The destandardization of textbooks, begun at primary school grades, has now been underway for one year. The change has brought novelty for children, who are getting something new in their first experience of institutional education; for teachers, escaping from traditional teaching materials; for school administrators; and for parents. What is the significance of textbook diversity? What impact is it having?
Page 1 shows two children reclining in the grass in a woody grove. The large-print heading reads: "Mathematics and Me."
Turn the page and there is a comic. In the first frame, an ancient shepherd stands with his flock. In the next, he points at the sheep, asking, "Are they all here?" In the third, he thinks to himself about each sheep's individual features, such as having one horn, a bad eye, or whatever. He concludes that the one-horned sheep is missing. In the last frame, the shepherd is shown many years later. With one look at the flock, he says, "Hey, how is it one sheep is missing?"
The comic is followed by a question for the kids: "With so many sheep, how can he know one is missing?"
The new textbook era
This is not leisure reading matter, but one of the textbooks for primary school this year. An unprecedented "textbook revolution," begun last year, is sweeping Taiwan's 2000-plus primary schools and more than 300,000 primary school students. The textbooks they read are no longer standardized, but are "approved" texts from the NICT and more than ten private-sector publishers.
Textbook destandardization has been studied for a long time. Legislators started calling for it as early as the lifting of martial law in 1987. It took seven years to go from the destandardization of middle school art and music texts in 1989 to the destandardization of primary school texts last year. The process will continue to include middle school and high school books as well (see the accompanying chart).
This major task of education reform, begun last year with primary schools in the vanguard, is being closely watched by all concerned.
In Taipei City, private publishers have leapt in to fight for a share of the 30,000-pupil market. They have even underpriced the NICT texts, so that sales of the "national edition" textbooks have been weak in the capital. But it's the opposite in other places, where many schools still prefer the "national edition." In Taiwan overall, the NICT texts still account for 60% of the market.
The main guidelines for textbooks are the "curriculum standards." In 1989, the Ministry of Education began to develop new curriculum standards, which had not been revised in 14 years. The new standards were made public in 1993, and implemented in 1996. Today, with textbook destandard-ization, these standards serve as the basis for the writing of all the new textbooks. The current primary school curriculum includes five areas: Chinese, math, natural science, social studies, and health and ethics. Textbooks will gradually be destandardized beginning with first grade. For this academic year, publishers have already completed work on second-grade books.
Is this really a new era for textbooks? Compared to the past, do primary school textbooks really have more room for flexibility than in the past? Is it the case that textbook destandardization marks the beginning of education reform, that this is another step forward?
What should we teach?
In fact, private-sector publishers have been printing some peripheral textbooks for some years now. But this is the first time the core curriculum itself has been destandard-ized. Thus the NICT and private publishers have gone all out to put different faces on the uniform body of curriculum standards.
Take for example Book I of the social studies curriculum, which starts off with life in the classroom and on campus. There are books which use anthropomorphized bunnies, bear cubs, and mice to make their points. Others, more conservative, have a series of photographs with text.
Lesson I in one version of Book I for teaching Chinese reads: "The sun is shining, the sun is out. The sun is shining on me, a little dog is following me. The sun is shining on me as I go to school, a little dog is following me as I go to school." Another version reads: "I am a little artist. I want to paint a beautiful garden, to let butterflies move in, to let birds sing from morning until night." Obviously the approaches differ.
These different editorial approaches touch on some core educational issues: Should we emphasize thinking processes, or factual knowledge? How much knowledge is enough? What should be taught? These fundamental questions have been the focus of debate from ancient times to the present.
Also involved is the question of decision-making authority in the curriculum-shaping process. A doctoral dissertation by Chou Shu-ching of the Graduate Institute of Education at National Taiwan Normal University (NTNU) notes that the trend is "from tight to loose, from uniform to pluralistic." Future decisions will be made less by the state with its ideology, and more by the public-publishers with their editorial power, organizations with their review power, and schools, principals and parents with their purchasing power.
New bottles, old wine?
It should be noted at the outset that the curriculum standards for the new textbooks follow the same structure as the old texts. Each class has a basic outline.
