為瞭解跨國共構歷史教材的意義與爭議，本研究以中日韓三方合作經驗為例，思考跨國共構教材的價值，並提出理想的共構模式。首先以文獻探討國際教科書對話的背景及發展現況，為後續討論奠定歷史背景圖像；次者，透過實地訪談13 位中國大陸、日本及韓國的參與者，瞭解共構的歷程、發展與挑戰；再者，分析《東亞三國的近現代史》架構及內容議題，以之與中、日、韓三國的國家版歷史教科書進行對照探討，從兩者的差距探究共構版本的限制與特點，並反思跨國共構歷史教材的意義及問題。
研究發現：東亞三方形成跨國學術共同體，建立歷史對話機制，增益了歷史視野的相互理解；共構版教材賦予教材更開放的定義，不限定單一國家作者及單一國家，具有拓寬歷史視野及縮小各自國家對歷史理解存在的差異；而「共構」使得部分歷史記憶有了再議的可能，惟難以短時間改變主流記憶及結構面的分歧。最後，中日韓共構經驗所呈現的「東方模式」，融合東方文化強調集體、共識、民族性等性質，有跨國取向，但尚未達到越國的境界。
針對研究發現，本研究提出若干建議：1. 針對共構版本進行實徵性研究，瞭解落實程度與使用情形；2. 進行現行歷史教科書內容的修訂，並將共同編撰歷史教材的經驗轉化為現行歷史教科書敘寫的建議。3. 教材共構的理想模式，應關照教師及學生的需求，在持續對話與評估中達到循環改進。

In order to understand the significance and controversies in the cross-national joint construction of the history teaching materials, this study aimed to study the col-laborative project of“A History to Open the Future” between China, Japan, and Korea. Firstly, the development of the international textbook dialogue was explored to better understand historical background of joint construction. Secondly, thirteen members of the compilation committee were interviewed to learn about the collaboration process and how historical controversies and practical development challenges were dealt with during process. Thirdly, the content and structure of the jointly-constructed history books were analyzed as a comparison to those of the official history textbooks of each country. Based upon the differences found in the analysis, further investigation on the uniqueness and limitations of the jointly-constructed version was conducted, and reflections were made on the significance and the challenges of the cross-national joint construction of the history teaching materials.
The research findings were as follows. (1) The joint construction experience helped China, Japan and Korea of the East Asia to form a cross-national academic community and to establish a dialogue mechanism for history writing, increasing mutual understanding of different historical perspective. (2) The joint-construction version provided more open views to the history teaching materials beyond the traditional limits of single-nationality author(s) or a single unified national perspective, not only expanding the historical perspective but also reducing the gaps among the national perspectives of each individual country. (3) The “joint construction” has made possible the re-consideration of certain historical memories; however, it is difficult to bring about changes in the mainstream historical memory and the differences of structural mechanism within a short time. (4) China, Japan and Korea joint construction experience is an “Oriental Mode”. It emphasizes an integration of the Eastern culture such as collective, a common consensus and national sentiment. It has taken a cross-national orientation, but has not yet reached the transnational realm.
This study proposes a number of recommendations. (1) Empirical studies on the implementation and usage of the joint construction version should be carried out. (2) Revisions on current official history textbooks need to be carried out, and the experiences and lessons learned from jointly-constructing history teaching material should be transformed into recommendations for the writing of the official history textbooks. (3) The ideal approach to the joint construction of the history teaching materials should focus on the needs of the teachers and students, and achieve a continual improvement cycle through the ongoing dialogues and evaluations.

