中美关系如何从建构主义角度分析?
他是认知发展领域最有影响的一位心理学家，他所创立的关于儿童认知发展的学派被人们称为日内瓦学派。皮亚杰的理论充满唯物辩证法，他坚持从内因和外因相互作用的观点来研究儿童的认知发展。他认为，儿童是在与周围环境相互作用的过程中，逐步建构起关于外部世界的知识，从而使自身认知结构得到发展。儿童与环境的相互作用涉及两个基本过程：“同化”与“顺应”。同化是指把外部环境中的有关信息吸收进来并结合到儿童已有的认知结构（也称“图式”）中，即个体把外界刺激所提供的信息整合到自己原有认知结构内的过程；顺应是指外部环境发生变化，而原有认知结构无法同化新环境提供的信息时所引起的儿童认知结构发生重组与改造的过程，即个体的认知结构因外部刺激的影响而发生改变的过程。可见，同化是认知结构数量的扩充（图式扩充），而顺应则是认知结构性质的改变（图式改变）。认知个体（儿童）就是通过同化与顺应这两种形式来达到与周围环境的平衡：当儿童能用现有图式去同化新信息时，他是处于一种平衡的认知状态；而当现有图式不能同化新信息时，平衡即被破坏，而修改或创造新图式（即顺应）的过程就是寻找新的平衡的过程。儿童的认知结构就是通过同化与顺应过程逐步建构起来，并在“平衡棽黄胶鈼新的平衡”的循环中得到不断的丰富、提高和发展。这就是皮亚杰关于建构主义的基本观点。在皮亚杰的上述理论的基础上，科尔伯格在认知结构的性质与认知结构的发展条件等方面作了进一步的研究；斯腾伯格和卡茨等人则强调了个体的主动性在建构认知结构过程中的关键作用，并对认知过程中如何发挥个体的主动性作了认真的探索；维果斯基创立的“文化历史发展理论”则强调认知过程中学习者所处社会文化历史背景的作用，在此基础上以维果斯基为首的维列鲁学派深入地研究了“活动”和“社会交往”在人的高级心理机能发展中的重要作用。所有这些研究都使建构主义理论得到进一步的丰富和完善，为实际应用于教学过程创造了条件。首先试图探讨国际政治理论上的物质、力量问题和规范、认同问题,同时介绍一些学者提出的建构主义理论的基本观点,尤其是认识、认同问题和它们跟均势理论、安全理论有什么具体相关性.其次是简单地指出,跟认识有关的敏感性概念及跟物质有关的脆弱性概念,然后把这一些建构主义理论观点运用于阐释具体中美关系和中国对美政策的重要问题.中美之间的关系大体上分为三个时期,50、60年代冷战时期,70年代冷战时期,80、90年代中国改革开放以后以及冷战后时期.文章一方面要探讨中国对美国采取的或者美国对中国采取的态度的变化,另一方面要用建构主义理论解释其态度变化的原因.冷战时期的中美关系基本上是在美苏对立影响圈之内.因此,意识形态的作用极其重大,最终导致中美各自对对方的认识也十分有限.尽管如此,冷战时期即70年代初期出现了上海联合公报,这就说明双方开始通过一些渠道来认识对方.也可以说,各自不断发出信号.上海联合公报是新中国成立后经历了一度恶化的中美关系发生的第一次历史性转机,也可以称重大突破.不过,中美建交直到70年代末才完成.为什么呢?因为中美关系里面有许多太敏感的部分,如台湾问题就是当时建交的绊脚石,也是一直影响来着中美双方相互认识的一块绊脚石.改革开放后的中美关系随着集体认同的扩大逐步走向稳定.中国在国际社会里的活动也大幅度增加.中国外交政策一直是中国内外现实反映.中国是推动多极化的一把轴，它不是向往单极的另一个国家.因此美国对华认识也大致趋向友好.90年代也就是冷战后的时代，可以说它是美国单极力量大大扩展的时期.在这一时期，中国站在岔道口而面临选择，是对抗这个单极？还是要顺应它？因为中国是前苏联消失以后唯一能对付超级大国美国的潜在能力国家.冷战后时期的初期是均势力量太不平衡的时期.这段时期的中国没有表现出向往均势的对抗姿态，却表现出顺应姿态.然而，在20世纪末，中国一时表现出对抗美国推行单极化的强劲姿态.该文把出现这一变化原因归于“认识”的变化.总而言之，该文试图阐明的几个结论点是：第一，以前的主流国际政治理论即现实主义理论已不能够说明新中国中美关系，因而不得不用建构主义理论来弥补现实主义理论的缺点.第二，用建构主义理论来说明中美关系中一些关键性问题更有效.第三，新中国中美关系里一直存在着特别敏感的部分，它们包含着历史、政治原因.第四，就中国的立场来说，主权拥护问题和台湾问题是最为敏感的部分.
