新加坡於2004年2月開展了新一輪的華文教育改革，遂決定於2007年開始實施的新小學華文課程中採納「單元模式」，首次在中央課程的架構內設置「校本單元」，鼓勵學校自行設計華文校本課程。此舉在素來以中央為主導的課程發展模式下，可謂教育開放的重要里程碑。

課程發展之權力從中央初步過渡至學校，後者在運用該權力時所作的課程決定，及其背後的影響因素，是耐人尋味的。為深入描述及探討此內容，本研究採取質性研究方法，以新加坡的新亞小學為個案研究對象，透過訪談與文件分析的方式，以期達至三項研究目的，即瞭解新亞小學「校本單元」課程發展團隊的組成與運作、分析該團隊所作的課程決定，以及探究課程決定的影響因素。訪談對象為新亞小學課程發展團隊的成員，包括學校教師、校群特級教師、教育部課程規劃員，以及新加坡著名劇團的戲劇專家。團隊成員來自校內、外各層級領域，其身分與立場之迥異是如何在磨合之後落實為課程決定，課程決定又是如何由背後的影響因素所形塑，經整理與分析後，供本研究作討論之用，最後提出建議，以供參酌。本研究主要發現如下：
一、課程發展團隊的組成與運作方面：課程發展團隊的組成主要由學校外部發展所促成；由於課程發展團隊主要由專業人士組成，學校因相信其專業能力而未建立完善的校內支援系統；團隊內部在運作方面各司其職，呈現相對多元的視角。然而，此視角仍因為總體課程框架的設計而趨向共識，甚至隱約透露中央思維的傾向。
二、課程決定的面向與內涵方面：課程決定的關懷主要偏向內容與理念的考量；課程決定議題的主軸即中央與校本之間的定位；學校內部溝通有待加強。
三、課程決定的影響因素方面：課程發展團隊對課程決定有實質的影響；不同層面的影響因素與課程決定面向有所關聯；中央與外在思維主導課程決定的校本意志。

In 2004, Singapore initiated its new review of the Chinese Language (CL) curriculum, which led to the adoption of a “modular approach” by the Primary CL curriculum. Under this approach, schools were granted curriculum space and autonomy to design their own Chinese “school-based module”. As this fell within the structure of the mainstream curriculum and that CL was a core subject at the national examinations, it was considered a milestone for Singapore’s education.

The context within which a school administers its newfound autonomy, and how the latter translates the autonomy into actual curriculum practice and decision-making is of great research value. Using Xinya Primary School’s Chinese “school-based module” as a case study, the objectives of this research would therefore be to explore the composition and workings of the module’s curriculum development team, the nature and content of the team’s curriculum decisions, as well as their factors of influence.

Methods of interview and document analysis were adopted in the collection of data. Interviewees included members of the module’s curriculum development team, made up of school teachers, a master teacher from the school cluster, curriculum planning officers from Singapore’s Ministry of Education, and a renowned drama specialist. The diverse background and attributes of these team members come together as they formulate curriculum decisions, which are further influenced by other factors, ultimately serving as evidence for analysis and fodder for discussion.

The research concludes with the following findings: (1) Compositional nature and workings of the module’s curriculum development team: (a) Formation of the team was largely due to forces external to the school. (b) As the team was largely made up of professionals, there was much respect for their authority, hence a lack of support system within the school. (c) Team members had their own areas of specialization and exhibited relatively diverse perspectives. However, this diversity lay beneath a veil of mutual understanding, which divulged an inclination towards a centralized mode of thinking, rather than a school-based one. Much of this was due to the overarching curriculum framework. (2) Nature of curriculum decision-making: (a) It was geared towards the area of content, ideas and philosophy. (b) The main theme of curriculum decision-making issues was related to centralized and school-based stances. (c) Communication with school members could have been improved. (3) Influences on curriculum decision-making: (a) Characteristics of the curriculum development team were deemed substantive enough to be considered a relevant source of influence. (b) Different areas of influence were aligned to different areas of curriculum decisions. (c) Centralized and external thinking tended to dominate school-based thinking.

