摘 要本研究之目的在探討現階段課程改革脈落之下，學校課程決定任務與角色的轉變、學校自主發展過程與課程決定的內容、學校課程決定過程中學校成員及教師參與課程決定的程度、影響學校成員課程決定的關鍵因素，最後歸納研究發現作成結論與建議，做為中小學學校課程決定之實務與研究的參考。文獻探討主要以課程決定釋意與實務分析做為本研究之基本論述。就學校課程決定而言，不能脫離學校的環境脈絡，過程中涉及決定者的因素、人的互動與決定的方法，以決定課程的內容、課程取向、課程組織方法等等。現階段學校課程決定的任務與角色轉變，權力下放的課程實踐取向著重學校本位課程的發展，因而授權學校自主發展課程，學校必須在現有的基礎上形成課程革新的目的與過程，調整課程決定的組織結構、建構學校學習型組織的文化，以利教師參與課程決定，達成學校本位課程發展。而此過程中，鼓勵教師發展專業自主，以參與做課程決定，團體課程慎思的方式思維學校課程問題，提出提升學教學品質的解決方法。回顧現階段學校自主發展課程仍受到許多因素左右，包括外在環境、學校系統、教師條件等等，多值得進一步探究。為深入觀察與描述學校課程決定的實施狀況，本研究採取質性研究方法，選擇個案研究以台北縣、市二所國中、二所國小為研究對象，並以學校課程決定的行動為觀察重點，深度描述學校成員課程決定行為及與課程改革相關事宜的因應措施。本研究雖有基本論述，但研究之始不受限於此，而是在長期觀察之後歸納出幾個觀察與分析的面向，最後以學校課程決定的脈絡、教師參與課程決定的程度、學校課程決定的運作機制、學校課程決定的層面、課程慎思的議題、影響教師課程決定的因素等，描述分析四所個案學校課程決定的實際發展狀況。本研究發現如下：一.現階段學校課程決定角色轉變過程充斥著權力運作因素：不僅學校自主發展課程的權限受至於科層體制的約束，事實上也受限於學校本身的權力結構。校長的課程領導意識左右學校課程決定的策略，不僅如此，校長與教務主任之間的權力結構影響推行策略是否穩定、行政人員之間的協調影響推行課程革新是否周延、行政人員與教師之間的互動著實影響教師參與的意願、校園是否民主化影響教師參與做決定的準備度。實際上，學校領導人員是否授權教師課程決定的理想與實際之間差距很大。二.學校推動課程改革機制影響教師參與的程度：學校成立之課程發展委員會是否以增加教師專業對話機會、擴增參與課程決定的機會，影響學校教師參與課程發展的程度。再者，學校是否針對學校特殊的生態條件來建構課程決定的機制，掌握影響教師參與課程決定的態度與行為，關係著課程發展委員會的成功運作與否。三.教師專業自主的發展關係著課程決定的品質：學校以建構學習型組織的目的，提升教師專業知能，而教師以發展專業自主持續發展，則課程決定品質當不斷提升，即使不再有課程改革政策仍能持續提升教學品質。四.教師課程決定內容影響學校本位課程的走向：國小教師多半能以全校性主題課程的規劃，整合各年級的活動課程。這當中不涉及各科教科書內容，乃因不同教科書版本的學科知識結構連貫難、教師教學經驗有異、各學年教師團隊的互動不同、以及教師討論時間有限，而難以就各年級的知識內容進行連貫性課程組織。然而，透過學年教師的團體慎思，教師們發展出活潑的教學活動，提升教室的教學品質。國中教師則以發展學習領域統整課成為核心，來建構學校本位課程的特色。然而，現階段各科教師之間對話習慣尚未建立，學科知識界線難以打破，統整課程所面臨的困境多於國小。五.影響學校教師課程決定的因素龐雜：包括課程決定的來源多，教師課程決定的範疇受限；相關訊息及課程專家建議影響教師課程慎思的內容；學校課程領導方式影響教師參與課程決定的意願；學校課程決定機制運作，影響教師參與課程決定的機會；課程決定的團體互動關係影響課程決定的內容；學校生態結構影響教師實踐課程決定的能力；領導型教師可以促成教師專業發展文化取向、教師個別條件影響教師參與課程決定的投入。有關學校推展課程決定方面，本研究建議：增進學校行政人員的課程領導能力，引導課程改革的正確方向；強化學校行政權力結構，以利課程改革政策推行；健全學校課程發展機制，增加教師參與參與對話的機會；增加教師與專家對話機會，提升課程實踐的程度；有系統地發展校內進修，增進教師專業知能；鼓勵學校文化改變，發展學習型組織；重視教師發展專業自主，鼓勵提升課程決定品質。 School Curriculum Decision-making–Mutiple-Case Study in Junior High School and Elementary School Abstract The aims of this study are to understand how the staff of the junior high school and the elementary school to make curriculum decision. The researcher explored who, what content, and what method are involved in curriculum decision-making process, as well as how the decision are made. In order to see the schools build their vision and plan their procedures under the context of curriculum reform policy, a case study approach was applied in this study since September, 2000 to June, 2001. Methods used for data collection include on-looker observation, interview the principles and teachers, and document analysis. The focuses of the literature are on: (1) the meaning of school curriculum decision-making; (2) the shifting of schools’ roles under the curriculum reform policy; (3) the driving forces behind the practices of school-based curriculum development; (4) the implication of curriculum deliberation in school-based curriculum decision-making. According to the literature review and field study, the research findings are followed: First, the power struggles in the process of school curriculum decision-making helps us to know there are many forces influencing school curriculum decision-making. It shows that the principles' curriculum leadership guides the direction of school-based curriculum. The leader teachers can provide the resources to support teachers making curriculum through building caring relationship, allocating resource, and providing information for curriculum planning. Although schools are given with power for developing school-based curriculum, in reality there is still a gap between the ideal for conducting the concept of empowerment and teachers’ practice of their professional autonomy. Second, if the administrative leaders of the school designate the mechanism of curriculum decision-making and make a platform for the teachers to discuss school-based curriculum, not only the teachers will have opportunities to solve the problems about curriculum and instruction with their colleagues but also they will enhance their confidence to take part in curriculum planning. The quality of the curriculum decision-making are reflected through dialogue among teachers in the curriculum committee. Its principal value lies in the schools' capacity to define the internal problems and to come up with strategies for raising school autonomy. Third, teachers in the four schools confront many difficulties when they make efforts developing integrated curriculum. Especially in junior high school, the connections between subjects are complex and it’s hard to break the boundaries of knowledge structure for teachers. In the process of planning curriculum, teachers usually consider students' interest, the content of subjects, the teachers' ability, and the enviroment of teaching in their curriculum deliberation. It's important to find that when a teacher pursues internal professional satisfaction, this teacher will always keep improving his/her teaching. In sum, there are many factors influencing teachers in participating in making curriculum decisions. They include bureaucratic system, curriculum leadership, teachers' ability, and teacher culture. Under the circumstance of their own choices, the cultural ecology at school prevent their members from developing their school-based curriculum in a more creative way. Finally, the research suggests that teachers in the schools need to be provided with more opportunities to study curricular knowledge and skills to enhance their curricular consciousness. They need to know more about their own cultural ecology in order to grasp multi-dimensional conditions for planning school-based curriculum. It's the most important point that teachers to make curriculum decisions cooperatively and situate their curriculum issues in context.

