论科学本质的共识范式危机:批评、回应、问题与展望  

On the Crisis of Consensus Paradigm of Nature of Science:Criticism,Response,Problem and Prospect

作　　者：宗国庆 王祖浩[1] Zong Guoqing;Wang Zuhao(College of Teacher Education,East China Normal University,Shanghai 200062,China)

机构地区：[1]华东师范大学教师教育学院

出　　处：《中国教育科学（中英文）》2022年第6期106-119,共14页Education Sciences in China

基　　金：教育部人文社会科学重点研究基地重大项目“基于核心素养的课程标准研制的关键问题研究”(17JD880007)。

摘　　要：主导国际科学教育科学本质研究三十余年的共识范式因其存在的诸多局限而遭受一系列批评,面临巨大范式危机。批评者认为,共识范式在理论体系上存在模糊本体论、二元认识论、机械还原方法论、同质项目规范性列表体系的问题,在评价工具上存在语境缺失、低阶化导向、劳动密集、学科适应性差、广度有限与关联性不足的问题。面对诸多指责,共识范式共同体成员进行了批评性回应。在辩证审视双方争论的焦点与各自立场后,发现二者均存在一定的片面性。为消减因愈演愈烈的争论而导致整个NOS研究事业解体的风险,未来研究应在充分吸收与融合共识范式及其替代范式各自合理思想与研究成果的基础上,以更为广博的理论视角重建一种新型NOS范式及评价工具。Consensus paradigm, which has dominated the research of nature of science(NOS) in international science education for more than 30 years, is facing a series of criticism and a huge paradigm crisis because of its limitations. Critics believe that there are problems in its theoretical system, such as fuzzy ontology, binary epistemology, mechanical reduction methodology and normative list system of homogeneous items, and in its evaluation tools, such as lack of context, low-level orientation, labor-intensity, poor discipline adaptability, limited breadth and relevance. Confronted with the criticism, members of the consensus paradigm community respond critically. After dialectically examining the focus and respective positions of the two sides, they find that they both have limitations. In order to preclude the debate from disintegrating the whole NOS research cause, future research should reconstruct a new NOS paradigm and evaluation tool from a broader theoretical perspective on the basis of fully absorbing and integrating the reasonable ideas and research results of consensus paradigm and its alternative paradigm.

关 键 词：科学本质 科学教育 共识范式 

分 类 号：G40-03[文化科学—教育学原理]