透視官方知識之生成－高中「生活科技」教科書政治脈絡分析

Examining the Formation of Official Knowledge: A Contextual Analysis of the Politics of High School ＂Living Technology＂ Textbooks

10.3966/10288708201206004

王雅玄(Ya-Hsuan Wang)

生活科技 ； 官方知識 ； 教科書政治 ； 課程變革 ； Living Technology ； official knowledge ； textbook politics ； curriculum reform

教育研究集刊

58:2期（2012 / 06 / 30）

109 - 145

繁體中文

本研究從課程綱要轉化為課程文本的教科書政治中，透視官方知識的生成。為釐清政策形塑背後各種利益團體的微觀政治，本研究以多重方法檢視高中生活科技新課程綱要對不同對象的意義，包括訪談四大出版社教科書編寫者與經理八位、分析國立編譯館教科書審查意見55件、電話調查全國高中教科書選用209所，分析教科書編寫、審查與選擇政治。歸納教科書編審選之制度外政治有立委與企業界，制度內政治有教科書政策、國立編譯館、出版社、學校、學科專家、教師。受制於眾多政治性因素，專家學者與出版社妥協於制度外力量，學校教師終究淪為學科邊緣化的幕後推手。總結此次生活科技的課程變革，仍是由上而下的威權建構形式，並未彰顯解構威權與挑戰菁英的草根改革。臺灣科技教育仍移植美國模式與知識建構的威權運作，缺少自己的本質與主動性。

This research examined the formation of official knowledge through textbook politics, which transformed curriculum guidelines into curriculum texts. In order to clarify the micro-politics of different interest groups hidden behind policy formation, this research employed multiple methods to examine what the new curriculum guidelines of high school Living Technology meant to different interest groups. The methods included individual interviews with 8 textbook writers and managers from 4 major publishers, document analyses of 55 textbook reviews by the National Institute for Compilation and Translation (NICT), and telephone surveys of textbook feedback from 209 high schools across Taiwan. The goal was to shed light on the politics of textbook writing, reviewing, and selection. The research data indicated that the system of textbook writing, reviewing, and selection was shaped by both extra-institutional forces, such as those from legislators and private industries, and institutional forces, such as those from textbook policies, NICT, publishers, schools, experts, and teachers. Under the influence of several political factors, however, experts, scholars, and publishers bowed to extra-institutional forces, which in the end relegated school teachers to an invisible and marginalized force behind the formation of Living Technology. In conclusion, the current Living Technology curriculum reform still embodied a top-down mode of power construction and did not demonstrate the bottom-up plans to deconstruct authority and challenge those at the top. In Taiwan, technology education remained a reproduced version of its American counterpart, in which knowledge construction was operated in an authoritative way. Subjectivity and spontaneity were still missing from Taiwanese technology education.

