摘要
习和探究学习是现实教学实践中两种最主要的历史学习方式,尤其是探究学习,已作为历史课程改革的突破口而得以倡导。这两种学习方式各有利弊。从实现历史新课程目标来看,接受学习与探究学习的有机结合会起到互补的作用。无论是接受或探究获得的知识或经验,都必须与个体原有的认知结构相联系,否则就是无意义的学习。即是说接受学习与探究学习要成为有意义的学习都必须融入建构的成分。因此,我们提出“历史建构性学习教学研究”这一课题。根据中学历史新课程目标与不同的教学内容的需要,我们以建构主义、探究学习、接受学习等教学理论为指导思想,从教师“教”的角度出发,构建了历史建构性学习教学的两种教学模式:探究——建构性学习教学模式与接受——建构性学习教学模式,并对这两种教学模式提出了相应的教学程序与教学策略。
在上述理论构想的基础上,我在工作单位兰西县崇文实验学校进行了4个多月的对比实验研究,实验的结果说明实验班学生的历史学业成绩、探究能力、学习兴趣、学习主体性方面均优于对比班,且存在显著性差异。因而得出了历史建构性学习教学的有效性与高效性。依据不同的教学内容采用接受——建构性学习教学与探究——建构性学习教学模式,能有效促进学生在接受学习中进行有意义的接受学习,在探究——建构性学习中既重探究过程又重知识结论。历史建构性学习教学与传统教学比较,最大的不同在于:强调教师的主导作用(指指导、引导、辅导等)及学生主体作用,学生真正成为知识经验的意义建构者;无论是学生接受还是探究而来的知识与经验都与他们原有的知识体系与认知结构相联系,真正成为自己的知识与经验。本文本着“以人为本”的精神,结合自己多年的教学实践、历史学科的特点以及历史新课程标准的要求,就新课程背景下历史教学问题进行了探究,并运用了一些典型案例、图表来加以说明。针对研究过程的体验,研究者对历史建构性学习教学提出了几点须注意的问题。由于研究者的水平与研究时间的有限,本研究的结论还有待进一步检验,教学模式的程序与策略还有待进一步完善。
In the background of the New Curriculum, teachers mainly focus on how to lead students to construct their learning approaches. Reception learning and inquiry learning are two of the primary learning modes for history;especially the latter is advocated as a breakthrough point for history curriculum reform.These two modes have their own advantages and disadvantages.In order to fulfill the target of history new curriculum,it is necessary to integrate these two learning modes effectively.Knowledge and experience,no matter acquired through reception learning or inquiry learning,must be associated with the quondam cognition framework of the corresponding individuals.Otherwise,the learning will be meaningless. In another word,in order to make a meaningful learning,reception learning and inquiry learning must be integrated with the elements of constructivism.Therefore,we propose the research task about the teaching modes of history constructive learning.Based on the target of middle school’s history new curriculum and the requirements of different teaching contents,guided by the theories of constructivism,inquiry learning,and reception learning,this paper proposes two kinds of teaching modes of history constructive learning,named teaching mode of inquiry-constructive learning and teaching mode of reception-constructive learning from the teachers’teaching perspective. The corresponding teaching procedures and the teaching tactics for these teaching modes are also given.
Taken the theoretic designs mentioned above for guidelines,I carried out an experiment at the Chong Wen Middle School of LanXi for 4 months. the result shows that the experimental class precedes the controlled class at every index,including the history grades,inquiry abilities,studying interest,and studying subjective.And there exists remarkable statistical difference.Therefore,we can conclude that the teaching mode of history constructive learning is effective Abstract and with high efficiency.Adopting the teaching mode of inquiry-constructive learning and teaching mode of reception-constructive learning according to the teaching contents can help the reception learning to be meaningful learning,and can help inquiry learning focused on inquiry process and knowledge conclusions together.The primary difference between the teaching mode of history constructive learning and the traditional teaching modes is that the former emphasizes on the teacher’s leading function and the student’s initiative function,and makes the student to be the constructor of their knowledge and experiences.So,the knowledge and experiences,no matter they are acquired through reception or inquiry,are all incorporated to their knowledge systems and cognition frameworks,and become their own knowledge and experiences in reality. By using the human-centered approach and in combination with the author's teaching practice,the special features of history course and the curriculum standard of new courses,this paper analyses the history teaching under the new curricutism Background provides some viewpoints and understandings with some cases and charts. Based on the experience obtained in this research,the author discusses several concerns for the teaching mode of history constructive learning. As the limited of the research’s ability,and the restricted time for this experiment,the conclusions given in this thesis need more checking and verification.Furthermore,the teaching procedures and teaching tactics given in this thesis need to be enriched.
