【作者】 李云梅；

【导师】 别敦荣；

【作者基本信息】 华中科技大学 ， 教育经济与管理， 2010， 博士

【摘要】 教育是一种有目的的活动,课程是实现教育目的的重要抓手。课程目标反映社会价值观和社会需求,课程内容体现大学实力与个性,课程实施影响学生成长,课程评估反映社会问责。系统地比较研究中美大学工商管理本科课程,有助于探讨中国大学工商管理课程改革及提高人才培养质量的良策。美国大学工商管理教育的发展为四个历史时期,即从1881年至1945的雏形期、1945年至1959年的发展期、1960至1989年的兴盛期和1990年以后的完善期；中国大学工商管理教育受到国体与政体更迭的影响,学科发展呈现出间断性特点,工商管理本科教育的发展演变分为五个阶段,包括商科门类阶段(清末至1949年,不包括经济学科)阶段,广义的财经类教育阶段(1949-1987年),经济、管理学类阶段(1987-1993年),经济学门类阶段(1993-1998年,包括经济学二级类与工商管理-级类),以及管理学门类(1998年-,没有包括经济学门类)。纵观中美工商管理学科的发展历程,发现两国大学工商管理教育表现出学科产生根源、学科性质与学科理论基础的一致性等共性。中美大学工商管理教育都是社会生产力发展到一定阶段的必然产物,社会工业化、劳动专业化和经济市场化发展是工商管理教育产生的根源。美国大学工商管理学科遵循内在的学术逻辑办学,而中国大学工商管理教育所遵循的是外在发展逻辑,由此导致中国大学工商管理学科发展不稳定,学术文化缺失,难以培养出适应国家经济发展特点的工商管理人才。在长期的办学实践中,美国大学商学院的人才培养目标经历了从通才到专才,再由专才到通才的螺旋上升式的发展路径；中国大学工商管理教育培养目标呈现出从通才,到专才,至专通结合的不连续的发展轨迹。美国大学工商管理教育本科课程理念包括了人本、整合、创新和伦理的思想；中国大学工商管理本科教育课程理念表现为学问、结构、借鉴和素质要求的统一。中美大学工商管理本科课程实施均突出了学生能力的培养,但是能力培养的侧重点有所不同。美国大学依循的是以领导、创新和沟通能力培养为主线,而中国大学则强调对学生的政治素质和分析能力的培养。美国大学工商管理本科教育给予学生充分的课程选择权,培养具有鲜明个性特点的学生。中国大学由于学生主体地位缺失,虽然也强调培养学生的个性,但苦于没有良好的途径加以落实。美国大学采取了嵌入式伦理教育方式,通过课堂讲授、案例分析和角色扮演与课程理论有机结合提升学生的伦理道德修养；中国大学把素质教育当作一门学问知识来教授,仍然停留在理论知识灌输的层面上,没有将素质教育与专业教育结合起来进行,并落实到专业教育中去。此外,在课程实施方面,美国大学已经形成了教师之间、教师与学生和学生之间知识双向沟通的教育文化。这种倡导双向互动的教育文化极大满足了工商管理本科教育课程实施要求；中国大学工商管理本科教育课程实施呈现出单向沟通的特点。这种单向沟通的课程实施方式有利于培养学生抽象思维,却不利于与工商管理本科教育培养目标相匹配的学生能力要素的培养。在工商管理课程评估方面,社会问责促进了美国大学对评估的重视,保证了课程实施质量；而中国目前的教育评估更多体现出科学主义的价值观,倾向于关注数据、结论,且更多地采用间接评估的方式,忽视了课程实际价值和社会的认可程度。通过比较研究发现,中国大学工商管理本科教育存在诸多的不适应性,主要表现为：工商管理学科理论与社会生产力发展水平不适应；工商管理学科性质与社会经济发展形态不适应；工商管理本科教育思想与社会主流管理理念不适应；工商管理本科教育培养目标中学生能力要素与学科性质相互矛盾；工商管理学科课程实施方式与社会文化不适应,等等。因此,必须改革中国大学工商管理本科教育课程。工商管理课程改革是一项系统工程,需要在教育思想、教育体制和管理制度等多方面进行配套改革。为了培养具有中国特色的工商管理人才,中国大学应该从了解社会需求入手,根据社会对工商管理本科人才的能力诉求设计安排课程,选择合适的课程实施方式,使课程真正着眼于培养学生的学习能力、应变能力、适应能力、人际沟通、协调和创新能力,使学生具备发现、分析和解决实际问题的才干。更多还原