The aims of this study are to understand how the staff of the junior high
school and the elementary school to make curriculum decision. The researcher
explored　who, what content, and what method are involved in curriculum
decision-making process, as well as how the decision are made. In order to see
the schools build their vision and plan their procedures under the context of
curriculum reform policy, a case study approach was applied in this study
since September, 2000 to June, 2001. Methods used for data collection include
on-looker observation, interview the principles and teachers, and document
analysis. The focuses of the literature are on: (1) the meaning of school
curriculum decision-making; (2) the shifting of schools’ roles under the
curriculum reform policy; (3) the driving forces behind the practices of
school-based curriculum development; (4) the implication of curriculum
deliberation in school-based curriculum decision-making.
According to the literature review and field study, the research findings are
followed:
First, the power struggles in the process of school curriculum decision-making
helps us to know there are many forces influencing school curriculum decision-
making. It shows that the principles' curriculum leadership guides the
direction of school-based curriculum. The leader teachers can provide the
resources to support teachers making curriculum through building caring
relationship, allocating resource, and providing information for curriculum
planning. Although schools are given with power for developing school-based
curriculum, in reality there is still a gap between the ideal for conducting
the concept of empowerment and teachers’ practice of their professional
autonomy.
Second, if the administrative leaders of the school designate the mechanism of
curriculum decision-making and make a platform for the teachers to discuss
school-based curriculum, not only the teachers will have opportunities to
solve the problems about curriculum and instruction with their colleagues but
also they will enhance their confidence to take part in curriculum planning.
The quality of the curriculum decision-making are reflected through dialogue
among teachers in the curriculum committee. Its principal value lies in the
schools' capacity to define the internal problems and to come up with
strategies for raising school autonomy.
Third, teachers in the four schools confront many difficulties when they make
efforts developing integrated curriculum. Especially in junior high school,
the connections between subjects are complex and it’s hard to break the
boundaries of knowledge structure for teachers. In the process of planning
curriculum, teachers usually consider students' interest, the content of
subjects, the teachers' ability, and the enviroment of teaching in their
curriculum deliberation. It's important to find that when a teacher pursues
internal professional satisfaction, this teacher will always keep improving
his/her teaching.
In sum, there are many factors influencing teachers in participating in making
curriculum decisions. They include bureaucratic system, curriculum leadership,
teachers' ability, and teacher culture. Under the circumstance of their own
choices, the　cultural ecology at school prevent their members from developing
their school-based curriculum in a more creative way.
Finally, the research suggests that teachers in the schools need to be
provided with more opportunities to study curricular knowledge and skills to
enhance their curricular consciousness. They need to know more about their own
cultural ecology in order to grasp multi-dimensional conditions for planning
school-based curriculum. It's the most important point that teachers to make
curriculum decisions cooperatively and situate their curriculum issues in
context.

