邁向多元典範的教科書研究方法論

Textbook Research Methodology: Towards a Pluralistic Paradigm

10.6384/CIQ.201607_19(3).0001

周珮儀(Pei-I Chou)；鄭明長(Ming-Chang Cheng)

典範 ； 研究方法 ； 混合研究 ； 教科書研究 ； paradigm ； research methods ； mixed methods ； textbook research

課程與教學

19卷3期（2016 / 07 / 01）

1 - 26

繁體中文

早期教科書研究常是規範性研究，很少深究方法與方法論。最近興起的科學化教科書研究取向提出教科書研究方法的理論架構，展現發展教科書研究典範的企圖；然而許多教科書研究問題仍無法涵蓋在其架構中。同時更廣泛、複雜、多元和彈性的教科書觀點和教科書研究取向也正在興起，一方面企圖與科學化教科書研究取向交流與論辯，另一方面促使傳統教科書研究發展系統化的研究架構和研究方法論。看待教科書的視角不同，關注的教科書問題就不同，所選擇的研究方法也不同，因此本研究從教科書觀點的改變分析教科書研究方法的發展，主張發展多元典範的教科書研究方法論，提供多元選擇和彈性運用的研究方法，以及各種混合設計的方式，俾利解決日趨複雜多元的教科書研究問題。

In the early stage, textbook-related research was often normative and its methodology issues were seldom addressed. Recently, there has been a trend where textbook research is regarded as scientific research and a theoretical framework for textbook research is proposed, manifesting its ambition to develop a scientific paradigm for textbook methodology. However, there are still many issues of textbook research that cannot be classified based on the theoretical framework. At the same time, more extensive, complex, multiple textbooks issues and textbook research are emerging. On one hand, the research attempts to interchange ideas with the scientific textbook research. On the other, it also aims to promote the traditional textbook research which lacks methodology to develop more refined and systematic theoretical framework and research methodology. Viewing textbooks from different perspectives means not only the different focuses of the problems in textbooks, but also the different choices of research methods. Because the latest perspectives on textbooks have changed from the traditional ones, the present study analyzed the development and the evolution of textbook research. With the claim of pluralistic paradigm in textbook methodology, the present study provided diverse and flexible research instruments and different types of mixed methods designs based on the features of textbooks, offering alternative solutions to the increasingly complicated and diverse problems in textbook research.