引文
[1]钟启泉.基础教育课程改革纲要(试行)解读[M].上海:华东师范大学出版社,2001.261-262.
[2]教育部制订. 普通高中历史课程标准(实验稿)[M].北京:人民教育出版社,2003.2.
[3]冯一下,李洁.试论历史学习方式及其变革.历史教学[J],2003,471(2):57-62.
[1]张建伟,孙燕青.建构性学习[M].上海:上海教育出版社,2005.40.
[2]张建伟.知识的建构[J].教育理论与实践,1999(7):17-20.
[3]施良方.学习论[M].北京:人民教育出版社,2003.172.
[4]皮亚杰.发生认识论[M].北京:商务印书馆,1981.16-21.
[1]李秉德.教学论[M].北京:商务印书馆,1991.2.
[2]王策三.教学论稿[M].北京:人民教育出版社,1985.88-89.
[3]张建伟,孙燕青.建构性学习[M].上海:上海教育出版社,2005.41.
[4]张红霞.建构主义对科学教育理论的贡献与局限[J].教育研究,2003(7): 80-82.
[5]钟启泉,张华.课程与教学论[M].上海:上海教育出版社,2001.474-479.
[6]张建伟,孙燕青.建构性学习[M].上海:上海教育出版社,2005.43.
[1]钟启泉,张华.课程与教学论[M].上海:上海教育出版社,2001.474-479.
[2]潘玉进.建构主义理论及其在教育上的启示[J].东北师范大学学报(社会科学版),2002(3):77.
[1]张建伟,孙燕青.建构性学习[M].上海:上海教育出版社,2005.43.
[1]余伟民.历史教育展望[M].上海:华东师范大学出版社,2002.164.
[2]School Council History Project. A New Look at History,Edinburyh:Holmes McDougall, 1976.18.
[3]余伟民.历史教育展望[M].上海:华东师范大学出版社,2002.149.
[1]张芳杰.牛津现代高级英汉双解辞典[M].牛津大学出版社,1984.598.
[2] Wayne WeIch,Leold Klopfer,Olen Aikenhead,T.Robinson:The role of inquiring in science education:analysis
[3] Center for Science, Mathematics, and Engineering Education, National Research Council, Inquiry and the National Science Education Standards - A Guide for Teaching and Learning, National Academy Press Washington, D. C. P. 24-27.
[4] 李华.探究式科学教学的本质特征及问题探讨[J]. 课程、教材、教法,2003(4):56-57.
[5]钟启泉.现代教学论发展[M].北京:教育科学出版社,1998: 363.
[6]吴星等著.化学新课程中的科学探究[M].高等教育出版社,2003.5.
[1]聂幼犁.历史课程与教学论[M].杭州:浙江教育出版社,2003.231.
[2]施良方.教学理论:课堂教学的原理、策略与研究[M].上海:华东师范大学出版社,1999. 40-41,120.
[1]施良方.教学理论:课堂教学的原理、策略与研究[M].上海:华东师范大学出版社,1999. 120.
[2]郝琦蕾,姜晋国.奥苏贝尔的“学与教”理论:精髓、批判及其对当前教改的启示[J].杭州师范学报(社会科学版),2003(11):114-115.
[3]孟庆男.对接受式学习与发现式学习的比较分析[J].中国教育学刊,2003(2):27-29.
[1]教育部文件,教基[2007]17 号.
[2]教育部制订.普通高中历史课程标准(实验稿)[M].北京:人民教育出版社,2003.2-4.
[1]邓小平.邓小平文选[M].北京:人民出版社,1983.105.
[2]冯茁.新课程改革背景下教师教学观念的转变[J].教育科学,2003,19(1): 59.
[3]杨振德.转变教育现,适应课程改革[J].中小学教育研究,2003(3):4-5.
[1]商继宗.中小学比较教育学[M].北京:人民教育出版社,1998.113-114.
[1]郭玉英.探究——建构性教学初探[J].课程·教材·教法,2004(1):53-54.
[1]聂幼犁.历史课程与教学论[M].杭州:浙江教育出版社,2003.377.
[1]聂幼犁.历史课程与教学论[M].杭州:浙江教育出版社,2003.159.
[1]刘军.历史教学的新视野[M].高等教育出版社,2003.102.
[2]白月桥.历史教学问题探讨[M].教育科学出版社,1997.270.
[1] National Research Council. (1996). The National Science Education Standards. Washington DC: National Academy Press. p.23
[1]徐学福.探究学习认识偏差分析[J].教育理论与实践,2001(2):48.
