调查关系:关于陷阱和方向的思考

Jeffrey W. Bloom
{"title":"调查关系:关于陷阱和方向的思考","authors":"Jeffrey W. Bloom","doi":"10.29173/CMPLCT10022","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The feature article for this issue, entitled “(Re)Imagining Teacher Preparation for Conjoint Democratic Inquiry in Complex Classroom Ecologies ,” begins to carve out one aspect of the importance of relationship in the context of schooling. For the most part, the institution of schooling has ignored relationship. Instead, blaming teachers and students has become the modus operandi. Zero tolerance, accountability, among the many other sound bites in the politics of education categorically ignore the significance of relationship and its critical role not only in student—teacher dynamics, but also in all aspects of learning and personal growth. In fact, within the current political context, relationship is missing from the equation. Scripted curricula and requirements that teachers sign allegiance to these curricula, intensive teaching to the tests, the push for strict and specific national standards, and the desire to have all students working on the same “thing” (and not relationships of any kind!) at the same time, are all tremendous obstacles to developing interpersonal relationships in the classroom and to learning relationships. Of course, the notion of relationships is much more extensive than just those connections that exist between people. Relationships should be the material of what we learn and teach (Bateson, 1979/2002; Donaldson, 1992). Since we are interested in complex systems, we need to see relationships as the material of systems, as well as to see relationships as systems themselves. Although I believe the major focus of this article is of great importance, I do have some concerns. The authors have brought to bear a number of different paradigmatic approaches in crafting this research and the resulting article. In many cases, such a mix of paradigms can provide some intriguing insights. However, I found this paradigmatic mix problematic in this article. Complexity theories are, by definition, at opposition to","PeriodicalId":43228,"journal":{"name":"Complicity-An International Journal of Complexity and Education","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2011-03-08","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"3","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Investigating Relationships: Thoughts on the Pitfalls and Directions\",\"authors\":\"Jeffrey W. Bloom\",\"doi\":\"10.29173/CMPLCT10022\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"The feature article for this issue, entitled “(Re)Imagining Teacher Preparation for Conjoint Democratic Inquiry in Complex Classroom Ecologies ,” begins to carve out one aspect of the importance of relationship in the context of schooling. For the most part, the institution of schooling has ignored relationship. Instead, blaming teachers and students has become the modus operandi. Zero tolerance, accountability, among the many other sound bites in the politics of education categorically ignore the significance of relationship and its critical role not only in student—teacher dynamics, but also in all aspects of learning and personal growth. In fact, within the current political context, relationship is missing from the equation. Scripted curricula and requirements that teachers sign allegiance to these curricula, intensive teaching to the tests, the push for strict and specific national standards, and the desire to have all students working on the same “thing” (and not relationships of any kind!) at the same time, are all tremendous obstacles to developing interpersonal relationships in the classroom and to learning relationships. Of course, the notion of relationships is much more extensive than just those connections that exist between people. Relationships should be the material of what we learn and teach (Bateson, 1979/2002; Donaldson, 1992). Since we are interested in complex systems, we need to see relationships as the material of systems, as well as to see relationships as systems themselves. Although I believe the major focus of this article is of great importance, I do have some concerns. The authors have brought to bear a number of different paradigmatic approaches in crafting this research and the resulting article. In many cases, such a mix of paradigms can provide some intriguing insights. However, I found this paradigmatic mix problematic in this article. Complexity theories are, by definition, at opposition to\",\"PeriodicalId\":43228,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Complicity-An International Journal of Complexity and Education\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2011-03-08\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"3\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Complicity-An International Journal of Complexity and Education\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.29173/CMPLCT10022\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Complicity-An International Journal of Complexity and Education","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.29173/CMPLCT10022","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 3

摘要

本期专题文章题为“(重新)想象教师在复杂的课堂生态中为联合民主探究做准备”,开始挖掘出关系在学校教育背景下重要性的一个方面。在很大程度上,学校制度忽视了关系。相反,责备老师和学生已经成为一种惯常做法。“零容忍”、“问责”等诸多教育政治言论完全忽视了关系的重要性及其在师生关系、以及学习和个人成长的各个方面所起的关键作用。事实上,在当前的政治背景下,关系从等式中消失了。照本宣科的课程和要求老师们签字遵守这些课程,密集的考试教学,对严格而具体的国家标准的推动,以及让所有学生在同一时间做同样的“事情”(而不是任何形式的关系!)的愿望,都是在课堂上发展人际关系和学习关系的巨大障碍。当然,关系的概念比人与人之间存在的联系要广泛得多。关系应该是我们学习和教授的材料(Bateson, 1979/2002;唐纳森,1992)。由于我们对复杂系统感兴趣,我们需要将关系视为系统的材料,也需要将关系视为系统本身。虽然我相信这篇文章的主要焦点是非常重要的,但我确实有一些担忧。作者在撰写这项研究和最终的文章时采用了许多不同的范例方法。在许多情况下,这种范式的混合可以提供一些有趣的见解。然而,我在本文中发现这种范例组合存在问题。从定义上讲,复杂性理论反对
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Investigating Relationships: Thoughts on the Pitfalls and Directions
The feature article for this issue, entitled “(Re)Imagining Teacher Preparation for Conjoint Democratic Inquiry in Complex Classroom Ecologies ,” begins to carve out one aspect of the importance of relationship in the context of schooling. For the most part, the institution of schooling has ignored relationship. Instead, blaming teachers and students has become the modus operandi. Zero tolerance, accountability, among the many other sound bites in the politics of education categorically ignore the significance of relationship and its critical role not only in student—teacher dynamics, but also in all aspects of learning and personal growth. In fact, within the current political context, relationship is missing from the equation. Scripted curricula and requirements that teachers sign allegiance to these curricula, intensive teaching to the tests, the push for strict and specific national standards, and the desire to have all students working on the same “thing” (and not relationships of any kind!) at the same time, are all tremendous obstacles to developing interpersonal relationships in the classroom and to learning relationships. Of course, the notion of relationships is much more extensive than just those connections that exist between people. Relationships should be the material of what we learn and teach (Bateson, 1979/2002; Donaldson, 1992). Since we are interested in complex systems, we need to see relationships as the material of systems, as well as to see relationships as systems themselves. Although I believe the major focus of this article is of great importance, I do have some concerns. The authors have brought to bear a number of different paradigmatic approaches in crafting this research and the resulting article. In many cases, such a mix of paradigms can provide some intriguing insights. However, I found this paradigmatic mix problematic in this article. Complexity theories are, by definition, at opposition to
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信