要進一步完善課程與教學改革，我們必需加強理論與實踐的對話。本文第一部分探討課程與教學理論與實踐之間的關係，以及兩者出現差距的原因；第二部分探討實踐者研究（或教師研究）作為強化理論與實踐的對話之一個取向，並根據有關文獻探究，將實踐者研究的目的、與學術研究的關聯、溝通方式組成一個初步架構，亦會討論香港一些實踐者研究（如行動研究）的例子；第三部分探討課程與教學理論工作者的研究取向如何在實踐層面有助於課程與教學改革，並對學術的理解，以及大學與學校建立夥伴關係的定位作一審視。To further improve curriculum and instructional reforms, we need to strengthen the dialogue between theory and practice. This article is divided into three parts. The first part explores the relationship between curriculum and instructional theories and practices as well as reasons behind the discrepancy between theory and practice. The second part discusses the practitioner research (or teacher research) as one of the approaches for reinforcing the dialogue between theory and practice. This part refers to Zeichner and Noffke’s literature review and formulates an initial framework based on the components of purposes, relevance with academic research, and modes of communication. Examples of practitioner research (e.g., action research) in Hong Kong will be discussed. The third part highlights how the research approach of experts on curriculum and instructional theories (scholars) enhances curriculum and instructional reforms as well as examines the understanding of scholarship (e.g., Boyer’s scholarships of discovery, integration, application and teaching) and the orientations of university and school partnerships. Copyright © 2004 北京大學.

過去十多年，海內外學者曾深入探討「課程」和「教學」這兩個概念。整體而言，有提倡教學包含課程，有認為課程包含教學，有主張課程與教學並列，亦有較積極的學者建議把課程和教學整合。然而，學者在探討時主要是從概念出發，分析兩者的關係。本文目的是從學者的文章，探討他們對「課程」與「教學」的理解，並檢視兩者的差異。本文分三部分，首先概述學者對這兩概念的看法，接着從學者的文章判斷他們理解這兩個概念的差別，最後提出結論。本文發現，「課程」與「教學」各有關注點。筆者認為課程探討的範圍較教學的廣泛。「教學」重在探討學習者和教師，集中在課室層面；「課程」重在探討教育內涵的形塑問題，涉及不同層面，較集中在制度層面、地區層面、學校層面。During the past ten years, scholars have inquired into the concepts of “curriculum” and “teaching” with great efforts. In general, some scholars advocate teaching embodying curriculum, some regard curriculum embracing teaching, and some suggest that they are parallel concepts with close relationship. A few scholars proactively integrate “curriculum” and “teaching,” aiming to provide a better understanding on their relationships. However, the discussions of these scholars are only conceptual ones without research elements. This article aims to inquire scholars’ understanding of the two concepts through their actual usage and to distinguish the differences between the concepts. The article consists of three parts. First, it summarizes the scholastic views on these two concepts. Then, it identifies the differences between these concepts from their application by scholars. Finally, concluding comments will be made. This article finds that scholars have different concerns when using “curriculum” and “teaching.” The authors regard the inquiry of curriculum as having a broader scope than the inquiry of teaching. Whereas “teaching” focuses on the inquiry of learners and teachers at the classroom level, “curriculum” focuses on the inquiry of shaping education content at various levels like the system level, the regional level, and the school level. Copyright © 2010 香港中文大學 CUHK .

課程研究範式一直備受學者關注。在這一問題上，一些學者建議應綜合運用量性課程研究範式和質性課程研究範式，以彌補單一課程研究範式的不足。本文旨在探討整合兩種課程研究範式的建議，同時提出整合時必須關注的事項。在探討這一建議之前，本文首先簡介不同的課程範式，並分析量性和質性研究範式的差異。本文對整合兩種課程研究範式的探討圍繞三方面展開：（1）質性和量性本質的綜合；（2）建構實在論的可行性；（3）研究內容的性質。筆者認為，整合兩種課程研究範式極具吸引力，但是卻難於處理基本哲理的差異。The paradigms of curriculum research have been the major concern of many researchers. Some researchers suggest the integration of quantitative and qualitative curriculum research paradigms for supplementing each other. This article aims at discussing the suggestion on their integration. First, the article gives a brief introduction of curriculum paradigms, and analyzes the differences between quantitative and qualitative research paradigms. Then, it will discuss the integration of the two research paradigms in three aspects: (a) integrating the essence of qualitative and quantitative research; (b) the feasibility of constructive realism; and (c) the nature of research content. The article concludes that it is an attractive attempt to integrate the two paradigms, but it is hard to deal with the differences between their basic philosophies. Copyright © 2012 香港中文大學 CUHK .

本文透過對香港中學商業教育的歷史回顧及課程發展的探討，分析商業教育在不同社會經濟發展階段所起之質性變化，及其正負面影響，並建議未來之發展方向。歷史回顧部分分作三個階段，包括二十世紀五六十年代的萌芽發展期，七十至九十年代的穩步增長期及二千年後的高速更新期；當中課程的演變經歷 “職業”、“技術”、“科技”及“專科與職業分家”等不同方向的發展，各有優勝及不足之處，但只要取得發展上的平衡，商業教育在職業預備上、智能發展上及公民教育上的全面性功能可以有所發揮，令經濟急速發展下的每一名學子均可受惠。
[Copyright © 2007 教育史研究編輯部.]