Analytical Framework and Action Paradigm of Education’s Response to Public Crisis: Based on the  Outbreak of COVID-19

Lin Kesong; Zhu Dequan

doi:10.16382/j.cnki.1000-5560.2020.04.010

Volume 38 Issue 4

Apr. 2020

Turn off MathJax

Article Contents

Article Navigation > Journal of East China Normal University (Educational Sciences) > 2020 > 38(4): 118-126

Lin Kesong, Zhu Dequan. Analytical Framework and Action Paradigm of Education’s Response to Public Crisis: Based on the Outbreak of COVID-19[J]. Journal of East China Normal University (Educational Sciences), 2020, 38(4): 118-126. doi: 10.16382/j.cnki.1000-5560.2020.04.010

Citation:

Lin Kesong, Zhu Dequan. Analytical Framework and Action Paradigm of Education’s Response to Public Crisis: Based on the Outbreak of COVID-19[J]. Journal of East China Normal University (Educational Sciences), 2020, 38(4): 118-126. doi: 10.16382/j.cnki.1000-5560.2020.04.010

Citation:

PDF( 641 KB)

Analytical Framework and Action Paradigm of Education’s Response to Public Crisis: Based on the Outbreak of COVID-19

doi: 10.16382/j.cnki.1000-5560.2020.04.010

Faculty of Education, Southwest University, ChongQing 400715

Publish Date: 2020-04-01

Abstract

Abstract

The ability of coping with public crises is an important consideration for measuring the modernization level of education governance. Systematically, there are three links of action paradigm in education’s response to public crisis: execution and introspection and a six-dimensional action scale: professional degree, recognition degree, synergy degree, innovation degree, awareness degree and promotion degree. In response to the outbreak of COVID-19 crisis, education encounters challenges in design, execution and introspection, such as the consensus crisis like “keeping on studying while schools are closed”, the absence of cognition and ability of online teaching and the lack of imagination of “epidemic education”. In the post epidemic era,to improve the ability of coping with public crises, it's necessary to build a normalized public crisis response mechanism, establish a timely public crisis information communication mechanism and a diversified public crisis governance participation mechanism. Also it's important to implement a precise improving mechanism of online-education quality, develop a multidimensional public crisis reflection mechanism and implement a capacity building mechanism of progressive public crisis.
- education,
- public crisis,
- crisis governance,
- action paradigm,
- COVID-19

FullText(HTML)

References(17)

References

[1]	李芒. (2020). 疫情下应该如何教学. https://new.qq.com/omn/20200218/20200218A0CJBH00.html.
[2]	刘永福. (2018). 改革开放40年我国推进教育现代化的基本经验. 西南大学学报(社会科学版),(4),87−93+194.
[3]	全钟燮. (2008). 公共行政的社会建构: 解释与批判（孙柏瑛等译）. 北京: 北京大学出版社.
[4]	人民网. (2020). 打赢疫情防控阻击战既要立足当前更要放眼长远习近平强调补短板堵漏洞强弱项. http://theory.people.com.cn/n1/2020/0215/c40531-31588090.html.
[5]	人民网. (2015). 习近平在华东七省市党委主要负责同志座谈会上强调系统谋划“十三五”经济社会发展. http://paper.people.com.cn/rmrbhwb/html/2015-05/29/content_1570475.htm.
[6]	宋弘, 刘婉琳. (2020). 肺炎疫情背景下的教育信息化: 基本事实和政策建议. https://www.thepaper.cn/newsDetail_forward_6032649.
[7]	童世骏. (2008). 关于“重叠共识”的“重叠共识”. 中国社会科学,(6),55−65.
[8]	乌尔里希•贝克. (2004). 风险社会(何博闻译). 南京: 译林出版社.
[9]	袁明旭. (2018). 国家治理体系视阈下公共危机治理现代化研究. 贵州社会科学,(3),36−44.
[10]	张才生. (2020). 疫情之下, 教育信息化上演了一场蹩脚戏. https://new.qq.com/omn/20200224/20200224A0AQTT00.html.
[11]	张海波, 童星. (2009). 战略性治理: 应对突发事件的新思维. 天府新论,(6),85−90.
[12]	张海波, 童星. (2015). 中国应急管理结构变化及其理论概化. 中国社会科学,(3),58−84.
[13]	张建荣. (2015). “全能主义政府”的公共危机治理困局. 学术界,(7),171−177. doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1002-1698.2015.07.018
[14]	钟开斌. (2019). 重大风险防范化解能力: 一个过程性框架. 中国行政管理,(12),127−132.
[15]	周正刚. (2017). 论习近平全面深化改革的系统思维. 湖湘论坛,(1),5−11. doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1004-3160.2017.01.001
[16]	周作宇. (2020). 教育改革的逻辑: 主体意图与行动路线. 北京师范大学学报(社会科学版),(1),5−29.
[17]	朱德全. (2020). 从不确定走向确定: 重大疫情下教育治理现代化的考量(笔谈). 重庆高教研究,(2),5−24.