论教育评价的治理功能及其自反性立场

doi:10.16382/j.cnki.1000-5560.2021.08.001

摘要/Abstract

摘要：

从主体间性的角度看教育评价，教育评价是泛在的价值操作过程，也是意义建构的过程。在教育和评价之间，存在正式和非正式的教育与正式和非正式的评价之间的组合模式。正式教育的正式评价起着专业化发展的引领作用。教育评价在特定场域展开，受场域的影响。教育评价具有治理的功能，是治理的工具。从个体到组织、国家乃至国际，治理的层级不同，评价的内容也不同。善治既是对国家治理的评价，也具有教育治理的指导价值。评价具有导向性作用，评价也是治理的对象。从评价治理的角度上说，教育评价要持自反性的立场，对评价保持再评价的开放思维。一方面增强元评价意识；另一方面，还要不断对现实问题的场域特征保持警觉，警惕教育评价陷入行为主义、经济主义、地方主义和机会主义的陷阱。

关键词: 评价, 元评价, 教育评价, 善治, 教育治理

Abstract:

In the perspective of inter-subjectivity, edcational evaluation is a ubiquitous value processing, and sense-making as well. There are different combinations between formal and informal education and formal and informal evaluation. The formal evaluation of formal education plays the role of direction to the professional development in educational evaluation. Any educational evaluation is executed in a specific field. Therefore, it is context bounded. Educational evaluation is an instrument of governance, sharing the functions of governance. At the different governance level, from individual to organization, state and the international communities, evaluation has the different contents. Good governance is a kind of evaluation at the state level. It also has the directory value for the educational governance. Evaluation itself is the object of governance, while it has the function of governance. Educational evaluation should stick to the self-reflexive stance, keeping itself under re-evaluation. On the one hand, the meta-evaluation awareness should be raised. On the other hand, it should be on the alert against behaviorism, economism, localism and opportunism in the evaluation exercises.

Key words: evaluation, meta-evaluation, educational evaluation, good governance, educational governance

周作宇. 论教育评价的治理功能及其自反性立场[J]. 华东师范大学学报(教育科学版), 2021, 39(8): 1-19.

Zuoyu Zhou. On the Governance Function of Educational Evaluation and Its Self-reflexive Stance[J]. Journal of East China Normal University(Educational Sciences), 2021, 39(8): 1-19.