[1]张建伟、陈琦.简论建构性学习和教学[J].教育研究,1999(5):56-60.
[2]Bruce Joyce 等著,荆建华,宋富钢,花清亮译.教学模式[M].北京:中国轻工业出版社,2002.38-39.
[1] Johnson,D.W.,Johnson,R.J.,&Hulubec,E.J.(1990) Circles of Learning:cooperation in the classroom,p.5.
[1]何克抗,郑永柏,谢幼如.教学系统设计[M].北京:北京师范大学出版社,2002. 158-160.
[1]杜威著,王承绪译.民主主义与教育[M].北京:人民教育出版社,1990.168.
[2]钟启泉.基础教育课程改革纲要(试行)解读[M].上海:华东师范大学出版社,2001.261-262.
[3]教育部制订.全日制义务教育历史课程标准(实验稿)[M].北京:北京师范大学出版社,2001.2-3.
[4]冯一下,李洁.试论历史学习方式及其变革.历史教学[J],2003,471(2):57-62.
[5]张建伟,孙燕青.建构性学习[M].上海:上海教育出版社,2005.40.
[6]张建伟.知识的建构[J].教育理论与实践,1999(7):17-20.
[7]施良方.学习论[M].北京:人民教育出版社,2003.172.
[8]皮亚杰.发生认识论[M].北京:商务印书馆,1981 16-21.
[9]李秉德.教学论[M].北京:商务印书馆,1991.2.
[10]王策三.教学论稿[M].北京:人民教育出版社,1985.88-89
[11]张红霞.建构主义对科学教育理论的贡献与局限[J].教育研究,2003(7): 80-82.
[12]钟启泉,张华.课程与教学论[M].上海:上海教育出版社,2001.474-479.
[13]潘玉进.建构主义理论及其在教育上的启示[J].东北师范大学学报(社会科学版),2002(3):77.
[14]余伟民.历史教育展望[M].上海:华东师范大学出版社,2002.164.
[15]School Council History Project. A New Look at History,Edinburyh:Holmes McDougall, 1976.18.
[16]张芳杰.牛津现代高级英汉双解辞典[M].牛津大学出版社,1984.598
[17]. Wayne WeIch,Leold Klopfer,Olen Aikenhead,T.Robinson:The role of inquiring in science education:analysis andrecommendations[J].Science education. 1981,65(2):34-36.
[18]李华.探究式科学教学的本质特征及问题探讨[J].课程、教材、教法,2003(4):56-57.
[19]钟启泉.现代教学论发展[M].北京:教育科学出版社,1998: 363.
[20]吴星等著.化学新课程中的科学探究[M].高等教育出版社,2003.5.
[21]聂幼犁.历史课程与教学论[M].杭州:浙江教育出版社,2003.231.
[22]施良方.教学理论:课堂教学的原理、策略与研究[M].上海:华东师范大学出版社,1999. 40-41,120.
[23]教育部文件,教基[2007]17 号.
[24]邓小平.邓小平文选[M].北京:人民出版社,1983.105.
[25]冯茁.新课程改革背景下教师教学观念的转变[J].教育科学,2003,19(1): 59.
[26]杨振德.转变教育现,适应课程改革[J].中小学教育研究,2003(3):4-5.
[27]郭玉英.探究-建构性教学初探[J].课程·教材·教法,2004(1):53-54.
[28]商继宗.中小学比较教育学[M].北京:人民教育出版社,1998.113-114.
[29]白月桥.历史教学问题探讨[M].教育科学出版社,1997.270.
[30]刘军.历史教学的新视野[M].高等教育出版社,2003.102.
[31]徐学福.探究学习认识偏差分析[J].教育理论与实践,2001(2):48.
[32]张建伟,陈琦.简论建构性学习和教学[J].教育研究,1999(5):56-60.
[33]Bruce Joyce 等著,荆建华,宋富钢,花清亮译.教学模式[M].北京:中国轻工业出版社,2002.38-39.
[34]何克抗,郑永柏,谢幼如.教学系统设计[M].北京:北京师范大学出版社,2002. 158-160.
[35]Center for Science, Mathematics, and Engineering Education, National Research Council, Inquiry and the National Science Education Standards - A Guide for Teaching and Learning, National Academy Press Washington, D. C. P. 24-27.
[36]National Research Council. (1996). The National Science Education Standards. Washington DC: National Academy Press. p.23
[37]Johnson,D.W.,Johnson,R.J.,&Hulubec,E.J.(1990) Circles of Learning:cooperation in the classroom,p.5.