<sup id="ic2ca"><div id="ic2ca"></div></sup>
<sup id="ic2ca"></sup>
<rt id="ic2ca"><small id="ic2ca"></small></rt>
檢索
在線閱讀 --教育科學版 2020年6期《課堂革命驅動下大學教學評價的價值背離與轉向》
課堂革命驅動下大學教學評價的價值背離與轉向--[在線閱讀]
李作章
遼寧教育學院 《現代教育管理》編輯部, 遼寧 沈陽 110031
起止頁碼: 46--51頁
DOI: 10.13763/j.cnki.jhebnu.ese.2020.06.005
摘要
推進課堂革命,加快大學教學高質量發展是我國高等教育內涵式發展的必然要求。大學教學評價在構建以學生為中心的教學范式、形成以能力為核心的學習范式、激發教學活力和品質、營造良好的教學環境和增強教學治理的合法性與公共性等方面具有自身獨特的價值。以課堂革命為觀照,我國大學教學評價存在諸多的價值背離,具體表現為:張揚工具理性,忽視價值理性;重視選拔分等功能,輕視發展功能;管制性抑制教師教學的自主性;統一性淡化課堂教學的復雜性?;貧w價值本真,大學教學評價需要進行適度的價值轉向,即價值思維從工具理性轉向工具理性與價值理性的有機融合,價值功能從選拔分等轉向個性發展,價值空間從局部評價轉向整體評價,價值主體從單一評價轉向多元評價。

Value Deviation and Shift of University Teaching Evaluation Driven by Class Revolution
LI Zuozhang
Editorial Office of Modern Education Management, Liaoning Institute of Education, Shenyang, Liaoning 110031, China
Abstract:
Promoting classroom revolution and accelerating the development of high-quality university teaching are inevitable requirements for the connotative development of China's higher education. University teaching evaluation has its own unique value in constructing a student-centered teaching paradigm, forming a competence-based learning paradigm, boosting teaching vitality and quality, creating a good teaching environment, and enhancing the legitimacy and publicity of teaching governance. In light of classroom revolution, there are many value deviations in the teaching evaluation at the universities in China, such as highlighting instrumental rationality while neglecting value rationality; making much of the function of selecting and grading while overlooking the function of developing; regulation inhibits teachers' autonomy in teaching, and unity weakens the complexity of classroom teaching. To return to true value, university teaching evaluation needs a moderate value shift, that is, value thinking changes from instrumental rationality to the organic integration of instrumental rationality and value rationality, value function changes from emphasis on the function of selecting and grading to the function of developing, value space changes from partial evaluation to overall evaluation, and value subject changes from single evaluation to diversified evaluation.

收稿日期: 2020-05-28
基金項目: 全國教育科學“十三五”規劃2016年度教育部重點課題“澳大利亞大學教學質量標準研究”(DIA160343)

參考文獻:
[1]魏善春.當代課堂教學變革:一種過程哲學的審視[J].現代教育管理,2019(12).
[2]潮興兵,黃天成,魏健寧.工具理性與價值理性視角下的教學評價[J].教學與管理,2008(18).
[3]馬廷奇.高等教育教學改革與質量保障[M].武漢:武漢大學出版社,2017.
[4]喻聰舟,溫恒福.融合式教育治理現代化——新時代中國特色教育治理現代化的新趨勢[J].現代教育管理,2019(7).
[5]Ewell P T.Assessment,Accountability and Improvement:Managing the Contradiction[J].Accountability,1987(4).
[6]曹俊軍.課程與教學論[M].西安:西安交通大學出版社,2018.
[7]Marcia Mentkowski. Creating A Context Where Institutional Assessment Yields Educational Provement:Assessment and Program Evaluation[M].Simon:Schuster Custom Publishing,1994.
[8]史曉燕.高校教師教學質量評價的師生態度調查[J].河北師范大學學報(教育科學版),2013(12).
[9]別敦榮.大學課堂革命的主要任務、重點、難點和突破[J].中國高教研究,2019(6).
[10]葉瑞祥.簡明學習科學全書[M].北京:團結出版社,2017.
[11]Marye Anne Fox,Norman Hackerman.Evaluating and Improving Undergraduate Teaching in Science,Technology,Engineering,and Mathematics[M].N.W.Washington,DC:The National Academics Press,2001.
[12]Henard,F.and Roseveare,D.Fostering Quality Teaching in Higher Education:Policies and Practices[M].Paris:OECD Publishing,2012.
916彩票