In the new curriculum reform, the student-centered teaching concept has been widely accepted at the ideological and cognitive levels, but it is not so easy to transform advanced ideas into teaching behavior. Since 1950s, China has copied the education of the Soviet Union, forming a strong inertia. Some researchers pointed out that after the Third Plenary Session of the Eleventh Central Committee, "the economic field resisted and gave up the choice of' returning to the 1950s', and gradually replaced the planned economy with a market economy, while education returned to the planned system and Soviet model in the 1950s without thinking ... Great changes have taken place in the economic and social fields, but no fundamental changes have taken place in the education field. Indeed, before the start of the new curriculum, although basic education has undergone many reforms, it has never jumped out of the old framework of centralization and unification. Soviet education is a part of Stalin's model socialism, with a set of systematic theories and methods from top to bottom. The new curriculum has got rid of the old model in theory and guiding ideology, but in practice, the inertia formed in decades still exists and affects the younger generation of teachers. At present, the teaching plan widely used in teaching is one of the manifestations of this inertia. The teaching plan makes teachers become the executors of the curriculum, and the new curriculum reform is carried out from top to bottom. Many educational ideas of the new curriculum, especially the curriculum and teaching theory, come from western developed countries. When most of us are still unfamiliar with these ideas and theories, the Ministry of Education has turned them into plans and documents. After several years of training, we understand the general direction of reform and have some advanced educational concepts in our minds, such as the student-centered teaching concept. However, having advanced ideas does not mean solving practical problems. Under the old system and old ideas, the teaching contents and methods that have been widely implemented for many years cannot be changed by a single document of the Ministry of Education, nor can they be reversed by several trainings. The specific problems of each subject can only be solved by the subject teaching research itself. As we all know, the new curriculum replaces the syllabus with curriculum standards, which is not only a change in name, but also a change in curriculum management and teaching philosophy in essence. The syllabus is rigid, and the curriculum standard is not rigid, but flexible. The core of curriculum standards is curriculum objectives, and curriculum standards only give guidance and suggestions on teaching content, teaching implementation, teaching evaluation and textbook compilation. Curriculum standards leave room for choice and flexible application for teaching and evaluation. Therefore, in the new curriculum, we emphasize that teachers are the developers of the curriculum and advocate "teaching with textbooks" instead of "teaching textbooks". Why does the new curriculum oppose teaching by textbook? Because "teaching materials" are the habit of old courses. In the education system of the Soviet model, the syllabus is legal, and the unified textbook is the only explanatory text of the syllabus. Teachers must teach according to textbooks. Only in this way can we ensure the implementation of the educational policy and the implementation of the syllabus. One of the ways for school education administrators to urge teachers to teach is to check teaching plans. Teaching plan is a concrete method to carry out and implement teaching syllabus and standardize teaching materials. Traditional lesson plans originated from Kailov's pedagogy. " Teaching design accurately expresses the professionalism of teachers' profession from the name. Teaching design, like architectural design, needs artistry and professional knowledge. An excellent architectural design should not only meet the needs of application, but also give people visual enjoyment, be in harmony with the surrounding environment, have the characteristics of the times and personality, and so on. However, even the architectural design from famous artists will not satisfy everyone. Many experts criticized the "Bird's Nest" in Beijing Olympic Sports Center and the "Shell-shaped" National Grand Theatre behind the Great Hall of the People. The formation of classroom teaching design should also consider many factors, such as curriculum objectives, unit teaching objectives, students' cognitive psychological level, curriculum content designed by curriculum standards, text knowledge provided by textbooks, and according to existing teaching conditions and available teaching resources. However, even the teaching design based on these factors is difficult to adapt to all student groups. History is a humanities subject, and the teaching design of history course should not be stereotyped, but should pursue creativity and individuality rather than perfection. The difference between instructional design and architectural design is that once architectural design becomes a work, it is difficult to change (change will cause great waste), and instructional design needs to be constantly revised and improved