抄録
The purpose of this paper is to clarify the differences between the teaching-learning theory of directing-learning-activities and the theory of guiding-pupil-experiencing, concentrated its discussion on the shift from the emphasis on learning activities to that on learning experiences in American school curriculum early in the twentieth century. The major points of differences between the teaching-learning theory of the directing-learning-activities and the theory of the guiding-pupil-experiencing can be coordinated as follows. 1) The difference in the approach in initiating pupil activity and developing an effective motivating condition. 2) The difference in the degree of control exercised by the teacher. The teacher control is direct in the directing-learning-activities theory, whereas the teacher control is through setting the stage in the guiding-pupil-experiencing theory. 3) Advocators of the guiding-pupil-experiencing credited children with dynamic qualities. Though subscribers of the directing-learning-activities did not deny the dynamic qualities of children, they paied attention to only utilizing interests as dynamic active tendencies. 4) The difference in the degree of emphasis on the motivating condition within the pupil. The motivating condition within the pupil is an essential requirement in the guiding-pupil-experiencing theory. Though in the directing-learning-activities theory intrinsic motivation was considered effective, it was only a topic. 5) Whether pupils participate in instructional planning or not. 6) The difference between curriculum planned in advance and curriculum emerging as the pupil realizes his purposes. 7) The difference between the teacher as a director and the teacher playing various roles.
