面對新世紀的來臨，世界各國莫不致力於教育改革工作，並以提升國家競爭力為主要目標。臺灣主要以「綠色矽島」聞名世界，需要透過科技教育以持續培育高科技人才，因此中小學的科技教育便扮演重要的角色。臺灣的科技課程改革常會參照美國的發展趨勢，以現階段美國科技課程的發展趨勢而言，正如美國全民科技教育專案領導人Dugger所言，正逐漸朝向標準本位的潮流邁進。而當論及美國的標準本位教育改革時，加州可謂是此次美國標準本位教育改革的先驅，故其經驗應值得我國參考。有鑑於此，本研究主要採用比較研究法做為主要的研究途徑，並運用文件分析、深度訪談等研究方法進行研究，藉此一方面深入了解臺灣與美國加州科技課程發展的現況，另一方面則比較臺灣與美國加州科技課程發展的現況，以藉此找出臺灣科技課程發展的問題。透過上述比較研究的途徑，本研究除了獲致臺灣與美國加州科技課程發展的現況外，主要亦研提出有待改進的問題包含：（一）中小學科技標準方面：(1)臺灣科技標準研訂理念的關切焦點僅限於學生，而美國加州科技標準則較忽略以學生為中心；(2)臺灣科技標準研訂過程缺乏相關規準與評鑑團隊，而美國加州科技標準研訂過程則缺乏確認學生應具備的基本科技能力；(3)臺灣科技標準研訂成果缺乏具體表現標準與參考活動示例，而美國加州科技標準研訂成果則缺乏與設計相關的重要國際趨勢。（二）中小學科技課程教科書發展方面：(1)臺灣科技課程教科書發展理念未能全面地反應科技教育的學習價值，而美國加州科技課程教科書發展理念則較少考量學生的經費負擔能力；(2)臺灣與美國加州科技課程教科書發展者的理念與科技教師發展科技課程的理念有差距；(3)臺灣科技課程教科書的發展採用標準關聯程序導致內容無法涵蓋所有能力指標，而美國加州由於科技教師常兼採數本教科書，故能否適切地達致科技標準的要求仍須考量；(4)臺灣科技課程教科書的內容侷限於課程綱要且教師手冊的功能不夠明確，而美國加州科技課程教科書的內容由於必須兼顧各地區需求，故較難反應單一學區特殊需求。（三）中小學科技教師課程發展方面：(1)臺灣科技教師課程發展的理念缺乏考量社區工業的需求，而美國加州科技教師課程發展的理念則缺乏考量學校現況；(2)臺灣科技教師課程發展的程序並不符合標準本位的理念，而美國加州科技教師課程發展的程序較符合標準本位的理念，但可能對科技教師而言會有較大的負擔；(3)臺灣科技教師課程發展的成果缺乏文獻探討與評量導板（rubrics）的規劃，而美國加州科技教師課程發展的成果則缺乏學習報告的規劃。（四）專業團體方面：(1)臺灣專業團體缺乏強化生活科技教師的專業成長，而美國加州專業團體則缺乏實際至教學現場輔導的規劃；(2)臺灣專業團體缺乏熟悉教育改革的成員以協助教師專業成長，而美國加州專業團體則缺乏由表現優異的科技教師進行示範教學；(3)臺灣專業團體缺乏善用資訊與傳播科技以提供教師多元的進修管道，而美國加州專業團體則缺乏製作相關的教材以供科技教師選用。（五）科技學會方面：(1)臺灣科技學會缺乏促進會員專業成長及與工業間互動的機制，而美國加州科技學會則缺乏影響學校排課的機制；(2)臺灣與美國加州科技學會在如何提升師資需求方面皆需要持續努力。依據上述研究結論，臺灣科技課程發展若能針對上述問題進行改善，應可使我科技教育發展更為蓬勃。

With the coming of the new century, the educational reform is conducted widely all over the world for the purpose of promoting competitiveness in every country. Taiwan is famous on the name of “Green Silicon Island,” and technology education has played an important role in developing high-tech human resources. When it is mentioned to the educational reform of technology education in Taiwan, the trends of technology education in the United States are always considered definitely. As for the major trend of technology education in the United States, William E. Dugger who is the leader of “Technology for All American Project” believes that it is moving to the standard-based education. California is the first participant in the stansards-based education reform, so there must be many valuable experiences could be offered to us. Therefore the approach of comparative study is utilized and two research methods, literature review and in-depth interview, are also employed in this study to explore the state of curriculum development of technology education in Taiwan as well as in California and to find out the real problems in Taiwan. Through this study, the state-of-the-art of curriculum development of technology education in Taiwan and California are explored and the real problems of curriculum development of technology education in Taiwan and California are proposed: (1) Technology standards: (a) The ideal of technology standards is limited in students in Taiwan; meanwhile, the ideal of technology standards is lacking of the needs of students in California. (b) The developmental process of technology standards is lacking of criteria and evaluation team in Taiwan; meanwhile, the developmental process of technology standards is lacking of verifying students’ basic competency in each learning grade in California (c) The results of technology standards are lacking of specific standards and the examplar of technological activities in Taiwan; meanwhile, the results