First, the system has great leap and poor logic, which weakens the basic clues of historical development and makes it difficult for students to clearly understand and grasp the context of historical development.
For example, this is the directory of 1, a compulsory course of high school history in the new curriculum standard:
Unit 1 China Ancient Political System
Unit 2 The Political System of Ancient Greece and Rome
Unit 3 Establishment and Development of Modern Western Capitalist Political System
Unit 4 The trend of anti-aggression and democracy in modern China
From scientific socialist theory to the establishment of socialist system
Unit 6 Political Construction in Modern China and the Reunification of the Motherland
Unit 7 Foreign Relations of Modern China
Unit 8 Multipolarization of today's world political structure
When I was studying history, my teacher taught me to look at the table of contents, saying that the table of contents is a natural knowledge tree, which can clearly reflect the logical relationship between the parts of knowledge. And now this directory, the biggest feature is that there is no logical relationship between chapters. Why is the Political System of Ancient Greece and Rome after the Political System of Ancient China? Just for a simple comparison? The fourth unit "Anti-aggression Democratic Thoughts in Modern China" begins with the Opium War, and the fifth unit begins with the birth of Marxism. Isn't this time and space disorder? Unit 7 talked about the diplomacy of the new China, while Unit 8 only talked about the Cold War, the bipolar pattern and so on. Isn't this causal inversion?
Look at the partial catalogue of elective course 2 (democratic thought and practice in modern society);
Unit 2 the struggle between the British parliament and the king
A movement to declare war on feudal autocracy
United States Declaration of Independence
Lesson 2 French declaration of human rights
Lesson 3 Provisional Constitution of the Republic of China
The fourth unit constructs the political framework of bourgeois representative system.
The establishment of British constitutional monarchy
The second lesson is the formation of the responsible cabinet system in Britain
Lesson 3 The Formation of American Representative System
Unit 5 The struggle between French democratic forces and autocratic forces
Unit 6 Modern China's Democratic Thought and the Struggle against Autocracy
Similarly, what we see is only a simple merger of the same kind, with Britain, the United States, France and China criss-crossing, and it is difficult to find clear time clues and causal links between chapters. Can history be called history without basic clues?
It is said that this is the result of a revision. The previous system looks more absurd than the present one.
Second, the system has isolated the political, economic and ideological and cultural history, and separated their internal relations, making it difficult for students to accurately understand and explain historical phenomena and essence.
On a * * * level, political, economic and cultural phenomena are bound to be interrelated and inseparable, but today's textbooks have to be forcibly separated, resulting in ironic consequences.
Many political phenomena have their economic roots, such as bourgeois revolution, which is obviously the result of the great development of capitalist economy after the opening of new air routes, but it is compulsory to talk about bourgeois revolution and the opening of new air routes. Another example is the failure of economic reform, but compulsory 1 talks about the disintegration of the Soviet Union, and compulsory 2 talks about the economic reform of the Soviet Union. Political movements often have ideological and cultural backgrounds, but they can't escape the fate of being separated. The Revolution of 1911 and the Three People's Principles appeared in Compulsory Course 1 and Compulsory Course 3 respectively, as did the May 4th Movement and the New Culture Movement, which is simply puzzling-how can these contents be discussed separately? How can we make it clear separately?
Some knowledge is repetitive, such as the European body, because it is a political and economic alliance, so 1 forces it to be said again, and 2 forces it to be said again. Another example is the steam engine, which not only promoted the industrial revolution, but also was a milestone in the history of science and technology. So, say it twice, say it once …
Compulsory 3 is said to be ridiculed as "the least like a history book". In fact, the reason is very simple. In the catalogue, we only saw a bunch of unrelated cultural phenomena, but also completely divorced from the political and economic background at that time. Of course, the more we talk, the more empty we become!
Third, the system of separating politics, economy and culture has divided a complete history into pieces. In order to cater to this "three-part world" system, a lot of knowledge that cannot be accommodated by this system has been ruthlessly discarded as scraps.
Part of world history, two world wars, not to mention; Not to mention the Meiji Restoration in Japan; Latin American independence movement, don't talk; African national liberation movement, don't talk; The American Civil War, not to mention ...
Part of China's history, the rule of Wenjing, the rise of Guangwu, the rebellion of the Eight Kings, the rule of Zhenguan, the prosperity of Kaiyuan, the Tianbao crisis, the mutiny in Chen Qiao, the change of Jingkang, and the battle of Jingnan ... were not mentioned; Even field system, rent adjustment system, two tax laws, one whip method, even field ... forget it; Xiongnu, Turkic, Tubo, Uighur, Khitan, Nuzhen ... Don't talk about it. ...
Is this still history? Is this still history?
Last year, in the history test of Peking University's independent enrollment, "Northeast China changed its flag and changed its flag", "Free France" and "The influence of northern minorities on the historical process of China" were not difficult at all five years ago, but last year many candidates were at a loss because they were not mentioned in the current compulsory courses. ...
Is this what many people call "focusing on ability"? Should paying attention to ability be at the expense of ignoring knowledge? Is it meaningful without knowledge and empty talk?
Fourth, in the case that the basic knowledge of history is extremely weak, learning without skills is tantamount to learning to run, which violates the basic teaching rules.
