UTokyo Repository 東京大学

UTokyo Repository >
119 教育学研究科・教育学部 >
東京大学教育学部紀要 >

このページ(論文)をリンクする場合は次のURLを使用してください: http://hdl.handle.net/2261/311

タイトル: アメリカ教育史像の再構成に向って : 60年代・70年代アメリカの教育史研究
その他のタイトル: A Movement of Reinterpretation of History of American Education : historiography of education in the United States in the 1960' s and the 1970's
著者: 宮澤, 康人
著者(別言語): Miyazawa, Yasuto
発行日: 1975年3月31日
出版者: 東京大学教育学部
掲載誌情報: 東京大学教育学部紀要. 14巻, 1975.3, p.1-17
抄録: I Bailyn's Criticism to Study of History of Education II Several Responses of Educational Historians to Bailyn's Criticism III Cremin's Attempt to revise A History of American Education The decade which is indicated here in this paper witnessed a movement of reinterpretation and revision of history of American education. The movement could be briefly described as having started with Bernard Bailyn's well-known attempt to define the scope of educational history (Education in the Forming of American Society, 1960) and having culminated in the publication of Lawrence A. Cremin's first part of his three volume history of American Education (Ameican Education : The Colonial Experiences 1607-1783, 1970). When B. Bailyn a general histoian, pointed out that the traditional chronicle of American education had been narrowly institutional, full of anachronism, and painfully moralistic.no educational historian denied the righteousness of what he argued. The study of the history of American education today might be different had Bailyn not written his now famous book in 1960. Between late sixties and early seventies, there appeared several good works of educational historiography by educational historians, such as Bower, Elson, Fisher, Krug, Katz, Greer, Brickman, Veysey, Sloan and Cremin, most of which might be regarded as responses to Bailyn's criticism. Bailyn urged historians to think of education not merely as formal pedagogy but as the "entire process by which a culture transmits itself across the generations." He addressed his essay primarily to professional historians: consequently his essay had little direct impact on current thinking about education itself. However, one historian who saw the wider implication of Bailyn's essay was L.A. Cremin. Cremin suggested that the issues which Bailyn had raised had profound significance for educators in general, as well as for historians. Cremin supported Bailyn's criticism of Cubberley and other historians of earlier generation who viewed American educational history as simply the story of how the free public school system had evolved. Cremin, however, sympathized more with Cubberley's intention than Bailyn had. Cremin and Cubberley both believed that educational history, proprely understood, could and should inform contemporary educational policy. As compared with Bailyn, Cremin gave a more restricted definition of education ; "deliberate, systematic, and sustained effort to transmit or evoke knowledge, attitudes, values, skills, and sensibilities" in his American Education, which has been applauded as the first full-scale attempt to comprehend the nature and impact of education in the colonial period. Simply speaking, there have been two different types of writings of educational history ; one is written by educationists concerned with the history of the school, and the other is written by historians having some interest in education. One major point I undertake to develop in this paper is that Cremin is expected to be one of new educational historians who can combine the two types of edncational history above stated.
URI: http://hdl.handle.net/2261/311
ISSN: 04957849


ファイル 記述 サイズフォーマット
KJ00000687153.pdf2.19 MBAdobe PDF見る/開く



Valid XHTML 1.0! DSpace Software Copyright © 2002-2010  Duraspace - ご意見をお寄せください