课程批评探析
|
摘要
随着课程研究范式从“开发”转向“理解”,课程研究领域呈现出多元开放的局面,持有不同价值取向的课程研究者通过从不同的社会人文学科中吸收的先进理念与方法对课程这一人文现象进行了深入理解。正是在这样一个多元探究的背景下,部分学者从美学中汲取营养,将“鉴赏”、“艺术批评”等概念引入课程研究领域,运用艺术批评的手法和以人类学的相关方法将课程与艺术品进行类比,对课程的静态文本和动态文本进行解读。1969年,美国课程研究者曼恩(Mann)直接提出“课程批评”概念,将其视为一种美学取向的质性课程评价方法。此后,经过多位学者的发展,课程批评已经成为一种独特的课程研究视角。国外已产生了许多有关其理论及实践的研究成果,但在我国,“课程批评”还是一个陌生而抽象的概念,而且由于“批评”一词的否定性色彩容易导致人们对此概念的误读,因此,笔者认为有必要对“课程批评”进行全面的历史梳理与意义阐释,以此丰富我国课程研究领域的话语体系,为我国课程研究提供新的视角与方法。
本文主要包括九个组成部分：
第一部分,引言。简要介绍本文的研究缘起、目的、意义和研究方法,并对国内外相关研究进行梳理,界定本文中的主要概念。
第二部分,课程批评的产生与发展。该部分将“课程批评”置于课程研究发展的整体脉络中进行历史考察。通过探讨科学化课程研究转向多元化课程理解研究范式的原因,揭示课程批评的产生背景,并介绍课程批评在国外课程研究中的发展,帮助对其概念内涵的理解。
第三部分,课程批评的概念内涵。本部分从解读课程批评的基本假设——“课程即艺术品”入手,分四个方面对其内涵进行了解读,即课程批评是对生活知觉的再教育；课程批评需要以课程鉴赏为基础；课程批评是鼓励反思与创造的过程；课程批评是美学与科学的统一。
第四部分,课程批评的理论基础。该部分主要从现象学、解释学、人类学和批判课程轮四个方面分析课程批评的学科背景和思想基础,以便理解其理论的合理性。
第五部分,课程批评者的角色与素质。该部分从课程批评的内涵中分析出课程批评者必须是富有洞察力的现象观察者；是善用理论知识的意义阐释者；是富有高责任感的价值判断者。其角色决定了他们必须拥有的素质,即必须具有广博的有关批评对象的理论知识和丰富的实践经验；必须对课堂事务具有敏锐的洞察力和有效的分析能力；必须具有优秀的表达能力。
第六部分,课程批评的过程和方法。此部分将课程批评的过程分为课堂观察和批评呈现两个方面,分别介绍了此过程中观察、描述、阐释、评价和主题几个步骤和方法,表明各步骤之间相辅相成的关系。
第七部分,课程批评的效度、推论性及研究伦理。该部分指出课程批评者在实际操作中必须注意的原则与问题,确保课程批评的有效性。
第八部分,课程批评的批评。该部分对课程批评的基本假设和课程批评者的角色定位两方面对课程批评本身进行了反思与批评,以便研究者理性的看待这一独特的研究方法。
第九部分,结语。本部分强调课程研究应保持多元开放的态度,因地制宜的采用恰当的研究方法。并指出本研究的不足以期在今后的研究中加以改进。
With the transformation of curriculum inquiry paradigm from "development mode "to "understanding mode", the field of curriculum study shows diversity and openness to all researchers, who have different values. Those researchers began to absorb advanced ideas and methods of other various Social Science or Humanities to understand the curriculum, which is considered as a kind of cultural phenomenon rather than a set of behaviour control. It is in this context of a pluralistic inquiry, some scholars draw nutrition from the aesthetics. Concepts as "connoisseurship", "art criticism" and so on are borrowed into the field of curriculum studies. These scholars make an analogy between curriculum and art, and use the way of art criticism and methods from anthropology to analyse and understand the "static text" and "dynamic text" of curriculum phenomenon.
In 1969, the U.S.curriculum researcher Mann pointed out the concept "Curriculum Criticism"directly, and regarded it as an aesthetic-oriented qualitative curriculum evaluation method. Since then, a number of scholars began to explicit the method and put it into practice. As the result, curriculum criticism has become a unique perspective of curriculum studies, and many researches on such object have been done at overseas. However, in our country, "Curriculum Criticism," is till a strange and abstract concept for most of persons, and also because of the term "criticism" itself has the negative meaning, it easily leads to misunderstanding on this concept. Therefore, the author believes that there is a urgent need to do a comprehensive study on the concept of "curriculum criticism", so that to enrich our discourse of curriculum and provide a new perspeception and method to do curriculum study. This dissertation includes nine components:
The first part is introduction, which briefly describes the origin, purpose, significance and research methods of this study, and to sort out relevant researches at home and abroad, to define the main concepts in this article.
The second part is about the emergence and development of curriculum criticism. The section places "Curriculum Criticism" in the overall context of curriculum research to see its development process in historical perspection. Through the discussion on the course of transformation of curriculum inquiry paradigm from scientific research mode to diversified understand mode, the background of curriculum criticism will be presented. And to make a better understanding of curriculum criticism, the development status of the curriculum criticism abroad are discussed here.
The third part is about the connotation of curriculum criticism. This part begins at the interpretation of its basic assumption-"curriculum is a work of art", to understand the connotation of curriculum criticism from four aspects, which are considered like this: "curriculum criticism is reeducation of perceptions of life", "curriculum criticism is based on curriculum connoisseurship","curriculum criticism is a process of encouraging reflection and creation" and last, "curriculum criticism is a unity of aesthetics and science".
The fourth part is about the theoretical basis of curriculum criticism. This part discusses the academic background and ideological foundation of curriculum criticism from phenomenology, hermeneutics, anthropology and critical curriculum theory to understand the rationality of curriculum criticism itself.
The fifth part talks about the role and quality of curriculum critics. The author believes that the curriculum critics should be an observer with rich insight of curriculum phenomenon, a meaning interpreter with good use of theory and a responsible man who would do the value judgement. In order to behave well their role, curriculum critics should have extensive knowledge and practical experience of the subject, should be insightful to the classroom affairs and analyse those affairs effectively, and also should have excellent communication skills.
The sixth part is about the process and methods of curriculum criticism. The whole process are divided int two parts. The first is classroom observation, which is to do data gathering. The second is the presentation of criticism, which including description, interpretation, evaluation and making themes.
The seventh part is something about the validity, generalizability and research ethics of curriculum criticism. To ensure the effectiveness of curriculum criticism, some principles and issues are emphasized here.
The eighth part is the critique on curriculum criticism itself. The critiques are focus on two aspects. The one is on the basic assumption of curriculum criticism, and the other is on the role of curriculum critics. These critiques are hoped to make researchers see the curriculum criticism more comprehensively and intelligibly.