一、中文部分
丁志仁（民88）。新課程對教師施教以及教師進修、培育的影響。載於中
　　華民國教材研究發展學會編印，邁向課程新紀元--九年一貫課程研討
　　會論文集（下），頁324-333。台北：教研學會出版。
王文科（民77）。課程論。台北：五南。
王前龍（民84）。國民小學「道德」課程決定之研究。國立台灣師範大學
　　教育研究所碩士論文。未出版。
王麗雲、潘慧玲（民89）。教師章權益能的概念與實施策略。國立台灣師
　　範大學，教育研究輯刊，44輯，頁173-200。
司琦（民78）。課程導論。台北：五南。
牟中原、陳伯璋（民84）。學校改革理念。教改通訊，11，頁5-10。
行政院教育改革審議委員會總諮議報告書（民85），教育部網站，90年11
　　月23日http://www.sinica.edu.tw/info/edu-reform/farea2/tsy-
　　all_abs.html
李子建、黃顯華（民85）。課程：範式、取向和設計。台北：五南。
李宗薇（民86）。教育研究客觀性的現象學分析。國立台北師範學院學
　 報，第10期，頁1-22。
李振賢（民87）。邁向新世紀的教育政策--專訪教育部林清江部長。教師
　 天地，95，頁4-7。
李鴻亮、王前龍、范信賢（民90）。台灣地區國民中小學「學校本位課
　 程」現況之研究。論文發表於國立台灣師範大學主辦「新世紀課程改
　 革」學術研討會。
余安邦（民88）。夢中情人--九年一貫課程。教育資料與研究，第26期，
　 頁19-21。
林佩璇（民88）。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。國立台灣師範大學博士論文，未出版。
林佩璇（民90）。個案研究及其在教育研究上的應用。載於中正大學教育
　 學研究所主編，質的研究方法，頁199-220。高雄：麗文。
林清江（民83）。社會變遷與教育改革的關係。教改通訊，第三期，頁5-
　 7。
林清江（民86）。教育改革的前景。成人教育，35（1），頁2-5。
林清江（民87a）。我教育發展動向之評析。訓育研究，37（3），頁1-
　 6。
林清江（民87b）。邁向新世紀的教育政策。87.09.24刊於中央日報。
林清江（民87c）。當前教育改革方向。訓育研究，37（4），頁1-7。
林殿傑（民88）。九年一貫課程之政策規劃與因應策略。載於中華民國教
　 材研究發展學會編印，邁向課程新紀元--九年一貫課程研討會論文集
　（下），頁394-419。台北：教研學會出版。
林維能（民88）。自我成長的再思：從Carol Gilligon的關懷倫理來思考
　 教師對成熟個體的期待。台灣師範大學教育系教育專題講座演講稿，
　 未出版。
林霓岑（民89）。國民小學教師設計統整課程之研究。國立台灣師範大學
　 教育系碩士論文。未出版。
吳清山（民78）。課程決定的理論探討。國立政治大學教育與心理研究，
　 第12期，頁199-229。
周淑卿（民89）。面對統整課程與教學的教師文化。載於中華民國課程與
　　教學學會主編，課程統整與教學，頁231-252。台北：楊智。
周麗玉（民87）。課程變臉與整容之道。台北教育通訊，33期，頁4-5。
洪詠善（民89）。國民教育階段九年一貫課程總綱綱要決策過程之研究。
　　國立台北師範學院課程與教學研究所碩士論文，未出版。
唐小兵譯（民79）。後現代主義與文化理論（Fredric Jameson 教授講
　　座）。台北：當代叢書。
高希均（民89）。「知識經濟」不是一條好走的路—讓知識人扮演積極的
　　角色。聯合報，民89年9月25日民意論壇。
高新建（民80）。國小教師課程決定之研究。國立台灣師範大學教育研究
　　所碩士論文。未出版。
高新建（民88a）。學校本位課程發展的立論基礎與理想情境。論文發表
　　於台北市立師院舉辦『八十七學年度教育學術研討會』，載於研討會
　　論文輯，頁305-339。
高新建（民88b）。邁向成功的學校本位課程發展。論文發表於台北市立
　　師範學院，『課程統整與教學』學術研討會。
高新建（民88c）。學校本位課程發展的成功因素：綜合分析。論文發表
　　於國立高雄師範大學舉辦『新世紀中小學課程革新與創新教學』學術
　　研討會中，論文輯頁15-23。
教育部（民87）。國民教育階段課程總綱綱要 (草案)。台北：教育部。
郭守芬（民88）。吳京面臨之教育改革課題與因應政策。國立花蓮師範學
　　院國民教育研究所碩士論文，未出版。
陳伯璋（民88a）。九年一貫新課程綱要修訂的背景與內涵。教育研究資
　　訊，7（1）， 頁1-13。
陳伯璋（民88b）。九年一貫課程的理念與理論分析。載於中華民國教材
　　研究發展學會編印。邁向課程新紀元—九年一貫課程研討會論文集
　 （上），頁10-18。台北：教研學會出版。
張明輝（民90a）。新世紀教育改革的挑戰與展望。教育部網站，90年2月
　　5日http://web.cc.edu.tw/``minfei.html
張明輝（民90b）。九O年代中小學學校教育革新之策略與展望。教育部網
　　站，90年2月5日http://web.cc.edu.tw/``minfei.html
張嘉育（民88）。學校本位課程發展。台北：師大書苑。
黃光雄、蔡清田（民88）。課程設計—理論與實際。台北：五南。
黃炳煌（民75）。課程理論之基礎。台北：文景。
黃炳煌（民77）。技職教育課程發展模式之研究。教育部技職司委託專題
　　研究。
黃炳煌（民88）。邁向二十一世紀的台灣社會科課程改革。載於中華民國
　　教材研究發展學會編印，邁向課程新紀元--九年一貫課程研討會論文
　　集（下），頁173-195。台北：教研學會出版。
黃政傑（民74）。課程改革。台北：漢文。
黃政傑（民79）。課程。載於黃光雄主編，教育概論 。台北：師大書
　　苑。
黃政傑（民80）。課程設計。台北：東華。
黃政傑（民88）。永續的課程改革經營。發表於「新世紀中小學課程改革
　　與創新教學」學術研討會。國立高雄師範大學舉辦。
游家政、吳家瑩（民87）。台灣國民教育課程綱要的研訂構想。論文發表
　　於「海峽兩岸小學教育學術研討會」。上海。
游家政（民88）。九年一貫課程的學習領域。載於中華民國教材研究發展
　　學會編印，邁向課程新紀元--九年一貫課程研討會論文集（下），頁
　　99-122。台北：教研學會出版。
游家政（民90）。國民教育課程綱要的內涵及其對教師的衝激。教育部網
　　站，90年 2月5日， http://web.cc.ntn.edu.tw
游淑燕（民82）。國民小學教師課程決定權取向及其參與意願之研究。國
　　立政治大學教育研究所博士論文，未出版。
葉興華（民89）。我國國小推行課程統整之研究。國立台灣師範大學教育
　　研究所博士論論文。未出版。
楊深坑（民89）。迎接廿一世紀新專業主義之建構。論文發表於國立台灣
　　師範大學教育系主辦，「新世紀的教育願景」研討會。
楊益風（民88）。九年一貫課程與教學革新。載於中華民國教材研究發展
　　學會編印，邁向課程新紀元--九年一貫課程研討會論文集（下），頁
　　347-367。台北：教研學會出版。
甄曉蘭（民85）。從典範的轉移再思質的研究崛起的意義。國立嘉義師範
　　大學學報，第10期，頁119-146。
甄曉蘭（民86）。變遷社會中課程改革的迷思。論文發表於1997海峽兩岸
　　小學教育學術研討會。嘉義：國立嘉義師範學院。