Take for example the Chinese curriculum. At the lower levels, students must be made familiar with Mandarin phonetic symbols, and develop the ability and habit of speaking and understanding standard Mandarin Chinese. They must be familiarized with the form, pronunciation, and meaning of the characters in the texts, and be able to use them. They must understand how to use dictionaries, how to form sentences and phrases, and how to make little presentations in Mandarin. They must be able to write properly and form the strokes of Chinese characters correctly and neatly.
In math, students in lower grades must be familiarized with all numbers up to 1000, and be able to add and subtract two-digit numbers. They must have a basic understanding of multiplication and fractions. They should know how to use the currency, and to record dates and times.
These are all part of the curriculum standards revised in 1989. Their main spirit is to cultivate lively, healthy citizens, to allow kids to learn more how to think and enjoy (rather than just repetitively practice basic skills), and to look at things more from the child's point of view.
But with destandardization, many private-sector editorial committees are expressing doubts about these outlines, which were originally drawn up for the old texts.
There are different opinions on a variety of issues. For example, some object to the fact that the curriculum outline for primary school natural science specifies exactly what instruments or objects must be explained to children. Some feel that the standards for Chinese need not specify which radicals should be taught at which grades. And in math curriculum standards, some wonder, why is there an exclusive emphasis on "concept construction" (in which children are expected to develop concepts and abilities through their own experience, and then raise these in open class discussion).
Who makes the textbooks?
Most private-sector editorial committees operate on the pattern of the government's NICT editorial committee, which wrote all the old textbooks. The committees include experts on subjects, curricula, and psychology, as well as classroom teachers. In most cases, subject experts first draw up a textbook outline, then units are divided up and discussed in subcommittees. Although a "consensus system" is nominally used, in fact, most of the writing is done by one or two members.
But there is at least one difference from the past. Textbooks used to be mainly written by university professors in the relevant field. Today, most are written by primary and middle school teachers.
Some of the people on the editorial committees of private firms are veterans of NICT commissions, but many are new faces, brought on board because their special areas of expertise are related to the content. Whereas in the past, the editorial committees were dominated by graduates of teachers' universities and colleges, today they have a wider scope, and include people from the media and education reform activists. However, there are still some editions whose authors differ little from the past, being mostly professional educators.
"The textbooks that were drawn up by the subject experts in the past emphasized factual knowledge. Their focus was on transmitting the subject matter," says Hwang Jeng-jye, a professor at NTNU. Today's textbooks, written by teachers, take the students' own experiences as the starting point. In terminology, illustrations, and classroom activities, they are definitely more lively.
Take for example exercises from some Chinese texts. To help children learn the Mandarin phonetic symbols, editors have come up with some clever methods: Some have colorful "phonetic symbol" fish for the children to catch. Others hide new vocabulary terms in variously colored hats or vases. The hope is that the children will remember the language through enjoying it.
Texts for Chinese class now often use language that "sees things from the child's point of view": "The little turtle climbs slowly. Little turtle, take a rest, have a drink of cold water." "What a big melon! How long is it? Let's get out our ruler and measure. How heavy is it? Big brother can't even move it."
Permanent values
Many editorial committees feel that children do a lot more outside reading these days, and are ready for more advanced material earlier. Thus they have added a large dose of children's literature to the textbooks. Says Wu Ching-chuan, executive director of the Senseio Business Group: "We hope the children will have fun reading, and not just be learning new vocabulary." He says that the driving spirit is that the new textbooks should compensate for the weaknesses of the old, in which "instruction in Chinese overemphasized the basic skill of writing, and gave short shrift to whether the children developed understanding and feeling for what they were actually reading."
Today textbooks emphasize diversity and liveliness, and look at things from the student's point of view. Says Shen Hui-fang, a teacher at the Chengchih University Experimental Primary School who took part in producing a Chinese text for one firm: "Who knows, maybe we really will produce 'children who will say that there is no standard answer'." She feels that education today should produce children who "not only are not afraid of diversity, but are conscious of diversity, and tolerate diversity."
Some, like H.J. Wu, chief editor for natural sciences at Newton Publishing, argue that those who will be the masters of the 21st century will need "to be able to express themselves well, think independently, and cooperate with others." Whether a textbook can teach these abilities is a problem that all texts, old and new, must consider.
