[SSI Learning] 第九期沙龙纪要：高振奋——高中地理新课标解读

社会性科学议题的课程内容要遵循国家课程标准的要求，SSI-L项目的设计和实施都离不开对课标的深度理解。SSI-L项目组特邀北京教育科学研究院基础教育教学研究中心地理教研室教研员、国家地理课标组成员高振奋于2021年3月3日晚19:30-20:40在腾讯会议室分享自己对地理新课标的解读。以下为高振奋老师解读的主要内容，供大家参考。

高振奋老师介绍道，地理课标从2017年出台到现在已有三年多的时间。在三年多的教研和教学中，对地理课标的宏观认识、整体把握、具体操作有一些心得和体会，鉴于项目组的老师从教于不同学科，本次讲座主要介绍课标编制和使用过程的思路。

一、2017年版课程方案和2020年地理课程标准修订的背景

课标修订是在一系列政策文件和立德树人的大背景下实施的。十八大以来，根据国务院、教育部新出台的一系列关于教育改革的文件，教育部于2017年发布了新的课程标准；2019年国务院出台了新的指导性文件，对基础教育阶段的培养标准、培养途径、评价标准、考试、师资等做出明确的要求，所以在2020年对课程标准进行了新的修订。

二、新课标修订的基本情况

此次课标修订为反映新时期的需要，突出课程的基础性、多样性和选择性，降低了必修的难度和学分，提高了选修的难度和学分，增加了学生选择的空间。（1）以“学科核心素养”为纲，完成从“教书”向“育人”的转变，落实立德树人（以学生为中心）；（2）寻找适合学生的教育，完成从“划一”向“可选”的转变，实现共同基础上的差异发展；（3）改变学习动力机制，完成从“外压”向“内生”的转变，让学生学会学习（学生主体、主动学习）；（4） 促进教学改革，办不一样的学校，重新解构学科，结构化、大概念、大观念，基于学生视野，解决真实问题，完成从“知识点”到“核心素养”的转变，落实学科核心素养。

现代社会是一个信息爆炸的时代，知识已无法很好地体现学习成果，学习成果更多表现为知识学习过程中形成的一系列稳定的概念、习惯、能力、方法、毅力等。二十一世纪素养分为三类，学习与创造素养、数字化素养、职业与生活技能。其中，核心素养包括正确价值观、必备品格和关键能力。学生的核心素养分为学科核心素养和跨学科核心素养，课程标准中的课程结构即是以“学科核心素养”为纲。

此次课标修订将学业质量标准融入课程标准。学业质量标准体现了培养核心素养的预期结果，对教学和评价工作做出明确要求，而课程标准系统说明了教育、教学和人才培养的核心素养目标和培养过程要求，所以学业质量标准与课程标准是内在一致的，使学生能够把学科学习获得的知识和方法用于未来的生活，通过核心素养让学生成人成才，服务于立德树人总任务。所以，教师在判断教学内容和过程是否达到课标要求时，既可以依据学业质量标准，也可以参考课程标准对学生发展的要求。此外，地理学科核心素养的水平划分也体现在学业水平测试和高考考试的等级评定标准中。

三、基于课标的北京市高中地理课程教学改革实践体会

高振奋老师通过两个案例呈现北京市高中地理课程教学改革的实践情况。学生绘制太阳系行星轨道分布图、自然界水系分布图等，在画图的过程中学习地理知识，理解地理过程；首师大附中的学生，将地理元素整合在语文学科的诗词学习中，体现出非常高的跨学科知识整合能力。

讲座结束后，参会老师就学科、课标等相关问题与高老师进行了深入的探讨与交流。

林静老师请高老师对高中地理核心素养内涵作进一步解释。高老师强调，各个素养之间有着建构关系，地理实践力是基础，综合思维和区域认知是过程，最终的目标是达到人地协调观。对于林老师提出，地理学科对抽象思维和系统思维要求较高，高中地理与初中地理对学生的核心素养要求有无本质差异？高老师答道，谈不上本质差异，地理学科的知识内容基于生活实际，学生通常可以借助生活实际完成学习任务，一般学习成绩不会很差，但追求高分确实是很有挑战的。对于彭梦华老师的疑问，地理学科在高考选科中的地位如何变化？高老师答道，地理学科的选考率较高，北京的选考率是第三，在实地调研中发现很多学生把地理作为补选学科。

最后，林静老师总结，高振奋老师今天对于高中地理课程标准的介绍联系教学实际和教学教研工作，提纲挈领，使大家受益匪浅；地理学科是一个综合文理的学科，从跨学科的角度去思考，学生在跨学科背景下学习，能更好地发展高阶、复杂思维，有利于整合知识体系、发展核心素养；未来社会发展的节奏会更快，在国家可持续发展的蓝图中，教育转型的方向是发展学生核心素养、培养学生幸福生活的能力，我们项目团队的诸位老师，也要在社会性科学议题学习的研究实践过程中发展自己、充实自己。

---

The curriculum of social science issues should abide by the requirements of the National Curriculum Standards, and the design and implementation of SSI-L projects should be based on a deep understanding of the curriculum standards. Therefore, the SSI-L project team specially invited Gao Zhenfen, a faculty member of the Geography Teaching and Research Section of the Basic Education Teaching and Research Center, Beijing Academy of Educational Sciences, and a member of the National Geographic Curriculum Standards Group, to share his own understanding of the new geographic curriculum standards. This cloud salon was held from 19:30 to 20:40 on March 3, 2021 in TencentMeeting. The following is what Mr. Gao has shared for your reference:

Mr. Gao introduced, it has been more than three years since the introduction of Geographic Curriculum Standards in 2017. During this period of teaching and research, he himself has got some insights and experience in understanding and practicing these standards both at the macro level and micro level. But considering that teachers in the project team are specialised in different subjects, this lecture would mainly focus on introducing the process of developing and utilising the standards.

