주제 : 교과서정책의국제동향과미래전망일시 : 2011년 10월 26일 ( 수 ) 12:30- 장소 : 한국교육과정평가원대회의실 (4층) 주관 : 한국교육과정평가원

환영사

프로그램 i

차례 차례 iii

교과서정책국제세미나 iv

표차례 표차례 v

그림차례 교과서정책국제세미나 vi

Ⅰ. 교과서인정시스템과 PISA 결과의 관련성

Ladies en gentlem en, I want to thank you for your invitation to speak to you on this im portant sem inar. It is a great honour and pleasure for m e to be here. I hope this sem inar will contribute to your expectations, especially concerning the quality of (digital) textbooks. This paper is about textbook approval system s of different nations in relation with educational outcom es. In the Netherlands we started a study to get an overview of the kind of approval system s in the world. Beside this we looked at PISA results: which countries have high PISA results and in which countries PISA results are low? W e w anted to know if there is a relationship betw een state influence, reflected and form alized in approval system s, and educational outcom es. By doing this investigation we also w anted to start a discussion about the usefulness of com paring different kinds of approval system s with each other, and looking for relationships betw een national approval system on the one hand and educational outcom es on the other. So this study m aybe a starting point for this. The research question of this study The research question of our investigation w as: Is there a relationship between the degree of form al state influence concerning textbooks on the one hand and PISA resultson the other? This question is prim arily pointing at the relationship betw een state influence and PISA-results as such. Of course it is also im portant to have notions about which variables are responsible for this relationship. Notions we Ⅰ. 교과서인정시스템과 PISA 결과의관련성 3

discussed during the Eleventh Biannual Conference of the International Association for Research on Textbooks and Educational M edia (IARTEM ) in Kaunas, Lithuania last m onth. Why studying textbook approval system s? The reason why we should study textbook approval system s is that in m ost countriestextbooks are very im portant in schools. W hat we for instance see in the Netherlands is that m ost of the teachers m ainly use textbooks, com plem ented with m aterials they find on the Internet (or elsewhere) or self m ade m aterials (see figure 1). W e see that for secondary school 77 % of the teachers m ainly use textbooks in com bination with ow n m aterials (pink) 5 % of the teachers use only textbooks (dark grey) 14 % use m ainly self found and self m ade m aterials and textbooks (light grey) Only 4 % of the teachers use only their ow n learning m aterials (yellow) SLO, 2010-2011 Primary education Secondary education Figure 1: The use of textbooks in primary and secondary school 교과서정책국제세미나 4

In m any countries w e see these sam e percentages. But the question about why studying textbook approval system s not only has to do with these quantitative use frequencies of textbooks. Also quality argum ents play an im portant role. In our view textbooks are at least im portant as teachers, w hen it com es to the support of learning. These are a few argum ents: by the nature of teaching, teachers tend to be m ore activity-oriented than goal-oriented; aspects of curriculum design and structure can therefore be m et better by textbooks than by teachers it is im possible for teachers w ith 25 or 30 pupils in their classroom s to adapt lessons to the needs of each of these 25 or 30 individuals, while digital m aterials at least have the potentials to do the pedagogical challenges for teachers becom eheavier. There are m ore pedagogical problem s, which m ake an appropriate pedagogical approach by teachers m ore necessary. Teachers nowadays get m ore and m ore involved in a coach-like role. It therefore is very im portant that textbooks at least partly take over the typical didactical and instructional roles teachers have teachers are not alw ays certified (at least in the Netherlands), capable, or present when pupils work with their textbooks (for instance: at hom e, or w hen they have been ill and have to m ake up for unattended lessons) and last but not least: the quality of textbooks can be guaranteed better than the quality of teachers Why do approval system s differ? W hy do som e countries have a textbook approval system and others don t?in the literature w e found that countries that have an approval system often refer to the right of parents or the society as a whole to have good Ⅰ. 교과서인정시스템과 PISA 결과의관련성 5

quality education for their children, and that the governm ent m ust guarantee that quality. In other countries the governm ent w ants to be sure that textbooks cover the National Curriculum, especially w hen it com es to m atters of value education, history and im age form ing. Countries w ith the absence of a form alized approval system legitim ize this absence by arguing that teachers are in the best position to decide on what is good for their pupils and what not. Part of this position concerns the selection, adoption and use of textbooks. It looks evident that you need very good teachers then. It seem s that questions about why som e countries have an approval system and others don t, certainly have to do w ith broader characteristics of the educational and political system of these countries. A typology of approval system s W e found the following typology of approval system s developed by Repoussi & Tutiaux-Guillon (2010). Figure2: Typology of approval system s Repoussi &Tutiaux-Guillon(2010) 교과서정책국제세미나 6

The first question to be asked in this typology is: Is there state approval? If no, the country belongs to m odel A. If yes, the next question to be asked is: Is there only one book per subject approved? If yes, the country belongs to m odel B. If no, the question can be raised if the books are prescribed or recom m ended? If prescribed, we place the country in m odel C. If recom m ended in m odel D. In som e countries there is a m ixed form, m ostly due to regional differences. These countries belong to m odel E. How to com pare approval system s? A possibility to com pare approval system s is to relate different textbook approval system s to educational outcom es. W e chose for PISA: the Program m e for International Student Assessm ent. PISA is carried out by the Organization for Econom ic Co-operation and Developm ent (OECD). The assessm ent takes place every three year, with 15 year old pupils, in 65 countries. The pupils are assessed in reading, m ath and science. Every tim e the em phasis is onn an different subject: in 2003 on m ath, in 2006 on science, and in 2009 in reading achievem ent. W hat are argum ents for studying the relationship between textbook approval system s and PIS A In the literature w e found that there m ight be a relationship between the two. Som e say that a strong state influence does not sufficiently take into Ⅰ. 교과서인정시스템과 PISA 결과의관련성 7

account the differences betw een pupils (Khutorskoi, 2006; Ogan-Berkiroglu, 2007). W hile we know from learning theories that it is im portant to differentiate for several reasons: for m otivation, to adapt to different learning styles, to challenge pupils, and to adjust to slow and fast learners(am ong m any: Reigeluth, 1999). Others state that a strong state influence ham pers the creativity of the teacher. Creative teachers are im portant because they feel m ore responsibility and ownership for their lessons (Valverde et. al., 2002). It is also said that PISA assessm ents reflect m ore innovative didactical ideas than the stiff criteria of the system s. So PISA assessm ents can m otivate to use new didactical ideas in daily classroom life (Pingel, 2010). W hen we bring these three points in relation to learning theories we cam e to the conclusion that a strong state influence m ay ham per effective learning of pupils. So it seem ed to be logical to investigate if there is a relationship betw een approval system s and PISA results. And we cam e to the hypothesis that Textbook Approval System s reflecting a strong state influence go together with low er PISA results than Textbook Approval System s without any official state influence. This was further laid dow n in the following research questions: Is there a difference in PISA results between m odels A (no influence) and B,C,D,E (with m ore or less influence)? Is there a difference in PISA results between m odels B (strong influence) and C,D,E (m oderate and weak influence)? Is there a difference in PISA results between m odels B (strong influence) and C (m oderate influence)? Is there a difference betw een reading, m ath and science per m odel? 교과서정책국제세미나 8

