學校本位課程發展可說是近年課程改革範圍內一個重要議題。本文嘗試整理和探討有關學校本位課程發展的定義，以及探討不同的學校本位課程發展取向和模式。首先，文章探討課程發展、課程改進以至校本課程發展的意涵，此外，有關學校聚焦、學校為中心到學校為本課程發展的定義亦作探討。其次，文章初步探討中國內地、台灣和香港的校本課程發展脈絡。本文從技術－科學和非技術取向探討不同的校本課程發展取向與模式，尤其對史克北模式評析，以及非技術取向下的人文教育模式、協商課程模式、創作周期模式等。School-based curriculum development is an important agenda in the field of curriculum reform in recent years. This article attempts to consolidate and discuss various definitions related to school-based curriculum development as well as to discuss their different approaches and models. First, the article discusses the meaning of curriculum development, curriculum improvement and school-based curriculum development. Secondly, the definitions related to school-focused, school-centred as well as school-based curriculum development are explored. Moreover, the article initially discusses the contexts of school-based curriculum development in the Chinese Mainland, Taiwan and Hong Kong. The article also discusses different approaches and models of school-based curriculum development from both technical-scientific and non-technical perspectives, especially with regard to the critique of Skilbeck's model and elaboration of humanistic education model, negotiation curriculum model and authoring cycle model. Copyright © 2003 中華民國課程與教學學會.

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 .

Many studies have found that the preschool curriculum in Hong Kong still reflects the influences of its social and cultural context that emphasises teacher-directed learning. Developing creativity in preschools requires teachers to change their familiar practices. A good understanding of teachers’ actual practices for facilitating creativity in the classroom is an important first step for educators dedicated to pedagogical change. This study aims to investigate the creativity-fostering pedagogy that teachers actually use in their classrooms to draw attention to the crucial aspects of effective creativity-fostering pedagogy in Hong Kong preschool settings. This study employed a qualitative research approach to explore and analyse the characteristic features of creativity-fostering practice in Hong Kong preschools with results presented in the form of case studies. Semi-structured interviews and classroom observations were used as data sources and content analysis was performed to examine the features and the effectiveness of teachers’ creativity-fostering pedagogical practices. Findings revealed that the three Chinese teachers held similar perspectives about creativity-fostering pedagogies and their perspectives were mainly rooted in Western pedagogies. However, the three cases demonstrated the different interpretation of these pedagogical perspectives, ranging from being strongly teacher-directed to strongly child-centred. A balance between teacher-directed and child-centred was found to be more effective pedagogic practice in the Chinese classroom. Results suggested that different creativity-fostering pedagogies might work for certain contexts and certain children and an awareness of both cultural and contextual appropriateness is important for creativity reform. Copyright © 2018 The Asian Conference on Education.

Learning Study, an enriched version of lesson study, developed during the education reform era in Hong Kong and evolved into a participatory action research model with a theoretical underpinning framework and collaboration between teachers and university researchers. It has once been used as a major model for enhancing partnership between a university and schools for the preparation of pre-service teachers in Hong Kong. In recent years, a shifting focus of this partnership model has been witnessed with recognition of broader needs of schools as well as the accomplishment of a wide range of educational goals including: promoting peer observation through open lessons which serve as a platform for professional exchange; fostering assessment for learning; developing self-directed learning and e-learning strategies, etc.. With the university school collaboration under the Learning Study approach, the value and applicability of the above new initiatives are put into empirical research.This paper reviews the Learning Study programs and projects developed since year 2000 in one of the major teacher training university in Hong Kong, the Education University of Hong Kong. Documents including reports, program books, case studies reports, monographs and related research papers are collected and reviewed in order to identify the challenges encountered and the resolutions found in developing the Learning Study approach in the school community in Hong Kong. Using the framework of Walse & Backe (2013) about the characteristics of effective university-school partnership, this paper analyzes the strategies and critical elements of the Learning Study approach to be developed as a long-lasting and major universityschool partnership model.This paper first illustrates the development of the Learning Study approach in Hong Kong since year 2000 to explicate the shifting focus of university-school partnership - from meeting the need of school placement to accomplish broader education goals by

This paper reports the results of a qualitative multiple case study of the fieldwork experiences of secondary Four (Year 10) students of five schools in Hong Kong. The study was an experientially-based one which aimed at understanding the fieldwork experiences of students and what meanings they had derived from such experiences. For most schools, there was an overt academic orientation to the objectives of the fieldwork undertaken. However, the study has revealed that fieldwork is, in particular, emotionally engaged learning because of students’ desire to be out-of-the-classroom, their expectation of fun and excitement, their undertaking of physical challenges and the development of new social relationships in the field. Based on these findings, an integrated model of experiential learning in postulated. It shows that intellectual, social and emotional experiences are inextricably integrated in the field. Finally, this paper proposes a few practical guidelines for fieldwork based on the need to go beyond intellectual and instrumental learning to heuristic, experiential learning. Copyright © 2000 Australian Geography Teachers’ Association.

Recently, more educators have argued for the need to attend to both the cognitive and the affective aspects of fieldwork in geographical and environmental education. Experientially based studies are seen as particularly valuable in understanding the fieldwork experiences of both students and teachers and what meanings they have derived from such experience. This study is a qualitative case study of two geography field trips for Secondary Four (Year 10) students of mixed abilities in a Hong Kong School. The teachers, focusing on the affective outcomes of fieldwork, were determined to let students attain unusual and memorable experiences by undergoing adventurous activities. The results revealed that while most students generally felt excited and delighted over the challenge, a number of students decided to withdraw from the experience. Students of higher academic achievement appeared to be more critical. Their frustrations were often related to academic learning and the lack of a collective learning atmosphere on the trips. The experience was characterized by a tension of purpose between academic learning on one hand, and fun and excitement on the other. Copyright © 2000 The authors.