【作者】 徐学福；

【导师】 宋乃庆；

【作者基本信息】 西南师范大学 ， 课程与教学论， 2003， 博士

【摘要】 从广义上说，探究泛指一切努力解决问题，寻找答案的过程。它既包括好奇心驱使下的非正式的质疑问难行为，又包括学科领域中采用特定方式进行的专门探究活动。作为一种有目的、有计划、有组织的人类活动，教学中的探究在性质上显然应当类似学科领域的正式探究，而不应当是个体那种满足好奇心或兴趣的自发活动。这是因为长期形成的人类文化远远超越了个体经验，个人不可能通过自发探究而获得，而必须在他人帮助下，在了解和掌握各文化领域特有探究模式的基础上，才有可能获得对现有文化的理解和创新。因此本文认为，科学学科的探究教学是指学生在教师指导下，为获得科学素养以类似科学探究的方式所开展的学习活动。换言之，科学探究为探究教学提供“原型”，探究教学是对科学探究的模拟，而不是科学探究本身。 探究教学的模拟性要求恰当把握模拟精度，处理好探究教学与科学探究的相似程度。开展探究教学时既不能忽视二者区别，一味追求高模拟精度，把探究教学与科学探究混同；又不能不讲精度，随意为之，使探究教学失去科学探究的基本规范。而应该根据学生的知识基础和能力水平、具体教学内容和目标、可利用的资源等因素的实际情况，建立适合特定教育阶段的探究教学模式，使探究教学与科学探究保持一种动态的平衡。也就是说，模拟科学探究开展探究教学是为了发挥科学探究的教育功能，因此这种模拟既有技术层面的含义，更有认识论上的考虑。 模拟科学探究开展探究教学必然会遇到一系列相关问题，如模拟的必要性、可能性，模拟的机制与局限等。这些问题有的在以前几乎未曾汲及，有的只作了初步的探索，有的需在新背景下重新加以审视。本文正是围绕这些问题展开论述的。 虽然早在20世纪初期就有教育家倡导和实验科学课程的探究教学，并且自此之后这种努力就一直没有停止过。如 20世纪末期各国又纷纷掀起科学教育改革运动，使探究教学再次成为人们关注的焦点。但迄今为止，探究教学仍是个悬而未决的问题。从模拟的角度来看，这主要是由于过于关注技术层面，未能恰当处理好科学探究与探究教学的关系所致。本文第一部分从模拟的视角对历史上的实用主义探究教学理论和探究教学的信息加工理论作了透视与反思，并进而对探究教学的内涵作了辨析。 为什么当今会再次掀起探究教学热潮？这是开展探究教学时所必须明确的问题。对于这个问题，本文在探究教学的基本理念这一部分里作了如下回答：使每个学生都获得科学素养；使每个学生都了解科学的本来面目；使科学教育与学生的生活世界建立更紧密的联系。这三个理念互相促进、互相制约，形成一个有机联系的整体。偏向一方面轻视另一方，开展探究教学时就会重蹈历史覆辙。 类似科学探究的活动能在课堂进行吗？或者问；类似科学探究的活动也是一种有效的学习方式吗？这是推广探究教学所不能回避的问题。缺乏这方面的正确认识，必然会对探究教学失去信心，甚至产生怀疑。建构认识论认为，学生的认识是一种能动的建构过程，而不是被动地接受过程。问题解决是开展建构性认识或学习的有效途径，而科学探究实际上是解决问题的一种方式。因此，探究教学有坚实的认识论基础。 从实施的角度来看，怎样开展探究教学无疑是问题的关键所在。理念无论怎么先进或恰当，但若不能落在实处，也只能是空话。为此，本文第四部分探讨了模拟科学探究开展探究教学作的技术基础，第五部分则主要分析了实施探究教学的常模及变式。这些技术基础与模式，无疑有助于新的科学课程以及整个新课程的实施与推广。 主张课堂上的探究教学应当模拟科学探究，但这不等于说，从模拟角度开展探究教学能完美无缺地体现探究教学的基本理念c顾名思义，它的确存在不能使学生了解真实科学的可能，而且事实也是如此。因此，作为模拟性探究教学的辅助性措施，本文提倡让学生开展适当的科学见习活动，即学生以直接参与科学家的科学研究的方式而开展的学习活动。更多还原

【Abstract】 By inquiry different people mean different things. Generally speaking, it refers to the process during which people are trying hard to solve problems. It includes both informal activities of figuring things out driven by innate curiosity and formal investigations made in the field of a subject in a special way. As intended, planned and organized activities of mankind, inquiry in the classroom should be formal in nature instead of being made in a spontaneous manner. The reason lies in the fact that human cultures have been developed for a long time and are far beyond any personal experience. It is impossible for any individual to master them by spontaneous inquiry. Instead, only with the help of others and with the mastery of culture inquiry models can individuals understand and innovate cultures. Therefore, inquiry instruction in science is defined in this paper as a kind of learning activity in which students are engaged to develop science literacy in a way similar to scientific inquiry and under the direction of teachers. Put it another way, science instruction is modeled on, not the same as scientific inquiry.Special attention should be paid to the degree to which scientific inquiry is simulated when inquiry instruction is carried on. We must deal appropriately with the relation between scientific inquiry and inquiry instruction and not to go to extremes. Neither their differences nor their similarities could be ignored to such extent that inquiry instructipn is confused with or has nothing to do with scientific inquiry. So it is important to keep a dynamic balance between inquiry and scientific inquiry: the higher the education level is, the more similarinquiry instruction and scientific inquiry are. For this purpose, many factors such as students’ development, the aim and contents of instruction and resources available should be taken into account so that inquiry instruction models suitable for different education stages could be built. The design and implementation of inquiry instruction should be guided under above ideas.As early as the rum of 20th century educators began to recommend and experiment with inquiry in science instruction and the same efforts have been made ever since. At the end of last century countries all over the world have waged science education reform again and inquiry instruction has become the focus of attention once more. However why and how to carry on inquiry instruction remains a problem. From the perspective of simulation, the main reason is that the relation between inquiry and scientific inquiry were dealt with inappropriately.Analyzing from the perspective of simulation, what experiences and lessons can we take from past research results such as the pragmatism theory of inquiry instruction, the information-processing theory of inquiry instruction? What definition is more appropriate for inquiry instruction at present days? These questions are to be discussed in the first chapter.hi the following chapter the main reasons for the current inquiry instruction tide are given. It is commonly believed that inquiry instruction can offer opportunities for each student to develop science literacy, understand the authentic science and get science education tightly connected with students’ life world. As a whole, these three beliefs are closely related. They promote and restrict one another. Overemphasizing one while neglecting another would leave inquiry instruction on the wrong track as before.Is inquiry similar to scientific inquiry in the classroom an effective way for students to learn? Only after the positive answer is found can inquiry instruction be widely applied. Teachers who fail to understand the theoretical base behind inquiry instruction might lose their faith in or even be suspicious about it. In order to answer this question the author introduces the theory of constructive knowing in the third chapter. According to this theory, students’ knowing is a process of active constructing, not a process of passive receiving. Since problem-solving is an ef更多还原