The ninth part is the conclusion. Suggestions have been made to consider the curriculum criticism comprehensively and intelligibly and to study the curriculum issues with multiple methods according to the local condition.
本文主要包括九个组成部分：
第一部分,引言。简要介绍本文的研究缘起、目的、意义和研究方法,并对国内外相关研究进行梳理,界定本文中的主要概念。
第二部分,课程批评的产生与发展。该部分将“课程批评”置于课程研究发展的整体脉络中进行历史考察。通过探讨科学化课程研究转向多元化课程理解研究范式的原因,揭示课程批评的产生背景,并介绍课程批评在国外课程研究中的发展,帮助对其概念内涵的理解。
第三部分,课程批评的概念内涵。本部分从解读课程批评的基本假设——“课程即艺术品”入手,分四个方面对其内涵进行了解读,即课程批评是对生活知觉的再教育；课程批评需要以课程鉴赏为基础；课程批评是鼓励反思与创造的过程；课程批评是美学与科学的统一。
第四部分,课程批评的理论基础。该部分主要从现象学、解释学、人类学和批判课程轮四个方面分析课程批评的学科背景和思想基础,以便理解其理论的合理性。
第五部分,课程批评者的角色与素质。该部分从课程批评的内涵中分析出课程批评者必须是富有洞察力的现象观察者；是善用理论知识的意义阐释者；是富有高责任感的价值判断者。其角色决定了他们必须拥有的素质,即必须具有广博的有关批评对象的理论知识和丰富的实践经验；必须对课堂事务具有敏锐的洞察力和有效的分析能力；必须具有优秀的表达能力。
第六部分,课程批评的过程和方法。此部分将课程批评的过程分为课堂观察和批评呈现两个方面,分别介绍了此过程中观察、描述、阐释、评价和主题几个步骤和方法,表明各步骤之间相辅相成的关系。
第七部分,课程批评的效度、推论性及研究伦理。该部分指出课程批评者在实际操作中必须注意的原则与问题,确保课程批评的有效性。
第八部分,课程批评的批评。该部分对课程批评的基本假设和课程批评者的角色定位两方面对课程批评本身进行了反思与批评,以便研究者理性的看待这一独特的研究方法。
第九部分,结语。本部分强调课程研究应保持多元开放的态度,因地制宜的采用恰当的研究方法。并指出本研究的不足以期在今后的研究中加以改进。
With the transformation of curriculum inquiry paradigm from "development mode "to "understanding mode", the field of curriculum study shows diversity and openness to all researchers, who have different values. Those researchers began to absorb advanced ideas and methods of other various Social Science or Humanities to understand the curriculum, which is considered as a kind of cultural phenomenon rather than a set of behaviour control. It is in this context of a pluralistic inquiry, some scholars draw nutrition from the aesthetics. Concepts as "connoisseurship", "art criticism" and so on are borrowed into the field of curriculum studies. These scholars make an analogy between curriculum and art, and use the way of art criticism and methods from anthropology to analyse and understand the "static text" and "dynamic text" of curriculum phenomenon.
In 1969, the U.S.curriculum researcher Mann pointed out the concept "Curriculum Criticism"directly, and regarded it as an aesthetic-oriented qualitative curriculum evaluation method. Since then, a number of scholars began to explicit the method and put it into practice. As the result, curriculum criticism has become a unique perspective of curriculum studies, and many researches on such object have been done at overseas. However, in our country, "Curriculum Criticism," is till a strange and abstract concept for most of persons, and also because of the term "criticism" itself has the negative meaning, it easily leads to misunderstanding on this concept. Therefore, the author believes that there is a urgent need to do a comprehensive study on the concept of "curriculum criticism", so that to enrich our discourse of curriculum and provide a new perspeception and method to do curriculum study. This dissertation includes nine components:
The first part is introduction, which briefly describes the origin, purpose, significance and research methods of this study, and to sort out relevant researches at home and abroad, to define the main concepts in this article.
The second part is about the emergence and development of curriculum criticism. The section places "Curriculum Criticism" in the overall context of curriculum research to see its development process in historical perspection. Through the discussion on the course of transformation of curriculum inquiry paradigm from scientific research mode to diversified understand mode, the background of curriculum criticism will be presented. And to make a better understanding of curriculum criticism, the development status of the curriculum criticism abroad are discussed here.
The third part is about the connotation of curriculum criticism. This part begins at the interpretation of its basic assumption-"curriculum is a work of art", to understand the connotation of curriculum criticism from four aspects, which are considered like this: "curriculum criticism is reeducation of perceptions of life", "curriculum criticism is based on curriculum connoisseurship","curriculum criticism is a process of encouraging reflection and creation" and last, "curriculum criticism is a unity of aesthetics and science".
The fourth part is about the theoretical basis of curriculum criticism. This part discusses the academic background and ideological foundation of curriculum criticism from phenomenology, hermeneutics, anthropology and critical curriculum theory to understand the rationality of curriculum criticism itself.
The fifth part talks about the role and quality of curriculum critics. The author believes that the curriculum critics should be an observer with rich insight of curriculum phenomenon, a meaning interpreter with good use of theory and a responsible man who would do the value judgement. In order to behave well their role, curriculum critics should have extensive knowledge and practical experience of the subject, should be insightful to the classroom affairs and analyse those affairs effectively, and also should have excellent communication skills.
The sixth part is about the process and methods of curriculum criticism. The whole process are divided int two parts. The first is classroom observation, which is to do data gathering. The second is the presentation of criticism, which including description, interpretation, evaluation and making themes.
The seventh part is something about the validity, generalizability and research ethics of curriculum criticism. To ensure the effectiveness of curriculum criticism, some principles and issues are emphasized here.
The eighth part is the critique on curriculum criticism itself. The critiques are focus on two aspects. The one is on the basic assumption of curriculum criticism, and the other is on the role of curriculum critics. These critiques are hoped to make researchers see the curriculum criticism more comprehensively and intelligibly.
The ninth part is the conclusion. Suggestions have been made to consider the curriculum criticism comprehensively and intelligibly and to study the curriculum issues with multiple methods according to the local condition.
引文
①金志远.课程批评：课程研究的一个盲点[J].当代教育科学.2008,(13)：23-26.
②胡新林.课程批评的隐忧[J].教育科学研究,2005.(2)：62.
①王德胜.扩张与危机[M].北京：中国社会科学出版社,1998：23.
②李雁冰.质性课程评价研究[D].上海：华东师范大学.2000：39.
③张韵,吕晓.课程美学探究取向发展述评[J].重庆文理学院学报.2007(1)：102-105.
①张华等著：课程流派研究[M].山东教育出版社,2000,94-95.
