大学の目的と教育学カリキュラム : コナント報告を中心として

概要

論文の詳細を見る
Long since our educationists have chiefly concerned themselves with the primary or secondary education but not the higher one. There may have truely been certain justifiable causes. Now, however, most of them are college staffs and their institutions have so many difficulties as others, so they should not be negative nor indifferent to their own problems. When their contributions may somewhat be limited, still their sincere endeavour must be useful or suggestive to the college problems. This thesis consists of four chapters. I The first chapter tries to clarify the objectives of University training. Though we have a good definition of them in the School Education Act of 1947, it may be said too formal to be realized by all. For example, professors adhere to their conviction that a University should give students theoretical interest, while students only wish to get better employment after graduation. Each objective may be all right except one point; in other words, the former can't be fruitful but for the latter, the latter may have no connection with University education except for the former. Now, the author confesses here what he learned in his old days by his training in a foreign language (the English). He analyzes it and finds several valuable by-products. The one is a European rationalistic spirit, and the other a comprehension of a few general principles. We Japanese have the Japanese language and this has its own grammar. Also we have the Japanese way of thinking and this has its own logic. Both the grammar and the logic are the same-rooted, so learning a foreign language should mean learning its best way of thinking or living. Our students should study more and more what a rationalistic spirit and so on mean and make them their own. II The second chapter argues about the role and the character of educational science in teacher education. Whether it be necessary or not has been a theme of long debate. When necessary and useful, then there should be some considerations. The one is of its intermediate character; i. e. its role as an intermediary between theory and practice. The second is of its current tendency to become an ideology, full of abstract or inert ideas in observations and explanations. The third is of an idea of "meta-pedagogics". This concept means a deep insight into the Urphenomena of education where no educational science can reach. Therefore it is no more an educational science than philosophy, not in the modern academic sense, but in the classical one. The meta-pedagogics is the alpha and the omega of education, both in theory and practice. This term the author owes to Aristotle's meta-physica and a recent study on meta-science. III The third chapter criticizes an educational science curriculum. The whole shall be devided into three parts. a) The practice teaching should be the core. All others should be given their role or significance in relation to it. This is the first part. b) Educational psychology, sociology, history and philosophy constitute the second part. They have a common role of preparing the theoretical bases to practice teaching. Each of them has its own parent discipline, and training in this seems us to be an indispensable one to a future professor of education. c) The third part is so-called method courses including those of subjectmatter teaching. They say that these are the most dreary and unpopular among the students. Why? Several reasons may be mentioned in reply. The one comes from who the professor is. He generally is no specialist of education nor excellent scholar of any academic field. Few professors are, strange to say, majoring in these areas. The second comes from the lecture itself. It is little more than an incomplete mixture of educational psychology and relevant subject-matter elements of lower grades. Can such a course be charming to young students? The third comes from our current praxis lecturing on it separated from practice teaching. Students can't apprehend yet a delicate and interesting process of teaching, so these courses appeal them very little. Therefore Dr. Conant's idea of a clinical professor deserves our sincere consideration. IV The fourth chapter is our conclusion. The author believes it very important that the criticized objectives above be realized in our curriculum. Among many obstacles which resist to this, those out of a University are more difficult to be overcome. Full conscious of them, the author hopes that the present system of 6-3-3 would be revised into 4-4-4, and the business world recognize what a University or college should do and cooperate with it.
横浜国立大学の論文
1965-11-30

著者

松本賢治
教育学教室

大学の目的と教育学カリキュラム : コナント報告を中心として

スポンサーリンク

概要

著者

関連論文

スポンサーリンク