论“双一流”背景下大学国际化活动的分类评估——基于知识—国家—文化的动因视角
|
摘要
现代大学在其意图、取向、使命方面无法化约为单一的向度,既有其寻求知识、追求真理方面的内在驱动力,也有其特定的政治、经济、社会文化方面的背景与要求。与此相平行,大学的国际化活动同样有其知识、政治、经济、社会文化等多方面的诉求与驱动力。基于此,有必要从知识、国家、文化三个动因视角出发,对"双一流"背景下我国大学国际化活动进行分类评估。在量化评估体系中无差别的指标累计背后,实则有质的差别。通过分类评估,能够突破大学国际化质量评估体系的量化倾向,改变质量评估只是一系列量化指标之堆砌的结果,从而在对我国大学国际化水平的衡量中更具有针对性与适恰性。
Modern universities cannot be simplified to a single dimension in terms of their intentions,orientations and missions. They don't only have their inherent driving forces in seeking knowledge and truth,but also have their specific political,economic,social and cultural backgrounds and requirements. Meanwhile,the international activities of universities also have their demands and driving forces in knowledge,politics,economy,society and culture. From the perspective of knowledge,national will,cultural inheritance and dissemination,this paper classifies and evaluates the international activities of Chinese Universities under the background of "double first-class". There are qualitative differences behind the cumulative indices of indifference in the quantitative evaluation system. Through classified evaluation,we can break through the quantitative tendency of the evaluation system about the quality of international activities of universities,and change the situation that the evaluation is only the result of a series of quantitative indicators,so as to have more pertinence and appropriateness in the measurement of the level of the international activities of Chinese universities.
Modern universities cannot be simplified to a single dimension in terms of their intentions,orientations and missions. They don't only have their inherent driving forces in seeking knowledge and truth,but also have their specific political,economic,social and cultural backgrounds and requirements. Meanwhile,the international activities of universities also have their demands and driving forces in knowledge,politics,economy,society and culture. From the perspective of knowledge,national will,cultural inheritance and dissemination,this paper classifies and evaluates the international activities of Chinese Universities under the background of "double first-class". There are qualitative differences behind the cumulative indices of indifference in the quantitative evaluation system. Through classified evaluation,we can break through the quantitative tendency of the evaluation system about the quality of international activities of universities,and change the situation that the evaluation is only the result of a series of quantitative indicators,so as to have more pertinence and appropriateness in the measurement of the level of the international activities of Chinese universities.
引文
[1]顾露雯,崔军.美国研究型大学国际化评估指标、策略及对我国的启示[J].高等理科教育,2011(1):71-77.
[2]钟秉林,周海涛.国际高等教育质量评估发展的新特点、影响及启示[J].高等教育研究,2009(1):95-99.
[3]王素斌.中国双一流大学国际化评估指标体系研究[D].上海:华东师范大学,2018.
[4]陈学飞.高等教育国际化———从历史到理论到策略[J].上海高教研究,1997(11):57-61.
[5]史静寰.构建解释高等教育变迁的整体框架[J].清华大学教育研究,2006(3):19-25.
[6]史静寰.构建院校主导的国际化实践模式———清华大学国际合作与交流案例分析[J].世界教育信息,2011(5):24-27.
[7]姜丽华.学生创新能力培养与教师文化构建[M].北京:中央编译出版社,2016:73.
[8]罗纳德·巴尼特.高等教育理念[M].蓝劲松,译.北京:北京大学出版社,2012:138.
[9]吉登斯.现代性的后果[M].田禾,译.南京:译林出版社,2000:152.
[10]刘经南,陈闻晋.论培养“有根”的世界公民———中国研究型大学在高等教育国际化进程中的定位[J].中国高教研究,2008(1):4-7.
[11]胡德鑫,石哲.“一带一路”倡议与中国高等教育国际化的深度融合[J].高教探索,2018(7):10-16.
[12]汉斯·德·维特.欧洲高等教育国际化的评价、趋势和问题(上)[J].张优良,译.世界教育信息,2016(15):57-61.
[13]赖铮.对中国高校国际化部分指标要素的再认识[J].厦门理工学院学报,2013(1):99-102.
[14]汉斯·德·维特.欧洲高等教育国际化的评价、趋势和问题(下)[J].张优良,译.世界教育信息,2016(16):58-62.
[2]钟秉林,周海涛.国际高等教育质量评估发展的新特点、影响及启示[J].高等教育研究,2009(1):95-99.
[3]王素斌.中国双一流大学国际化评估指标体系研究[D].上海:华东师范大学,2018.
[4]陈学飞.高等教育国际化———从历史到理论到策略[J].上海高教研究,1997(11):57-61.
[5]史静寰.构建解释高等教育变迁的整体框架[J].清华大学教育研究,2006(3):19-25.
[6]史静寰.构建院校主导的国际化实践模式———清华大学国际合作与交流案例分析[J].世界教育信息,2011(5):24-27.
[7]姜丽华.学生创新能力培养与教师文化构建[M].北京:中央编译出版社,2016:73.
[8]罗纳德·巴尼特.高等教育理念[M].蓝劲松,译.北京:北京大学出版社,2012:138.
[9]吉登斯.现代性的后果[M].田禾,译.南京:译林出版社,2000:152.
[10]刘经南,陈闻晋.论培养“有根”的世界公民———中国研究型大学在高等教育国际化进程中的定位[J].中国高教研究,2008(1):4-7.
[11]胡德鑫,石哲.“一带一路”倡议与中国高等教育国际化的深度融合[J].高教探索,2018(7):10-16.
[12]汉斯·德·维特.欧洲高等教育国际化的评价、趋势和问题(上)[J].张优良,译.世界教育信息,2016(15):57-61.
[13]赖铮.对中国高校国际化部分指标要素的再认识[J].厦门理工学院学报,2013(1):99-102.
[14]汉斯·德·维特.欧洲高等教育国际化的评价、趋势和问题(下)[J].张优良,译.世界教育信息,2016(16):58-62.