人民教育出版社（2009）。歷史1。北京：人民教育出版社。
山川出版社（2012）。日本史A。東京：山川出版社。
川島真（2006）。歷史對話與史料研究。載於劉杰、三谷博、楊大慶（主編），超越國境的歷史認識：來自日本學者及海外中國學者的視角。北京：社會科學文獻出版社。
大日方純夫（2005）。「未来をひらく歴史」日中韓共同執筆の意義と課題。日本の科学者，40（12），3-6。
大日方純夫（2006a）。日中韓三国共通歴史教材づくりにおける議論点—歴史叙述歴史研究とかかわって。大阪歴史科学協議会，185，23-31。
大日方純夫（2006b）。日本社會的歷史（戰爭）認識與為了開創未來的課題。載於中國社會科學院近代史研究所（主編），第四屆歷史認知與東亞和平論壇：戰後60年歷史認識的總結與展望（頁51-54）。北京：中國社會科學院社會科學文獻出版社。
井手弘人（2008）。東アジアにおける歴史対話の到達点と課題。載於近藤孝弘（主編），東アジアの歴史政策（頁254-273）。東京：明石書店。
中日韓學者談《東亞三國的近現代史》。（2005，7月17日）。光明日報，取自http://big5.xinhuanet.com/gate/big5/news.xinhuanet.com/report/2005-07/19/content_3237203.htm
王文新（譯）（2005）。法德兩國撰寫共同歷史。今日法國，60，取自http://www.fi-taipei.org/spip.php?article642
王仲孚（2010）。對「日韓中」合編歷史教科書的感想。海峽評論，231。取自http://www.haixiainfo.com.tw/SRM/231-7825.html
王汎森（1993）。歷史記憶與歷史。當代，91，40-49。
王汎森（2008）。歷史教科書與歷史記憶。思想，9，123-139。
王宏仁、郭佩宜（2009）。導論：跨國的臺灣、臺灣的跨國。載於王宏仁、郭佩宜（主編），流轉跨界：跨國的臺灣、臺灣的跨國（頁1-32）。臺北市：中央研究院人文社會科學研究中心亞太區域研究專題中心。
王希亮（2005）。撥開迷霧覓珍珠－參加中日韓三國合編《東亞三國的近現代史》略感。世界知識，13，46-48。
王明珂（1993）。集體歷史記憶與族群認同。當代，91，6-19。
王明珂（1997）。華夏邊緣—歷史記憶與族群認同。臺北市：允晨文化。
王雅玄（2005）。社會領域教科書的批判論述分析：方法論的重建。教育研究集刊，51（2），67-97。
王雅玄（2008）。CDA方法論的教科書應用：兼論其解構與重建角色。教育學刊，30，60-100。
王雅玄、余佳儒（2007）。社會教科書的批判論述分析—以南一版國小五年級下學期內容之政治意識型態為例。國立編譯館館刊，35（4），39-50。
卯靜儒（2010）。書評：戰爭、國家、記憶—學校歷史教科書中二次世界大戰的國際觀點。教科書研究，3（1），157-161。
未來出版社（2012）。韓國史。首爾：未來出版社。
白永瑞（2005）。東亞歷史教科書和歷史教育。21世紀，49，取自http://www.cuhk.edu.hk/ics/21c/supplem/essay/0507011.htm
白永瑞（2009）。思想東亞：韓半島視角的歷史與實踐。臺北市：臺灣社會研究雜誌社。
甘懷真（2009）。臺灣與日本的中學歷史教科書之比較。歷史教育，14，151-170。
庄司潤一郎（2010）。日中歷史共同研究之回顧-以南京事件為主體。抗日戰爭研究，4，11-16。
余霞（2007）。歷史記憶的傳媒表達及其社會框架。武漢大學學報，60（2），254-258。
吳乃德（2006）。轉型正義和歷史記憶；臺灣民主化的未竟之業。思想，2，1-34。
吳乃德（2008）。書寫民族創傷：二二八事件的歷史記憶。思想，8，39-70。
宋佩芬（2012）。專題論壇III：跨國共構歷史教科書前瞻發言詞。發表於國家教育研究院及國立臺灣師範大學主辦之「跨國教科書共構經驗—和平教育之實踐」國際學術研討會，臺北市。
李寅濟（2008，3月）。韓國中小學的教科書政策。發表於中華民國教材研究發展學會主辦之東亞教科書政策研討會，臺北市。
李涵鈺（2012）。一窺國際教科書研究領航基地－GEI參訪記。國家教育研究電子報，51。
步平（2003）。第二屆「歷史認知與東亞和評論壇國際研討會」綜述。抗日戰爭研究，2，251-253。
步平（2005）。關於日本歷史教科書問題的歷史考察。思想理論教育專刊，8，56-61。
步平（2007）。東亞地區能否建立面向未來的歷史認識。中國圖書評論，11，4-10。
步平（2012）。歷史認識的交鋒與相互理解—中日邦交正常化與中日歷史問題。論文發表於國家教育研究院與國立師範大學主辦之「2012跨國教科書共構經驗—和平教育之實踐國際學術研討會」，臺北市。
朴中鉉（2008，11月）。東亞的歷史和解與共同教材。載於中國社會科學院近代史研究所（主編），第7屆史認識與東亞和平論壇「東亞國際關係的變化與歷史認識」論文集（頁262-273）。北京：中國社會科學院近代史研究所。
汪宏倫（2003）。全球化與跨/越國想像。當代，187，p.36-39。
汪宏倫（2011）。國家與戰爭：歷史社會學與國際關係的邂逅。載於蔡正文等（主編），國際關係理論（頁259-286）。臺北市：五南。
金聖甫（2006）。東アジアの歴史認識への第―歩—「未来をひらく歴史」の執筆過程と韓国国内の反応。載於三谷博（編著）。歴史教科書（頁316-325）。東京：日本図書センター。
周佳榮（2005，8月12日）。中日韓關係的回顧與展望—從《東亞三國的近現代史》說起。香港經濟日報。取自http://www.hket.com/eti/article/0513189e-f764-4d95-be21-2120d3aed695-295381
周桂鈿（2005）。孔子誕辰2556周年，全球祭孔的啟示。人民日報海外版，第一版。
周珮儀（2010）。論壇：促進國際理解和交流的教科書研究之旅—GEI短期研究心得。教科書研究，4（1），115-123。
周婉窈（2008）。中日韓共通教科書，應擴及臺灣。取自：http://udn.com/NEWS/ WORLD/WOR1/4307200.shtml
周婉窈（2012，6月2日）。臺灣歷史教科書共構之可能性。論文發表於國家教育研究院、國立臺灣師範大學舉辦之「2012東亞歷史教科書共構工作坊」，臺北市。
周樑楷（2006）。歷史意識是種思維的方式。載於思想編委會（主編），歷史與現實。臺北市 : 聯經。
官土生（2011）。左看：又近又最遠的東亞。臺灣立報，言論廣場，取自http://www.lihpao.com/
東亞三國的近現代史共同編寫委員會（2005）。東亞三國的近現代史。北京：社會科學文獻出版社。
