施瓦布“实践取向”课程思想研究五问  

Five Questions on the Study of Schwab's Curriculum Theoeries of“The Practical”

作　　者：樊文娟 潘洪建[1] 韦冬余 FAN Wenjuan;PAN Hongjian;WEI Dongyu(School of Educational Science,Yangzhou University,Yangzhou,225002,China)

机构地区：[1]扬州大学教育科学学院,扬州225002

出　　处：《全球教育展望》2023年第7期16-23,共8页Global Education

基　　金：国家社会科学基金“十三五”规划2018年度教育学一般课题“乡村文化传承:乡村民办教师公共精神的生活史研究”(项目编号:BHA180138)的研究成果之一。

摘　　要：本文围绕施瓦布“实践取向”课程思想的译介和理解上的困惑与误解,深入研究其有关“实践”的四篇论文《实践1:课程的语言》《实践2:折中的艺术》《实践3:课程的转型》《实践4:课程教授应该做的事情》,厘清和回应国内学术界对施瓦布课程思想理解的相关质疑,得出如下认识:不宜将“实践”、“准实践”和“折中”列入“课程审议”的范畴;“the quasi-practical”应翻译为“多元实践”;理论折中不会导致课程实践的混乱;课程开发主体的核心应该是课程专家;施瓦布课程思想与犹太经典《塔木德》的关系缺乏充分证据。这些新认识对于丰富课程学术史研究和学术争鸣有理论和现实的意义。This paper focuses on the confusion and misunderstanding of Joseph J.Schwab's"Practical"curriculum thoughts and looks in depth at his four writings(i.e."The Practical:A language for curriculum","The Practical 2:Arts of eclectic","The Practical 3:Translation into curriculum","The Practical 4:Something for Curriculum Professors To Do"),clarifying and responding to relevant doubts in domestic academic circles about Schwab's ideological understanding of curriculum.It comes to the following findings:It is not appropriate to include the practical,the quasi-practical,and the eclectic in the scope of"curriculum deliberation";The Quasi-Practical should be translated as"多元实践";The eclectic of the theory does not lead to confusion in the field of the curriculum practice;The core members of the curriculum development should be curriculum specialists;The relationship between Schwab's ideas and the Jewish classic"Talmud"is not well established.These new findings have theoretical and practical significance for enriching academic historical research and academic controversy about curriculum.

关 键 词：施瓦布 课程审议 课程开发 

分 类 号：G423[文化科学—课程与教学论]