辩论赛，一辩发言稿 辩题“城市文明中是政府管理还是民众素质重要” 我是代表反方“民众素质”，三分钟
1，政府管理措施再好还不是得需要民众的执行和支持？
2，青山绿水看上去很美，随地吐痰、乱扔垃圾、随车抛物屡禁不止，文明城市从何而来？
3，文明城市不是挂在墙上的标语，而是每一个市民的行动，总不能让市民不外出吧，外出就得做出符合文明城市的有素质的举动
4，不是城市文明我文明，而是我文明城市才能文明
5，文明城市不是一朝一夕，而是百年之计，百年之计靠政府管理能行吗？关键还是民众的素质。
6，即使没有政府的管理，民众素质足够高的话，也是文明城市！
7，再结合你们的城市特点写上几点。然后自己再展开写吧。
满意请采纳，谢谢支持。
英语辩论赛主持词
英语辩论赛主持词 beginning:
good evening, ladies and gentlemen. good evening, boys and girls.this place will be your stage to show your strong ability in debating and we are your hosts.
judge introduction:
firstly, i have the great privilege of Psenting today's judges for this debate contest. ladies and gentlemen, let’s welcome mr. from...
rule introduction:
now i would like to introduce the rules for this contest. no., contest will be spanided into two parts, group of english major, and group of other majors. no., each group will be given minutes, including minute for stating the two debaters’ own opinion, minutes for free debate，and minute for their the last sum-up. no., at the end of the contest, we will choose five contestants including english major contestants and from other majors.
up to now, i think all of you have known the rules very well. and then each group will begin your debate according the order and the topic you have got.
so first, lets welcome group one…
ending:
their views all sound very nice, right? and i think you all have been well-Ppared to defeat the other side.
all the contestants have shown great debating ability in today's fierce competition. i'm sure we're all deeply imPssed by the intelligent debaters. thanks for your hard work and let's give ourselves a big round of applause.
now it's time for the result. which contestants will win this wonderful debate? and who will be the best debater today? i am sure it is going to be very close. and i think all contestants need to be congratulated for their outstanding efforts.
英文辩论赛主持稿
2017英文辩论赛主持稿 一场精彩的辩论赛除了离不开我们辩手的.功劳和策划的功劳，更是离不开我们主持人精彩的主持。下面是我搜集整理的2017英文辩论赛主持稿，欢迎阅读。 2017英文辩论赛主持稿一 Debater Number 1 Debater Number 2 评委团：judges 题目 Debating Competition 开头：welcome to the debating competition of the issue now lets begin.开始 Outline for Beginners Following is a speech outline for (EFL) novice debaters. Too much reliance on this may make your speech inflexible; still, the expressions and the speech flow below are the basic which every (EFL) debater should keep in mind. ■ 1. Greetings ■ 2. Presenting the motion and case (Note: of course, this is mainly the task of the Prime Minister) ■ 3. Showing the (government / opposition) “stance” (or “team line”) for the round. ■ 4. Presenting your speech outline and team allocation. ■ 5. Refutation ■ 6. Explaining points. ■ 7. Conclusion Spend approximately 30 seconds to summarize your speech. Refutation Refutation, which is to point out the weakness of the other side’s arguments, can be formulated into six basic types as below: ① Not relevant: “What you said is not relevant with what you are trying to prove. “ e.g. [GOV] Korean government should abolish death penalty because Canada abolished. [OPP] It is not relevant because we are debating on Korea not on Canada. ② Not true: “You are a liar!” e.g. [OPP] Korean government should not abolish death penalty because it deters crimes. [GOV] It is not true because crime rate is increasing even though we have death penalty. ③ Not always true: “What you said is not always true.” e.g. [OPP] Korean government should not abolish death penalty because of the victim families’ feeling. [GOV] It is not always true because peoples’ feelings are case by case. ④ Not significant: “What you said is not important at all.” e.g. [OPP] Korean government should have death penalty because life in prison costs much more money. [GOV] It is not significant because those who are sentenced death penalty are put into jail long years before they are actually being executed. ⑤ Alternative plan: “There is a better plan to solve the problem” e.g. [GOV] Korean government should abolish death penalty because of the possibility of misjudgments. [OPP] There is a better solution to the problem, which is to have three trial systems and introduce new technology for investigation. ⑥ ⑥ Flip: ”What you said is the opposite. It is actually our point” e.g. [OPP] Korean government should not abolish death penalty because Koran government should protect its citizens as government role. [GOV] Outline: Reply Speech The purpose of reply speech is quite different from the constructive speeches (e.g. PM speech). In reply speech, you assume the role of adjudicators; to be more precise, you are to explain the reason why your side has won the round. You are expected to do: a. explain the criteria to judge the round b. summarize the round focusing on issues (or “crash point”). c. Provide new illustrations to emphasize your arguments. 1. Greetings 2. Showing the outline. 3. Pointing out the failures of the other side. 4. Comparing arguments focusing on issues (crash points). 5. Conclusion. 2017英文辩论赛主持稿二 Should different cultures merge into each other or maintain their unique feature? Good afternoon everyone, welcome to the site of this debate. As we all know, nowadays western cultures are popular in China, at the same time, Chinese ancient culture gets bad influence. So what on earth is right attitude to different cultures ? Ok, let's give our debaters this argument. Attention please, the title of this debate is "Should different cultures merge into each other or maintain their unique features?" There are five phases in this debate, making a point、asking and replying questions、a brief summary、free debate、last summary. Making a point: Let both sides state their own opinion. The positive/negative first debater, please! Asking and replying questions: Every side's second debater can come up with two questions which are replyed by the other side's first and third debater. The negative second debater, please! The positive second debater, please! A brief summary: Welcome every side's second debater to give us a brief summary. The negative second debater, please! The negative second debater, please! Free debate: In this phase, all debaters can debate freely. Every side has 4 minutes. Last summary: After a fierce debate, let every side's fourth debater gives us their last summary. The negative fourth debater, please! The positive fourth debater, please! Thank every debater ! ;
