The Status Quo and Future Trends of International Curriculum Studies
-
摘要: 开展东西方课程对话的前提是要对国际课程研究的现状及趋势有整体性的认识。本文则借助Citespace知识图谱软件,对近十年来Web of Science数据库中收录的课程研究核心论文进行了量和质的分析,意图揭示国际课程研究的热点议题、关键文献、演进历程和未来趋势。研究结果表明,国际课程研究领域已经呈现出以美欧国家为主体,亚非国家正后来居上的论文出版格局;其热点在于重新审视课程背后所蕴含的复杂斗争和深层意义,并关注利益相关者的内心体验及能动作用;同时注重多种研究方法和理论架构的创造性运用。因此我国课程研究者应建立稳定的写作同盟、开发课程理解的多重视角、开展更多的田野调查和实证研究、打造具有本土特色的课程理论体系,才能进一步推动课程研究的国际化进程。Abstract: The primary objective of curriculum studies in China today is to revive its world-leading status in the early 1920s and 1930s, and to have East-West curriculum dialogues based on equality and reciprocity. To achieve this, it is necessary to have a comprehensive understanding of the curriculum studies at the global level. Employing a knowledge mapping software Citespace III, this paper tries to offer a systematic review of the collected SSCI essays on different curriculum themes from the database of WoS (Web of Science), conduct quantitative and qualitative analysis from several dimensions (state and institution, keywords, cited reference, theoretical framework and research method) and then reveal the evolution process, characteristics of curriculum research in the past decade as well as its future trends. The study shows that most authors of the published original articles on curriculum are from the USA, Australia and European countries (such as Britain, Sweden and Holland), though some authors from Asian and African countries are trying to catch up with their western counterparts. As to the research focus, international curriculum scholars attempt to reexamine the complex conflicts and implications concerning curriculum from economic, political, cultural, racial and gender perspectives at the macro level. At the micro level, they are interested in the lived experiences, identity and caring for the individual teachers and students in subject teaching and curriculum policy-making process. These scholars have also begun to use varied qualitative research methodologies instead of traditional quantitative research-dominated paradigm, such as case study, narrative inquiry, ethnographic study, discourse analysis and historical inquiry. They emphasize the building of collaborative relationship between the researcher and the research objects. What's more, they have created a number of original curriculum theories or discourses, contributing to developing curriculum studies into an independent academic discipline.Therefore, to promote the internationalization of curriculum research in China, curriculum scholars are encouraged to accomplish the following tasks. First, it's essential to establish some critical writing communities at different geographical levels. They can not only turn to international peers for consultation and even invite them to participate in our research process, but also establish sustainable research partnership with foreign institutions through attending or co-sponsoring international curriculum conferences (such as the Division B sessions in AERA, the IAACS and AAACS conferences). Second, it's necessary to develop more diversified perspectives or discourses to understand the curriculum in Chinese context, and pay more attention to the multiple identities (such as gender, ethnicity, socioeconomic status), lived experiences and positive strengths of Chinese teachers and students in educational arenas. Third, we should conduct more research studies by using different quantitative and qualitative methodologies, in addition to the traditional philosophical research methods which are currently the mainstream in our curriculum research field. Besides, we should enhance the consciousness of collaborating with research objects (especially the young children) and develop more effective strategies to make this collaboration happen. Finally and also most importantly, curriculum researchers should devote themselves to the localization and reconstruction of western curriculum theories and practical experiences, and on this basis create native and valuable theoretical systems of curriculum informed by our traditional wisdoms (such as Confucianism, Taoism and Buddhism).
