豈是「一本」能了？－教科書概念的重建

Is 'One-Guideline-One-Version' Policy a Panacea? -Reconceptualization of 'Textbook'

10.6481/JTR.200806.0029

周淑卿(Shu-Ching Chou)

教科書與課程 ； 一綱多本政策 ； 教科書使用 ； textbooks and curriculum ； policy of one-guideline-multiple-versions ； use of textbooks

教科書研究

1卷1期（2008 / 06 / 15）

29 - 47

繁體中文

國民中小學實施教科書審定制以來，一綱多本的政策被指為非但未達成原有的理想，反而徒生困擾。但細究諸多問題，原因多不出於審定制本身，而是審定制執行過程未臻完善，或是其他範疇問題的連帶歸咎。若試圖代之以一綱一本措施，則不僅未能解決問題，反而製造問題。之所以出現一本或多本的爭論，起因於大眾對教科書的內容及功能持「過時的」期望。學習原本即不應囿限於一本教科書裡；欲導引革新的課程與教學，教科書的概念應予重構。本文指出：1.現行型態的教科書應作為重要概念與學習訊息的索引，作為連結其他學習資源的起點，所以多種類的「學校用書」應當取代單一的「教科書」概念；2.教科書不是僅供學生閱讀的文本，而應是師生互動的中介；3.教科書應以多樣化的教材樣貌出現—它可以是網路學習資源、視聽媒材和各種工作單的組合。而這些多樣的教材卻能統合在教學者清晰的課程架構中，讓學習經驗既多元又有系統性。面對複雜多變的社會，一本教科書無法養成學生的真實能力。一本或多本的議題事實上是個無謂的爭論。

The policy of one-guideline-multiple-versions is built on the principle of deregulation, the baseline of educational reform in Taiwan over the past decade, but it has been criticized since its implementation. However, the problems resulted from the implementation of the policy more than the policy itself. Under the Grades 1-9 Curriculum Guidelines, curriculum articulation and entrance exams are thought to be the main problems of the textbook policy. To solve these problems, Taipei county and Taipei city governments plan to implement a 'one-version' policy. There are plenty of arguments from different camps about textbook policy, but unless out-dated concepts about textbooks are revised, the debate will be pointless. This article first analyzes the positive and negative opinions of the one-guideline-multiple-versions policy, and points out some fallacies in ‘one-version' policy, then argues for the reconceptualization of textbooks-textbooks could be various forms of school books, the textbook is not only the text for reading, and the textbook doesn't have to be a traditional well-organized student book. How could one textbook guide students to know the fast-changing world or enhance the development of the student mind? Only when the concept of 'textbook' is revised, will the meaningless dispute about one or multiple versions end, and alternative textbooks developed.

1. 鄧鈞文(2003)。教科書自由化及其問題分析。課程與教學季刊，6(1)，27-42。
   連結：
2. 臺北縣推行一綱一本教科書公聽會會議紀錄
3. 臺北縣推行一綱一本教科書公聽會說明資料
4. Alverman, D.(1987).The role of textbooks in teachers' interactive decision making.Reading Research and Instruction,26,115-127.
5. Amstrong, J.,Bray, J.(1986).How can we improve textbook.ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 292 208.
6. Collopy, R.(2003).Curriculum materials as a professional tool: How a mathematics textbook affected two teachers' learning.The .Elementary School Journal,103(3),287-311.
7. Esty, E.｜J. Y. Cole, (Eds.),T. C. Sticht (Eds.)(1979).Teaching with elementary mathematics textbooks.The textbook in American society. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 225 185).
8. Kerr, S. T.,D. L. Elliott(Eds.),A. Woodward (Eds.)(1990).Textbooks and schooling in the United States-Eighty-nintb yearbook of The National Society for The Study of Education.Chicago:NSSE.
9. McFall, R.(2005).Electronic textbooks that transform how textbooks are used.The Electronic Library,23(1),72-81.
10. Ornstein, A. C.(1994).The textbook-driven curriculum.The Peabody Journal of Education,69(3),70-85.
11. Pepin, B.,Haggarty, L.(2000).Matbematics textbooks and their use in English, French and German Classrooms: A way to undrrstand teaching and learning cultnres.ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 444 848.
12. Porter, A. C.,J Y Cole(Eds.),T. C. Sticht (Eds.)(1979).Elementary mathematics textbooks.The textbook in American society. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 225 185).
13. Trotter, A.(2007).Thought textbook would all be gone by now? Well, Think again.Education Week,27(4),1-2.
14. Waters, JK.(2007).Out of print.T H. E.Journal,34(5),31-35.
15. Woodard, A. (Eds.),Elliott, D. L. (Eds.)(1996).Textbooks and schooling in the United States.Chicago:The National Society for the Study of Education.
16. Wright, I.(1996).Critically thinking about the textbook.ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 399 880.
17. Zahorik, J. A.(1991).Teaching style and textbooks.Teaching and Teacher Education,7(2),185-196.
18. 周淑卿(2003)。國立編譯館館刊。
19. 周淑卿、中華民國課程與教學學會主編(2003)。教科書之選擇與評鑑。高雄市:復文。
20. 邱婉婷(2005)。碩士論文(碩士論文)。嘉義市，國立嘉義大學國民教育研究所。
21. 洪若烈(2005)。國小教師之教科書使用方式及其影響因素之探討。國教學報，15，175-192。
22. 國教學報(2005)。從行政角度談國中小－綱多本之發展。研習資訊，22(3)，18-36。
23. 黃光雄、歐用生、陳伯璋、材佩镟(2007)。國民中學「一綱多本」教科書政策實施之研究。臺北市:教材研究發展學會。
24. 歐用生(2006)。臺灣教科書政策的批判論述分析。當代教育研究，14(2)，1-26。
25. 教科書「一綱多本」與「一綱一本」問題之公聽會側記
26. 中國時報(2008/01/15)
27. 藍順德(2006)。教科書政策與制度。臺北市:五南。

1. 郭政賢(2016)。大臺南地區國民小學自然科教師使用電子教科書之喜好因素探討--以康軒出版社為例。長榮大學經營管理研究所學位論文。2016。1-148。