注册 登录  
 加关注
   显示下一条  |  关闭
温馨提示!由于新浪微博认证机制调整,您的新浪微博帐号绑定已过期,请重新绑定!立即重新绑定新浪微博》  |  关闭

日新斋

汪凤炎的博客

 
 
 

日志

 
 
关于我

汪凤炎,男,博士,教授,博导,心理学家。主攻文化心理学和教育心理学。现主持1个教育部人文社科重点研究基地2016年度重大项目。出版个人专著3部,合著5部,主编教材3部。在国内外权威与核心学术刊物上发表论文50余篇。专著获教育部中国高等学校科学研究优秀成果奖(人文社会科学) 三等奖2次,江苏省哲学社会科学优秀成果奖一等奖2次,二等奖2 次,三等奖1次,霍英东教育基金会第十届高等院校青年教师奖(研究类)三等奖,第十四届中国图书奖等。2011年9月被评为江苏省第四期“333高层次人才培养工程”第二层次培养对象。

网易考拉推荐

Review of Five Kinds of Western Classical Viewpoint about Wisdom[*]  

2010-07-17 09:44:37|  分类: 中国文化心理学数 |  标签: |举报 |字号 订阅

  下载LOFTER 我的照片书  |
 

 

Wang Fengyan, Zheng Hong

Department of Psychology

Nanjing Normal University

 

   There are five viewpoints of wisdom in modern western psychology, which are Piaget’s view of wisdom, Erikson’s view of wisdom, the Berlin model of wisdom, Neo-Piagetian’s view of wisdom, and Sternberg’s view of wisdom. They have some reference value for us to study the connotation, gains and losses of them meticulously and objectively.

 

Keywords: wisdom, classic, western, gains and losses

 

In September, 2007, the Chicago University in America announced the start of Interdisciplinary Program----Arete Initiative, whose theme is only wisdom and it will last for 3 years and 5 months (2007.9-2011.1). As new scientific research should be based on summary of existing theories, this paper meticulously and objectively studies the five classical western views of wisdom to help people grasp the essence of wisdom.

 

PIAGET’S VIEW OF INTELLIGENCE: REVIEW AND REFLECTION

 

In the history of modern psychology, Piaget (1896-1980) was the first psychologist who explored intelligence from the angle of bio-evolution and thinking, he had lectured on “the psychology of intelligence” as early as in 1942 in College de France, and then established the International Center of Genetic Epistemology which aimed at research on the development of children’s intelligence by the hands of international cooperation. Piaget remained being the chairman of the center after his retirement. All these showed that he enjoyed a high status on the field of children’s wisdom. In Piaget’s view, “intelligence is adaptation.” (Piaget, 1992, p.6). And “adaptation was described as an equilibration between the action of the organism on the environment and vice versa.” (Piaget, 1992, p.7). So wisdom has the character of logicality (Piaget, 1992, p.7). Piaget borrowed the transcendental scheme idea from Kant (1724-1804) and considered that on the basis of scheme children experience the helix ascending process from equilibration to disequilibration and to a new equilibration, through the modes of assimilation and accommodation to form each distinct structure of psychology, which is also the basic form of the development of intelligence. Meanwhile, Piaget also cited a conception “operation” from mathematical logic to display the extrinsic form of the development of intelligence. From the low level to the high level, the operation goes through three stages——preoperational stage, concrete operational stage, and formal operational stage——and intelligence finally becomes the mental entirety which is made up of all kinds of factor systems, which is connected, mixed, organized and constructed each other (Zheng & Peng, 2004, pp.89-90).

Piaget’s view of intelligence has four prominent merits and touches the essence of wisdom in some extent. a) It expressly recognized the fact that the development of individual intelligence needs the development of the thinking style as its precondition and basis. Accordingly, it thinks much of discussing individual intelligence and its development from the angle of individual cognitive development, especially the development of the individual way of thinking. Meanwhile, it doesn’t equal intelligence to thinking, but affirms that the range of intelligence is larger than that of thinking (Piaget, 1992, p.220). b) It definitely points out that intelligence has the double characters of biological adaptation and logicality (Piaget, 1992, pp.1-2), and explains intelligence by “equilibration”, which brings the active influence to the successors (e.g. Sternberg) to research wisdom. c) It indicates that the essence of intelligence is a kind of ability which is used by individuals to solve problems efficiently. d) It emphasizes the immanency and initiative of intellectual development.