東亞三國的近現代史共同編寫委員會（2006）。東亞三國的近現代史（修訂版）。北京：社會科學文獻出版社。
波多野澄雄（2011）。日中共同歷史研究-成果與課題。抗日戰爭研究，1，13-21。
林慈淑（2012）。專題論壇I：跨國共構歷史教科書前瞻發言詞。發表於國家教育研究院及國立臺灣師範大學主辦之「跨國教科書共構經驗—和平教育之實踐」國際學術研討會，臺北市。
邱澎生（譯）（1993）。Lewis A. Coser著。阿伯瓦克與集體記憶。當代，91，20-39。
俞柳柳（2011）。中日韓三國共同歷史讀本研究。上海師範大學國際關係學系碩士論文，未出版，上海市。
俵義文（2011，11月）。「歷史認識論壇」的10年以及日本歷史認識的變化與課題。載於中國社會科學院近代史研究所（主編），第10屆「歷史認知與東亞和平論壇」論文集（頁37-42）。北京：中國社會科學院近代史研究所。
夏春祥（1998）。文化象徵與集體記憶的競逐：從臺北市凱達格蘭大道談起。臺灣社會研究季刊，31，57-96。
孫歌（2008）。東亞視角的認識論意義。臺灣社會研究季刊，70，213-244。
孫歌（2011）。橫向思考的東亞圖景：評白樂晴與白永瑞的近作。臺灣社會研究季刊，82，213-243。
紙上談兵：巴爾幹新教材求和平（2007，3月20日）。台灣立報，第六版。
翁秀琪（2001）。集體記憶與認同構塑－以美麗島事件為例。新聞學研究，68，117-149。
荒井信一（2006）。歴史和解は可能か。東京：岩波。
袁訓利（2007，9月）。大力培養青少年的歷史意識和和平共建東亞美好未來—來自中國天津市實驗中學的實踐報告。載於東亞和平與歷史教育連帶（主編），
第6屆歷史認識與東亞和平論壇「轉換期的歷史認識與東北亞和平」論文集（頁264-270）。首爾：東亞和平與歷史教育連帶。
高明士（2008）。韓國中小學「社會科」將加授「東亞史」課程。歷史月刊，248，130-131。
笠原十九司（2006）。歴史認識の共有はできるか—「未来をひらく歴史東アジア3国の近代史」を編集して。史海，53，27-44。
笠原十九司（2012a, 6月2日）。日中韓三国共通歴史教材「未来をひらく歴史」の作成の背景の反響。載於國家教育研究院、國立臺灣師範大學（主編），2012東亞歷史教科書共構工作坊（頁25-39）。臺北市：國家教育研究院。
笠原十九司（2012b, 12月2-3日）。日本・中国・韓国３国共同編集『新しい東アジアの近現代史』（上・下）刊行の経緯と成果ならびに課題。載於國家教育研究院、國立臺灣師範大學（主編），2012跨國教科書共構經驗—和平教育之實踐國際學術研討會（頁47-63）。臺北市：國家教育研究院。
張隆志（2009）。跨國主義與臺灣近代史研究：日治初期臺灣殖民文化史的再思考。載於王宏仁、郭佩宜（主編），流轉跨界：跨國的臺灣，臺灣的跨國（頁321-346）。臺北市：中央研究院人文社會科學研究中心亞太區域研究專題中心。
梁美康（2007）。韓中日近現代共同教科書《東亞三國的近現代史》。東亞視野，2，77-79。
梶田叡一（2008）。日本教科書檢定制度的概要和課題。載於中華民國教材研究發展學會（主編），東亞教科書政策研討會（5-11頁）。臺北市：中華民國教材研究發展學會。
許育銘（2005）。戰爭魅影－日本歷史教科書中的中日戰爭。近代中國，163，
84-115。
許育銘（2006）。站列法庭的歷史學：家永三郎與日本教科書審定訴訟之研究。東華人文學報，9，251-282。
陳光興（2006）。去帝國：亞洲作為方法。臺北市：行人。
陳光興（2008）。相知相習：記2008東亞批判刊物會議。臺灣社會研究季刊，72，213-227。
陳麗華（2012）。專題論壇III：跨國共構歷史教科書前瞻發言詞。發表於國家教育研究院及國立臺灣師範大學主辦之「跨國教科書共構經驗—和平教育之實踐」國際學術研討會，臺北市。
喬志建、柴子文（2009）。歷史教科書變革，中日韓聯手彌合歷史傷痕。亞洲週刊。11月號，28-31。
普通高中歷史課程標準（2003）。取自http://www.pep.com.cn/gzls/js/tbjx/kb/
kb/kcbz/
森口等（2008，11月）。採用《東亞三國的近現代史》的歷史教育之成果與課題－旨在推進東亞歷史和解。載於第7屆歷史認識與東亞和平論壇（頁287-292）。北京：中國社會科學院近代史研究所。
黃政傑（2003）。重建教科書的概念與實務。課程與教學季刊，6（1），1-12。
甄曉蘭（2004）。課程理論與實務：解構與重建。臺北市：高等教育。
劉杰、三谷博、楊大慶（主編）（2006）。跨越國界的歷史認識：來自日本學者及海外中國學者的視角。北京：社會科學文獻。
歐用生（2003）。內容分析法及其在教科書研究上的應用。由莊梅枝（主編），歐用生教授教科書之旅（頁149-170）。新北市：中華民國教材研究發展學會。
歐用生（2006）。臺灣教科書政策的批判論述分析。當代教育研究季刊，14（2），1-26。
歐用生（2008）。「一綱一本教科書事件」平議。教科書研究，1（1），1-28。
歐用生（2012）。專題論壇III：跨國共構歷史教科書前瞻發言詞。發表於國家教育研究院及國立臺灣師範大學主辦之「跨國教科書共構經驗—和平教育之實踐」國際學術研討會，臺北市。
蕭阿勤（1997）。集體記憶理論的檢討：解剖者、拯救者、與一種民主觀點。思與言，35， 247-296。
蕭阿勤（1999）。民族主義與臺灣一九七○年代的鄉土文學。臺灣史研究，6（2），77-138。
蕭阿勤（2006）。認同研究中的歷史。載於張錦忠、黃錦樹（主編），重寫臺灣文學史（頁23-59）。臺北市：麥田。
蕭憶梅（2010）。書評《對共同過去的爭議—當代東亞歷史的修正》。教科書研究，3（2），139-143。
鍾啟泉（2008）。一綱多本：教育民主的訴求。載於中華民國教材研究發展學會（主編），東亞教科書政策研討會（13-22頁）。臺北市：中華民國教材研究發展學會。
齋藤一晴（2008）。中国歴史教科書と東アジア歴史対話。東京：花传社。
齋藤一晴（2009）。「歷史對話」論——以日、中、韓三國共同歷史教材編撰成果與存在問題為例。載於韓國東北亞歷史財團（主編），東亞的知識交流與歷史記憶（頁321-336）。首爾：韓國東北亞歷史財團。
藍順德（2010）。教科書意識型態：歷史回顧與實徵分析。臺北市：華騰。
羅志平（2006）。歷史修正主義與新民族主義－日本修改教科書爭議的政治效應。問題與研究，45（1），81-106。
羅志平（2009）。民族主義、歷史教育與國家認同。朝陽人文社會學刊，7（1）229-254。
蘇智良（2005）。追求共同的歷史認知—中日韓學者合撰《東亞三國的近現代史》的前前後後。同舟視點，7，3-4。
權赫秀（2006）。尊重歷史，摘瑕糾謬—評中文版《東亞三國的近現代史》。取自http://www.acriticism.com/article.asp?Newsid=8326&type=1004
About PRIME (2011). Retrieved October 23, 2011, from http://vispo.com/PRIME/
about.htm
Ackermann, A. (1994). Reconciliation as a peace-building process in postwar Europe: The Franco-German case. Peace & Change, 19(3), 229-250.