of technology standards are lacking of concerning the international issue of design in California. (2) Technology textbook: (a) The ideal of technology textbook do not reflect the value of leaning technology in Taiwan; meanwhile, the ideal of technology textbook do not concern the students’ financial support in California. (b) The ideal of technology textbook editor is not corresponding to the ideal of technology teacher in Taiwan and California. (c) The technology textbook is utilized the process of standards-related curriculm development and its content can not cover all competency indicators in Taiwan; meanwhile, the technology teachers always utilize many textbooks and it is needed to confirm that the learning content can meet all the technology standards in California. (d) The content of technology textbook is limited in technology standards and the design of teachers’ handbook is not good enough in Taiwan; meanwhile, the content of technology textbook is needed to meet the needs of all districts, but it is hard to meet all needs of each district in California. (3) Curriculum development: (a) The ideal of curriculum development of technology education is lacking of considering the needs of industry in Taiwan; meanwhile, the ideal of curriculum development of technology education is lacking of concerning the status of school in California. (b) The process of currirculum development of technology education do not match the ideal of standard-based curriculum development in Taiwan; meanwhile, the process of curriculum development of texhnology education is corresponding to the ideal of standard-based curriculum development, but it may be a heavy working load to technology teachers. (c) The results of curriculum development are lacking of integrating literature review and rubric with technological activities in Taiwan; meanwhile, the results of curriculum development are lacking of the planning of learning portfolio in California. (4) Professional group: (a) The tasks of professional group in Taiwan are lacking of offering the professional learning opportunities; meanwhile, the tasks of professional group in California are lacking of ont the spot mentoring in schools. (b) The professional group in Taiwan is lacking of the member with familiar of educational reform in assisting technology teachers’ professional learning; meanwhile, the professional group in California is lacking of outstanding technology teachers’ exemplary teaching. (c) The professional group in Taiwan is lacking of utilizing the information and communication technology in offering the professional learning opportunities; meanwhile, the professional group in California is lacking of developing teaching materials for technology teachers to utilize in their classroom. (5) Technology association: (a) The technology association in Taiwan is lacking of the mechanism of professional learning and mutual communication with industry; meanwhile, the technology association in California is lacking of the mechanism of influcing the curriculum planning in schools. (b) The technology associations in Taiwan and California still have to work hard in promoting the teaching opportunities. According to the result of this study, if the problems mentioned above were solved, the technology education in Taiwan will have a more properous future.