Procedure W e conducted a study of publications and other docum entation. In addition to that w e asked know nrepresentatives of som e countries, to fill out an online questionnaire about the approval system of their country. And of course w e looked at the PISA-results of 2009. The results about the degree of state influence you can see in this table Model A (no influence) Australia Denmark England Estonia Finland Ireland Italy Netherlands Norway Sweden Model C Model B Model D (moderate (strong influence) (weak influence) influence) Austria Chech Republic Chile China Croatia France Germany Hungary (Serbia) Japan Canada Latvia Lithuania Poland (Serbia) Singapore Slovenia Slowakia Turkey Table 1: The degree of state influence Model E (mixed influence) Azerbaijan Brazil New Zealand USA Ⅰ. 교과서인정시스템과 PISA 결과의관련성 9

As you can see Serbia is m entioned twice. That s because a few years ago there w as a strong state influence. But now they have changed to m oderate state influence. So pupils w ho did the assessm ent are m ore or less educated under strong state influence (at the tim e of this investigation we unfortunately did not have the PISA-results of Korea). In this study we finally have three groups to com pare: Countries w ithout form al state influence (m odel A) countries w ith m oderate state influence (m odel C) and countries with a m ixed influence (m odel E). Model B has no countries and Model D has only one country. Before extinguishing Canada (m odel D) w e will show the results of the m ean PISA scores. Results (Mean PIS A scores) The PISA-assessm ent of 2009 was conducted with 450.000 students in 65 countries. As you can see in table 2 m ean scores on all subjects are higher in m odel A (no state influence) and m odel D (weak influence). Model A B C D E N 10-17 1 4 Reading scores 503,10-491,24 524,00 448,75 Math scores 505,00-494,12 527,00 455,75 Science scores 513,60-499,76 529,00 453,00 Total scores 507,23-495,04 526,67 452,50 Table 2: Mean PISA scores for m odels A, B, C, D and E 교과서정책국제세미나 10

How about the results between groups? W e conducted an ANOVA and extinguished m odel B. Then wesee the following results: Results (between groups: ANO VA; m odel B extinguished) W e see a significant difference between groups for reading at the five % level. This m eans that the chance that these results are based on coincidence is less than 5 %. Subject Reading Math Science Sum of Squares 9690,510 8149,485 11504,760 df 3 3 3 Mean Square 3230,170 2716,495 3834,920 F 3,053 1,768 2,755 p.045*.176.061 * Significant at the 5% level Table 3: Difference between groups (ANOVA) For m ath and science there is no significant difference between m odels A, C, D and E. But m odel D contains only one country, so next question w as w hat would happen when we extinguish m odel D? Results (Between groups: ANOVA; m odel D extinguished) After extinguishing m odel D we see a significant difference in science as well: Subject Sum of Squares df Mean Square F p Reading 8542,840 2 4271,420 4,037.029* Math 7008,259 2 3504,130 2,280.121 Ⅰ. 교과서인정시스템과 PISA 결과의관련성 11

Science 10585,380 2 5292,690 3,803.035* * Significant at the 5% level Table 4: Difference between groups (ANOVA), m odel D extinguished So there is a significant difference between countries for reading and science. To see if there is a significant difference between specific m odels in reading, m ath and science we did a post hoc Bonferroni test. Results (Between m odels: Post hoc Bonferroni test) Subject Independent variable A Dependent variable C E Mean difference 11,865 54,350 Significanc e 1.000.026* Reading C A E -11,865 42,485 1.000.078 E A A C C E -54,350-42,485 10,882 49,250.026*.078 1.000.128 Math C A E -10,882 38,368 1.000.267 E A C -49,250-38,368.128.267 교과서정책국제세미나 12

A C E 13,835 60,600 1.000.031* Science C A E -13,835 46,765 1.000.096 E A C -60,600.031*.096-46,765 * Significant at the 5% level Table 5: Results betw een m odels: Bonferroni test And now we see that there is a significant difference betw een m odels A and E for reading. And there is a significant difference between m odels A and E for science as well. But what does this say about these m odels? There m ay be noise (or: bias), because we do not exactly know how m odels A and E differ. Reflection and discussion W e w ant to m ake a few final rem arks. 1. This investigation contains only half of the countries with PISA assessm ents. For a com plete im age w e need also the approval system data of the other countries. 2. PISA m ight not be the only or m ost appropriate m easure for educational outcom es; som e countries seem to m anipulate the scores to get a higher ranking. W hat to think of the Portuguese exam ple w here the governm ent in 2000 decided to set up an approval system as a result of declining PISA-results, changed the exam program m es for the m ain subjects, approved textbooks in accordance with these program m es and subsequently the Ⅰ. 교과서인정시스템과 PISA 결과의관련성 13

PISA-scores raised! 3.There are differences between m odels A and E concerning reading and science. But the statistical variance of countries in m odels E (and C) is far m ore greater than of countries in m odel A. So we have to investigate w hat variables are responsible for that. 4.W e need thus further specification of our hypothesis w ith variables like: teacher qualifications, approval criteria, use of textbooks, am ount of m oney spent per pupil etc. (see also McEwan and Marshall, 2004). Concerning teacher qualifications you m ay argue that the im portance of textbooks grows w here teacher qualifications are lower than in countries where teachers have to be educated academ ically, as in Finland, the highest ranked PISA-country of Europe. As to the approval criteria it probably m akes a difference if the em phasis is on criteria with respect to content (curriculum coverage) or on criteria with respect to the pedagogical approach. And from which perspectives these criteria are form ulated: from the publishers perspective, the m inistry s perspective, the teacher s perspective, the parent s perspective, or the learner s perspective. As to the use of textbooks it of course m ay differ if textbooks are the m ain source for the lesson plans of the teacher, like inthe Netherlands, or if textbooks are used just as one of the m any sources teachers use, like in Australia. However, we think textbooks are very im portant to teachers and education and we m ust em phasize the need for high quality textbooks (paper and digital). And therefore we need approval system s. Or not? 교과서정책국제세미나 14

