１．はじめに

　上越教育大学の志村喬教授を研究代表者とするグループは，どのような地理教育が「Powerful Geography（力強い地理）」なのかに関連して，高等学校における地理学習が学習者にどのように評価され，進路選択にどのように作用したのかを調査した。そのインタビュー調査対象者として，筆者が勤務する神戸大学附属中等教育学校の卒業生が選ばれた。本校は2013（平成25）年度より，文部科学省から研究

校の指定を受け，途中で科目名の変更はあったが，４年生（高校１年生に該当）全員に，「地理総合」を実施してきた。現在，大学に通っているほとんどの学生は，平成30年告示の高等学校学習指導要領実施前に高校生であったため。高等学校における地理学習経験が無い場合もあり得る。しかし，本校生は全員が，地理を学んでいるため，調査対象者として適していた。調査対象者は，2018（平成30）年度に，「地理総合」を履修した。そこで，実践記録から，調査対象者がどのように「地理総合」を評価し，授業者がどのように「地理総合」を実践してきたのかについて報告する。

２．実践記録から

　研究

校は，実績報告の中で，研究開発の結果及びその分析について，資料・根拠に基づいて実証的に記述する必要があるため，毎年，生徒意識調査を行ってきた。「地理総合」実施学年の，４月，１０月，３月に，中学校社会科との比較や，「地理総合」の学びについて，さらに，６学年（高校３年に該当）に，「地理総合」の学びが大学での学習に役立つかなどについて調査した。

　４学年でのおもな調査項目は，以下の通りである。

①中学校社会科と「地理総合」の比較

②「地理総合」学習前の期待と学習後の結果

③中学校社会科と「地理総合」の感想

　６学年でのおもな調査項目は，以下の通りである。

①「地理総合」は，生徒参加型であったか

②「地理総合」は，大学などでの学びに役立つか

③「地理総合」は，社会で必要な力が身についたか

３．「地理総合」の実践について

　研究

校は，専門的見地から指導助言，評価を受けるとともに，公開授業などを開催し，他校における研究に資するよう，情報提供を行う必要がある。そこで，毎年，授業公開し，指導助言をふまえ，「地理総合」を改善してきた。そのため，授業者は，生徒の資質・能力をどのように育成するのかとともに，どのような授業を見てもらうべきかという，２つの命題を抱えながら授業実践してきた。

３．おわりに

　学習者が授業をどのように感じるかは，授業者がどのように実践しようとしてきたかに，大きな影響を受ける。学習内容を伝えたかったのか，学習活動を深めたかったのか，どのような資質・能力を伸ばしたかったのかなどについて，年間の見通しをもって授業実践することが，これからの授業実践ではよりいっそう大切になってくる。

文　　献

神戸大学附属中等教育学校 2014.『文部科学省指定研究

校高等学校地理歴史科「地理基礎」「歴史基礎」実施報告書vol.1』神戸大学附属中等教育学校.

神戸大学附属中等教育学校 2015.『文部科学省指定研究

校高等学校地理歴史科「地理基礎」「歴史基礎」実施報告書vol.2』神戸大学附属中等教育学校.

神戸大学附属中等教育学校 2016.『文部科学省指定研究

校高等学校地理歴史科「地理基礎」「歴史基礎」実施報告書Vol.3』神戸大学附属中等教育学校.

神戸大学附属中等教育学校 2017.『文部科学省指定研究

校高等学校地理歴史科「地理基礎」「歴史基礎」実施報告書Vol.4』神戸大学附属中等教育学校.

神戸大学附属中等教育学校 2018.『文部科学省指定研究

校高等学校地理歴史科「地理総合」「歴史総合」実施報告書vol.1』神戸大学附属中等教育学校.

神戸大学附属中等教育学校 2019.『文部科学省指定研究

校高等学校地理歴史科「地理総合」「歴史総合」実施報告書vol.2』神戸大学附属中等教育学校.

神戸大学附属中等教育学校 2020.『文部科学省指定研究

校高等学校地理歴史科「地理総合」「歴史総合」実施報告書Vol.3』神戸大学附属中等教育学校.

抄録全体を表示

This paper deals with case studies of the curriculum development in the pilot school system for research and development. The system not only provides research findings with Ministry of Education for the revision of national course of study but also encourages designated schools to create their new curriculum and their teachers’ culture through the experiences of research and development. Looking back upon the previous studies on the curriculum development in the Ministry’s pilot schools. It proves that little attention is paid to the teachers’ capability of curriculum development.

