108課綱大學考招制度之分析

Abstract

2019年，108課綱及大學考招新制正式上路，考招制度的改變、學習歷程檔案的採用成為了新聞媒體關心的重要議題。本研究以批判論述分析（Critical Discourse Analysis）作為研究方法，以2019年至2022年有關於大學考招制度改革的新聞報導作為研究對象，蒐集兩家臺灣主流報社及政策文本進行分析，分析新制上路後，新聞報導建構出的論述場域及不同論述的交織型態，以理解大學考招制度改革如何透過論述被實踐、再現、存在。本研究主要有三點發現：一、從家庭移轉至學校的社會正義論述 近年的新聞報導中，家庭面向公平與社會正義的質疑論述主要是由部分家長團體生產，在官方能完整回應的情況下，這種論述並未成為主流論述。 此外，關注學校面向的論述明顯多於家庭面向，顯示大學考招新制與課程連結的改革，使論述場域中公平與社會正義視角發生轉移，令社會更加關心學校的教育功能。 二、對立的學習歷程檔案用途論述 學習歷程檔案相關的新聞報導，形成了對立的用途建構論述。一方為家長、學生，將學習歷程檔案的用途侷限在升學作用；另一方為官方論述，聚焦在學生學習經驗的意義上，但未能回應家長及學生實務上的焦慮與擔憂，可能迫使家長及學生採取傳統方法應對。 三、忽略多面性的考招改革論述 篩選方式的議題中，不同角色為了取得有利的位置，會刻意選擇對自己的立場有利的論述，而忽略篩選方式其他面向的意義；即便立場相同，也可能因注重的價值影響自身的論述，令新聞媒體難以完整報導事件的本質，無法顧及考招議題的多面性。

依循研究發現，本研究提出兩點啟示：一、新聞媒體在大學考招改革的論述場域中扮演相當重要的角色，他們對於受訪者的篩選可能影響論述場域中不同角色的話語權，進而使特定角色佔據有利的發話位置，使其產製的論述更容易進入論述場域。二、主要以新聞媒體作為分析文本可能無法完整的描繪大學考招制度改革中不同角色、論述的權力競逐過程，後續研究宜以更完整的資料補足此缺失。

In 2019, the 108 Curriculum Guidelines and the new University Multiple Entrance Program were officially implemented. The changes in the examination and enrollment system, as well as the academic portfolio, became important topics of concern in various fields such as news media. This study employs critical discourse analysis as its research method, focusing on news reports related to the reform of the university admissions system from 2019 to 2022. Two mainstream Taiwanese newspapers and other policy texts are collected for analysis, concentrating on the discursive landscape constructed by news reports in the years leading up to the implementation of the new system, as well as the various interwoven discursive patterns.The aim is to understand how the reform of university admissions is practiced, represented, and perpetuated through discourse.This study yielded three main findings:1. Social justice discourse: transitioning from home to school In recent news reports, discourse on fairness and social justice from a family perspective is mainly produced by certain parent groups. However, this discourse has not become mainstream as long as the authorities can provide comprehensive responses. In addition, there has been a noticeable shift in discourse focusing more on school-related issues of fairness and social justice rather than family-related concerns in recent years. This shift reflects reforms linking university admission policies with curricula, emphasizing perspectives of fairness and social justice in the discourse arena and increasing societal concern for the educational function of schools.2. Contrasting discourses on the use of academic portfoliosNews reports related to academic portfolios have formed contrasting discourses on their use. On one side, parents and students limit the use of academic portfolios to college admissions purposes; on the other side, official discourse focuses on the significance of students' learning experiences. However, failing to address the practical anxieties and concerns of parents and students may force them to resort to traditional methods of coping. 3. The ignorance of entrance exam reform discourse's complexity In discussions about selection criteria, different stakeholders often strategically choose discourse that favor their own positions to secure advantageous positions, while ignoring the broader importance of other aspects of the selection process. Even when their positions align, they may prioritize values that influence their own discourse, making it difficult for news media to comprehensively report on the essence of events and to consider the multifaceted nature of entrance exam issues.Based on research findings, this study proposes two implications: news media play a crucial role in the discourse arena of university admission exam reforms. Their selection of interviewees may affect the discourse power of different roles within the arena, allowing certain roles to dominate the favorable speaking positions, making their discourse more likely to enter the discourse arena. Analyzing mainly news media as the primary text may not fully describe the power relations among different roles and discourse in the reform of the university admission exam system. Subsequent research should supplement this shortcoming with more comprehensive data.