Adwan, S., & Bar-On, D. (2003). PRIME’s sharing the history project: Palestinian and Israeli teachers and pupils learning each other’s narrative. Retrieved from www.bgu.ac.il/~danbaron/.../Nore%20Dame%20final%20draft.doc
Adwan, S., & Bar-On, D. (2004). Shared history project: A PRIME example of peace-
building under fire. International Journal of Politics, Culture, and Society, 17(3), 513-521.
Adwan, S., & Firer, R. (1997). The narrative of Palestinian refugees during the war of 1948 in Israeli and Palestinian history and civic education textbooks. Paris: UNESCO.
Adwan, S., & Firer, R. (1999). The narrative of the 1967 war in the Israeli and Pales-tinian history and civics textbooks and curricula statement. Braunschweig, Ger-many, Eckert Institute.
Altbach, P. G. (1991). Textbook: The international dimension. In M. W. Apple & L. K. Christian-Smith (Ed.), The politics of the Textbook (pp. 242-258). New York: Routledge.
Apple, M. W. (1993). Official Knowledge. New York: Routledge.
Apple, W. M., & Christian-Smith, L. K. (1991). The politics of the Textbook. New York: Routledge.
Bachmann, S. (1977). International textbook revision as part of international under-standing and co-operation: A report. Braunschweig: GEI.
Banerjee, B. K.,& Stöber, G.(2010). Textbook revision and beyond: New challenges for contemporary textbook activities. Journal of Educational Media, Memory, and Society, 2(2),13-28.
Bar-On, D., & Adwan, S. (2006). The PRIME Shared history project: Peace-building under fire. In Y. Iram (Ed.), Educationg toward a culture of peace (pp. 309-323). Charlotte, NC: IAP.
Bauer, M. W., & Aarts, B. (2000). Corpus construction: A principle for qualitative data collection. In M. W. Bauer & G. Gaskell (Eds.), Qualitative researching with text, image and sound (pp. 19-37). London: Sage.
Baumeister, R. F., & Hastings, S. (1997). Distortions of collective memory: How groups flatter and deceive themselves. In J. W. Pennebaker, D. Paez & B. Rime (Eds.), Collective memory of political events: Social psychological perspectives (pp. 277-293). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Bayly, C. A., Beckert, S., Connelly,M., Hofmeyr, I., Kozol, W., & Seed, P.(2006). AHR conversation: On transnational history. American Historical Review,111(5), 1140-1163.
Boden, P. K. (1977). Promoting international understanding through school textbooks. Braunschweig: GEI.
Borodziej, W. (2003). The German-Polish textbook dialogue. In A. Horvat & G. Hielscher (Eds.), Sharing the burden of the past (pp. 35-38). Tokyo: The Asia Foundation and Friedrich-Ebert-Stiftung.
Brettell, C. B. (1998). Fieldwork in the archives: Methods in historical anthropology. In H. R. Bernard (Ed.), Handbook of methods in cultural anthropology (pp. 513-546). Walnut Creek, Calif: AltaMira Press.
Bruley, E., & Dance, E. H. (1960). A history of Europe? Leyden: Sythoff.
Carlowitz, L. v. (n.d.). Post-war reconciliation through joint textbook revision: The cases of Franco-German and Polish-German history books. Retrieved from http://hrca.org.ru/Legitation-and-Stability-of-Political-Systems/post-war-reconciliation-through-joint-textbook-revision-the-cases-of-franco-german-and-polish-german-history-books.html
Chung, J. (2011). Colonial Korea and the Asia Pacific war: A comparative analysis of textbooks in South Korea and Japan. In G.-W. Shin & D. C. Sneider(Ed.), History textbook and the wars in Asia: Divided memories (pp. 153-172). New York, Routledge.
Clammer, D. G. (1986). Textbook research: An internationalist perspective. Norwich : The School of Education, The University of East Anglia.
Cole, E. A. (2007). Introduction: Reconciliation and history education. In E. A. Cole (Ed.), Teaching the violent past: History education and reconciliation (pp. 1-28). Lanham: Roman & Littlefield Publishers, Inc.
