Loading...
|
Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item:
https://nccur.lib.nccu.edu.tw/handle/140.119/83941
|
| Title: | 教科書審查規準建構之研究－以九年一貫課程社會學習領域為例 |
| Authors: | 賴光真 |
| Contributors: | 黃炳煌
秦夢群
賴光真 |
| Keywords: | 審查規準
教科書
審查
社會科
九年一貫課程
Evaluation criteria
Textbook
Evaluation
Social studies |
| Date: | 2000 |
| Issue Date: | 2016-04-01 17:17:18 (UTC+8) |
| Abstract: | 鑑於教科書審查規準的建構在建構過程、方法模式、規準結構及規準內容等各方面均未臻理想，本研究透過文獻分析與問卷調查等方法，針對教科書審查規準的建構問題進行研究。除探討教科書審查規準的定義、功能、特質、發展模式等相關概念外，更著重於建構原則的歸納；此外，並以九年一貫課程社會學習領域教科書審查規準為例進行實際建構。研究之主要目的在於為教科書審查規準的建構，奠定理論性的與實證性的基礎，並提出研究所得供各界做為訂定、修訂或研究審查規準之參考。
經由文獻探討，本研究認為審查的實施在我國現階段的教科書發展上具有正當性與必要性，教科書審查規準之主要功能在於可以積極性地輔助審查的執行以及消極性地管制約束審查者，次要功能則是在於可以做為出版業者編輯研發教科書的參照指標，此外亦可發揮做為與公眾對話的共同語言、做為師資培訓參考教材等衍生功能。審查規準的建構，在鉅觀層面的發展模式上，應包括規準建構規劃、規準建構、規準實施、規準檢討評鑑等四大要素，以及相關的規準改革作為與回饋程序；其微觀層面的建構程序，則應包括建構定向、規準設計、規準妥適性驗證、規準修訂、規準定案等步驟及相關的回饋線。在鉅觀與微觀層面的發展與建構模式下，教科書審查規準的建構成為一個循環不斷的動態發展歷程。審查規準的建構及其妥適性的檢核，必須把握或遵循一些技術性與實質性的原則，計有四類十三項。第一類為「與規準建構程序相關的原則」，包括：適當程序原則、專業共議原則；第二類為「與規準基本定位相關的原則」，包括：分科建構原則、審查專用原則、質性處理原則；第三類為「與規準結構相關的原則」，包括：程序區隔原則、必要規準原則；第四類為「與規準內容相關的原則」，包括：廣泛周延原則、適切水準原則、效度原則、具體明確原則、內在標準原則、項目獨立原則等。如果做為事後檢核規準妥適性之用時，則尚應檢視其是否能發揮其預期的功能。
為建構九年一貫課程社會學習領域教科書審查規準，本研究透過教科書角色與功能、課程設計、及閱讀理解等相關研究的啟示，歸納出內容選材、組織結構、教學設計、圖文傳達、物理產製、研發過程等六大項，做為審查規準頂層架構的六個構面，再進一步解析各構面的細部架構。整個規準架構與既有的相關審查或評鑑規準做對照，具有相當的普效性與涵括能力，用以做為教科書審查規準之架構，應是合理而可行的。惟為實際使用，此一理論架構必須一合理的審查作業進程做階段區隔，並以手冊形式詳細闡述各規準項目的定義與審查方法，提供審查人員做為共同的背景知識與評鑑基礎。
為驗證所歸納之審查規準建構原則的妥適性，以及所建構之九年一貫課程社會學習領域教科書審查規準的妥適性，本研究問卷調查方式，諮詢各類專家學者、教師、出版業者，以及文字編輯、美術編輯、印刷、媒體等相關專業人員之意見。諮詢結果發現，在建構原則妥適性方面，其中適當程序原則、專業共議原則、分科建構原則、審查專用原則、程序區隔原則、適切水準原則、效度原則、具體明確原則、內在標準原則、項目獨立原則等建構原則並無太大爭議，至於質性處理原則、必要規準原則、廣泛周延原則等方面，部分諮詢對象抱持不同看法，認為審查規準的建構可以考慮併用質性與量性方式來處理審查結果，可以考慮區分必要規準與一般規準，並可以將部分教科書屬性、成分與研發過程等改由其他評鑑進行處理。基於審查的特質與目的，本研究仍建議應力求維持並遵循上述建構原則，若欲放鬆，則必須有良好的配套措施。
至於九年一貫課程社會學習領域教科書審查規準的妥適性，本研究係依據教科書審查規準建構原則進行檢核。在與規準建構程序、規準基本定位、規準結構相關的原則等方面，所建構的審查規準基本上均能符合。至於與規準內容相關的原則以及是否能發揮預期功能等方面，諮詢對象多半肯定所建構的審查規準能夠符合各該項建構原則，但提出有部分的修訂意見。
最後依據文獻分析的結果與實證研究的發現，本研究針對教科書審查規準的應用、未來建構、未來相關研究等，分別提出若干建議。
Since there is still some unsatisfactory parts on the constructive process, methodology, structures and contents of screen-and-approval criteria(SAC) of textbooks, this study tries to explore these issues through literature analysis and questionnaire survey. The definition, functions, property, develop-and-construct model and constructive principles of SAC are discussed, and tries to construct SAC for social studies textbook of 1-9 curriculum guideline of compulsory education system is tried. The main purpose of this study is to establish the theoretical and empirical basis for the construction of SAC, and to offer reference for people who is going to construct SAC, modify SAC, or inquire the issues of the construction of SAC in future.
