加载中…
个人资料
事主
事主
  • 博客等级:
  • 博客积分:0
  • 博客访问:12,189
  • 关注人气:54
  • 获赠金笔:0支
  • 赠出金笔:0支
  • 荣誉徽章:
相关博文
推荐博文
正文 字体大小:

理论范式的改变

(2011-05-07 17:35:48)
标签:

杂谈

分类: KFC学术文摘

Changes in Theoretical Paradigms

理论范式的改变

 

Theories are like toothbrushes. . . everyone has their own and no one wants to use anyone else’s. (Campbell 2006)

理论就像牙刷,每个人拥有他们自己的,然而没有人想用其它人的。(Campbell 2006)

As several scholars have noted over the years, we have a history of shifting frequently our dominant paradigms (Berliner 2006; Calfee 2006; King and McLeod 1999).

正如几位学者多年来指出,我们在一定过去的一段时期里经常变换我们的主导性理论。(Berliner 2006; Calfee 2006; King and McLeod 1999).

Like the broad field of psychology, our discipline “can be perceived through a veil of ‘isms”’ (Alexander and Winne 2006, p. 982; Goldin 2003).

就像存在广泛领域的心理学,我们的学科通过“主义”的面纱能被感觉到。

We have witnessed,among others, shifts from behaviourism, through to stage and level theories,to various forms of constructivism, to situated and distributed cognitions, and morerecently, to complexity theories and neuroscience.

我们已经目睹了行为主义,阶段和水平理论,各种形式的建构主义,定位与分布式认知理论、最近的复杂性理论和神经系统科学。

 For the first couple of decades of its life, mathematics education as a discipline drew heavily on theories and methodologies from psychology as is evident in the frameworks of most papers that appeared in journals like Journal for Research in Mathematics Education (JRME) and Educational Studies in Mathematics (ESM).

在数学教育诞生最早的前二十年里,数学教育作为一个学科在理论和方法上从心理学上得到非常多的借鉴。发表在Journal for Research in Mathematics Education (JRME) and Educational Studies in Mathematics (ESM)的很多论文的结构就清晰地表现这个特征。

According to Lerman (2000), the switch to research on the social dimensions of mathematical learning towards the end of the 1980s resulted in theories that emphasized a view of mathematics as a social

product.

Lerman (2000)所述,大约在20世纪80年代后期,研究转向数学学习的社会维度,原因在于理论上强调把数学当作一个社会加工品来看待。

Social constructivism, which draws on the seminal work of Vygotsky

and Wittgenstein (Ernest 1994) has been a dominant research paradigm for many years.

萌芽于Vygotsky and Wittgenstein的社会建构主义(Ernest 1994),在很多年的时间里成为研究的主流。

Lerman’s extensive analysis revealed that, while the predominant theories used during this period were traditional psychological and mathematics theories, an expanding range from other fields was evident especially in PME and ESM.

Lerman的进一步研究显示:虽然当时的主流是传统的心理学和数学理论,但是来自其它广泛的领域的影响在PMEESM杂志里表现的也相当明显。

 Psychosocial theories, including re-emerging ones, increased in ESM and JRME.

社会心理学理论,包括那些重生的理论,在ESM and JRME杂志里不断出现。

Likewise,papers drawing on sociological and socio-cultural theories also increased in all three publications together with more papers utilizing linguistics, social linguistics, and semiotics.

同样的,关于社会学和社会文化学理论的论文,以及更多的利用了语言学、社会语言学和符号学理论的论文,在三种出版物(PMEESMJRME)中出现的机会更多了。

Lerman’s analysis revealed very few papers capitalizing on broader fields of educational theory and research and on neighbouring disciplines such as science education and general curriculum studies.

Lerman的分析表明很少论文能从教育理论和研究、以及类似科学教育、普遍性课程研究等相近学科中受益。

This situation appears to be changing in recent years, with interdisciplinary studies emerging in the literature (e.g., English

2007, 2008a, 2008b, 2009; English and Mousoulides 2009) and papers that address the nascent field of neuroscience in mathematics education (Campbell 2006).

伴随着跨学科的研究出现在文献中(e.g., English2007, 2008a, 2008b, 2009; English and Mousoulides 2009),以及有关数学教育中的神经科学的研究论文的新生,使得这样的状况在最近几年来得到改变。

Numerous scholars have questioned the reasons behind these paradigm shifts.

众多的学者提出疑问,这些研究范式的转变为什么会出现。

Is it just the power of fads? Does it only occur in the United States? Is it primarily academic competitiveness (new ideas as more publishable)?

