原文：Snyder, J., Bolin, F., Zumwalt, K. Curriculum implementation[A]. in Jackson, P. W.(ed.), Handbook of research on curriculum[C]. New York: Macmillan Pub. Co., 1992: 402–435.
課程實施研究作為教育領域的重要分支，隨著時代變遷與研究視角的轉換而不斷演進。Snyder、Boling 和 Zumwalt 在其 1992 年的著作中，對課程實施研究的歷史發展、主要取向、方法論特徵及未來方向進行了系統性回顧與分析。本文將從該著作的核心內容出發，詳細闡述其觀點。
一、引言：課程實施研究的轉向
Snyder 等人開篇指出，課程實施研究的發展與研究發現的演變密切相關。傳統上，課程實施被視為一個理所當然的過程，即課程設計完成後，教師自然會按照設計執行。然而，近年來的實證研究顯示，課程的採用與實際實施之間存在顯著差異，課程並非簡單被執行，而是受到教師、學生及學校環境等多重因素的影響。因此，研究焦點逐漸從「如何實施或適應預設課程」轉向「教師與學生如何在實踐中演繹與體驗課程」。這一轉向不僅深化了對課程實施的理解，也使得該領域與其他教育研究的界限變得模糊。
在引言中，作者明確以傳統課程實施研究為起點，聚焦於預設課程如何轉化為實踐。他們關注的核心議題包括課程變革的目標、學校組織結構、教師的角色、課程內容的選擇以及教學策略的運用（Snyder et al., 1992, p. 402）。這一框架為後續的歷史回顧與取向分析奠定了基礎。
二、歷史概覽：課程實施研究的演進
課程實施研究的歷史發展反映了教育理念與實踐的變遷。Snyder 等人從早期課程形式談起，指出在 20 世紀初，課程主要以教科書為載體，教師被期待根據教科書自行決定教學方式（Snyder et al., 1992, p. 402）。然而，Rugg（1926）批評當時的課程設計過於依賴教科書作者或大學入學要求，忽略了學生的實際教育需求，這一觀點揭示了早期課程實施的局限性。
隨著義務教育的普及，教師專業素質不足的問題逐漸浮現。當時，課程實施常被假設為一個自動完成的過程，但實踐中，教師往往未能有效遵循課程綱要（Caswell, 1950）。到 20 世紀 40 年代，研究者（如 Caswell, 1946）開始認識到教師參與課程發展的重要性，強調僅靠行政命令無法實現教育成果的根本改變。
進入 20 世紀 60-70 年代，課程實施研究迎來轉折點。Fullan 和 Pomfret（1977）指出，許多創新課程的失敗促使學者將實施過程作為獨立的研究對象。他們提出了四個研究課程實施的理由：
- 需直接測量課程改變的程度；
- 理解實施失敗的原因；
- 避免將課程採用與實際實施混為一談；
- 建立實施過程與學生學習成果之間的聯繫（Snyder et al., 1992, p. 404）。
這一階段的反思標誌著課程實施研究從被動接受轉向主動探究，為後續理論取向的形成奠定了基礎。
三、課程實施的三種主要取向
Snyder 等人將課程實施研究分為三種主要取向：忠實取向、相互適應取向和創生取向，每種取向在假設、研究問題及方法上各具特色。
1. 忠實取向（Fidelity Perspective）
- 核心假設：課程知識由外部專家創造，教師的角色是忠實地執行預設課程設計。
- 研究焦點：測量課程實施的忠實程度，並識別影響忠實實施的因素。
- 代表性研究：
- Gross、Giacquinta 和 Bernstein（1971）研究「催化角色模型」時發現，教師實施程度普遍偏低，障礙包括對課程理解不足、技能欠缺及材料支持匱乏。
- Hall 和 Loucks（1976）提出的「關注基礎採用模型」（CBAM）通過關注階段（從認知到聚焦）和使用水平（從機械到常規）評估實施進展，認為教師需達到「常規使用」階段才算成功實施。
- 國家傳播網絡（NDN）採用改良的研發與傳播（RD&D）模式，強調教師參與課程開發及校長在實施監控中的關鍵作用（Snyder et al., 1992, p. 405-409）。
2. 相互適應取向（Mutual Adaptation Perspective）
- 核心假設：課程在實施過程中會被教師與學校環境調整，而非完全按原設計執行。
- 研究焦點：課程如何被適應，以及影響適應過程的因素。
- 代表性研究：
- Rand Change Agent Study（Berman & McLaughlin, 1975-1979）發現，成功的實施往往伴隨相互適應，地方環境對課程調整的影響尤為關鍵。
- Smith 和 Keith（1971）對 Kensington 學校的研究顯示，創新課程的理想設計與實際執行存在落差，教師的適應行為有時導致失敗。
- Popkewitz、Tabachnick 和 Wehlage（1981）分析個別化指導教育（IGE）課程時發現，學校會根據自身價值觀與需求重新詮釋課程（Snyder et al., 1992, p. 413-415）。
3. 創生取向（Curriculum Enactment Perspective）
- 核心假設：課程是教師與學生在實踐中共同創造的教育經驗，外部課程僅為參考工具。
