理解与对话:从哲学解释学看当前德育评价的困境
|
摘要
哲学解释学是当代一种重要的哲学思潮。从哲学解释学出发,当前德育评价的困境表现为以下三点:既定行为规范背后不被承认的"合理前见"、强制符合标准背后被规训的"视域"、以及固定操作程序背后对"语言"的忽视。通过回溯我国现代德育评价的历史,我们发现,走出德育评价的困境需要以一种包容的心态构建一种"融合型德育评价"。以哲学解释学理论为基础,"融合型德育评价"的评价标准要能容纳个人表达;评价过程要在创造精神基础上走向交往;评价方法要回归开放的对话情境。
Philosophical hermeneutics is an important philosophical trend of thought. From the perspective of philosophical hermeneutics,the dilemma of current moral education evaluation is shown in the following three aspects: the unrecognized "reasonable perspective"behind the established code of conduct,the disciplined"vision"behind the mandatory compliance with the standard,and the neglect of"language"behind the fixed operating procedures. By reviewing the history of modern moral education evaluation in China,we find that it is necessary to construct an "integrated moral education evaluation"with an inclusive attitude to get out of the dilemma of moral education evaluation. Based on the theory of philosophical hermeneutics,the evaluation criteria of "integrated moral education evaluation"should be able to accommodate individual expression,the evaluation process should move towards communication on the basis of creating spirit,and the evaluation method should return to open dialogue situation.
Philosophical hermeneutics is an important philosophical trend of thought. From the perspective of philosophical hermeneutics,the dilemma of current moral education evaluation is shown in the following three aspects: the unrecognized "reasonable perspective"behind the established code of conduct,the disciplined"vision"behind the mandatory compliance with the standard,and the neglect of"language"behind the fixed operating procedures. By reviewing the history of modern moral education evaluation in China,we find that it is necessary to construct an "integrated moral education evaluation"with an inclusive attitude to get out of the dilemma of moral education evaluation. Based on the theory of philosophical hermeneutics,the evaluation criteria of "integrated moral education evaluation"should be able to accommodate individual expression,the evaluation process should move towards communication on the basis of creating spirit,and the evaluation method should return to open dialogue situation.
引文
[1]鲁洁,王逢贤.德育新论[M].南京:江苏教育出版社,442.
[2]檀传宝.品德评价的否定之否定[J].教育测量与评价(理论版),2009(02).
[3][5][6]尹伟著,道德量化评价与学校道德教育[M].北京:人民出版社,2017:28-29;48;68.
[4][8]殷鼎.理解的命运[M].北京:生活·读者·新知三联书店,1988:193;188.
[7]金生鋐著,理解与教育[M].北京:教育科学出版社,1993:108.
[9][21]任平.理解与共识:与后现代哲学对话[J].教学与研究,1999(02).
[10]肖鸣政.品德测评的理论与方法[M].福州:福建教育出版社,1995:251.
[11]王文源.关于德育评价科学化问题的几点思考[J].教育科学研究,1994(02).
[12]班华.现代德育论[M].合肥:安徽人民出版社,2004:287.
[13][16][18]赵志毅,赵心哲.德育评价与教育方针关系管窥---对我国学校德育评价问题的若干思考[J].教育科学,2014(06).
[14]仲建维.德育评价应超越量化取向[J].教育研究,2014(05).
[15]冯永刚.复杂科学视域下的德育评价[J].外国教育研究,2007(11).
[17][德]汉斯-格奥尔格·加达默尔.洪汉鼎译.真理与方法:哲学诠释学的基本特征(上卷)[M].上海:上海译文出版社,2004:361.
[18]陈志兴.理解德育论[M].北京:中国社会科学出版社,2013:179.
[19][20]王景英,梁红梅,朱亮.理解与对话:从解释学视角解读教师评价[J].外国教育研究,2003(08).
(1)尹伟博士在《道德量化评价与学校道德教育》中举出的两个例子可以作为佐证。第一个例子是在教师强罚下,学生留遗书跳楼;第二个例子是在学校严罚严控下,教师相互包庇以求清净。详见尹伟著,道德量化评价与学校道德教育[M].北京:人民出版社,2017:64,68。
[2]檀传宝.品德评价的否定之否定[J].教育测量与评价(理论版),2009(02).
[3][5][6]尹伟著,道德量化评价与学校道德教育[M].北京:人民出版社,2017:28-29;48;68.
[4][8]殷鼎.理解的命运[M].北京:生活·读者·新知三联书店,1988:193;188.
[7]金生鋐著,理解与教育[M].北京:教育科学出版社,1993:108.
[9][21]任平.理解与共识:与后现代哲学对话[J].教学与研究,1999(02).
[10]肖鸣政.品德测评的理论与方法[M].福州:福建教育出版社,1995:251.
[11]王文源.关于德育评价科学化问题的几点思考[J].教育科学研究,1994(02).
[12]班华.现代德育论[M].合肥:安徽人民出版社,2004:287.
[13][16][18]赵志毅,赵心哲.德育评价与教育方针关系管窥---对我国学校德育评价问题的若干思考[J].教育科学,2014(06).
[14]仲建维.德育评价应超越量化取向[J].教育研究,2014(05).
[15]冯永刚.复杂科学视域下的德育评价[J].外国教育研究,2007(11).
[17][德]汉斯-格奥尔格·加达默尔.洪汉鼎译.真理与方法:哲学诠释学的基本特征(上卷)[M].上海:上海译文出版社,2004:361.
[18]陈志兴.理解德育论[M].北京:中国社会科学出版社,2013:179.
[19][20]王景英,梁红梅,朱亮.理解与对话:从解释学视角解读教师评价[J].外国教育研究,2003(08).
(1)尹伟博士在《道德量化评价与学校道德教育》中举出的两个例子可以作为佐证。第一个例子是在教师强罚下,学生留遗书跳楼;第二个例子是在学校严罚严控下,教师相互包庇以求清净。详见尹伟著,道德量化评价与学校道德教育[M].北京:人民出版社,2017:64,68。