期刊文献+

基于核心素养的课程评价:理论基础、内涵与研究方法 被引量:46

Curriculum Assessment Based on Key Competencies:Theories,Connotation and Research Methods
在线阅读 下载PDF
导出
摘要 与传统课程评价以现实主义或实证主义哲学为理论基础不同,基于核心素养的课程评价以相对主义、社会建构主义和参与理论为基础,强调主体在课程评价中的作用,关注核心素养的情境性,重视探究方式在课程评价中的作用。基于核心素养的课程评价是一个持续的意义建构过程,它发生在真实情境下,通过社会协作、体验以及协商来实现;其目的是通过对课程进展过程中的关键时刻、具体情境、特定地点(学校)等的预期,促进评价者对课程评价概念的情境性和整合性的理解,实现利益相关者之间的协商;评价内容聚焦于课程目标、学习过程以及课程资源等。基于核心素养的课程评价研究方法应该聚焦于目标来选择量化方法、质性方法以及混合方法。 Unlike traditional curriculum assessment which is based on realism or positivism as basic theories,curriculum assessment based on key competencies sets the base on relativism,social constructivism and participation theory,emphasizing the role of the subject in curriculum assessment,focusing on the situational nature of key competencies and paying attention to exploring the function of methods in curriculum assessment.Curriculum assessment based on key competencies is a continuous process of meaning construction which takes place in a real context and is achieved through social collaboration,experience,and negotiation.Its purpose is to promote the assessors’understanding of the contextuality and integration of the concept of curriculum assessment,and realize the negotiation between stakeholders through the expectations of key moments,specific situations and specific locations(schools)in the process of the course.The assessment content focuses on the curriculum objectives,learning process and curriculum resources.Selection of quantitative methods,qualitative methods or mixed methods as research methods of curriculum assessment based on key competencies should correspond with and focus on the objectives.
作者 雷浩 LEI Hao
出处 《上海师范大学学报(哲学社会科学版)》 CSSCI 北大核心 2020年第5期78-85,共8页 Journal of Shanghai Normal University(Philosophy & Social Sciences Edition)
基金 全国教育科学“十三五”规划国家青年课题“课程政策的监测与评估研究”(CFA180249)阶段性成果。
关键词 核心素养 课程评价 社会建构 目标 key competencies curriculum assessment social construct objectives
  • 相关文献

参考文献6

二级参考文献67

  • 1[1]Dennis Philips, (1983), After the Wake: Postpositivistic Educational Thought, Educational Researcher, May 1983, pp.4-12.
  • 2[2]Lutz,F W. (1992), The Courage to Be Creative, Journal of School Leadership, vol.2, No.4, p.456~469.
  • 3[3]Rutter, M., Maughan, B., Mortimore, P., & Ouston, J., (1979), Fifteen Thousand Hours, Cambridge,Massachusetts: Harvard University Press.
  • 4[4]Goodlad, J. I. (1984), A Place Called School, New York: McGraw-Hill Book Company.
  • 5[5]Foster, W. P., (1986), Paradigms and Promises: New Approaches to Educational Administration, Buffalo, NY:Prometheus Books, p.35-36.
  • 6[6]Weick, K. E., (1967), Organizations in the Laboratory, In V. Vroom (Ed.), Methods of Organizational Research,Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh Press.
  • 7[7]Boyan, Norman J., (1988), Handbook of Research on Educational Administration: a Project of the American Educational Research Association, New York: Longman, p.l.
  • 8[8]Hoy, Wayne K., Miskel, Cecil G., (2001), Educational Administration: Theory, Research, and Practice, (6th ed.), New York: McGraw-Hill, Inc.p.2.
  • 9[9]Greenfield, T. B., (1975), Theory about Organization: a New Perspective and its Implications for Schools. In M.Hughes (ed.), Administering Education: International Challenge, London: Athlone Press, University of London,p.93.
  • 10[10]Greenfield, T. B., (1975), Theory about Organization: a New Perspective and its Implications for schools. In M. Hughes (ed.), Administering Education: International Challenge, London: Athlone Press, University of London, pp. 1-2.

共引文献174

引证文献46

二级引证文献484

相关作者

内容加载中请稍等...

相关机构

内容加载中请稍等...

相关主题

内容加载中请稍等...

浏览历史

内容加载中请稍等...
;
使用帮助 返回顶部