- 研究焦點：實施經驗的性質、外部因素的影響及對學生的作用。
- 代表性研究：
- Eight Year Study（Aikin, 1942）表明，實驗性強的學校在學生與教師成果上表現更佳。
- Bussis、Chittenden 和 Amarel（1976）研究開放教育時強調，教師對課程的深層理解是成功實施的關鍵。
- Paris（1989）分析教師自創的字處理課程，發現教師根據情境知識塑造課程，與忠實取向常形成衝突（Snyder et al., 1992, p. 420-426）。
四、概念與方法上的差異
Snyder 等人進一步探討了三種取向在概念假設與研究方法上的異同：
- 忠實取向：
- 假設：課程知識外部生成，改變為線性過程，教師為執行者。
- 方法：多採用量化工具（如問卷、觀察量表）測量實施程度。
- 相互適應取向：
- 假設：課程知識在實施中被重塑，改變過程非線性，教師積極調整。
- 方法：結合量化（如實施程度評估）與質性（如訪談、案例分析）方法。
- 創生取向：
- 假設：課程知識動態生成，改變為個人成長，教師與學生為創造者。
- 方法：依賴質性方法（如民族誌、敘事分析）理解主觀經驗。
Snyder等認為這些差異反映了對課程本質與實施過程的不同理解，也影響了研究的設計與結論（Snyder et al., 1992, p. 429-431）。
五、未來研究方向
展望未來，Snyder 等人提出課程實施研究應擁抱多元視角，並促進三種取向間的對話與整合：
- 忠實取向：需精進測量工具，提升實證研究的嚴謹性。
- 相互適應取向：呼籲更多民族誌研究，深入探索課程調整的機制。
- 創生取向：鼓勵教師參與行動研究，強化其實踐導向。
他們建議，未來研究應根據具體情境整合三種取向的優勢，選擇適用的方法，並更加關注教師的專業發展與支持系統的構建（Snyder et al., 1992, p. 432-433）。
六、結論
Snyder、Boling 和 Zumwalt（1992）的著作為課程實施研究提供了一個全面而深刻的框架。他們梳理了該領域的歷史脈絡，剖析了忠實取向、相互適應取向和創生取向的理論基礎與實證發現，並為未來的多元研究提供了啟發性建議。這一研究不僅豐富了學術討論，也為教育實踐與政策的制定提供了重要參考，凸顯了課程實施研究的複雜性與多樣性。
原文網址：
https://library.villanova.edu/Find/Record/1205831/TOC
https://archive.org/details/handbookofresear0000unse_n2n7/page/438/mode/2up
原文全文：
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1Ff5DLgZKJJcx9okaeeY9QjXqum574U5SAHC03ZKq_es/edit?usp=sharing
原文參考文獻：
Aikin, W. (1942). Adventure in American education: Vol. 1. Story of the Eight Year Study. Harper & Brothers.
Apling, R. N., & Kennedy, M. (1981). Providing assistance to improve the utility of information from tests and evaluations. Huron Institute.
Basch, C., & Sliepcevich, E. (1983). Innovators, innovations and implementation: A framework for curricular research in school health education. Health Education, 14(2), 20-24.
Bentzen, M. M. (1974). Changing organizations: The magic. [出版資訊缺失]
Berman, P. (1981). Fan, Frie Newart an implerentation paraden. In R. Lehming & M. Kane (Eds.), Improving schools (pp. [頁碼缺失]). Sage.
Berman, P., & McLaughlin, M. (1974). Federal programs supporting educational change. Rand.
Berman, P., & McLaughlin, M. (1975a). Federal programs supporting educational change: Vol. 3. The process of change, Appendix B: Innovations in reading. Rand.
Berman, P., & Pauley, E. (1975b). Federal programs supporting educational change: Vol. 2. Factors affecting change agent projects. Rand.