1. 王姿陵、曾議寬、邱美燕(2015)。評析電子教科書對教與學的影響。教科書研究，8(2)，175-188。
   連結：
2. 王雅玄(2005)。社會領域教科書的批判論述分析：方法論的重建。教育研究集刊，51(2)，67-97。
   連結：
3. 王雅玄(2012)。當代歷史教科書中的他者論述。教科書研究，5(3)，131-138。
   連結：
4. 王麗雲、甄曉蘭(2009)。社會學取向的教科書政策分析。教科書研究，2(1)，1-28。
   連結：
5. 宋曜廷、潘佩妤(2010)。混合研究在教育研究的應用。教育科學研究期刊，55(4)，97-130。
   連結：
6. 周珮儀(2005)。我國教科書研究的分析：1979-2004。課程與教學季刊，8(4)，91-116。
   連結：
7. 周珮儀(2015)。書評：《教科書和學習教材發展的綜合策略》。教科書研究，8(3)，189-205。
   連結：
8. 周珮儀(2011)。促進國際理解和交流的教科書研究之旅—GEI短期研究心得。教科書研究，1，115-123。
   連結：
9. 周珮儀、鄭明長(2011)。我們培育孩子成全球公民嗎？從全球教育觀點對國小社會教科書的論述分析。臺灣民主季刊，8(1)，1-45。
   連結：
10. 周珮儀、鄭明長(2008)。教科書研究方法論之探究。課程與教學季刊，11，193-222。
    連結：
11. 周珮儀、鍾怡靜(2013)。聯合國教育科學文化組織教科書研究與教科書修訂指引。教科書研究，6(1)，143-154。
    連結：
12. 郭秋永(2011)。混和研究與質量爭議。東吳政治學報，29(1)，1-64。
    連結：
13. Altbach, P. G.(Ed.),Kelly, G. P.(Ed.),Petrie, H. G.(Ed.),Weis, L.(Ed.)(1991).Textbooks in American society: Politics, policy and pedagogy.New York, NY:Teacher College Press.
14. Apple, M.(1993).Official knowledge: Democratic education in a conservative age.New York, NY:Routledge.
15. Apple, M.(1986).Teachers and text: A political economy of class and gender relations in education.New York:Routledge and Kegan Paul.
16. Apple, M.(Ed.),Christian-Smith, L. K.(Ed.)(1991).The politics of the textbook.New York, NY:Routledge.
17. Avis, J.(Ed.),Bloomer, M.(Ed.),Esland, G.(Ed.),Gleeson, D.(Ed.),Hodkinson, P.(Ed.)(1996).Knowledge and nationhood: Education, politics, and work.Herndon, VA:Cassell.
18. Bao, J.(2002).Shanghai,East China Normal University.
19. Boostorm, J.(2001).Essay review: Whither textbooks?.Curriculum Studies,33(2),229-245.
20. Chandler, D. G.,Brosnan, P. A.(1995).A comparison between mathematics textbook content and a statewide mathematics proficiency test.School Science and Mathematics,95(3),118-123.
21. Cheng, M.-C.,Chou, P.-I.,Wang, Y.-T.,Lin, C.-H.(2015).Learning effects of science textbooks designed with adapted cognitive process principles on grade 5 students.International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education,13(3),467-488.
22. Clerici, R.,Gola, G.,Cisco, E.(2013).Quali-quant analysis of the statistical content in Italian primary school general books.International Journal of Multiple Research Approaches,7(1),96-109.
23. Creswell, J. W.(2013).Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches.Thousand Oaks, CA:Sage.
24. Creswell, J. W.(Ed.),Clark, V. L. P.(Ed.)(2011).Designing and conducting mixed methods research.Thousand Oaks, CA:Sage.
25. de Castell, S.(Ed.),Luke, A.(Ed.),Luke, C.(Ed.)(1989).Language authority and criticism: Reading on the school textbook.London:The Falmer Press.
26. de Castell, S.(Ed.)Luke, A.(Ed.),Luke, C.(Ed.)(1989).Language authority and criticism: Reading on the school textbook.London:The Falmer Press.
27. Denzin, N. K.,Lincoln, Y. S.(1994).Handbook of qualitative research.Thousand Oaks, CA:Sage.
28. Elliott, D. L.(Ed.),Woodward, A.(Ed.)(1990).Textbooks and schooling in the United States: Eighty-ninth yearbook of national society for the study of education, Part1.Chicago, ILL:University of Chicago Press.
29. Fan, L.(2013).Textbook research as scientific research: Towards a common ground on issues and methods of research on mathematics textbooks.ZDM Mathematics Education,45(5),765-777.
30. Fan, L.,Zhu, Y.(2007).Representation of problem-solving procedures: A comparative look at China, Singapore, and US mathematics textbooks.Educational Studies in Mathematics,66(1),61-75.
31. Foster, S.(2011).Dominant traditions in international textbook research and revision.Education Inquiry,2(1),5-20.
32. Foster, S. J.(Ed.),Crawford, K. A.(Ed.)(2006).What shall we tell the children? International perspectives on school history textbooks.Greenwich, Connecticut:Information Age Publishing.
33. Fuchs, E.(2011).Current trends in history and social studies textbook research.Journal of International Cooperation and Education,14(2),17-34.
34. Howson, G.(1995).Mathematics textbooks: A comparative study of grade 8 texts.Vancouver, Canada:Pacific Educational Press.
