尋找最大公約數？—高中歷史教科書編寫與審查互動過程分析
No Thumbnail Available
Date
2012-03-??
Authors
卯靜儒
Chin-Ju Mao
Journal Title
Journal ISSN
Volume Title
Publisher
教育研究與評鑑中心
Center for Educational Research and Evaluation
Center for Educational Research and Evaluation
Abstract
本文探究在教科書一綱多本政策下，高中歷史教科書編寫與審查制度運作過程中的編審互動歷程與經驗。研究方法以訪談及文件分析為主，訪談對象包括四家出版社的教科書編寫者與編輯各一位，教科書審查委員四位，共訪談12位，文件分析以國立編譯館建檔的審查文件為主。研究發現，在目前編審制度運作下，編審之間的權力行使關係、對課綱的認同不一、對歷史知識與教學之間的爭議，以及對核心能力的解讀不同，，皆會影響編寫者與審查者的互動與經驗。在目前編審制度運作下，看似對立的編審互動過程也揭露出編審者與審查者多方不同意見的差異。在為「完成任務」的時間壓力下，，編審兩造逐漸發展出解決爭議的「最大公約數」之原則。然而，此原則卻也將新課綱強調的四大核心能力的培養與教學精神，無意識地排除於教科書編寫討論過程中。編審教科書的討論過程仍是「文本為中心」勝於「學習者為中心」的思考邏輯。教科書如何成為橋，幫助教師與學生渡到新課綱的知識學習典範，是迫切的教科書編審課題，但卻也是目前編審制度運作下被忽略。
This study explored the personal interaction and process of compiling and reviewing high school history textbooks under the textbook policy of "one guide for multiple texts." The primary research methods were interviews and document analysis.Twelve individuals were interviewed for this study,including ofur textbook writers, each representing a different textbook, four editors, each from a different publishing company, and four members of the textbook review committee. Document analysis was based on the National Institute for Compilation and Translation's history textbook review documents. The analysis discovered that inder the current censorship system, the power relations among writers and reviewers, disagreements over the new curriculum guidelines, disputes regarding historical knowledge and teaching methods, and interpretations of the core competencies affected the interaction between the writers and reviewers. The seemingly antagonistic editorial process of the current censorship system also showed that the views of the writers and reviewers differed significantly. However, the "greatest common denominator" principle was developed between both parties to resolve disputes under time constraints and for the need to "complete the misson." However, this principle indirectly avoided the issue of how to cultivate and teach the fore core competencies emphasized by the new curriculum guidelines. Furthermore, a "text-centric" instead of "leaner-centric" logic is still employed during the textbook compilation process. Making a new kind of history textbooks which can be a bridge leading teachers and students to a new paradigm in learning history is a crucial step for accomplishing the goals of the new curriculum. However, this topic has been ignored in the current editorial process.
This study explored the personal interaction and process of compiling and reviewing high school history textbooks under the textbook policy of "one guide for multiple texts." The primary research methods were interviews and document analysis.Twelve individuals were interviewed for this study,including ofur textbook writers, each representing a different textbook, four editors, each from a different publishing company, and four members of the textbook review committee. Document analysis was based on the National Institute for Compilation and Translation's history textbook review documents. The analysis discovered that inder the current censorship system, the power relations among writers and reviewers, disagreements over the new curriculum guidelines, disputes regarding historical knowledge and teaching methods, and interpretations of the core competencies affected the interaction between the writers and reviewers. The seemingly antagonistic editorial process of the current censorship system also showed that the views of the writers and reviewers differed significantly. However, the "greatest common denominator" principle was developed between both parties to resolve disputes under time constraints and for the need to "complete the misson." However, this principle indirectly avoided the issue of how to cultivate and teach the fore core competencies emphasized by the new curriculum guidelines. Furthermore, a "text-centric" instead of "leaner-centric" logic is still employed during the textbook compilation process. Making a new kind of history textbooks which can be a bridge leading teachers and students to a new paradigm in learning history is a crucial step for accomplishing the goals of the new curriculum. However, this topic has been ignored in the current editorial process.