교육과정 모형은 방향성, 효율성, 개혁의 실효성이라는 세 가지 질문에 답하여야 한다. 타일러 모형은 이데올로기의 성격을 지니는 궁극적 목적을 제시함으로써(이데올로기→기법) 방향성의 문제에 답하고, 교과 목표를 독립시킴으로써(교과 목표→학습 경험) 효율성의 문제에 답한다. 타일러 모형은 이런 방식으로 방향성과 효율성을 확보한 교육과정을 개발한 후에 그 교육과정을 현장에 적용하려고 하므로(개발→적용), 개발과 적용 사이의 괴리를 극복하는 문제 즉 실효성의 문제를 초래하여, ‘교사로부터 보호되는 교육과정’과 ‘책무성’을 도입하여 그 문제를 해결하려고 한다. 본 연구가 모색한 대안적 모형에 의하면, 교육의 궁극적 목적은 ‘이념’으로서, 이념은 교육 실제에 의하여 규정되고 확립되며(이념←실제), 교과 내용 역시 교과 활동을 통하여 모습을 드러낸다(교과 내용←교과 활동). 여기에서 ‘교육 실제’나 ‘교과 활동’은 지금까지 실천되어 왔고 바로 지금도 실천되고 있는 것을 가리키므로 이 모형에서는 실효성의 문제가 제기되지 않는다. 그러나 그러한 교육 실천 속에는 교사들의 치열한 개혁의 노력이 들어 있어서, 교육 실천은 스스로 효율성과 방향성을 확보하고 있다. 타일러 모형이 ‘수단-목적의 사고방식’, 즉 ‘기법적 사고방식’을 따르고 있다면, 대안적 모형은 ‘메타프락시스’라는, 근본적으로 상이한 사고방식을 따르고 있다.
교육과정 모형은 방향성, 효율성, 개혁의 실효성이라는 세 가지 질문에 답하여야 한다. 타일러 모형은 이데올로기의 성격을 지니는 궁극적 목적을 제시함으로써(이데올로기→기법) 방향성의 문제에 답하고, 교과 목표를 독립시킴으로써(교과 목표→학습 경험) 효율성의 문제에 답한다. 타일러 모형은 이런 방식으로 방향성과 효율성을 확보한 교육과정을 개발한 후에 그 교육과정을 현장에 적용하려고 하므로(개발→적용), 개발과 적용 사이의 괴리를 극복하는 문제 즉 실효성의 문제를 초래하여, ‘교사로부터 보호되는 교육과정’과 ‘책무성’을 도입하여 그 문제를 해결하려고 한다. 본 연구가 모색한 대안적 모형에 의하면, 교육의 궁극적 목적은 ‘이념’으로서, 이념은 교육 실제에 의하여 규정되고 확립되며(이념←실제), 교과 내용 역시 교과 활동을 통하여 모습을 드러낸다(교과 내용←교과 활동). 여기에서 ‘교육 실제’나 ‘교과 활동’은 지금까지 실천되어 왔고 바로 지금도 실천되고 있는 것을 가리키므로 이 모형에서는 실효성의 문제가 제기되지 않는다. 그러나 그러한 교육 실천 속에는 교사들의 치열한 개혁의 노력이 들어 있어서, 교육 실천은 스스로 효율성과 방향성을 확보하고 있다. 타일러 모형이 ‘수단-목적의 사고방식’, 즉 ‘기법적 사고방식’을 따르고 있다면, 대안적 모형은 ‘메타프락시스’라는, 근본적으로 상이한 사고방식을 따르고 있다.
Basic Principles of Curriculum and Instruction(1949), written by R. Tyler, can be regarded as one model of curriculum development. To be regarded as one model of curriculum development, would-be a model must provide answers to the following three questions: 1. question about the orientation of the c...
Basic Principles of Curriculum and Instruction(1949), written by R. Tyler, can be regarded as one model of curriculum development. To be regarded as one model of curriculum development, would-be a model must provide answers to the following three questions: 1. question about the orientation of the curriculum, 2. question about the efficiency of the curriculum, 3. question about overcoming the discrepancy between development and implementation. Tylerian model of curriculum development is based on the Means-Ends Connections. According to Tylerian model, curriculum-developer must decide the ends of education, first of all. And then, he(she) can choose means to achieve the ends. This Means-Ends Connections is applied two times in Tylerian model: 1. ideology→technology, 2. objectives of one subject→educational experiences. "Ideology" consists of ideals of man and society. "Technology" is not different from second Means-Ends Connections, that is, "objectives of one subject→educational experiences". 3. And Tylerian model can be regarded as "from development to implementation" approach(development→implementation). It adopts "teacher proof curriculum" and "accountability" to overcome the discrepancy between development and implementation. My alternative to the Tylerian Model is very hard to explain or understand, which is based on the Metapraxis. "Metapraxis" is a way of thinking, similar to the Metaphysics. 1. According to Metapractical model of curriculum, educational aim is defined and found by educational practice(Idea←practice). 2. According to that model, contents of subject matter is defined and found by activity for subject matter(contents of subject matter←activity for subject matter). These are paradoxical Ideas. However, if you accept that the educational aims cannot be known before finishing education itself and concepts(contents of subject matter) cannot be known to students before their acquiring them, you must accept this way of thinking, too. 3. Metapractical model of curriculum does not raise the third problem, that is, the question about overcoming the discrepancy between development and implementation, because this model is not "from development to implementation" approach. This model is "from learning to teaching" approach, in which teachers teach what he has learned and his teaching proves to be his own learning(learning↔teaching).
Basic Principles of Curriculum and Instruction(1949), written by R. Tyler, can be regarded as one model of curriculum development. To be regarded as one model of curriculum development, would-be a model must provide answers to the following three questions: 1. question about the orientation of the curriculum, 2. question about the efficiency of the curriculum, 3. question about overcoming the discrepancy between development and implementation. Tylerian model of curriculum development is based on the Means-Ends Connections. According to Tylerian model, curriculum-developer must decide the ends of education, first of all. And then, he(she) can choose means to achieve the ends. This Means-Ends Connections is applied two times in Tylerian model: 1. ideology→technology, 2. objectives of one subject→educational experiences. "Ideology" consists of ideals of man and society. "Technology" is not different from second Means-Ends Connections, that is, "objectives of one subject→educational experiences". 3. And Tylerian model can be regarded as "from development to implementation" approach(development→implementation). It adopts "teacher proof curriculum" and "accountability" to overcome the discrepancy between development and implementation. My alternative to the Tylerian Model is very hard to explain or understand, which is based on the Metapraxis. "Metapraxis" is a way of thinking, similar to the Metaphysics. 1. According to Metapractical model of curriculum, educational aim is defined and found by educational practice(Idea←practice). 2. According to that model, contents of subject matter is defined and found by activity for subject matter(contents of subject matter←activity for subject matter). These are paradoxical Ideas. However, if you accept that the educational aims cannot be known before finishing education itself and concepts(contents of subject matter) cannot be known to students before their acquiring them, you must accept this way of thinking, too. 3. Metapractical model of curriculum does not raise the third problem, that is, the question about overcoming the discrepancy between development and implementation, because this model is not "from development to implementation" approach. This model is "from learning to teaching" approach, in which teachers teach what he has learned and his teaching proves to be his own learning(learning↔teaching).
주제어
※ AI-Helper는 부적절한 답변을 할 수 있습니다.