论“用以致学”：指向素养发展的教学认识论

张良; 罗生全

doi:10.16382/j.cnki.1000-5560.2021.02.004

论“用以致学”：指向素养发展的教学认识论

doi: 10.16382/j.cnki.1000-5560.2021.02.004

张良,
罗生全

西南大学西南民族教育与心理研究中心，重庆 400715

基金项目: 国家社会科学基金项目"化知识为素养的机理与教学实现策略研究"（CHA190268），西南大学人文社会科学后期资助项目（项目编号：SWU1909014）

①经济合作与发展组织采用的英文称谓是“Key Competences”、欧洲联盟选择的英文称谓是“key competences”、英国和美国采用的是“21st century skill”、澳大利亚则简写为“21st skills”，意大利和芬兰采用了“2lstcentury skills and competencies”、新加坡使用的是“21st century competencies”等。甚至有学者经统计后无奈地指出：核心素养有近百种称谓，是一个模糊、混淆的术语。参阅：张良，杨艳辉.（2019）. 核心素养的发展需要怎样的学习方式?——迈克尔•富兰的深度学习理论与启示. 比较教育研究，（10），29—37.
②基于知识的广义理解来概括个体已有的知识、技能与态度等心理社会资源，实际上借鉴了著名认知心理学家理查德它是少量的，是以达到上述目标的，起到‘接知’的作用为限，不是越多越好。理查德•梅耶（Richard Mayer）的知识分类，将知识分为事实知识、概念知识、程序知识、策略知识以及信念知识等类型。请参阅：Pellegrino, J.W., Hilton, M. L.（2012）. Education for Life and Work: Developing Transferable Knowledge and Skills in the 21st Century. Washington, D.C.: The National Academies Press, 84.
计量
- 文章访问数: 309
- HTML全文浏览量: 378
- PDF下载量: 50
- 被引次数: 0
出版历程
- 网络出版日期: 2021-02-07
- 刊出日期: 2021-02-07

On “Utilizing for Learning”：Teaching Epistemology for Competence Development

Center for studies of Education and Psychology of Ethnic Minorities, Southwest University, Chongqing, China

摘要

摘要: 探究素养发展的教学认识论，旨在澄明知识与素养的关系及其转化的认识论原理与教学机制。素养作为道德性运用知识解决复杂问题的能力，这一学习结果基于知识并超越知识，诉求于学习者能够在复杂情境中开展道德性的知识迁移与运用。可见，实践性是素养的本质特征，内蕴知与行、理智与德性统一的认识论意义。这一本质特征诉求于教学认识论应处理好“学”与“用”的一体化关系。传统教学认识论虽然一贯倡导“学以致用”，但由于理性主义知识观的钳制，在处理知与行、“学”与“用”的关系问题上深陷先后论、工具论、机械论等二元论困境。二元论的症结不仅割裂了“学”与“用”内在的一体性，而且难以确保学习者所获学习结果的实践性。“用以致学”通过调整“学”与“用”的位次关系，旨在重估行动、实践的认识论意义，进而更好地促进“学以致用”。“用以致学”作为实践取向的教学认识论不仅勾勒出化知识为素养的教学机理，同时还体现了现代认识论研究实践转向的趋势、学习科学的最新进展以及中国文化内蕴的力行认识论传统等依据。
- 素养 /
- 知行关系 /
- 实践认识论 /
- 用以致学 /
- 教学认识论
Abstract: Inquiry into the teaching epistemology for competence development aims to clarify the relationship between knowledge and competence, and the epistemology principles and teaching mechanism of their transformation. Competence is the moral ability of using knowledge to solve complex problems, and this learning outcome is based on knowledge and beyond, and depends on the fact that learners could transfer and utilize knowledge morally in complex situation. The nature of competence is practice which implies the epistemological meaning of the unity of knowledge and action, intellect and morality. This implication demands that teaching epistemology should handle well with the integration between ‘learning’ and ‘utilizing’. Although traditional teaching epistemology consistently advocates ‘learning for utilizing’, clamped by the knowledge creed of firm belief in rationalism, it struggled with the dualism cruces including the time sequence view, instrumental theory and mechanism in dealing with the relationship between knowledge and action, ‘learning’ and ‘utilizing’. The crux of dualism not only split the inherent unity of ‘learning’ and ‘utilizing’, but made it difficult to ensure the practicality of learners’ learning outcomes. ‘Utilizing for learning’ adjusts the sequence between ‘learning’ and ‘utilizing’ and aims to re-evaluate the epistemology meaning of action and practice, so as to promote ‘learning for utilizing’. ‘Utilizing for learning’ as the practice-oriented teaching epistemology, not only outlines the teaching mechanism of turning knowledge into competence, but reflects the practical turn of modern and contemporary epistemology research, the newest development of learning science and the action-based epistemology tradition implied in Chinese culture.
- competence /
- relationship between knowledge and action /
- practice-based epistemology /
- utilizing for learning /
- teaching epistemology
注释:

1) ①经济合作与发展组织采用的英文称谓是“Key Competences”、欧洲联盟选择的英文称谓是“key competences”、英国和美国采用的是“21st century skill”、澳大利亚则简写为“21st skills”，意大利和芬兰采用了“2lstcentury skills and competencies”、新加坡使用的是“21st century competencies”等。甚至有学者经统计后无奈地指出：核心素养有近百种称谓，是一个模糊、混淆的术语。参阅：张良，杨艳辉.（2019）. 核心素养的发展需要怎样的学习方式?——迈克尔•富兰的深度学习理论与启示. 比较教育研究，（10），29—37.

