戦後イギリスにおける共通カリキュラム論の一考察 : ピーターズの「教育」概念分析からホワイトによる規範的教育目的論への軌跡

概要

論文の詳細を見る
The question about curriculum has always been located at the center of educational argument in Britain after the Second World War. Especially, in the realm of secondary education, it has been discussed about standardization of curriculum and/or creation of common curriculum. The problem concerned about common curriculum was posed theoretically and practically as a part of the comprehensive school refom which aimed at overcoming "the tripartite system" institutionalized by 1944 Act. This comprehensive school reform proposed the single-channel structure system as a replacement for the existing multi-channel structure system which was called "the tripartite system" in secondary education of those days. This movement was based on the social egalitarianism, whose goals was to achieve the equal education and to reduce the impartial gaps between social classes. Therefore, the attempt to creat a common curriculum in those days also had the implications of establishing the specific identity of comprehensive schools. This paper picks up three theorists, R.S. Peters and P. H. Hirst, J. White, who formed London liner and contributed very much to the theoretical questions involved in creating common curriculum. Because they consider to the problems not only what subjects should be set up as common curriculum but also on what basis those subjects can be made common, when they pose common curriculum. Peter's concept analysis of "education" and White's argument about the normative educational aim try to clarify the aim of common curriculum which is appropriate for new comprehensive school, through considering the question of "What is education" and "What is educational aims". Peters applies the conceptual analysis to this problem. His aim is to articulate the principle inherent in education and to present the universal educational theory which have no ideological inclinations, by analyzing concept of "education". And he calls the education which accords with the principle, "the education as initiation". Hirst identifies, according to Peters' theory, the object with which children are initiated as "forms of knowledge". White tries to develop their educational theories critically. He criticizes the conceptual analysis of "education" which was used by Peters in order to justify his educational theory and seek to replace it with his own normative philosophy of education. And, on that theory, he identifies "autonomy" as the normative educational goal. He argues that "autonomy" is the capability which the people in the liberal democratic societies requires to achieve good lives. It is the educational theory that do not set up a common value in the meta-dimension of analysis of an "educational" concept. White insists the capability as common value which people need in this society. What influence does the normative educational aim of this "autonomy" actually have on curriculum? In order to answer this question, in this paper, I take up a controversy between White and Lee about the goals of history teaching. On the one hand, Lee thinks that history education should be taught for the sake of history itself. On the other hand, White thinks that history education should be taught for bringing up the citizens of liberal democratic societies. In short, it is the controversy about what is field of history teaching. Then, through inquiring into the difference between them, I points outs that the normative educational aim, "autonomy" indicates personal value as a educational value distinguished from the scientific recognition, which children acquire in each subjects of study.
2004-03-31

著者

二宮衆一
京都大学大学院

戦後イギリスにおける共通カリキュラム論の一考察 : ピーターズの「教育」概念分析からホワイトによる規範的教育目的論への軌跡

スポンサーリンク

概要

著者

関連論文

スポンサーリンク