國中基礎學科教科書編審者對素養導向教科書設計之觀點與實踐

Viewpoints and Practices of Secondary School Core Subject Textbook Editors and Reviewers in Competence-Based Textbook Design

10.6481/JTR.202404_17(1).03

周淑卿(Shu-Ching Chou)；朱美珍(Mei-Chen Chu)；賴協志(Hsieh-Chih Lai)

素養導向教科書 ； 教科書設計 ； 教科書審查 ； 國中基礎學科 ； competence-based textbooks ； textbook design ； textbook review ； core subjects in secondary schools

教科書研究

17卷1期（2024 / 04 / 15）

67 - 109

繁體中文;英文

素養導向教學應連結生活情境與學生經驗，引發學生參與學習歷程，以利統合知識、能力與態度，進一步實踐應用。該如何設計教科書以協助素養教學，是十二年國教課程改革的重要課題。基於此，本研究採用問卷調查法，探究國中基礎學科教科書編審者對素養導向教科書設計的重視和表現程度。主要研究發現如下：（一）全體編審者對教科書設計的重視度和表現度為「知識系統性＞學習支持性＞主動性＞探究性＞實踐性」。（二）審查者重視且表現度高，編輯者卻不重視且表現度低的指標，多屬於主動性、探究性面向；編輯者重視且表現度高，審查者卻不重視且表現度低的項目，多屬於知識系統性、學習支持性。（三）全體編、審者優先改進的方向在於探究性。（四）文史科及數理科編審者在「探究性、實踐性」的表現較不足；但數理科比文史科重視探究性。

Competence-based teaching focuses on connecting real-life situations and student experiences and encouraging active participation in learning to thereby facilitate the integration of knowledge, skills, and attitudes, and promote practical application. Designing competence-based textbooks is a crucial aspect of the 12-year national education curriculum reform. This study focused on the core subjects taught in secondary schools and conducted a questionnaire survey to assess the attention level and performance of textbook editors and reviewers with respect to designing competence-based textbooks and identifying items for improvement. The main findings are as follows. 1. All surveyed editors and reviewers emphasized the following dimensions of textbook: knowledge system > learning support > initiative > inquiry > practice. 2. Several indicators within the dimensions of initiative and inquiry were strongly emphasized and competently executed by the reviewers but not by the editors. By contrast, the indicators that were strongly emphasized and competently executed by the editors but not by the reviewers mostly belonged to the dimensions of knowledge system and learning support. 3. The editors and reviewers both prioritized the dimension of inquiry for improvements. 4. In the fields of liberal arts, mathematics, and science, the editors and reviewers performed poorly in the dimensions of inquiry and practicality. Furthermore, inquiry was prioritized more in mathematics and science than in liberal arts subjects.