十九世紀末至二十世紀前半葉美國進步教育流派分法與Dewey的流派歸屬

Analyzing the Classification of Various Factions of Progressive Education and J. Dewey's Position in Progressive Education from the End of the 19th Century to the First Half of the 20th Century

單文經(Wen-Jing Shan)

《教育研究集刊》 67:3期 (2021/09) Pp. 43-93

https://doi.org/10.3966/102887082021096703002

摘要

本文以適切的研究文獻為據，解答十九世紀末至二十世紀前半葉美國進步教育流派分法與Dewey流派歸屬的有關問題。先確認Cremin雖未刻意將其分流別派，卻確實為之；次蠡測學者們刻意將進步教育分流別派的緣由與作法；再經層層論述試提行政、教學、自由至上、社會重建、生活適應五分之議；隨後以翱翔在天空中的飛龍詮解Dewey不屬於任一流派之論。文末反思指出，學者們所做進步教育流派分法的討論似未慮及Dewey晚年重視的理智與品格發展，因而須予商榷；又，傳統與進步教育並非截然的二元對立，以兼而有之的觀點截長取短，或較妥當。

關鍵字

Dewey的流派歸屬 ； 美國進步教育 ； 美國進步教育流派 ； 理智與品格發展

並列摘要

Based on appropriate research literatures, this article intends to answer the questions about the classification of American progressive education and the belonging of Dewey from the end of the 19th century to the first half of the 20th century. First, despite Cremin did not explicitly claimed the need to divide progressive education into different factions, in actuality he did. Secondly, the reasons and practices of later scholars who intentionally classified progressive education into different factions were examined. Five factions were classified: administratives, pedagogicals, libertarians, social reconstructionists, and life adjustment educators, after a series of justifications were made. Subsequently, ＂the flying dragon in the sky＂ was employed to explain the situation that Dewey does not belong to any faction. Finally, this article argues that the classification of progressive education should be discussed because intelligence and character development, emphasized by later-stage Dewey, is not included. It also suggests that traditional and progressive education are not completely binary. oppositions. It is recommended to employ ＂both-and＂ thinking to extract the strengths and discard the shortcomings of the two.

並列關鍵字

Dewey's position ； progressive education movement in the USA ； factions of progressive education movement ； intellectual and moral development

參考文獻

吳俊升（1972）。教育與文化論文選集。臺北市：商務。[Ou, T.-C. (1972). Essay collections on education and culture. Taipei, Taiwan: Commerce.]

李玉馨（2010a）。「進步」的揭示與開創：論杜威學說與美國進步主義教育各派別之差異。教育科學期刊，9（2），53-76。[Li, Y.-S. (2010a). Revealing and creating “Progress”: Philosophical differences between John Dewey and various factions within American progressive education. The Journal of Educational Science, 9(2), 53-76.]

李玉馨（2010b）。杜威與進步主義教育。載於周愚文（主編），進步主義與教育（頁85-115）。臺北市：師大書苑。[Li, Y.-S. (2010b). John Dewey and progressive education. In Y.-W. Chou (Ed.), Progressivism and education (pp. 85-115). Taipei, Taiwan: Lucky Bookstore.]

李玉馨（2014）。二元調和：杜威教育哲學研究方法。載於林逢祺、洪仁進（主編），教育哲學—方法篇（頁543-559）。臺北市：五南。[Li, Y.-S. (2014). Duality reconciliation: Dewey’s research method of educational philosophy. In H.-C. Lin & J.-C. Hung (Eds.), Philosophy of education: Methodology (pp. 543-559). Taipei, Taiwan: Wu-Nan Book.]

張建成（2002）。批判的教育社會學研究。臺北市：學富。[Chan, C.-C. (2002). A study of critical sociology of education. Taipei, Taiwan: Pro-ED.]