Bernstein教育論述分析──以高中國文課綱的「文白之爭」為例

Abstract

本研究企盼能藉由伯恩斯坦的教育論述理論視角，尤其是他的再脈絡化規則，剖析高中國文課綱制訂時，為何會選擇文白比例作為論述競爭的焦點，其背後又有哪些社會團體如何藉由論述達成其對權力的掌握和競逐。全文分成兩大部分，第一部份先對伯恩斯坦的教育論述機制進行探討，以釐清其概念上未詳盡之處；第二部分則是以文本分析為方法，針對官方再脈絡化場域和教育再脈絡化場域如何對國文課綱進行教育論述，加以分析。

從對伯恩斯坦再脈絡化規則之討論，可以發現教育論述是一種「關於社會秩序、關係和認同」的「規約性論述」去挪用「關於特定能力」的「教學性論述」，而「規約性論述」可包括「教學理論」與「意識型態」。從第四章的結果與討論裡顯示，國文課綱的教育論述大抵可分為三種：由官方專案小組和召集人所建構的官方教育論述，以及教育再脈絡化場域中贊成官方立場者與反對官方立場者。相較起課程標準，課程綱要修訂上，官方乃是採取「提高語體文比例」以「增進學生語文能力」的教學性論述，而非官方場域的反對、贊同兩派，則分別將焦點置於維持（提高）或降低文言文比例，才能增進學生語文能力上。但在整個辯論中，可以發現正反雙方的論述終歸還是回到以國族意識型態為主的支配性論述，也就是用「傳承中華文化命脈」與「建立台灣主體意識」去關聯教學性論述的內涵，包括國文教學在語言教育上的「文言文」與「白話文」比例，以及文學教育上的「中國文學」與「台灣文學」比例；值得注意的是，在教育再脈絡化場域的論述裡，由教學理論去調控文白比例的程度和空間反而不大。

由上述結論，本文建議國文課綱的修訂，應透過能穩定發展和改進的「教學理論」作為再脈絡化之依據，而非以「意識型態」規約之，因此，高等教育學校中的國文和教育系所，尤其是師培院校，更應致力於彌補國文教學理論之空缺。此外，「教育再脈絡化場域」之組織或行動者，尤其是教育現場的教師，應把握創造具有教育相對自主性論述的機會，去思索如何透過教育的角度而非意識型態影響國文課綱的官方論述。

The purpose of this paper is to explore high school Chinese Literature Curriculum Guideline as official pedagogic discourse and its recontextualizing rule. Here B. Bernstein’s pedagogic discourse theory is applied as analyzing frames to view the controversies over it.

The two main topics in the thesis is about ‘what consciousness?’ and ‘whose ruler?’ in recontextualizing process of Chinese Literature Curriculum Guideline. To the former question, there are three different contents of pedagogic discourses. First is an official pedagogic discourse(OPD) constructed by official organization and its convener under MOE. The other two are followed by ‘for’ and ‘against’ OPD in pedagogic recontextualizing fields (PRF). OPD contended that the proportion of modern Chinese language and literature in curriculum should be elevated. While there are some social groups and actors against that stand, arguing that heightening classic Chinese language and literature could enhance language competences and skills in Chinese learning. What else, they claim classic Chinese preserves the nation’s cultural essence so it shall be inherited and students should be educated. Actors and groups in PRF who agree upon official’s points of view, also believe that to cut down Chinese classics’ leaning and increase the ration of modern Chinese and Taiwanese Literature in curriculum can help build up students’ national identity with Taiwan. According to the research findings above, they conclude that the ideology about national imaginations and identities are the regulative discourse (RD) dominating the instructional discourses (ID) – the proportion of classic and modern Chinese. With such findings, researchers should pay attention to the absence of ‘theories of instruction’, which is deemed as an important RD in Bernstein’s viewpoint.