With Whom to Change the World: On John Dewey’s Educational Thinking of Cultivating Citizens with 4Cs Skills

Peng Zhengmei

doi:10.16382/j.cnki.1000-5560.2021.06.003

Volume 39 Issue 6

Jun. 2021

Turn off MathJax

Article Contents

Article Navigation > Journal of East China Normal University (Educational Sciences) > 2021 > 39(6): 27-42

Peng Zhengmei. With Whom to Change the World: On John Dewey’s Educational Thinking of Cultivating Citizens with 4Cs Skills[J]. Journal of East China Normal University (Educational Sciences), 2021, 39(6): 27-42. doi: 10.16382/j.cnki.1000-5560.2021.06.003

Citation:

Peng Zhengmei. With Whom to Change the World: On John Dewey’s Educational Thinking of Cultivating Citizens with 4Cs Skills[J]. Journal of East China Normal University (Educational Sciences), 2021, 39(6): 27-42. doi: 10.16382/j.cnki.1000-5560.2021.06.003

Citation:

PDF( 833 KB)

With Whom to Change the World: On John Dewey’s Educational Thinking of Cultivating Citizens with 4Cs Skills

doi: 10.16382/j.cnki.1000-5560.2021.06.003

Peng Zhengmei

Institute of International and Comparative Education/Research Center for Educational Thought of John Dewey, East China Normal University, Shanghai 200062, China

Available Online: 2021-05-28
Publish Date: 2021-06-20

Abstract

Abstract

“With whom to change the world” is not only a political issue, but also an educational issue. After Confucius, Plato, Rousseau and Marx, Dewey responded to this question and proposed to cultivate modern citizens with reflective thinking, communication, cooperation and creativity as the core to build the great community he advocated. This kind of 4Cs citizen discourse has profound cosmopolitan significance and is also regarded as the theoretical basis of the international 21st century skills-oriented education reform movement. This thinking of John Dewey is helpful to transform the traditional models such as “learning and thinking” and “unity of knowledge and action” in Chinese education into models such as “thinking, communicating and acting” and “cooperative problem solving”, thereby accelerating the cultivation of more competitive Chinese with a global perspective to cope with the uncertainty of the future and build a community with a shared future for mankind.
- reflective thinking,
- problem solving,
- communication,
- aesthetic experience,
- great community

FullText(HTML)

References(42)