①汪霞.课程研究：从现代到后现代[D].上海：华东师范大学,2002：26-32.
②汪霞.课程研究：从现代到后现代[D].上海：华东师范大学,2002：26-32.
③黄嘉熊.转型社会结构的课程理论：课程社会学的观点[M].师大书苑,2000：36.
① Westbury, I.,& Wildof. H. J. (Eds.).Science, Curriculum and Liberarl Education[M]. University of Chicago Press:287.
② Pinar. W. F. Autobiography, Politics and Sexuality[[M]. New York:Peter Lang Publishing, Inc.,1994:63.
①张华著.《课程与教学论》[M].上海教育出版社,2000：25.
② Klohr, P. The Curriculum Theory Field Gritty and Ragged Curriculum Perspectives,1980,1(1):3.
②黄清,靳玉乐.质的课程研究方法论评析[J].课程·教材·教法,2004,(5)：34.
① Schwab, J.J. The Practical:A Language for Curriculum[J]. School Review,1969:(78):1-23.
② Huebner, D. Curriculum Language and Classroom Meanings[A]. Macdonald, J. B.& Leeper, R. R. (eds.). Language and Meaning[C]. Stanford University,1974:14-15,17,19.
① Huebner, D. Curricular Language and Classroom Meanings[A]. Macdonald, J. B.& Leeper, R. R. (eds.) Language and Meaning[C]. Washington:A.S.C.D.1996:32.
① Westbury, I. Curriculum Evaluation[J]. Review of Educational Research,1970:(40):239.
② Kelly, E. F. Curriculum Ecaluation and Literary Criticism:the Explication of an Anology[M]. New York:Center for Instructional Development,1973:75.
③ Kaufman, M. The Aesthetic Mode of Inquiry[D]. Columbia University,1970:58-72.
④ Greer, W. D. The Curriculum of Teaching[D]. Stanford University,1974:62-68.
⑤ Vallance, E. Aesthetic Criticism and Curriculum Description[D]. Stanford University,1975:34-41.
① Vallance, E. The Critic's Perspective:Some Strengths and Limitations of Aesthetic Criticism in Education[R]. Los Angeles: American Education Research Association,1981:4.
②张韵.吕晓.课程美学探究取向发展述评[J].重庆文理学院学报,2007,(1)：104.
①夏征农等主编.辞海(上)[M].上海：上海辞书出版社.1979.“批”见第1534页；”评”见第881页.
②吕叔湘等主编.现代汉语词典[M].北京：商务印书馆.1973：775.
③ Eisner, E. W. The Enlightened Eye:Qualitative Inquiry and the Enhancement of Educational Practiece[M]. New York: Macmillan,1991:132.
①王秀雄.美术心理学[M].台北市立图书馆,1993：44-47
② Eisner, E. W. The Enlightened Eye:Qualitative Inquiry and the Enhancement of Educational Practiece[M]. New York: Macmillan,1991:154.
②杜威著.高建平译.艺术即经验[M].北京：商务印书馆.2005：298.
①杜威著.高建平译.艺术即经验[M].北京：商务印书馆.2005：298
② Vallance, E. The Critic's Perspective:Some Strengths and Limitations of Aesthetic Criticism in Education[R].Los Angeles: American Education Research Association,1981:10.
③ Eisner, E. The Perceptive Eye:toward the Reformation of Educational Evaluation[R]. Los Angeles:American Education Research Association,1975:13.
① Mann, J.S. Curriculum Criticism[J]. Teachers College Record,1969:10-27.
①朱光明.透视教育现象学——论教育现象学研究的三个基本问题[J].外国教育研究,2007,(11)：1-6
②朱光明,陈向明.教育叙述探究与现象学研究之比较[J].北京大学教育评论,2008,(1)：71-78.
①朱光明,陈向明.教育叙述探究与现象学研究之比较[J].北京大学教育评论,2008,(1)：71-78.
②朱光明,陈向明.理解教育现象学的研究方法[J].外国教育研究,2006,(11)：1-6.
①伽达默尔著.现象学的方法[M].倪梁康译.上海：上海译文出版社.1994：213.
②金生鈜.理解与教育——走向哲学解释学的教育哲学导论[M].北京：教育科学出版社,1997：130.
③严平.走向解释学的真理——伽达默尔哲学述评[M].北京：东方出版社.1998：129-131.
④ Habermas. J. Knoledge and Human Interests[M]. London:Heinemann,1972:208.
①佐藤学.课程与教师[M].钟启泉译.北京：教育科学出版社,2003：72.
②威廉·维尔斯曼.教育研究方法导论[M].北京：教育科学出版社,1997：134.
③陈向明.质的研究方法与社会科学研究[M].北京：教育科学出版社.2001：13.
④陈向明.质的研究方法与社会科学研究[M].北京：教育科学出版社.2001：13.
⑤黄清.论质的课程研究[D].重庆：西南大学,2004：17
①张华.美国当代批判课程理论初探[J].外国教育资料,1998,(2)：18-21.
②谢登斌.西方批判课程理论试探[J].广西师范大学学报(社科版),2003,(4)：72-74.
③ Habermas J.Knowledge and Human Interests[M].London:Heinemann,1972:314.
① Donmoyer, B. The Evaluator as Artist:A Discussion of Premises and Problems with Examples from Two Aesthetically-based Evaluations[A]. Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association[C]. San Francisco, California,1979:8-12.
① Willis,G Qualitative Evaluation[M]. McCutchan Publishing Corporation,1978:12.
② Willis,G. Qualitative Evaluation[M]. McCutchan Publishing Corporation,1978:32-36.
① Eisner, E. W. Toward a Conceptual Revolution in Evaluation[J]. Educational Forum.1980.3(44):373-374.
② Mann, J. S. Curriculum Criticism[J]. Teachers College Recard.1969.9(71):27-40.
③ Ross, D. D. Ms. Shore's Classroom:A Curriculum Criticism[R]. New York, American Educational Research Association.1981:412.
① Me Cutcheon, G W. Educational Criticism:Methods and Application[J]. Journal of Curriculum Theorizing. 1979.1:5-31.
② Eisner, E. W. On the Uses of Educational Connoisseurship and Criticism for Evaluation Classroom Life[J]. Teachers College Record.1977.2(78):345-358.
③ Kyle, E. F. Curriculum Evaluation and Literary Criticism:Comments on the Analogy[J]. Curriculum Theory Network.1975.5(2):87-106.
① Eisner, E. W. The Educational Imagination[M]. New York:Macmillan.1979:231.
② Vallance, E. Scanning Horisons and Looking at Weeds[A]. Qualitative Evaluation[C]. Berkeley:McCutchan Cor poration,1978:144.
③ McCutcheon, G. On the Interpretation of Classroom Observations[J]. Educational Researcher.1981.5(10):5-10.