What then are the universal values for textbooks? When you get back to the fundamental nature of education, the answer is straightforward.
Hwang Jeng-jye says that, whatever their specific course content, all textbooks must teach children to understand how to learn. Instead of giving children fish, they must teach the children how to fish, so that children are able to collect information, collate it, and analyze it critically; to discuss things with others; to know where, in this world of ever-accumulating knowledge, to look for information, and to reflect on that information; to organize their lives, and face up to difficulties; and to live in harmony with their environment.
The ABCs of textbooks
Because of differences in the composition of editorial committees, there are different ideas on how to select and organize knowledge, and the contents of the textbooks published consequently vary greatly. So what are the standards for deciding whether a textbook "makes the grade"? At what point can it be concluded that a textbook fulfills its responsibilities?
Hwang Jeng-jye cites a number of conditions: Are the textbook's facts accurate? Is the order of their presentation logical? Does the textbook proceed from easier to harder material, and do so with continuity? Are the goals of each unit clear? Is the text clearly presented and easy to read? How about the pictures? But even more importantly, does the textbook reflect the times-the issues that concern society? This too must be carefully considered.
How, for example, should "filial piety" be presented in social-studies texts? If the text implies "unthinking acceptance of authority," this would call for reconsideration. Perhaps "filial respect" would be a better term. Also, the old textbook theme of "oppose Communism and resist Soviet Russia" clearly needs reassessment in the light of today's international situation.
Taiwan's society has changed rapidly since the lifting of martial law in 1987. Ideology and values are no longer monolithic, but pluralistic. Everyone has their own ideas. Carrie Chen, associate director of the Research Center at Kang Ho Publishing, recalls that his colleagues on the editorial committee were "very cautious" about things that were controversial in old texts, like the depiction of women and aboriginal peoples. Everyone worries about stepping on such land mines.
Embracing diversity?
What, after all, is "diversity"? Liu Shu-hsien, a scholar of Confucianism living in America, wrote an interesting essay on this subject. He noted that in California, every disadvantaged group demands equal treatment. Not only must textbooks not include derogatory material, they must give equal time to everybody, women, minorities, the handicapped. . . . Whether the subject be history, current events, or natural science, discussion must include an equal number of contributions from men and women. Is this really "diversity"?
"Even one woman historian said that if this kept up it would become impossible to write history books. I ask you, in discussing human rights laws, how can an equal amount of space in texts be devoted to the contributions of women?" wrote Liu. "Euro-centrism" is everywhere under attack. It got to the point that Stanford University even abandoned its curriculum in "Western civilization" and established a quota for women and minorities in its "great books" series.
"Such methods politicize everything," opined Liu, and he doubts that this is real equality. "Genuine dignity can only come from genuine achievement, not from feel-good gestures," he said, concluding: "In discussing these issues, people have confused equal rights, equal access to education, and equal achievement."
Today's textbooks reflect some of the confusion Liu alluded to.
When you open a primary school textbook today, you virtually never see any of those old scenes like "Mom sweeps up while Dad reads the paper." However, there are pictures of Mom and Dad sweeping up together, Mom putting her feet up for a break, and Dad sweeping up, taking the kids for a picnic, or reading the kids a story. And in a social-studies text, in the interests of diversity, when the book mentions that "there is learning everywhere," it includes pictures of ancient Chinese studying in a school, aboriginal people learning weaving, and African desert dwellers finding water.
Taiwan consciousness
When a pendulum swings from one extreme, inevitably it goes past the center to the other. Formerly textbooks exclusively stressed greater Han Chinese nationalism, and ignored unique features of Taiwan's own history, culture, and people. Now the situation is reversed. For example, in introducing types of houses, one text shows only the in-ground homes of the Orchid Island Yami aborigines, the stone houses of Penghu, and the stone slab structures of the Paiwan aborigines. It does not mention traditional Chinese family compound-style homes. In another case, one editorial committee member insisted that the story to illustrate "self-sacrifice" had to come from Taiwanese legend.