1. 王雅玄(2008)。CDA方法論的教科書應用─兼論其解構與重建角色。教育學刊，30，61-100。
   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：
4. 李隆盛、林坤誼、莊善媛(2006)。高中生活科技新課程的工程趨向。課程與教學季刊，9(1)，51-60。
   連結：
5. 張佳琳(2003)。教育改革的潛在課程分析─政治社會學觀點論述。課程與教學季刊，6(4)，19-35。
   連結：
6. 陳幸仁(2008)。學校組織行為之微觀政治探究。教育理論與實踐學刊，17，1-25。
   連結：
7. 黃乃熒、張炳煌(2007)。高中教師對於高中課程學科中心推動新課成策略之意見的調查研究。師大學報：教育類，52(3)，19-24。
   連結：
8. 譚光鼎、康瀚文(2006)。論九五高中課程綱要改革─意識形態與課程的辯證關係。課程與教學季刊，9(1)，19-31。
   連結：
9. 教育部高中課程發展委員會 (2007)。高中新課程修定理念。教育部高中課程發展委員會討論附件。臺北市：作者 [Ministry of Education High School Curriculum Development Committee (2007). The ideas of revising high school new curriculum. Ministry of Education High School Curriculum Development Committee Appendix. Taipei, Taiwan: Author]。
10. 教育部高級中學生活科技學科中心 (2005)。高中生活科技 Q&A手冊。2007年12月26日，取自 http://203.64.161.12/1d.htm [Ministry of Education High School Life Science and Technology Centers (2005). High School Life Technology Q&A manual. Retrieved December 26, 2007, from http://203.64.161.12/1d.htm]
11. Altbach, P. G.(Ed.)(1991).Textbooks in American society: Politics, policy, and pedagogy.Albany, MA:State University of New York Press.
12. Apple, M. W.(2000).Official knowledge: Democratic education in a conservation age.New York:Routledge.
13. Apple, M. W.(1996).Power, Meaning and identity: Critical sociology of education in the United States.British Journal of Education,17(2),125-144.
14. Apple, M. W.(1979).Ideology and curriculum.London, UK:Routledge.
15. Apple, M. W.(Ed.),Christian-Smith, L. K.(Ed.)(1991).The Politics of the Textbook.New York:Routledge.
16. Bolman, L. G.,Deal, T. E.(1997).Reframing organizations: Artstry, choice, and leadership.San Francisco, CA:Jossey-Bass.
17. Delfattore, J.(1992).What Johnny shouldn't read: Textbook censorship in America.New Haven, CT:Yale University Press.
18. Early, M. J.(Ed.),Rehage, K. J.(Ed.)(1999).Issues in curriculum: A selection of chapters from past NSSE yearbook, part Ⅱ.Chicago:University of Chicago Press.
19. Eggleston, J.(1977).The sociology of the school curriculum.London, UK:Routledge & Kegan Paul.
20. Fairclough, N.(1995).Media discourse.London, UK:Edward Arnold.
21. Fowler, R.(1991).Language in the news: Discourse and ideology in the press.London, UK:Routledge.
22. Giddens, A.(1984).The constitution of society: Outline of the theory of structuration.Cambridge, UK:Polity Press.
23. Harvey, L.(1990).Critical social research.London, UK:Unwin Hyman.
24. Herlihy, J. G.(Ed.),Herlihy, M. T.(Ed.)(1992).The Textbook controversy: Issues, aspects, and perspectives.Norwood, NY:Ablex.
25. Johnsen, E. B.(1993).Textbooks in the Kaleidoscope: A critical survey of literature and research on education texts.New York:Oxford University Press.
26. Kahne, J.(1995).Revisiting the eight-year study and rethinking the focus of educational policy analysis.Educational Policy,9(1),4-23.
27. Spring, J.(1998).Conflict of interests: The politics of American education.Boston, MA:McGraw-Hill.
28. The President and Fellows of Harvard College(2007).Report of the task force on general education.Cambridge, MA:Faculty of Arts and Sciences, Harvard University.
29. Wirt, F. M.,Kirst, M. W.(1992).The Politics of education: Schools in conflict.Berkeley, CA:McCutchan.
30. 朱益賢(2003)。新修訂高中生活科技課程綱要草案的規劃理念與特色。生活科技教育月刊，36(7)，11-15。
31. 李坤崇、林堂馨(2003)。高中新課程發展及其與舊課程總綱之比較。教育研究集刊，115，40-57。
32. 胡哲生、毛禮星(2005)。產業網錄觀點下的教科書出版業經營策略分析。國立編譯館刊，33(4)，2-17。
33. 陳幸仁(2007)。微觀政治學：一個學校行政的新興研究領域。教育行政與評鑑學刊，3，67-86。
34. 曾國鴻、魏炎順(2003)。回應文化現象的科技教育新思維。生活科技教育月刊，36(5)，2-16。

1. 王雅玄(2012)。書評：Beverlee Jobrack《教科書專制 ─一個局內人揭露教材如何暗中破壞改革》。教科書研究，5(2)，153-164。
2. 王雅玄(2016)。「批判教科書研究」方法論探究。課程與教學，19(3)，27-54。