-
Key words:
- curriculum studies /
- knowledge mapping /
- research methodologies /
- theoretical frameworks
-
表 1 国际课程研究关键词演进表
年份 关键词 共现频率 中间中心性值 2006 课堂 10 1.18 公民教育 21 0.18 问责制 7 077 学生 13 0.45 教师 17 0.41 改革 30 0.33 2007 公民身份 6 0.65 评价 5 0.58 2008 教育政策 5 0.18 身份认同 10 0.13 2009 民主 7 0.35 适应 3 0.11 2010 课程理论 11 0.10 反压迫教育 1 0.52 青少年 3 0.38 2011 教学 10 0.52 入学机会 2 0.45 政治学 9 0.13 2013 整合 3 0.13 2014 课程变革 4 0.11 2015 学科 1 0.46 表 2 2006-2015国际课程研究文献的研究方法统计表
2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 总计 哲学思辨法 19 23 16 20 16 22 18 28 10 12 178 个案研究法 10 6 11 13 10 15 20 9 13 9 113 叙事探究法 0 2 3 1 1 2 0 1 1 2 11 历史探究法 0 2 0 3 1 0 3 1 0 1 11 内容分析法 1 3 2 1 0 1 1 0 0 1 10 话语分析法 0 1 0 0 0 1 2 1 2 4 9 人种志方法 1 1 2 1 0 0 0 0 1 1 6 其他 3 0 0 3 7 1 4 6 12 6 41 合计 34 38 34 42 35 42 48 46 39 36 394 -
[1] 丁长康、钟勇为.2015.我国近十年课程研究热点与反思—基于CiteSpace的分析.现代教育管理, (3): 89-93 http://kns.cnki.net/KCMS/detail/detail.aspx?filename=lngd201503018&dbname=CJFD&dbcode=CJFQ [2] 刘则渊、陈悦、侯海燕等. 2008. 科学知识图谱: 方法与应用. 人民出版社, 序言一, 2. [3] 闫守轩、朱宁波、曾佑来. 2014. 十二年来我国课程研究的热点主题及其演进—基于2001-2012年CSSCI数据库关键词共现知识 [4] 图谱的可视化分析. 全球教育展望, 43(3): 64-72. [5] 张华.2004.走向儒学课程观.全球教育展望, 33(10):34-38. http://www.cqvip.com/QK/96950A/2004010/11042346.html [6] Bishop P. & Downes J.2008.Engaging curriculum for the middle years. Curriculum Matters, 4, 52-68. http://www.nzcer.org.nz/.../articles/engaging-curriculum-middle-years [7] Bryan A.2012."You've got to teach people that racism is wrong and then they won't be racist": Curricular representations and young people's understandings of 'race' and racism. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 44(5): 599-629. doi: 10.1080/00220272.2012.699557 [8] Carpenter V.M. & Lee D.2010.Teacher education and the hidden curriculum of heteronormativity. Curriculum Matters, 6, 99-119. http://search.informit.com.au/documentSummary;dn=331475854107264;res=IELHSS;subject=Indigenous [9] Charteris J.2014.Agentic subjectivities and key competencies. Curriculum Matters, 10, 11-31. https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Jennifer_Charteris/publication/273459087_Agentic_subjectivities_and_key_competencies/links/5503504e0cf2d60c0e64e776.pdf [10] Eilam B.and Ben-Peretz M.2010.Revisiting curriculum inquiry: The role of visual representations. Journalof Curriculum Studies, 42(6):751-774. doi: 10.1080/00220272.2010.497192 [11] Eilam B. & Poyas Y.2012.Teachers' interpretations of texts-image juxtapositions in textbooks: From theconcrete to the abstract. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 44(2): 265-297. doi: 10.1080/00220272.2011.637181 [12] Haydn T. & Harris R.2010.Pupil perspectives on the purposes and benefits of studying history in high school: a view from the UK. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 42(2):241-261. doi: 10.1080/00220270903403189 [13] Hilferty F.2007.Contesting the curriculum: An examination of professionalism as defined and enacted by Australian history teachers. Curriculum Inquiry, 37(3): 239-261. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-873X.2007.00384.x [14] Hua Z. & Zhenyu G.2014. Curriculum studies in China: Retrospect and prospect. In Pinar W.F.(ed.).International Handbook of curriculum research (2nd), New York: Routledge, 118-133. [15] Huizinga T., Handelzalts A. & Nieveen N.2014.Teacher involvement in curriculum design: Need for support to enhance teachers' design expertise. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 46(1): 33-57. doi: 10.1080/00220272.2013.834077 [16] Joseph P.B.2007.Seeing as strangers: teachers' investigations of lived curriculum. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 39(3): 283-302. doi: 10.1080/00220270600818481 [17] Noffke S.E. & Somekh B. (eds.)2009. Sage Handbook of educational action research. London: Sage. [18] Penuel W.P., Phillips R.S. & Harris J.C.2014.Analyzing Teachers' curriculum implementation from integrity and actor-oriented perspectives. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 46(6): 751-777. doi: 10.1080/00220272.2014.921841 [19] Sloan K.2006.Teacher identity and agency in school worlds: Beyond the all-good/all-bad discourse on accountability-explicit curriculum policies. Curriculum Inquiry, 36(2): 119-152. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-873X.2006.00350.x [20] Steenbrugge H.V., Lesage E. & Valcke M.2014. Preservice elementary school teachers' knowledge of fractions: a mirror of students' knowledge?.Journal of Curriculum Studies, 46(1): 138-161. doi: 10.1080/00220272.2013.839003 [21] You J.2011.A self-study of a national curriculum maker in physical education: Challenges to curriculumchange. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 43(1):87-108. doi: 10.1080/00220272.2010.516023