Berman, P., & McLaughlin, M. (1975c). Federal programs supporting educational change: Vol. 4. The findings in review. Rand.
Berman, P., & McLaughlin, M. (1976). Implementation of educational innovation. Educational Forum, 40(3), 345-370.
Berman, P., & McLaughlin, M. (1977). Federal programs supporting educational change: Vol. 7. Factors affecting implementation and continuation. Rand.
Berman, P., & McLaughlin, M. (1978). Federal programs supporting educational change: Vol. 8. Implementing and sustaining innovations. Rand.
Berman, P., & McLaughlin, M. (1979). An exploratory study of school district adaptations. Rand.
Bird, T. (1986). Mutual adaptation and mutual accomplishment: Images of change in a field experiment. In A. Lieberman (Ed.), Rethinking school improvement: Research, craft and concept (pp. [頁碼缺失]). Teachers College Press.
Bredo, A. E., & Bredo, E. R. (1975). Effects of environment and structure on the process of innovation. In J. V. Baldridge & T. E. Deal (Eds.), Managing change in educational organizations: Sociological perspectives, strategies and case studies (pp. 449-466). McCutchan.
Bussis, A., Chittenden, E., & Amarel, M. (1976). Beyond surface curriculum: An interview study of teachers' understandings. Westview Press.
Caswell, H. L. (1946). The American high school: Its responsibility and opportunity. In Eighth yearbook of the John Dewey Society. Harper & Brothers.
Caswell, H. L. (1950). Curriculum improvement in the public schools. Teachers College Press.
Chamberlin, D., Chamberlin, E. S., Drought, N., & Scott, W. (1942). Adventures in American education: Vol. 4. Did they succeed in college? Harper & Brothers.
Charters, W. W., & Pellegrin, R. J. (1972). Barriers to the innovation process: Four case studies of differential staffing. Educational Administration Quarterly, 9(1), 3-14.
Cochran-Smith, M., Kahn, J. L., & Paris, C. L. (1990). Making connections: Teachers, children, and word processing. Ables.
Cohen, E. G. (1981). Sociology looks at team teaching. In A. C. Kerckhoff & R. G. Corwin (Eds.), Research in sociology of education and socialization: Vol. 2 (pp. 163-193). JAI Press.
Cohen, M. (1981). Effective schools: What the research says. Today’s Education, 466-506.
Corwin, R. (1973). Reform and organizational survival: The Teacher Corps as an instrument of educational change. Wiley.
Counts, G. S. (1926). Some notes on the foundations of curriculum-making. In G. M. Whipple (Ed.), The twenty-sixth yearbook of the National Society for the Study of Education (pp. [頁碼缺失]). Public School Co.
Courtis, S. A. (1926). Reading, between the lines. In G. M. Whipple (Ed.), The twenty-sixth yearbook of the National Society for the Study of Education (pp. [頁碼缺失]). Public School Co.
Cowden, P., & Cohen, D. K. (1979). Divergent worlds of practice. Huron Institute.
Crandall, D. (1983). The teacher’s role in school improvement. Educational Leadership, 14(3), 4-9.
Crandall, D. P., & et al. (1983). People, policies and practices: Examining the chain of school improvement. The Network.
Cremin, L. (1961). The transformation of the school: Progressivism in American education, 1876-1957. Vintage Books.
Cutright, P. (1945). Practice in curriculum development. In N. B. Henry (Ed.), Forty-fourth yearbook of the National Society for the Study of Education, Part 1, Sec. IN, Curriculum reconstruction (pp. 267-288). University of Chicago Press.
Department of Superintendence. (1936). The social studies curriculum: Fourteenth yearbook. National Education Association.
Doyle, W., & Ponder, G. A. (1978). The practicality ethic in teacher decision-making. Interchange, 8(3), 1-12.
Edmonds, R. (1979). Effective schools for the urban poor. Educational Leadership, 37(1), 15-24.
Edmonds, R. (1982, February). Programs of school improvement: A 1982 overview [Paper presentation]. Conference on Implications of Research on Teaching for Practice, Washington, DC, United States.
Elmore, R. (1980). Complexity and control: What legislators and administrators can do about implementing public policy. National Institute of Education.
Emrick, J. A., & Peterson, S. M. (1978). A synthesis of findings across five recent studies in educational dissemination and change. Far West Laboratory.
Foshay, A. W. (1989). Hollis Caswell: The legacy. Curriculum Studies Newsletter, 3-4. ABRA: Division B and the George Washington University.
Fullan, M. (1982a). The meaning of educational change. Teachers College Press.
