教育目标分类学的真谛何在——与李艺教授等学者商榷  

What is the True Meaning about Educational Objectives Taxonomy:Discussing with Professor Li Yi and Other Scholars

作　　者：庄惠阳[1] Zhuang Hui-yang(Institute of Tourism/Shanghai Institute of Tourism,Shanghai Normal University,Shanghai 201418,China)

机构地区：[1]上海师范大学旅游学院/上海旅游高等专科学校,上海201418

出　　处：《华东师范大学学报（教育科学版）》2022年第7期114-125,共12页Journal of East China Normal University:Educational Sciences

基　　金：上海师范大学旅游学院/上海旅游高等专科学校科研项目“旅游教育信息化培养外语人才的方略研究”(KY2018-CL4)。

摘　　要：本文采用文献分析法,质疑李艺教授等学者发表的文章观点,并商榷教育目标分类学的真谛。首先,引用“教育学-逻辑学-心理学”组织原则,强调布卢姆认知分类领域1956版的软肋恰是“心理学原则在教育学问题上不够张扬”所导致的。1956版缺失的原则应是“生理学原则”,由于深潜缜密的教育目标分类学说必须遵循生理的-逻辑的-心理的规律。其次,分析面向学科的全人教育目标描述模型“不伦不类”的缘故。最后,质疑《布鲁姆教育目标分类学批判》的观点,并呼吁严谨的治学态度。This paper uses literature analysis method to oppugn the views of articles published by Professor Li Yi and other scholars.Meanwhile,it discusses the true meaning about educational objectives taxonomy.First of all,it quotes three organizational principles called“pedagogical principle,logical principle and psychological principle”,and emphasizes the precise reason for the weakness of Bloom’s taxonomy of educational objectives(ver.1956)is that the psychological principle can not play a sufficient role in the pedagogical issue.This paper also points out that physiological principle is a missing principle of Bloom’s taxonomy of educational objectives(ver.1956)because a rigorous educational objectives classification doctrine must follow physiological principle,logical principle and psychological principle.Secondly,it analyzes the reasons why levels and categories are missing from subject-oriented education objectives description model.Finally,it disproves the viewpoints of“Criticism on Bloom’s Taxonomy of Educational Objectives”,and calls for a rigorous academic attitude.

关 键 词：教育目标分类组织原则 布卢姆教育目标分类学 皮亚杰理论 面向学科的全人教育目标描述模型 

分 类 号：G40-011[文化科学—教育学原理]