Li Tsung-wei, a professor at National Taipei Teachers' College and also the assistant convener of the evaluation committee at the Association for Curriculum and Instruction, is unhappy with these trends. In a review of primary school texts, she wrote that some texts had an excessive "Taiwan consciousness." "In places where they clearly should have said 'Republic of China,' they deliberately substituted the term 'Taiwan'," she says. This is a problem of the writers' subjective perspective. Li says they should have learned from the example of the controversy over the new middle school texts Getting to Know Taiwan. Li says that, though inevitably any text will reflect the editors' views, they should stick to the actual facts as closely as possible, and keep personal opinion out of it.
Cultural heritage is another issue. Li says that, while there are not many differences across nations in math and natural science texts, texts invariably emphasize their own basic cultures and traditions. But some of Taiwan's new textbooks have far too much of a Japanese flavor for her taste. In one lesson in a social-studies text, a well-known Japanese comic book character is used as the example. "Why wasn't some figure from our own country used? Is there something wrong with the Monkey King?"
As Chan Chih-yu, a professor of Education at National Chengchih University and formerly on the Ministry of Education's textbook review committee, explains: "It would have been very difficult for the review committee to fine-tune the subjective views of every textbook editorial committee. The market will decide whether a textbook is acceptable or not."
But the marketplace is not the answer to everything. Hwang Jeng-jye says that if you look closely at some of the focal points of textbook reformers, you will find that some of the subjects are in fact very "political," products of a particular political environment. And some are very "educational," but to attract attention people politicize the subject matter. For example, the debates over the new middle school text Getting to Know Taiwan have had this tendency.
The Association for Curriculum and Instruction issued a report with critical phrases like "ignores historical roots, is excessively ideological, and lacks in patriotism and love of the homeland...." To some extent, these comments point to possible imbalances in textbooks (though of course the textbooks' authors would dispute the Association's verdict). In the end, it seems inevitable that every textbook publisher will have their individual points of view.
How do you know?
Another problem is whether the new texts are not too demanding. Do they violate the principles-frequently raised by the educational authorities-to "not increase the burden on students and to make the material easier to understand"?
There have always been different views on just how much information children can absorb at various ages. One school of thought suggests that you can teach children anything at any time; the only problem is how the information is organized. But another school argues that children have particular stages of mental and physical development, and teaching material should be graduated.
In primary school math texts, many editions reject the former adult point of view of aiming only to make the children "mathematicians" who can remember formulas and calculations. Instead, the new books hope children will develop the ability to "construct" math concepts through daily life.
For example, in the past textbooks started right off with mathematical calculations, while new textbooks begin with the nature of mathematics. "For this half year," one teacher's handbook says, "we want the students to learn the [mathematics] path that their ancestors have followed over hundreds of thousands of years. We hope the children will connect with their forebears." The handbook advises teachers to introduce primitive counting methods like using stones, to lead the children to appreciate "how convenient Arabic numerals are."
The handbook also advises teachers: "It's enough that the children more or less understand what you tell them about the above methods. It is not necessary to insist that they master them. (After all this is only the first lesson.) In fact, the less they can do by rote, the better. This will stimulate their imaginations and curiosity, and perhaps even inspire them to grasp the significance of mathematics!"
Why is 3+5 equal to 8? Why is 6+7 equal to 13? For many adults, there has never been any real explanation for these answers; they just are. All you need to do is learn them. But today the goal is not to know the result, it is even more important to understand "how the result is arrived at."
Take for example the problem of why 7+6=13. Some children might reach the answer by adding 6+4+3, others 7+3+3. Different methods, but they get to the same place. But today, texts want children to understand the process of getting from the problem to the answer, to stimulate the children's problem-solving ability. That is why new textbooks are filled with questions like, "Can you explain how you know this?" and, "Can you think of a better way?"
Can and cannot
People have different perceptions of children's abilities, and textbooks vary on this point. Take for example the concept of "length," which is required to be in primary school Book I. Some books just directly show the children what "length" is, and assume it is directly accessible to their senses (e.g. by comparing a "longer" object with a "shorter"). But other versions of Book I also introduce the concept of "distance" in three-dimensional space, and even the concept of triangular inequality (that triangles are formed with two sides always exceeding the length of the third).