Fullan, M. (1982b). The use of external resources for school improvement by local education agencies. Far West Laboratory.
Fullan, M., Miles, M. B., & Taylor, G. (1980). Organizational development in schools: The state of the art. Review of Educational Research, 50(1), 121-183.
Fullan, M., & Pomfret, A. (1977). Research on curriculum and instruction implementation. Review of Educational Research, 47(1), 335-397.
Fuller, F. E. (1969). Concerns for teachers: A developmental conceptualization. American Educational Research Journal, 6(2), 207-226.
Galanter, W. L. (1978). Elementary school staff support system effects on program implementation and job satisfaction [Unpublished doctoral dissertation]. Fordham University.
George, A. A., & Hord, S. M. (1980). Monitoring curriculum implementation: Mapping teacher behaviors on a configuration continuum. Research and Development Center for Teacher Education, University of Texas.
Giacquinta, J. B. (1973). The process of organizational change in schools. In F. B. Kerlinger (Ed.), Review of research in education (pp. [頁碼缺失]). Peacock.
Giles, H., McCutchen, S., & Zechiel, A. (1942). Adventures in American education: Vol. 2. Exploring the curriculum. Harper & Brothers.
Gold, B. A., & Miles, M. B. (1981). Change and conflict: Educational innovation in community context. In M. B. Miles et al. (Eds.), Designing and starting innovative schools: A field study of social architecture in education, Part III (pp. [頁碼缺失]). Center for Policy Research.
Goodlad, J. I., & Klein, M. F. (1970). Behind the classroom door. Charles A. Jones.
Gross, N., Giacquinta, J., & Bernstein, M. (1971). Implementing organizational innovations: A sociological analysis of planned educational change. Basic Books.
Hall, G., & Loucks, S. (1976). A developmental model for determining whether or not the treatment really is implemented. Research and Development Center for Teacher Education, University of Texas.
Hall, G., & Loucks, S. (1977). A developmental model for determining whether the treatment is actually implemented. American Educational Research Journal, 14(3), 263-276.
Hall, G., & Loucks, S. (1978). Teacher concerns as a basis for facilitating and personalizing staff development. Teachers College Record, 80(1), 35-53.
Hall, G., & Loucks, S. (1981). Program definition and adaptation. Journal of Research and Development in Education, 14(2), 46-58.
Hall, G., & Loucks, S. (1982). Bridging the gap: Policy research rooted in practice. In A. Lieberman & M. McLaughlin (Eds.), Policy making in education: Eighty-first yearbook of the National Society of the Study of Education, Part 1 (pp. 133-158). University of Chicago Press.
Hall, G., Wallace, R. C., Jr., & Dossett, W. A. (1973). A developmental conceptualization of the adoption process within educational institutions. Research and Development Center for Teacher Education, University of Texas.
Hall, J. L., & Lewis, A. J. (1925). The Denver program. In National Education Association: Addresses and proceedings (pp. [頁碼缺失]). National Education Association.
Havelock, R. G. (1971). Planning for innovation. Center for Research on Utilization of Scientific Knowledge, Institute for Social Research, University of Michigan.
Herriott, R. E., & Gross, N. (1979). The dynamics of planned educational change: An analysis of the rural experimental schools program. McCutchan.
Hodges, W., & et al. (1980). Follow through: Forces for change in the primary schools. High Scope Press.
Hord, S. M., & Huling-Austin, S. (1986). Effective curriculum implementation: Some promising new insights. The Elementary School Journal, 87(1), 96-115.
House, E. R. (1979). Technology versus craft: A ten year perspective on innovation. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 11(1), 1-15.
Huberman, A. M. (1983). School improvement strategies that work: Some scenarios. Educational Leadership, 41(3), 23-27.
Huberman, A. M., & Miles, M. B. (1984). Innovation up close: How school improvement works. Plenum.
Huddle, E. (1987). All that glitters isn’t gold—Four steps to school improvement. NASSP Bulletin, 71(499), 80-86.
Johnston, C. H., Newlon, J. H., & Pickell, F. G. (1922). High school administration. [出版資訊缺失]
Kirst, M. (1979). Strengthening federal-local relationships supporting educational change. In R. Herriott & N. Gross (Eds.), The dynamics of planned educational change (pp. [頁碼缺失]). [出版商缺失]
Lambright, W. H., & et al. (1980). Educational innovations as a process of coalition building: A study of organizational decision-making. National Institute of Education.
