五育融合视域下高校体育教育评价改革的困境与突破路径

Challenges and breakthrough paths in the reform of physical education evaluation in universities from the perspective of five-education integration

ES评分 0

DOI 10.12208/j.ije.20260015
刊名
International Journal of Education
年,卷(期) 2026, 8(1)
作者
作者单位

武汉华夏理工学院体育学院 湖北武汉

摘要
调整教育评价体系,是把“五育融合”从理论落实到行动的核心抓手,对准高校体育教育板块,当前评价体系面临核心困境:评价理念跟不上全面发展目标,涉及面过窄且互不关联,过度依赖单一量化方法手段,评价主体固定封闭结果应用偏重功利。为突破僵局,研究给出全链条破局方案:靠理念更新与制度重建明确“全人发展”定位,建立“多维一体”评价指标体系,促进5育深度嵌合,用“混合式”智慧评价新方法兼顾过程和结果,最终构建多元主体配合的“评价共同体”,促使评价功能从管理控制转向成长支持,为高校体育落实立德树人根本任务构建实践框架。
Abstract
Adjusting the educational evaluation system is the core lever for translating the theory of "five-education integration" into practice. Focusing on the physical education sector in universities, the current evaluation system faces core dilemmas: the evaluation concept lags behind the goal of all-round development, its scope is too narrow and its components are disconnected, it over-relies on singular quantitative methods, and it features fixed, closed evaluators with results applied in a utilitarian manner. To break this impasse, this study proposes a comprehensive solution: clarifying the orientation towards "whole-person development" through conceptual renewal and institutional reconstruction, establishing a "multi-dimensional and integrated" evaluation index system to promote the deep embedding of the five educations, adopting "hybrid" smart evaluation methods that balance process and outcome, and ultimately constructing an "evaluation community" with coordinated multi-stakeholder participation. This aims to shift the function of evaluation from management control to growth support, thereby building a practical framework for university physical education to fulfill the fundamental task of fostering virtue through education.
关键词
五育融合;高校体育;教育评价;改革困境;突破路径
KeyWord
Five-education integration; University physical education; Educational evaluation; Reform challenges; Breakthrough paths
基金项目
页码 70-73
  • 参考文献
  • 相关文献
  • 引用本文

黄程. 五育融合视域下高校体育教育评价改革的困境与突破路径 [J]. 国际教育学. 2026; 8; (1). 70 - 73.

  • 文献评论

相关学者

相关机构