The purpose of the paper is to examine how some schools with pilot school experiences have sustained the teachers’ capacities required to develop their curriculum by making the most of the opportunities and resource they have obtained during the designated period of research and development. Three public elementary schools have been selected among those with experiences of becoming a pilot school, in view of their rich history of curriculum development, the regional balance, and their exemplarity in research­-oriented climate. As a framework for analysis of teachers’ activities in curriculum development, the concept of ‘professional capital,’ which was proposed by Hargreaves and Fullan, has been introduced. Professional capital consists of human capital, social capital and decisional capital, and it grows as the three independent capitals function as independent variables. Teachers’ capacities to develop curriculum and its growth can be explained as an interactive and amplifying process of the three capitals.

In the data collection of curriculum development in the three individual schools, group interviews have been made with key persons of the schools, such as senior teachers in charge of research. The data gathered have been classified according to the three capitals mentioned above.

One of the overall characteristics witnessed common in the curriculum development of the three schools is the centrality of integrated study in their whole school curriculum. The design and implementation of integrated study is a core of teachers’ activities. Although the three schools are different in their experiences as a pilot school, they have in common made use of their status of pilot school, not as a starting point of curriculum development but as ‘an opportunity.’ They have similar orientations of realizing their educational objectives by exercising their discretionary power which is allowed only to pilot schools.

The three schools are successful in building a mechanism of forming teachers’ individual and collective professional capacities which includes a high level of teachers’ initiative, motivation, ingenuity, and judgment. They are also successful in sharing their capacities and passing them to their next generations. It is possible to describe the formation of teachers’ capacities in their everyday work as a process of professional capital movement. In conclusion, sustainable curriculum development in a school is a forming process of teachers’ profes­sional development. Professional capital grows in search for teachers’ common understanding of children as learners and of better class instruction through their periodical on-­site learning study.

抄録全体を表示

In 21^st century educational reform, the correlative relationship between the cognitive and affective domains has been drawing increasing attention. The Courses of Study revised in 2017 also organizes the competencies to be developed into the three interrelated pillars of “basic and fundamental knowledge and skills”, “the ability to think, make judgments, and express” and “an attitude of proactive learning and rich humanity. In order for schools to work on the cultivation of humanity under this new framework, it is necessary to review the position of the areas that have been mainly responsible for cultivating humanity (morality, special activities, and the period for integrated studies) in the curriculum and to organize their inter-relationships as well as relationships with other subjects.

The purpose of this paper is to conduct a fundamental study on a framework for the cultivation of humanity in the future curriculum by first analyzing the actual state of curriculum development for cultivation of humanity at the MEXT-designated pilot schools for research and development (hereafter R&D schools) and at the same time, for each school to obtain practical suggestions for curriculum formation to enhance education for humanity under the current Courses of Study.

The R&D school system has a rich history of school-based curriculum development for cultivating humanity. We classified curriculum development into three types based on the “practical reports” prepared by the schools and examined the significance and issues of various options raised in those studies. Specifically, the three types are: A. a curriculum that reorganizes the curriculum as a whole, B. the creation of new subjects (reorganization / integration of existing areas), and C. the creation of new subjects (distribution of a number of hours from existing subjects).

There are two directions in the A-type curriculum. One is a curriculum that creates learning areas based on life experience and consists of two major areas: the subjects and life experiences. In this curriculum, the process from experience to reflection can be developed along the child’s natural stream of consciousness, but the issue of how to connect experience-centered learning with learning in other subjects remains. The other is a curriculum in which each area is structured based on the target competencies that are to be developed. This direction offers the prospect of expanding the possibility of cross-curricular organization.

Schools classified as B have developed various subjects and areas focusing on cultivating humanity. What is common to these developments is that the target competencies to be developed are determined by the school based on the actual conditions of the child and the community, and that a learning process that integrates experience-centered activities and their reflections has been established.

(View PDF for the rest of the abstract.)

抄録全体を表示

愛知教育大学・静岡大学教育学研究科に共同で設置された後期３年のみの博士課程，共同教科専攻では，これまで別々に捉えられていた感のある「教科専門」「教科教育」「教職専門」の３領域を融合し，新たな学問領域，「教科」を構築しようと努めている。つまり，教科は，教職専門分野を学校環境だけでなく，地域，社会，文化を含んだ幅広い視点から研究しようとする「教育環境学」，そして教科専門と教科教育の融合による教科内容の構成に関する研究を中核とし，教育論・教育内容論，教材論という側面から研究する「教科学」から構成されている。学生の博士論文は３領域のいずれかが基軸になるとはいえ，他領域の要素も加味したものになることが求められる。このような枠組みの根底には，教科教育学という学問領域は単独で存在するよりも，教職専門，教科専門領域と密接に関連し合う方が，よりその存在感が増し，教職を目指す学生への貢献度も大きくなるという考え方がある。

抄録全体を表示