具歷史素養特質的教科書設計原則探討：以德法共同歷史教科書為例

Design Principles of Competence-Based History Textbooks: A Case Study of the German-Franco Joint History Textbook

10.6384/CIQ.201901_22(1).0007

李涵鈺(Han-Yu Li)

歷史素養 ； 德法共構 ； 歷史 ； 教科書 ； 教育批評取徑 ； historical competence ； German-Franco joint construction ； history ； textbook ； educational criticism approach

課程與教學

22卷1期（2019 / 01 / 01）

141 - 167

繁體中文

臺灣的歷史教科書以往偏向以歷史訊息傳輸為主，在課綱理念轉變為素養導向的學習下，有必要探討呼應歷史領綱之教科書設計原則。本研究先研析高中歷史領綱草案所蘊含的理念要素，並以此作為分析規準，運用教育批評取徑，分析德法共同歷史教科書及其與領綱草案的理念要素之契合度，再透過德法歷史教科書之案例及相關文獻討論，抽繹出設計要領，探討教科書中如何體現歷史素養學習的特質。研究歸納出五點教材設計原則：以問題引導課文內容、鑲入一二手史料文獻、作者及出處的現聲與現身、提供歷史學習的鷹架、提供動手做歷史的機會與經驗，期望藉由掌握教科書與學生學習歷史之間的關係，激盪出更多歷史教科書的設計與轉化潛能。

Current history textbooks in Taiwan tend to be based on transmitting historical events and information. As the core idea of the new curriculum guidelines in Taiwan gets changed into a competence-based learning, it is vital to explore the principles designing the textbooks that respond to the history curriculum guidelines. This research examined the ideas drafted for the guidelines for senior high schools, using criteria below for analysis. Through the approach of an educational criticism, this study analyzed the German-Franco joint version history textbook to see how it corresponds to the ideas of history curriculum guidelines. The German-Franco version is also used to discuss how history textbooks could promote the quality of competence-based learning, summarized as several suggestions for designing the history textbooks, like posing-question teaching materials, embedding multiple-sources of texts, authors, and references, scaffolding historical learning, and offering tasks to learn more related history. All of these would ultimately help learners to understand more the relationship between textbooks and history.