Leinhardt, G. (1974, April). Evaluation of the implementation of a program of adaptive education at the second grade (1972-1973) [Paper presentation]. American Educational Research Association, Chicago, IL, United States.
Leithwood, K. (n.d.). Empirical investigation of teachers’ curriculum decision-making processes and strategies employed by curriculum managers to influence such decision making [Unpublished report]. Ontario Institute for Studies in Education.
Little, J. (1981). The power of organizational setting: School success and staff development in desegregated schools. National Institute of Education.
Loucks, S. (1983). At last: Some good news from a study of school improvement. Educational Leadership, 41(3), 4-5.
Louis, K. (1981). External agents and knowledge utilization: Dimensions for analysis and action. In R. Lehming & M. Kane (Eds.), Improving schools (pp. [頁碼缺失]). Sage.
Louis, K. S., & Rosenblum, S. (1981). Linking R and D with schools: A program and its implications for dissemination. National Institute of Education.
Louis, K. S., & Sieber, S. D. (1979). Bureaucracy and the dispersed organization: The educational extension agent experiment. [出版資訊缺失]
McLaughlin, M. (1976). Implementation of ESEA Title I: A problem of compliance. Teachers College Record, 80(1), 69-94.
Miles, M. B. (1980). School innovation from the ground up: Some dilemmas. New York University Educational Quarterly, 11(3), 2-9.
Miles, M. B., & et al. (1978). Project on social architecture in education. Center for Policy Research.
Newlon, J. H. (1923). Twentieth annual report of school district number one in the city and county of Denver and state of Colorado. Denver School Press.
Newlon, J. H. (1934). School administration as social policy. [出版資訊缺失]
Paris, C. (1989, March). Contexts of curriculum change: Conflict and consonance [Paper presentation]. American Educational Research Association, San Francisco, CA, United States.
Parish, R., & Aquila, F. (1983). Comments on the school improvement study: The whole is more than the sum of parts. Educational Leadership, 41(3), 34-36.
Popkewitz, T. S., Tabachnick, B. R., & Wehlage, G. (1981). The myth of educational reform: A study of school responses to a program of change. [出版商缺失]
Rivlin, A. M., & Timpane, P. M. (Eds.). (1975). Planned variation in education: Should we give up or try harder? Brookings Studies in Social Experimentation.
Robinson, F. G. (1982). Superordinate curriculum guidelines as guides to local curriculum decision-making. In K. A. Leithwood (Ed.), Studies in curriculum decision-making (pp. [頁碼缺失]). [出版商缺失]
Rosenblum, S., & Louis, K. (1979). Stability and change: Innovation in an educational context. ABT Associates.
Rugg, H. (1926). Curriculum-making: Points of emphasis. In G. M. Whipple (Ed.), Twenty-sixth yearbook of the National Society for the Study of Education (pp. [頁碼缺失]). Public School Co.
Rugg, H., & Counts, G. S. (1926). A critical appraisal of current methods of curriculum-making. In H. Rugg (Ed.), The foundations and technique of curriculum-construction: Twenty-sixth yearbook of the National Society for the Study of Education, Part I (pp. [頁碼缺失]). Public School Co.
Rutter, M., Maughan, B., Mortimer, P., Ouston, J., & Smith, A. (1979). Fifteen thousand hours: Secondary schools and their effects on children. Harvard University Press.
Sarason, S. (1971). The culture of the school and the problem of change. Allyn & Bacon.
Sarason, S., & Doris, J. (1979). Educational handicap, public policy, and social history. Free Press.
Smith, E., & Tyler, R. W. (1942). Adventures in American education: Vol. 3. Appraising and recording student progress. Harper & Brothers.
Smith, L., & Keith, P. (1971). Anatomy of an educational innovation: An organizational analysis of an elementary school. Wiley.
Smith, L., & et al. (1988). Innovation and change in schooling: History, politics and agency. Falmer Press.
Stallings, J. (1979). Follow through: A model for in-service teacher training. Curriculum Inquiry, 9(2), 163-181.
Taba, H. (1945). Problems of curriculum and reconstruction. In N. B. Henry (Ed.), American education in the postwar period: Forty-fourth yearbook of the National Society for the Study of Education, Part 1 (pp. [頁碼缺失]). University of Chicago Press.
Yin, R. K., Herald, K., & Vogel, M. (1977). Tinkering with the system. Heath.
Zumwalt, K. (1989). Beginning professional teacher: The need for a curricular vision of teaching. In M. C. Reynolds (Ed.), Knowledge base for the beginning teacher (pp. [頁碼缺失]). Pergamon Press.
