| Summary: | 博士 === 國立臺灣師範大學 === 教育學系 === 96 === The Eight-Year Study sponsored by the Progressive Education Association (PEA) from 1930 to early 1940s was one of the most comprehensive and important curriculum experiments in the history of education in America. The pattern of the secondary curriculum was mostly determined by college entrance requirements; however, the secondary educators who participated in this study were granted the freedom to do their curriculum revision.
This study aimed at analyzing the evolution of the Eight-Year Study and the experimental curriculum examplars of the participant schools. The inquiry of curriculum history was chosen as research method. As to the participant schools, Francis W. Parker School was the first to discuss and the analysis of meanings in conflicts was made by referring the experiences in Dalton Schools and other four private schools. Then the discussion of implications on curriculum history was made. Three conclusions drawn from the exploration were summarized as follows.
First, the Eight-Year Study evolved continuously and complicatedly. During each stage, the most precious experience was that the academic field, the research institution, the colleges and schools learned from one another by co-working, and by creating and adapting their abilities.
Second, many people tried to make comments on the Eight-Year Study, and each of them reflected the commentator’s interest. I did not totally agree with the comments made by some contemporary curriculum historians. My main critique was that the so-called “democracy” in this experiment was not fully exerted since the social justice issue was never addressed seriously by the participants.
Third, issues about curriculum history should be discussed in contexts. By contextualizing the analysis, I found that the curriculum orientation was different between the research institutions and the schools. And, some key concepts such as progressive education, democracy, experiment, needs of adolescents and many other terms used as means of curriculum reorganization were dynamically intermingled with fictitious and realistic meanings. Besides, issues on the position of each different educational stage were not fixed and worthy of rethinking.
|
|---|
