【作者】 薛绍聪；

【导师】 韩延明；

【作者基本信息】 山东师范大学 ， 教育学原理， 2012， 博士

【摘要】 大学文化体现着不同的办学目的和特色，显现出各高校独特的精神风貌，承载着各大学不同的教育传统，而这正是各大学之间相互区分的重要标志。当前教育部门及各高校正不遗余力地研究、建设大学文化，将研究的重点放在凝练办学理念、办学特色和办学定位上，亮化大学的精神文化、完善学校的制度文化、建设富有特色的物质文化，力求从整体上系统地建设好大学文化体系。然而教育的中心问题是人，努力发展及建设大学文化的价值追求应该是人才的培养。人才的培养尤其是大学生的教育与培养问题，是我们研究以及建设大学文化的出发点以及归宿所在，高等教育的最高价值在于培养全面发展的具有健全统一人格的大学生。育人功能则是大学文化的根本内容，是大学文化的本体功能。因此，大学文化建设的重点不应放在建设外在的、物化的文化方面，而是应该紧抓大学文化的育人功能，使大学文化实现对其内部所有主体（包括大学管理人员、大学教师以及大学生）的影响和塑造上。根据文化心理学的观点，文化与主体的心理是相互建构的。大学管理者、大学教师、大学生是主动建构大学文化的三类主体。应该努力在大学内建设一种全方位的主体性的文化，建立大学主体性组织文化、大学主体性教师文化和大学生主体性文化的整体，使大学内全体成员形成共同的主体性的思维习惯和行为方式，以此促进大学管理人员、大学教师、大学生甚至整个大学生的共同发展。然而大学文化并不能单方面决定大学师生员工的心理及行为，而是要通过各主体的主动建构来发挥作用。大学文化要实现其育人功能、建设其价值观念体系，必须重视大学全体成员的自主性、选择性、能动性和创造性，即重视他们的主体性，如此，大学文化才是充满生机与活力的。大学作为一个组织，在不断发展的过程中形成了分化的、疏离的组织文化。学科专业化的不断深化，使大学的组织结构围绕着各学术部门得以建立。这一途径无可辩驳地生产出丰富的知识，它也使学科发展走向了分散与疏离的境地。另外，由于大学内各成员间的个人竞争日益加剧，成员间的交流与合作显得格外匮乏，彼此之间存在着强烈的疏离感。目前，大学文化呈现出阻碍资源共享和主体间交流的特点，倾向于强调个人主义的行为方式和奖励体系，不鼓励团队工作。首先，大学教师与大学管理者之间缺乏交流，存在观念上的矛盾和冲突。其次，大学教师之间缺乏交流与合作，由于人人都在强调自己的重要性以及组织内奖励机制鼓励个人的学术成果而非团队的成果，因而主体间的合作和团队工作难以实现。大学教师在各自学术领域的熏陶和训练中建立了其学术边界，这影响到他们的教学内容、教学方式、研究领域以及如何定位其个人在组织中的晋升前景。而建立与学生及同事的联结和相互依存则往往被他们忽略。再者，大学教师的保守主义广泛存在于高等教育机构，这些大学教师普遍遵从传统的教学与科研的观念和行为习惯，认为大学生的主体性成长和发展本身，无论是课堂内的还是课堂外的，都不是他们工作的重心。因此，他们在课堂中更注重对知识本身的组织和传递，却很少与学生发生主体精神世界的交流，缺乏对大学生个人成长及主体性发展等方面的激励性。最后，大学生中普遍存在一种“顾客导向”的观念，即认为他们是来大学消费的，他们要购买的产品是大学的文凭和学历，因而要求大学为其提供优质的服务，而自身的主体性则被遮敝了；另一方面，大学管理者和大学教师则认为大学生的学习是独立的学习，大学教师不需要为大学生的生活与发展负责，因而造成了大学教师与大学生的疏离，大学生体验到孤独与无助。本研究正是基于此，提出大学文化需要进行改造。大学需转变其价值和观念，努力构建主体性主导价值观念，重视大学管理者、大学教师和大学生的主体性；同时要重塑大学三类主体间交流与合作的文化，促进大学管理者、大学教师及大学生的主体性交往与合作。本研究主要包括五章：第一章，主要是对大学文化、主体性和主体间文化等概念进行梳理。指出大学文化要发挥其育人功能，必须借由大学管理者、大学教师、大学生的主体性才能实现。将大学主体间文化定义为：大学成员主体在长期的大学生活中形成自主性、能动性、选择性、创造性的价值观和行为方式；大学内形成主体间交往与合作的主导价值观念，大学三类主体建立主体间交流、互动与合作的价值观与行为方式，促进自身的主体性及其他主体性的发展，彼此之间相互作用、相互沟通、相互理解、相互激励、相互促进，此为大学主体间文化的根本。第二章，在分析大学组织文化与主体观念的关系的基础上，提出大学管理者应该与大学教师进行主体性互动，通过大学组织文化促进大学教师的科研学术及教学学术的主体性；接着分析当前“大学生作为消费者”的观念，指出其危害性，并提出大学与大学生之间应该形成“合作生产”的新型互动关系。第三章，首先分析大学教师主体性的本质以及我国大学教师主体性交流与合作文化缺失的现状，在此基础上提出发展大学教师科研的主体性和发展大学教师有效教学的主体性，并提出应该促进大学教师之间以及大学教师与大学生的主体性交往与互动。第四章，首先对我国大学生文化的现状进行分析，提出大学生主体性文化建设的核心是形成大学生的自主学习，进而提出要形成新型的自主学习，即自我导向学习。自我导向学习强调大学生的自主性，同时也重视主体间的支持、帮助与合作，在培养大学生自主学习的同时，提倡建立大学生自我导向学习的教师支持体系。另外，大学生的主体性不仅体现在自主学习方面，还体现在对整个大学文化的主动建构上，因而本研究又进一步提出大学生通过其文化心理结构主动建构大学文化。第五章，呼吁重塑大学三类主体间交流与合作的文化，以主体性交往与合作的主导价值观念引导全体师生员工的行为。提出应该为主体间的交流与合作提供制度保障；鼓励大学教师的科研合作主体性、教学合作主体性的发展；建立学习共同体，促进大学生和大学教师的主体性发展，加强大学教师与大学生的交流与互动。更多还原

