华东师范大学学报(教育科学版) ›› 2025, Vol. 43 ›› Issue (7): 43-58.doi: 10.16382/j.cnki.1000-5560.2025.07.004

• 专题:高校创新创业教育(特约主持:黄兆信) • 上一篇    下一篇

高校创新资源如何驱动大学生批判性思维发展——基于学习方式的中介分析

黄扬杰, 徐颖, 翁灵丽   

  1. 杭州师范大学中国创新创业教育研究院,杭州 311121
  • 接受日期:2025-04-07 出版日期:2025-07-01 发布日期:2025-06-28
  • 基金资助:
    教育部哲学社会科学研究重大课题攻关项目“新形势下全面提高人才自主培养质量研究”(23JZD045)。

How Do University Innovation Resources Drive the Development of Students’ Critical Thinking:A Mediating Analysis Based on Learning Approaches

Yangjie Huang, Ying Xu, Lingli Weng   

  1. Institute of China Innovation and Entrepreneurship Education Research, Hangzhou Normal University, Hangzhou 311121, China
  • Accepted:2025-04-07 Online:2025-07-01 Published:2025-06-28

摘要:

批判性思维作为高校创新型人才培养的核心任务,其发展深受高校创新资源的影响。然而,高校创新资源如何驱动批判性思维的作用机制尚未明确。本研究基于个人-环境匹配理论,结合“投入-过程-产出”模型,构建了高校创新资源、学习方式与批判性思维的作用机制框架,并利用偏最小二乘结构方程模型(PLS-SEM)对51063名中国高校学生数据进行了实证分析,结果发现:高校创新资源投入显著促进大学生批判性思维发展;挑战式学习与互动式学习在这一关系中发挥显著中介作用,且互动式学习的中介效应高于挑战式学习。据此,我们提出四点实践启示:全面优化创新资源配置,助力课程与设施协同发展;构建教师专业发展体系,提升批判性思维教学能力;优化学习方式组合,发挥协同中介的促进作用;革新批判性思维评价,构建多维过程评估体系。本研究结果能为高校创新教育和大学生批判性思维发展提供重要实证支撑和政策参考。

关键词: 创新资源, 批判性思维, 挑战式学习, 互动式学习

Abstract:

Critical thinking, as the core objective of cultivating innovative talents in higher education, is profoundly influenced by university innovation resources. However, the mechanisms through which these resources drive critical thinking remain unclear. Based on the Person-Environment Fit Theory and integrating the Input-Process-Output (IPO) model, this study constructs a theoretical framework elucidating the mechanisms linking university innovation resources, learning approaches, and critical thinking development. Using Partial Least Squares Structural Equation Modeling (PLS-SEM) to analyze data from 51,063 university students in China, the findings reveal that university innovation resource investment significantly promotes students' critical thinking development. challenge-based learning and interactive learning serve as significant mediators in this relationship, with the mediating effect of interactive learning being stronger than that of challenge-based learning. Accordingly, four practical recommendations are proposed: comprehensively optimizing the allocation of innovation resources to facilitate the coordinated development of courses and facilities; building a professional development system for teachers to enhance critical thinking teaching capabilities; optimizing the combination of learning approaches to leverage the synergistic mediating effects; and innovating critical thinking assessment by establishing a multidimensional process evaluation system. The research findings provide critical empirical support and policy references for innovation education in universities and the development of students' critical thinking.

Key words: innovation resources, critical thinking, challenge-based learning, interactive learning