| Summary: | 碩士 === 國立臺南大學 === 教育經營與管理研究所 === 93 === Foucault criticized the traditional historian who constructed a lineal and holistic view of history based on the assumption of the ‘temporal continuity’. Linear successions, which for so long had been the object of historical research, have given way to discoveries in depth. In the book, The Archaeology of Knowledge, Foucault said that what he strove to do was suspending the unities of history, and he had thoroughgoing scepticism about such notions as ‘continuity’, ‘origin’, ‘development’ and ‘evolution’.
Based on this book and other related articles, the study attempts to illustrate the thought of archeology. With a view of Foucault’s archaeology, the study aimed at exploring the opening policy on junior high and elementary school textbook. Through the study we find that the textbook opening policy, just as Foucault’s viewpoint, is discontinuity.
First, the study analyzes the works and critiques of Foucault throughout his life in order to explicate Foucault’s “The archaeology of knowledge”.
Second, using the methodology of archaeology, we examine the ‘discontinuity’ of the textbook opening policy. The study explores and describes the textbook events from the ‘interstices’ of the policy to present the practice of the discourses.
Finally, based on the conclusions drawn from the discussion above, we reflect on the application of knowledge archaeology on educational discourse. The reflection of the study is as the following:
1. The archaeological concern makes us understand that the myth of linear progress embedded in current educational policy should be abandoned. We find that educational events are often occasional cases.
2. Archaeological methods illuminate the exploration of the history of educational policy with the concept of “space” and help us describe the discourse in terms of space.
3. Dismissing the notions of ‘evolution’ and ‘development’, we should pay attention to the ‘discontinuity’ of the educational policy.
4. Educational policy should be examined more critically, and we shouldn’t fully trust in the rationality of the educational policy.
5. We should emphasize the institutional position from which the subject makes his discourse and be concerned about the disadvantaged groups’ discourses about education.
6. When discussing educational issues, we should consider the incompletion and multiple interpretive possibilities of discourses. Never take the discourses as trustworthy without close examination.
|
|---|