However, Piaget’s view of wisdom also has five drawbacks: a) it does not distinguish the adaptation produced by instinct from the adaptation produced by intelligence. Though E. Claparède (1873-1940) and W.Stern (1871-1938) have claimed that intelligence is a mental adaptation to new circumstances, and instinct and habit are hereditary or acquired adaptation to recurring circumstances (Zhu, 1989, p.953). Piaget seems to disagree with their opinions about instinct, habit and intelligence, and he still considers “intelligence is adaptation” (Piaget, 1992, p.6), which makes his theory be susceptible to the allegation of confusing the adaptation engendered by instinct and the adaptation engendered by intelligence. b) It doesn’t find the essential difference in the course of individual’s inner thinking-processing of solving problems. Because the adaptation has simple and complex ways, the simple adaptation to the circumstances is just using experiences already gained (including the instinct by inheritance) to solve the questions one encountered, it is an application of experiences already gained, among which does not include complex thinking-processing. In fact, it is an ability of memory only. However, when faced complex situation, one must manipulate a complicated thinking process to the acquired knowledge in one’s brain, so one may adapt to environment better, only this kind of adaptation can be called as wisdom. c) “Adaptation” is a neuter and the word itself is neither virtuous nor evil. Thus, not all the adaptation is wise; and only adaptation for seeking common good (Sternberg, 1998) can be called wisdom. However, if an immoral person takes “natural selection, survival of the fittest” as his or her own principle of “zuòrén” (opposing to “zuòshì”), although it is a kind of adaptation, it doesn’t contain any wisdom. d) Piaget absolutely knows that emotional life and cognitive life are different but indispensable, so activities of intelligence involve an internal adjustment of energy (interest, effort, ease, etc) and external adjustment (the appraisement of the value of the solutions sought and of the objects concerned in the search) (Piaget, 1992, p.4). That is, intelligence contains factors of emotion. But in the practical research, he studies intelligence mainly in the view of cognition, and thinks intelligence more of a cognitive conception, which can be seen from the word “intelligence” he used to name intelligence instead of “wisdom”. That gets the suspicion of ignoring inward emotion and moral elements of wisdom and obliterates the differences between intelligence and wisdom. Firstly, intelligence has the meaning of inborn and smart power. Because of this, “intelligence” is more likely to be a conception beyond culture. “Wisdom” inclines to be acquired by studying and learning, so it includes the meanings of knowledge and learning. And as different people has different knowledge and learning, wisdom is often culture relativity and acquired learned. Secondly, intelligence only refers to truth,but wisdom contains both truth and morality, so intelligence is a neutral term while wisdom is an appreciative term. Thirdly, they have different effects on individual’s accomplishment and happiness in life. Much studies show that it is not intelligence but wisdom that has high positive correlation with individual’s accomplishment and happiness. A man/woman with wisdom probably can make a brilliant achievement if he/she chooses to go into society (like Guan Zhong); and also can lead a happy life if he/she chooses to withdraw from society (like Chuang Tzu). e) It excessively emphasizes the immanency and initiative of intelligence, so it is bad for conducting and inspiring people to improve individual wisdom development through creating good environment and wise education.

 

ERIKSON’S VIEW OF INTELLIGENCE: REVIEW AND REFLECTION

 

According to E. H. Erikson (1959), everyone will go through eight stages during his/her personality development, including infancy, toddler, play age, school age, adolescence, young adulthood, adulthood and late adulthood. People who can smoothly go through the former 7 stages would lead an engaged and happy life, feel rich and perfect in spiritual lives, make contributions to the society, have no fear of death, and when they look back to their life, they will feel whole and perfect. In the opposite, people who think they have missed many opportunities in their lives when they make retrospection would experience disappointments; they think they have led a wrong direction of life. Though they want to reshuffle, there is not enough time left, and they have no preparation for death. There are two ways for one to confront despair, one is to regard his/her life as positive to avoid the feeling of despair, and the other is to accept the fact that they are at the end of their life and should be responsible to impart their knowledge to descendants. If this crisis is positively solved, one would get the virtue of wisdom, otherwise, he/she would have the feeling of disappointment, meaningless, and despair (Erikson, 1959, p. 1-150); it shows that in Erikson’s view, wisdom is a kind of rational life attitude or life style which makes people kindhearted and free from vulgarity. So, generally speaking, wisdom only comes into being in the 8th stage of one’s life (Hou, 2007, p. 2,7), it results from successful solving the psychological crisis caused by the threat of death (Zhang, 2002, p. 63).

