|本期目录/Table of Contents|

[1]张光陆.国外有效课堂对话之研究:回溯与启示[J].宁波大学学报(教育科学版),2017,39(5):87-091.
 ZHANG Guang-lu.A Study on the Efficacious Classroom Dialogue in the West: Retrospection and Implications[J].JORNAL OF NINGBO,2017,39(5):87-091.
点击复制

国外有效课堂对话之研究:回溯与启示(PDF)
分享到:

《宁波大学学报》(教育科学版)[ISSN:1008-0627/CN:33-1214/G4]

卷:
第39卷
期数:
2017年5期
页码:
87-091
栏目:
课程与教学论
出版日期:
2017-09-15

文章信息/Info

Title:
A Study on the Efficacious Classroom Dialogue in the West: Retrospection and Implications
文章编号:
10080627(2017)05-0087-05
作者:
张光陆
(宁波大学 教师教育学院,浙江 宁波 315211)
Author(s):
ZHANG Guang-lu
( College of Teachers Education, Ningbo University, Ningbo 315211, China )
关键词:
-
Keywords:
classroom dialogue efficacious context tension
分类号:
-
DOI:
-
文献标志码:
A
摘要:
对理想化的、去情境化的对话模式的追求是课堂对话效率低下的一个重要原因,其将最终危害教育实践。课堂对话需要对情境保持敏感,西方国家课堂对话的类型研究、文化研究、学科内容与学习任务研究以及内在张力分析等都揭示有效的课堂对话需建基于具体的情境之中。基于此,我国的课堂对话研究应注重实证研究,关注实然的动态的课堂对话,摒弃对理想化的、去情境化的课堂对话模式的追求。
Abstract:
The pursuit of the ideal and universal dialogical form is one of the reasons for the low efficacy of classroom dialogue, which will do harm to the pedagogical practice. Classroom dialogue needs to be sensitive to contexts. The studies of classroom dialogical type, culture, subject matter, learning task and inner tension in the West revealed that efficacious classroom dialogue was oriented to contexts. The author realized that great importance may be attached to empirical research and real dynamical classroom dialogue, to give up the pursuit of the ideal dialogical form

参考文献/References:

[1].BURBULES N C. Dialogue in Teaching: Theory and Practice[M]. New York and London: Teachers College, Columbia University, 1993: 112.
[2].BARNES D. Exploratory talk for learning[M]// MRECRE N, HODGKINSON S. Exploring talk in schools. London: SAGE, 2008: 5.
[3].LITTLETON K, MERCER N. The significance of educational dialogues between primary school children[M]// LITTLETON K, HOWE C. Educational dialogues. London and New York : Routledge, 2010.
[4].ALEXDANDER R. Culture, Dialogue and learning: notes on an emerging pedagogy[M]// MRECRE N, HODGKINSON. Exploring talk in schools London: SAGE, 2008: 99.
[5].CAZDEN C B. 教室言谈: 教与学的语言[M]. 蔡敏玲 彭海燕, 译, 台北: 心理出版社股份有限公司, 1998: 41.
[6].SCHWARZ B B, PRUSAK N. Argumentation and mathematics[M] //LITTLETON K, HOWE C. Educational dialogues. London and New York: Routledge, 2010: 108.
[7].LITTLETON K, HOWE C. Introduction part II[M]// LITTLETON K, HOWE C. Educational dialogues. London and New York: Routledge, 2010: 86.
[8].多尔. 后现代课程观[M]. 王红宇, 译, 北京: 教育科学出版社, 2000: 240.
[9].LEFSTEIN A, More helpful as problem than solution[M]// LITTLETON K, HOWE C. Educational dialogues. London and New York : Routledge, 2010.
[10].伽达默尔.真理与方法[M].洪汉鼎, 译, 上海: 上海译文出版社, 2004: 347.
[11].BENHABIB S. The generalized and concrete other: The Kohlberg-Gilligan controversy and moral theory[M]// KITTAY E F, MEYERS D T. Women and moral theory Totowa, NJ: Rowman & Littefield, 1987: 154-177.
[12].舍恩.反映的实践者[M].夏林清, 译, 北京: 教育科学出版社, 2007: 114.

备注/Memo

备注/Memo:
基金项目:浙江省高等教育教学改革项目“学生核心素养本位的师范生教育模式变革研究:以小学教师的培养为例”(jg20160048)收稿日期:2017-03-18
作者简介:张光陆(1973-),男,山东诸城人,教授/博士,主要
更新日期/Last Update: 2017-09-20