References: Khutoriskoi, A.V. (2006). The Place of the Textbook in the Didactic System. Russian Education and Society, 48 (3), 78-93. McEwan, P. J., & Marshall, J. H. (2004). W hy does academ ic achievem ent vary across countries? Evidence from Cuba and Mexico. Education Econom ics, 12 (3), 205-217. Ogan-Bekiroglu, F. (2007). To W hat Degree Do the Currently Used Physics Textbooks Meet the Expectations? Journal of Science Teacher Education, 18, 599-628. Reigeluth, C. M. (1999). Instructional-design theories and m odels. Londen: Routledge. Repoussi, M., & Tutiaux-Guillon, N. (2010). New Trends in History Textbook Research: Issues and Methodologies tow ard a School H istoriography. Journal of Educational Media, Mem ory and Society, 2 (1), 154-170. Pingel, F. (2010). UNESCO Guidebook on Textbook Research and Textbook Revision. Paris/Braunschweig. Valverde, G. A., Bianchi, L. J., W olfe, R. G., Schm idt, W. H., & H ouang, R. T. (2002). According to the Book: Using TIMSS to investigate the translation of policy into practice through the w orld of textbooks. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academ ic Publishers Ⅰ. 교과서인정시스템과 PISA 결과의관련성 15

교과서정책국제세미나 16

Ⅰ. 교과서인정시스템과 PISA 결과의관련성 17

교과서정책국제세미나 18

Ⅰ. 교과서인정시스템과 PISA 결과의관련성 19

교과서정책국제세미나 20

Ⅰ. 교과서인정시스템과 PISA 결과의관련성 21

교과서정책국제세미나 22

Ⅰ. 교과서인정시스템과 PISA 결과의관련성 23

교과서정책국제세미나 24

Ⅰ. 교과서인정시스템과 PISA 결과의관련성 25

교과서정책국제세미나 26

Ⅰ. 교과서인정시스템과 PISA 결과의관련성 27

Ⅱ. 중국의교과서정책방향

中国基础教育课程和教材改革的历程 在中国, 基础教育包括学前教育 小学教育 普通中学教育 ( 初中 高中 ), 课程和教材改革主要是针对小学教育和普通中学教育 从 1949 年中华人民共和国成立到现在, 中国基础教育课程和教材已走过了 60 多年的发展历程, 进行了 8 次改革, 每次课程和教材改革都与当时的政治 经济和文化环境有着紧密的联系, 体现了明显的时代特色 第一次课程和教材改革 :1949 1952 年 主要解决的是旧中国各个地区 各个学校存在的各类教材和各类课程的 散 和 乱 问题, 并且专门成立了负责编写全国统一教材的人民教育出版社 (People's Education Press) 第二次课程和教材改革 :1953 1957 年 根据国家过渡时期的总任务和中小学教育的目的, 中国教育行政部门有计划地修订了中小学教学计划, 并于 1956 年颁发了新中国成立以来全国第一套比较齐全的 中小学各科教学大纲 这一时期经历了改造旧课程 学习苏联课程到建设新课程的过程, 确定了全国统一的课程和教材政策 第三次课程和教材改革 :1957 1963 年 这次课程和教材改革重视学科在育人中的作用, 首次提出设置选修课, 实行了国定制与审定制相结合的教科书制度, 重视地方教材 乡土教材的编写, 下放了中小学课程制订和教材编写的权限, 出现了各地在教育实践中编写教学计划 大纲和教材并进行试验的情况 这次改革是由国家完全统一课程和教材向局部多样化转变的第一次尝试 第四次课程和教材改革 :1964 1976 年 当时的中国领导人毛泽东针对学生学习压力过重的问题, 作出了 课程可以砍掉三分之一 的指示 根据这一指示,1964 年 7 月, 教育部发出了 关于调整和精简中小学课程的通知 但是, 这次的课程和教材改革正遇上中国历史上的 文化大革命 时期, 由于特殊的历史原因, 中小学正常的教学秩序遭到严重破坏, 教学计划 教学大纲和教材处于无政府状态, 中小学教学片面突出政治, 大幅度削减基础知识, 教育质量严重降低 中小学教材处于非理性的无序状态, 以前的国家统编通用教材被批判和放弃, 国家不设统一的课程标准和教学计划 教学大纲, 也不使用统一的教材, 课程由各地自定, 教材由各地自编 第五次课程和教材改革 :1977 1980 年 以 1978 年 1 月教育部颁发 全日制十年制中小学教学计划试行 ( 草案 ) 为起点, 开始了基础教育课程领域内的拨乱反正 重建人民教育出版社, 集中编写了第五套全国通用的十年制中小学教材 文化大革命 结束后, 中国的教育几乎处于瘫痪状态, 各地中小学的学制混乱, 课程标准不一, 教材五花八门, 教育质量低 Ⅱ. 중국의교과서정책방향 31

下 在这样的情况下, 教育急切需要重建, 国家采取了统一学制和教学大纲 统一编写和使用教材的政策 这是当时既迫切又必要的任务 第六次课程和教材改革 :1981 1985 年 教育部于 1981 年颁发了 全日制六年制重点中学教学计划试行 ( 修订草案 ), 根据新教学计划的要求, 人民教育出版社立即组织编写了第六套教材 1984 年, 教育部又颁发了六年制城市小学和农村小学教学计划, 同时对教学大纲也进行了重新修订 第七次课程和教材改革 :1986 1996 年 这一时期课程改革最为突出的表现是 : 确立了 一纲多本 的课程改革方略 ; 在课程目标 内容 组织 结构等方面开始借鉴国际上的先进经验, 如 个性发展 选修课程 活动课程 等内容在各地的课程计划 课程标准中都占有重要地位 1986 年 4 月, 中华人民共和国义务教育法 审议通过, 正式以法律的形式提出 国家实行九年义务教育 ( 九年义务教育包含小学 6 年和初中 3 年或小学 5 年和初中 4 年 ) 为在全国有计划 有步骤地普及义务教育, 适应不同经济发展水平地区普及义务教育的需要, 促进青少年健康成长, 切实提高全民族素质, 中国教育行政管理部门制定了课程教材发展规划 课程教材多样化和三级管理政策, 确定了教材审定制度 第八次课程和教材改革 :1996 年至今 年, 教育部颁发 面向 世纪教育振兴计划, 该计划要求 年初步形成现代化基础教育课程框架和课程标准, 改革教育内容和教学方法等 年 月, 中共中央召开第三次全国教育工作会议, 公布 中共中央国务院关于深化教育改革全面推进素质教育的决定, 为中国基础教育课程和教材改革指明了方向 年 月, 教育部正式颁发 基础教育课程改革纲要 ( 试行 ), 新一轮基础教育课程和教材改革实验于 年秋正式启动 在中国, 第八次课程和教材改革是一次全新改革过程, 简称为 新课程改革 中国新课程改革的目标 特色及教材编写和审定制度 ( 一 ) 新课程改革的目标 2001 年, 中国教育部印发 基础教育课程改革纲要 ( 试行 ), 围绕 一切为了每一个学生的发展 的价值理念 ( 关注每一位学生 关注学生的情绪生活和情感体验 关注学生的道德生活和人格养成 ), 提出了 六个改变 的基础教育课程改革的具体目标 : 1 改变课程过于注重知识传授的倾向, 强调形成积极主动的学习态度, 使获得基础知识与基本技能的过程同时成为学会学习和形成正确价值观的过程 ; 교과서정책국제세미나 32