  Erikson is not the initiator who researched wisdom through the aspect of attitude and lifestyle, because Chinese prophets begin to discuss this issue from the period of pre-Qin (8th-3rd century BC). In their perspectives, wisdom is a kind of cognition after achieving supreme enlightenment, aiming to explore the ultimate principle of the relationship between universe (divine nature) and life (humanism) (Feng, 1996, p. 413). Just like the words said in Lao-tzu·Chapter 25: “Human follows the example of earth, earth follows the example of heaven; heaven follows the example of Dao, and Dao follows the example of nature.” “Imitating the nature” is a great rule which can work at earth, heaven and human. The wisdom will consciously follow this rule at any condition. Religious people (such as Christians and Buddhists) also probed wisdom from this perspective. For example, an early Christian view emphasized the importance of a life lived in pursuit of divine and absolute truth (Sternberg, 1998, p. 348). Erikson took over this tradition and still researched wisdom through the aspect of attitude and lifestyle (Hou, 2007, p. 2). There are at least two advantages of Erikson’s view of wisdom which influenced the Berlin model of wisdom and Sternberg’s theory of wisdom: a) this conclusion fulfills the traditional philosophy and religion of Chinese and Western. b) It agrees with some outcome of whole-lifetime developing psychology. Some relative researches of whole lifetime developing psychology improve that the wisdom has close relations with tacit knowledge, experience and physiological maturity, which is a psychological phenomenon expressed with the life’s evolution and is hard to be expressed in one’s early time even if in early adulthood under general situation (Paris, 2001, pp.257-260). However, there are also two drawbacks of Erikson’s view of wisdom: a) it narrows the connotation of wisdom by defining wisdom only as a kind of rational life attitude or life style which makes people kindhearted and free from vulgarity, actually wisdom means more than insight into life and death. b) In Erikson’s view, wisdom is mainly displayed in solving the problem of life and death when one is old, which is at the 8th stage of one’s life, it would be too late. Though the majority of people acquire wisdom in their late adulthood, there are still people who get wisdom earlier if we extend the connotation of wisdom.

 

THE BERLIN MODEL OF WISDOM: REVIEW AND REFLECTION

 

Since 1980s, some scholars have been carrying out the research on the Berlin model of wisdom followed the leading of P. B. Baltes. They defined wisdom as an expertise knowledge and behavior system in the fundamental pragmatics of life, which involves exceptional insight, judgment, and advice to the complex and uncertain matters of the human condition (Baltes & Staudinger, 1993, p.76). Specifically, the Berlin model of wisdom as an expert knowledge and behavior system in the fundamental pragmatics of life includes five aspects: a) factual knowledge in the fundamental pragmatics of life; b) strategic knowledge in the fundamental pragmatics of life; c) knowledge which considers contexts of life and societal change; d) knowledge which considers the uncertainties of life; e) knowledge which considers relativism of values and life goals (Baltes & Staudinger, 1993, p.77). Accordingly, they successively proposed six criteria to evaluate wisdom, they are: a) richness of factual knowledge about fundamental pragmatics of life; b) richness of procedural knowledge about fundamental pragmatics of life; c) life span contextualism; d) value relativism; e) awareness and management of the inherent uncertainty of life (Baltes & Staudinger, 1993, p.78); f) kind motives to help himself/herself and others gain good life. Among these six criteria, the former two are acquired by all expertise knowledge; the later four are gotten only by wisdom (Hou, 2007, p. 8-9).