① Kyle, D. W. Curriculum Decisions:Who Decides What[J]. Elementary School Journal.1980.11:77-85.
② Geertz, C. The Interpretation of Cultures[M]. New York:Basic Books,1973:34-36.
③ McCutcheon, G. W On the Interpretation of Classroom Observations[J]. Educational Researcher.1981.5(10):5-10.
① McCutcheon, G. W. A Conflict of Interests:An Educational Criticism of Mr. Willian's Fourth Grade[J]. Journal of Curriculum Theorizing.1979.1:5-31.
② McCutcheon, G. W. A Conflict of Interests:An Educational Criticism of Mr. Willian's Fourth Grade[J]. Journal of Curriculum Theorizing.1979.11.
③ Cornbleth, C. Inquiry Theory and Social Studies Curricula:Problems in Planning for Thinking[R]. Toronto. Annual Meeting of th American Educational Research Association.1978:93-95.
④ McCutcheon, G. W.On the Interpretation of Classroom Observations[J]. Educational Researcher.1981.5(10):199-200.
⑤ Ross, D. D. Piaget:Practical Applications in Public School Settings[R]. Los Angeles, Annual Meetings of the USC-UAP International Interdisciplinary Conference on Piaget and the Helping Professions.1979.
① Barone, T. E. Effectively Critiquing the Experienced Curriculum:Clues from the New Journalism[J]. Curriculum Inquiry.1980.10:29-53.
② Willis, G. Qualitative Evaluation:Concepts and Cases in Curriculum Criticism[M]. Berkeley, CA:McCutchan.1978: 87-89.
①埃利奥特·W.艾斯纳著,教育想象——学校课程设置与评价[M].李雁冰主译.北京：教育科学出版社,2008：98-103.
②埃利奥特·W.艾斯纳著,教育想象——学校课程设置与评价[M].李雁冰主译.北京：教育科学出版社,2008：321-323.
①埃利奥特·W.艾斯纳著,教育想象——学校课程设置与评价[M].李雁冰主译.北京：教育科学出版社,2008：352-353.
②埃利奥特·W.艾斯纳著,教育想象——学校课程设置与评价[M].李雁冰主译.北京：教育科学出版社,2008：357.
①埃利奥特·W.艾斯纳著,教育想象——学校课程设置与评价[M].李雁冰主译,北京：教育科学出版社,2008：360-361.
① Eisner, E.W. Toward a Conceptual Revolution in Evaluation[J]. Educational Forum.1980.3(44):373-374.
② Eisner, E.W. Toward a Conceptual Revolution in Evaluation[J]. Educational Forum.1980.3(44):378-379.
③ Eisner, E.W. Toward a Conceptual Revolution in Evaluation[J]. Educational Forum.1980.3(44):378-279.
① Eisner, E. W. Toward a Conceptual Revolution in Evaluation[J]. Educational Forum.1980.3(44):373-374.
[1]埃利奥特·W艾斯纳著.教育想象——学校课程设置与评价[M].李雁冰主译.北京：教育科学出版社,2008.
[2]陈向明.质的研究方法与社会科学研究[M].北京：教育科学出版社,2000.
[3]杜威著.艺术即经验[M].高建平译.商务印书馆,2005.
[4]胡敬署等主编.文学百科大辞典[M].北京：华龄出版社,1991.
[5]黄嘉熊.转型社会结构的课程理论：课程社会学的观点[M].师大书苑,2000.
[6]伽达默尔著.现象学的方法[M].倪梁康译.上海：上海译文出版社,1994.
[7]金生鈜.理解与教育——走向哲学解释学的教育哲学导论[M].北京：教育科学出版社,1997.
[8]廖哲勋,田慧生.课程新论[M].北京：教育科学出版社,2003.
[9]李雁冰.课程评价论[M].上海：上海教育出版社,2002.
[10]吕叔湘等主编.现代汉语词典[M].北京：商务印书馆,1973.
[11]彭银祥.世纪之交的教育批评[M].长沙：湖南师范大学出版社,2000.
[12]王德胜.扩张与危机[M].北京：中国社会科学出版社,1998.
[13]王秀雄.美术心理学[M].台北：台北市立图书馆,1993.
[14]威廉·维尔斯曼.教育研究方法导论[M].北京：教育科学出版社,1997.
[15]吴国盛.科学的历程[M].北京：北京大学出版社,2002.
[16]吴永军.课程社会学[M].江苏：南京师大出版社,1999.
[17]夏征农等主编.辞海(上)[M].上海：上海辞书出版社,1979.
[18]严平.走向解释学的真理——伽达默尔哲学述评[M].北京：东方出版社,1998.
[19]佐藤学.课程与教师[M].钟启泉译.北京：教育科学出版社,2003.
[20]张华著.课程与教学论[M].上海：上海教育出版社,2000.
[21]张华等著.课程流派研究[M].济南：山东教育出版社,2000.
[22]张华.经验课程论[M].上海：上海教育出版社,2001.
[23]赵敦华.西方哲学简史[M].北京：北京大学出版社,2001.
[24]黄清.论质的课程研究[D].重庆：西南大学,2004.
[25]李雁冰.质性课程评价研究[D].上海：华东师范大学,2000.
[26]汪霞.课程研究：从现代到后现代[D].上海：华东师范大学,2002.
[27]陈向明.理论在教师专业发展中的作用[J].北京大学教育评论,2008,(1)：32.
[28]程良宏,李雁冰.教学生成：为了学生的精彩观念和幸福生活[J].全球教育展望,2007,(3)：45-47.
[29]程良宏.控制性教学[J].全球教育展望,2008,(4)：33.
[30瑚新林.课程批评的隐忧[J].教育科学研究,2005,(2)：62.
[31]黄甫全.课程理想与课程评价—世纪之交对课程评价指标体系构建的文化思考[J].华南师范大学学报(社科版),1996,(6)：34.
[32]黄清,靳玉乐.质的课程研究方法论评析[J].课程·教材·教法,2004,(5)：34.
[33]江山野.课程理论中的一个基本问题[J].课程·教材·教法,1993,(11)：41.
[34]金志远.课程批评：课程研究的一个盲点[J].当代教育科学,2008,(13)：23-26.
[35]刘宇.课程与教师：变革时代的关系重建[J].教育发展研究,2008,(5)：12-15.
[36]鲁洁.超越性的存在——兼析病态适应的教育[J].华东师范大学学报(教科版),2007,(4)：37-39.
[37]李有发.课程评价与课程改革[J].外国教育动态,1988：(6)：28-30.
[38]马云鹏.如何理解课程与课程评价[J].现代中小学教育,1997,(5)：44.
[39]汪段.评价、课程评价的几个问题[J].外国教育资料,1995,(3)：31.