Conrad, S. (2003). Entangled memories: Versions of the past in Germany and Japan,1945-2001. Journal of Contemporary History, 38(1), 85-99.
Cooper, H. M. (1989). Integrating research: A guide for literature reviews. Beverly Hills: Sage.
Crawford, K. A., & Foster, S. J. (2007). War, nation, memory: International perspec-tives on World War II in school history textbooks. Charlotte, NC: Information Age.
Curthoys, A., & Lake, M. (2005). Introduction. In A. Curthoys & M. Lake (Eds.), Connected worlds: History in transnational perspective (pp. 5-20). Canberra: The Australian National University.
Duara, P. (1995). Rescuing history from the Nation. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Duss, P. (2008). History textbooks, divided memories, and reconciliation. from http://aparc.stanford.edu/research/divided_memories_and_reconciliation/
Delouche, F. (1993). Illustrated history of Europe: A unique guide to Europe's common heritage. London: Weidenfeld and Nicolson.
Eckert, G. (1972). International revision of school textbooks. In Institutions for Scien-tific Co-operation(Ed.), Education, A biannual collection of recent German con-tributions to the field of educational research (pp. 39-53).Tubingen: Buchdruck-erei Eugen Gobel.
EurViews. (n.d.). DM. Braunschweig: Georg-Eckert-Institut für Internationale Schulbuchforschung.
Faure, R. (2011). Connections in history revision, 1947-1952. Educational Inquiry, 2(1), 21-35.
Feldman, L. G. (1999). The principle and practice of “reconciliation” in German for-eign policy: Relations with France. International Affairs, 75(2), 333-356.
Feldman, L. G. (2010). German-Polish reconciliation in comparative perspective: Lessons for Japan? The Asia-Pacific Journal, 15, Retrieved July 25, 2010, from http://old.japanfocus.org/-Lily-Gardner_Feldman/3344
Foster, S. (2011). Dominant traditions in international textbook Research and revision. Education Inquiry,2(1), 5-20.
Foster, S., & Morris, J. (1994). Arsenal of righteousness? –Treatment of the atomic
bombing of hiroshima in English and U.S. history textboooks. Curriculum, 15( 3), 163-173.
Fuchs, E. (2009). New developments in textbook reform and revision in Europe. Paper presented at “Recognition of History and Peace in East Asia”Forum, Tokyo.
Fuchs, E. (2011). Opening address. Paper presented at “Recognition of History and Peace in East Asia”Forum, Beijing.
Fuchs, E. (2012, November 2-3). International Joint History Textbooks: History–Challenges–Perspectives. In National Academy for Educational Research & National Taiwan Normal University (Ed.), International Conference on Cross-national Joint Construction Experience of Textbooks: Peace Education in Action (pp. 23-36). Taipei: National Academy for Educational Research.
Galtung, J. (1969). Violence, peace, and peace research. Journal of Peace Reasearch, 6(3), 167-191.
Georg-Eckert-Institut. (2010). Georg Eckert Institute for international textbook re-search: Past-present-Future. Retrieved July 25, 2010, from http://www.gei.de/
fileadmin/bilder/pdf/Institut/gei-past-present-future.pdf
Georg-Eckert-Institut für Internationale Schulbuchforschung. (1995). Georg Eckert Institute for International Textbook Research. Braunschweig: Author.
German-Polish Textbook Commission. (2010). Retrieved July 25, 2010, from http://www.gei.de/en/research/the-european-schoolhouse/europe-and-the-national-factor/german-polish-textbook-commission.html
Giroux, H. A. (1992). Border crossings: Cultural workers and the politics of education. New York: Routledge.
Halbwachs, M. (1992). On collective memory (L. A. Coser, Trans.). Chicago, Ill: The University of Chicago Press.
Harris, I. M., & Morrison, M. L. (2003). Peace education (2nd ed.). Jefferson, NC: McFarland & Company.
Haß, M. (2004). The politics of memory in Germany, Israel and the United States of America. Retrived from: hass-the-politics-of-memory-in-germany-israel-and-the-
united-states-of-america.pdf
He, Y. (2004). Overcoming shadows of the past: Post-conflict interstate reconciliation in East Asia and Europe. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Massachusetts.
Hein, L., & Selden, M. (2000). The lessons of war, global power, and social change. In L. H. M. Selden (Ed.), Censoring history: Citizenship and memory in Japan Germany and the United States (pp. 3-52). New York: M. E. Sharpe.
Helgason, P., & Lässig, S. (2010). Preface. In P. Helgason & S. Lässig (Eds.), Open-ing the mind or drawing boundries? History texts in Nordic schools. Göttingen: V&R unipress GmbH.
Hillers, E. (1984). International textbook research. In H. Haubrich (Ed.), Perception of people and places through media (pp. 552-563), Freiburg: Federal Republic of Germany.
Howell, W. L. (1996). The inheritance of war: Japan's domestic politics and interna-tional ambitions. In G. W. Gong (Ed.), Remembering and forgetting: The legacy of war and peace in East Asia (pp. 82-102). Washington: CSIS.
Höepken, W. (2005). History-textbooks in post-war and post-conflict societies: Preconditions and experiences in a comparative perspective. In The Academy of Korean Studies(Ed.), Nationalism and history textbooks in Asia and Europe (pp. 17-45).Korea, Seoul: The Editor Publishing Co.
Höpken, W. (2008). History textbooks and reconciliation: Preconditions and experiences in a comparative perspective. In S. Richter (Ed.), Contested views of a common past (pp. 373-395). New York: Campus Verlag.