2 改变课程结构过于强调学科本位 科目过多和缺乏整合的现状, 整体设置九年一贯的课程门类和课时比例, 并设置综合课程, 以适应不同地区和学生发展的需求, 体现课程结构的均衡性 综合性和选择性 ; 3 改变课程内容 难 繁 偏 旧 和过于注重书本知识的现状, 加强课程内容与学生生活以及现代社会和科技发展的联系, 关注学生的学习兴趣和经验, 精选终身学习必备的基础知识和技能 ; 4 改变课程实施过于强调接受学习 死记硬背 机械训练的现状, 倡导学生主动参与 乐于探究 勤于动手, 培养学生搜集和处理信息的能力 获取新知识的能力 分析和解决问题的能力以及交流与合作的能力 ; 5 改变课程评价过分强调甄别与选拔的功能, 发挥评价促进学生发展 教师提高和改进教学实践的功能 ; 6 改变课程管理过于集中的状况, 实行国家 地方 学校三级课程管理, 增强课程对地方 学校及学生的适应性 概括起来, 这六个目标就是要实现 从应试教育 ( e x a m - o r i e n t e d e d u c a t i o n ) 向素质教育 ( q u a l i t y - o r i e n t e d education) 的转变 关于素质教育的含义, 中国教育部在 关于当前积极推进中小学实施素质教育的若干意见 中有一个明确的解释 : 素质教育是以提高民族素质为宗旨的教育 它是依据 教育法 规定的国家教育方针, 着眼于受教育者及社会长远发展的要求, 以面向全体学生 全面提高学生的基本素质为根本宗旨, 以注重培养受教育者的态度 能力 促进他们在德智体等方面生动 活泼 主动地发展为基本特征的教育 ( 二 ) 新课程改革的特色 1 努力将素质教育的理念切实体现在课程标准的各个部分, 全面体现 知识与技能 过程与方法以及情感态度与价值观 三位一体的课程功能 例如, 在语文课程标准中将 工具性和人文性的统一 作为语文课程的基本特点 语文是人与人之间交流思想 沟通感情的工具, 是人脑思维和学习其他学科的工具, 是人类传承文化和社会价值观的工具 但是, 如果只把语文当做工具, 就可能陷入 工具理性主义 的误区 新课程改革强调语文的人文性, 突出了语文在塑造学生的人生观 审美观和价值观过程中的功能, 有助于激发学生的生命力和创造力 认识到语文的人文性特征, 将会使语文的教学活动更富有情感和灵性 2 课程内容与学生的生活实际和现代科技发展紧密联系 新课程改革改变了课程内容 难 繁 偏 旧 和过于注重书本知识的现状, 加强了课程内容与学生生活以及现代科 Ⅱ. 중국의교과서정책방향 33

技发展的联系, 关注学生的学习兴趣, 精选生涯学习必备的基础知识和技能, 实现了课程内容的现代化和生活化 教材编写面向全体学生, 适当降低了难度, 增加了与学生生活世界相关的内容 如在 体育与健康 课程中增加了保健和健美的内容, 在 综合实践活动 课程中安排了社会实践和社区服务 劳动技术 探究性活动等内容 3 改善学习方式, 确立学生在教学中的主体地位 新课程改革加强了过程性 体验性目标, 引导学生主动参与 亲身实践 独立思考 合作探究, 改变以往过于强调接受学习 死记硬背 机械训练的弊端, 培养学生搜集处理信息的能力 获取新知识的能力 分析和解决问题的能力以及交流与合作的能力 实行国家 地方 学校三级课程管理 新课程改革妥善处理了统一性与多样性的关系, 建立了国家 地方 学校三级课程管理政策 既体现国家对学生的基本要求, 又为各地发展留有时间和空间 在新课程计划中, 地方课程与学校课程的开发被提到重要的位置, 逐步将一部分课程开发与管理的权力下放给地方和学校, 让地方教育行政部门和学校有更多的参与课程开发与管理的机会 按照新课程计划, 地方 学校课程占总课时数的 这一计划适合中国经济文化发展不平衡的特点, 有利于调动学校和教师的积极性, 使学校办学更有特色, 学生发展更有特长 ( 三 ) 新课程改革的教材编写和审定 1 教材编写的 一纲多本 原则为了适应中国幅员辽阔 人口众多 经济文化发展不平衡的现实, 国家提出, 在统一基本要求 统一审定的前提下, 逐步实现教材的多样化, 即所谓 一纲多本 原则 一纲 是指国家规定的教学大纲, 多本 是指多种不同的教材, 允许各地在国家规定的教学大纲的指导下编写多种教材, 经审定后可被选用 学校校长和教师可根据本校实际情况选择教材, 教育行政部门要给予指导 一纲多本 原则表明, 中国的教科书制度, 由以前的 国定制 变为 审定制, 实行编审分开 2 教材审定委员会 课程教材专家咨询委员会和专家工作委员会的设立及其职能 (1) 教材审定委员会 1986 年, 中国成立了建国以来第一个权威性的教材审定机构 全国中小学教材审定委员会 及其下属的 各学科教材审查委员会, 并设立了常设办事机构 中小学教材审定委员会办公室 同时, 颁布了一系列课程管理的重要文件, 如 全国中小学教材审定委员会工作章程 中小学教材审定标准 中小学教材送审办法 等, 规范了教材的编写与审定工作 中小学教材审定委员会是教育部领导下的审议中小学各学科教学大纲和审定中小学各学科教材 ( 包括教科书 教学参考书 教学挂图 图册 音像教材 计算机辅助教学软件等 ) 교과서정책국제세미나 34

