【作者】 骆琤；

【导师】 王斌华；

【作者基本信息】 华东师范大学 ， 比较教育学， 2009， 博士

【摘要】 作为最古老的教师教育课程之一,教育实践课程以教育见习、模拟教学和教育实习等形式存在于当今教师教育的课程体系之中。在教育实践课程中,准教师(师范生)通过参与观摩、研修、教学和管理等活动,获取了实践性知识,发展了教学实践能力。然而,在实践一线,教育实践课程却一直得不到应有的重视,长久以来处于弱势地位,被公认为是当前教师教育的一道“软肋”。随着近年来国际教师教育“回归实践”,基础教育进行转型性变革及我国教师培养制度锐意改革的热潮影响,人们对教师教育实践课程的关注和研究需求日趋强烈。本文的研究起始于对教育实践课程困境和教师专业化浪潮之下教育实践课程发展趋势的关怀,以教师知识理论、教师反思理论和教师专业社会化理论为视角,阐明教育实践课程的理论根基,进而展开对教育实践课程的本质探究,揭示课程对教师专业化的重大价值和作用。在此基础上,本文选择美国教育实践课程作为参照对象,对中美教育实践课程展开了全面与深入的比较研究。中美教育实践课程的历史发展轨迹拥有着大量的共同点,从19世纪20年代起至今,中美教师教育实践课程在将近两百年的发展历程中,几乎同步经历了课程的萌芽期、生长期和稳定期,并于20世纪50年代起分别进入“重构”和“变革”期。在课程的演进过程中,“艺徒”模式、“实验”模式、“临床”模式和“反思”模式等在中美教育实践课程中曾经发挥或仍在发挥着重大作用。对中美教育实践课程现状的全方位比较,是从课程目标、课程内容、课程实施和课程评价四个维度展开的。两国教育实践课程的目标与本国教师教育的总目标是高度一致的。在“适应型”目标引领下,我国教育实践课程对准教师的“四大要求”分别体现在专业思想、知识技能和办学检验等三个目标领域中。而在“标准本位”理念的影响下,美国的课程目标则依托各层面专业组织开发的师资培养标准,关注未来教师显现出的符合标准的专业素质,并从专业品质和教学实践能力角度来确定课程的目标领域。对中美教育实践课程内容的比较研究,主要从内容选择和内容组织两个层面展开。中美教育实践课程所选择的内容包括各类见习、演习和实习活动,以及准教师在正式或非正式教育机构中所获取的相关体验。两国的课程内容在课时比例上存在较大差距。在时段安排上,我国采取的是“集中式”和“全程渐进式”的混合形式,美国则采取“渗透安排法”来设置课程内容。此外,两国教育实践课程的活动或模块组织也显示出不同的逻辑顺序,主要表现为我国的“并列分置式”和美国的“模块整合式”。中美教育实践课程的实施现状,可以从课程的实施模式、中心环节、具体手段和课程参与者四个角度加以考察。按照培养水平、组织形式和合作关系的不同,中美教育实践课程的实施模式可具体细分为各种模式类别。传统师徒制、改良的师徒制和重构式指导模式以及侧重内容、时机、作用和手段的指导手段则分别反映了两国在指导模式和指导方法上存在的差异。在课程实施的具体方法上,中国的“说课—听课—评课”法与美国“以观察为核心”的方法分别体现了本国教师教育的培养理念,而课程的关键参与者——中美两国的准教师、合作教师和督导教师在角色和职责上也显示出各自的特点。在实践中,中美两国通过不同的开发手段,形成了各层次的课程评价标准,这些评价标准既包括专业组织开发的标准,又包括机构层面开发的标准,还包括细化到各个单项能力的评价标准。在这些评价标准之下,又形成了相应的评价指标体系,从而对准教师的实践行为与能力展开判断与评价。在中美教育实践课程的评价模式中,作为评价主体的指导教师和准教师,在两国的评价过程中起着不同作用。从评价方法来看,我国教育实践课程主要采用经验鉴定法、听课评议法、统一考核法和模糊评价法。美国的评价手段则主要包括自我评价法、工具测评法、反思会议法和档案袋评价法。此外,教育实践课程的评价既包括对准教师的评价,也包含对课程自身(如课程目标定位、课程内容设计和安排、课程实施模式与方法以及课程评价的手段与结果)所展开的项目评价。两国通过各自的评价途径,收集来自实践一线的评价反馈,使课程的管理者和实施者可以对课程的各个环节进行及时调整。在对中美教育实践课程进行全方位比较和反思的基础上,本文指出我国教育实践课程的变革趋势必须立足于课程理念的转型,培养“乐教”、“善教”和“研教”的未来教师,要通过拓展、整合、渗透与渐进等手段更新课程内容,在课程的实施过程中实现“共生”、“反思”与“对话”,并形成高效度的课程评价和认证制度来保障教育实践课程的质量,从而发挥课程对准教师专业成长的巨大价值和作用。更多还原