甄曉蘭（民87）。知識論對課程發展的影響—以台灣國小課程改革為例。
　　論文發表於一九九八海峽兩岸小學教育學術研討會。
甄曉蘭（民88）。九年一貫課程－改革的理想與挑戰。台灣教育，581，
　　頁2-8。
甄曉蘭（民90）。從課程組織的觀點檢討課程統整的設計與實施。課程與
　　教學季刊，4（1），頁1-20。
甄曉蘭、簡良平（民90）。學校本位課程發展之權力重整批判分析。論文
　　發表於民國九十年10月20、21日中正大學舉辦之「課程與教學」論
　　壇。
蔡清田（民88a）。推動學校本位課程發展，進行學校課程總體營造。論
　　文發表於國立高雄師範大學舉辦『新世紀中小學課程革新與創新教
　　學』學術研討會中， 論文輯頁25-33。
蔡清田（民88b）。九年一貫課程評鑑的行動途徑。載於中華民國教材研
　　究發展學會編印，邁向課程新紀元--九年一貫課程研討會論文集
　 （下），頁453-469。台北：教研學會出版。
歐用生（民78）。課程與教學：概念理論與實際。台北：文景。
歐用生（民80）。課程發展的基本原理。高雄：復文。
歐用生（民88a）。新世紀的學校。台北：’揚智。
歐用生（民88b）。落實學校本位的課程發展。論文發表於國立高雄師範
　　大學舉辦『新世紀中小學課程革新與創新教學』學術研討會中，論文
　　輯頁405-409。
歐用生（民88c）。九年一貫課程之「潛在課程」評析。載於中華民國教
　　材研究發展學會編印，邁向課程新紀元--九年一貫課程研討會論文集
　 （上），頁19-33。台北：教研學會出版。
歐用生（民88d）。從「課程統整」的概念評九年一貫課程。教育研究資
　　訊，7(1），頁22-32。
簡良平（民89）。知識形式的劃分與課程組織。課程與教學季刊，3
　 （2），頁75-94。
簡良平（民89）。學校自主發展課程—課程籌畫的議題。論文發表於中華
　　民國課程與教學學會89年年會。
簡良平、甄曉蘭（民90）。學校自主發展課程相關因素分析。教育研究集
　　刊，46，頁53-80。
二、英文部分
Anderson, S. E. (1997). Understanding teacher change:
　 revisiting the concerns based adoption model. Curriculum
　 Inquiry, 27(3),pp.331-367.
Apple, M. W.(1993). Official　knowledge: Democratic education
　 in a conservative age. N. Y.:　Routledge.
Apple, M. W.(2000). Markets, standards, and inequality in
　 education: can critical　pedagogies interrupt rightist
　 policies？論文發表於南華大學主辦，第三屆台灣教育社會學論
　 壇，2000.5月.27-28日。
Atkin, E. (1986). The deliberative process: An analysis from
　 three perspectives. Journal of Curriculum and Supervision, 1
　 (4),pp.265-293.
Bassey, M.(1998). Action research for improving educational
　 practice. In Halsall, R.(ed), Teacher research and school
　 improvement., pp.93-108. Buckingham：Open University Press.
Beane, J. M.（1997）. Curriculum integration. N.Y.：Teacher
　　College Press.
Berstein, B.(1971). On the classification and framing of
　　educational knowledge. In Young, M. F. D. (ed), Knowledge
　　and control, pp. 46-67. London：Collier-Macmillan.
Beyer, L. E. and Apple, M.(eds)(1988). The curriculum:
　　problems, politics, and possibilities. Albany: State
　　University of New York.
Beyer, L. E. and Apple, M.(1998). Values and politics in the
　　curriculum. Beyer, L. E. and Apple, M.(eds), The
　　curriculum: problems, politics, and possibilities. (2nd),
　　pp.3-20. Albany: State University of New York.
Beyer, L. E.(1991). Curriculum　deliberation. In Lewy, A.(ed),
　　The International Encyclopedia of Curriculum, pp.304-306.
　　N.Y.: Pergamon Press.
Brady, L.(1985).　The supportiveness of the principal in school-
based curriculum development. Journal of Curriculum
　　Studies, 17(1),pp.95-97.
Campbell-Evans, G.(1993). A values perspective on school-based
　　management. In C.Dimmock(ed).School-based management and
　　school effectiveness. London:Routledge.
Chimwenje, D. D.(1990). Curriculum planing and decision making
　　process in secondary schools in Malawi.. Doctor diseration
　　in Massachusetts University.
Chapman, J. D. (ed), School-based decision-making and
　　management, pp.183-198. London: The Falmer Press.
Clandinin, D. J.(1986). Classroom practice: Teacher images in
　　action. London: The Falmer Press.
Clandinin, D. J. & Connelly, F. M. (1992). Teacher as
　　curriculum maker. In Jackson, P.W.(ed), Handbook of
　　research on curriculum, pp.363-401.N.Y.:Macmillan.
