教“学科基本结构”?——西方六十年来对结构主义课程假设的省思

Teach"Structure of Disciplines"?-Western Reconsideration of the Structuralist-Led Curricular Hypothesis Over the Past Sixty Years

20世纪60年代美国结构主义课程运动提出的基本假设一直备受争议。西方学者的研究表明,该假设的提出受教育问责政策的影响,其强调把学科知识带回来,但忽视了各学科基本结构的差异。从假设的内容看,学科结构派使用“概念”来表征学科结构和儿童智力水平,容易触发课程编排的简单、线性思维,发现学习是对学科专家探究逻辑的重构,而非专家的真实思维,学生仿效学科专家的实践路径,也难以实现学科传递的闭环。我国学科课程改革在继承结构主义课程运动的遗产时,应深刻把握不同学科的育人特性,深究“概念热”现象背后学科结构与智力发展的复杂关系和潜在悖论,正视概念为本的学习对学生智力发展的制约,通过协同多方力量,拓展更为丰富而多元的学科实践路径。

The hypothesis of the structuralist-led curriculum movement in the 1960s has been highly controversial.Related research indicates that,influenced by educational accountability policies,this hypothesis,while emphasizing bringing disciplinary knowledge back,tends to overlook the differences in the basic structures of various disciplines.As for the content of the hypothesis,when representing the structure of disciplines and students'intellectual development levels using concepts or ideas,it easily triggers simplistic,linear thinking in curriculum design.Additionally,the advocated discovery learning is seen as a retrospective path based on the practices of disciplinary experts,making it challenging for primary and secondary school students to think and act.In light of these observations,China's curriculum reform,inheriting the legacy of the structuralist-led curriculum movement,should deeply understand the nurturing characteristics of different disciplines.It should delve into the complex relationship and potential contradictions between the structure of discipline and intellectual development behind the upsurge of concept-based curriculum reform.It should be acknowledged that concept-based learning contains its constraints on students'cognitive development and thus collaboration with various forces to expand richer and more diverse disciplinary practice pathways is in need.