1. 宋佩芬,陳俊傑(2015)。國中教科書之中國史敘述變動（1952-2008）。教科書研究，8(1)，1-31。
   連結：
2. 李涵鈺,王立心,陳麗華(2016)。他者的歷史殤痛—兩岸中學社會科教科書中猶太大屠殺議題之敘寫與啟思。教科書研究，9(1)，71-107。
   連結：
3. 林慈淑(2016)。證據概念──從高中歷史課綱到教學問題探析。臺大歷史學報，58，249-286。
   連結：
4. 詹寶菁,何思瞇(2015)。香港、新加坡、馬來西亞中學歷史和社會教科書視野下的臺灣歷史：兼論其對發展國際交流教材的啟示。教科書研究，8(3)，1-36。
   連結：
5. Afflerbach, P.,VanSledright, B.(2001).Hath! Doth! What? Middle graders reading innovative history text.Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy,44(8),696-707.
6. Akyol, H.(1994).Pittsburgh, PA.,University of Pittsburgh.
7. Anderson, L. W.(Ed.),Krathwohls, D. R.(Ed.)(2001).A taxonomy for learning, teaching, and assessing: A revision of Bloom's taxonomy of educational objectives.New York, NY:Longman.
8. Apple, W. M.,Christian-Smith, L. K.(1991).The politics of the textbook.New York, NY:Routledge.
9. Bain, R. B.(2012).Using disciplinary literacy to develop coherence in history teacher education: The clinical rounds project.The History Teacher,45(4),513-532.
10. Braslavsky, C.,Borges, C.,Simao, M. S.,Truong, N.(2006).Historical competence as a key to promote democracy.School knowledge in comparative and historical perspective: Changing curriculum in primary and secondary education,Hong Kong:
11. Defrance, C.,Pfeil, U.(2013).Symbol or reality? The background, implementation and development of the Franco-German history textbook.History education and post-conflict reconciliation,London, UK:
12. Eisner, E. W.(1998).The enlightened eye: Qualitative inquiry and the enhancement of educational practice.Upper Saddle River, NJ:Prentice Hall.
13. Eisner, E. W.(1987).Why the textbook influences curriculum.Curriculum Review,26(1),11-13.
14. Eisner, E. W.(2002).The educational imagination: On the design and evaluation of school programs.Upper Saddle River, NJ:Prentice Hall.
15. Foster, S.(2011).Dominant traditions in international textbook research and revision.Education Inquiry,2(1),5-20.
16. Gambrell, L. B.(Ed.),Almasi, J. F.(Ed.)(1996).Lively discussions! fostering engaged reading.Newark, DE:International Reading Association.
17. Goodlad, J. I.(Ed.)(1979).Curriculum inquiry: The study of curriculum practice.New York, NY:McGraw-Hill.
18. Hartman, D. K.(1991).Illinois,University of Illinois.
19. Haydn, T.,Stephen, A.,Arthur, J.,Hunt, M.(2015).Learning to teach history in the secondary school: A companion to school experience.London, UK:Routledge.
20. Henri, D.,Quintrec, G. L.,Geiss, P.(2008).Histoire/Geschichte: Europa und die Welt vom Wiener Kongress bis 1945.Stuttgart, Germany:Ernst Klett Verlag.
21. Horsley, M.,Walker, R.(2005).Textbook pedagogy: A sociocultural analysis.Has past passed? Textbooks and educational media for the 21st century,Stockholm, Sweden:
22. Kamil, M. Li(Ed.),Pearson, P. D.(Ed.),Moje, E. B.(Ed.),Afflerbach, P. P.(Ed.)(2011).Handbook of reading research.New York, NY:Routledge.
23. Körber, A. (2009). The Franco German history textbook from the perspective of specialist didactics. Retrieved from http://www.academia.edu/17021912/The_Franco-German_history_textbook_from_the_perspective_of_specialist_didactics
24. Lee, P.(2005).Historical literacy: Theory and research.International Journal of Historical Learning, Teaching and Research,5(1),29-40.
25. MacPhee, D. A.,Whitecotton, E.(2011).Bringing the "social" back to social studies: Literacy strategies as tools for understanding history.The Social Studies,102,263-267.
26. Mandell, N.,Malone, B.(2007).Thinking like a historian: Rethinking history instruction.Danvers, MA:Wisconsin Historical Society Press.
27. Merriam-Webster. (2017). Literate. Retrieved from https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/literate
28. Monte-Sano, C.,De La Paz, S.,Felton, M.(2014).Reading, thinking, and writing about history.New York, NY:Teacher College Press.
29. Nokes, J.(2013).Building students’ historical literacies: Learning to read and reason with historical texts and evidence.New York, NY:Routledge.
