Academic literature on the topic 'Textbook controversy'

In South Korea, education is no longer a place for learning, but a base for preparing ideological warriors, due to left-wing ideology education and fervent and conscientious teachers’ union and strong left-leaning media. Since left-wing president Moon took office in 2017, omnidirectional “leftization” of education is ongoing in society. According to Prof. Chul-hong Kim, the current left-leaning “authorized” textbook system strenuously inculcates students with the appropriateness of materialistic historical views. A high school student engaged in the protest against the campaign of “state-designated” textbooks says at a press interview, “I’m a proletarian class. It’s only the proletarian revolution that can change our social structure and its fundamental contradiction.” For reference, there are three kinds of textbooks: (1) state-designated textbook published by state (so, its copyright belongs to state), (2) authorized textbook published by private publishing companies, on the condition of passing through the government screening system (inviting criticism for its “poor screening”), (3) free-published textbook left entirely to the private sector without any state intervention. Prologue The second authorized textbook system is a “compromise” plan between state-led and privately-led textbooks. The main motive for adopting authorized textbooks (from previous state-designated textbooks) was to introduce “diversity of views and opinions” in Korean education, but a conservative journalist Gap-je Cho concluded - from analyzing 14 authorized history textbooks - that “promoting educational diversity” by authorized textbook system ended in failure. Because a great majority of left-wing professors and teachers take part in writing historical textbooks on the basis of Marxist class struggle theory: that is, Koreanized “popular view of history” or populism-based historical perspective (民衆史觀). These authorized textbooks are adopted by almost 99% of high schools across the country. Moreover, they tend to implant one “monolithic” idea (historical materialism) in the consciousness of young students. According to Cho, the authorized textbook system mired in controversy is degraded into a “certificate” of anti-state, pro-communist education, in place of diversity.

The role of teaching materials plays major contribution to the language development. The published materials bridge the content and the practice in the classroom. From the analysis it was found 25 images which represented the gender role in which man dominated in all chapters. The representative of image in the textbook employed the role of social background of what student perceived in the course book. The students perceived that the three images could represent their want. However, most images did not show students� daily activities. In addition, the findings showed that students� responses to the images in the textbooks had controversy related to the role of man and woman in the reality. Keywords: gender analysis, teaching materials, textbook analysis

The controversy over rewriting history textbooks in India in 2000 not only revealed the divergent renditions of collective memory but also evoked decades of contention over self-representation and cultural identity. This article explores these "multiple" renderings of a "singular" past and contends the formation of "historical identities" by arguing that divergent use of reason and interpretation leads to a layered and uid Indian identity leaving it open for contestation. By situating the case of the Mughal ruler Aurangzeb within the milieu from which textbook controversies emanate, the article suggests an alternative dimension for looking at the controversy—instead of the usual binary concept of "secular" versus "communal" history. At the root of the controversy is not merely politicization but also divergent perspectives of looking at the past and the resultant rethinking and reworking of dominant notions of it.

In contrast to Roig, lcochea, and Cuzzucoli (1991), we argue that textbook authors should maintain their generally skeptical description of parapsychology. We also argue that textbook authors may mislead readers when they say that future research will resolve the controversy.