Connelly, F. A. & Dienes, B.(1982). The teacher's role in
　　curriculum planning. In Leithwood, K. A.(ed), Studies in
　　curriculum decision-making, pp. 183-198. Canada:OISE Press.
Connelly, F. M., Kormos, J. and Enns, R. J.(1982). Commercial
　　and locally developed curriculum materials, in Leithwood,
　　K. A.(ed), Studies in curriculum decision-making, pp.110-
　　131.Canada:OISE Press.
Creswell, J. W. (1998). Qualitative inquiry and research
　　design: choosing among five traditions. California: Sage.
Denzin, N. K. (1994). The art and politics of interpretation.
　　In Denzin, N. K. and Lincoln, Y. S. (eds), Handbook of
　　qualitative research, pp.500-515. California: Sage.
Denzin, N. K. and Lincoln, Y. S. (1998).(eds) Handbook of
　　qualitative research. California: Sage.
Denzin, N. K. (2000). The art and politics of interpretation.
　　In Denzin, N. K. and Lincoln, Y. S. (eds), Handbook of
　　qualitative research.（2nd）California: Sage.
Dillon, J. T. (1994). The questions of deliberation. In　J.T.
　　Dillon (ed) , Deliberation in education and society, pp.3-
　　24.　Norwood : Ablex.
Doll, W. E. (1993). A post-modern perspective on curriculum.
　　N.Y.: Teachers College Press.
Doll, R. C. (1996). Curriculum improvement : decision-making
　　and process (9th ed). Boston: Allyn and Bacon.
Eisner, E. W. (1985). The educational imagination—on the
　　design and evaluation of school programs. N.Y.: Macmillan
　　Publishing Company.
Eisner, E. W. (1988). The ecology of school improvement.
　　Educational Leadership ,5,pp.24-29.
Eisner, E. W. (1999). Educational reform and the ecology　of
　　schooling. In Ornstein, A.C. & Behar-horenstein, L. S.
　　(eds.), Contemporary issues in curriculum. Boston: Allyn
　　and Bacon.
Featherstone, M.(1991). Consumer culture & Postmodernism.
　　London: Sage.
Featherstone, M.(1995). Undoing culture: globalization,
　　postmoderism, and identity.　London: Sage Publications.
Fontana, A. and Frey, J. (2000). Interviewing—the art of
　　science. In Denzin, N. K. and Lincoln , Y. S.(eds.),
　　Handbook of qualitative research(2nd). California: SAGE.
Foster, R. (1991). Patterns of curriculum decision-making: A
　　study of decision-making process about teacher education
　　programs. The Pennsylvania State University, Unpublished.
Frazier, C. M. (1987).　Federal, state, and local
　　responsibility. In Goodlad, J. I. (ed), The ecology of
　　school renewal, pp.99-117.　Chicago: The National Society
　　for the Study of Education.
Fullan, M. G. (1992).Successful school improvement. Buckingham:
　　Open University Press.
Fullan and Miles, (1992). Getting reform right: What works and
　　what doesn't. Phi Delta Kappan, 73, 744-752.
Fullan, M. G. (1999). Turning systemic thinking on its head. In
　　Ornstein, A. C. & Behar, L. S. (eds), Contemporary issues
　　in curriculum (2th). Boston: Allyn and Bacon.
Gay, G. (1991). Curriculum　development. In Lewy,A.(ed), The
　　International　Encyclopedia Of　Curricullum,pp.293-302.
　　N.Y.: Pergamon Press.
Goodlad, J. I.(1975). The dynamics of educational change:
　　Toward responsive schools. N.Y.: McGraw-Hill Book Co..
Goodlad, J.I. et al.(1979). Curriculum inquiry. N.Y.: McGraw-
　　Hill.Goodlad, J. I. (1987). Structure, process, and an
　　agenda. In Goodlad, J. I.(ed), The ecology of school
　　renewal, pp.1-19. Chicago: The National Society for the
　　Study of Education.
Goodlad, J. I. & Su, Z.（1989）.Organization of the curriculum.
　　In Jackson, P. W.(ed), Handbook of research on curriculum,
　　pp.327-344. London: SAGE Publications.
Goodlad, J. I. (1991). Curriculum making as a sociopolitical
　　process. In Klein, M. F. (ed),The politics of curriculum
　　decision-making—issues in centralizing the curriculum.,
　　pp.9-23. N. Y. : State University of New York.
Gredler, M. E. (1997). Learning and instruction—theory into
　　practice. London：Prentice-Hall International Limited.
Green, J.（1998）. Teacher professionalism, teacher development
　　and school improvement. In Halsall, R.(ed), Teacher
　　research and school improvement, pp.200-210. Buckingham：
　　Open University Press.
Greene, M.(1986). Philosophy and teaching. In M. C. Wittrock
　　(ed), Handbook of　research on teaching. NY: Macmillan.
Gregory, T. B.(1990). Discussion on ethics. In Guba, E. G.
　　(ed), The paradigm dialog, pp. 165-166. London: SAGE
　　Publications.
Guba, E. C. (1990). The alternative paradigm dialog. In The
　　paradigm dialog. London： Sage.
Habermas, Jurgen(1969). Toward a rational society—student
　　protest, science, and politics. Translated by Shapiro J.,
　　Jeremy J. Boston: Beacon Press.
Habermas, J. (1971). Knowledge and human interests. Translated
　　by Shapiro J., Jeremy . London：H.E.B.
Hannay, L. M. & Seller, W.(1991). The curriculum leadership
　　role in facilitating curriculum　deliberation. Journal of
　　Curriculum and Supervision, 6(4),340-357.
Hargreaves, A.(1992). Cultures of teaching：A focus for change.