丁金松（2001）。國小「自然與生活科技」學習領域課程決定之行動研究。
國立臺北師範學院課程與教學研究所碩士論文，未出版，臺北市。
王為國（1995）。國小教師專業自主：一所國小之個案研究。國立臺中師範
學院初等教育研究所碩士論文，未出版，臺中市。
王前龍（1995）。國民小學道德科課程決定之研究。國立臺灣師範大學教育
學系碩士論文，未出版， 臺北市。
尹弘飈、李子建（2008）。課程變革：理論與實踐。臺北市：高等教育。
白雲霞（2003）。學校本位課程發展理論、模式。臺北市：高等教育。
李元瑾（2006，12月）。新加坡大學華文教育的歷史與現狀：以南洋大學中
文系與研究中心為個案。論文發表於臺灣國立清華大學中國文學系主辦
之「全球化與中文研究的新方向」國際交流論壇，新竹市。
杜美智（1997）。國小社會科教師課程決定之研究。國立花蓮師範學院教育
學系碩士論文，未出版，花蓮市。
吳清山（1989）。課程決定的理論探討。教育與心理研究，12，199-299。
林佩璇（2004a）。學校本位課程－發展與評鑑。臺北市：學富文化。
祝新華、鍾竹梅（2007）。提高校本課程的效能的策略：以新加坡實施小
學華文校本課程早期經驗為例。華文學刊，10（2），22-31。
徐世瑜（1998）。課程與教學決定歷程中的要素分析。課程與教學，1（4）,
1-12。
郭生玉（2005）。心理與教育研究法（第十九版）。中和市：精華書局。
高新建（1991）。國小教師課程決定之研究。國立臺灣師範大學教育系博士論
文，未出版，臺北市。
高新建（2008）。學校本位課程：發展、領導與評鑑。臺北市：國立臺灣師
範大學。
張連航（2007）。校本課程概念下的華文教材設計：以新加坡新華文課程為例。
載於陳之權、張連航（主編），理論、實踐與反思：新加坡華文教學論文十三篇（頁111-123）。新加坡：南洋理工大學國立教育學院亞洲語言文化部中文系 。
張嘉育（1999）。學校本位課程發展。臺北市：師大書苑。
張曉華（2010）。教育戲劇理論與發展。臺北市：心理。
游淑燕（1993）。國民小學教師課程決定權取向及其參與意願之研究。國立
政治大學教育學系博士論文，未出版，臺北市。
黃政傑（1999）。從課程的角度看教師專業發展。教師天地，83，13-17。
黃祖銘（2008）。發展特色教育的校本課程。2010年12月20日，取自
http://www.schoolbag.sg/archives/2008/09/learning_chinese_every_school.php新加坡教育部（2004）。華文課程與教學法檢討委員會報告書。新加坡：教
育部。
新加坡教育部（2006）。小學華文課程標準2007。新加坡：教育部。
新加坡教育部課程規劃與發展司（2009）。策劃、實踐、反思：小學華文校
本課程設計研究成果匯編。新加坡：教育部課程規劃與發展司。
新加坡教育部課程規劃與發展司、新劇團（化名）（2009）。我們的戲路（化
名）。新加坡：教育部課程規劃與發展司、新劇團。
新加坡教育部（2010）。小學華文校本單元之學校數據。未出版，新加坡。
歐怡雯（譯）（2006）。J. Neelands著。開始玩戲劇11-14歲（Beginning Drama
11-14）。臺北市：心理。
謝澤文（2003）。教學與測試。新加坡：新加坡華文教師總會。
簡良平、甄曉蘭（2001）。學校自主發展課程相關因素分析。教育研究集
刊，46 (0)，53-80。
簡良平（2002）。中小學學校課程決定之研究。國立臺灣師範大學教育研究
所博士論文，未出版，臺北市。
簡良平（2003）。學校課程決定：理論與實踐。臺北市：師大書苑。
譚光鼎（2010）。教育社會學。臺北市：學富文化。
Apple, M. W. (1990). Ideology and curriculum. New York: Routledge.
Apple, M. W. (1992). The politics of official knowledge: Does a national curriculum
make sense? Retrieved January 20, 2010, from http://www.stanford.edu/class/
educ232b/Apple.pdf
Apple, M. W. (2003). The state and the politics of knowledge. New York: RoutledgeFalmer.
Brady, L. (1987). Curriculum development. (2nd ed.). Sydney: Prentice Hall.
Cohen, D. & Harrison, M. (1979). Curriculum decision-making in australian education:
What decisions are made with school? Journal of Curriculum Studies, 11(3), 257-262.
Cohen, L., Manion, L. & Morrison, K. (2009). Research methods in education. (6th
ed.). New York: Routledge.
Compulsory Education Act (2003). Singapore.
Eisner, E. W. (1994). The educational imagination: On the design and evaluation of
school programs. (3rd ed.). New York: Macmillan.
Fraenkel, J. R. & Wallen, N. E. (2008). How to design and evaluate research in
education. (7th ed.). Boston: McGraw-Hill Higher Education.
Goh, C. K. (1997). Shaping our future: Thinking schools, learning nation. Retrieved
March 2, 2011, from http://www.moe.gov.sg/media/speeches/1997/020697.htm
Goh, K. S. (1979). Report on the ministry of education, 1978. Singapore: Singapore
National Printers.
Goodlad, J. I. (Ed.). (1979). Curriculum inquiry: The study of curriculum practice.
NY: McGraw-Hill.
Goodlad, J. I. (1991). Curriculum making as a sociopolitical process. In M. F. Klein
(Ed.), The politics of curriculum decision-making: Issues in centralizing the curriculum (pp. 9-23). Albany, NY: State University of New York.