Hutton, D. S., & Mehlinger, H. D. (1987). International textbook revision: Example from the United States. In V. R. Berghahn & H. Schissler (Eds.), Perceptions of history (pp.141-156).Oxford: Berg Publishers.
Israeli-Palestinian textbook project. (n.d.). Retrieved from http://www.gei.de/en/research/texbooks-and-conflict/4-learning-in-post-conflict-societies/schulbuchprojek-israel-palestina.html
Kaprinis, K. (2006). The politics of history education in the Balkans: The young gener-ation as transmitter of reconciliation. Paper presented at the 2006 Ethics Center Student Fellows. The International Center for Ethics, Justice and Public Life. Waltham, MA.
Karahassan, H., & Zembylas, M. (2006). The politics of memory and forgetting in history textbooks: Towards a pedagogy of reconciliation and peace in divided Cyprus. In A. Ross (Ed.), Citizenship Education: Europe and the World (pp. 701-712). London: CiCe.
Kazuhiko, K. (1998). The Japan-South Korea joint study group on history textbooks and the continuing legacy of Japanese colonialism. Bulletin of Concerned Asian Scholars, 30(2), 47-52.
Kim, R. K. (1970). Report on the experimental project for the international exchange and review of history textbooks. Internationales Jahrbuch, 13, 249-259.
Korostelina K. V.(2013a). Peace education and joint history textbook projects. In K. V.
Korostelina, & S. Lässig (Eds), History education and post conflict reconcilia-tion (pp.19-25). London: Routledge.
Korostelina K. V. (2013b). Best practice models and scholarly concepts: Theoretical and methodological framework for joint history projects. In K. V. Korostelina, & S. Lässig (Eds), History education and post conflict reconciliation (pp. 230-241). London: Routledge.
Ku, Y. (2010). The politics of historical memory in Germany: Brandt’s ostpolitik, the German-Polish history textbook commission, and conservative reaction. Journal of Education Media, Memory, and Society, 2(2), 75-92.
Lauwerys, J. A. (1953). History textbooks and international understanding. Paris: UNESCO.
LaSpina, J. A. (2003). Designing diversity: Globalization, textbooks, and the story of nations. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 35(6), 667-696.
Lässig, S. (2007, April). Toward a European history textbook? In Minstry of Educa-tion and Sciences of Tatarstan Republic Tatarstan History Teachers Association (Ed), The Contemporary Russian Historical Science: Prospect of research and realization of a national education policy (pp. 58-63). Kazan: Tatarstan History Teachers Association.
Lässig, S. (2013). Post-conflict reconciliation and joint history textbook projects. In K. V. Korostelina, & S. Lässig (Eds), History education and post conflict reconcili-ation (pp. 1-18). London: Routledge.
Lee, P. J. (1998). Children ideas about the nature and status of historical accounts. In C. Y. L-K. Chou (Ed.), Proceeding of the international conference on method-ologies: Historical consciousness and history-textbook research (pp. 201-226). Taiwan, HsinChu: Institute of History National Tsing Hua University.
Leeuw-Roord, Joke van der (2007). Beyond the nation, trans-national textbooks. Re-trieved from http://www.culturahistorica.es/joke/trans-national_textbooks.pdf
Luntinen, P. (1988). School history textbook revision and under the auspices of UNESCO (part I). Internationale Schulbuchforschung, 10, 337-348.
Marcus, G. E. (1995). Ethnography in/of the world system: The emergence of mul-ti-sited ethnography. Annual Review of Anthropology, 24(1), 95-117.
Marques, J., D. Paez, & Serra, A. F. (1997). Social sharing, emotional climate, and the transgenerational transmission of memories: The portuguese colonial colonial war. In J. W. Pennebaker, D. Paez, & B. Rime (Eds.), Collective memory of po-litical events: Social psychological perspectives (pp. 253-275). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Masanori, N. (1998). The History textbook controversy and nationalism. Bulletin of Concerned Asian Scholars, 30(2), 24-29.
McCormack, G. (1998). The Japanese movement to “correct” history. Bulletin of Con-cerned Asian Scholars, 30(2), 16-23.
McCulloch, G. (2004). Documentary research in education, history and the social sci-ences. London: RoutledgeFalmer.
Mertineit, W. (1979). Strategies, concepts and methods of international history text-book revision: A German share in education for international understanding. In-ternational Journal of Political Education, 2, 101-114.
Miles, M. B., & Huberman, A. M. (1984). Qualitative data analysis: A source of new methods. New York: Sage.
Minoru, I., & Ryūichi, N. (2008). Writing history textbook in East Asia: The possibili-ties and pitfalls of “History that Opens the Future”. In S. Richter (Ed.), Con-tested views of a common past (pp. 271-283). New York: Campus Verlag.
Morris-Suzuki, T. (2001). Truth, postmodernism and historical revisionism in Japan. Inter-Asia Cultural Studies, 2(2), 297-305.
Multhoff, R. (1966, February). Twenty years of history textbook revision-experience of the Braunwick International Schoolbook Institute. In Committee for general and technical education (Ed.), Course on History teaching in Secondary Educa-tion (pp. 22-24). Strasbourg: Council of Europe.
Murgescu, M. L. (2002). Rewriting school textbooks as a tool of understanding and stability. Journal of Southeast European & Black Sea Studies, 2(1), 90-104.
Nash, G. B. (1995). The history standards controversy and social history. Journal of Social History, 29(3), 39-49.
Nasser, R., & Nasser, I. (2008). Textbooks as a vehicle for segregation and domination: state efforts to shape Palestinian Israelis' identities as citizens. Journal of Cur-riculum Studies, 40(5), 627-650.
