基本理论与基本问题

谁更可能成功?中国、美国和芬兰基于核心素养的教育改革比较

  • 邓莉 ,
  • 詹森云
展开
  • 1. 华东师范大学国际与比较教育研究所,上海 200062
    2. 南昌市红谷滩区教育体育局,江西 南昌 330038

网络出版日期: 2022-12-03

基金资助

国家社会科学基金教育学青年课题“中美竞争背景下美国教育战略及中国应对研究”(CDA220273)

Who is More Likely to Succeed: A Comparative Study of Competencies-based Education Reform in China, the United States and Finland

  • Li Deng ,
  • Senyun Zhan
Expand
  • 1. Institute of International and Comparative Education, East China Normal University, Shanghai 200062
    2. Education and Sports Bureau of Honggutan District, Nanchang 330038

Online published: 2022-12-03

摘要

基于核心素养的教育改革是一项全球教育政策,是世界各国为了应对社会变化与经济竞争、提高人才培养质量所推动的教育改革,其实施成功与否关涉到国家未来的劳动力素质、经济繁荣和全球竞争力。为了找到影响改革实施的主要因素和最可能成功的模式,本研究从政治承诺和实施能力两个方面,对中国、美国和芬兰三个具有代表性的基于核心素养的教育改革进行比较,指出中国的改革具备很强的政治承诺但实施能力不强;美国的改革实施能力强但不具备很强的政治承诺;芬兰的改革同时具备很强的政治承诺和实施能力,是一种更为理想的改革模式。中国可从评价方式、教师教育与培训以及教学与学习环境创新等方面借鉴芬兰和美国的经验,来提升改革的实施能力;继续维持政治承诺并将其转变成真正的执行力,将民间力量纳入改革主体之中,推动改革的成功实施。

本文引用格式

邓莉 , 詹森云 . 谁更可能成功?中国、美国和芬兰基于核心素养的教育改革比较[J]. 华东师范大学学报(教育科学版), 2022 , 40(12) : 38 -49 . DOI: 10.16382/j.cnki.1000-5560.2022.12.004

Abstract

The education reform based on key competencies is a global education policy, promoted by most countries in the world to improve the quality of talent training in respond to social changes and economic competition. The success of its implementation is related to the country’s labour quality and economic prosperity, as well as global competitiveness. In order to find the main influencing factors and the model that would most likely lead to success of the reform’s implementation, this study compares the key competencies-based education reforms of China, the United States, and Finland from the perspectives of political commitment and implementation capacities. It then points out that, in terms of education reform, China has strong political commitment but not strong implementation capacities; the United States has strong reform implementation capacities but not strong political commitment; Finland has both strong political commitment and implementation capacities, which is a more ideal reform model. China could learn from the experience of Finland and the United States from the aspects of evaluation methods, teacher education and training, and innovation in teaching and learning environments to enhance the implementation capacities, meanwhile keep up the political commitment, transform it into execution, bring non-governmental actors into the reform and further promote the successful implementation of the reform.