的机构 审定委员会审定经教育部颁发的中小学课程计划中所规定的必修课教材, 以及教育部根据教学改革的需要决定审查的教学用书 教学辅助资料等 审定委员会的职责是 : 审议全国中小学各学科教学大纲 ; 审定全国中小学各学科教材 ; 指导各学科教材审查委员会的工作, 研究解决教学大纲审议和教材审查中提出的问题 ; 指导优秀中小学教材的评选工作 ; 对中小学课程教材改革进行调查研究, 向国家教育委员会提出建议 审定委员会下设各学科教材审查委员会, 其职责是 : 审议本学科的教学大纲和审查本学科的教材, 向审定委员会提出审议意见和审查报告 ; 研究本学科在审议教学大纲和审查教材中发现的问题并提出处理意见 ; 对本学科教材建设进行调查研究, 向国家教育委员会提出建议参与中小学优秀教材的评选工作 (2) 课程教材专家咨询委员会和专家工作委员会 2010 年, 为更好地适应 国家长远发展对人才培养的要求, 完善基础教育课程教材决策程序, 提高课程教材建设水平, 中国教育部成立国家基础教育课程教材专家咨询委员会和国家基础教育 课程教材专家工作委员会 国家基础教育课程教材专家咨询委员会的主要职责 : 接受教育部关于基础教育课程教材建设工作的咨询 ; 接受国家基础教育课程教材专家工作委员会的咨询 ; 研究提出国家基础教育课程教材建设的意见和建议 国家基础教育课程教材专家工作委员会的主要职责 : 组织研究制定基础教育国家课程方案和各学科课程标准, 组织审议并提出审议意见 ; 组织审核教材编写人员资格并提出审核意见, 组织审查教材, 协调处理教材审查中的重大问题 ; 组织开展对课程教材重大问题的研究和监测评价 ; 对地方和中小学课程改革工作进行专业指导和服务 ; 接受教育部和国家基础教育课程教材工作领导小组交办的专题研究工作 成立国家基础教育课程教材专家咨询委员会和国家基础教育课程教材专家工作委员会目的是, 建成中国基础教育课程教材建设的智囊团 思想库, 建成专业化 高层次 开放式的工作平台, 承担跟踪国际国内理论实践前沿 汇聚各方思想经验智慧 引领和推动基础教育课程教材改革的重任 Ⅱ. 중국의교과서정책방향 35

中国新课程改革面临的问题及未来展望 新课程改革自 年启动以来, 已过去了 年 改革的成效如何? 从全国新课程改革的总体情况看, 取得的积极效果主要表现在 : 以学生的全面发展为中心的教育理念得到广泛的认同, 各个学校尽可能地采取各种措施来实现这一目标, 尽管成效并不明显, 但已经有了相应的行动 ; 教材的编写呈现出多元化趋势, 一纲多本 的局面正在形成, 教材的审定制度已进入规范化轨道, 教材内容得以全面更新 ; 课程评价观念有所转变, 发展性课程评价机制得以确立 然而, 结合新课程改革的目标来考察课程和教材改革的历程, 又可以发现新课程和教材改革中还面临着诸多的问题 ( 一 ) 根深蒂固的 考试文化 影响着新课程改革的深入开展中国从隋唐到清代一直实行的科举制度是中国传统考试文化的集中体现, 而这样的考试文化在今天的中国依然与现代教育相伴随行, 考试是中国社会选人用人的主要手段与甄别方法, 考试文化成为新课程和教材改革的瓶颈之一 中考 ( 考高中 ) 高考 ( 考大学 ) 是中国教育成果评价的 指挥棒, 对学校的评价是以进入重点高中和大学的升学率为标准, 对教师的评价是以其所任课程的学生考试成绩为标准, 对学生的评价是以其考试分数的高低为标准, 无论是社会还是家庭, 更关注的是学校的升学率和学生的考试分数 虽然新课程改革中强调学生在教学活动中的主动参与性和探究性, 但是, 受考试评价的牵制, 在实际的教学过程中, 大多数中小学的教学主要还是进行静态的知识传播, 学生的学习方式主要还是静态的知识接受, 使得新课程改革改变过于注重知识的倾向和培养学生各种能力的目标无法真正得到实现 ( 二 ) 利益链条干预着教材的选用在实现 一纲多本 的教材编写制度以后, 教材的选用有了更大的空间和更多的自由 但是, 这样的空间和自由一旦与利益挂钩, 就会带来教材选用上的诸多问题 地方教育行政管理部门的官员掌握着选用教材的权力, 而这些官员如果试图利用手中的权力来为自己谋取私利 ( 寻租 ), 那么, 就会出现教育行政官员与教材出版方 教材发行部门相互勾结, 剥夺学校选用教材自主权的情形 另一个严重的问题是地方保护主义 教材出版地的政府部门通过指令性的文件要求学校选用当地编写的教材, 而不论这些教材是否被学校和教师认可 其理由是, 选用当地出版的教材对地方的经济发展有好处, 所谓 肥水不流外人田 ( 三 ) 学校之间的差异导致新课程改革进程的不平衡 교과서정책국제세미나 36

在中国, 中小学之间的差异比较明显 中国东部经济发达地区的中小学与西部经济落后地区的中小学存在着差异, 城市的中小学和农村的中小学存在着差异, 而在同一个城市或同一个县, 中小学又有重点与非重点之分, 这就给新课程的均衡性改革带来了相当大的难度 在一些办学基础条件 教学环境 教师水平和学生素质比较差的农村中小学, 新课程改革难以正常地得以进行 对这些中小学来说, 学校的生存是第一位的, 正常的教学活动能够得以进行已是一件难事, 既没有条件也没有精力再来考虑新课程改革中那些更高的要求 在中国贫困地区的中小学, 地方财政只能勉强应付发放教师的工资, 学校开展教学研究的经费严重不足, 没有资金进行新课程改革所需要的教师培训以及艺术 综合活动等课程的开设 面对中国新课程改革中存在的诸多问题, 中国教育界正在寻找多种途径予以解决 但是, 课程和教材的改革是一个系统工程, 不是教育部门自身所能独立完成的 新课程改革的目标能否实现, 与国家的政治 经济 文化的环境有着紧密的联系 中国的经济正持续地高速发展, 有理由相信, 因经济原因而给课程改革带来的资金困难在未来将能得到有效的解决, 而政治和文化环境对课程以及教材改革的影响则是更为关键的因素 ( 一 ) 中国的课程和教材改革需要更为民主的政治制度予以支撑中国是一个从集权政治走向民主政治的发展中国家, 虽然这个过程比较曲折, 但毕竟中国已经走在政治民主化的道路上 从中国基础教育课程和教材改革的历史发展中可以明显地看出政治环境的巨大影响力, 全国 大一统 的课程和教材模式是政治集权化的体现, 一个领导人的一句话就可以改变整个国家课程和教材发展的方向, 而在中国进行市场经济改革之后, 大一统 的课程和教材模式已不复存在, 新课程改革自身就内含着教育制度的民主化理念 从新课程改革的发展进程看, 推进教育领域的民主化依然是艰巨的任务 教育行政管理部门权力过于集中 过多干预学校选择权的现象需要得到改变, 学校的自主权利需要得到更多的保障, 而这是与整个国家的民主化进程紧密相联的 教材尤其是政治 历史和语文教材的编写, 政治意识形态的干预应减少到最小, 以保证教材内容的科学性和客观性 近年来, 发生在中国的关于政治 历史和语文教材内容改革中的数次争论, 正是如何处理政治意识形态与教材内容之间内在关系的反映 ( 二 ) 中国的课程和教材改革需要更为广阔的国际视野予以拓展虽然中国的课程和教材改革必须建立在中国本土的传统文化基础之上, 但是, 在全球化的当代世界, 不同文化之间的借鉴和融合已成为一个不可逆转的时代潮流 因此, 中国的课程和教材改革不可能 闭门造车, 需要借鉴其他国家尤其是西方国家的文化和价值观 课程和教材作为学校教育的核心, 应当具有国际视野, 以开放的胸怀, 面向世界, 博采众长, 吸收与利用世界各国课程和教材改革的成功经验 在借鉴国外课程理论和教材编写实践中有 Ⅱ. 중국의교과서정책방향 37

