本文的主旨，在針對美國課程與教學學界主張課程統整最力的學者之一James A. Beane的重要主張作一番解析，希望能從中獲得對一些啟示。全文共分為六節。除前言與結論之外，另外四節，依序討論Beane對於課程統整意義的探究、課程統整的四個面向、課程統整的配套作法，以及課程統整面臨的挑戰。Beane對於課程統整的意義，係採取狹義的觀點，認為應該利用真實世界的議題作為中心，而完全不考慮學科既有的界線。因而，他固然反對分立的學科本位組織，也不贊成平行學科、互補學科單元、統整日等作法，連多學科和科際整合二種課程組織，因為它們只是把現有的學科加以重編而己，也為Beane所反對。Beane 把課程統整當作一種理論，指出其具有四個面向。其中，經驗的統整，社會的統整和知識的統整三者是就課程統整的內容分析，其用意在提醒我們：課程統整的內容應該兼顧經驗、社會和知識三者，而不能只注意知識的面向。至於把統整當作課程設計，則是就課程統整的形式來分析，其用意在提醒我們：若欲徹底實施課程統整，必須從課程設計開始，即作根本的改變。Beane 認為課程統整不僅是行事方法的不同而已，而是做一些非常不同的事。他不認為課程統整只是環繞著某些主題，把若干個科目的內容，作重新的安排。他認為課程統整，有著完整的配套作法。這些作法可歸納為(1)協同合作的設計(2)卓越的教學方法；(3)整合的學習統體等三方面。Beane提醒我們，課程統整充滿了心智與體力的挑戰。這些挑戰，有些是來自課程統整本身所具有的革新特性，有些則來自教育學術界和實務界許多難以轉變的文化，當然，還有各界對課程統整的誤解。這些挑戰可歸納為(1)班級內；(2)同事問；(3)其他各界人士等三方面。本文最後一節指出，我國目前所推動的以「國民中小學九年一貫課程」為核心的課程改革之中的課程統整，乃是在既有的學科基礎之上，進行的多學科式或是科際整合式的課程統整，而非Beane嚴格定義下的完全課程統整。作者以為，即使是較寬鬆的多學科式或是科際整合式的課程統整，對於國內大多數的國民中小學教師而言，也是從未有的經驗。這裡牽涉到的不只是與教師專業知能有關的技術層面的因素，還牽涉到整個教師專業文化的轉型。因此，作者認為應採比較寬鬆的角度來看這次課程改革，不能以嚴格零和的觀點來評論其成功或失敗，而要以點滴進步累積經驗的觀點來看，如果因為提供了機會與支持給中小學教師，而讓他們在目前的教學現場，能向前移動一小步，就算很不錯了。不過，任何改革的開始，總得有個可資「取法乎上」的參考點，Beane 對於課程統整的理論與實際的主張，應該具有這樣的指標作用。否則，連「取法乎上」的依據都沒有，那麼「得乎其中」的可能性就會降低，終於「向下沈淪」而難以自拔。
This paper aims at analyzing the theory of curriculum integration advocated by James A. Beane. Beane's definition of curriculum integration is analyzed. He defines curriculum integration in a narrow sense by insisting that it is an attempt to use real-world issues as organizing centers without regard for subject-area lines. He is against the multidisciplinary, interdisciplinary, and crossdisciplinary, and some other forms of curriculum organization because he believes they are merely a realignment of the existing subjects. Beane points out that curriculum integration must involve four dimensions: the integration of experiences, social integration, the integration of knowledge, and integration as a curriculum design. Beane reminds us that such a comprehensive theory of curriculum integration is more significant and promising than the curriculum arrangements that are incorrectly defined as ＂ integrationII in other discussions. Thirdly, Beane urges that curriculum integration be not simply about doing things differently, but about doing something really different. Curriculum integration is not meant to be about rearranging content from several subjects around some themes. He suggests that collaborative planning, high pedagogy, and integrative learning community are major measures of enacting the ideals of curriculum integration. Beane also reminds us that various aspects of challenges will come from inside the classroom, among colleagues, and other authorities. Curriculum practitioners must be very careful to deal with all the persons involved in this processes. In the last section of the paper, the author reflects that it is impossible to adopt Beane's narrow definition of curriculum integration in the presently implemented grade 1 to 9 curriculum reform. A broad sense of definition of curriculum integration will offer good opportunities for teachers to tryout some new ways of dealing with the issues of curriculum reform. Nevertheless, Beane's theory of curriculum integration will set a good example for those curriculum practitioners.