The screen-and-approval process of textbook is indispensable to the development of qualified textbooks in Taiwan. The major function of SAC is to assist and to restrain the screen-and-approval process, moreover it can guide the publishers to develop and publish qualified textbooks. SAC can also be a common conversation language between public and screen-and-approval institution, and be a reference material for the teachers who are being training. On the macro-dimension, the development model of SAC should include four elements : planning, constructing, implementing, and evaluating. On the micro-dimension, the construction process of SAC should follow three steps: to decide the approach of the construction of SAC, to design SAC, and to verify the validity of SAC. Through the model and process described above, the construction of SAC forms a dynamic circulating process. For the construction of and the appropriateness verification of SAC, there are 13 principles which can divide into 4 categories that must follow. The first category includes two principles that relate to constructive process that includes: 1.the construction of SAC must arrange some adaptive processes; 2.the construction of SAC must invite some experts and stakeholders to participate. The second category includes three principles that relate to constructive approach : 3.construct a subject-oriented SAC, not a generic type one; 4. construct SAC for screen-and-approval use only, not for all kinds of textbook evaluations; 5.the result of screen-and-approval must display in quality mode. The third category includes two principles that relate to the structure of SAC : 6.SAC must separate to some sections according to the stages of the screen-and-approval process; 7.all SAC must be uncompromising criteria. The fourth category includes six principles that relate to the content of SAC that includes: 8. SAC must contains all criteria that textbook screen-and-approval need to consider; 9.the standard of passing of each SAC must proper; 10.all SAC must be relevant to textbook quality and effectiveness; 11.the implication of each SAC must concrete and clear; 12. SAC must exclude the criteria that relate to practical effectiveness of textbooks; 13.all SAC must exclusive mutually. For the appropriateness verification of SAC, it is necessary to check whether the SAC can function as to assist and to restrain the screen-and-approval process, and to guide the publishers to develop and publish qualified textbooks.
In order to construct SAC of social studies textbooks of 1-9 curriculum guideline of compulsory education system, the structure of textbook SAC is established through the discussion or research about the role and function of textbook, curriculum design, and reading comprehension. The upper structure of SAC are constituted by 6 dimensions: content selection, organization structure, instructional design, communicate effectiveness of text and illustrations and tables, physical making-up, and R & D process. Each dimensions includes many criteria items. For practical application, the theoretical structure of SAC should separate to three sections: the complication planning of textbook series, the main components of individual textbook, and the other components of individual textbook. Furthermore, it is necessary to elaborate the definition and evaluative method of each SAC in a booklet, so as to be the background knowledge and evaluation basis for people who screen-and-approval textbooks.
This study tries to verify the appropriateness of the constructive principles and SAC of social studies textbooks through consults several professors, teachers, publishers and somespecialists in edition, graphic arts, typography, and courseware. For the appropriateness of constructive principles, most of them are agreed by consultants, but those three principles that the result of screen-and-approval must display in quality mode, all SAC items must to be uncompromising criteria, SAC must contains all criteria that textbook screen-and-approval need to consider, leave some rooms for arguing. Some consultants suggest the result of screen-and-approval can display in both qualitative and quantitative mode, some items of SAC can meet selectively, and some items of SAC are criteria that ought to consider in other situation of textbook evaluation. For the sake of the nature and goal of textbook screen-and-approval, it is suggested tend to persist the three principles above. If the construction of SAC don`t follow those three principles, some remedies are needed.