Gopinathan, S. & Deng, Z. (2006). Fostering school-based curriculum development in
the context of new education [Electronic version]. Planning and changing, Vol. 37, No. 1&2, 2006, pp. 93-110.
Kelly, A. V. (2009). The curriculum: theory and practice. (6th ed.). London: Sage.
Lee, H. L. (2004). Our future of opportunity and promise. National Day Rally 2004
Speech by Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong, at the University Cultural Centre, National University of Singapore. Retrieved January 28, 2011, from http://stars.nhb.gov.sg/stars/public/viewHTML.jsp?pdfno=2004083101
Leithwood, K. A. (1982). Implementing curriculum innovations. In K. A. Leithwood
(Ed.), Studies in curriculum decision making (pp. 245-267). Toronto, Canada: OISE Press .
Lim, L. C. (Ed.). (2007). Many pathways one mission: Fifty years of singapore
education. Singapore: Ministry of Education.
Marsh, C., Day, C., Hannay, L. & McCutcheon, G. (1990). Reconceptualizing school-
based curriculum development. NY: Falmer Press.
Marsh, C. J. & Heng, M. A. (2009). Understanding commonalities between school-
based curriculum development (SBCD) and curriculum differentiation (CD). Retrieved December 10, 2010, from http://www.acsa.edu.au/pages/images/
Colin%20Marsh%20&%20Mary%20Anne%20Heng.pdf
McKenzie, P. N. (1990). Information needs for decision-making at school level. In
Chapman, J. D. (Ed.), School-based decision-making and management. London: The Falmer Press.
McKinsey & Co. (2010). How the world’s most improved school systems keep
getting better. Retrieved March 3, 2011, from
http://ssomckinsey.darbyfilms.com/reports/EducationBookNov23.pdf
Neuman, W. L. (2006). Social research methods: Quantitative and qualitative
approaches. (6th ed.). London: Allyn and Bacon.
Oberg, A. A. (1991). Curriculum decision. In A. Lewy (Ed.), The international
encyclopedia of curriculum (pp. 302-303). New York: Pergamon.
Olssen, M., Codd, J., & O’Neil, A. (2004). Education policy: Globalization,
citizenship and decmocracy. London: Sage.
Posner, G. F. (1998). Models of curriculum planning. In Beyer, L. E. & Apple, M.
(Eds.), The curriculum: Problems, politics, and possibilities (pp. 79-100). Albany, NY: State University of New York.
Singapore Ministry of Education (2001). More career advancement opportunities for
teachers. Retrieved April 15, 2011, from http://www.moe.gov.sg/media/press/
2001/pr26092001.htm
Singapore Ministry of Education (2005). Transforming learning from quantity to
quality. Retrieved March 26, 2011, from
www.moe.gov.sg/about/yearbooks/2005/teach.html
Singapore Ministry of Education (2006). Redefining how we deliver ability-driven
education. Retrieved February 26, 2011, from http://www.moe.gov.sg/media/
press/2006/pr20060928.htm
Singapore Ministry of Education (2011). Organization structure: Schools division.
Retrieved March 17, 2011, from http://www.moe.gov.sg/about/org-structure/sd
Skilbeck, M. (1984). School-based curriculum development. London: Harper & Row.
Walker, D. F. (1990). Fundamentals of curriculum. San Diego: Harcourt Brace
Jovanovich.