Naveh, E. (2012, November 2-3). “Successful failure” — learn-ing each other historical narrative in an Israeli‐Palestinian textbook. In National Academy for Educational Research & National Taiwan Normal University (Ed.), International Conference on Cross-national Joint Construction Experience of Textbooks: Peace Education in Action (pp. 37-45). Taipei: National Academy for Educational Research.
Nicholls, J. (2006). School history textbook across cultures from the perspective of comparative education. In J. Nicholls (Ed.), School history textbook across cul-tures: International debates and perspectives (pp. 7-13). Oxford: Cambridge University Press.
Nozaki, Y.(2008). War memory, nationalism and education in Postwar Ja-pan,1945-2007. New York: Routledge.
Obinata, S. (2006). Historical consciousness and Japan, China and South Korea's shared history teaching materials. Political Science, 58(2), 3-13.
Ogawa, M., & Field, S. L. (2006). Causation, controversy and contrition: Recent de-velopments in the Japanese history textbook content and selection process. In J. Nicholls (Ed.), School history textbooks across cultures: International debates and perspectives. Oxford: Cambridge University Press.
Otsuki, T. (2011). A point of connection through transnational history textbooks? An examination of History that opens to the future, the joint history textbook initia-tive of China, Japan and South Korea. In J. Paulson (Ed.), Education, conflict and development (pp. 145-164). Oxford: Symposium Books.
Park, S. W. (2011). A history that opens to the future: The first common China-Japan-Korean history teaching guide. In In G.-W. Shin & D. C. Sneider(Ed.), History textbook and the wars in Asia: Divided memories (pp. 230-245). New York, Routledge.
Peräkylä, A., & Ruusuvuori, J. (2011). Analyzing talk and text. In K. D. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research (4th ed.) ( pp. 529-539). London: Sage.
Pillsbury, K. (1966). International cooperation in textbook evaluation: The Braun-schweig institute. Comparative Education Review, 10(1), 48-52.
Pingel, F. (1998).International textbook analysis against different national /regional backgrounds: Theoretical problems and practical experience.載於張元、周樑楷主編，方法論：歷史意識與歷史教科書的分析編寫國際學術研討會論文集（頁37-48）。國立清華大學歷史研究所。
Pingel, F. (1999). UNESCO guidebook on textbook research and textbook revision. Hannover: Verlag Hahnsche Buchhandlung.
Pingel, F. (2008). Can truth be negotiated? History textbook revision as a means to reconciliation. The ANNALS of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 617, 199-221.
Pingel, F. (2010a). UNESCO guidebook on textbook research and textbook revision. Paris: UNESCO.
Pingel, F. (2010b). Challenging the nation state: Conflict mediation through textbook revision. In Korean National Commission for UNESCO & Northeast Asia His-tory Foundation(Eds.), History Reconciliation: In Northeast and Southeast Asia(pp. 390-411). Seoul.
Pingel, F. (2011a). 教科書修訂的新舊模式及其對東亞歷史爭議的影響. Retrived from http://www.historyfoundation.or.kr/chn/
Pingel, F.(2011b). Mediating textbook conflicts. In G. Muller (Ed.), Designing history in East Asian textbooks (pp. 245-276). New York: Routledge.
Pohl, K. H. (2011). The German-Polish history textbook: Wishful thinking or realistic project? Paper presented at the International Workshop of Mulitilational Dia-logue on History and Textbooks : East Asia. Europe and the Middle East, To-kyo.
PRIME (2003). Learning each other’s historical narrative: Palestinians and Israelis (Volume I). Beit Jallah, PNA: PRIME.
PRIME (2006). Learning each other’s historical narrative: Palestinians and Israelis (Volume II). Beit Jallah, PNA: PRIME.
Radkau, V. (2007). Shared history? The Franco-German high school history book. from http://www.goethe.de/ges/pok/dos/dos/ern/lag/en2281618.htm.
Riemenschneider, R. (1998). Transnational working on conflicts: Some conclusions from a comparative survey of the German-French and German-Polish textbook consultations, 1935-1996. In C Yuan, & L.-K Chou (Eds), Proceeding of the in-ternational conference on methodologies: Historical consciousness and history-textbook research (pp. 439-451). Taiwan, HsinChu: Institute of History National Tsing Hua University.
Roszkowski, W. (2009). Opinion on French-German secondary school history text-book Histoire/Geschichte. Retrieved from www.euroclio.eu/.../2009/Wojciech%20 Roszkow-ski%20-%20Criticism%20of%20New%20History%20Textbook.pdf.
Ruesen, J. (1998). Historial consciousness as a matter of research on history textbooks. In C. Yuan, & L-K. Chou (Eds.), Proceeding of the international conference on methodologies: Historical consciousness and history-textbook research (pp. 1-18). Taiwan, HsinChu: Institute of History National Tsing Hua University.
Repoussi, M., & Tutiaux-Guillo, N. (2010). New trends in history textbook research: Issues and methodologies toward a school historiography. Journal of Education-al Media, Memory & Society, 2(1), 154-170.
Schacter, D. L. (1996). Searching for memory: The brain, the mind, and the past. New York: Basic Books.
Schissler, H. (1989). Limitations and priorities for international social studies textbook research. International Journal of Social Education, 4(3), 81-89.
Schüddekopf, O. E. (1967a). History textbook revision 1945-1965.In O. E. Schüddekopf (Ed.), History teaching and history textbook revision (pp. 11-42). Strasbourg, France: Council for Cultural Cooperation of the Council of Europe.
Schüddekopf, O. E. (1967b). The lesson learned from history and history textbook revision. In O. E. Schüddekopf (Ed.), History teaching and history textbook re-vision (pp. 131-161). Strasbourg, France: Council for Cultural Cooperation of the Council of Europe.