益成分的同时, 应努力使之本土化, 为中国的课程和教材改革进程服务 一味简单地模仿 移植别国的课程和教材模式, 在中国这样一个传统文化深厚的国家是注定要失败的 对西方课程文化和教材内容的借鉴, 绝非是机械的照搬, 而是要在中国传统文化与西方文化之间保持必要的张力, 结合中国的文化传统和民族特性进行有机的融通和再创造 ( 三 ) 中国的课程和教材改革需要更为灵活的机制予以保障中国的课程和教材改革必须切合中国的国情 在经济发展上, 不同地方尤其是城乡 东西部之间的差距较大 ; 在文化形态上, 中国 56 个民族有着不同的文字 文化传统和生活习俗 这就决定了中国的课程和教材改革不可能依照一个模式展开, 而应该采取更为灵活的运行机制 课程和教材改革需要示范, 但是, 示范样本仅仅是一个学校的成功经验, 而把示范样本向全国各地推广时, 则要考虑适用性的问题 在课程和教材改革中, 应鼓励和支持切合本地本民族经济发展水平 文化传统的课程改革方案, 不能搞 一刀切 中国的特殊国情, 要求各地教育工作者充分发挥自身的智慧, 围绕学生全面发展这个中心, 找到适合本校学生实际情况的素质教育的有效方法 参考文献 : 改革开放 30 年中国教育改革与发展课题组 : 教育大国的崛起 :1978 2008, 教育科学出版社 2008 年版 肖正德 : 课程改革 : 保持适度的文化张力, 南京社会科学 2010 年第 6 期 黄伟杰 : 基础教育课程改革咨文, 교과서정책국제세미나 38

Ⅱ. 중국의교과서정책방향 39

교과서정책국제세미나 40

Ⅱ. 중국의교과서정책방향 41

교과서정책국제세미나 42

Ⅱ. 중국의교과서정책방향 43

교과서정책국제세미나 44

Ⅱ. 중국의교과서정책방향 45

교과서정책국제세미나 46

Ⅱ. 중국의교과서정책방향 47

교과서정책국제세미나 48

Ⅱ. 중국의교과서정책방향 49

Ⅲ. 호주의교과서정책방향

1. Current Achievements and Problems of Textbook Policy in Australia There are no textbook policies relating to adoption, quality control, supporting new curricula or specific allocation of funds for schools to purchase materials for textbooks and other teaching and learning materials in Australia. The Australian government provides taxation relief for parents who purchase educational materials. All decisions regarding textbook production, supply, content and pedagogy are left to the free market. Australia has a free market in the production and supply of teaching and learning materials by private educational publishers and their demand by schools, teachers, and parents and students. Schools and teachers purchase textbooks and other print and digital teaching and learning materials from private educational publishers and suppliersin this free market. Achievement 1 Educational publishing is a major industry The Australian educational publishing industry is a key social, cultural and educational industry with a mission to produce high quality print and digital classroom teaching and learning resources. It has evolved to meet the needs of teachers, learners and schools in the Australian context. One of its key features is the strength of competition, thatallows multiple Australian teacher authors in each market niche to produce new and refined classroom teaching and learning materials, continually, that are purchased and valued by teachers and schools through the educational publishing market. Australian publishers also export and lot of textbooks and especially literacy and numeracy kits to the US and Spanish markets. The Australian educational publishing and textbook industry is only 45 years old. Prior to 1964, curriculum in each Australian state, wasbased on English curriculum and almost all the textbooks and teaching and learning materials were imported from England. From the late 60 s on, each state developed its own state curriculum and Australian educational publishers Ⅲ. 호주의교과서정책방향 53

grew to supply Australian textbooks to schools for teachers to teach this curriculum. During the period 1965 to 2005 some state governments allocated a specific amount of funding for each student to schools for the purchase of textbooks in Government and non government secondary schools. However, currently schools purchase most of their textbooks and other teaching materials from their global budget which is managed in the school. Each state has a different system of financing their schools and so there is great horizontal and vertical inequity in access to textbooks and other teaching and learning materials in Australian Schools. Achievement 2 Teacher and school choice in decision making Australian textbooks are written by teachers and are free of Government and political influence. Schools and teachers make all decisions in relation to evaluation of textbooks, selection, purchase and use. As a result the educational publishing market is highly competitive, with many textbooks available for teachers to choose from. This means that the textbooks and other educational materials produced by Australian publishers are actually purchased and used by teachers themselves. Achievement 3 Flexibility in teaching resources in classroom lessons Australian teachers are encouraged to develop their own teaching and learning materials and to not use textbooks. The major resource used in most Australian classrooms is photocopying from textbooks. As a result textbooks are critically important in Australian classrooms, in part because teachers use a variety of textbooks as the source of photocopying. Textbooks are a key resource for teaching and learning, however, photocopying is also important and teachers also make their own teaching and learning resources. Grubb (2008) has argued that money may be necessary to provide a certain level of resources, but resource use is actually constructed in a school by many different individuals. This research has highlighted the number of variables related to pedagogical practices and teacher attitudes that seem toinfluence student achievement scores (Hattie, 2009). One 교과서정책국제세미나 54

implication of this approach is that the previous research results, usually derived from production function analysis and focusing on teacher student ratios and teacher salaries, indicate very little impact of these sorts of resources on student achievement and learning. According to Grubb (2008), the most effective resources are compound, complex and abstract, some of them due to combinations of resources, some of them (such as school climate) embedded in a web of expectation and personal relations within schools, and some of them (such as streaming and different levels of curriculum) reflecting a complicated mixture of self-selection, curricular and pedagogical practices and teacher demands. Funding inputs are related to compound, complex and abstract use of the input resources. Input resources must be constructedby school leaders and teachers working together, by the kinds of sustained staff development that are the only ways to improve teaching practices. More recently Kennedy (2010) has argued that in considering teaching quality, it is best to explore the interaction between the way that teacher characteristics and the school, classroom and situation characteristics interact to form and structure such practices. In particular she argues that the amount of teacher planning time, the quality and quality of the teaching and learning resources and teachers workload all interact to influence teachers practices and student learning. In particular, in relation to both print and digital student educational resources, it is not only the quantity of classroom teaching and learning resources that is critical, but the use to which they are put by teachers and students. More current research (Grubb, 2008) has argued that many resources in schools are complex and compound, in that their use is mediated by other resources. For example, lap tops and digital educational resources and an increasing number of interactive whiteboards may be provided, but the impact on student performance and educational outcomes of these resources will be dependent on the way that teachers use these resources and the teachers professional development. Problem 1 Inequity in provision of resources to Australian school children Despite the great flexibility of resources and teacher choices and decision making, there is great inequity in providing textbooks and other teaching and learning resources for Ⅲ. 호주의교과서정책방향 55