For the appropriateness of SAC of social studies textbooks of 1-9 curriculum guideline, it can meet the constructive principles which are relevant to constructive process, approach, and structure. Most consultants agree that the SAC can meet those constructive principles which are relevant to the content and can perform the expectative functions, but some suggestions for revision are offered.
Consequently, with the outcomes of literature analysis and the findings of empirical research, some recommendations for the application, construction, research of SAC are made. |
| Reference: | 方稚芳(民79a):大韓民國現行中小學教科用書的編審制度。國立編譯館通訊，3卷4期，13-18頁。
方稚芳(民79b):日本中小學教科書編審制度的現況。國立編譯館通訊，4卷1期，22-28頁。
李子建、黃顯華(民85):課程-範式、取向和設計。香港:中文大學出出版社。
林文瑛(民85):對國民小學教科書評鑑之一般標準的一些意見。發表於國立臺北師範學院、中華民國教材研究發展學會主辦:教育論壇
壇-國小教科書之評鑑(一)。5月22日，臺北市:國立臺北師範學院。
林君儀(民87):中美小學教科書審查制度與選用方式之比較研究。暨南大學比較教育研究所碩士論文。
吳正牧(民83):我國中小學教科書供應品質研究。臺北市:臺灣書店。
吳政達、郭昭佑(民86):概念構圖法在國民小學教科書評鑑標準建構之之應用。教育與心理研究，20期(下冊),217-242頁。
洪祖顯(民81):日本教科書檢定制度的新趨向-評介1992年度小學校教科書之檢定經過。人文及社會學科教學通訊，2卷6期，21-213頁。
唐淑華(民87):從「情境型興趣」的觀點談編審教科書之新方向-以國語科為例。課程與教學季刊，1卷1期，77-98頁。
秦夢群(民86):教育行政-實務部分。臺北市:五南圖書出版公司。
國立臺北師範學院(民的):國民小學教科書評鑑規準。臺北縣:中華民國教材研究發展學會。
國立臺北師範學院(民88):國民教育九年一貫課程教科書審查之研究。
臺北縣:中華民國教材研究發展學會。
國立編譯館(民87a):公民科教科用書審查標準表。臺北市:國立編譯館。
國立編譯館(民87b):現代社會及社會科學導論教科用書審查標準表。
臺北市:國立編譯館。
國立編譯館(民87c):高級中學地理類科教科用書審查表。臺北市:國立編譯館。
國立編譯館中小學教科用書編輯研究小組(民77):中小學教科用書編輯制度研究。臺北市:正中書局。
陳明印(民89):國民小學社會科教科書評鑑規準及權重之建構。臺灣師範大學教育研究所博士論文。
康橋教研雜誌(民86):國小社會科評鑑表。康橋教研雜誌，36期，28頁。
張小雯(民83):日本教科書制度問題之研究。淡江大學日本研究所碩士論文。
張仕東(民84):國民中小學教科用書物理屬性之評析。臺灣師範大學工業教育研究所碩士論文。
張民杰(民83):淺談不適切課程。教育研究，36期，64-69頁。
張清濱(民86):學校行政與教育革新。臺北市:臺灣書店。
曾火城(民84):學校如何做好教科書選用工作。國立編譯館通訊，8卷4期，27-30頁。
曾火城(民85):教科書評鑑規準研究-以國中美術科為建構、試用實例。臺灣師範大學教育研究所博士論文。
游家政(民87):從國小教科書的開放來看高中選書。教育新生活，1期，4-13頁。
黃秀政(民87):談高級中學教科用書的審查基準-以歷史類科為例。國立編譯館通訊，11卷4期，10-15頁。
黃政傑(民79):課程評鑑(再版)。臺北市:師大書苑。
黃政傑(民83):國民中小學教科書審定制度與審查標準之研究。臺北市:臺灣師範大學教育研究中心。
黃政傑(民84):國民小學教科書審查標準之研究。臺北市:臺灣師範大學教育研究中心。
黃政傑(民86):中小學教科書的審查與選用。教師天地，88期，22-26頁。
黃政傑(民87):建立優良的教科書審定制度。課程與教學季刊，1卷1期，1-16頁。
黃炳煌(民70)譯，Tyler，R. W.著:課程與教學的基本原理。臺北市:桂冠圖書公司。
黃炳煌(民79):教育理想與理念。臺北市:文景出版社。
黃炳煌(民85):教育改革-理念、策略與措施。臺北市:心理出版社。
黃炳煌(民89):國民中小學社會學習領域教科用書審查基準暨編輯指引(草案)。臺北市:政治大學教育學系。
黃譯瑩(民86):教科用書開放後的省思一開放的圖像與願景。研習資訊，14卷3期，14-42頁。
郭瑜陵(民82):前階組織的理論與實際。研習資訊，10卷1期，48-51頁。
葉啟政(民85):社會科的性質和意義。通識教育，3卷1期，91-98頁。
葉重新(民73):心理測驗(修訂四版)。臺北市:大洋出版社。
劉昭宏(民85):臺灣地區編輯教科書的選擇與設計。出版人，8月號，109-118頁。
歐用生(民84a):加強課程評鑑工作。研習資訊，12卷1期，1-7頁。
歐用生(民84b):加強教科書的評鑑和選擇。載於歐用生編著:教師成長與學習(43-53頁)。臺北縣:臺灣省國民學校教師研習會。
賴光真(民85):教科書選用評準權重的決定-分析層級程序法(AHP)的應用。研習資訊，13卷4期，12-20頁。
賴光真(民86):國民小學社會教科書選用評鑑規準。臺灣省政府教育廳臺灣書店八十六年度研究發展專案報告之三。
賴光真(民88):教科書評選規準的建構原則。教學新生活，4期，12-15頁。