2) ②基于知识的广义理解来概括个体已有的知识、技能与态度等心理社会资源，实际上借鉴了著名认知心理学家理查德它是少量的，是以达到上述目标的，起到‘接知’的作用为限，不是越多越好。理查德•梅耶（Richard Mayer）的知识分类，将知识分为事实知识、概念知识、程序知识、策略知识以及信念知识等类型。请参阅：Pellegrino, J.W., Hilton, M. L.（2012）. Education for Life and Work: Developing Transferable Knowledge and Skills in the 21st Century. Washington, D.C.: The National Academies Press, 84.

HTML全文

参考文献(35)

[1]	陈嘉明. (2014). 中国哲学的“力行”知识论. 学术月刊,(11),5—13.
[2]	陈晏清, 王南湜, 李淑梅. (2017). 现代唯物主义导论: 马克思哲学的实践论研究. 北京: 北京师范大学出版社.
[3]	杜威. (2005a). 民主主义与教育(王承绪译). 北京: 人民教育出版社.
[4]	杜威. (2005b). 确定性的寻求——关于知行关系的研究(傅统先译). 上海: 上海人民出版社.
[5]	杜威. (2005c). 我们怎样思维·经验与教育(姜文阂译). 北京: 人民教育出版社.
[6]	杜威. (2008). 我们怎样思维——再论反省思维与教学的关系. 吕达、刘立德、邹海燕. 杜威教育文集(第五卷)(姜文闵译). 北京: 人民教育出版社.
[7]	方克立. (1986). 中国哲学史上的知行观. 北京: 人民出版社.
[8]	方明. (2008). 陶行知教育名篇. 北京: 教育科学出版社.
[9]	冯契. (2017). 认识世界和认识自己(修订版). 上海: 华东师范大学出版社.
[10]	怀特海. (2016). 教育的目的(汉英双语版)(靳玉乐等译). 北京: 中国轻工业出版社.
[11]	凯洛夫. (1957). 教育学(陈侠等译). 北京: 人民教育出版社.
[12]	李泽厚. (2005). 实用理性与乐感文化. 北京: 生活•读书•新知三联书店.
[13]	李泽厚. (2014). 论语今读. 北京: 生活•读书•新知三联书店.
[14]	苗力田. (1994). 亚里士多德全集(第8卷). 北京: 中国人民大学出版社.
[15]	欧阳康. (2017). 马克思主义认识论研究. 北京: 北京师范大学出版社.
[16]	陶行知. (2012). 育才学校手册. 重庆陶研文史,(3),13.
[17]	王策三. (2002). 教学认识论(修订本). 北京: 北京师范大学出版社.
[18]	王策三. (2005). 教学论稿(第二版). 北京: 人民教育出版社.
[19]	杨九诠. (2016). 学科核心素养与高阶思维. 中国教育报, 2016−12−21(9).
[20]	杨向东. (2017). 基于核心素养的基础教育课程标准研制. 全球教育展望,(9),34—48.
[21]	郁振华. (2012). 人类知识的默会维度. 北京: 北京大学出版社.
[22]	张良. (2019). 论核心素养的生成: 以知识观重建为路径. 教育研究,(9),65—70.
[23]	张良, 靳玉乐. (2019). 知识运用与素养生成—探讨素养发展的知识路径. 教育学报,(5),48—49.
[24]	Brown, J. S., Collins, A., Duguid, P. (1989). Situated Cognition and the Culture of Learning. Educational Researcher, (1), 32—42.
[25]	Dewey, J. (1916). Democracy and Education: An Introduction to the Philosophy of Education. New York: The Free Press.
[26]	Dewey, J. (1929). The Quest for Certainty——A Study of the Relationship of Knowledge and Action. New York: Minton, Balch & Company.
[27]	Freire, Paulo. (2005). Pedagogy of the Oppressed (30th Anniversary Edition).New York: The Continuum International Publishing Group Inc.
[28]	National Academies of Sciences. (2018). Enginerring, and Medicine. How People learn Ⅱ: Learners, Contexts and Cultures. Washington, DC.
[29]	National Research Council. (2000). How People Learn: Brain, Mind, Experience, and School. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.
[30]	OECD. (2005). The Definition and Selection of Key Competencies [Executive Summary]. Retrieved from https://www.oecd.org/pisa/35070367.pdf.
[31]	OECD.(2019). OECD Future of Education and Skill 2030: OECD learning Compass 2030 (A series of concept notes). Paris: OECD Publishing.
[32]	Pellegrino, J.W., Hilton, M. L.(2012). Education for Life and Work: Developing Transferable Knowledge and Skills in the 21st Century. Washington, D.C.: The National Academies Press.
[33]	Rychen, D.S., Salganik, L.H. (2001). Defining and Selecting Key Competencies.Göttinggen, Germany: Hogerfe & Huber.
[34]	Rychen, D.S., Salganik, L.H. (2003). Key Competencies for a Successful Life and a Well-Functioning Society. Göttinggen, Germany: Hogerfe & Huber.
[35]	United Nations Educational. (2015). Scientific and Cultural Organization. Rethinking Education: Towards a global common good?. Paris: UNESCO Publishing.