壹、中文
方崇雄、林坤誼、張聖麟（2004）。生活科技學域能力指標詮釋之研究。教育研究資訊，12（2），35－58。
王素芸（2001）。「基本能力指標」之發展與概念分析。教育研究資訊，9（1），1－14。
王鼎銘（1999）。科技發展與科技教育學習經驗。生活科技教育，32（11），2－9。
余鑑（2003）。工藝教育思想的流變。生活科技教育月刊，36（8），3－11。
吳芝儀、廖梅花譯（2001）。Anselm Strauss & Juliet Corbin著。質性研究入門：紮根理論研究方法。嘉義：濤石文化。
李大偉（2005）。新綱要、新紀元－高中生活科技暫行綱要之規劃與實施。高中生活科技課程規劃理念與實施研討會暨中華民國工業科技教育學會年會，頁28－54。台北：國立臺灣師範大學工業科技教育系。
李坤崇（2002）。綜合活動學習領域能力指標概念分析。教育研究月刊，98，頁111－122。
李隆盛（1996）。科技與職業教育的課題。台北：師大書苑。
李隆盛（1999a）。檢核國教九年一貫課程的要點。國民教育，40（1），16－21。
李隆盛（1999b）。國教階段一貫科技與生涯發展課程綱要的研訂。教育研究資訊，7（4），19－27。
李隆盛（2000）。國中學校本位課程發展的5W1H。載於李隆盛和賴春金（主編），科技與人力教育的進展（頁97－106）。台北：師大書苑。
李隆盛（2001）。有命才有運。生活科技教育月刊，34（3），1。
李隆盛（2002）。標準本位的生活科技教學單元。生活科技教育月刊，35（12），13－16。
李隆盛、王詩婷、王保堤、柯景耀、王景祥、何啟君、吳曉亮、呂慶元、沈月清、林人龍、林湧順、張銘傑、陳得人、馮雪容、黃炯（2004）。中小學科技教育簡介。國立臺灣師範大學科技學院。
李隆盛、林坤誼（2003）。中美中小學生活科技標準之比較。中等教育，54（3），20－29。
沈珊珊（2005）。從比較教育觀點思考我國中小學一貫課程之規劃：美、法課程標準之對照。教育研究月刊，140，頁145－158。
林人龍、游光昭（2005）。水平整合的思考：以MST為導向的九年一貫生活科技課程設計。生活科技教育月刊，38（8），24－41。
封四維（2005）。教師發展標準取向課程之行動探究—以國民中學課程為例。國立臺灣師範大學教育學系博士論文（未出版）。
徐宗國譯（1997），Anselm Strauss & Juliet Corbin著。質性研究概論。台北：巨流。
康自立（1987）。美國工業技術教育思想之演進。師大學報，36，63－114。
教育部中等教育司（2004）。後期中等教育共同核心課程研訂。2004年1月15日，取自http://www.cer.ntnu.edu.tw/ccc/index.htm。
教育部中等教育司（2005）。高級中學課程標準修訂資訊。2005年5月21日，取自http://www.edu.tw/EDU_WEB/EDU_MGT/HIGH-SCHOOL/EDU7362001/i1301/course/update/index.htm?open。
教育部國民教育司（2003）。國民中小學九年一貫課程綱要。2005年5月21日，取自http://www.edu.tw/EDU_WEB/Web/EJE/index.htm。
陳明印（2004）。美國中小學教科書採用制度研究－以加州、德州、佛州為例。國立編譯館館刊，32（1），2－31。
陳玫良（2005）。台北市國民教育輔導團自然與生活科技輔導小組現況與展望。生活科技教育月刊，38（3），3－7。
黃光雄、楊龍立（2000）。課程設計：理念與實作。台北：師大書苑。
黃政傑（1991）。課程設計。台北：東華。
黃政傑（1997）。課程改革的理念與實踐。台北：漢文。
黃政傑、李隆盛（1996）。中小學基本學力指標之綜合規劃研究。台北：教育部。
黃瑞琴（1994）。質的教育研究方法。台北：心理。
楊振昇、洪淑萍（2002）。基本能力指標與轉化－以語文學習領域為例。教育研究月刊，96，頁23－33。
甄曉蘭（2003）。課程行動研究：實例與方法解析。台北：師大書苑。
鄭慧如、林世華（2002）。九年一貫課程數學領域第三、四學習階段分段能力指標序階之適切性初探研究。測驗年刊，49（1），51－74。
盧雪梅（2001）。「九年一貫課程能力指標」知多少。教育研究月刊，85，頁66－75。
盧雪梅（2004）。從技術面談九年一貫課程能力指標建構：美國學習標準建構的啟示。教育研究資訊，12（2），3－34。

貳、英文
Achieve (2001). Raising the bar, closing the gap. Achieve 2001 annual report. Washington, DC: Author.
Achieve (2002). Staying on course: Standard-based reform in America’s schools: Progress and prospects. Washington, DC: Author.
American Association for the Advancement of Science. (1993). Benchmarks for science literacy. New York: Oxford University Press.
