二十世紀前半葉美國進步教育運動的流派與杜威的流派歸屬

CCUR > College of Education > Educational Program Center > Project > Item 987654321/48666

Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item: https://irlib.pccu.edu.tw/handle/987654321/48666

Title:	二十世紀前半葉美國進步教育運動的流派與杜威的流派歸屬 An Analysis of the Strands of Progressive Education Movement in the Usa during the First Part of Twentieth Century and J. Dewey’S Position
Authors:	單文經
Contributors:	師資培育中心
Keywords:	美國進步教育流派進步教育流派二元論進步教育流派多元論進步教育流派連續體論進步教育流派溪流論杜威流派歸屬的另類觀點
Date:	2020
Issue Date:	2020-09-30 15:12:26 (UTC+8)
Abstract:	經過一段時間的前導文獻探討，本計畫確認了中文世界幾乎無人研究本問題，甚至討論者亦極鮮少，因而畀予本人研究的機會；又，包括美國在內的英文世界，雖已積累不少研究成果，但仍尚有自不同觀點探討的空間。　　復經初步文獻探討，本計畫發現：Cremin（1961）視美國進步教育為一整體，但未刻意將其分門別派，而較早提出流派分支之說的Tyack（1974）則有將進步教育者等同於行政派進步主義者之情事，其後又有Zilversmit（1993）逕將進步教育者等同於教學派進步主義者，其間作法顯有不同；同時，其等對杜威的流派歸屬亦有異見。正是這些分歧與異見有待辨析，致使本人形成了本研究的問題意識。　　本計畫的再度文獻探討，更總結了諸多困惑，如：Tyack之後的學者多逕採行政與教學二派之分法？進步教育流派之分究為二元論、多元論、連續體論，抑或溪流論？進步教育涵蓋的範圍，是否將因納入Ravitch的另類觀點而擴大？還有學者採取另類觀點的流派分法？杜威的流派究應如何歸屬？正是這些進一步的疑點有待深入解析，強化了本研究的問題意識。　　立基於上述問題意識的討論，本計畫研究形成了兩項研究動機，以及四項研究目的。兩項研究動機為：（一）二十世紀前半葉美國進步教育運動流派的分支有待釐清，各派主張亦有待深究；（二）杜威流派的歸屬固有待確認，究應如何看待杜威流派歸屬的問題，亦有待探討。四項研究目的為：（一）研究美國進步教育運動的性質，以及若干學者以流派觀之的緣由；（二）詳解各方學者就美國進步教育運動所作的流派分法，以及各流派的主張；（三）探討美國進步教育運動所作流派分法之另類觀點，並說明其理由；（四）分析各方學者就杜威流派歸屬所提出的作法及理由，並敘述另類的觀點。　　本計畫預期以一年的時間，完成不少於三萬字的研究報告。同時，本人至少會將研究報告改寫為論文一篇，投遞適當的刊物，俾便達成發表至少一篇論文的目標。 Based on a period of exploratory review of related literature, it is confirmed that, in Chinese community, there is little discussion, let alone any research, on the planned topic. In English community, although plenty of results have been accumulated, some room are left for the investigation from an alternative viewpoint. 　　A preliminary literature review showed that Cremin (1961) construed progressive education as a whole, and has not separated it into strands on purpose. Tyack (1974) who was the first scholar to do this and equalized all progressives as administrative progressives. On the contrary, Zilversmit (1993) considered all progressives as pedagogical progressives. Besides, they differed in Dewey’s position on this topic as well. That all of these opposites and differences to be dealt with formulates the problem consciousness of this project. 　　A secondary review of literature showed more that there are a few confusions, such as, did post-Tyack scholars mostly hold the dual strands view, i.e. separating progressives into administrative and pedagogical progressives? Should the division of the strands of progressive education movement be considered as dualism, pluralism, continuum, or stream theory? Will the range of progressive education be broadened if Ravitch’s alternative viewpoint is taken? Are there any more alternative viewpoints taken by other scholars? How should Dewey’s position be categorized? All of these questions strengthened the problem consciousness of this project. 　　Based on the above discussions, research motives and goals of this project were formed. The research motives are twofold: firstly, that the strands of progressive education movement in the USA during the first part of twentieth century is to be clarified, and secondly, Dewey’s position on the topic is to be identified. Research goals are fourfold: Firstly, exploring the nature of progressive education movement in the USA during the first part of twentieth century, and why some scholars took strands view. Secondly, explaining some scholars’ strands view and their thoughts. Thirdly, investigating the alternative viewpoints of the strands view, and describing the reasons. Fourthly, analyzing some scholars’ ideas about Dewey’s positions, and delineating an alternative viewpoint. 　　In one year, a final report with no less than 30,000-word will be written, and at least one paper will be adapted and submitted to TSSCI scholarly journal in due course.
Appears in Collections:	[Educational Program Center ] Project

Files in This Item:

File	Description	Size	Format
index.html		0Kb	HTML	262	View/Open

View Licence

Loading...