through evaluation. Mr. Huang Zhu of Yangzhou University noticed the defects of the lesson plan model earlier. He summarized the inconsistency between the history lesson plan and the new curriculum reform concept into four aspects: "First, in the past, it was emphasized that the teaching plan was carefully designed, and the teaching text was like a finished picture, which could only be appreciated by students, while the new curriculum concept thought that the teaching text could not be completely preset, but dynamically generated. Secondly, in the past, the focus was mainly on teachers, and more attention was paid to how teachers showed their teaching skills, while the new curriculum concept thought that the focus of preparing lessons and teaching plans was mainly on students' activities. Third, in the past, it was thought that after writing a lesson plan, attending class was the implementation of the lesson plan, while the new curriculum concept thought that the class hours should be constantly adjusted according to the classroom situation, and the teaching text should be completed not before class, but after class. Fourth, in the past, it was thought that the results of preparing lessons were materialized written things (teaching plans), while the new curriculum concept thought that it could be both written texts and ideas in the mind. " In his book, he also quoted Zhong Qiquan's view that too detailed lesson plans may have side effects in teaching. Some researchers do not seem to object to this form of teaching plan. Pi Liansheng's book "Instructional Design" says: "The teaching plan is the concrete product of instructional design and the concrete embodiment of instructional design guiding the teaching process. However, the book also said: "The concrete product of the teaching design process is the verified implementation plan of the teaching system, including the teaching objectives and the complete set of (printed or audio-visual) teaching materials, study guidance, test questions and teachers' books needed to achieve certain teaching objectives, as well as the teaching implementation plan that specifies all the teaching and learning activities and auxiliary work needed in the teaching process. Such an idealized teaching system design is difficult to achieve under the current situation in China, and it is also difficult to pass the threshold if the teaching materials are approved by the Ministry of Education. If a course can form the design of teaching system, the affirmation of teaching plan is acceptable; The problem is that the production of mass lesson plans has not been designed by the teaching system, and the programming procedures of traditional lesson plans are completely inconsistent with the basic principles of teaching design. It is most practical to advocate teaching design based on class hours. Replacing lesson plans with "instructional design" is not only "correcting the name", but also a way to change the teaching content from bottom to top, which urges teachers to truly combine the new curriculum concept with teaching practice and become curriculum developers. We often discuss the problem of effective teaching, and the ultimate goal of teaching design is to produce effective teaching. Instructional design is aimed at helping the learning process, student-centered and problem-solving-oriented. The key for teachers to change from traditional teaching concept to modern teaching concept is to re-understand teaching design and master modern teaching design technology. This is a broken word. The difference between teaching design and teaching plan The content of teaching design also includes teaching objectives, teaching analysis, teaching strategies and methods. So, what is the fundamental difference between teaching design and teaching plan? Mr. Lu's research direction is mathematics teaching theory. In her paper, she compares the difference between teaching plan and teaching design in the form of table (see the table below). The table uses "double bases" to describe the teaching design, but the characteristics of induction are basically applicable to the history discipline. In historical lesson plans, teaching material analysis is usually the focus of teaching analysis, and it is not uncommon for teaching material analysis to replace teaching analysis. The emphasis and difficulty of teaching are generally determined according to the content of teaching materials and teachers' experience. Under the mode of unified management, this is feasible, because teachers can't choose and change the teaching content at will, nor can they talk about another set from the viewpoint of teaching materials. But the new curriculum can't be analyzed only according to the teaching materials. The basic requirement of curriculum development is not to stick to textbooks, because any version of textbooks is the understanding of curriculum standards by textbook writers, and the accuracy of their understanding and the expansion of curriculum content standards with their knowledge can be questioned. In other words, teachers can use textbooks selectively. We take the compulsory course 1 de 1 special topic "Ancient Political System of China" 1 as an example to illustrate the goal of classroom teaching design and teaching analysis. Also in 1 class, the human edition