American Federation of Teachers (AFT). (2001). Making standards matter 2001: A fifty-state report to implement a standard-based system. Standards, curriculum, assessment, and accountability. Washington, DC: Author.
Atkin, J. M., & Black, P. (1997). Policy perils of international comparisons: The TIMSS case. Phi Delta Kappan, 79(1), 22-28.
Barnette, E. (2003). The role of technology teachers in ensuring standard-based programs. The Technology Teacher, 62(7), 32-35.
Bennett, C. A. (1926). History of manual and industrial education up to 1870. Peoria, IL: Chas. A. Bennett Co., Inc. Publishers.
Bennett, C. A. (1937). History of manual and industrial education 1870 to 1917. Peoria, IL: Chas. A. Bennett Co., Inc. Publishers.
Bereday, G. Z. F. (1964). Comparative method in education. New York: Holt, Rineehart and Winston.
Cajas, F. (2000). Technology education research: potential directions. Journal of Technology Education, 12(1), 75-85.
California Department of Education. (2004). California career technical education model curriculum standards and framework timeline. Retrieved August 9, 2005, from http://www.sonoma.edu/cihs/cte/ketDates.html/
California Department of Education. (2005a). Industrial & Technology Education. Retrieved August, 9, 2005, from http://www.cde.ca.gov/ci/ct/ie/index.asp/
California Department of Education. (2005b). All curriculum frameworks. Retrieved August, 9, 2005, from http://www.cde.ca.gov/ci/cr/cf/allfwks.asp/
California Industrial Technology Education Association. (2003). Bylaws of the California industrial and technology education association foundation. Retrieved May, 8, 2005, from http://www.citea.org/exec/images_exec/other_docs/CITEAF_bylaws_100403.pdf/
California Industrial Technology Education Association. (n.d.). California Industrial Technology Education Association. Retrieved May, 8, 2005, from http://www.citea.org/index.htm/
California Institute on Human Services. (2005). California career technical education model curriculum standards executive summary. Retrieved June, 21, 2005, from http://www.sonoma.edu/cihs/cte/newStandards/executiveSummary.pdf/
Cicchinelli, L., Gaddy, B., Lefkowits, L., & Miller, K. (2003). No Child Left Behind: Realizing the vision [policy brief]. Aurora, CO: Mid-continent Research for Education and Learning.
Clark, S. C. (1989). The industrial arts paradigm: adjustment, replacement, or extinction? Journal of Technology Education, 1(1), 1-9.
Council for Basic Education. (1998). Great expectations: Defining and assessing the rigor in state standards for Mathematics and English language arts. Washing, DC: Author.
Dean, C. B., & Bailey, J. A. (2003). A report documenting the process for developing an integrated standard-based instructional unit. Aurora, CO: Mid-continent Research for Education and Learning.
Diegmuller, K. (1995). Running out of steam. Struggling for standards: an education week special report. Washington, DC: Education Week.
Dugger, W. E. (2000). Standard-based reform for technology education. In G. Eugene Martin (Eds.), Technology education for the 21st century (pp. 133-139). Peoria, IL: Glencoe/McGraw Hill.
Dugger, W. E., Jr. (2000). Standard-based reform for technology education. In G. Eugene Martin (Eds.), Technology education for the 21st century (pp. 133-139). Peoria, IL: Glencoe/McGraw-Hill.
Eisner, E. W., & Vallance, E. (Eds.). (1974). Conflicting conceptions of curriculum. Berkeley, CA: McCutchan.
Exploring Technology Education Association. (n.d.). Exploring technology education association. Retrieved October 13, 2004, from http://www.eteaca.org/
Falk, C. J. (1968). The development and organization of education in California. San Francisco, CA: Harcourt, Brace & World, Inc.
Foster, P. (1994). Must we MST? Journal of Technology Education, 6(1), 76-84.
Gaddy, B. B., Dean, C. B., & Kendall, J. S. (2002). Noteworthy perspectives: Keeping the focus on learning. Aurora, CO: Mid-continent Research for Education and Learning.
Gandal, M. (1995). Making standards matter, 1995: A fifty-state progress report on efforts to raise academic standards. Washington, DC: American Federation of Teachers.
