实践美学:过去、现在与未来

实践美学对当代中国美学做出了巨大的历史贡献,但却也受到来自美学界内外的各种挑战.反思实践美学的过去,把握实践美学的现在,展望实践美学的未来对于中国美学的建设是十分必要的.“过去”的实践美学,推动了新时期的思想解放运动,并为解决20世纪50、60年代“美学大讨论”时积存下来的美学问题找到了一条现实的出路.“现在”的实践美学是在“过去”实践美学基础上回应“后实践美学”的质疑而发展起来的新型理论形态,它适应了历史变迁过程中美学转型的时代需要,实现了美学观念的自我超越,保持了自身的理论活力.“未来”的实践美学应从哲学基础的超越、美学观念的整化、理论话语的融合和研究方法的创新四个方面有所突破,才能够绽放出生机勃勃的理论生命.     

科学教育：过去,现在和未来

一百年来,现实的吁求,政治经济问题的直接充当了我们科学教育的思维起点,以至从过去到现在一直都没有形成健全的民族科学教育理念,使科学意识并没有深入民族文化心理之中,未来的科学教育必须在充分反思教育与科学自身处境的基础上,协调科学教育与社会发展的关系,处理好科学与人文、科学文化与民族心理、心智训练与知识掌握、普及与提高、尊重科学与唯科学主义之间的紧张与冲突,以谋求自身乃至民族的健康发展。     

The past,present and future of widening participation research

The provisions of the Higher Education Act (2004) have renewed interest in widening participation research. Therefore, this paper explores the development of this scholarly field, primarily in the United Kingdom, by examining major trends in the study of higher education. Political debates related to higher education, the prevailing structure of the sector and predominant sociological perspectives have largely shaped the empirical and theoretical concerns of widening participation research. These delimiting factors have resulted in incomplete accounts of the barriers to higher education, which do not fully explore the relationship between students’ social characteristics, learning experiences and university careers. Furthermore, contemporary research runs the risk of reinventing the wheel and replicating the mistakes of the past, since there has been a collective act of forgetfulness with respect to earlier contributions. In contrast, this paper provides guidelines to facilitate a holistic agenda for future widening participation research.     

The present,past, and future of the gardening metaphor in education

Educators and educational theorists frequently employ a gardening metaphor to capture several child-centred principles about teaching and children, i.e. teachers must respect a child’s unique interests and abilities, recognise what is developmentally appropriate for students, and resist pursuing a narrow set of outcomes. Historically, however, educational theorists were as likely to use the gardening metaphor to support teacher-centred, ‘moulding’ ideals as they were to support child-centred ideals. Furthermore, in stark contrast to the contemporary optimism about a child’s innate, unique potential, the use of the gardening metaphor in the past sometimes supported prejudicial, deterministic views of children. In many ways, therefore, the contemporary use of the metaphor reflects genuine progress in educators’ ideas about children and their potential. Nevertheless, those who employ the gardening metaphor today might learn from some of its past users. Eager to avoid imposing their own goals on children, today child-centred gardeners have resisted articulating normative ideals by which teaching and parenting might be guided. Yet a normative ideal of the educated adult is not inconsistent with child-centred gardening.     

The past,present, and future for the early childhood education researcher

This paper reviews past research in the area of early childhood education, points out current realities, and suggests future possibilities for investigation. It is suggested that, while research questions in the field abound, many impediments to the conduct of research now exist. Diversity and uniformity in the field are discussed in relationship to the conduct of research. Discussion of future research possibilities centers on the challenges of finding research support and gaining access to programs and securing the confidence of teachers and parents. Qualitatively oriented models for university-based research are also recommended. Specific attention is given to a resource collaborator model emphasizing reciprocity between researchers and practitioners.     

Dreams,Strategies and Systems: Portraits of assessment past,present and future

Systems of testing and assessment are shaped in part by personalities and institutions who pursue research insights and technical innovations. Out of these they fashion 'dreams' which drive their efforts to improve these systems. This paper develops this perspective, whilst acknowledging that it overlaps with and complements analyses of assessment systems from social and cultural perspectives. Four different examples are considered. Two from past and current history are the growth, from an origin in IQ testing, of standardised multiple choice tests and the dream of raising standards by external testing. The other two, nascent with their influence yet to be determined, are the dream of improvement by formative assessment and the dream that recent developments in psychology can provide a basis for new and improved assessment practices.     

Community leadership development: Observations about the past and future

Walter A. Denero is currently the Fanning Leadership Fellow in the Fanning Leadership Center at the University of Georgia. He formerly served as director of the Model Cities Program in Athens and has done extensive community leadership development throughout the southeast.     

Large-scale academic achievement testing of deaf and hard-of-hearing students: past, present, and future

The first large-scale, nationwide academic achievement testing program using Stanford Achievement Test (Stanford) for deaf and hard-of-hearing children in the United States started in 1969. Over the past three decades, the Stanford has served as a benchmark in the field of deaf education for assessing student academic achievement. However, the validity and reliability of using the Stanford for this special student population still require extensive scrutiny. Recent shifts in educational policy environment, which require that schools enable all children to achieve proficiency through accountability testing, warrants a close examination of the adequacy and relevance of the current large-scale testing of deaf and hard-of-hearing students. This study has three objectives: (a) it will summarize the historical data over the last three decades to indicate trends in academic achievement for this special population, (b) it will analyze the current federal laws and regulations related to educational testing and special education, thereby identifying gaps between policy and practice in the field, especially identifying the limitations of current testing programs in assessing what deaf and hard-of-hearing students know, and (c) it will offer some insights and suggestions for future testing programs for deaf and hard-of-hearing students.     

Imagining a future,living in the present and remembering the past

The remit for this short piece was to identify themes emerging from the articles in this edition by Julie McLeod, Duncan Waite and Eugenie Samier, to consider how these themes reflect on the current field, and to identify their ongoing relevance. Additionally, I was asked to consider the current challenges that the field is facing and what this means for research and journals such as this one. My short response is that our research has to matter. It has to matter to us as individuals so that what we do is worthwhile; it has to matter that we can provide rigorous research that is reliable so that it can inform policy makers and administrators; and it has to provide teachers and students with a greater understanding of why they are doing what they are being asked to do.     

Research-based interventions in the area of proof: the past,the present,and the future

The concept of proof has attracted considerable research attention over the pastdecades in part due to its indisputable importance to the discipline of mathematics and tostudents’ learning of mathematics. Yet, the teaching and learning of proof is an instructionallyarduous territory, with proof being recognized as a hard-to-teach and hard-to-learn concept atall levels of education. Prior research has examined, documented, and cast light on theprocesses underpinning different problems of classroom practice in the area of proof, buthas paid less emphasis on acting upon such problems to generate possible solutions throughresearch-based interventions in mathematics classrooms. In this Editorial, we first situate thecontributions in this Special Issue in a brief chronological account of scholarly work on research-based interventions in the area of proof, and we conclude with a proposal for somehigh-leverage directions for future research.