  There are five merits in the Berlin model of wisdom: a) to define wisdom as “an expert knowledge and behavior system in the fundamental pragmatics of life” means wise person solves the problems of fundamental pragmatics of life in an efficient, ingenious and accurate way, which is in accordance with some views people think about sages. In this sense, though wisdom is almost inheres in people, task and context, one does not always own wisdom in different context (Sternberg, 2004, p. 287), we could still say that a person with wisdom in one context (like fundamental pragmatics of life) can often solve problems in a better and faster way than common people in other context; b) it exposes the close relationship between wisdom and knowledge, so it settles the basis for people to cultivate individuals’ wisdom through education; c) the connotation of wisdom in Berlin model is rich enough for it contains not only knowledge but also value, emotion and morality, which improves explanatory power of wisdom and distinguishes wisdom from intelligence; d) it also includes the public ethics, because it cares people’s well-being; e) it improves the operability of wisdom research by proposing six criteria of wisdom evaluation. There are also three drawbacks in the Berlin model of wisdom: a) its definition of wisdom mainly emphasizes on knowledge itself but not on the usage of knowledge (Sternberg, 2004, p. 287), it equals wisdom with knowledge, but in fact, the two concepts are different, firstly, knowledge could be either declarative or procedural, while wisdom is only a kind of procedural knowledge (including meta-cognition); secondly, knowledge could either be with high value or low value, and even no value, but wisdom must be with high value; thirdly, Knowledge focuses on analysis, abstract and different fields and what knowledge holds are facts and theorems. But wisdom focuses on colligation, acquiring the whole understanding and innermost truth of things, the hypostasis of the world and life (Feng, 1996, pp.418-420); fourthly, Although knowledge includes knowledge of natural science and of being an upright person, as long as knowledge is a kind of realization, it still stays in the field of cognition, and it is incline to be a neutral word. Wisdom is the integration of truth and morality, wisdom definitely has the cognitive part, and ethics, moral and human solicitude are also included, though in some conditions, a knowledgeable person may also own wisdom, we cannot take them as equivalent, knowledge should be transferred into wisdom; b) it is very limited that Baltes narrows down wisdom to “an expert knowledge system in the fundamental pragmatics of life”. The wisdom also can be shown in non-fundamental pragmatics except for the fundamental pragmatics of life; meantime, one person mainly shows a kind of moral wisdom in fundamental pragmatics of life, for the expert knowledge system in the fundamental pragmatics of life is mostly about life planning, life management and life review and so on (Baltes & Staudinger, 2000, p.125), and it is not the scientific knowledge, so natural wisdom is excluded in the Berlin model of wisdom; c) the measurement of wisdom is unsatisfactory, Baltes and his colleagues designed some questions about life management, and evaluated individual’s wisdom according to their answer to these questions, this method of measurement is based on hypothetical scenarios, as Ardelt has pointed, the object measured in this way is mainly knowledge but not wisdom (Sternberg, 2004, p. 287).

 

NEO-PIAGETIAN’S VIEW OF WISDOM: REVIEW AND REFLECTION

 

Some Neo-Piagetists or theorists influenced by Piaget follow the way of Piaget’s thoughts to explore wisdom; they define wisdom as post-formal-operational thinking, which is a stage of thinking beyond formal-operational thinking. Once a person achieves post-formal-operational thinking, s/he obtains wisdom (Sternberg, 1998, p. 350), because s/he can think reflectively or dialectically and can make a synthesis of knowledge from opposing points of view and be tolerant to uncertainty of life (Zhang, 2002, p. 64). The merit of this view lies in that some important characters of the way  of thinking embodied in wisdom has been found: reflection, relativity, dialectics, opening, communication, tolerance and integration, etc. the drawback of this view lies in that it will cause a misunderstanding to take wisdom as pure cognition if we define it merely from the point of the way of thinking. And the attribute of ethic will be neglected easily, so it’s hard to ensure keeping an appropriate distance between wisdom and the way of thinking or intelligence and leave a potential risk of putting wisdom equal to certain thinking way or intelligence. As what we said above, wisdom is obviously different from intelligence though they have connections. Meanwhile, can it attribute thinking-way of wise person to certain single thinking way—such as post-formal-operation thinking, it is a problem worth of discussing further. We think that the thinking-way of wise individuals is many and various, among which up to post-formal-operational thinking, maybe some people do not belong to post-formal-operational thinking, but they are still wise.

 

STERNBERG’S VIEW OF WISDOM: REVIEW AND REFLECTION

 

 “A balance theory of wisdom” has been continued developing by Sternberg (Sternberg, 1998, 2000, 2001b, 2003, 2004c, p.287). According to Sternberg’s latest view, “wisdom is a process of obtaining common good by using intelligence, creativity, and knowledge, over the long and short terms, with the mediation of values, to balance intrapersonal (one’s own), interpersonal (others’), and extra personal (institutional or other larger) interests, so as to adapt, shape, and select environments better.”(Sternberg, 2004c, p.287).

There are six merits in Sternberg’s view of wisdom.

1. “Balance” is the first characteristic proposed definitely as wisdom. Piaget uses “equilibration” to explain wisdom; “integration” includes some ideas of balance when Erikson and Baltes discuss wisdom, but Sternberg goes further than them, he emphasizes “balance” as the first characteristic of wisdom. It is in accordance with “a gentleman knows how to do in any situation” in The Doctrine of Mean.

