香港學校戲劇教育發展範式的轉變 A Paradigm Shift in the Implementation of Drama Education in Hong Kong Schools
Abstract
在一項有關香港戲劇教育現況和成效的研究中,顯示學校校長贊同 戲劇對學生各方面的發展可產生正面的影響。超逾九成學校表示戲 劇有助學生發展他們的共通能力,於提昇學生的協作能力和自信心 兩方面尤為認同;也表示戲劇能增強學生的學習動機、幫助他們提 升語文能力與及知識的轉化和運用,有助學生培養他們的品德情 意。此外,校長也認為戲劇能夠提升學生在中國語文、英國語文、 藝術及個人、社會及人文教育等學習領域的學習成效。然而把戲劇 納入正規課程的學校為數不多,投放在戲劇教育方面的資源也有所 不足。在教節的安排上,戲劇課在每週/循環週只佔 1 至 2 教節, 與校內其他「非學術」科目相若。這現象反映校長在推動學校的戲 劇教育時,可能面對很大的張力。本文旨在從轉變管理和課程管理 的角度探討學校如何推動戲劇教育。
關鍵詞:戲劇教育、範式轉變、課程變革、變革管理
A survey about the implementation and effectiveness of drama education in Hong Kong schools reveals that more than 90% of the principals involved agree that drama can exert positive impact on the all-round development of students. Drama does not only enhance students’ generic skills, collaboration skills, self-confidence, learning motivation, language ability, moral awareness and affection; but also facilitates their learning in Chinese Language, English Language, Personal, Social, and Humanity Education and Arts subjects. However, there are only a very small number of schools adopting drama as a formal curriculum and the resource allocated to drama education is very limited. For example, only 1 – 2 periods are allotted to drama education in the schools offering a formal drama curriculum. The inconsistency between the principals’ belief and practice of drama education in schools implies that principals are encountering huge tensions in adopting drama education in their schools. This paper aims to discuss the need for a paradigm shift in implementing drama education from the perspectives of curriculum change and management of change.
Keywords: Drama Education; Paradigm Shift; Curriculum Change; Management of Change
Full Text:
PDF (繁體中文)References
高國威、葉建源、張國華、黄炳文、梁潔茵(2004)。《「學校發展津貼」的運用研究報 告》,香港:香港教育學院教育政策與行政系。
教育署(2002)。《教育署通告27/2000號》。
教育署(2000)。《教育署通函第380/2000號》。
教育統籌委員會(1997)。《教育統籌委員會第七號報告書》,香港:政府印務局。
香港教育學院及香港教育論壇(2009)。《「香港學校戲劇教育成果的研究與評鑑」研究報
告》。
Busher, H. & Harris, A. (2000). Subject Leadership and School Improvement. London: Paul Chapman Publishing Ltd.
Chapman, J. & Aspin, D. (2003). Networks of Learning: A New Construct for Educational Provision and a New Strategy for Reform. In Davies, B. & West-Burnham, J. (Eds.) Handbook of Educational Leadership and Management. Edinburgh: Pearson.
Davidson, C. & Voss, P. (2002). Knowledge Management. New Zealand: Tandem Press.
Elliott, J. (2007). “Assessing the Quality of Action Research”. Research Papers in Education,
(2), 229-246.
Fullan, M. (2001). The Meaning of Educational Change. NY: Teachers College Press.
Fullan, M. & Park, P. (1981). Curriculum Implementation: A Resource Booklet. Ontario: Ontario
Institute for Studies in Education.
Fullan, M. & Pomfret, A. (1977). Research on Curriculum and Instructional Implementation,
Review of Educational Research, 47(1), 335-97.
Hargreves, D., Hopkins, D., Leask, M., Connolly, J. & Robinson, P. (1989). Planning for School
Development: Advice to Governors, Headteachers and teachers. London: DES.
Giannetto, K. & Wheeler, A. (2000). Knowledge Management Toolkit . Aldershot: Gower.
Leithwood, K. A. (2002). “Organizational Conditions to Support Teaching and Learning”. In
Hawley, W. D. & Rollie, D. L. (Eds.) The Keys to Effective Schools. California: Corwin
Press.
Morrison, K. (1998). Management Theories for Educational Change. London: Paul Chapman.
Preedy, M. (2002). “Managing the Curriculum for Student Learning”. In Bush, T. & Bell, L.
(Eds.) The Principles and Practice of Educational Management. London: Paul Chapman
Publishing.
Tse, T. K. C. (2005). “Quality Education in Hong Kong: The Anomalies of Managerialism and
Marketization”. In L. S. Ho, P. Morris & Y. P. Chung (Eds.) Education Reform and the Quest for Excellence: The Hong Kong Story. Hong Kong: Hong Kong University Press.
Refbacks
- There are currently no refbacks.