30. Nokes, J. D.,Dole, J. A.,Hacker, D. J.(2007).Teaching high school students to use heuristics while reading historical texts.Journal of Educational Psychology,99(3),1-13.
31. OECD(2016).Global competency for an inclusive world.Paris, France:OECD.
32. Paxton, R. J.(1999).A deafening silence: History textbooks and the students who read them.Review of Educational Research,69(3),315-339.
33. Paxton, R. J.(2002).The influence of author visibility on high school students solving a historical problem.Cognition and Instruction,20(2),197-248.
34. Perfetti, C. A.,Britt, M. A.,Rouet, J.-F.,Georgi, M. C.,Mason, R. A.(1994).How students use texts to learn and reason about historical uncertainty.Cognitive and instructional process in history and the social science,Mahwah, NJ:
35. Pingel, F.(2010).Challenging the nation state: Conflict mediation through textbook revision.History reconciliation: In northeast and southeast Asia,London, UK:
36. Pintrich, P. P.,Mayer, R. E.,Wittrock, M.(2001).The knowledge dimension.A taxonomy for learning, teaching, and assessing: A revision of Bloom's taxonomy of educational objectives,New York, NY:
37. Pohl, K. H.(2011).The German-Polish history textbook – Wishful thinking or realistic project?.International Workshop of Multilateral Dialogue on History and Textbooks: East Asia, Europe and the Middle East,Tokyo:
38. Reichenberg, M.,Skjelbred, D.(2010)."Critical thinking" and causality in history teaching material: An analysis of how the French Revolution is presented in a Norwegian and a Swedish history textbook for junior high school.Opening the mind or drawing boundaries? History texts in Nordic schools,Göttingen, Germany:
39. Rodrigo, M. J.(1994).Discussion of chapters 10-12: Promoting narrative literacy and historical literacy.Cognitive and instructional process in history and the social sciences,Mahwah, NJ:
40. Sawyer, R. K.(Ed.)(2014).The Cambridge handbook of learning science.New York, NY:Cambridge University Press.
41. Smagorinsky, P.,Smith, M. W.(1992).The nature of knowledge in composition and literacy understanding.Review of Educational Research,63,279-305.
42. Stahl, S. A.,Hynd, C. R.,Glynn, S. M.,Carr, M.(1995).Beyond reading to learn: Developing content and disciplinary knowledge through texts.Developing engaged readers in school and home communities,New York, NY:
43. Stearns, P. N.(Ed.),Seixas, P.(Ed.),Wineburg, S.(Ed.)(2000).Knowing, teaching, and learning history.New York, NY:New York University Press.
44. von Carlowitz, L.(2010).Post-war reconciliation through joint textbook revision: The case of Franco-German and Polish-German history books.Legitimation and stability of political systems,Nijmegen, Netherlands:
45. Weimer, M.(2002).Learner-centered teaching.New York, NY:JOSSEY-BASS.
46. Wineburg, S.(2001).Historical thinking and other unnatural acts.Philadelphia, PA:Temple University Press.
47. 何思瞇,何怡君(2012)。高中歷史教科書統編本的「臺灣書寫」（1953-1998）。教育研究月刊，217，38-51。
48. 李子建,黃顯華(2002).課程：範式,取向和設計.香港新界:香港中文大學出版社.
49. 李坤崇(2009).認知情意技能教育目標分類及其在評量的應用.臺北市:高等教育.
50. 谷瑞勉（譯）,Gambrell, L. B.,Almasi, J. F.(2004).鮮活的討論！培養專注的閱讀.臺北市:心理.
51. 國家教育研究院（2018）。十二年國民基本教育課程綱要社會領域草案。取自https://www.naer.edu.tw/ezfiles/0/1000/attach/88/pta_15989_6464654_14791.pdf
52. 張一蕃(1997)。資訊科技對人文、社會的衝擊與影響資訊科技對人文、社會的衝擊與影響,中央研究院資訊科學研究所。
53. 張茂桂（2017 年 7 月 18 日）。談社會領綱：為什麼要把中國史放在「東亞脈絡」中來理解？親子天下。取自 https://flipedu.parenting.com.tw/article/3675
54. 張霄亭（譯）,Foshay, W. R.,Silber, K.H.,Stelnicki, M. B.(2004).教材設計：原理與實務.臺北市:雙葉書廊.
55. 教育部（2014）。十二年國民基本教育課程綱要總綱。臺北市：教育部。
56. 陳伯璋,張新仁,蔡清田,潘慧玲(2007)。行政院國家科學委員會專題研究成果報告行政院國家科學委員會專題研究成果報告,臺南市:致遠管理學院教育研究所。
57. 甄曉蘭（編）,楊國揚（編）(2016).歷史教育與和平：教材、教學的反思與突破.新北市:國家教育研究院.
58. 歐用生(2003)。誰能不在乎課程理論？教師課程理論的覺醒。教育資料集刊，28，1-15。
59. 蔡清田(2014).國民核心素養：十二年國教課程改革的 DNA.臺北市:高等教育.
60. 剣持久木、小菅信子、リオナルバビッチ(2009)。歴史認識共有の地平ーー独法共通教科書と日中韓の試み。日本東京:明石書店。

1. 黃春木(2021)。從高中「中國史」課綱修訂爭議反思歷史課綱修訂與展望。清華教育學報，38(1)，73-105。
2. 李涵鈺(2021)。德法共同歷史教科書對第二次世界大戰的記憶：倫理面向的探討。課程與教學，24(2)，123-151。