霍秉坤、黃顯華(1995):從認知心理學的角度看教科書之編訂。Educa-tion
Journal，23卷2期，27-49頁。
顏若映(民82):教科書內容設計與閱讀理解之認知研究。教育與心理研究，15期，101-128頁。
鍾聖校(民79):認知心理學。臺北市:心理出版社。
簡茂發(民78):心理測驗與統計方法(再版)。臺北市:心理出版社。
嚴翼長(民78):西德課程與教科書之一般概念及其編纂原理。載於中華民國比較教育學會主編:各國教科書比較研究(457-499頁)。臺北市:臺灣書店。
Abt, C. C. (1972). An evaluation model: How to compare curriculum
materials. In R. R. Heidenreich(ed.), Improvements in curriculum
(pp.336-349). VA: College Readings.
Alleman, J. & Brophy, J. (1993). Is curriculum integration a boon or a threat to social studies. Social Education, 57(6), 287-291.
Anderson , J. & Coates, J.(1980). The teacher`s dilemma: How to gauge the suitability of reading materials. Australian Journal of Reading, 2(3), 135-142.
Armstrong, J. & Bray, J.(1986). How can we improve textbooks. Denver, CO: Education Commission of the State.
Bailey, G. D.( 1988). Guidelines for improving the textbook/material selection process. NASSP Bulletin, 72(506), 87-92.
Barnes, D. (1982). Practical curriculum study. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul.
Brady, L.(1990). Curriculum development(3rd ed.). Australia: Prentice HallLtd.
Brunelle, R. L.(1983). How can we improve both the quality oftextbooks
and the process for selecting them. Paper presented at the National
Forum on Excel1ence in Education(Indianapolis, IN, December 6-8,1983).
California State Dept. of Education.(1988). Instructional materials and
framework adoption: Polices and procedures. Sacramento, CA:
California State Dept. of Education, Curriculum Framework and
Textbook Development Unit.
Chall, J. S. (1981). Readability: Conceptions and misconceptions. Urbana,
IL: National Council of Teachers of English.
Chambliss, M. J.(1994). Evaluating the quality of textbooks for diverse
learners. Remedial and Special Education,15(6)，348-362.
Champion, C. (1986). Choosing a basal reading program for Guam . Proceedings
of the sixth annual Symposium on Reading.
Choppin, A.( 1990). Aspects of Design. Paper presented at the Workshop
for Pedagogical Research into History and Social Sciences(Braunsch-weig,
Germany, September 11-14, 1990).
Clary, L. M. & Smith, S. J. (1986). Selecting basal reading series: The need
for a validated process. Reading Teacher, 39(5), 390-394.
Clewell, S. F. & Cliffton, A. M.(1983). Examining your textbook for comprehensibility.
Journal of Reading, 27(3), 219-224.
Conn, S.(1 988). Textbooks: Defining the new criteria. Media and Methods,
24( 4), 30-31, 64.
Cotton, E. G., Casem, Kroll, Langas, Rhodes, & Sisson. (1988). Using a
skill trace to solve the basal reader adoption dilemma. Reading
Teacher, 41(6), 550-554.