Australian schools and classrooms. Australia s current financing system provides limited horizontal equity between schools. It does not provide equitable spending on classroom teaching and learning materials for Australian school children. The funding system for teaching and learning resources expenditures is complex and fragmented and results in significant horizontal inequity. At the federal level, no funding allocations are provided specifically for expenditure on non-digital teaching and learning materials by teachers, departments and schools, although some of the funding provided to schools by the Commonwealth may eventually be allocated to classroom teaching and learning materials by the decision making process at the state, school system, district/region, school department, teaching team and classroom level. In regard to vertical equity among children of different grades and ages in a school; there is a lack of such equity between primary and secondary school children; and in secondary schools, increased spending on students takes place in the senior years as students prepare for high stakes assessment for tertiary entrance purposes. Problem 2 Making markets work in educational publishing Many government social and cultural polices revolve around the question of how to re-structure and re-design markets (such as educational publishing) to achieve multiple social policy goals and aims. Answering this question requires governments to construct a policy and regulatory framework to more effectively structure markets like educational publishing. At the core of the re-designing and re-structuring will be policy and regulatory settings which allow market suppliers to better provide goods and services to meet the needs of the market and at the same time promote equity and efficiency. Inequity in the way that schools are funded has limited the demand by certain schools for these materials. The Australian copyright statutory licensing system revenue stream allows Australian educational publishers to continue to provide high quality classroom print and digital teaching and learning materials to meet the needs of the teachers and the schools that comprise the educational publishing market. As well, the current market structure in 교과서정책국제세미나 56

classroom teaching and learning materials ensures that purchasing and decisions about resources that are to be used in schools and classrooms are determined by the schools and teachers themselves. At the same time the key horizontal and vertical equity challenges that have arisen in the current educational publishing market as a result of the way the school system is funded and operates, requires new policies to promote equity. One of the results of PISA 2009 is that Australia needs to develop further policies in relation to overcoming socio-economic impact on student performance. These problems are turning government away from strengthening markets and leading them to design central resource solutions digitally for providing resources for Australian students. Problem 3 The plan to produce a government digital education repository to support the new Australian national curriculum Proposals to create a digital education repository are not based on an approach that values the design and structuring of markets to achieve social and cultural policy goals. Such a proposal would likely lead to a series of problems in the current educational publishing market. In the first instance such a proposal would seriously degrade the publishers ability to produce new and refined materials to meet the changing needs of learners and teachers. Smaller educational publishers would be at an even greater disadvantage in the market. In the second instance, teachers depend on publishers developing new classroom resources which teachers then photocopy to maximise their flexibility in providing classroom teaching and learning resources fortheir students. A proposal to make photocopying less expensive in licence terms will over time reduce the ability of teachers to exercise this flexibility in providing the best classroom resources to meet the learning needs of their students. Research carried out by Zikarova and Horsley have shown that teachers modify and change, adapt and restructure all teaching and learning materials that they use in classrooms. Usually digital materials are very difficult to modify, adapt and change. As a result some digital resources provide even less flexibility for teachers to resource their lessons, but are cheaper to provide. Ⅲ. 호주의교과서정책방향 57

2. Problems and Practical Alternatives in Performing Textbook Policy in Australia: A research project on the new digital education repositoryplanned in Australia to support the new Australian national curriculum Australia is developing new school architecture. The Australian Constitution (1901) establishing the Australian federal government made individual state governments responsible for education, curriculum and teaching and learning and education systems. In 2008, the Australian state governments agreed that the Federal Government would develop an Australian National Curriculum for all Australian students, that would be implemented by each state government, establishing the Australian Curriculum, Assessment and Reporting Authority (ACARA) to undertake this process; develop national accountability testing to inform educational practice and funding and provide state and school accountability for students in year 3, 5, 7 and 9 via the National Assessment Program for Literacy and Numeracy (NAPLAN), to be conducted by ACARA; develop national teaching standards to be applied to all teachers in all state and private school systems; create a corporation termed Educational Services Australia (ESA) to develop a national digital repository called Australian Curriculum Connect to provide digital teaching and learning resources for schools and teachers; align the architecture with a digital education revolution which is delivering a lap top to every secondary student; and align the architecture with a National Broadband, a $AUD50 Billion investment which will connect every home and school to 100mbs capability. This new infrastructure is outlined in the diagram below. 교과서정책국제세미나 58

Diagram: the role of ESA in providing teaching and learning and curriculum resources in Australia These changes represent a once in a life time development of a new educational system in Australia, with new institutions, priorities, objectives and outcomes against the background of state implementation of a national agenda. The major decisions establishing this new system was undertaken by the gang of four, Kevin Rudd, Julie Gillard, Lindsay Tanner and Wayne Swan, and were not discussed by the Australian cabinet. The new Australian curriculum has been developed nationally, but will be implemented by state and private education systems. Since there has been no funding allocation for teacher professional development and for teaching and learning resources, the development of ESA s Curriculum Connect is the only federal government allocation for teaching and learning materials to support the new Australian curriculum. At the heart of Australian Curriculum Connect is the intention to make a digital repository of all the existing teaching and learning curriculum support materials on each state government s sites (curriculum, schools, curriculum authorities, government departments, etc) and to develop a new access platform to support the new Australian curriculum (which is also available only digitally). This is the old wine in new, more easily searched bottles approach. Ⅲ. 호주의교과서정책방향 59

This paper reports on a research project development of the digital educational repository, Australian Curriculum Connect, to be managed by ESA http://www.esa.edu.au/ and develops a pre-implementation evaluation of how it may support teachers needs in the implementation of the new Australian curriculum. The mission statement of ESA is provided in the box below. A ministerial company delivering innovative, cost effective services across all sectors of education and training Diagram: Australian Curriculum Connect 교과서정책국제세미나 60

How is ESA developing Australian Curriculum Connect? 1. Over the years each state government education department and their various institutions for supporting teaching and learning have developed digital teaching and learning resources and networks. These will be reconfigured and developed in a single entry technological framework to be available to school systems nationally. During 2010 ESA placed these earlier developed materials into the Australian Curriculum Connect framework. 2. The Federal and state governments have funded many digital learning resources projects, for example, the Learning Federation, which produced thousands of learning objects. These materials will be also available on the ESA Australian Curriculum Connect website and will be incorporated into Australian Curriculum Connect. 3. The technology platform chosen for Australian Curriculum Connect is scootle. 4. More recently ESA has entered into discussion with teachers associations to jointly develop curriculum teaching and learning materials to meet teachers needs in phase 2 of this project. Any materials produced by teachers associations, but funded by governments, will be included. 5. Initially there were discussions with Australia s Digital Economy secretariat to change the copyright act in Australia to exempt educational publishing from copyright, and as a result materials produced by publishers could be uploaded onto the site for free. However, it was not possible to change the copyright legislation. 6. ESA has been in consultation with state curriculum authorities and publishers to see how resources could be shared. 7. ESA is not empowered to produce its own resources directly onto the site. Ⅲ. 호주의교과서정책방향 61

