法律、权威与自治

权威在社会中是必不可少的,其作用具有两面性,既有维护社会秩序的一面,也有阻碍社会发展的一面,如何扬其长避其短是当代法学界必须思考的重大课题之一。文章以恩格斯《论权威》一书中提出的基本观点为基点,从法律的调节功能与权威属性两个角度论证了法律不仅要把权威纳入自己的轨道,而且在具体设计上要注意处理好权威与自治二者的关系,不能厚此薄彼。最后结合国际法探讨了法律与权威未来可能的理想安排模式。文章的结论是建立法治国家,首要任务与最终任务在于通过不断改革,逐步实现权威与自治在法律中的和谐。     

国家权力、市场与院校自治:高等教育质量保证中的三种力量

对国家权力、市场与院校自治在高等教育质量保证中的影响及其在高等教育质量保证中发生作用的方式进行了较为深入的分析.     

Adolescents' and Parents' Conceptions of Parental Authority and Personal Autonomy

Conceptions of parental authority and ratings of adolescent-parent conflict were assessed in 68 sixth, eighth, and tenth graders and their parents. Boundaries of adolescent personal jurisdiction and conflict over these boundaries were examined. Participants judged the legitimacy of parental authority and rated the frequency and intensity of conflict regarding 24 hypothetical moral, conventional, personal, multifaceted (e.g., containing conventional and personal components), prudential, and friendship issues. Adolescents and parents agreed that parents should retain authority regarding moral and conventional issues. Parents treated multifaceted, friendship, prudential, and personal issues as more contingent on parental authority than did adolescents, based on conventional, prudential, and psychological reasons, whereas adolescents treated these issues as under personal jurisdiction, based on personal concerns. Personal reasoning and judgments increased with age. Multifaceted issues were discussed more than all other issues, but moral and conventional conflicts were more intense than all other conflicts. The findings are discussed in terms of previous research on parental authority and adolescent-parent conflict during adolescence.     

Moral Authority and Moral Education

Abstract:

Elsewhere, the author has argued that the liberal theory of moral education is both morally dangerous and philosophically mistaken. The moral educator cannot be morally neutral, but must be morally committed, even if he is to attempt to teach children how to think for themselves about moral questions, or develop their autonomy, rather than indoctrinate them. This position implies that the moral educator must be a moral authority. The author defends this claim against subjectivists who deny the existence of moral authority by arguing that the possibility of moral judgment creates the possibility of moral authority.     

Authority,The Autonomy of The University,and Neoliberal Politics

Zdenko Kodelja's purpose in this essay is not to give a comprehensive explanation of the impact of neoliberal ideas and politics on authority (in all of its forms) of universities and their professors. His aims are much more modest: to sketch a theoretical framework for better understanding what the essence of authority is; to show that the relation between authority and trust is the key to explaining the effect of neoliberal politics on the authority of the university and university professors; to discuss professors' autonomy as deriving primarily from epistemic authority and to point out that what makes professors epistemic authorities is not the truth of what they say, but rather the students' belief that it is true; and to disclose some problems related to authority, university autonomy, and neoliberal politics.     

语言教育中的自主能力培养

随着素质教育的不断推进,学习者自主能力的培养已成为教育界讨论的热门话题。语言教育也毫不例外,越来越多的外语教师和研究人员参与到这场促进主体性发展运动的讨论和实践中。主体性教学课堂对学习者和教师提出了一定的要求,因此,要积极采取措施加强语言学习者自主能力的培养,当然自主性是相对的、不是绝对的;作为社会的人,我们独立自主的最根本条件是相互依赖。     

远程教育与自主学习能力

在远程教育领域,是否适合于自主学习是评价教学资源、教学活动、学习任务、学习支持服务等的一项重要标准,殊不知这其实是本末倒置了,也就是说把目标--把学生培养成为自主学习者,使他们具备自主学习能力--当成前提.诚如许多研究者所指出的,自主学习能力并非与生俱来,因此,学生在适合自主学习的元学习环境中表现"欠佳"应该是在我们的预料之中.     

论教育中权威存在的可能

真正的权威是一种内在的精神力量，成长在真正权威的保护下得以连续，自由在真正权威的庇护下得以成长，精神在真正权威的维护下得以丰满。教育中的权威内聚着教育的价值，诠释着教育的精神。只有在真正的权威下，个体才能获得信任，自由得到形成和净化。雅斯贝尔斯对教育中权威与自由的论述、分析，对于我们今天教育中的教师权威和学生的自由问题具有极大的启发意义。     

教育的理性权威与非理性权威

从教育伦理学上看,教育权威有两种理性权威与非理性权威.理性权威来自教师的个人素质,非理性权威来自教师的地位权势.两种权威的走向是不一样的,非理性权威是以权威强化权威,理性权威是以权威消解权威.非理性权威的师生关系类似于命令性的长官与下属的服从关系.理性权威的师生关系是楷模和仿效者的关系.     

Rational Autonomy, Morality and Education

Some traditional assumptions regarding rational autonomy are examined and criticised. The exclusion of subjective considerations from autonomous choice is shown to be unjustified, as are attempts to identlfji autonomy with morally desirable conduct. Unexpected implications of these conclusions for education and certain other social institutions are also indicated.