本研究探讨的主要问题是能否通过开放课堂空间,赋权于学生以保证主动自觉学习的学生形象产生。为此,研究运用了以视频为线索的主体访谈法、田野研究和行动研究等研究方法,发现当教师权力过剩时,学生形象呈现出"课桌蜗居型""向日葵型"和"隐性反抗型"等多种形象,说明课堂教学有必要进一步消解教师权力,赋权于学生。然而,当教师下移权力,变更课堂空间结构之后,学生便呈现出"学习规则的变更人""不动脑筋的教学应声虫"和"不善合作的散兵游勇"等多种被动学习的形象,说明空间重构及权力下移并不是学生主动学习的充分条件。只有在教师变更课堂空间结构和下移权力,并加以教育引领之后,学生主动学习的形象才可敞现出来。这说明空间结构及权力并不是保证学生主动学习的充分条件,教师的价值引领是必要条件。
The research deals with whether lifting a restriction on classroom space and empowering students can ensure students' active and autonomous learning. It's conducted through video-clued subjects' interview, fieldwork and action research. The findings indicated that while teachers' power is surplus, students' images of "school desk dwelling", "sunflower" and "hidden resistance" will come out, which makes it imperative to dispel teachers' power. However, when teachers empower their students and change the classroom structure, the students present their images of passive learning, images like "changers of study rules", "mindless parrots of instruction" and "not-good-at-cooperating disbanded soldiers", which means that space structure and power are not the only factors restricting students' selfhood. Finally, when teachers further change classroom space structure, downshift power and apply educational guide, the students' new image of "idea-willingly-sharer" is unfolded. It's suggested that the mission of contemporary classroom teaching reform is not just deconstructing class space structure and empowering students but also placing higher requirements on teachers' value guidance. Only in this way can students' spiritual space be enriched and enhanced.
福柯. (2012). 规训与惩罚. 刘北成, 杨远婴译. 北京:生活·读书·新知三联书店.
列斐伏尔.(2002). 空间政治学的反思.陈志梧译. 包亚明主编.现代性与空间的生产.上海:上海教育出版社.
孙喜亭,成有信,褚洪启,黄崴,田慧生.(1995). 人的主体性内涵与人的主体性教育.教育研究,(10),34-39.
王刘飞,王毅杰. (2016). 后排男孩: 空间社会学视角下的群体塑造. 青年研究,(1), 61-63.
王明. (2013). 学生课堂投入不足的形成机制分析. 中国教育学刊,(9), 41-45.
吴宁. (2008). 列斐伏尔的城市空间社会学理论及其中国意义. 社会, 28(2), 112-127.
郑鸿根.(2005). 后排现象值得关注——关于学生座位问题的调查研究. 上海教育科研, (1),42-44.
周娜,周洪宇. (2017). 身体、隐喻与教育: 教育史研究中的具身视角. 苏州大学学报(教育科学版),(4), 36-44.
佐滕学.(1998).教室的困惑. 华东师范大学学报(教育科学版),(2),16-26.
Ellis, J. (2005). Place and identity for children in classrooms and schools. Journal of the Canadian Association for Curriculum Studies, 3(2), 55-73.
Gruenewald, D. A. (2003). The best of both worlds: A critical pedagogy of place. Educational Researcher, 32(4), 3-12.
Jackson, P. W. (1968). Life in classrooms. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.
Jennifer A Tupper, Terrt Carson, Ingrid Johnson, Jyoti Mangat. (2008). Building place: Students’ negotiation of spaces and citizenship in schools. Canadian Journal of Education, 31(4), 1065-1092.
Prosser, J. (2007). Visual methods and the visual culture of schools. Visual Studies, 22(1), 13-30.
Prout, A., & James, A. (1997). A new paradigm for the sociology of childhood? Provenance, Promise and Problems. Constructing & Reconstructing Childhood. London-Washinton, D.C.: Falmer Press, 7-33.
Rundell, J. (1998). Problematics of Sociology: The Georg Simmel Lectures, 1995. Contemporary Sociology, 34(2), 208-210.
Taines, C. (2014). Educators and youth activists: a negotiation over enhancing students' role in school life. Journal of Educational Change, 15(2), 153-178.
Tobin, J.(1991). Preschool in three cultures: japan, china and the united states. New Haven:Yale University Press.