2. Besides the close relationship between wisdom and knowledge, three important distinctions between wisdom and knowledge are proposed by Sternberg in order to remove hidden danger of equaling wisdom to knowledge: a) Sternberg’s theory differs from Baltes’s primarily in its lesser emphasis on knowledge and its greater emphasis on how people use the knowledge they have. (Sternberg, 2004c, p.287). b) Knowledge itself cannot assure it is used in correct way; people can use it for good or for bad. Some notorious terrorists or heinous crimes mostly are in high intelligence and educated well, but they use their intelligence and wisdom to do hazardous things, at last suffer the consequences of their own evildoings like Hitler (1889-1945) and so on. No doubt, this kind of people is very smart and filled up with knowledge and ability but by no means wisdom (Sternberg, 2004b, pp.145 - 150). One of the remarkable distinction among wisdom, knowledge, intelligence and creativity is that wisdom embodies the coordinating effects of value, one cannot understand wisdom outside the value and a wise individual must possess correct ethic cognition and ethic judgment; c) Knowledge and ability couldn’t guarantee people’s subjective happiness, for people who have success and achievement permitted by public also possess great knowledge and ability, their life does not seem very happy; on the contrary, wisdom has the power to improve one’s subjective happiness (Sternberg, 2004a, pp.67-78).

3. One of the important methods of expressing wisdom is to balance all kinds of reactions of environment; this is a kind of succession and development to Piaget’s theory. Not the same as Piaget, Sternberg not only sees the distinction between using wisdom to adapt to environment and using instinct to adapt to environment, but also sees the valuable neutral nature of adaptation. In order to avoid unnecessary ambiguity, he uses three ingenious methods to remove the disturbance of instinct and the adaptation which is hardly relevant with good in definition of wisdom. a) Individuals use knowledge to adapt to existing environment and the knowledge is not acquired from birth. b) Individuals must adapt to existing environment, select new environment and also shape up existing environment; these reactions (especially the last one) to environment are not done by instinct but by acquired knowledge. c) Only the adaptation of achieving common good can be referred to wisdom, in other words, wise behavior is the actions of individuals surpassing personal interests, balancing multilateral interests and finally fulfilling common good. If one only thinks of personal or in-group interests (or one’s nationality and country’s interests) and sacrifice common good, one is unwise.

4. The wisdom includes the wisdom of treating other people and treating oneself, and also includes the elements of meta-cognition so it makes a wise individual know what he knows, what he doesn’t know and can’t know (Zhang, 2002, p.64). This is more comprehensive and is in accordance with interpersonal perception by intellectual self-knowledge as emphasized by Chinese tradition.

5. It emphasized morality in the wisdom and this kind of morality was for common interests, not for personal interests.

6. It distinguished the relationship between wisdom and other conceptions, and to show the peculiar nature of wisdom. In Sternberg’s view, though wisdom has connections with practical intelligence, social intelligence, emotional intelligence, interpersonal intelligence and intrapersonal intelligence, they are obviously different. Practical intelligence and social intelligence both are neutral concepts; they can either be used for seeking good or evil, however, wisdom is a positive concept and only exists in helping others do right things or seek common good, rather than seeking privacy interests. Emotional intelligence involves understanding, judging, and regulating emotions. These skills are an important part of wisdom. But it makes wise judgments go beyond the capacity of emotional intelligence and needs participation of wisdom. Interpersonal intelligence only refers to the ability of interpersonal interaction; intrapersonal intelligence only refers to the sensibility or awareness of one’s internal condition and capacity; however, for the sake of common good, wisdom requires not only balance between interpersonal and intrapersonal interests, but also extra personal interests (Sternberg, 1998, pp.359-360).

There were also some drawbacks in Sternberg’s theory.

1. Once taking “balance” as the first attribute of wisdom, one should tell people how to balance the relation of conscience (Conscience and morality are interchangeable in this paper) and cleverness; i.e. a standard measurement on the balance of conscience and cleverness should be made and tell people the methods how to achieve it. It’s a pity that Sternberg didn’t do it.

2. Can we use “value” as the description of “morality” of wisdom? It is a question worth of discussing further. One of the features of “a balance theory of wisdom” is regarding the integration of morality and cleverness (creativity) as an important index of distinguishing wisdom from other psychological researches like knowledge or intelligence, etc. This is definitely right, but it is better to indicate the attribute of intrinsic good of wisdom by “morality” rather than “values”. After all, in comparison with “values”, “morality” has the merit like more direct, more abundant connotation, comparatively stable, etc. So this paper tends to put forward “The Wisdom Theory of the integration of Conscience and Cleverness”.