35. Johnsen, E. B.(Ed.)(2001).Textbooks in the Kaleidoscope: A critical survey of literature and research on educational texts.Oslo:Scandinavian University Press.
36. Kuhn, T. S.(1970).The structure of scientific revolution.Chicago, ILL:University of Chicago Press.
37. Lässig, S.(2009).Textbooks and beyond: Educational media in context(s).Journal of Educational Media, Memory and Society,1(1),1-23.
38. Lerner, R.,Nagai, A. K.,Rothman, S.(1995).Molding the citizen: The politics of high school history textbooks.Westport, CT:Praeger.
39. Mikk, J.(2000).Textbook: Research and writing.Frankfurt/M.:Peter Lang GmbH.
40. Nicholls, J.(2003).Methods in school textbook research.International Journal of Historical Learning, Teaching and Research,3(2),11-26.
41. Nicholls, J.(2005).The philosophical underpinnings of school textbook research.Paradigm-Journal of the Textbook Colloquium,3(3),24-35.
42. Nicholls, J.(Ed.)(2006).School history textbooks across cultures: International debates and perspectives.Cambridge, UK:Cambridge University Press.
43. Patton, M. Q.(1990).Qualitative evaluation and research methods.Newbury Park, CA:Sage.
44. Pell, A. W.,Iqbal, H. M.,Sohail, S.(2010).Introducing science experiments to rote-learning classes in Pakistani middle schools.Evaluation & Research in Education,23(3),191-212.
45. Pingel, F.(2010).UNESCO guidebook on textbook research and textbook revision.Paris:UNESCO.
46. Remillard, J. T.(2005).Examining key concepts in research on teachers' use of mathematics curricula.Review of Educational Research,75(2),211-246.
47. Repoussi, M.,Tutiaux-Guillon, N.(2010).New trends in history textbook research: Issues and methodologies toward a school historiography.Journal of Educational Media, Memory, and Society,2(1),154-170.
48. Rezat, S.(2006).A model of textbook use.Proceedings of the 30th annual conference of the international group for the psychology of mathematics education,Prague:
49. Selander, S.(Ed.),Tholey, M.(Ed.)(2002).New educational media and textbooks.Stockholm:Stockholm Institute of Education Press.
50. Shadish, W. R.(Ed.),Cook, T. D.(Ed.),Campbell, D. T.(Ed.)(2002).Experimental and quasi-experimental designs for generalized causal inference.Belmont, CA:Wadsworth Cengage learning.
51. Tashakkori, A.(Ed.),Teddlie, C.(Ed.)(2003).Handbook of mixed methods in social and behavioral research.Thousand Oaks, CA:Sage Publications.
52. Teddlie, C.,Tashakkori, A.(2009).Foundations of mixed methods research.Thousand Oaks, CA:Sage Publications.
53. UNESCO(2005).A comprehensive strategy for textbooks and learning materials.Paris:UNESCO.
54. Weinbrenner, P.(1992).Methodologies of textbook analysis used to date.History and social studies: Methodologies of textbook analysis. Report of the educational research workshop held in Braunschweig (Germany),Amsterdam:
55. Woyshner, C.,Schocker, J. B.(2015).Cultural parallax and content analysis: Images of black women in high school history textbooks.Theory & Research in Social Education,43(4),441-468.
56. 中華民國課程與教學學會編(2003)。教科書之選擇與評鑑。高雄:復文。
57. 朱柔若譯、Neuman, W. L.(2000)。社會研究方法：質化與量化取向。臺北:揚智文化。
58. 周珮儀(2011)。行政院國家科學委員會補助專題研究計畫成果報告行政院國家科學委員會補助專題研究計畫成果報告,高雄:國立中山大學教育研究所。
59. 周珮儀(2002)。國小教師解讀教科書的方式。國立台北師範學院學報，15，115-138。
60. 林生傳(2003)。教育研究法：全方位的統整與分析。臺北:五南。
61. 林清山(2014)。心理與教育統計學。臺北:東華。
62. 施盈廷譯、劉忠博譯、張時健譯、Alvesson, M.、Sköldberg, K.(2011)。反身性方法論：質性研究的新視野。臺北:韋伯。
63. 張芬芬(2012)。半世紀臺灣教科書研究之概況與趨勢（1956-2010）。教育研究月刊，217，5-24。
64. 教育部(2003)。國民中小學九年一貫課程教科書評鑑指標。臺北:教育部。
65. 陳文俊譯、Babbie, E.(2005)。社會科學研究方法。臺北:雙葉。
66. 潘慧玲(2003)。社會科學研究典範的流變。教育研究資訊，11(1)，115-143。
67. 藍順德(2006)。教科書政策與制度。臺北:五南。
68. 藍順德(2010)。教科書意識形態：歷史回顧與實徵分析。臺北:華騰文化。
69. 羅世宏譯、蔡欣怡譯、薛丹琦譯、Bauer, M. W.、Gaskell, G.(2008)。質性資料分析：文本、影像與聲音。臺北:五南。

1. 陳聰賓(2020)。英語教科書批判論述分析－方法論之探究。育達科大學報，48，17-37。
2. 陳美如,郭昭佑,王海燕(2021)。臺灣潛在課程研究回顧與展望。課程與教學，24(1)，113-148。
3. 林君憶(2020)。支持教改實踐的教科書設計：以日本中學校理科教科書中生物單元之論述分析為例。教育研究集刊，66(3)，37-75。
4. 周珮儀,吳舒婷,王雅婷(2019)。國民中學英語教科書全球素養概念內容分析－以PISA 2018全球素養評量認知測驗內容領域為參照架構。教科書研究，12(1)，1-38。