Reading the article by Cantor, Osher, Berg, Steyer, & Rose (2018) and its companion piece, “Malleability, Plasticity, and Individuality: How Children Learn and Develop in Context” (Canotr et al., 2018), I am encouraged by the growing effort to understand how relationships shape learning and the larger view of human development as a “holistic, integrated, and self-constructing system,” shaped by processes at the cellular, genetic, neurobiological, phenomenological, emotional, and behavioral levels (Cantor et al., 2018). But I am also concerned by the absence of a systemic exploration of the sorts of changes needed individually, collectively, and institutionally to make such knowledge actually useful in practice. Knowing that a forthcoming “practice paper” will address such issues, I hope my comments can be of some use. Beyond the particulars, I hope to draw attention to the natural bias within the academy to focus first on ideas and then to consider how they move into practice, as opposed to seeing theory and practice as interwoven and shaping one another. My own predisposition toward the later view comes from a lifetime trying to understand what a “systems perspective” means in practice, and the individual and collective developmental implications in institutions like schools and businesses.

中文翻译：

---

评论：为什么实践系统的观点说起来容易做起来难

阅读 Cantor、Osher、Berg、Steyer 和 Rose 的文章（2018 年）及其配套文章“延展性、可塑性和个性：儿童如何在环境中学习和发展”（Cantor 等人，2018 年），我很受鼓舞通过越来越多的努力来了解关系如何塑造学习，以及将人类发展视为“整体、整合和自我构建的系统”的更大视野，由细胞、遗传、神经生物学、现象学、情感和行为层面的过程塑造。 Cantor 等人，2018 年）。但我也担心，缺乏对个人、集体和制度所需的各种变化的系统探索，以使这些知识在实践中真正有用。知道即将发布的“实践文件”将解决这些问题，我希望我的评论能有所帮助。除了细节，我希望引起人们对学院内自然偏见的关注，首先关注想法，然后考虑如何将它们付诸实践，而不是将理论和实践视为相互交织和塑造。我自己对后一种观点的倾向来自于我一生都在试图理解“系统视角”在实践中的含义，以及对学校和企业等机构的个人和集体发展的影响。