语文课程工具论的辩护与坚守

Defending and Sticking to Instrumental Theory in Chinese Curriculum

近年来\＂工具论\＂受到的冷落和批判促使我们重新审视它的科学性和合理性。追本溯源，可以看到＂工具论\＂表达的是这样一种语文课程性质观:语文是一门以培养学生正确地理解和运用祖国语言文字的能力、帮助学生掌握语文工具为根本目的任务的文化基础课程，语文课教学生掌握语文工具应该做到＂文道统一＂。\＂工具论\＂紧紧抓住＂语文课程是干什么的\＂这一根本问题正确地揭示了语文课程的本质。理解＂工具论\＂，应着眼于其表达的课程理念而不要只在表述形式上兜圈子，应将作为＂语言＂的\＂语文＂和作为一门课程的＂语文＂的性质区分开来，正确看待工具性和人文性之间的主从关系。实践表明，＂工具论\＂富于生命活力。语文教育应坚持＂工具论\＂。

The absent treatment and criticism of Instrumental Theory in the past few years urge us to re-examine its scientificity and rationality. Tracing to its source， Instrumental Theory conveys such a view on the nature of Chinese curriculum: Chinese is a basic cultural curriculum which aims to foster students competence in understanding and using language of their home country and to help them master language as tool. Chinese teaching must conform to the principle of the unification of language and morality. Instrumental Theory answers the question that “what the basic goal of Chinese curriculum is”， and reveals correctively the nature of Chinese curriculum. In order to under stand Instrumental Theory， we should focus on the curriculum concept that it conveys rather than pay too much at tent ion to its form of expression. We should distinguish the nature of the Chinese as a language from that of the Chinese as a curriculum， and understand the primary and secondary relation between instrumentalism and humanity. Practice has proved that Instrumental Theory is full of vitality. Therefore， Chinese education should stick to Instrumental Theory.