開放性、責任與對話—討論作為教育場域中實踐智慧的開展

Abstract

「討論」對參與者在擴展知識面、增強理解力和判斷力各方面均能產生積極的作用；然而實務工作者發展出許多的討論操作策略，卻少有理論解釋的說明。更要緊的是，一旦「規定了討論就是對話」能否觸及教育場域中討論的實質經驗問題。準此，本論文研究目的為：（一）理解討論教學與教育實踐智慧的相關論述；（二）探索教育場域中討論的實質「經驗」問題；（三）闡釋教育場域中討論經驗的教育實踐意涵；（四）回應討論作為教育場域中實踐智慧開展的可能性；（五）援引理論向度提供實務操作之前瞻性。\n\n本研究以現象學方法進行訪談與提取主題，首先給予討論經驗的一般性描述，再就主題的相關理論基礎進行論述呈現。後於探究教育場域中討論經驗所涉及的開放性、責任與對話三項主題而有以下六項發現：一、開放性具有「即興」的特質；二、討論場域中的成員透過說話構作現實性；三、討論場域中意義的「開放性」之所緣；四、討論場域中關於「責任」的“被看”與“看”；五、「遊戲概念」提供教育場域中的討論現象一種操作上的理論說明；六、釐清討論經驗的開放性、責任與對話三者的關係。\n\n本研究結論包括：一、「有用性」的「無對象性」，需要實踐智之決斷；二、開放性、責任、對話三者需要實踐智之調和；三、討論的經驗是「朝向不確定的預先投身」或「朝向自身的可能性而投企」；四、對於討論場域中常見的「啞然、霎時無法回應」現象給出的一種解釋；五、討論作為教育實踐智慧的具體操作典型。最後研究建議則為：一、加入「語言-身體性」議題之綜合討論，作為後續研究之引線；二、進一步探究開放性、責任、對話三者在時間結構上的實踐意涵，或許可茲回應黑爾德指出實踐智所具有之實踐導向、反思判斷力及其來自「時間偶然性」與「互為主體性」兩項根本難題，給予一種參考路徑。本研究預期貢獻則著眼於闡述討論適可作為教育實踐智慧的具體操作典型，援引理論向度以提供討論實務操作之可能性、前瞻性。

Having a discussion can play an active role in expanding the knowledge of participants and enhancing their understanding and judgment. However, many discussion-operating strategies have been developed yet a few theoretical interpretations have been made. What is more, whether the essential experience problems discussed in education field can be involved once “discussion is dialogue” is prescribed? Therefore, this study aims to: (I) understand and discuss the arguments relevant to teaching and educational Phrόnesis[practical wisdom]; (II) probe into essential experience problems discussed in the educational field; (III) interpret the implications of discussing educational practices to the educational field; (IV) respond to the possibility of considering “discussion” as a factor in the development of Phrόnesis in the educational field; (V) refer to the theory of dimension in providing insights for practical application.\n\nThis study forms a discussion and summarizes the theme using the Phenomenological Method. First, it gives a general description of the discussion and proceeds to discuss and present the relevant theoretical basis for the theme. Later, it probes into three themes related to the discussion in the educational field; namely, openness, responsibility, and dialogue. The results summarized in six points are as follows: I. Openness implies “improvisation”; II. Participants in the discussion create reality through dialogue; III. The aspect of openness in a discussion; IV. To Discuss “being seen” and “seeing” in the concept of “responsibility”; V. The “play concept” provides a theoretical interpretation of the discussion in the educational field; VI. The need to clarify the relationship of openness, responsibility and dialogue in a discussion.\n\nThe conclusions of the study are: I. “No-object nature” of “the availability” requires judgment and decision based on Phrόnesis; II. Openness, responsibility and dialogue demand the need for Phrόnesis; III. The discussion of experience is “the pre-projection towards unsure direction”, or “dedication into resoluteness towards the self-feasibility”; IV. An interpretation of the “inanity of immediate response” comes up frequently in the discussion; V. A discussion is perceived as a typical concrete model for educational Phrόnesis. Finally, this study recommends the following: I. Participate in a comprehensive discussion of “language-body”, as a basis for future research; II. Continue to explore the practical implications of openness, responsibility and dialogue to time structure, or promise to respond K. Held on his words that Phrόnesis has practical direction and reflective judgment, and respond to two difficult problems from “time contingency” and “inter-subjectivity”, to give a reference or approach. This study aims to contribute to the idea of “discussion” as a suitable and typical concrete model for educational Phrόnesis. It also refers to the theory of dimension to provide the feasibility and for practical application.