　　In Hargreaves, A. & Fullan, .G., R.(eds), Understanding
　　eacher development. N.Y.：Teachers College Press.
Hargreaves, A.（1994）. Changing teachers, changing times:
　　teachers' work and culture in the postmodern age. London:
　　Cassell.
Hargreaves, A.（1997）From reform to renewal: a new deal for a
　　new age. In Hargreaves, A. & Evans, R.(ed), Beyond
　　educational reform, pp.105-125. Buckingham: Open University
　　Press.
Hargreaves, A. , Earl, L. and Ryan, J. (1996). Schooling for
　　change: Reinventing　education for early adolescents.
　　London: The Falmer Press.
Hargreaves, A. & Goodson, I.(1996). Teachers' professional
　　lives: aspirations and actualities, in Goodson, I.&
　　Hargreaves, A.(eds), Teachers' professional lives. London：
　　Falmer Press.
Hargreaves, D.H. & Hopkins, D.(1991). The empowered school:
　　The　management and practices of development planning.
　　London: Cassell.
Hargreaves, A. and Fullan, M.(1998). What's worth fighting for
　　out there. N.Y.: Teachers College Press.
Harrison, M.（1981）.School-based curriculum decision-making: A
　　personal viewpoint.　Curriculum Perspective, 2(1),47-52.
Hawthorne, R. D.(1990). Analyzing school-based collaborative
　　curriculum decision making. Journal of Curriculum and
　　Supervision, 5(3),pp.279-286.
Heckmam, P. (1987). Understanding school culture. In Goodlad,
　　J. I.(ed), The ecology　of school renewal, pp.63-78.
　　Chicago: The National Society for the Study of Education.
Henderson, J. G. & Hawthorne, R. D.(1995). Transformative
　　curriculum leadership. Englewood Cliffs,NJ: Prentice-
　　Hall,Inc.
Henderson, J.G. & Hawthorne, R.D. ( 2000) . Transformative
　　curriculum　Leadership.（2nd） New Jersey: Prentice-Hall,
　　Inc..
Hill, Byrne G.(1980). Some political influences on the
　　curriculum. In Kelly, A. V.(ed),　Curriculum context, pp.
　　133-149. N. Y.: Harper & Row, Publishers.
Hirst, P. H.(1974). Knowledge and curriculum. London: R. K. P.
　　Holt, M.(1994). Deliberation in the school.　In　J.T.
　　Dillon (ed) : Deliberation in　education and society,
　　pp.211-238. Norwood : Ablex.
Hopely, D. L.（1991）Faculty and administrative perceptions
　　concerning curriculum decision making at rural Arizona
　　Community Colleges. Northern Arizona University.
Hopkins, D. , Ainscow, M. and West, M.(1994). School
　　improvement in an era of change. N.Y.: Cassell.
House, E. R. (1990). An ethics of qualitative field studies. In
　　Guba, E. G. (ed), The　paradigm dialog, pp. 158-164.
　　London: SAGE Publications.
Huberman, A. M. and Miles, M. B. (1994). Data management and
　　analysis methods. In Dezin, N. K. and Lincoln, Y. S.( eds),
　　Handbook of qualitative research, pp. 428-444.Lonndon: SAGE
　　Publications.
Husen, T. (1999). Research paradigm in education. In Keeves, J.
　　P. &　Lakomski, G. (eds), Issues in education. Amsterdam:
　　Pergman.
Janesick, V. J.(1998). The dance of qualitative research
　　design. In Denzin, N. K. & Lincoln, Y. S.(eds), Strategies
　　of qualitative inquiry, pp. 35-55.California: Sage.
Kain, D. L. (1996). Recipes and dialogue? A middle school team
　　conceptualizes “curricular integration” . Journal of
　　Curriculum and Supervision, 11(2), pp.163-187.
Kelly, A. V. (1986). Knowledge and curriculum planning. London:
　　Harper & Row, Publishers.
Kelly, A. V.(1989). The curriculum: Theory and practice（3rd）.
　　London: Paul Chapman Publishing Ltd.
Kelly, A. V.(1999). The curriculum: Theory and practice（4rd）.
　　London:Paul Chapman Publishing Ltd.
Kelly, A., West, M. and Dee, L. (2001). Staff involvement in
　　the design of a key skills curriculum model: a case-study.
　　The Curriculum Journal, 12(2), pp.179-190.
Kerr, D. H.(1987). Authority and responsibility in public
　　schooling. In Goodlad, J. I.(ed), The ecology of school
　　renewal, pp.20-38. Chicago: The National Society for the
　　Study of Education.
Klein, M. F. (1991). A conceptual framework for curriculum
　　decision- making.　In The politics　of　curriculum decision-
　　making—issues in centralizing the curriculum., pp. 24-41.
　　N. Y.: State University of New York Press.
Kliebard, H. M.（1989）. Problems of definition in curriculum.
　　Journal of Curriculum and Supervision, 5(1), pp.1-5.
Kuhn, T.(1970). The structure of scientific revolution.
　　Chicago：University of Chicago Press.
Lather, P. A.(1990). Reinscribing otherwise – the play of
　　values in the practices of human sciences. In Cuba, E. C.
　　(ed), The paradigm dialog. SAGE: Publication, Inc..
Lawton, D.(1996). Beyond the national curriculum-teacher
　　professionalism、empowerment.　 London：Hodder & Stoughton.
LeCompte, M. D., Preissle, J. and Tesch, R.(1993). Origins of
　　qualitative research. In Evolution of education
　　ethnography. San Diago: Academic Press, Inc..
Lee, J. Chi-Kin and Dimmock, C. (1999). Curriculum leadership
　　and　management in secondary schools: a Hong Kong case
　　study. School Leadership & Management, 19(4),pp.455-482.
