张 静. “必读书目”概念的合理性重审[J]. 内江师范学院学报, 2016, (9): 73-76. DOI:10.13603/j.cnki.51-1621/z.2016.09.015
引用本文: 张 静. “必读书目”概念的合理性重审[J]. 内江师范学院学报, 2016, (9): 73-76.DOI:10.13603/j.cnki.51-1621/z.2016.09.015
ZGANG Jing. A Re-examination of the Concept“Required Readings”[J]. Journal of Neijiang Normal University, 2016, (9): 73-76. DOI:10.13603/j.cnki.51-1621/z.2016.09.015
Citation: ZGANG Jing. A Re-examination of the Concept“Required Readings”[J].Journal of Neijiang Normal University, 2016, (9): 73-76.DOI:10.13603/j.cnki.51-1621/z.2016.09.015

“必读书目”概念的合理性重审

A Re-examination of the Concept“Required Readings”

  • 摘要:“必读书目”暗含的权威性与强制性特性,既引发了“必读”与“不必读”之争,又潜藏着“必读”转向“逼读”的危险。但“必读书目”术语有其存在的必要性与合理性,它有利于通过读好书从读物角度保证阅读的质与量,同时在当前背景下能够促进课外阅读课程的建设与地位的提高,也为教师的指导与监管提供了发挥空间。

    Abstract:The authority and coerciveness implied in “required readings” have aroused the disputes between “obligatory reading” and “optional reading” and the danger of change from “required reading” to “forced reading”. However, the term “required readings” has its necessity and rationality. It helps to guarantee the quality and quantity of reading through reading some good books. Meanwhile, under the present background, it can promote the construction and status of extracurricular reading and offer some space for the teachers' supervision and guidance.

/

    返回文章
    返回
      Baidu
      map