I. The 2017 version of curriculum schme and the revision background of the 2020 geographic curriculum standards.

The revision of the curriculum standards was conducted according to a series of policy documents and the need for strengthening morality education. Since the 18th National Congress of the Communist Party of China, the State Council and the Ministry of Education have issued a series of new documents about education reform, based on which, the Ministry of Education in 2017 published the new curriculum standards. In 2019, the State Council released new guidance documents for basic education, specifying its requirements in terms of training standards, training methods, evaluation standards, examinations, qualification of teacher, etc. In this context, the curriculum standards were revised in 2020.

II. The basic information of the revised new curriculum standards

The revision of curriculum standards this time reflects the needs of the new era, stressing the fundamentality, diversity, and selectivity of the curriculum. It reduces the difficulty and credits of compulsory courses, and increases the difficulty and credits of optional courses, leaving more space for students to make the choice. 1) Based on “disciplinary core literacy”, we should transit from “imparting knowledge” to “cultivating people”, to realize the fundamental task of “strengthening moral education” (student-centered). 2) We should teach students according to their aptitude, and transit from offering “uniform courses for all” to “optional courses for different students”, to assure students all starts from a common ground but achieve differentiated development. 3) We should change the learning motivation system, and transit from “putting external pressure on students” to “activating their intrinsic motivation”, enabling students to learn by themselves (students-oriented, active learning). 4) We should promote teaching reform, run different schools, re-deconstruct the subjects, then structurize them with  big ideas, solve the real problems from the perspective of students, and transit from focusing on “knowledge points” to “core literacy”, to really develop students’ key competencies.

In this modern age of information explosion, knowledge alone can no longer show the learning outcomes of students. Their achievements manifest more in a series of concepts, habits, abilities, methods, perseverance and others that formed in the process of knowledge learning. Literacy for the 21st century is divided into three categories, learning and innovation ability, digital literacy, vocational and living skills. Among them, core literacy includes sound values, essential character and morals, and key abilities. The core literacy of students is divided into disciplinary core literacy and interdisciplinary core literacy. The curriculum structure in the curriculum standards uses the “disciplinary core literacy” as the outline.

This revision incorporates the academic quality standards into the curriculum standards. The academic quality standards show the expected outcomes of cultivating core literacy and make it clear about the requirements for teaching and evaluation work. The curriculum standards on the other hand give a systematic explanation about the requirements of core literacy goals and cultivating process of education, teaching, and talent training. So the academic quality standards and curriculum standards are intrinsically consistent, allowing students to use the knowledge and methods acquired from subject learning in their future life. By core literacy, we cultivate talents and realized the fundamental task of “strengthening moral education”. Therefore, when teachers evaluate whether their teaching content and process meet the requirements of the curriculum standards, they can refer to either the academic quality standards or the requirements of curriculum standards for student development. Besides, the level differentiation of geographical core literacy also manifests in the  standards of academic proficiency tests and college entrance examinations.

III. Insights and experience of Beijing senior high schools’ curriculum teaching reform based on curriculum standards

Mr. Gao used two cases to present the practice of Beijing senior high schools’ curriculum teaching reform. In one case, students learn to draw the orbital map of planets in the solar system, the distribution map of water system in nature, etc. During this process, they also grasp some geographic knowledge and get to understand the geographical process. In the other case, students from Capital Normal University High School combine the geographical elements into the study of poems in Chinese class, showing proficient ability in integrating interdisciplinary knowledge.

After the lecture, the participating teachers had an in-depth discussion with Mr. Gao in terms of discipline, curriculum standards, and other relevant issues.

Lin Jing, the professor from Beijing Normal University, invited Mr. Gao to further explain the meaning of core literacy of Geography in high school. Mr. Gao stressed, there’s a constructive relationship between each literacy, in which, the geographical practice is the foundation, comprehensive/synthetic thinking and regional perception is the process, and the ultimate goal is to achieve the view of a harmonious man-land relationship. Ms. Lin questioned, considering the higher requirements for abstract and systematic thinking in Geography, are there any essential differences between high school Geography and middle school Geography in the core literacy requirements for students? In response to her question, Mr. Gao said, there is no essential difference between the two. The knowledge of Geography mainly comes from life, so students can usually complete their learning task by using their life experience, and get a generally good performance. But it’s indeed very challenging to get higher scores. Regarding the question from Peng Menghua about how the position of Geography will change in college entrance exam’s subject selection, Mr. Gao replied, the selection rate of Geography in college entrance exam is relatively high compared to other subjects. In Beijing, Geography is among the top 3 subjects being chosen. Field investigation also finds that many students take Geography as the alternative subject to choose.

In the end, Ms. Lin Jing concluded as followed: first of all, Mr. Gao’s introduction of high school Geography Curriculum Standards gives us an outline and links to his teaching practice and research work. We really benefit a lot from it. Secondly, Geography is a comprehensive discipline combining both literature and science, so it needs students to think from an interdisciplinary perspective. Learning in this way, students can better develop high-order and complicated thinking, which is good for the integration of their knowledge system and the advancement of their core literacy. Thirdly, our society will develop at a faster pace in the future. In the blueprint of national sustainable development, education reform is targeted at developing students’ core literacy and enhancing their ability to lead a happy life. Our teachers in the project team also need to keep improving and equipping ourselves in the research and practice of social science issues.