[40]吴刚平.课程意识及其向课程行为的转化[J].教育理论与实践,2003,(9)：18-21.
[41]吴永军.课程评价的社会学分析[J].教育评价,1995,(5)：30-32.
[42]谢登斌.西方批判课程理论试探[J].广西师范大学学报(社科版),2003,(4)：72-74.
[43]叶飞.批判思维与当前教育学研究的范式转换[J].教育研究与实验,2008,(1)：53-55.
[44]张华.美国当代批判课程理论初探[J].外国教育资料,1998,(2)：18-21.
[45]张廷凯.课程研究要推进课程改革—兼论当前课程研究的几个重要问题[J].课程·教材·教法,1993,(6)：51-52.
[46]张行涛.课程评价的社会学概观[J].教育研究与实验,1999,(2)：63-65.
[47]张韵,吕晓.课程美学探究取向发展述评[J].重庆文理学院学报,2007,(1)：104.
[48]朱光明.透视教育现象学——论教育现象学研究的三个基本问题[J].外国教育研究,2007,(11)：1-6.
[49]朱光明,陈向明.理解教育现象学的研究方法[J].外国教育研究,2006,(11)：1-6.
[50]朱光明,陈向明.教育叙述探究与现象学研究之比较[J].北京大学教育评论,2008,(1)：71-78.
[1]Barone, T. E. Effectively Critiquing the Experienced Curriculum:Clues from the New Journalism[J]. Curriculum Inquiry.1980.10:29-53.
[2]Cornbleth, C. Inquiry Theory and Social Studies Curricula:Problems in Planning for Thinking[R]. Toronto. Annual Meeting of th American Educational Research Association. 1978.
[3]Donmoyer, B. The Evaluator as Artist : A Discussion of Premises and Problems with Examples from Two Aesthetically-based Evaluations[A]. Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association[C]. San Francisco, California,1979:8-12.
[4]Eisner, E. W. On the Uses of Educational Connoisseurship and Criticism forEvaluation Classroom Life[J]. Teachers College Record.1977.2(78):345-358.
[5]Eisner, E. W. The Enlightened Eye:Qualitative Inquiry and the Enhancement of Educational Practiece[M]. New York:Macmillan,1991.
[6]Eisner, E. W. The Perceptive Eye:toward the Reformation of Educational Evaluation[R]. Los Angeles:American Education Research Association,1975:13.
[7]Eisner, E. W. The Educational Imagination[M]. New York:Macmillan.1979:231.
[8]Eisner, E.W. Toward a Conceptual Revolution in Evaluation[J]. Educational Forum.1980. 3(44):373-374.
[9]Geertz, C. The Interpretation of Cultures[M]. New York:Basic Books,1973:34-36.
[10]Greer, W. D. The Curriculum of Teaching[D]. Stanford University,1974.
[11]Huebner, D. Curriculum Language and Classroom Meanings[A]. Macdonald, J. B.& Leeper, R. R. (eds.). Language and Meaning[C]. Stanford University,1974:14-15,17,19.
[12]Huebner, D. Curricular Language and Classroom Meanings[A]. Macdonald, J. B.& Leeper, R. R. (eds.) Langrage and Meaning[C]. Washington:A.S.C.D.1996.
[13]Habermas J. Knowledge and Human Interests[M]. London:Heinemann,1972:314.
[14]Kaufman, M. The Aesthetic Mode of Inquiry[D]. Columbia University,1970.
[15]Kelly, E. F. Curriculum Ecaluation and Literary Criticism:the Explication of an Anology[M]. New York:Center for Instructional Development,1973.
[16]Klohr, P. The Curriculum Theory Field:Gritty and Ragged. Curriculum Perspectives,1980,1(1):3.
[17]Kyle, D. W. Curriculum Decisions:Who Decides What[J]. Elementary School Journal.1980.11:77-85.
[18]Kyle, E. F. Curriculum Evaluation and Literary Criticism:Comments on the Analogy[J]. Curriculum Theory Network.1975.5(2):87-106.
[19]Mann, J. S. Curriculum Criticism[J]. Curriculum Theory Network,1969.69:2-14.
[20]McCutcheon, G. W. A Conflict of Interests:An Educational Criticism of Mr. Willian's Fourth Grade[J]. Journal of Curriculum Theorizing.1979.1:5-31.
[21]Mc Cutcheon, G. W. Educational Criticism:Methods and Application[J]. Journal of Curriculum Theorizing.1979.1:5-31.
[22]McCutcheon, G. W. On the Interpretation of Classroom Observations[J]. Educational
Researcher.1981.5(10):5-10.
[23]McCutcheon, G. W.On the Interpretation of Classroom Observations[J]. Educational Researcher.1981.5(10):199-200.
[24]Pinar. W. F. Autobiography, Politics and Sexuality[[M]. New York:Peter Lang Publishing, Inc.,1994:63.
[25]Pina, W. F. Curriculum Theorizing-the Reconceptualists[M]. Berkeley:McCutchan, 1975:175-178.
[26]Ross, D. D. Ms. Shore's Classroom:A Curriculum Criticism[R]. New York,American Educational Research Association.1981.
[27]Ross, D. D. Piaget:Practical Applications in Public School Settings[R]. Los Angeles, Annual Meetings of the USC-UAP International Interdisciplinary Conference on Piaget and the Helping Professions.1979.
[28]Schwab, J. J. The Practical:A Language for Curriculum[J]. School Review,1969:(78): 1-23.
[29]Vallance, E. Aesthetic Criticism and Curriculum Description[D]. Stanford University, 1975.
[30]Vallance, E. Scanning Horisons and Looking at Weeds[A]. Qualitative Evaluation[C]. Berkeley:McCutchan Corporation,1978:144.
[31]Vallance, E. The Critic's Perspective:Some Strengths and Limitations of Aesthetic Criticism in Education[R]. Los Angeles:American Education Research Association,1981:4.
[32]Vallance, E. The Critic's Perspective:Some Strengths and Limitations of Aesthetic Criticism in Education[R].Los Angeles:American Education ResearchAssociation,1981: 10.
[33]Westbury, I. Curriculum Evaluation[J]. Review of Educational Research,1970:(40):239.
[34]Westbury, I.,& Wildof. H. J. (Eds.). Science, Curriculum and Liberarl Education[M]. University of Chicago Press:287.
[35]Will, G. Curriculum Criticism and Literary Criticism[J]. The Journal of Curriculum Studies,1975.5:32.
[36]Willis, G. Qualitative Evaluation:Concepts and Cases in Curriculum Criticism[M]. Berkeley, CA:McCutchan.1978.
②胡新林.课程批评的隐忧[J].教育科学研究,2005.(2)：62.
①王德胜.扩张与危机[M].北京：中国社会科学出版社,1998：23.
②李雁冰.质性课程评价研究[D].上海：华东师范大学.2000：39.