Crawley, S. J. (1977). SOB: selection of basals. New England Reading
Association Journal, 12(2), ?
Delaware State Dept. of Public Instruction. (1987). State policy and Guide-
lines for selecting textbooks and other instructional materials.
Dover, DE: Delaware State Dept. of Public Instruction.
Dick, W.(1986). An analysis of a sample of the learner verification and
revision reports submitted to the Florida Department of Education
in 1985-1986. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American
Educational Research.
Dole, J. A., Rogers, & Osborn.(1987). Improving the selection basal reading
programs: A report of the textbook adoption guidelines project. Ele-
Mentary School Journal, 87(3),283-298.
Dole, J. A. , Rogers, & Osborn. (1989). Improving the textbook selection
Process: Case studies ofthe textbook adoption guidelines project.
Technical Report No.478. Urbana, IL: Illinois Univ., Center for the
Study of Reading.
Dreyer, L. G. (1984). Readability and reading ability: Implications for
the classroom. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the International
Reading Association(29th, Atlanta, GA, May 6-10, 1984).
Duin, A. H. & Prenn, M.( 1985). Identifying the features that make expository
texts more comprehensible. Guides-Classroom-Teacher, 52,18
Duke, C. R.( 1985). A look at current state-wide text adoption procedures.
Paper presented at the annual meeting of the National Council of
Teachers ofEnglish Spring Conference(4th，Houston, TX, March 28-30,1985).
Elliott, D. L., Nagel, K. C., & Woodward, A. (1985). Do textbooks belong in
elementary social studies. Educational Leadership, 42(7), 22-24.
Farr, R. & Tulley, M. A. (1985). Do adoption committees perpetuate mediocre
textbooks. Phi Delta Kappan, 66(7), 467-471
Farr, R., Tulley, M. A. &Powell(1987). The evaluation and selection ofbasalreaders.Elementary School Journal, 87(3), 267-28 1.
Gall, M. D. (1981).Handbook for evaluating and selecting curriculum
Materials.. Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon.
Giordano, G. (1985). Determining the readability of textbooks. Academic
Therapy, 20(5), 533-538.
Hallenbeck, M. & Hood, S. (1981). Textbook selection: How to get what
you want. Instructor,91(3),110-112, 122.
Hartley, J.(1987). Designing instructional text. New York: Nichols.
lndiana Council for Social Studies.( 1990). Coping with decisions about
textbooks: 1990. IN: lndiana Council for Social Studies.
Johnson, R. E. (1975). Teachers beware: Elementary social studies textbooks
are getting harder to read. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting
of the National Council for the Social Studies(Atlanta, GA., November
26-29, 1975).
Kachaturoff, G. (1982). Textbook evaluation and selection: A professional
responsibility. Social Studies, 73(1), 32-36.
Keith, S .(1981). Politics of textbook selection.Stanford University,
CA: Inst. for Research on Educational Finance and Governance.
Kemper, S. (1983).Measuring the inference Ioad of a text. Journal of Educational
Psychology, 75(3), 391-401.
Komoski, P. K.(1980) What curriculum leaders need to know about
selecting instructional materials. Paper presented at the Annual
meeting of the association for Supervision and Curriculum Develop
ment(35th,Atlanta, GA, March 29-April 2, 1980).
Lockwood, A. T. (1992). Textbooks: What`s at stake. Focus in Change, 6,1-18
Marshall, J. D. (1986).The politics of curriculum decisions manifested through the selection and adoption of textbooks for Texas. Paper based on an ED.D Dissertation, University of Texas.
Marshall, J. D. (1987). Better textbooks, better criteria: The role of
research in directing efforts for reform. Paper presented at
the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Asso-
citation(Washington, D.C. April 20-24, 1987).
McCabe, P. P .(1993). Considerateness of fifth grade social studies texts.
Theory and Research in Social Education，21(2), 128-142.
Missouri State Dept. of Education. (1980). A guide to social studies curriculum
Developmentfor Missouri education. Jefferson, MO: Missouri
State Dept. of Education.
Moseley, J. L. (1987). Criteria for evaluating instructional products.
Muther, C. (1984a). The skills trace. Educational Leadership, 42(3), 82-85.
Muther, C. (1984b). How to evaluate a basal textbook: The skill trace.
Educational Leadership, 42(4), 79-80.