Leithwood, K. A.(ed)(1982). Studies in curriculum decision-
　　making. Canada:OISE Press.
Leithwood, K. A （1982）. Implementing curriculum innovation,
　　in Leithwood, K. A.(ed), Studies in curriculum decision-
　　making, pp.245-267. Canada: OISE Press.
Liethwood, K. A. (1992). The principle’s role in teacher
　　development. In Fullan, M. & Hargreaves, A. (eds), Teacher
　　development and educational change, pp.86-103. London:
　　The Falmer Press.
Leithwood, K. A. & Montgomery, D. J.(1982). University-based
　　change agents, in Leithwood, K. A.(ed), Studies in
　　curriculum decision-making, pp. 96-109.Canada: OISE Press.
Lieberman, A. & Rosenholtz, S. (1987). The road to school
　　improvement: barriers and bridge. In Goodlad, J. I.(ed),
　　The ecology of school renewal, pp.79-98.. Chicago: The
　　National Society for the Study of Education.
Lincoln, Y. S. and Guba, E. G.(1985). Naturalistic inquiry.
　　London: SAGE Publications.
Little, J. (1990). The persistence of privacy: autonomy and
　　initiative in teachers’ professional relations. Teachers’
　　College Record,91(4),pp.509-536.
Little, J. W. (1992). Teacher development and educational
　　policy. In Fullan, M. & Hargreaves, A. (eds), Teacher
　　development and educational change, pp.170-193. London:
　　The Falmer Press.
Looney, A.(2001). Curriculum as policy: some implications of
　　contemporary policy studies for the analysis of curriculum
　　policy, with particular reference to post-primary
　　curriculum policy in the Republic of Ireland. The
　　Curriculum Journal, 12(2), pp.149-162.
Marsh, C. J. (1990). Managing for total school improvement. In
　　Chapman, J. D. (ed), School-based decision-making and
　　management. London: The Falmer Press.
Marsh, C. et al.(1990). Reconceptualizing school-based
　　curriculum development. London: The Falmer Press.
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.
Miles, M., Ekholm, M. and Vandenberghe, R. ( 1987). Lasting
　　school　improvement : Exploring the process of
　　stitutionalization. Leuven, Belgium: ACCO.
Mulder, M. (1994). Deliberation in curriculum conferences. In
　　J.T. Dillon(ed), Deliberation in education and
　　society,pp.157-210. Norwood: Ablex.
Melton, A. D. (1991). Shared decision making: tool for
　　curriculum implementation and　problem solving. University
　　of South Carolina, Unpublished.
Merriam, S. B. (1988). Case study research in education.
　　London: Jossey-Bass Publishers.
Miller, W. L. and Crabtree, B. F. (1999). Doing qualitative
　　research. Sage: Oaks.
Mulder, M. (1994). Deliberation in curriculum conferences. In
　　J.T. Dillon(ed), Deliberation in education and
　　society,pp.157-210. Norwood: Ablex.
Oberg, A. A. (1991). Curriculum decision. In Lewy, A.(ed), The
　　International　Encyclopedia of Curricullum,pp.302-303.
　　N.Y.: Pergamon Press.
OECD（1979）. School-based curriculum development. Paris: OECD.
Oliva, P. F.(1988). Developing the curriculum. N.Y.：
　　 HarperCollins.
Ornstein, A. C. (2000). Philosophy as a basis for curriculum
　　decision. In Ornstein, A. C.and Behar-Horenstein L. S.
　　(eds),　Contemporary issues in curriculum(2ed), pp.13-19.
　　 Boston：Allyn and Bacon.
Orpwood, G. W. F. (1985). The reflective deliberator: a case
　　study of curriculum policy making. Journal of Curriculum
　　Studies, 17(3),pp.293-304.
Paris, D. C.(1995). Ideology and educational reform--themes and
　　theories in public Education. Boulder：Westview Press.
Patton, M. Q. (1990). Qualitative evaluation and research
　　methods（2d）. London: Sage.
Phillips, Denis C.(1990). Postpositivstic science: Myths and
　　realities. In Egon G. Guba(ed), The paradigm dialog, pp.31-
　　45. London: SAGE .
Phillips, Denis C.(1998). Epistemology, politics, and
　　curriculum construction. In Carr, O.(ed), Education,
　　knowledge, and truth--beyond the postmodern impasse.
　　London: Routledge.
Posner, G. F.(1998). Models of curriculum planning. In Beyer,
　　L. E. and Apple, M.(eds), The curriculum: problems,
　　politics, and possibilities, pp.79-100.Albany: State
　　University of New York.
Popkewitz, T. S.(2000). Curriculum as a problem of knowledge,
　　governing, and the social administration of the soul. In
　　Franklin, B. M.(ed), Curriculum and　consequence ,
　　pp.75-102. N.Y.: Teachers College Press.
Regan, E. M.& Winter, C. F.(1982). The influence of
　　consultants., in Leithwood, K. A.(ed), Studies in
　　curriculum decision-making, pp.68-86. Canada: OISE Press.
Reid, William A.(1979). Practical reasoning and curriculum
　　theory: In search for a new paradigm. Curriculum Inquiry, 9
　　(3),pp.187-207.
Reid, W. A.(1988). The institutional context of curriculum
　　deliberation. Journal　of Curriculum and Supervision, 4
　　(1),3-16.
Reid, W. A. (1994). A deliberative perspective on curriculum.
　　In　J.T. Dillon (ed) : Deliberation in education and
　　society. pp.25-36. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
Robertson, R. (1992). Globalization—social theory and global
　　culture. London: Sage.
Roby, T. W. (1985). Habits impeding deliberation. Journal of
　　Curriculum Studies,17(1),pp.17-35.