③张韵,吕晓.课程美学探究取向发展述评[J].重庆文理学院学报.2007(1)：102-105.
①张华等著：课程流派研究[M].山东教育出版社,2000,94-95.
①汪霞.课程研究：从现代到后现代[D].上海：华东师范大学,2002：26-32.
②汪霞.课程研究：从现代到后现代[D].上海：华东师范大学,2002：26-32.
③黄嘉熊.转型社会结构的课程理论：课程社会学的观点[M].师大书苑,2000：36.
① Westbury, I.,& Wildof. H. J. (Eds.).Science, Curriculum and Liberarl Education[M]. University of Chicago Press:287.
② Pinar. W. F. Autobiography, Politics and Sexuality[[M]. New York:Peter Lang Publishing, Inc.,1994:63.
①张华著.《课程与教学论》[M].上海教育出版社,2000：25.
② Klohr, P. The Curriculum Theory Field Gritty and Ragged Curriculum Perspectives,1980,1(1):3.
②黄清,靳玉乐.质的课程研究方法论评析[J].课程·教材·教法,2004,(5)：34.
① Schwab, J.J. The Practical:A Language for Curriculum[J]. School Review,1969:(78):1-23.
② Huebner, D. Curriculum Language and Classroom Meanings[A]. Macdonald, J. B.& Leeper, R. R. (eds.). Language and Meaning[C]. Stanford University,1974:14-15,17,19.
① Huebner, D. Curricular Language and Classroom Meanings[A]. Macdonald, J. B.& Leeper, R. R. (eds.) Language and Meaning[C]. Washington:A.S.C.D.1996:32.
① Westbury, I. Curriculum Evaluation[J]. Review of Educational Research,1970:(40):239.
② Kelly, E. F. Curriculum Ecaluation and Literary Criticism:the Explication of an Anology[M]. New York:Center for Instructional Development,1973:75.
③ Kaufman, M. The Aesthetic Mode of Inquiry[D]. Columbia University,1970:58-72.
④ Greer, W. D. The Curriculum of Teaching[D]. Stanford University,1974:62-68.
⑤ Vallance, E. Aesthetic Criticism and Curriculum Description[D]. Stanford University,1975:34-41.
① Vallance, E. The Critic's Perspective:Some Strengths and Limitations of Aesthetic Criticism in Education[R]. Los Angeles: American Education Research Association,1981:4.
②张韵.吕晓.课程美学探究取向发展述评[J].重庆文理学院学报,2007,(1)：104.
①夏征农等主编.辞海(上)[M].上海：上海辞书出版社.1979.“批”见第1534页；”评”见第881页.
②吕叔湘等主编.现代汉语词典[M].北京：商务印书馆.1973：775.
③ Eisner, E. W. The Enlightened Eye:Qualitative Inquiry and the Enhancement of Educational Practiece[M]. New York: Macmillan,1991:132.
①王秀雄.美术心理学[M].台北市立图书馆,1993：44-47
② Eisner, E. W. The Enlightened Eye:Qualitative Inquiry and the Enhancement of Educational Practiece[M]. New York: Macmillan,1991:154.
②杜威著.高建平译.艺术即经验[M].北京：商务印书馆.2005：298.
①杜威著.高建平译.艺术即经验[M].北京：商务印书馆.2005：298
② Vallance, E. The Critic's Perspective:Some Strengths and Limitations of Aesthetic Criticism in Education[R].Los Angeles: American Education Research Association,1981:10.
③ Eisner, E. The Perceptive Eye:toward the Reformation of Educational Evaluation[R]. Los Angeles:American Education Research Association,1975:13.
① Mann, J.S. Curriculum Criticism[J]. Teachers College Record,1969:10-27.
①朱光明.透视教育现象学——论教育现象学研究的三个基本问题[J].外国教育研究,2007,(11)：1-6
②朱光明,陈向明.教育叙述探究与现象学研究之比较[J].北京大学教育评论,2008,(1)：71-78.
①朱光明,陈向明.教育叙述探究与现象学研究之比较[J].北京大学教育评论,2008,(1)：71-78.
②朱光明,陈向明.理解教育现象学的研究方法[J].外国教育研究,2006,(11)：1-6.
①伽达默尔著.现象学的方法[M].倪梁康译.上海：上海译文出版社.1994：213.
②金生鈜.理解与教育——走向哲学解释学的教育哲学导论[M].北京：教育科学出版社,1997：130.
③严平.走向解释学的真理——伽达默尔哲学述评[M].北京：东方出版社.1998：129-131.
④ Habermas. J. Knoledge and Human Interests[M]. London:Heinemann,1972:208.
①佐藤学.课程与教师[M].钟启泉译.北京：教育科学出版社,2003：72.
②威廉·维尔斯曼.教育研究方法导论[M].北京：教育科学出版社,1997：134.
③陈向明.质的研究方法与社会科学研究[M].北京：教育科学出版社.2001：13.
④陈向明.质的研究方法与社会科学研究[M].北京：教育科学出版社.2001：13.
⑤黄清.论质的课程研究[D].重庆：西南大学,2004：17
①张华.美国当代批判课程理论初探[J].外国教育资料,1998,(2)：18-21.
②谢登斌.西方批判课程理论试探[J].广西师范大学学报(社科版),2003,(4)：72-74.
③ Habermas J.Knowledge and Human Interests[M].London:Heinemann,1972:314.
① Donmoyer, B. The Evaluator as Artist:A Discussion of Premises and Problems with Examples from Two Aesthetically-based Evaluations[A]. Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association[C]. San Francisco, California,1979:8-12.
① Willis,G Qualitative Evaluation[M]. McCutchan Publishing Corporation,1978:12.
② Willis,G. Qualitative Evaluation[M]. McCutchan Publishing Corporation,1978:32-36.
① Eisner, E. W. Toward a Conceptual Revolution in Evaluation[J]. Educational Forum.1980.3(44):373-374.
② Mann, J. S. Curriculum Criticism[J]. Teachers College Recard.1969.9(71):27-40.
③ Ross, D. D. Ms. Shore's Classroom:A Curriculum Criticism[R]. New York, American Educational Research Association.1981:412.
① Me Cutcheon, G W. Educational Criticism:Methods and Application[J]. Journal of Curriculum Theorizing. 1979.1:5-31.
② Eisner, E. W. On the Uses of Educational Connoisseurship and Criticism for Evaluation Classroom Life[J]. Teachers College Record.1977.2(78):345-358.
③ Kyle, E. F. Curriculum Evaluation and Literary Criticism:Comments on the Analogy[J]. Curriculum Theory Network.1975.5(2):87-106.
① Eisner, E. W. The Educational Imagination[M]. New York:Macmillan.1979:231.