Muther, C. (1985a). Alternatives to piloting textbooks. Educational
Leadership 42(6), 79-83.
Muther, C. (1985b). What every textbook evaluator should know. Educa-tional Leadership, 42(7), 4-8.
New Mexico State Dept. of Education. (1997). Request for proposals to
supply textbooks and/or instructional material. Santa, NM: New
Mexico State Dept. of Education.
Newton, D. P .(1984). A way of c1assifying and measuring some aspects of
the illustration style of textbooks. Programmed Learning and Educational
Technology, 21(1), 21-27.
Ohio State Dept. of Education. (1983). Materials selection guide lines-Minimum
standards implementation series. Columbus, OH: Ohio
State Dept. of Education.
Ornstein, A. C. (1994). The textbook-driven curriculum.Peabody Journal
OfEducation，69(3), 70-85.
Osborn & Stein( 1986). Textbook adoption: A process for change.
Ortman, C. & Young, B. (1978). Consideration for textbook selection for a
language arts program. In D. C. Orlich(ed.), They still use textbooks-
Don`tthey. Selection and criteria for evaluation(pp.33-69). Olympia,
WA: School Information and Research Service.
Rawitsch, D. (1983). Evaluating computer courseware: Even old dogs need
only a few new tricks. Social Education, 47(5), 331-332.
Rice, G., & Rice G. H., Jr.(1982). A selection guide for elementary social
studies textbooks. SocialStudies, 73(2), 61-67.
Roberts, A. D. (1980). The Roberts` checklist-Selecting and evaluating
social studies material. SocialStudies, 71(3), 114-117.
Rush, R. T. (1984).Assessing readability: Formulas and alternatives.
Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the Wyoming State Reading
Council of the International Reading Association(Rawlins, WY.,
October 5-6, 1984).
Schmidt, M.( 1981). Textbook selection criteria-Handbook II. Olympia,
W A: Washington office of the state superintendent of public instruction,
Div. of Instructional and Professional Services.
Schumn, J. S. & Douecette, M. (1991). Improving the effectiveness and
efficiency oftextbook selection procedures: A smorgasbord of suggestions
and strategies. Reading Horizons, 31 (4), 272-285.
Senn, P. R.(1983). How to think about the new instructional technology
and social science education: Making proper distinctions. Paper
presented at the Annual Conference of the Social Science Education
Consortium(20th， Athens ， GA, June 8-11 , 1983).
Tani, Hasuko, Lankiewicz, Christodlous & Natoli(1993). Textbook development
and selection in Japan and the United States. Social Education,57(2), 70-75.
Tennessee State Dept. of Education. (1997). State textbook adoption overview.
TN : Tennessee State Dept. of Education.
Texas Education Agency.(1987). Overview-State adoption and distribution
Ofinstructional materials. TX: Texas Education Agency.
Tyson-Bernstein, H. & Woodward, A.(1986). The great textbook machine
and prospects for reform. Social Education, 50(1), 41-45.
Vedros, R. G. (1986). Improving textbooks: LVR Florida style. Paper
presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research
Association( 67th, San Francisco, CA, April 16-20, 1986).
Warming, E. 0.,& Baber, E. C.(1 980). Touchstones for textbook selection.
Phi Delta Kappa, 61(10), 694-695.
White, C. S. (1989). Directing the software evaluation process: A guide for
evaluators. Social Education, 53(1), 67-68.
White, J. J. (1988). Searching for substantial knowledge in social studies texts.
Theory and Research in Social Education, 16(2), 115-140.
Wright, J.(1983). The politics of curriculum materials selection: The British
Columbia case. History and Social Teacher, 18(4),211-218.
Yeager, T. A. & Edwards, C. W. (1 980). The textbook: A source for activities.
Social Education, 44(2),113-114.
Young, M. J. & Riegeluth, C. M.(1988). Improving the textbook selection
process-Fastback275. Bloomington, IN: Phi Delta Kappa Educational
Foundation.
Zakaluk, B. L. & Samuels, S. J.(1988). Readability: Its past, present, and
future. DE: International Reading Association. |
| Description: | 博士
國立政治大學
教育學系 |
| Source URI: | http://thesis.lib.nccu.edu.tw/record/#A2002000236 |
| Data Type: | thesis |
| Appears in Collections: | [教育學系] 學位論文
|
Files in This Item:
| File |
Size | Format | |
|---|
| index.html | 0Kb | HTML2 | 264 | View/Open |
|
All items in 政大典藏 are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved.
|
