【作者】 王飞；

【导师】 丁邦平；

【作者基本信息】 首都师范大学 ， 教育学原理， 2013， 博士

【摘要】 尽管我国历史上拥有非常丰富和灿烂的教育思想文化遗产,但是作为一门学科的教育领域却是于19世纪末20世纪初从日本引入的,作为教育学一级学科下的教学论和课程论两门学科同样也是从国外引入的。在世界其他国家和地区,主要是以教学论或课程论一种教育范式为主的,而中国却同时存在着源自于不同文化传统和话语体系的教学论和课程论范式。因此,在其他国家并不成为教育领域核心关注点的教学论与课程论的关系问题成为了我国教育领域的一个核心问题。由于我国对教学论和课程论这两门源自于不同文化传统和话语体系的教育范式所处的历史、文化、哲学等背景和这两门学科自身特点的认识不够深入,导致我国在引入这两门学科的过程中存在一些误读和误解。这造成了我国在对教学论与课程论关系的认识上存在着诸多不同的见解和争论,由于这些有关教学论与课程论关系的论述未能充分认识到教学论和课程论是分别源自于不同文化传统和话语体系的两种不同的教育范式,因此这些所谓的有关教学论与课程论关系的主张本身是缺乏合理依据的。所以,厘清这些争论的根源,并探讨教学论与课程论的关系是解决目前纷纷扰扰的有关教学论与课程论关系争论的根本出路,同时,厘清二者之间的关系也是我国教育学科科学发展的必要条件。全文由绪论、正文和结语三个部分组成。绪论部分主要介绍课题的缘起、研究问题、研究方法、研究意义、文献综述等。文献综述部分详细分析了我国教育领域存在的有关教学论与课程论关系的四种典型观点,并指出其问题所在。既然目前我国教育领域存在的有关教学论与课程论关系的观点是值得商榷的,并且其问题的根源在于没有认清教学论与课程论是分别源自于两种不同文化传统和话语体系的教育范式。那么,在构建我国的教学论与课程论关系时,就需要追本溯源认清二者的异同及形成二者异同的缘由,并在此基础上建构我国的教学论与课程论体系。这就是正文部分所要解决的主要问题。正文部分包括六章。第一章追本溯源探讨德国教学论和美国课程论的异同,了解到尽管二者在研究范围上比较接近,但是在对待相似问题的视角、出发点、侧重点、根本目的等方面却有所不同。第二章主要论述德国教学论的核心概念化育(Bildung)的发展历史、化育的主要内涵及其对德国教学论的影响等内容。第三章从教育、文化、哲学、宗教等角度探寻造成教学论与课程论差异的缘由,从而更深入地了解教学论与课程论及其差异。第四章重点阐述20世纪下半叶德国教学论和美国课程论的相互借鉴和学习的历程,以及二者在20世纪60年代后的一些重要变化,教学论与课程论的相互对话及其发展趋势等内容。这些可以为建构我国的教学论与课程论关系提供一些借鉴意义和启示价值。第四章探寻教学论和课程论这两种异域文化下的教育范式在本土化过程中发生了哪些误读和误解,并寻求形成误读和误解的缘由。本土化的根本目的在于根据本土实践的需求对异域理论进行一定的变革以更好地解决实践中的问题。但是,本土化并不意味着对异域理论任意进行修改,更不意味着可以在没有充分理解异域理论的基础上片面地引入某种理论。科学的本土化是应该建基于对异域理论充分认识基础上,根据本土实践的需求,并参照本土教育文化遗产等基础上对异域理论进行借鉴、吸收、运用和创新的过程。澄清教学论和课程论本土化过程中的误读和误解,不仅可以明了我国存在的有关教学论与课程论关系的几种观点的问题所在,而且也为正确和科学地建构我国的教学论与课程论关系奠定了基础。第六章在厘清了教学论和课程论二者之间的异同及其所植根的文化、哲学、宗教等深层次原因,以及国外对二者关系和相互对话的研究与讨论及二者在本土化过程中的误读与误解之后,根据“和而不同”的原则,在尊重教学论和课程论各自优点,充分吸收我国教育思想文化遗产,并参照我国教育实践的基础上,建构我国的“课程-教学论”。结语部分则再次重申“课程-教学论”并不是将教学论与课程论进行简单杂糅或拼凑的结果,而是充分考虑了二者各自的优势,并积极吸收我国教育文化遗产基础上建构的科学、合理的教育分支学科。其根本目的和任务在于促进人的发展,它必须以人的完整人格的培养为根本旨归,为此“课程-教学论”必须充分体现出人文价值情怀,应该将怎样培养人、怎样成人的问题放于首位。更多还原

【Abstract】 China’s ancient educators and thinkers created a very rich and splendid educational and cultural heritage. However, as a professional discipline, pedagogy was imported from the west, first through Japan at the end of19th century and the beginning of20th century. As subdisciplines of pedagogy, Didactics and Curriculum Studies were also introduced from abroad. Didactics and curriculum studies are very different theory paradigms, in that didactics was produced in Germany, and then spread to some Nordic countries, Soviet union, Japan and some other countries; while curriculum studies was born in the United States, then spread to almost English speaking countries. In this respect, China is very special, as of didactics and curriculum studies co-exist in China. Therefore, the relationship between didactics and curriculum studies becomes a core problem in Chinese educational field. Although the discussions on the relationship between didactics and curriculum studies have lasted for nearly30years, we have not really understood the true relationship between them. The basic reason is that we have not realized they are from different cultural traditions and discourse systems. Although they deal with some same educational problems, the aims, methods are very different. So, the only way to solve these problems is understand and know their respect cultures, histories, philosophies and other backgrounds.The dissertation consists of three sections as exordium, main text and conclusion. The exordium section mainly introduces origin of the issue, research value, research methods, and literature review. In the literature review, we analysize four kinds of typical points of the relationships between didactics and curriculum studies, and point out their errors, that is they do not recognize didactics and curriculum studies are from different cultural traditions and discourse systems. So, to build the true relationship between didactics and curriculum studies, we must first study and discuss the cultures, philosophies and other backgrounds.The main text is logically made up of six chapters. Chapter One discusses the differences and similarities between didactics and curriculum studies. Through researches, we realize that the ranges of their research are close, but the starting point, emphasis, fundamental purpose, etc, are very different. Chapter Two elaborates the history and connotation of Bildung and the relationship between Bildung and Didactics(Didaktik). Chapter Three expounds the reasons of difference from the cultures, philosophies, religions and education, etc. Chapter Four focuses on didactics and curriculum studies which began to dialogue from the1960s. Chapter Five analyzes the misreading and misunderstandings in their localization process. The fundamental goal of localization is to solve the problems in the practice. So, in the localization process, we must first fully understand these foreign theories, and then, absorb and reform them according to the local practice and educational heritages. Chapter Six constructs the "curriculum-didactics" based on the principle of "harmony but not sameness"The conclusion reaffirms that "curriculum-didactics" is not the mixture of didactics and curriculum studies, but a fusion of both of them and our education heritages based on the principle of "harmony but not sameness". Its fundamental purpose and mission is to promote the Bildung of students, and it must embody the humanistic value.更多还原