References

[1]	本纳. (2017). 德语语境中的杜威教育学(彭韬译). 全球教育展望,46(2),3—14+24.
[2]	杜威. (1990). 民主主义与教育(王承绪译). 北京: 人民教育出版社.
[3]	杜威. (2004). 哲学的改造(许崇清译). 北京: 商务印书馆.
[4]	杜威. (2005). 艺术即经验(高建平译). 北京: 商务印书馆.
[5]	杜威. (2009). 民主•经验•教育(彭正梅译). 上海: 上海人民出版社.
[6]	杜威. (2015a). 杜威全集•晚期著作: 第1卷(1925). 上海: 华东师范大学出版社.
[7]	杜威. (2015b). 杜威全集•晚期著作: 第5卷(1929—1930). 上海: 华东师范大学出版社.
[8]	杜威. (2015c). 杜威全集•晚期著作: 第8卷(1933). 上海: 华东师范大学出版社.
[9]	杜威. (2015d). 杜威全集•晚期著作: 第9卷(1933—1934). 上海: 华东师范大学出版社.
[10]	杜威. (2015e). 杜威全集•早期著作: 第1卷(1899—1901). 上海: 华东师范大学出版社.
[11]	杜威. (2015f). 杜威全集•中期著作: 第8卷(1915). 上海: 华东师范大学出版社.
[12]	杜威. (2015g). 公众及其问题(本书翻译组译). 上海: 复旦大学出版社.
[13]	程亮. (2016). 学校即共同体—重返杜威的《民主主义与教育》. 湖南师范大学教育科学学报,15(03),14—21.
[14]	丁立群. (2012). 实践哲学: 传统与超越. 北京: 北京师范大学出版社.
[15]	刘铁芳. (2010). 从苏格拉底到杜威: 教育的生活转向与现代教育的完成. 北京大学教育评论,8(2),91—112+190. doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1671-9468.2010.02.009
[16]	彭正梅. (2016). 经验不断改造如何可能: 杜威的自我发展哲学及其与儒家修身传统的比较. 湖南师范大学教育科学学报,15(3),5—13.
[17]	彭正梅, 邓莉. (2017). 迈向教育改革的核心: 培养作为21世纪技能核心的批判性思维技能. 教育发展研究,37(24),57—63.
[18]	彭正梅, 郑太年, 邓志伟. (2016). 培养具有全球竞争力的中国人: 基础教育人才培养模式的国际比较. 全球教育展望,45(8),67—79.
[19]	彭正梅. (2020). 如何寻找真正的德意志文化: 论尼采不合时宜的教育批判. 教育学报,(04),3—19.
[20]	石中英. (2017). 杜威教育哲学论述的方法. 教育学报,13(1),3—9.
[21]	唐斌. (2014). 杜威的探究性教学论: 出场语境及其视域偏差. 华东师范大学学报(教育科学版),32(3),55—62.
[22]	唐克军, 蔡迎旗. (2007). 杜威的公民教育观. 教育研究与实验,32(6),39—42.
[23]	童世骏. (2020). 不对称主体之间的平等交往何以可能—从哈贝马斯交往论看杜威教育观引出的一个问题. 学术月刊,52(01),21—24.
[24]	希克曼. (2010). 阅读杜威: 为后现代做的阐释(徐陶等译). 北京: 北京大学出版社.
[25]	张梅, 张立成. (2011). 论杜威的民主共同体理念及其当代价值. 济南大学学报(社会科学版),21(06),72—75+90.
[26]	仲建维, 乔宏时. (2018). 杜威的“智慧”概念及其教学方法论意义. 当代教育科学,(1),46—50. doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1672-2221.2018.01.010
[27]	仲建维. (2016). 从“实践理智化”到“教育理智化”—兼对杜威“反理智主义”观念的辨正. 教育学报,12(01),104—110.
[28]	Belman, L.S. (1977). John Dewey’s Concept of Communication. Journal of Communication, 27(1), 29—37. doi: 10.1111/j.1460-2466.1977.tb01793.x
[29]	Bernstein, R.J. (2017). Hilary Putnam: The Pragmatist Enlightenment. Graduate Faculty Philosophy Journal, 38(2), 373—383. doi: 10.5840/gfpj201738219
[30]	Biesta, G. (2006). “‘Of All Affairs, Communication is the Most Wonderful. ’Education as Communicative Praxis. ” In John Dewey and Our Educational Prospect: A Critical Engagement with Dewey’s Democracy and Education, edited by Hansen, D. T. 23−38. NewYork: State University of New York Press.
[31]	Bishop, P.S. (2010). Dewey’s Pragmatism and the Great Community. University of South Florida.
[32]	Coke, P.A. (2000). A Deweyan Perspective on Communication, Cooperation, and Collaboration Between Elementary and Secondary Educators. Education and Culture Summer, 16(2), 17—21.
[33]	Deng, L., & Peng, Z.M. (2021). Moral Priority or Skill Priority: A Comparative Analysis of Key Competencies Frameworks in China and the United States. Comparative Education, 57(1), 83—98. doi: 10.1080/03050068.2020.1845063
[34]	English, A. (2009). Listening as a Teacher: Educative Listening, Interruptions and Reflective Practice. Paideusis, 18(1), 69—79.
[35]	Fallace, T. (2017). Reading Democracy and Education in the Context of World War I. Democracy & Education, 25(1), 1—7.
[36]	Garrison, J., Neubert, S., & Reich, K. (2012). John Dewey’s Philosophy of Education: An Introduction and Recontextualization for Our Times. Palgrave Macmillan.
[37]	Glaveanu V, Lubart T, Bonnardel N, Botella M, de Biaisi P-M, Desainte-Catherine M, Georgsdottir A, Guillou K, Kurtag G, Mouchiroud C, Storme M, Wojtczuk A & Zenasni F. (2013). Creativity as Action: Findings From Five Creative Domains. Frontiers in Psychology, (4), 1−14.
[38]	Hildreth, R.W. (2011). What Good is Growth? Reconsidering Dewey on the Ends of Education. Education and Culture, 27(2), 28—47. doi: 10.1353/eac.2011.0012
[39]	Honneth, A. Farrell, J. (1998). Democracy as Reflexive Cooperation: John Dewey and the Theory of Democracy Today. Political Theory, 26(6), 763—783. doi: 10.1177/0090591798026006001
[40]	Prange, K. (2009). Schlüsselwerke der Pädagogik Band 2: Von Fröbel bis Luhmann. Stuttgart: Verlag W. Kohlhammer.
[41]	Rodgers, C. (2002). Defining Reflection: Another Look at John Dewey and Reflective Thinking. Teachers College Record, 104(04), 842—866. doi: 10.1111/1467-9620.00181
[42]	Wang, J.C.-S. (2016). From Critical Thinking to Artful Communication: Inspirations from Dewey’s Theory of Communication. Philosophy Study, 6(2), 103—113.