Gay, G. (1985). Curriculum development. In Torsten Husen, T. Neville Postlethwaite (Eds.). The international encyclopedia of education: Research and studies (1170-1179). Oxford, England: Pergamon.
Glidden, H. (1999). Making standards matter, 1999: A fifty-state progress report on efforts to raise academic standards. Washington, DC: American Federation of Teachers.
Hacker, M., & Burghardt, M. D. (2004). Technology education: learning by design. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
High School Teaching and Learning Office. (1996). Industrial and technology education: Career path guide and model curriculum standards. Sacramento, CA: California Department of Education.
Hopkins, L. T. (1941). Interaction: The democratic process. Boston: D. C. Health.
International Technology Education Association (ITEA). (1996). Technology for All Americans: A rationale and structure for the study of technology. Reston, VA: International Technology Education Association.
International Technology Education Association (ITEA). (1999). A guide to develop standard-based curriculum for K-12 technology education. Reston, VA: International Technology Education Association.
International Technology Education Association (ITEA). (2000). Standards for technological literacy: Content for the study of technology. Reston, VA: International Technology Education Association.
International Technology Education Association (ITEA). (2004). Engineering design: A standard-based high school model course guide. Reston, VA: International Technology Education Association.
International Technology Education Association (ITEA). (2005a). Planning learning: Developing technology curricula. Reston, VA: International Technology Education Association.
International Technology Education Association (ITEA). (2005b). Invention and innovation: A standard-based middle school model course guide. Reston, VA: International Technology Education Association.
Kendall, J. S. (2001). A technique guide for revising and developing standards and benchmarks. Aurora, CO: The Mid-continent Research for Education and Learning.
Kendall, J. S., & Marzano, R. J. (2000). Content knowledge: A compendium of standards and benchmarks for k-12 education (3rd ed.). Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development (ASCD).
Kendall, J. S., & Marzano, R. J. (2004). Content knowledge: A compendium of standards and benchmarks for K-12 education (4th ed.). Aurora, CO: Mid-continent Research for Education and Learning.
Kendall, J. S., DeFrees, K. L., Pierce, J., Richardson, A., & Williams, J. (2003). Connecting ideas: A strategy for extending the curriculum (Rev. ed.). Aurora, CO: Mid-continent Research for Education and Learning.
Kuhn, T. S. (1970). The Structure of Scientific Revolutions (2nd ed.). Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
Law, N., Lee, Y., & Chow, A. (2002). Practice characteristics that lead to 21st century learning outcomes. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 18, pp. 415-426.
Lewis, T. (1999). Content of process as approaches to technology curriculum: Does it matter come Monday morning? Journal of Technology Education, 11(1), 45-59.
Loveland, T. (2004). Technology education standards implementation in Florida. Journal of Technology Education, 16(1), 40-54.
Mallinson, V. (1975). An introduction to the study of comparative education. London: Heinemann.
Marzano, R. J., & Kendall, J. S. (1996). A comprehensive guide to designing standard-based districts, school, and classroom. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
Marzano, R. J., & Kendall, J. S. (1997). The fall and rise of standard-based education: A National Association of School Boards of Education (NASBE) issues in brief. Aurora, CO: Mid-continent Research for Education and Learning.
Massell, D., Kirst, M., & Hoppe, M. (1997). Persistence and change: standarda-based reform in nine states. Philadelphia, PA: Consortium for Policy Research in Education. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 407 718)
Mawson, B. (2003). Beyond “the design process”: An alternative pedagogy for technology education. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 13(2), 117-128.
McCracken, J. R. (2000). Design- The creative soul of technology. In G. Eugene Martin (Eds.), Technology education for the 21st century (pp. 85-90). Peoria, IL: Glencoe/McGraw-Hill.
McGonagle, L. (2003). Resources for developing standard-based curriculum. Retrieved October, 9, 2004, from http://www.dedham.k12.ma.us/dhs/curriculum/index.htm
Meade, S. D. & Dugger, W. E. (2004). Reporting on the status of technology education in the U.S. The Technology Teacher, 64(2), 29-35.
Mid-continent Research for Education and Learning. (2000). Noteworthy perspectives on implementing standard-based education. Aurora, CO: Author.
