and Classroom. Macmillan.
Ross, J. A. (1980). The influence of the principal on the curriculum decisions of teachers. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 12(3), 219-230.
Rudduck, J. (1987). Can school-based curriculum development be other than concervative? In N. Sabar, J. Rudduck, & W. Reid (Eds.), Partnership and autonomy in school-based curriculum development: Policies and practice in Israel and England (pp. 80-83). Sheffield, UK: Division of Education, University of Sheffield.
Sabar, N., Shafriri, N. (1980). The teachers as curriculum developer: A model for in-service training of teachers in Israel. Journal of Curriculum Studies,12(3), 207-217.
Sabar, N. (1983). Towards school based curriculum development: Training school curriculum co-ordinators. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 15(4), 431-434.
Sabar, N (1985). School-based curriuclum development: Reflections from an international seminar. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 17(4), 452-254.
Sabar, N. (1987). School-based curriculum development-the pendulum swings. In N. Sabar, J. Rudduck, & W. Reid (Eds.), Partnership and autonomy in school-based curriculum development: Policies and practice in Israel and England (pp. 1-4). Sheffield, UK: Division of Education, University of Sheffield.
Sabar, N, & Silberstein, M. (1987). Can we train teachers to improve the quality of curiruclum materials? In N. Sabar, J. Rudduck, & W. Reid (Eds.), Partnership and autonomy in school-based curriculum development: Policies and practice in Israel and England (pp. 87-96). Sheffield, UK: Division of Education, University of Sheffield.
Sabar,N., Rudduck, J. & Reid, W (1987) (Eds.), Partnership and autonomy in school-based curriculum development: Policies and practice in Israel and England. Sheffield, UK: Division of Education, University of Sheffield.
Schubert, W. H. (1986). Curriculum: Perspective, paradigm, and possibility. New York: Macmilian.
Seddon, T., Angus, L., & Poole, M.E. (1990). Pressures on move to school-based decision-making and management. In J. Chapman (Ed.), School-based decision-making and management (pp.29-54). Falmer.
Selener, J. D. (1992). Participatory action research and social change: Approaches and critique. Unpublished doctoral D dissertation, Cornell University.
Sergiovanni, T. J. (1984). Leadership and excellence in schooling. Educational Leadership, 41, 4-13.
Short, E. C. (1983). The forms and use of alternative curriculum development strategies: Policy implications. Curriculum Inquiry, 13(1), 43-64.
Shumsky, A. (1956). Cooperation in action research: A rationale. In S. Kemmis & R. McTaggart (Eds.). (1988), The action research reader (3rd ed., pp. 81-83). Victoria: Deakin University.
Simons, H. (1992, June). Towards professional schools: The state of the art of school-based evaluation. In A. M. Indrebo, L. Monsen, & T. Alvik (Eds.), Theory and practice of school-based evaluation: A research perspective (publication no.77). Lillehammer: Oppland College.
Simpson, M. (1986). School-based and centrally directed curriculum development-The uneasy middle ground. Scottish Educational Review, 18 (2), 76-85.
Skilbeck, M. (1976). School-based curriculum development. In J. Walton., J. Welton (Eds). Rational curriculum planning: Four case studies (pp.154-166). London: Ward Lock Educational.
Skilbeck, M. (1984). School-based curriculum development. London: Harper & Row.
Silberstein, M. (1987). School-based curiuclum development in Israel elementary schools. In N. Sabar, J. Rudduck, & W. Reid (Eds.), Partnership and autonomy in school-based curriculum development: Policies and practice in Israel and England (pp. 6-11). Sheffield, UK: Division of Education, University of Sheffield.
Slattery, P. (1995). Curriculum development in the postmodern era. New York: Garland.
Spinks, J. M. (1990). Collaborative decision-making at the school level. In J. Chapman (Ed.), School-based decision-making and management (pp. 121-141). Falmer.
Stake, R. E. (1995). The art of case study research. Thousand Oaks: Sage.
Stenhouse, L. (1975). An introduction to curriculum research and development. London: Open University.
Sturman, A. (1990). Curriculum decision-making at the school level. In J. Chapman (Ed.), School-based decision-making and management (pp.279-297). Falmer.
Swell, E. J. (1996). Curriculum: An integrative introduction. Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Merrill, an imprint of Prentice Hall.
Tanner, D., & Tanner, L. (1995). Curriculum development: Theory into practice (3rd ed.). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Merrill, an imprint of Prentice Hall.
Taylor, C. A. (1984, June). School-based curriculum development. Paper presented at the International Conference: Education for the Gifted "Ingenium 2000". Stellenbosch, Republic of South Africa. (ERIC Document No. ED 292 221)
Tyler, R. W. (1949). Basic principles of curriculum and Instruction. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Tyler, R. W. (1978). Specific approach to curriculum development. In J. R. Gress, & D. E. Purpel (Eds.), Curriculum: An introduction of the field (pp. 239-255). Berkeley: MrCutchan.
Van Manen, M. (1977). Linking ways of knowing with ways of being practical. Curriculum Inquiry 6(3), 205-227.
Walker, D. F. (1971). A naturalistic model for curriculum development, School Review, 80, 56-65.
Walker, D. F. (1978). A naturalistic model for curriculum development. In J. R. Gress, & D. E. Purpel (Eds.), Curriculum: An introduction of the field (pp. 268-280). Berkeley: MrCutchan.
Wallance, M. (1987). A historical review of action research : Some implications for the education of teachers in their managerial role. Journal of Education for Teaching, 13(2), 91-115.
Werner, W. (1978). Evaluation: Sense-making of school programs. Curriculum Evaluation in a New key,1, 5-24.
White, P. A. (1992). Teacher empowerment under "ideal' school-site autonomy. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis,14(1), 69-82.
Whitmore, E. (1988). Participatory evaluation approaches: Side effects and empowerment. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Cornell University.
Wiles, J., & Bondi, J. (1993). Curriculum Development: A guide to practice(4th ed.) New York: Macmillan.
Wright, R. (1985). Motivating teacher involvement in professional growth activities. The Canadian Administrator, XXIV (5), 1-6.
Young, J, H. (1985). Participation in curriculum development: An inquiry into the responses of teachers? Curriculum Inquiry 15(4), 387-414.
Young, J, H. (1988). Teacher participation in curriculum development: What status does it have? Journal of Curriculum and Supervision, 3(2), 109-121.
Young, J. H. (1989). Teacher interest in curriculum committees: What factors are involved? Journal of Curriculum Studies, 21(4). 363-376.
Zais, R.S. (1976). Curriculum: Principles and foundations. New York: Harper & Row.