图/表 6

表 1

表 2

表 3

表 4

表 5

图 1

参考文献 0

	贝塔朗菲, 拉威奥莱特. (1989). 人的系统观(张志伟等译). 北京: 华夏出版社.
	杜威. (2007). 评价理论(冯平, 余泽娜等译). 上海: 上海译文出版社.
	冯平. (1995). 评价论. 北京: 东方出版社.
	卡斯特, 罗森茨韦克. (1985). 组织与管理——系统方法与权变方法(李柱流等译). 北京: 中国社会科学出版社.
	俞可平. (2000). 治理与善治. 北京: 中国社科文献出版社.
	中共中央, 国务院. (2020). 深化新时代教育评价改革总体方案. 取自http://www.gov.cn/zhengce/2020-10/13/content_5551032.htm.
	Agrawal, R., Kalugampitiya, A., Rinzin, J., and Hashim, K. (2017), Leveraging Monitoring and Evaluation Systems for Good Governance. Retrieved from https://ideas-global.org/wp-content/uploads//2017/12/Chapter-11.pdf
	Auerbach, J. S., & Blatt, S. J Self-Reflexivity, Intersubjectivity, and Therapeutic Change Psychoanalytic Psychology 2001 18 3 427 450 Auerbach, J. S., & Blatt, S. J. (2001). Self-Reflexivity, Intersubjectivity, and Therapeutic Change. Psychoanalytic Psychology, 18(3), 427—450. doi: 10.1037/0736-9735.18.3.427
	Boonwaat, L. (2001). An overview of alternative development and illicit crop eradication policies, strategies and actions in the region. In: Proceedings of a regional seminar on Alternative Development: Sharing Good Practices Facing Common Problems. Bangkok: UNODC-Regional Centre for Asia and the Pacific,129−148. Retrieved from https://www.unodc.org/documents/alternative-development/Manual_MonitoringEval.pdf.
	Bowman, M.L. (1989), Testing Differences in Ancient China, The American Psychologist, 44（3）, 576−578.
	Dahler-Larsen, P., & Boodhoo, A Evaluation culture and good governance: Is there a link? Evaluation 2019 25 3 277 293 Dahler-Larsen, P., & Boodhoo, A. (2019). Evaluation culture and good governance: Is there a link?. Evaluation, 25(3), 277—293. doi: 10.1177/1356389018819110
	Denzin, N. K Moments, Mixed Methods, and Paradigm Dialogs Qualitative Inquiry 2010 16 6 419 427 Denzin, N. K. (2010). Moments, Mixed Methods, and Paradigm Dialogs. Qualitative Inquiry, 16(6), 419—427. doi: 10.1177/1077800410364608
	Guba, E. G. (1990). The paradigm dialog. Sage Publications, Inc.
	Guba, E. G., & Lincoln, Y. S. (1981). Effective evaluation: Improving the usefulness of evaluation results through responsive and naturalistic approaches. Jossey-Bass.
	Hanberger, A Evaluationin Local School Governance: A Framework for Analysis Education Inquiry 2016 7 3 217 236 Hanberger, A. (2016). Evaluationin Local School Governance: A Framework for Analysis. Education Inquiry, 7(3), 217—236.
	Johnston, M. (2016), Good Governance: Rule of Law, Transparency, and Accountability. Retrieved from https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Michael_Johnston26/publication/267974525_Good_Governance_Rule_of_Law_Transparency_and_Accountability/links/570d0b1908aed31341cf00c6/Good-Governance-Rule-of-Law-Transparency-and-Accountability.pdf?origin=publication_detail
	Martin, W. A. P. (1870), Competitive examinations in China, The North Atlantic Review, 111(228), 62−77.
	Osuji Shifting Paradigm in our Educational Assessment Global Advanced Research Journal of Educational Research and Review 2015 4 1 001 005 Osuji. (2015). Shifting Paradigm in our Educational Assessment. Global Advanced Research Journal of Educational Research and Review, 4(1), 001—005.
	Rerkasem, K. (2000). Regional perspectives on alternative development (AD). Paper prepared for UNODC seminar on Cooperation for Alternative Socio-Economic Development to Replace Opium Poppy Cultivation. Hanoi: Vietnam, 7. Retrieved from https://www.unodc.org/documents/alternative-development/Manual_MonitoringEval.pdf.
	Schlagenhauf, J. (2020). Improve Governance with Policy Evaluation, OECD Public Governance Review.
	Scriven, M. (1971). Evaluating Educational Programs. In F. G. Caro (ed.), Reading in Evaluation Research. New York: Russell Sage Foundation.
	Shulman, L. S Those Who Understand: Knowledge Growth in Teaching Educational Researcher 1986 15 2 4 14 Shulman, L. S. (1986). Those Who Understand: Knowledge Growth in Teaching. Educational Researcher, 15(2), 4—14. doi: 10.3102/0013189X015002004
	Starbuck, W. H. (2015). (2015). Karl E. Weick and the dawning awareness of organized cognition. Management Decision, 53(6), 1287–1299.
	Stufflebeam, D. L The Meta evaluation Imperative American Journal of Evaluation 2001 22 2 183 209 Stufflebeam, D. L. (2001). The Meta evaluation Imperative. American Journal of Evaluation, 22(2), 183—209. doi: 10.1177/109821400102200204
	Stufflebeam, D. L A Note on the Purposes, Development, and Applicability of the Joint Committee Evaluation Standards American Journal of Evaluation 2004 25 1 99 102 Stufflebeam, D. L. (2004). A Note on the Purposes, Development, and Applicability of the Joint Committee Evaluation Standards. American Journal of Evaluation, 25(1), 99—102. doi: 10.1177/109821400402500107
	UNESCAP. (2009), What is Good Governance? Retrieved from https://www.unescap.org/sites/default/d8files/knowledge-products/good-governance.pdf
	Weick, K. E Educational Organizations as Loosely Coupled Systems Administrative Science Quarterly 1976 21 1 1 19 Weick, K. E. (1976). Educational Organizations as Loosely Coupled Systems. Administrative Science Quarterly, 21(1), 1—19. doi: 10.2307/2391875
	Worthen, B. R., Sanders, J. R., & Fitzpatrick, J. L. (1997). Program Evaluation: alternative approaches and practical guidelines(Second Edition). USA: Longman Publishers.

	非正式教育Ed_i	正式教育Ed_f
非正式评价Ev_i	1：Ed_i?Ev_i	3：Ed_f?Ev_i
正式评价Ev_f	2：Ed_i?Ev_f	4：Ed_f?Ev_f

	治理G
评价E		治理价值（G_v）	治理工具（G_m）
	评价价值（E_v）	E_v?G_v	E_v? G_m
	评价工具（E_m）	E_m?G_v	E_m? G_m

场域层级与权力关系	价值操作	工具选择
国际	国际价值共识及其实现	国际评价工具
国家（横向、纵向）	国家价值共识及其实现	国家评价工具（制度、政策、资源、人际）
地方（横向、纵向）	国家价值共识+地方价值共识及其实现	地方性评价工具（制度、政策、资源、人际）
学校（横向、纵向）	国家价值共识+地方价值共识+学校价值共识及其实现	学校评价工具（制度、政策、资源、人际）
师生（基本单位）	国家价值共识+地方价值共识+学校价值共识+ 师生价值共识及其实现	人际互动中的评价工具

	治理G
评价E		自我治理（G_s）	他者治理（G_o）	元治理（G_m）
	自我评价（E_s）	（1）E_s?G_s	（3）E_s?G_o	超主体治理
	他者评价（E_o）	（2）G_s?E_o	（4）G_o?E_o
	元评价（E_m）	超主体评价

	专业化评价	非专业化评价
正式评价	（1）正式的专业化评价	（2）正式的非专业化评价
非正式评价	（3）非正式的专业化评价	（4）非正式的非专业化评价