For teachers who have to do the teaching, it is hard to imagine imparting such abstract concepts as distance and triangular inequality to kids just entering primary school. But, says Shih Ying, a professor of mathematics at National Taiwan University who serves as mathematics editor for a publisher, "We believe from teaching experience that our children can learn such concepts, even though some believe from past experience that children cannot." Shih contends that when knowledge is restored to its most basic form, everybody can understand it. The problem is whether or not teachers can communicate the information to the children.
Shih says that even if children do not grasp complex ideas right off, that's no big deal. "Human beings learn from difficult situations. Who knows? A perplexing problem might inspire alternative thinking." Many say that Shih's math textbook is too difficult, but he evinces that "it's the adults that it's hard for, not the kids."
New clothes, new yardstick
A similar controversy surrounds Chinese textbooks.
It's not that new textbooks think that the basic ability to write characters is unimportant. It's just that they hope, as Shen Hui-fang says, to use "more kinds of teaching materials, so that both students and teachers will have more choice." Thus some texts offer different alternatives to meet students' individual needs. For example, there is "character writing" vs. "character recognition," and there are different levels of reading (e.g. "skimming" vs. "perusal").
Though most of the writers of primary school textbooks teach in schools, they have different levels of experience, and classroom teachers don't always agree with the writers' ideas. "The people who produce the textbooks have little understanding of the pressure we are under to push the kids to learn," says one teacher. It doesn't matter whether it be "learning to write characters" or "recognizing and reading," the characters are all new to the students, and must be taught. Says this teacher, "Even if we use the recognition method, we just make the children learn to write the characters at the same time, and that's that." This is especially the case given that many parents insist that their children should know how to read and write all the characters in their texts, which creates a difficult situation for teachers.
But editorial committee members say that, with the destandardization of textbooks, "new yardsticks should be used to measure new clothes." As Wu Ching-chuan suggests, in the interests of teaching autonomy, teachers must be sure they are clear on how to use the textbooks. "They don't need to teach the old way, going from the first character in order to the last."
Ting Chih-jen, director of the Education Reform Group Institute, adds that the main reason teachers used to teach that way was they were haunted by the specter of competitive evaluation. Today, at least there is a consensus on the view that grades "are not the only measure of accomplishment in school" (though it is uncertain whether or not it can be put into practice). These days teachers can take into account children's different abilities and choose suitable things to teach, and then explain things to the parents as well as they can. This is the only way teachers' expertise will truly be brought into play and realized.
There are teachers who advise that the new textbooks must used in an integrated way with certain teaching methods. For example, teachers must often engage the children in discussion, and through this "question and consideration" process stimulate their ability to learn on their own. And there must be equal attention given to the serious and practical conveyance of knowledge, as in traditional teaching. Otherwise no matter how good the teaching materials, they will be wasted.
It's not easy to produce a school textbook. Maybe this problem is inherent in any situation where diversity is valued. On the other hand, maybe what looks like a problem to some-competition and contention among ideas and approaches-is precisely what diversity aims at.
p.7
A new era for text-books? What kind of children will the diversified texts of the 1990s produce?
p.9
"How do you know?" Today's math texts want to get back to the basic nature of the subject, beginning with "Mathematics and Me."
p.10
Textbooks for Chinese offer a variety of formats and levels to adapt to the differences in children's abilities. (photo by Vincent Chang)
p.13
Natural science texts aim to "teach nature through nature," developing a love for nature in children by teaching them how to observe their environment.
p.14
Since the lifting of martial law, values have ceased to be monolithic, but are pluralized. Different views and ideologies inevitably affect the editing process
Textbooks for Chinese offer a variety of formats and levels to adapt to the differences in children's abilities. （photo by Vincent Chang）
Natural science texts aim to "teach nature through nature," developing a love for nature in children by teaching them how to observe their environment.
Since the lifting of martial law, values have ceased to be monolithic, but are pluralized. Different views and ideologies inevitably affect the editing process.
@List.jpg?w=522&h=410&mode=crop&format=webp&quality=80)
@List.jpg?w=522&h=410&mode=crop&format=webp&quality=80)
