Chapter 5: A Critical Reflection on the Reform of the High School History Curriculum in Taiwan

The richness of history is its complexity, overwhelmed with epistemological and ideological diversity in explanations. It is not surprising then that there is no consensus on the teaching of history in schools because it involves belief systems, understanding, and choice. The perspectives on the aims of history education are so varied that both the priorities and purposes of history teaching in schools are intrinsically contentious. There are always battles over issues of choice, inclusion and/or exclusion in the history curriculum. No matter on what grounds choices are made—“learning history as an end in itself” or “learning history as a means to further ends” (Lee, 1992, p. 40)—it is very easy to produce sets of politically appealing dichotomies in school history. Over the past 20 or more years the debate concerning the role of history in the school curriculum has revealed ideological tensions, conflicts, and contradictions (Crawford, 1995). We may also find that arguments for “what should be included in the school history curriculum” do not rest merely on trendy “political correctness” within the teaching profession, but also are central to the debates that go on among historians who are not particularly concerned with school issues (Claire, 1996). For example, Stearns, Seixas, and Wineburg (2000) invited scholars from different disciplines to address the issues in history education and provided suggestions for reform from national and international perspectives. Stearns (2000) critiqued the National Standards for the History Curriculum in the United States. In the United Kingdom, Lee (1992), Slater (1992), and White (1992) had great debates about the aims of school history with regard to the National Curriculum. Pendry and O’Neill (1997) provided analytical perspectives on curriculum reform and changing pedagogy with emphases on the national identity issues and history teaching in Britain. Claire (1996) promoted alternative historiography to help teachers recognize the hidden agenda in the textbooks. Kan and Vickers (2002) discussed the issues of “two histories” in the Hong Kong school curriculum.