Bernstein教育論述分析──以高中國文課綱的「文白之爭」為例

• Main Author: 劉星倫
• Other Authors: 卯靜儒
• Format: Others
• Language: zh-TW
• Published: 2014
• Online Access: http://ndltd.ncl.edu.tw/handle/42712512907824497427

碩士 === 國立臺灣師範大學 === 教育學系 === 102 === The purpose of this paper is to explore high school Chinese Literature Curriculum Guideline as official pedagogic discourse and its recontextualizing rule. Here B. Bernstein’s pedagogic discourse theory is applied as analyzing frames to view the controversies over it. The two main topics in the thesis is about ‘what consciousness?’ and ‘whose ruler?’ in recontextualizing process of Chinese Literature Curriculum Guideline. To the former question, there are three different contents of pedagogic discourses. First is an official pedagogic discourse(OPD) constructed by official organization and its convener under MOE. The other two are followed by ‘for’ and ‘against’ OPD in pedagogic recontextualizing fields (PRF). OPD contended that the proportion of modern Chinese language and literature in curriculum should be elevated. While there are some social groups and actors against that stand, arguing that heightening classic Chinese language and literature could enhance language competences and skills in Chinese learning. What else, they claim classic Chinese preserves the nation’s cultural essence so it shall be inherited and students should be educated. Actors and groups in PRF who agree upon official’s points of view, also believe that to cut down Chinese classics’ leaning and increase the ration of modern Chinese and Taiwanese Literature in curriculum can help build up students’ national identity with Taiwan. According to the research findings above, they conclude that the ideology about national imaginations and identities are the regulative discourse (RD) dominating the instructional discourses (ID) – the proportion of classic and modern Chinese. With such findings, researchers should pay attention to the absence of ‘theories of instruction’, which is deemed as an important RD in Bernstein’s viewpoint.