【Abstract】 Education is a purposeful activity; curriculum is an important means for achieving the aims of education. Systematic study on undergraduate programs of Bacherlor Business Administration could be helpful for finding the problem existed and presenting sound reform proposal for business ccurriculum and improving the training quality for business talents.The development of business education of the American university was compartmentalized into four historical periods including the initial and booming phase from 1881 to 1945, the growth from 1945 to 1959, the flourishing from 1960 to 1989 and the improving after 1990. For being affected by changes of regime and economy system, the development of business education in China was totally another story showing the features of discontinuity and could be divided into five stages including the Business category stage (late Qing Dynasty to 1949, excluding Economics), the broad category of financial education phase (1949 to 1987), the economic, management class period (1987 to 1993), stage of economic categories (1993 to 1998, including Economics ClassⅡand Business Administration ClassⅡ) and management categories (1998 to now, not including the economics category).Throughout the development of Sino-US Business Education, some consistencies were presented such as the root, the academic nature and theoretical basis of subjects. Therefore, the business education in American and Chinese universities is an inevitable event for the social productive forces developed to a certain stage. Industrialization, labor division and the market economy make business education in university happened indispensably.The author presented that Business education in the United States was developed based on internal academic logic law. On the contrary, the Chinese following the external rule for its business education development was instable and lack of academic culture. Therefore, business undergraduate education in Chinese University based on external logic is hard to train its native talents and satisfy the needs of its industrial and commercial management development. In the long running practice, the objectives for American Bachelor Business Administration Education have been evolved on a spiral-type path meanwhile Chinese path is discontinuous even though it is the same with the America that is from generalists to specialists and to generalists. The American perspectives for business education were student-orientation, integration, innovation and ethics; the Chinese ones were knowledge, structure, reference and quality requirements. The students’abilities were the main points of both Chinese and American Bachelor Business Administration, but the highlight was different. The American followed the ability sequence of leadership, innovation and communication, while the Chinese stressed the political quality of students and analytical abilities. For American students being diversified, American Universities granted the students great power to choose courses they would like. The Chinese universities also wanted the students diversified, but there were not appropriated measures to be implemented because the Chinese students couldn’t have much more freedom to choose their own courses. The American University has embedded ethics education into lectures, case studies and role-playing and theory courses to enhance students’moral cultivation. Chinese universities took the quality education as the same way with science knowledge. The method was still at the theoretical level of indoctrination, not combined quality education with professional education. In addition, in curriculum implementation, the author believes that American Universities have formed culture for upper and downwards communication between teachers and students. The interaction culture was matched with the requirements for business administration program implementation. Chinese universities presented a downward communication features. This way of communication may be helpful for science program implementation, but may not appropriate for business program that has a specific requirements for students’abilities. In the assessment for business education, the author proposed that a social accountability made the American universities paid much attention on assessment as a result the teaching quality had been improved. In China, educational assessment reflected more scientific values, for the assessments still focusing on the data, conclusions. More indirect assessment methods used had ignored the real value of the course and the degree of social recognition. From the comparative study, the author found that undergraduate education for Business Administration in China has disclosed some non-adaptation, mainly as follows:Business Administration Theory not suited to the development level of the social productive forces, the nature of business management disciplines not matched socio-economic development patterns, Business Administration Undergraduate Education incompatible with the mainstream management philosophy, students ability requirements conflicting to Undergraduate Education Objectives, curriculum implementation incompatible with social culture, and so on. There is no doubt that undergraduate education for Business Administration in China is necessary to be reformed. The curriculum reform for Business Education is a systematic project:it requires other related reform support in the following aspects such as education philosophy, education system and management system. In order to develop localized business talents, Chinese universities could start with finding needs of society first, then according to the needs for designing courses and selecting the appropriate implement ways to make programs really focus on improving students’abilities in self-learning, resilience, adaptability, interpersonal communication, coordination and innovation and furthermore make students have competencies in discovering, analyzing and solving practical problems.更多还原