Roseholtz, S. (1989). Teachers’ workplace: the social
　　organization of school. N.Y.: Longman.
Ross, E. W.(1993). Institutional constraints on curriculum
　　deliberation. Journal of Curriculum and Supervision, 8
　　(2),95-111.
Ross, J. A.（1982）. The influence of the principal, in
　　Leithwood, K. A.(ed), Studies in curriculum decision-
　　making.,pp.54-67.Canada:OISE Press.
Saber, N.(1983). Toward school-based curriculum development:
　　training school curriculum co-ordinators. Journal of
　　Curriculum Studies,15(4),pp.431-434.
Saber, N.(1985). School-based curriculum development:
　　reflections from an international seminar. Journal of
　　Curriculum Studies,17(4),pp.452- 54.
Sarason, S. B.(1982). The culture of the school and the problem
　　of change, (2ed). Boston, Mass.: Ally and Bacon.
Sarason, S. B.(1990). The predictable failure of education
　　reform. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers.
Saylor, J.G. & Alexander, W. M.（1974）. Planning curriculum
　　for schools. N.Y.：Macmillan Publishing Company.
Schrag, F. (1989). Conceptions of knowledge. In Jackson, P. W.
　　(ed), Handbook of　Research on curriculum, pp.268-301.
Schön, D.(1983). The reflective practitioner. London: Temple
　　Smith.Schwab, Joseph J.(1978a). The practical: A language
　　for curriculum. In I. Westbury & Neil J. Wilkof (eds),
　　Science, curriculum, and liberal education ,pp.287-321.
　　Chicago: University　of　Chicago Press.
Schwab, Joseph J.(1978b). The practical: Translation into
　　curriculum. In Ian Westbury & Neil J. Wilkof (eds),
　　Science, curriculum, and liberal education , pp.365-383.
　　Chicago: The University of　Chicago Press.
Schwab, Joseph J.(1983). The practical 4: Something for
　　curriculum professors to do. Curriculum Inquiry,13
　　(3),pp.239-265.
Sears, J. T. (2000). Challenges for educators: lesbian, gay,
　　and bisexual families. In Ornstein, A.and Behar-Horenstein
　　L. S. (eds),　Contemporary issues in　Curriculum(2nd),
　　pp.362-381. Boston：Allyn and Bacon.
Seddon, T. , Angus, L. and Poole, M. E. (1990). Pressures on
　　the move to school-based dcision-making and management.. In
　　Chapman, J. D.(ed), School-based decision　making and
　　management. London: The Falmer Press.
Shkedi, A.(1996). Schoool-based workshops for teacher
　　participation in curriculum development. Journal of
　　Curriculum Studies, 28(6),pp.699-711.
Silva, D.Y. , Gimbert, B. , and Nolan, J.(2000). Sliding the
　　doors: Locking and unlocking possibilities for teacher
　　leadership. Teacher College Record, 102(4), Aug. pp: 779-
　　804.
Sirotnik, K. A. (1987). Evaluation in the ecology of schooling:
　　the process of school renewal. In Goodlad, J. I.(ed), The
　　ecology of school renewal, pp.41-59. Chicago: The National
　　Society for the Study of Education.
Skilbeck, M.(1976). School-based curriculum development. In
　　Open University Course 203, Unit 26, Open University Press,
　　Milton Keynes.
Skilbeck, M.（ed）(1984). Evaluating the curriculum in the
　　Eighties. London：Hodder.
Smith, L. M. (1990). Ethics, field studies, and the paradigm
　　crisis. In Guba, E. G. (ed), The paradigm dialog, pp. 139-
　　157. London: SAGE Publications.
Stake, R. E. (1988). Case study methods in educational
　　research: Seeking sweet water. In R. M. Jaeger（ed）,
　　complementary methods for research in education, pp.253-
　　278. Washington, DC: American Educational Research
　　Association.
Stake, R. E. (2000). Case studies. In Dezin, N. K. and Lincoln,
　　Y. S. (eds), The handbook　Of qualitative research, pp.435-
　　454. Sage Publication, Inc..
Stenhouse, L. (1975). An introduction to curriculum research
　　and development. London:Hodder.
Stoll, L. (1992). Teacher growth in the effective school. In
　　Fullan, M. & Hargreaves, A. (eds), Teacher development and
　　educational change, pp.104-122. London: The Falmer Press.
Tyler, R. W. (1991). The process of curriculum development. In
　　Lewy, A.(ed), The　International Encyclopedia of
　　Curricullum,pp.291-293. N.Y.: Pergamon Press.
Van den Berg, R. , Sleegers, P. , Geijdel, F., and
　　Vandenberghe, R.(2000). Implementation of an innovation：
　　meeting the concerns of teachers. Studies in Educational
　　Evaluation, 26,pp.331-350.
Walker, D.F.(1990). Fundamentals of curriculum. San Diego:
　　Harcourt Brace Jovanovich.
Westbury, Ian(1994). Deliberation and the improvement of
　　schooling. In J.T. Dillon (ed) : Deliberation in education
　　and society,pp.37-66. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
Whitty, G. , Power, S. and Halpin, D. (1998). Devolution and
　　choice in education—the school, the state and the market.
　　Buckingham: Open University Press.
Wideen, M. F. (1992). School-based teacher development. In
　　Fullan, M. & Hargreaves, A.(eds), Teacher development and
　　educational change, pp.123-155. London: The Falmer Press.
Wiles, J. & Bondie, J.(1984). Curriculum development：A guide
　　to practice.Columbus：A Bell & Howell Company.
Yin, R. K. (1989). Case study research: design and methods.
　　Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Young, M. F. D. (1971). An Approach to curriculum as socially
　　organized knowledge. In Young, M. F. D.(ed), Knowledge and
　　Control.　London: Collier-Macmillan.