参考文献

null 邓莉. (2019). 培养具有全球竞争力的人才: 美国21世纪能力教育改革研究. 上海: 上海教育出版社.
null 邓莉, 彭正梅. (2016). 通向21世纪技能的学习环境设计——美国《21世纪学习环境路线图》述评. 开放教育研究, 22 (05), 11- 21.
null 邓莉, 彭正梅. (2018). 迈向2030年的课程变革: 以美国和芬兰为例. 湖南师范大学教育科学学报, (1), 99- 108.
null 段素菊. (2010). 美国基础教育改革的路径与特征. 教育发展研究, 30 (09), 64- 68.
null 教育部考试中心. (2019). 中国高考评价体系说明. 北京: 人民教育出版社.
null . (2012). . 12, 70- 74.
null 林小英. (2019). 素质教育20年: 竞争性表现主义的支配及反思. 北京大学教育评论, 17 (4), 75- 108.
null 彭正梅, 伍绍杨, 邓莉. (2019). 如何培养高阶能力——哈蒂“可见的学习”的视角. 教育研究, (6), 76- 85.
null 翁文艳. (2013). 我国地方政府教育改革的主要特征与趋势——基于163个地方教育制度创新案例的分析. 教育发展研究, (23), 6- 11.
null 吴康宁. (2010). 中国教育改革为什么会这么难. 华东师范大学学报(教育科学版), 28 (4), 10- 36.
null 詹森云, 邓莉. (2021). 培养核心素养: 芬兰多学科学习模式的实施途径与启示. 福建教育, (31), 21- 24.
null 张会杰. (2020). 美国高校招生中学生的多重选择权及其积极效应. 全球教育展望, 49 (6), 42- 54.
null 张华. (2016). 论核心素养的内涵. 全球教育展望, (4), 10- 24.
null 中国教育部. (2006). 中华人民共和国义务教育法. http://www.moe.gov.cn/s78/A02/zfs__left/s5911/moe_619/201001/t20100129_15687.html.
null 中国教育部. (2014). 教育部关于全面深化课程改革落实立德树人根本任务的意见. http://www.moe.gov.cn/srcsite/A26/jcj_kcjcgh/201404/t20140408_167226.html.
null 中国教育部. (2018). 深化普通高中课程改革 为培育时代新人奠基——教育部部署开展新修订普通高中课程方案和课程标准全员培训. http://www.moe.gov.cn/jyb_xwfb/gzdt_gzdt/moe_1485/201801/t20180117_324894.html.
null 中国教育部. (2020a). 普通高中课程方案 (2017年版2020年修订). 北京: 人民教育出版社.
null 中国教育部. (2020b). 普通高中数学课程标准(2017年版2020年修订). 北京: 人民教育出版社.
null 中国教育部. (2022). 《义务教育课程方案和课程标准(2022)年版》. 北京: 北京师范大学出版社.
null Anderson-Levitt, K. (2021). 21st Century Skills in the United States: A Late, Partial and Silent Reform. Comparative Education, 57 (1), 99- 114.
null Australian Curriculum, Assessment and Reporting Authority(ACARA). (2018). International Comparative Study: the Australian Curriculum and the Finnish National Core Curriculum. https://www.australiancurriculum.edu.au/media/3922/ac-fncc-international-comparative-study-final.pdf.
null Barron, B. and Darling-Hammond, L. (2008). Teaching for Meaningful Learning: A Review of Research on Inquiry-Based and Cooperative Learning. https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/05bb/40f4937dbdb7be66b9abeb47dace529e241a.pdf.
null Burg, Carol A. (2018). Finnish Education in the 21st Century: Paradoxes and Visions. i.e.:Inquiry in Education, (10), 1- 9.
null Deng, L., and Peng, Z.M. (2021). Moral Priority or Skill Priority: A Comparative Analysis of Key Competencies Frameworks in China and the United States. Comparative Education, 57 (1), 83- 98.
null Deng, L., Wu, S. Y., Chen, Y. M., and Peng, Z. M. (2022). A Comparative Study of Twenty-first Century Competencies in High School Mother Tongue Curriculum Standards in China, the United States and Finland. Language, Culture and Curriculum. doi: 10.1080/07908318.2022.2072506
null Finnish National Board of Education(FNBE). (2016). National Core Curriculum for Basic Education 2014.
null Gordon, J., Halász, G., and Krawczyk, M. et al. (2009). Key Competences in Europe: Opening Doors for Lifelong Learners across the School Curriculum and Teacher Education. CASE-Center for Social and Economic Research.
null Halász, G. and Michel, A. (2011). Key Competences in Europe: Interpretation, Policy Formulation and Implementation. European Journal of Education, 46 (3), 289- 306.
null Halinen, I. (2017). The Conceptualization of Competencies Related to Sustainable Development and Sustainable Lifestyles. International Bureau of Education, UNESCO.
null Lavonen, J. (2020). Audacious Education Purposes: How Governments Transform the Goals of Education Systems. SpringOpen.
null L?hdem?ki, J. (2019). “Case Study: The Finnish National Curriculum 2016-A Co-created National Education Policy.” In Sustainability, Human Well-Being, and the Future of Education, edited by Cook, W. J. 397?422. Palgrave Macmillan Cham.
null OECD. (2020). Education Policy Outlook Finland. https://www.oecd-ilibrary.org/education/education-policy-outlook-in-finland-f162c72b-en.
null Pietarinen, J., Pyh?lt?, K. and Soini, T. (2017). Large-Scale Curriculum Reform in Finland-Exploring the Interrelation between Implementation Strategy, the Function of the Reform, and Curriculum Coherence. The Curriculum Journal, 28, 22- 40.
null Ravitch, D. (2000). Left Back: A Century of Failed School Reforms. New York: Simon & Schuster Inc.
null Trilling, B., Fadel, C. (2009). 21st Century Skills: Learning For Life in Our Times. John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
null Verger, A., Novelli, M., and Altinyelken, H. K. (2018). Global Education Policy and International Development. London: Bloomsbury Academic.
文章导航

/