浪漫的 敎育觀과 主知的 敎育觀에 있어서의 自由의 意味

서지정보

ㆍ발행기관 : 한국교육학회 ㆍ수록지정보 : 교육학연구 / 20권 / 2호
ㆍ저자명 : 姜榮惠

목차

Ⅰ. 序 : 敎育的 價値로서의 “自由”의 問題
Ⅱ. 浪漫的 敎育觀과 自由의 意味
Ⅲ. 主知的 敎育觀과 自由의 意味
Ⅳ. 論議 및 結論
參考文獻
Abstract

영어 초록

Ⅰ
From the ancient times to the present age, to foster a freeman has been universally regarded as an educational ideal. In the modern democratic society, especially, the concept of freedom represents one of the prime principles presiding over liberal democratic societies. But the meaning of freedom as an educational value has varied with different ages and societies. In some circles, education is conceived to be the development of mind, which is assumed to be of a freeman. However, the concept of mind accounted for in the context of education is understood in various ways by different theoretical thinkers.
This study is an attempt to clarify the nature or meaning of freedom as an educational value, from the perspectives of two dominant lines of educational ideas developed in modern societies, i.e., the Romanticism and the Intellectualism. The Romanticism may be said to be a counter movement against the traditional education, whereas the Intellectualism is a modern version of the traditional conception of education, a legacy of the ancient Greco-Roman society.
Ⅱ
Romanticism as a type of educational view has grown out of roughly three different origins, namely the naturalism of Rousseau, existentialistic interpretation of education and Freudian psychology.
According to Rousseau, the man is born free and good by his own nature; the child grows according to the natural laws and embodies his potentiality and endowments, if he is freed from social restrictions and deliberate interruptions. On the other hand, the romantists under the influence of existentialism and Freudian Psychology-often called “humanistic romantists-value the child's self-awareness and inner freedom. Romantists in general conceive education to be of emboidiment of the natural goodness and inner potentiality. According to them, education aims ultimately at one's self-realization. Critics of this view often mention that they devaluate the socio-cultural character of the human mind. Romantists are criticized in that they understand the individual as one antagonistically against the society, and that the individual's freedom may be attained when he lives away from social controls.
It may be said, however, that the Romantic view has drawn educators' attention to the inner character of the child. It prompted child studies from the late 19th century, and accelerated the development of scientific approach to education.
Intellectualism has originated from the ancient liberal education, namely of the Greco-Roman societies. They in the ancient times understood the human mind to be a separate entity from the body. The major function of education is to free the mind (or soul), that is, a conception of liberal education was prevailed a mong them. But the modern version of intellectualism, a typical form of which may found in theories of R.S. Peters and P.H. Hirst, account for education as an act of initiation into the cultural heritage or forms of knowledge. Peters hesitates to be committed to the romantic view of child-centered education. He believes that freedom as a concept of educational value is to be understood as a social principle. Thus, the child's conception of freedom may be expected to be cultivated in the social situations where teachers or adults play an active role as an already initiated member of the society. The child's autonomy way develops as he learns rules and reason in the choice of actions and ways of decision, etc. in our social life with a form of cultural tradition. The concept of autonomy entails rational reflection as well as authenticity.
Intellectualism seems to be sound and valid when it seeks the meaning of freedom in the socio-cultural life, if we consider education as a social enterprise. But unfortunately, the Intellectualists have paid little attention to methodic principles for the child to be educated and autonomous.
Ⅲ
Generally speaking, Romantists stress the method of education, while Intellectualists are interested in its content primarily. But it seems not to be the case that content is one thing and method is another thing. When Peters denies that the achievement aspect of education can be validly carried over to its task aspect, he just makes a mere logical claim which does not endorce any empirical condition. The principle of freedom is of concrete actions which take place in our ordinary life. It cannot be apart from the daily experience of autonomous execution. A free man lives in the society with his own nature which may be admittedly to be identified by empirical studies.

참고 자료

없음