The Evolution of Textbook Studies: From Reading Psychology to Critical Discourse Analysis
Article Sidebar
Main Article Content
Abstract
This article explores the formation and evolution of “Textbook Studies” as an interdisciplinary field reflecting the dynamics between the state, society, and knowledge. By employing a documentary research methodology through the content analysis of academic literature and relevant studies, the scope of this work is divided into three primary sections covering an evolutionary analysis of textbook history, an exploration of the development of textbook research through academic paradigm shifts, and a synthetic analysis of contemporary concepts and methodologies in textbook studies.
First, the finding highlight the functional role of textbooks as the primary vehicle for transmitting certified knowledge and as essential instruments for establishing cultural standards as well as collective social memory. Regarding paradigm shifts, the research indicates that the field has evolved from a focus on psychology and readability in the early 20th century toward Critical Discourse Analysis (CDA) particularly since the 1970s to decode hidden ideologies and the construction of “Self” versus “Other.” Furthermore, the contemporary complexity of the field is characterized by the integration of postmodernism and multimodal media analysis to understand power negotiations amidst the challenges of digital innovation. Finally, the article identifies academic gaps in Thailand where, despite the immense influence of textbooks, systematic research within educational science remains limited and lacks a clear disciplinary home as it often appears only within the realms of history and linguistics. Consequently, this article proposes that the Thai academic community in education prioritize systematic and intensive textbook research as a vital key to challenging intellectual monopolies and fostering an educational system that is responsive to global transformations.
Article Details
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.
Articles in this journal are copyrighted by the x may be read and used for academic purposes, such as teaching, research, or citation, with proper credit given to the author and the journal.use or modification of the articles is prohibited without permission.
statements expressed in the articles are solely the opinions of the authors.
authors are fully responsible for the content and accuracy of their articles.
other reuse or republication requires permission from the journal."
References
นฤมล นิ่มนวล. (2559). การเมืองในแบบเรียนชั้นมัธยมศึกษาของไทย ระหว่างปี พ.ศ. 2503 - 2551 [วิทยานิพนธ์ปริญญามหาบัณฑิต]. มหาวิทยาลัยธรรมศาสตร์.
ภิญญพันธุ์ พจนะลาวัณย์. (2561). พงศาวดารอาเซียนในแบบเรียนประวัติศาสตร์มัธยมไทย. ใน ประวัติศาสตร์สำเหนียก (หน้า 74 – 153). มติชน.
รังรอง เจียมวิจักษณ์. (2561). การศึกษาหนังสือเรียนภาษาไทย ภาษาพาที: ความสอดคล้องกับยุทธศาสตร์ที่ 1 การเสริมสร้างและพัฒนาศักยภาพทุนมนุษย์ ในแผนพัฒนาเศรษฐกิจและสังคมแห่งชาติ ฉบับที่สิบสอง. วารสารศิลปศาสตร์, 18(2), 241 - 267. https://so03.tci-thaijo.org/index.php/liberalarts/article/view/149977/110044
วิสันต์ สุขวิสิทธิ์. (2554). ความสัมพันธ์ระหว่างภาษากับอุดมการณ์ในหนังสือเรียนรายวิชาภาษาไทย ตามหลักสูตรประถมศึกษา พ.ศ. 2503 - 2544: การศึกษาตามแนววาทกรรมวิเคราะห์เชิงวิพากษ์ [วิทยานิพนธ์ปริญญาดุษฎีบัณฑิต]. จุฬาลงกรณ์มหาวิทยาลัย.
สายชล สัตยานุรักษ์. (2548). การสร้างความเป็นไทย กระแสหลัก และ “ความจริง” ที่ “ความเป็นไทย” สร้าง. สำนักงานกองทุนสนับสนุนการวิจัย.
สุเนตร ชุตินธรานนท์. (2557). ชาตินิยมในแบบเรียนไทย: ทัศนคติเหยียดหยามเพื่อนบ้านผ่านแบบเรียน. ศิลปวัฒนธรรม.
Apple, M. W., & Christian-Smith, L. K. (Eds.). (1991). The Politics of The Textbook. Routledge.
Ball, W. W. R. (1908). A Short Account of The History of Mathematics (4th ed.). Macmillan.