Miles, M. B., & Huberman, A. M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis : an expanded sourcebook. Thousand Oaks : Sage Publications.
National Commission on Excellence in Education (1983). A nation at risk: The imperative for educational reform. Retrieved October, 13, 2004, from http://www.goalline.org/Goal%20Line/NatAtRisk.html/
National Council on Education Standards and Testing (NCEST) (1992). Raising standards for American education: A report to congress, the secretary of education, the national education goals panel, and the American people. Washington, DC: U. S. Government Printing Office.
National Education Goals Panel. (1991). The national education goals report: Building a nation of learners. Washington, DC: Author.
National Research Council. (1996). National science education standards. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
Ndahi, H. B. & Ritz, J. M. (2003). Technology education teacher demand: 2002-2005. The Technology Teacher, 62(7), 27-31.
Newberry, P. B. (2001). Technology education in the U.S.: A status report. The Technology Teacher, 61(1), 1-16.
Oakes, J., & Saunders, M. (2004). Education’s most basic tools: Access to textbooks and instructional materials in California’s public schools. Teachers College Record, 106(10), 1967-1988.
Ornstein, A. C., & Hunkins, F. P. (2003). Curriculum: Foundations, principles, and issues (4th ed.). Boston, MA: Allyn and Bacon.
Pattison, C., & Berkas, N. (2000). Critical issues: Integrating standards into the curriculum. Retrieved October 10, 2004, from http://www.ncrel.org/sdrs/areas/issues/content/currclum/cu300.htm/
Peter Harris Research Group. (2002). Survey of California teachers. Washington, DC: Author.
Popham, W. J. (1999). Classroom assessment: What teachers need to know. Boston, MA: Allyn and Bacon.
Postman, N. (1995). The end of education. New York: Alfred A. Knopf.
Pratzner. F. (1985). The vocational education paradigm: Adjustment, replacement or extinction? Journal of Industrial Teacher Education, 22(2), 6.
Ravitch, D. (1995). National standards in American education: A citizen’s guide. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution.
Ravitch, D. (1996). 50 states, 50 standards: The continuing need for national voluntary standards in education. The Brookings Review, 14, pp. 1-9.
Reeve, E. M., Nielson, C., & Meade, S. D. (2003). Utah junior high teachers respond to standards for technological literacy. The Technology Teacher, 62(8), 26-29.
Regional Educational Laboratory Network. (2000). Implementing education reform: Strategies used by states, districts, and schools. Aurora, CO: Mid-continent Research for Education and Learning.
Sanders, N. M. (2001). Standards in classroom practice: Research synthesis. Aurora, CO: The Mid-continent Research for Education and Learning.
Shepard, L. (1993). Setting performance standards for student achievement. Stanford, CA: National Academy of Education, Stanford University.
Shumway, S., & Berrett, J. (2004). Standard-based curriculum development for pre-service and in-service: A “partnering” approach using modified backwards design. The Technology Teacher, 64(3), 26-29.
Sonoma State University. (2005). Career Technical Education: Standards and framework. Retrieved August, 13, 2005, from http://www.sonoma.edu/cihs/cte/background.html/
Stone, J. C., & Hempstead, R. R. (1968). California education today. New York: Thomas Y. Crowell Company.
Weiss, I. R., Knapp, M. S., Hollweg, K. S., & Burrill G. (2001). Investigating the influence of standards: A framework for research in Mathematics, Science, and Technology Education. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
Wicklein, R. C. (1993). Identifying critical issues and problems in technology education using a modified-delphi technique. Journal of Technology Education, 5(1), 54-71.
Wicklein, R. C. (2005). Critical issues and problems in technology education. The Technology Teacher, 64(4), 6-9.
Wiggins, G., & McTighe, J. (1998). Understanding by design. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
Zuga, K. F. (1989). Relating technology education goals to curriculum planning. Journal of Technology Education, 1(1), Retrieved July, 7, 2005, from http://scholar.lib.vt.edu/ejournals/JTE/v1n1/pdf/zugascii.pdf
Zuga, K. F. (2000). Technology education as an integrator of science and mathematics. In G. Eugene Martin (Eds.), Technology education for the 21st century (pp. 223-227). Peoria, IL: Glencoe/McGraw Hill.