|
论文大纲，目录 |
| 关键词搜索：教育其他论文 学术论文 |
rried by his associate Paul Hirst, whose "forms of knowledge" epistemology was to have immense influence, not only on educational thinking about knowledge and understanding as such, but - in Britain and further afield - on official curriculum policy making.2
But what exactly was supposed to be the role of epistemological theorizing in these heady revolutionary days? Clearly, Peters and Hirst viewed educational reflection on the nature of knowledge as one aspect of educational philosophy, which they in turn considered to be part of educational theory; as such, however, philosophy and epistemology would appear to have been regarded - along with such other educational disciplines as psychology and sociology of education - as subservient to largely technical educational ends. Indeed, although Peters and Hirst were early pioneers of a faculty-based conception of theoretical professional education as a matter of systematic initiation into such disciplines as philosophy, psychology, sociology, as history, they inclined to a palpably instrumental conception of the role of theory in professional teacher preparation; Hirst, in particular, persistently construed the relationship of educational theory (and philosophy as one branch of that theory) to practice as an applied one, and patently (albeit formerly) allotted to epistemology a largely underlaboring role in the construction of something like a rationally systematic technology of pedagogy grounded in the specification of education无忧论文 【http://www.uklunwen.com】al objectives.
Such instrumental perspectives on educational theory have never, of course, been especially uncommon - not least among educational theorists. A former psychologist colleague regularly instructed his students that while it was the task of psychologists to devise an educational technology apt for the achievement of educational aims, that of sociologists to identify appropriate organizational strategies, it fell to philosophers to discover what our educational aims and objectives ought to be. It requires little reflection, however, to see that any such idea of cozy collaboration between educational theorists must be hopelessly utopian, if not actually absurd. Indeed, the very same psychologist was wont to respond to philosophical criticisms of psychological theory by postmodernly advising students (without the least sign of cognitive dissonance) that psychology and philosophy are after all just different points of view between which one might freely choose according to taste.
However, in order to have serious doubts about any such conception of the relationship of educational theory generally - and philosophical reflection particularly - to actual educational practice, one only needs to observe that relatively little of what is taught under the heading of educational theory does have technical application in the classroom. Indeed, taking perhaps the most plausible case of ostensible technical application of educational theory, it seems nonetheless far-fetched |
|
|
第1页 第2页 第3页 第4页 |
|
|
| 上一篇：Is Teaching a Skil下一篇：The law of curricu
|
| 最新论文 |
最热门论文 |
|
|
|
|
|
