| Summary: | This study is an attempt to draw a fundamental-educational comparison
between the Progressive Education Movement (PEM) in the
USA and People's education (PE) in the RSA. The connection between
these two movements presumably lies in their progressive
nature - therefore the purpose of this comparison is to expose
the fundamental-educational resemblances between the PEM in the
USA en PE in the RSA.
This study is subsequently directed at the presentation of a
fundamental-educational explanation for resemblances and differences
found between concepts of progressiveness as propagated
by the PEM in the USA and PE in the RSA. In order to gather and
arrange data on the PEM in the USA and PE in the RSA, various
methods such as literature study, the problem-historical method,
comparative method, fundamental-reflective and descriptive method
as well as the transcendental-critical method were employed.
In chapter one the context, background, actuality and purpose of
this research are presented, a methodological account is given,
the research field is indicated and the structure of the research
report is briefly outlined.
Data in chapters two and three (wherein the PEM and PE, respectively,
are typified and described) is essential, because the
factors such as culturo-historical background, the spirit of the
age and fundamental factors (such as fundamental religious motives
and outlook on life) on which the relationship (presumably
of a progressive nature) is based, are investigated by means of
this information. Data gathered in chapters two and three is
structured identically in order to clarify the purpose (the core)
of the research, namely a fundamental-educational comparison between
these two movements (chapter four).
structuring of data in chapters two "and three (wherein the PEM
and PE, respectively, are typified and described) highlights the
culturo-historical background, concepts of progressiveness,
philosophies and the educational-philosophical foundations of the
PEM and PE as comparable thought systems. Literature study and
the problem-historical method were primarily employed in arranging
and adopting data for the purpose of this study.
The fundamental-educational comparison in chapter four indicates
the presence of more resemblances than differences in viewpoints
on and handling of progressiveness by the PEM and PE.
Resemblances found in viewpoints on progressiveness can
presumably be explained by way of resemblances in religious apostasy
freedom in nature I fundamental religious motive, the
I
humanistic-secular concept of life and biased emphasis on
progression at the cost of tradition. The few differences in
concepts of progressiveness held by the PEM and PE can presumably
be explained by way of differences in their philosophical, pretheoretical
and theoretical foundations. In chapter four primary
use was made of the comparative method, fundamental-reflective
and descriptive as well as the transcendental-critical method.
In chapter five, the concluding chapter, a broad outline of the
research is presented: findings, conclusions and recommendations
are presented by virtue of the research. It was concluded inter
alia that the PEM focuses on the inadequacies of the educational
system in the USA up to the 1950's as well as on the social
reconstruction that had to take place. PE on the other hand
focuses on the shortcomings of the status quo and black education.
It was concluded inter alia that, based on clear
resemblances between their respective origins, the PEM can be
regarded primarily as an embodiment of pragmatism and PE as an
embodiment of Marxism.
Recommendations are made inter alia that changes in education
must be progressive- and simultaneously tradition-bound - then,
and only then can progression be significant; bias and imbalance
can be prevented and the entire process can acquire the true
character of reformation in the Biblical sense. The PEM in the
USA failed in this and PE in the RSA has, up to now, been unable
to maintain the fine balance between tradition and progression. === Thesis (MEd)--PU vir CHO, 1990
|
|---|