Bischewski, M. (2017). Einsatz von QDA-Software zur Untersuchung von Schulbuchinhalten: Ein Praxisbericht. In I. Rath (Ed.), Methoden und Theorien der Bildungsmedien- und Bildungsforschung: Ein Werkstattbericht von Nachwuchswissenschaftlerinnen und -wissenschaftlern des Georg-Eckert-Instituts (pp. 64–73). Eckert. Dossiers, 14. urn:nbn:de:0220-2017-0193
Eisenstein, E. L. (1979). The Printing Press as An Agent of Change: Communications and Cultural Transformations in Early Modern Europe. Cambridge University Press.
Fuchs, E. (2011a). Textbook Theory and Practice. Journal of Educational Media, Memory, and Society, 3(1), 1 – 10. https://doi.org/10.3167/jemms.2011.030101
Fuchs, E. (2011b). Textbooks Between Tradition and Innovation. Georg Eckert Institute.
Fuchs, E. & Bock, A. (Eds.). (2018). The Palgrave Handbook of Textbook Studies. Palgrave Macmillan.
Greenhow, C., Robelia, B., &Hughes, J. E. (2009). Learning, Teaching, and Scholarship in A Digital Age: Web 2.0 and Classroom Research: What are The Implications for The School Curriculum? Educational Researcher, 38(4), 246 – 259. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X09336671
Grendler, P. F. (2004). The Universities of The Italian Renaissance. Johns Hopkins University Press.
Hamilton, D. (1992). Comenius and The New World Order. History of Education, 21(4), 343 – 354. https://doi.org/10.1080/0046760920210401
Hayes, D. P., Wolfer, L. T., &Wolfe, M. E. (1996). Schoolbook Simplification and Its Relation to The decline in SAT Verbal Scores. American Educational Research Journal, 33(2), 489 – 508. https://statlit.org/pdf/1996-Hayes-AERA-Declining-SAT-Scores.pdf
Höhne, T. (2005). Über das Wissen in Schulbüchern: Elemente einer Theorie des Schulbuchs. In E. Matthes & C. Heinze (Eds.), Das Schulbuch zwischen Lehrplan und Unterrichtspraxis (pp. 65–93). Julius Klinkhardt.
Höhne, T. (2003). Schulbuchwissen: Umrisse einer Wissens- und Medientheorie des Schulbuches. Fachbereich Erziehungswissenschaften der Johann Wolfgang Goethe-Universität.
Huey, E. B. (1908). The Psychology and Pedagogy of Reading. Macmillan.
Johnsen, E. B. (1993). Textbooks in The Kaleidoscope: A Critical Survey of Literature and Research on Educational Media. Scandinavian University Press.
Klerides, E. (2010). Imagining The Textbook: Textbooks as Discourse and Genre. Journal of Educational Media, Memory, and Society, 2(1), 31 – 54. https://doi.org/10.3167/jemms.2010.020103
Nicholls, J. (2005). The Philosophical Underpinnings of Textbook Research. History of Education, 34(1), 21 – 35. https://doi.org/10.1080/0046760042000290008
Pingel, F. (2010). UNESCO Guidebook on Textbook Research and Textbook Revision (2nd ed.). UNESCO.
Pittayaporn, P. (2016). Chindamani and Reconstruction of Thai Tones in The 17th Century. Diachronica, 33(2), 187 – 219. https://doi.org/10.1075/dia.33.2.02pit
Ravitch, D. (2003). The Language Police: How Pressure Groups Restrict What Students Learn. Knopf.
Selwyn, N. (2016). Education and Technology: Key Issues and Debates (2nd ed.). Bloomsbury Academic.
Skinner, B. F. (1958). Teaching Machines. Science, 128(3330), 969 – 977. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.128.3330.969
Thorndike, E.L. (1921) The Teacher’s Word Book. Teachers College, Columbia University.
Veldhuis, N. (2004). Religion, Literature, and Scholarship: The Sumerian Composition “Nanše and The Birds”. Brill.
Weinbrenner, P. (1992). Methodologies of Textbook Analysis. In H. Bourdillon (Ed.), History and Social Studies - Methodologies of Textbook Analysis. Council of Europe.
Westerhoff, J. H. (1978). McGuffey and His Readers: Piety, Morality, and Education in Nineteenth - Century America. Abingdon.
Williams, R. J. (1972). Scribal Training in Ancient Egypt. Journal of the American Oriental Society, 92(2), 214 – 221. https://doi.org/10.2307/598326
Wyatt, D. K. (1969). The Politics of Reform in Thailand. Yale University Press.
