检索
在线阅读 --教育科学版 2020年6期《课堂革命驱动下大学教学评价的价值背离与转向》
课堂革命驱动下大学教学评价的价值背离与转向--[在线阅读]
李作章
辽宁教育学院 《现代教育管理》编辑部, 辽宁 沈阳 110031
起止页码: 46--51页
DOI: 10.13763/j.cnki.jhebnu.ese.2020.06.005
摘要
推进课堂革命,加快大学教学高质量发展是我国高等教育内涵式发展的必然要求。大学教学评价在构建以学生为中心的教学范式、形成以能力为核心的学习范式、激发教学活力和品质、营造良好的教学环境和增强教学治理的合法性与公共性等方面具有自身独特的价值。以课堂革命为观照,我国大学教学评价存在诸多的价值背离,具体表现为:张扬工具理性,忽视价值理性;重视选拔分等功能,轻视发展功能;管制性抑制教师教学的自主性;统一性淡化课堂教学的复杂性。回归价值本真,大学教学评价需要进行适度的价值转向,即价值思维从工具理性转向工具理性与价值理性的有机融合,价值功能从选拔分等转向个性发展,价值空间从局部评价转向整体评价,价值主体从单一评价转向多元评价。

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
基金项目: 全国教育科学“十三五”规划2016年度教育部重点课题“澳大利亚大学教学质量标准研究”(DIA160343)

参考文献:
[1]魏善春.当代课堂教学变革:一种过程哲学的审视[J].现代教育管理,2019(12).
[2]潮兴兵,黄天成,魏健宁.工具理性与价值理性视角下的教学评价[J].教学与管理,2008(18).
[3]马廷奇.高等教育教学改革与质量保障[M].武汉:武汉大学出版社,2017.
[4]喻聪舟,温恒福.融合式教育治理现代化——新时代中国特色教育治理现代化的新趋势[J].现代教育管理,2019(7).
[5]Ewell P T.Assessment,Accountability and Improvement:Managing the Contradiction[J].Accountability,1987(4).
[6]曹俊军.课程与教学论[M].西安:西安交通大学出版社,2018.
[7]Marcia Mentkowski. Creating A Context Where Institutional Assessment Yields Educational Provement:Assessment and Program Evaluation[M].Simon:Schuster Custom Publishing,1994.
[8]史晓燕.高校教师教学质量评价的师生态度调查[J].河北师范大学学报(教育科学版),2013(12).
[9]别敦荣.大学课堂革命的主要任务、重点、难点和突破[J].中国高教研究,2019(6).
[10]叶瑞祥.简明学习科学全书[M].北京:团结出版社,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.