8. The architecture of the new Australian curriculum is that the Federal Government develops the curriculum, but state government and private education systems implement and resource the curriculum. Since there is no federal funding attached to developing new resources or for professional development for teachers implementing the new Australian curriculum, discussions about teaching and learning resources are highly politicised, and involve conflict between levels of Government. In late 2011, NSW delayed the implementation of the national curriculum until 2014, citing problems of funding teacher professional development and providing new teaching and learning resources. Research report on this digital repository Research on the development of the digital repository was funded by an Australian Research Council grant. The research looked at current Copyright Australia Limited data that aligned with the Australian Curriculum Connect proposal of ESA. The research used 3 data sources provided by Copyright Australia Limited. Data Source 1: Copyright Australia Limited (CAL) surveys photocopying in Australian schools, as Australian legislation has established CAL as a collection agency for copyright holders (authors and publishers). Every it is estimated that Australian teachers photocopy over 900 million pages. Data Source 2: Copyright Agency Limited (CAL) also collects data on photocopying from Government educational institution websites such as education departments and curriculum authorities. It is the material from these sites that ESA will collect to create Australian Curriculum Connect. Analysis of photocopying from these sources will establish to what extent the resources collected by ESA are being used to support teachers use of the Australian Curriculum Connect to support the implementation of the new Australian Curriculum. This photocopying and printing data collected applies to the copying of print and digital materials published by schools and educational bodies for educational purposes, at no cost; material from educational websites and other materials published by many government 교과서정책국제세미나 62

bodies. These materials comprise digital learning resources to support curriculum, teachers, schools and pedagogy and to provide professional development and classroom teaching and learning resources for teachers. This arrangement is facilitated by the National Education Access Licence for Schools (NEALS). In some ways this copying provides a view of the features of the future digital education repository, Australian Curriculum Connect that is to support the new Australian National Curriculum. Data Source 3: Copyright Agency Limited also collectsdata on digital copying and display (for example, on interactive whiteboards) from electronic sources in schools for educational purposes.data are collected through surveys of samples (by teachers in the nominated schools) of the schools and teachers records of their electronic use of copyright (EUS) material. Results Data Source 1: Copyright Australia Limited (CAL) surveys photocopying in Australian schools Copyright Agency Limited (CAL) conducts annual surveys of photocopying in Australian schools. Australian schools and teachers copy over 900 million pages per year, mostly from textbooks, for their students and classes. This amount has remained unchanged for the last 3 years, 2007-2010. In terms of pages per student the following chart shows the average photocopying from textbooks and print sources. Ⅲ. 호주의교과서정책방향 63

Average photocopying per student 2004-2009, all States and Territories The huge cost and amount of photocopying in Australian schools reflects both a wasteful and fragmented approach to providing teaching and learning resources by Australia s education system. Australian students receive hundreds and hundreds of disconnected photocopied pages from different sources, as the knowledge base for lessons or as activities to be completed in and out of class. The opportunity cost of this photocopying in terms of teacher and administrative school time is great, with photocopying taking up an estimated 400,000 hours of teachers, teachers aides and administrative staff time annually. The environmental cost of this volume of photocopying is estimated to be 50,000 trees annually. Data Source 2: Copyright Agency Limited (CAL)also collects data on photocopying from Government educational institution websites such as education departments and curriculum authorities. It is material from these sites that ESA will collect to create Australian Curriculum Connect. Copyright Agency Limited (CAL) also collects data on photocopying from educational 교과서정책국제세미나 64

institution websites.neals photocopying applies to the copying of print and digital materials published by schools and educational bodies for educational purposes.neals is a special National Education Access Licence for Schools (NEALS) that allows schools to copy at no cost, material from educational websites and other materials published by many government bodies.neals operates in all Australian states and territories with the exception of Victoria. The NEALS agreement is that these materials, provided by government bodies, do not attract licence fees from schools. These materials comprise digital learning resources to support curriculum, teachers, schools and pedagogy and provide professional development and classroom teaching and learning resources for teachers. In some ways the NEALS agreement and process provides a view of the features of the future digital education repository, Australian Curriculum Connect.The majority of school photocopying is from commercially published print textbooks that teachers have identified as containing the required knowledge and activity sources for their lessons.very little is copied from NEALS sources. Data on NEALS copying 2004-2009 is provided in chart below.this chart shows the extremely low copying from NEALS sources. Comparing NEALS to total photocopying Ⅲ. 호주의교과서정책방향 65

Such digital repository material can only provide a small proportion of the classroom teaching and learning needs of Australian teachers. Print textbooks, even in 2009, were providing the basis of classroom teaching and learning resources that were photocopied. The government supplied digital resources represent only 3% of the resources that teachers photocopy to support teaching and learning. This data raises significant issues in how the new Australian Curriculum will be supported by Australian Curriculum Connect. Data Source 3:Copyright Agency Limited also collects data on digital copying and display (for example, on interactive whiteboards) from electronic sources in schools for educational purposes Copyright Agency Limited also collects data on digital copying and display (for example, on interactive whiteboards) from electronic sources in schools for educational purposes.data are collected through surveys of samples (by teachers in the nominated schools) of the schools records of their electronicuse of copyright (EUS) material. The survey records are uploaded to a purpose-devised EUS website. In developing the survey and the records, the concept of a single copyright item is used.an item that is recorded is a single instance of copying a single piece of content and using it in a single way. The example given in the survey protocols is five pages sourced from a website that has been emailed to twenty people (AMR Interactive Report, 2009).To obtain the total multiplied pages reported in the results of the EUS survey, the number of pages of sourced content is multiplied by the number of copies of that content.2009 data showed that primary school students accessed 39%, and secondary students 61% of the electronically accessed content protected by copyright licences.furthermore, in the last few years the EUS survey shows that the number of pages accessed electronically has grown from 25.5 pages per student in primary schools in 2005 to 102.5 pages per student in 2009. For secondary students the annual student page rate grew from 38 pages per student in 2005 to 102.9 pages in 2009.Chart belowshows the 교과서정책국제세미나 66

use of different types of items recorded by the EUS Survey. The data shows that most categories/activity types remained constant over the period of the survey, with the exception of staff copying, printing and display. The increase in staff printing can be seen as reflecting the flexibility of teachers in printing material directly for their classes, adding to the flexibility of the Australian system that allows teachers to develop classroom teaching and learning resources to meet student needs. The extensive increase in display reflects the increasing use of interactive whiteboards to display web items and electronic resources produced by educational publishers. Ⅲ. 호주의교과서정책방향 67