| 摘要: | 本研究以2011年審定本高中歷史教科書中「日本時代」單元為核心，選取龍騰版、三民版與南一版作為比較對象，探討教材在語詞運用、敘事策略與史觀立場上的差異，並分析其對學生歷史理解與國族認同的潛在影響。研究首先回顧1983年、1994年以及2006年與2012年課綱對「日本時代」的課程定位與語詞使用，指出課綱由單一民族主義敘事逐步轉向多元詮釋與批判思維的教育取向。
接續，本文從課綱規範、教材編者背景與教材結構三方面進行比較，並依據「政治制度與治理方式」、「經濟政策與社會經濟變遷」、「文化統治與教育政策」三大面向，深入分析教材在內容取材與語言表述上的差異。研究結果顯示，三版本雖皆依循課綱精神，但在「日治／日據」用語策略、殖民統治的敘事重點以及圖文配置上仍展現不同立場：龍騰版偏重殖民壓迫的揭示，三民版注重制度分析與多元材料的呈現，南一版則以中性語言敘事為主，較少凸顯壓迫性。這些差異反映出教科書編寫過程中潛藏的價值選擇與政治意識形態，也影響學生對殖民經驗的理解與歷史詮釋能力。
本文最後指出，教材編寫與課綱理念之間仍存落差，未能充分落實「多元觀點」與「批判思考」的核心理念，並提出未來教材編修與教學實踐應更重視語詞政治、史觀多樣性與批判能力培養，以促進學生在歷史學習中建構自主認同與多元視野。
;This study focuses on the “Japanese Era” unit in the 2011 government-approved senior high school history textbooks in Taiwan, particularly examining the versions published by Lungteng, Sanmin, and Nani. It aims to examine differences in word choices, narrative strategies, and historiographical perspectives, and to analyze their potential impact on students’ historical understanding and national identity. The research first reviews the curriculum guidelines of 1983, 1994, 2006, and 2012, highlighting a shift from a single nationalistic narrative toward pluralistic interpretations and critical thinking.
Subsequently, the study examines the textbooks through three dimensions: curriculum regulations, editors’ backgrounds, and structural design. In addition, it conducts a comparative analysis of the content across three aspects: “political system and governance,” “economic policies and socio-economic transformation,” and “cultural rule and educational policies.” The findings reveal that although the three versions follow the same curriculum principles, they demonstrate significant differences in their approaches: the Lungteng version emphasizes colonial oppression, the Sanmin version highlights institutional analysis and diverse materials, while the Nani version adopts a more neutral narrative with limited emphasis on oppression. These variations reflect underlying value orientations and political ideologies in the textbook-writing process, which in turn shape students’ understanding of colonial experiences and their ability to engage in historical interpretation.
Finally, the study points out that a gap still exists between curriculum ideals and textbook practices. It argues that the core principles of “multiple perspectives” and “critical thinking” have not been fully realized. Recommendations are provided for future textbook compilation and classroom practices, emphasizing the importance of language politics, historiographical diversity, and critical thinking skills in fostering students’ independent identity formation and pluralistic perspectives in historical learning. |