【Abstract】 As one of the oldest teacher education courses, field experience exists in teacher education curriculum with the forms of early field experience, laboratory experience and practicum. It is an essential path for the student teachers to obtain practical knowledge and develop core competency through the activities of observation, research, teaching and classroom management. However, field experience has been ignored and weakened in the practice for a long time, which is regarded as a major defect in teacher education. With the international tendency of returning to practice in the field of teacher education, the transformational reform in basic education and preservice mechanism, the focus and need of research on field experience turns out to be gradually stronger.The dissertation starts with the concern about the dilemma and development of field experience in the context of teachers’ professional development. The author then claims its supportive theories of practical knowledge, reflection and professional socialization of teachers and explores the essence and value of field experience. On the base of theoretical research, the paper enters the comprehensive and in-depth comparison between Sino-American field experience.The historical development of Sino-American field experience has shared the same germination, development and stabilization stages ever since 1820s and has separately stepped into the period of reconstruction and reform since 1950s. During the evolution of the curriculum, four models such as Apprenticeship Model, Laboratory Model, Clinical Model and Reflective Model played or have been playing significant roles in the practice of field experience.The author advanced the comprehensive comparison between Sino-American field experience from the aspects of curriculum objectives, content, implementation and evaluation. The curriculum objectives coincide with the goals of teacher education. Under the adaptive goal of Chinese teacher education, the course of field experience lists four requirements, which consists of professional ideology, knowledge and skills and schooling inspection. And with standard-based conception, the objectives of American field experience is supported by different levels of professional standards issued by professional organizations and committees, which focuses on the accordance of student teachers’ performance with the standards in the fields of professional dispositions and professional pedagogical skills.The research on curriculum content initiates from the approaches of content selection and content organization. The curriculum comprises the early field experience, laboratory experience and practicum in formal and informal educational institutions, including the relative experience obtained by the student teachers in these institutions. And there has been a great gap of the time-total and proportion of class hour distribution between the courses of China and the United States. China adopts the centralized and gradual progressive styles, which in the US, appears as an infiltrate style. On the other hand, the content organization exhibits a diverse logical consequence, with the pattern of coordinative distribution in China and module integration in USA.The implementation modes, central session, approaches and participants reflect the current implementation of Sino-American field experience. It can be divided into different categories according to the training level, organization and cooperation styles between universities and schools. Mentoring, as the core of the course implementation, differs from the models and methods between the two countries. Chinese approach of "Shuoke(talking about teaching plan)—Tingke(class observation)—Pingke(site-based class evaluation)" and American "Class observation-centered" approach reveal totally different implementation styles. Furthermore, the diverse roles and responsibilities of key participants—student teachers, cooperating teachers and supervisors display the respective features of Sino-American teacher education.In the curriculum evaluation field, China and the United States have developed different standards with relative indicator system on different levels, which includes national, organizational and institutional levels. Moreover, the standards and its indicator system include all-around and single competence evaluation system to provide sound judgment and assessment of student teachers’ performance. In the evaluation models of the two countries, cooperating teachers, supervisors and student teachers play quite different roles. In addition, from the perspective of evaluation approaches, China mainly introduces the approach system of experience appraisal, class observation evaluation, unified test and fuzzy assessment. In the United States, the evaluation approaches appear as self-evaluation, performance assessment, reflective seminar and portfolios. On the other hand, the curriculum evaluation also includes the program evaluation, which refers to the judgment on the designing and procedure of curriculum objectives, content, implementation and evaluation, etc. The aim of program evaluation is to provide the chance of course adjustments and improvement by the course conveners and administrators. After the overall comparison and reflection between Sino-American field experience, the author argues that the reform of the course be based on the transformation of curriculum conception, which claims the resetting of the objectives to cultivate future teachers with the willingness, competency to teach and research aspiration on teaching. At the same time, it is of necessity to broaden, integrate, infiltrate and progress the curriculum content and to realize commensalisms, reflection and dialogue in the process of course implementation. At the same time, the need to form the system of evaluation and accreditation with high validity to ensure the quality of field experience turns out to be critical, which elaborates its value to improve the professional growth of student teachers.更多还原