If our students have a good historical foundation when they are in the first year of high school, it is also a good thing to directly enter this special historical system, re-integrate the existing knowledge according to each special topic, and learn history from a new perspective. It is said that today's high school history textbook is changed to this way to avoid simple repetition with junior high school history textbooks. But the opposite is true. Judging from the present situation, history education in junior and senior high schools is seriously out of touch. It is said that the textbooks of junior high school are also changing, but the direction of reform is "younger", while the reform of senior high school is developing in the high-end direction, which is the opposite. What is even more frightening is that because there is no history subject in the senior high school entrance examination, the history teaching in junior high school is almost abandoned, and most students enter high school without even some basic history knowledge. Go to Class One of Senior High School and ask "What is the Anshi Rebellion" and "Industrial Revolution". Few people know at all. With such a knowledge background, how can we learn directly from special study? The most terrible thing is that these fragmentary topics are also for science students to learn. If you study according to the old system, even if you don't learn well, you can have a general clue and basic common sense in your mind. Now? Only paste is left!
In fact, I am no stranger to the current history textbook catalogue. Each of the above topics is a special content of the second round of review under the old teaching system. However, the new curriculum standard actually changed the second round of review into the first round of study (note that it is learning, not review). This reform method has an essential premise, that is, the current junior high school graduates must have the knowledge level of the past senior high school students in history subjects, but in fact it is still far from it! Obviously, special research must have a good general theoretical foundation. The first round of college entrance examination review under the old curriculum standard is to consolidate the basic knowledge repeatedly, and then dare to enter the second round of special history review; Even in the history department of Peking University, basic courses such as the ancient history of China and the general theory of world history are needed to enter the special study. Not only the students of history department, Chinese department and philosophy department have no foundation of literature history and philosophy history, but it is impossible to do research specially. However, the editor of this textbook has the courage. Obviously, they overestimated the current situation of history education in junior high school, which caused an extremely embarrassing situation in history teaching in senior high school, and the quality of teaching and review was seriously damaged.
In the daily teaching process, when teaching a political system problem, there are always some unavoidable problems, such as economy, such as culture, whether to talk about it or not? Let's talk about it, affect the progress, and then repeat it; Let's not talk about it. Many phenomena can't be explained clearly, so let it go, it's not a problem. It is even more ridiculous when reviewing for the college entrance examination. In the first round of review, all districts in Beijing will rearrange the knowledge involved in the textbook according to the old textbook system for review, and then return to the textbook for special review in the second round, in exactly the same order as the old system. The only difference is that the first round of review is sandwiched between the study and review of special history, and the intensity is greatly weakened. This phenomenon fully illustrates the scientific nature of the old system and the absurdity of the new system.
Should we go back to the old system? Many people think that they can't go back, and going back is retrogression. I think going back is better than now. Old textbooks do have their problems. I think the most important issue is ideology, and the construction of knowledge system is very mature, with clear clues and strong compatibility. What about the new curriculum standard textbooks? The original mature system is falling apart, but the ideological problems tend to strengthen-please look at the current catalogue of three compulsory textbooks, isn't it a bit like political textbooks?
Some people say that it is good to specialize in history, so we should stick to it. I said, you can insist, but there is a premise-please raise the history education in primary and junior high schools to the same status as mathematics. Many people are happy when they see it, and they say it is ridiculous in their hearts. If this idea is absurd, then the absurdity of high school history teaching in the new curriculum standard must be doubled. Without moving the history system of senior high school, only by improving the status of junior high school history discipline and helping students lay a good foundation can we successfully enter the history study of junior high school. As I said before, the present situation of history education in junior high school is almost deserted. How many people care about subjects that are not tested in the senior high school entrance examination? Politics is still the subject of the senior high school entrance examination, which makes history miserable. The most intolerable thing is that I heard that many schools changed their history classes to English classes in the third grade. I said, you can't change history class into English class! This is naked cultural aggression! Don't let me know who dares to adjust classes like this in the future! I want to know if I have to beat him up, I can't take care of myself!
Some people say, isn't it just a history lesson? As for being so angry? I said, as for it. Chinese and history education is the foundation of a nation. If these two educations are not done well, the consequences will be more serious, that is, the country will perish and the species will be extinct. Education in China, as far as textbooks are concerned, is still developing in a good direction. The urgent task is to solve the quality problem of teachers (this is another thing that makes me furious). As for history education, the situation is much worse. It is really the fault of the country and the people to let this kind of children's play textbook pass the test.
Compared with the great experts in education reform, I am a pure layman, and what I say is probably insignificant. Even if the existing situation can be changed, whether it is the return of high school textbooks to the old system or the strengthening of history education in junior high school, it will certainly not be immediate. Then, for students who study liberal arts under the new curriculum standard and make efforts to make a difference (for example, taking the independent entrance examination of Peking University), how should they overcome the disadvantages of this textbook and raise their study to a new height? I think we should read some decent history books as soon as possible. It would be great if we could find old textbooks published by PEP. You can also read Stavri and Anoos's General History of the World, Li Kan's Modern History of China, Zhang Fan's A Brief History of Ancient China and other classic history textbooks (all the above textbooks are used by undergraduates of Peking University and are most suitable for preparing for independent enrollment of Peking University), as well as high-quality history books.