Schwartz, B. (1982). The social context of commemoration: A study in collective memory. Soical Forces, 61(2), 374-402.
Shin, G. W. (2008). History textbooks, divided memories, and reconciliation. Stanford: The Walter H. Shorenstein Asia-Pacific Research Center.
Sin, C.-B. (2010). The making of A History to Open the Future by a South Korean participant. Trans. By Lonny E. Carlile. In The Chin-Japan-Korea Common History Text Tri-National Committee (Ed.), A History to Open the Future (pp. 237-262). Seoul: Minimum.
Sneider, D. C. (2008). Divided memories and reconciliation: A progress report. Re-trieved from http://iis-db.stanford.edu/res/2260/Divided-Memory_Inhouse_2008.
pdf
Sneider, D. C. (2011). The war over words: history textbooks and international rela-tions in Northeast Asia. In G-W Shin,& D. C. Sneider(Eds.), History textbooks and the wars in Asia: Divided memories (pp. 246-268).New York: Routledge.
Sneider, D. C. (2012). Divided memories: History textbooks and the wars in Asia. Re-trieved from http://www.nippon.com/en/in-depth/a00703/
Soysal, Y. N. (1998). Identity and transnationalization in German school textbooks. Bulletin of Concerned Asian Scholars, 30 (2), 53-61.
Soyal, Y. N., & Schissler, H. (2005). Teaching beyond the national narrative. In H. Schissler & Y. N. Soyal (Eds.), The nation, Europe, and the world: Textbooks and curriculum in transition (pp. 1-9). New York, Berghahn.
Stojanovic, D. (2001). History textbooks and the creation of national identity. In C. Koulouri (Ed.), Teaching the history of Southeastern Europe (pp. 27-32). Thes-salonik, Greece: Petros Th. Ballidis.
Stobart, M. (1999). Fifty years of European co-operation on history textbooks: The role and contribution of the Council of Europe. Internationale Schulbuch-forschung, 21, 147-161.
Stöber, G. (2013). From textbook comparison to common textbooks?Changing pat-terns in international textbook revision. In K. V. Korostelina, & S. Lässig (Eds), History education and post conflict reconciliation (pp. 26-51). London: Routledge.
Stradling, R. (2001). A Council of Europe handbook on teaching 20th century euro-pean history. In GEI (Ed.), The Balkans in Europe (pp. 1-14). Braunschweig: GEI.
Struwe, K. (1980).The revision of history textbooks in the Nordic countries. In E. Hillers (Ed.), Deuschlan und der Norden in Schulbuch und unterricht (pp. 112-114). Braunschweig: GEI.
Sumio, O. (2006). Historical consciousness and Japan, China and South Korea's shared history teaching materials. Political Science, 58(2), 3-13.
Tokushi, T. (2011). Achievements of the “A History Opens the Future” textbook and efforts towards new steps. In GEI &FES (Eds), Mulitilateral Dialogue on History Education and Textbooks: East Asia, Europe and the Middle East (pp. 92-98). Tokyo: GEI &FES.
Taylor, S. J., & Bogdan, R. (1984). Introduction to qualitative research methods: The search for meanings. New York: Wiley.
Textbook and Conflict. ( 2010). Retrieved July 25, 2010, from http://www.gei.de/en/
research/textbooks-and-conflict.html#c1291
The Library of Congress. (1948). Textbooks: Their examination and improvement. Washington: The Library of Congress.
Trans. (n.d.). In Merriam-Webster’s Online Dictionary (11th ed.). Retrieved from http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/trans
UNESCO (1949). A handbook for the improvement of textbooks and teaching materi-als as aids to international understanding. Paris: UNESCO.
UNESCO (1950). Better history textbooks. Paris: UNESCO.
UNESCO (1953). Bilateral consultations for the improvement of history textbooks. Paris: the Education Clearing House.
Verovŝek, P.（2004）. The politics of memory: A conceptual approach to the study of memory in politics. Retrieved from http://www.yale.edu/macmillan/ocvprogram/conf_ papers/Verov sek.pdf
Vigander, H. (1950). Mutual revision of history textbooks in the Nordic Countries. Paris: UNESCO.
Vigander, H. (1967). The European idea in the teaching of history. In O. E. Schüddekopf (Ed.), History teaching and history textbook revision (pp. 67-71). Strasbourg, France: Council for Cultural Cooperation of the Council of Europe.
Wang, Z. (2009). Old wounds, new narratives: Joint history textbook writing and peacebuilding in East Asia. History & Memory, 21(1), 101-126.
Williams, R. (1977). Maxism and literature. London: Oxfoxd University Press.
Wittenbrock, R. (2011). The Franco-German history textbook between ambitious ob-ject tives and tough realities. Paper presented at the International Workshop of Mu-litilational Dialogue on History and Textbooks : East Asia. Europe and the Middle East (pp. 34-43). Tokyo.
Yang, D. (n.d.). Historical dialogue and reconciliation in comparative perspectives. Retrieved from http://hyi.hmdc.harvard.edu/files/uploads/Yang_Daqing_History_Dialogue.pdf
Yang, D., & Sin, J.-K. (2013). Striving for common history textbooks in Northeast Asia (China, South Korea and Japan) —Between ideal and reality. In K. V. Korostelina, & S. Lässig (Eds), History education and post conflict reconciliation (pp. 209-227). London: Routledge.
Zelizer, B. (1995). Reading the past against the grain: The shape of memory stu dies. Critical Studies in Mass Communication,12(2), 214-239
Zemack, K. h.c. (n.d.). After the wende: The German-Polish textbook project in retro-spect. Retrieved from http://www.gei.de/fileadmin/Projekte/After_the_Wende. pdf