textbook introduces the combination of early regime and theocracy from the appearance of "king" and the legend of "emperor" Starting with the hereditary throne, People's Education Edition introduces the administrative system and "officials" in Xia and Shang Dynasties. Yuelu Edition introduces the political system of Xia and Shang Dynasties, but focuses on the internal and external service system of Shang Dynasty. In addition to the patriarchal clan system and the enfeoffment system, the people's edition and Yuelu edition both introduced the ritual and music system to a certain extent. The human edition teacher's teaching book also lists "the order of rites and music" as a teaching difficulty. The guidance of the curriculum standard is "to understand the basic content of patriarchal feudalism and the characteristics of China's early political system". Obviously, the differences between different versions indicate that textbook writers have different understandings of curriculum standards. The content of the textbook does not always help students to "know the characteristics of China's early political system" accurately, because some knowledge may interfere with students' cognitive ability. Therefore, the textbooks of any version of the new curriculum should not be teaching tables. According to the principle of teaching design, we should first make clear the teaching objectives of the unit "Ancient Political System in China", and then make the teaching objectives of this course precise. Most of the translated works and research works on instructional design are written by pedagogics and educational psychologists, and it seems that there are few monographs on instructional design written by curriculum experts for a certain course. In the teaching design works at home and abroad, there are few examples of history courses to illustrate the problem. Since the implementation of the new curriculum, only the book History Curriculum and Teaching Theory by Mr. Huang Zhu has devoted a section to the teaching design of middle school history. Although some history teaching books with case notes are named instructional design, the principles of instructional design have not been fully applied in practice. There are still many gaps in the research of teaching design of history course. First of all, the classification of historical knowledge needs further discussion. Influenced by cognitive psychology, many people apply the generalized knowledge classification-declarative knowledge and procedural knowledge to history. For example, Ye and others believe that the basic knowledge of history belongs to declarative knowledge and can be obtained through learning and memory. History learning ability (including learning methods and problem-solving ability) belongs to procedural knowledge. It seems that all the historical knowledge of memory belongs to procedural knowledge. Accurately dividing the dimensions of subject knowledge is the premise of teaching design. In 2008, East China Normal University Press published the Chinese translation of Classification of Learning, Teaching and Evaluation-Bloom's Classification of Educational Goals (Simplified Edition) edited by L"W Anderson and others. The book identifies four general knowledge categories: factual knowledge, conceptual knowledge, procedural knowledge and reflective cognitive knowledge network (Chapter 4). This classification seems to be more in line with the characteristics of historical disciplines. If objective historical facts belong to factual knowledge, their basic elements are unchanged. For example, in the middle school curriculum, the basic historical facts of Qin reunification are those contents. Conceptual knowledge is explained by later generations, including historians. Teaching design based on class hours must first determine the knowledge dimension of learning content. For the students of Grade One 13 years old, it is appropriate for the teaching design of Qin unified course to be based on factual knowledge. For the controversial Taiping Heavenly Kingdom Movement, even if the teaching object is first-year students, the teaching design should be based on factual knowledge, because from the perspective of revolutionary history, the Taiping Heavenly Kingdom Movement is one of the three revolutionary climaxes in modern times; In the sense of modernization, the Taiping Heavenly Kingdom is not so important. For well-known reasons, it is more appropriate to take factual knowledge as the core in classroom teaching. Of course, there should be great differences between junior high school and senior high school in the choice of specific facts. There are also many cases of classroom teaching design dominated by conceptual knowledge, such as "reform and opening up", household contract responsibility system, Shenzhen Special Economic Zone construction, coastal open layout and so on. These are the basic contents of junior high school and senior high school. Teachers in Tianjin use the concepts of Soviet model socialism and Socialism with Chinese characteristics throughout the class, and use factual knowledge to guide students to understand the basic differences between these two concepts, so as to make students' existing concepts clear. This teaching design is feasible. It is troublesome to classify historical knowledge.