【Abstract】 The central issue of education is the human, and the value pursuit of developing andconstructing the university culture is to foster and cultivate the people. The educating functionis the fundamental aspect of university culture. The construction of university culture shouldnot stress the external and materialized aspects, but emphasize the educating function, throughwhich all of the subjects, including administrators, faculty and students can be affected andcultivated.According to the cultural psychology, the culture and the mentality is inter-structured.University administrators, faculty and students are three major subjects in university. Theuniversity should make an effort to construct an subjective culture, making the subjectiveorganizational culture, the subjective faculty culture and the subjective student culturetogether as a whole. Make sure that there is a shared value of autonomous thinking andbehavior. In order to realise the educating function of the university culture, the universityshould emphasize the autonomy, choice and creativity of all its members. The universityculture will not determine the mind and behavior of the staff by itself, the subjectivity of allthe human being in it must be involved.As an organization, the universities have created cultures of fragmentation. Guided bythe specialty areas of academic disciplines, university structures have been created that areorganized around academic departments. Specialization has been the dominant organizingprinciple within the academy. Although specialization produced an undeniably rich body ofknowledge, it also fragmented the curriculum. As the development of competitiveindividualism, there’s a significant communicational and collaborative insufficiency among allthe menbers who feel extreme loneliness and isolation. The culture of universities tends todiscourage if not block attempts to create a shared vision. It is a culture that tends to reinforceindividual patterns of behavior and reward systems. First of all, there is a lack ofcommunication and collaboration between administrators and faculty, with a significantperspective conflicts between them. Second, an absence of communication and collaboration also appears among faulty. Faculty tend to create boundaries based on their academicdiscipline and training. This influences what they teach, how they teach, what researchinterests they pursue, and how they navigate the promotion and tenure landscape of theircampus. What is often missing is a sense of connection and interdependence with theirstudents and colleagues. Then, faculty conservatives abound at research universities. Theseare persons who subscribe to traditional norms and expectations related to research, teaching,and service in this particular institutional environment. The idea of student development perse, in or out of the classroom, may not be held as a high priority. As a result, they emphasizemore on the organizing and transferring the knowledge,but discourage the communicationwith students and stimulation of their mind. Finally, there is a consumer-directed perspectiveamong university students, that they come to university to buy the diploma. This point of viewcalls for the superior service, but discourage the subjectivity in nature. On the other hand, theadministrators and faculty hold the intention that students should learn autonomously anddependently, that it’s not their responsibility to help and support students’ lives andimprovements. As a result, an isolation between college students and faculty in formulated.Most of the college students feel lonely and helpless.Based on this context, the research notes that university culture should be changed andreconstructed. The university should change its value and conception into a culture stressingthe subjectivity of administrator, faculty and students. Meanwhile, the university shouldremold the culture of communication and collaboration among the three subjects. Thisresearch consists of five chapters:Chapter 1. This chapter is mainly about explicating the conceptions of university culture,subjectivity and culture among subjects.Chapter 2. Based on the analysis of the relationship between organizational culture andsubjective perceptions in university, this chapter suggests that administrators and facultyshould make more interactions. The organizational culture should be constructed to foster theresearch scholarship and teaching scholarship of faculty. Then this chapter analyses theconception of "student as customer" in university, followed by its harmfulness, and thensuggests that students and the university should formulate a new relationship ofco-production. Chapter 3. This chapter analyses the essence of faculty subjectivity and the reality ofabsence of faculty communication and collaboration at the beginning. Then suggests thatuniversities should improve the subjectivity of faculty in research and effective teaching, thatthe communication and collaboration between faculty and colleagues, and communicationbetween faculty and students should be improved.Chapter 4. First of all, this section analyses the reality of the college student culture,suggesting that the core of the student subjective culture is the autonomous learning. As theautonomous learning stress the dependent learning, the conception of "self-directed learning"is pulled in. Self-directed learning values the subjectivity of college students, meanwhile, italso emphasise the support, help, and collaboration between subjects. Moreover, thesubjectivity of college students not only shows up in the autonomous learning, but alsoemerges in their autonomous construction of the whole university culture. College studentsconstruct their university culture through their culture-psychological structure.Chapter 5. This section calls for reinventing the culture of communication andcollaboration among the three major subjects in university, steering the mind and behavior ofall its members through the dominant value of communication and collaboration. This chapteris then followed by the suggestion that universities should provide institutional guarantee forcommunication and collaboration among the subjects. The university should construct aculture that stimulate the subjectivity of faculty in research collaboration and teachingcollaboration. Kinds of learning communities should be established, in order to foster thedevelopment of subjectivity of students and faculty, and enhance the communication andinteraction between faculty and students.更多还原