3. From the point of “moral wisdom” and “natural wisdom” in following text, it is “moral wisdom” if one is in order to obtain common good and is good at “balancing” all kinds of interests. When one deals with complicated innate laws of things, “balance” couldn’t solve everything and must show some creativity. Maybe this result from Sternberg takes too much notice of value in wisdom, and narrows “wisdom” for it lacks “natural wisdom” (Wang, 2008, p. 278-280).

4. Sternberg’s theory of wisdom is not a pluralistic but a unitary type or level; it doesn’t mention the relevance and distinction of real wisdom and quasi-wisdom or big wisdom and small wisdom, so it can’t be instructed well in wisdom education.

 

References

Baltes, Paul B. & Staudinger, Ursula M. (1993). The search for a psychology of wisdom. Current Directions in Psychological Science (Vol.2, pp.75-80). Published by Cambridge University Press.

Baltes, Paul B. & Staudinger, Ursula M. (2000). Wisdom: A metaheuristic (pragmatic) to orchestrate mind and virtue toward excellence. American Psychologist, Vol.55, No.1:122-135.

Erikson, Erik H. (1959). Identity and the Life Cycle. New York: International Universities Press. P. 1-150.

Feng, Q. (Collected works of Fengqie). (1996). Recognize the World and Yourselves. Shanghai: Eastern Normal University Press.

Hou. Y. (2007). Chinese Viewpoint of Wisdom. Thesis proposal for doctoral degree at basic psychology in Nanjing Normal University.

Labouvie-Vief, G. (1980). Beyond formal operations: Uses and limits of pure logic in life span development. Human Development,Vol. 23. P. 141~161.

Lu, G. S. (1993). The English-Chinese Dictionary. Shanghai: Shanghai Translation Publishing House.

Paris, S. G. (2001). Wisdom, snake oil, and the educational marketplace. Educational Psychologist, 36(4), 257–260.

Piaget, J. (Translated by H, B. L.). (1992). Psychology of Intelligence. Beijing: China Social Science Press. P. 1-10, 207-220.

Sternberg, Robert J. (1998). A balance theory of wisdom. Review of General Psychology, Vol.2, No.4:347-365.

Sternberg, Robert J. (2004a). Four Alternative Futures for Education in the United States: It’s Our Choice. School Psychology Review, 33 (1): 67 - 78.

Sternberg, Robert J. (2004b). Why Smart People Can Be So Foolish. European Psychologist, 2004, 9 (3): 145 - 150.

Sternberg, Robert J. (2004c). Words to the wise about wisdom? A Commentary on Ardelt’s Critique of Baltes. Human Development , 47: 286-289.

Wang, F.Y. & Zheng, H. (2008). Chinese Cultural Psychology (Third Edition). Guangzhou: Jinan University Press.

Zhang, W.D. (2002). The theory of diversity-balance-integrity of intelligence. Journal of Eastern Normal University. Vol.20, No.4: 61-67.

Zheng, C. Q & Peng, J. Z. (2004). The new development of theory of wisdom. Journal of Yunyang Teachers College.Vol.24, No.6: 89-93.

Zhang, C. X. (1998). Educational Psychology. Hangzhou: Zhejiang Education Publishing House. P. 99-100.

 

[This paper was first published in Journal of Dialectics of Nature, 2010, Vol. 32, No.3, pp.93-97、107.]





[*] Preparation of this article was supported by the key research center funding of Humanities & Social Science of Ministry of Education (Grant No: 07JJD880241) and the key items of ministry of education of the national education science’s eleventh-five year plan (Grant No: DEA070061) in China.

  About the authors: Wang Fengyan(1970- ), who is a supervisor of Ph.D. student at Nanjing Normal University, mainly researches in Chinese cultural psychology and educational psychology; Zheng Hong(1970- ), who is a supervisor of master students at Nanjing Normal University, mainly researches in educational psychology and Chinese cultural psychology.

  评论这张
 
阅读(469)| 评论(0)
推荐 转载

历史上的今天

在LOFTER的更多文章

评论

<#--最新日志,群博日志--> <#--推荐日志--> <#--引用记录--> <#--博主推荐--> <#--随机阅读--> <#--首页推荐--> <#--历史上的今天--> <#--被推荐日志--> <#--上一篇,下一篇--> <#-- 热度 --> <#-- 网易新闻广告 --> <#--右边模块结构--> <#--评论模块结构--> <#--引用模块结构--> <#--博主发起的投票-->
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

页脚

网易公司版权所有 ©1997-2017