② Vallance, E. Scanning Horisons and Looking at Weeds[A]. Qualitative Evaluation[C]. Berkeley:McCutchan Cor poration,1978:144.
③ McCutcheon, G. On the Interpretation of Classroom Observations[J]. Educational Researcher.1981.5(10):5-10.
① Kyle, D. W. Curriculum Decisions:Who Decides What[J]. Elementary School Journal.1980.11:77-85.
② Geertz, C. The Interpretation of Cultures[M]. New York:Basic Books,1973:34-36.
③ McCutcheon, G. W On the Interpretation of Classroom Observations[J]. Educational Researcher.1981.5(10):5-10.
① McCutcheon, G. W. A Conflict of Interests:An Educational Criticism of Mr. Willian's Fourth Grade[J]. Journal of Curriculum Theorizing.1979.1:5-31.
② McCutcheon, G. W. A Conflict of Interests:An Educational Criticism of Mr. Willian's Fourth Grade[J]. Journal of Curriculum Theorizing.1979.11.
③ Cornbleth, C. Inquiry Theory and Social Studies Curricula:Problems in Planning for Thinking[R]. Toronto. Annual Meeting of th American Educational Research Association.1978:93-95.
④ McCutcheon, G. W.On the Interpretation of Classroom Observations[J]. Educational Researcher.1981.5(10):199-200.
⑤ Ross, D. D. Piaget:Practical Applications in Public School Settings[R]. Los Angeles, Annual Meetings of the USC-UAP International Interdisciplinary Conference on Piaget and the Helping Professions.1979.
① Barone, T. E. Effectively Critiquing the Experienced Curriculum:Clues from the New Journalism[J]. Curriculum Inquiry.1980.10:29-53.
② Willis, G. Qualitative Evaluation:Concepts and Cases in Curriculum Criticism[M]. Berkeley, CA:McCutchan.1978: 87-89.
①埃利奥特·W.艾斯纳著,教育想象——学校课程设置与评价[M].李雁冰主译.北京：教育科学出版社,2008：98-103.
②埃利奥特·W.艾斯纳著,教育想象——学校课程设置与评价[M].李雁冰主译.北京：教育科学出版社,2008：321-323.
①埃利奥特·W.艾斯纳著,教育想象——学校课程设置与评价[M].李雁冰主译.北京：教育科学出版社,2008：352-353.
②埃利奥特·W.艾斯纳著,教育想象——学校课程设置与评价[M].李雁冰主译.北京：教育科学出版社,2008：357.
①埃利奥特·W.艾斯纳著,教育想象——学校课程设置与评价[M].李雁冰主译,北京：教育科学出版社,2008：360-361.
① Eisner, E.W. Toward a Conceptual Revolution in Evaluation[J]. Educational Forum.1980.3(44):373-374.
② Eisner, E.W. Toward a Conceptual Revolution in Evaluation[J]. Educational Forum.1980.3(44):378-379.
③ Eisner, E.W. Toward a Conceptual Revolution in Evaluation[J]. Educational Forum.1980.3(44):378-279.
① Eisner, E. W. Toward a Conceptual Revolution in Evaluation[J]. Educational Forum.1980.3(44):373-374.
[1]埃利奥特·W艾斯纳著.教育想象——学校课程设置与评价[M].李雁冰主译.北京：教育科学出版社,2008.
[2]陈向明.质的研究方法与社会科学研究[M].北京：教育科学出版社,2000.
[3]杜威著.艺术即经验[M].高建平译.商务印书馆,2005.
[4]胡敬署等主编.文学百科大辞典[M].北京：华龄出版社,1991.
[5]黄嘉熊.转型社会结构的课程理论：课程社会学的观点[M].师大书苑,2000.
[6]伽达默尔著.现象学的方法[M].倪梁康译.上海：上海译文出版社,1994.
[7]金生鈜.理解与教育——走向哲学解释学的教育哲学导论[M].北京：教育科学出版社,1997.
[8]廖哲勋,田慧生.课程新论[M].北京：教育科学出版社,2003.
[9]李雁冰.课程评价论[M].上海：上海教育出版社,2002.
[10]吕叔湘等主编.现代汉语词典[M].北京：商务印书馆,1973.
[11]彭银祥.世纪之交的教育批评[M].长沙：湖南师范大学出版社,2000.
[12]王德胜.扩张与危机[M].北京：中国社会科学出版社,1998.
[13]王秀雄.美术心理学[M].台北：台北市立图书馆,1993.
[14]威廉·维尔斯曼.教育研究方法导论[M].北京：教育科学出版社,1997.
[15]吴国盛.科学的历程[M].北京：北京大学出版社,2002.
[16]吴永军.课程社会学[M].江苏：南京师大出版社,1999.
[17]夏征农等主编.辞海(上)[M].上海：上海辞书出版社,1979.
[18]严平.走向解释学的真理——伽达默尔哲学述评[M].北京：东方出版社,1998.
[19]佐藤学.课程与教师[M].钟启泉译.北京：教育科学出版社,2003.
[20]张华著.课程与教学论[M].上海：上海教育出版社,2000.
[21]张华等著.课程流派研究[M].济南：山东教育出版社,2000.
[22]张华.经验课程论[M].上海：上海教育出版社,2001.
[23]赵敦华.西方哲学简史[M].北京：北京大学出版社,2001.
[24]黄清.论质的课程研究[D].重庆：西南大学,2004.
[25]李雁冰.质性课程评价研究[D].上海：华东师范大学,2000.
[26]汪霞.课程研究：从现代到后现代[D].上海：华东师范大学,2002.
[27]陈向明.理论在教师专业发展中的作用[J].北京大学教育评论,2008,(1)：32.
[28]程良宏,李雁冰.教学生成：为了学生的精彩观念和幸福生活[J].全球教育展望,2007,(3)：45-47.
[29]程良宏.控制性教学[J].全球教育展望,2008,(4)：33.
[30瑚新林.课程批评的隐忧[J].教育科学研究,2005,(2)：62.
[31]黄甫全.课程理想与课程评价—世纪之交对课程评价指标体系构建的文化思考[J].华南师范大学学报(社科版),1996,(6)：34.
[32]黄清,靳玉乐.质的课程研究方法论评析[J].课程·教材·教法,2004,(5)：34.
[33]江山野.课程理论中的一个基本问题[J].课程·教材·教法,1993,(11)：41.
[34]金志远.课程批评：课程研究的一个盲点[J].当代教育科学,2008,(13)：23-26.
[35]刘宇.课程与教师：变革时代的关系重建[J].教育发展研究,2008,(5)：12-15.
[36]鲁洁.超越性的存在——兼析病态适应的教育[J].华东师范大学学报(教科版),2007,(4)：37-39.
[37]李有发.课程评价与课程改革[J].外国教育动态,1988：(6)：28-30.