这是一种时尚的力量吗?这仅仅发生在美国吗?这是学术竞赛的结果(新的观点更容易出版)吗?

One plausible explanation is the diverging, epistemological perspectives about what constitutes mathematical knowledge.

一个较为可信的理由是:在数学知识是由什么组成的这个问题上,认识论的视角趋向于多元化。

Another possible explanation is that mathematics education,

unlike “pure” disciplines in the sciences, is heavily influenced by unpredictable cultural, social, and political forces (e.g., D’Ambrosio 1999; Secada 1995;Skovsmose and Valero 2008; Sriraman and Törner 2008).

另一个可能的解释是数学教育,不能等同于科学意义上的“纯”学科,受到文化、社会、政治力量等各种不稳定因素的影响非常大。

A critical question, however, that has been posed by scholars now and in previous decades is whether our paradigm shifts are genuine.

在现在和过去几十年里,学者提出了一个尖锐性的问题是:我们所谓的学科范式的变化是真实的吗?

That is, are we replacing one particular theoretical perspective with another that is more valid or more sophisticated for addressing the hard core issues we confront (Alexander and Winne 2006;King and McLeod 1999; Kuhn 1966)?

也就是说,我们是否是用一个更坚实或者更精密的理论视角去代替某个特定的理论视角,从而去论述我们所面对的核心问题。

 Or, as Alexander and Winne ask, is it more the case that theoretical perspectives move in and out of favour as they go through

various transformations and updates?

或者,如Alexander Winne提出疑问,当我们经历各种范式的变化或者更新时,那些对我们有帮助的理论视角也随之一会来一会走,这样的情况会更多地出现吗?

 If so, is it the voice that speaks the loudest that gets heard?

如果真是如此,那么是不是只有那个最大声音的见解才被听见?

Who gets suppressed?

持有哪种观点的人受到了抑制?

The rise of constructivism in its various forms is an example of a paradigm that appeared to drown out many other theoretical voices during the 1990s (Goldin 2003).

20世纪90年代,各种建构主义的兴起作为研究范式中的榜样,似乎把其它的理论观点淹没了。

Embodied mathematics made its appearance with the work of Lakoff and Núñez (2000), yet the bold ideas proposed in Where Does

Mathematics Come From, received very little attention from mathematics education researchers in terms of systemic follow-ups in teaching, learning and researching.

Lakoff and Núñez (2000)的著作使得“具体化”的数学出现,然而在《数学从哪里来》书中的表达出的新锐观点未能引起数学教育研究者的过多关注,在教、学、研等的方面也没有得到系统性的跟进。

Similarly, even though Lev Vygotsky’s (1978) work is cited in the vast literature in mathematics education that uses social constructivist frameworks, very little attention is paid to his cultural-historical activity theory, which has simultaneous orientation with embodied operations and the social dimensions allowing for a theorization of the intricate relationships between individual and social cognition (Roth 2007).

类似的,尽管维果斯基的著作被无数的数学教育文献所引用,但这种引用是把社会建构主义的当作框架来使用的。人们却没有注意到他的文化-历史活动理论,这个理论与具体运算和社会唯度同时作用,使得个人与社会认知之间那种复杂关系的理论化有机会产生。(很难翻译)

In essence, the question we need to consider is whether we are advancing professionally in our theory development.

我们需要考虑的本质问题是,我们在理论发展时是否在推进我们的专业性的。

Paradigms, such as constructivism, which became fashionable in mathematics education over recent decades, tended to dismiss or deny the integrity of fundamental aspects of mathematical and scientific knowledge.

研究范式,例如最近数十年在数学教育中流行的建构主义,倾向于消解和否定数学和科学知识基本面貌的完整性。

In essence, the question we need to consider is whether we are advancing professionally in our theory development. We debate these issues in the next sections.

关于我们需要考虑的本质问题——我们在理论发展时是否在推进我们的专业性的,我们将在下一部分进行讨论。

0

阅读 评论 收藏 转载 喜欢 打印举报/Report
  • 评论加载中,请稍候...
发评论

    发评论

    以上网友发言只代表其个人观点,不代表新浪网的观点或立场。

      

    新浪BLOG意见反馈留言板 电话:4000520066 提示音后按1键(按当地市话标准计费) 欢迎批评指正

    新浪简介 | About Sina | 广告服务 | 联系我们 | 招聘信息 | 网站律师 | SINA English | 会员注册 | 产品答疑

    新浪公司 版权所有