오개념을형성하는 ‘고려·거란관계’ 역사교과서분석

Abstract

History educators should have interest not only in what contents to be taught but in the historical cognition formed by it. The contents of history to be taught tend to contain some ready-made history perception and perspective. Therefore students can learn this historical cognition which is implicit in the textbooks. If there is misconception distorting some historical facts by concealing or expanding them, this should be corrected immediately. What are historical conception and misconception in the study of history? It’s hard to answer. If right conception is primary sources or the real history of the past, “misconception”can be defined as a “conception”leading to misunderstanding or distorting historical facts. That is,“ misconception”in history is not about the differences concerning the prospective or interpretation on “primary sources”but about the“ wrong conception”which blurred the fact by inflating or concealing some historical truth. Therefore, it is needed to check what kind of misconception can be found in history textbooks as well as in class. Students as well as researchers can form misconception. However, it is the researchers who decide the direction and attitude of writing textbooks. It means the misconception held by researchers can have huge influence on the formation of inappropriate historical conception among students by not seeing the true facts. In addition, this misconception does not stay put but is in the state of changing through combining other concepts or by external factors. This changing misconception itself has its own value in terms of developing knowledge and improvement. This paper analyzed“ school textbooks”as a key element of school history education, focusing on the relationship between Khitan and Goryeo. The misconception hold by textbooks’writers can be inferred from distortion and errors expressed in textbooks except for the simple faults. The Goryeo Dynasty was small but coped actively with the rapidly changing international circumstances with strong military forces. Goryeo well understood the situation of East Asia and conducted its practical foreign policy, including paying tribute and the investiture of kings. They are common diplomatic practices in East Asian countries, the content of which varied from year to year. Textbooks, however,didn’t mention this tribute-investiture relationship, so that the real aspect of Goryeo’s utilitarian diplomacy cannot be learned. They narrated as if the peaceful relationship between Khitan and Song dynasty was formed by highlighting the Goryeo’s victories against Khitan. Therefore, the circumstance of East Asia at that time cannot be well appreciated. This type of narration involves a parochial nationalism. Making students believing Khitan was the most uncivilized barbarian outlanders by emphasizing Goryeo’s hostile attitude against Khitan, textbooks downplayed the two-way trade and cultural exchange between two countries for more than a century. On the other hand, they potentially described Song dynasty whose formal relationship with Goryeo was relatively short as an influential and superior country. Sino-barbarian attitudes are inherent in this type of narration which overestimate the relationship with Song while diminishing one with Khitan. This way, covering up or highlighting some real historical facts resulted in misconception. Misconception on the relationship Goryeo and Khitan stems from prejudiced nationalism and sino-centrism. Metacognition attitude is needed in Korean foreign policy and a historical overviews to abandon a self-centered attitude universally found in history textbooks and a huge discourse called Sinocentrism. This untruthful misconception prevented students from recognizing the international relationship in East Asia as well as that of Goryeo-Khitan objectively. Overcoming insular nationalism and Sino-centrism will be possible not in political slogan but in the correct historical content. To make students develop right historical consciousness which allows them to view the times objectively, active and comprehensive discussion and effort among historian, textbooks writers and panels of history educators as well as teachers at school are necessary. In addition, the stable environment where the accumulated outcomes of studies can be reflected in making school textbooks is needed. Study on misconception needs to get started in History education as a subject matter education course which examines content-based attitude and cognitive domain.