[38]马云鹏.如何理解课程与课程评价[J].现代中小学教育,1997,(5)：44.
[39]汪段.评价、课程评价的几个问题[J].外国教育资料,1995,(3)：31.
[40]吴刚平.课程意识及其向课程行为的转化[J].教育理论与实践,2003,(9)：18-21.
[41]吴永军.课程评价的社会学分析[J].教育评价,1995,(5)：30-32.
[42]谢登斌.西方批判课程理论试探[J].广西师范大学学报(社科版),2003,(4)：72-74.
[43]叶飞.批判思维与当前教育学研究的范式转换[J].教育研究与实验,2008,(1)：53-55.
[44]张华.美国当代批判课程理论初探[J].外国教育资料,1998,(2)：18-21.
[45]张廷凯.课程研究要推进课程改革—兼论当前课程研究的几个重要问题[J].课程·教材·教法,1993,(6)：51-52.
[46]张行涛.课程评价的社会学概观[J].教育研究与实验,1999,(2)：63-65.
[47]张韵,吕晓.课程美学探究取向发展述评[J].重庆文理学院学报,2007,(1)：104.
[48]朱光明.透视教育现象学——论教育现象学研究的三个基本问题[J].外国教育研究,2007,(11)：1-6.
[49]朱光明,陈向明.理解教育现象学的研究方法[J].外国教育研究,2006,(11)：1-6.
[50]朱光明,陈向明.教育叙述探究与现象学研究之比较[J].北京大学教育评论,2008,(1)：71-78.
[1]Barone, T. E. Effectively Critiquing the Experienced Curriculum:Clues from the New Journalism[J]. Curriculum Inquiry.1980.10:29-53.
[2]Cornbleth, C. Inquiry Theory and Social Studies Curricula:Problems in Planning for Thinking[R]. Toronto. Annual Meeting of th American Educational Research Association. 1978.
[3]Donmoyer, B. The Evaluator as Artist : A Discussion of Premises and Problems with Examples from Two Aesthetically-based Evaluations[A]. Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association[C]. San Francisco, California,1979:8-12.
[4]Eisner, E. W. On the Uses of Educational Connoisseurship and Criticism forEvaluation Classroom Life[J]. Teachers College Record.1977.2(78):345-358.
[5]Eisner, E. W. The Enlightened Eye:Qualitative Inquiry and the Enhancement of Educational Practiece[M]. New York:Macmillan,1991.
[6]Eisner, E. W. The Perceptive Eye:toward the Reformation of Educational Evaluation[R]. Los Angeles:American Education Research Association,1975:13.
[7]Eisner, E. W. The Educational Imagination[M]. New York:Macmillan.1979:231.
[8]Eisner, E.W. Toward a Conceptual Revolution in Evaluation[J]. Educational Forum.1980. 3(44):373-374.
[9]Geertz, C. The Interpretation of Cultures[M]. New York:Basic Books,1973:34-36.
[10]Greer, W. D. The Curriculum of Teaching[D]. Stanford University,1974.
[11]Huebner, D. Curriculum Language and Classroom Meanings[A]. Macdonald, J. B.& Leeper, R. R. (eds.). Language and Meaning[C]. Stanford University,1974:14-15,17,19.
[12]Huebner, D. Curricular Language and Classroom Meanings[A]. Macdonald, J. B.& Leeper, R. R. (eds.) Langrage and Meaning[C]. Washington:A.S.C.D.1996.
[13]Habermas J. Knowledge and Human Interests[M]. London:Heinemann,1972:314.
[14]Kaufman, M. The Aesthetic Mode of Inquiry[D]. Columbia University,1970.
[15]Kelly, E. F. Curriculum Ecaluation and Literary Criticism:the Explication of an Anology[M]. New York:Center for Instructional Development,1973.
[16]Klohr, P. The Curriculum Theory Field:Gritty and Ragged. Curriculum Perspectives,1980,1(1):3.
[17]Kyle, D. W. Curriculum Decisions:Who Decides What[J]. Elementary School Journal.1980.11:77-85.
[18]Kyle, E. F. Curriculum Evaluation and Literary Criticism:Comments on the Analogy[J]. Curriculum Theory Network.1975.5(2):87-106.
[19]Mann, J. S. Curriculum Criticism[J]. Curriculum Theory Network,1969.69:2-14.
[20]McCutcheon, G. W. A Conflict of Interests:An Educational Criticism of Mr. Willian's Fourth Grade[J]. Journal of Curriculum Theorizing.1979.1:5-31.
[21]Mc Cutcheon, G. W. Educational Criticism:Methods and Application[J]. Journal of Curriculum Theorizing.1979.1:5-31.
[22]McCutcheon, G. W. On the Interpretation of Classroom Observations[J]. Educational
Researcher.1981.5(10):5-10.
[23]McCutcheon, G. W.On the Interpretation of Classroom Observations[J]. Educational Researcher.1981.5(10):199-200.
[24]Pinar. W. F. Autobiography, Politics and Sexuality[[M]. New York:Peter Lang Publishing, Inc.,1994:63.
[25]Pina, W. F. Curriculum Theorizing-the Reconceptualists[M]. Berkeley:McCutchan, 1975:175-178.
[26]Ross, D. D. Ms. Shore's Classroom:A Curriculum Criticism[R]. New York,American Educational Research Association.1981.
[27]Ross, D. D. Piaget:Practical Applications in Public School Settings[R]. Los Angeles, Annual Meetings of the USC-UAP International Interdisciplinary Conference on Piaget and the Helping Professions.1979.
[28]Schwab, J. J. The Practical:A Language for Curriculum[J]. School Review,1969:(78): 1-23.
[29]Vallance, E. Aesthetic Criticism and Curriculum Description[D]. Stanford University, 1975.
[30]Vallance, E. Scanning Horisons and Looking at Weeds[A]. Qualitative Evaluation[C]. Berkeley:McCutchan Corporation,1978:144.
[31]Vallance, E. The Critic's Perspective:Some Strengths and Limitations of Aesthetic Criticism in Education[R]. Los Angeles:American Education Research Association,1981:4.
[32]Vallance, E. The Critic's Perspective:Some Strengths and Limitations of Aesthetic Criticism in Education[R].Los Angeles:American Education ResearchAssociation,1981: 10.
[33]Westbury, I. Curriculum Evaluation[J]. Review of Educational Research,1970:(40):239.
[34]Westbury, I.,& Wildof. H. J. (Eds.). Science, Curriculum and Liberarl Education[M]. University of Chicago Press:287.
[35]Will, G. Curriculum Criticism and Literary Criticism[J]. The Journal of Curriculum Studies,1975.5:32.
[36]Willis, G. Qualitative Evaluation:Concepts and Cases in Curriculum Criticism[M]. Berkeley, CA:McCutchan.1978.