This essay tries to show that J. F. Herbart (1776-1841) is “the living Herbart (der lebendige Herbert)” not only in educational theories, but also in practical school educational reform. In general, Herbart has been considered as the past theorist of education to whom nobody refers. In addition, his educational concept “educative instruction (erziehender Unterricht)” has been regarded as one which has no effect in the history of educational theories and there is no theorist of education who cites his idea. Although H. Nohl (1879-1960) gave a high evaluation saying that “Herbart is still alive”, he and his “educative instruction” are playing a minor role in the history of education nowadays when compared with “progressive education”.

This view could be understandable only in the limited context of the study of Herbart in Japan. On the other hand, from the viewpoint of German pedagogy and school education, another insight is acquired: Herbart is alive in the true sense. In other words, his concept “educative instruction” is alive not only in philosophy of education but also in an actual use in the state of Nordrhein-Westfalen in Germany. His thought and method gave a mainspring of the elementary school reform in the state in the 1980s and was incorporated into the basic guideline of the revised curriculum of 1985 in Nordrhein-Westfalen. In the latest curriculum guideline in elementary school in Nordrhein-Westfalen, which was implemented in 2008, Herbart’s theory is one of the references and has led the development of the curriculum. Of course, many studies that eliminated prejudice against Herbart also exist in Japan. Unfortunately, these studies have overlooked the fact that there is a certain correlation between Herbart and school reform.

The interests in this paper are related to the following two research questions. How Herbart was interpreted in Germany in the 1980s? What caused the classical concept of “educative instruction” included in the 1985 edition of the curriculum of study in Nordrhein-Westfalen? Through answering these questions, on the basis of the primary source about the curriculum revision, this paper aims at demonstrating that Herbart and his “educative instruction” have been a theoretical reference and guided the actual curriculum development.

In order to achieve this purpose, the following three subjects must be examined. The first one is to clarify the overall structure of “educative instruction” described in the 1985 edition of the curriculum guideline by reference to its draft. The second one is to prove the relation between the “Elementary School Project Gievenbeck (Grundschulprojekt Gievenbeck)” and Herbart’s “educative instruction”. Dietrich Benner (1941-), who was a professor of the University of Munster at the time and a framer of the items about “educative instruction” in the curriculum guideline of 1985, had led the “Elementary School Project Gievenbeck” for school experiment from 1977 to 1982. He reinterpreted Herbart and his idea of “educative instruction” from the point of view of the “progressive education (Reformpadagogik)”. Through looking at the relation, on the basis of the primary source, we can connect the content of “educative instruction” described in the guideline with a theory and praxis of the school experiment Gievenbeck. The last one is to establish presumption that the incorporation of “educative instruction” into the curriculum of study of 1985 was due to the result of school experiment Gievenbeck. For this, it is necessary to investigate the close connection between winning the “Elementary School Award (Grundschulpreis) 1981” by this school experiment and the invitation from the “Nordrhein-Westfalen Elementary School Commission (Grundschulkommission)” to Benner.

In this paper, I will attempt to examine kindergartener’s intent in curriculum development. For this purpose, I focus on the practices of kindergarten at Hiroshima Girls School.

The Christian kindergarten was established as part of the Hiroshima Girls School in Hiroshima, Japan in 1892. Principal is Nannie B. Gaines. She interested in kindergarten education, invited experts in teaching small children, Fannie C. Macoulay (she came to Japan in 1901) and Margret Melinda Cook (she came to Japan in 1904) from America. It was started and managed by the missionaries who had received the most advanced education of the time under Dr. Patty S. Hill, the central figure of American kindergarten movement. This paper focuses on the curriculum of the kindergarten before 1910s―progressive education not introduce yet, to analyze process of introduction of Concentration from America to the kindergarten.

I examine course of study of kindergarten at Hiroshima Girls School (1907.4.9~7.18., 1908.1~3., 1908.4~1909.3), draft of practice at the kindergarten by students, Mitu Uno and Toku Matushita, and State of missionaries’ guidance. And I compare the curriculum with American’s one. I found two characteristics of the kindergarten curriculum as follows:

First, the kindergarten taken a leading role in introduction of Concentration of Herbartianism based on Flobelian kindergarten ideas in America. And it formed curriculum structure in the later kindergarten curriculum.

Second, missionaries constructed curriculum as they had clear purpose of education. To realize it, they adopted Concentration. And when they design curriculum, not only had they brought in the form of the curriculum, but they also carried out the philosophy and theory of the curriculum. As a result, they can arrange to fit the Japanese culture and style of living in the case of kindergarten at Hiroshima Girls School. They selected things that close to children as teaching material, and developed it.

Thus, if he have understanding the philosophy and theory of curriculum, they can make educational practice suited to environmental. I elucidate the curriculum of the kindergarten in Hiroshima Girls School was influenced by Flobelian and Herbartian education principle. Missionaries had the purpose to tell children the relation all over the world; the Christian view of the world, and set the subject. And they make original practice to valued everyday experiences of children, selected teaching materials from life.

Der vorliegende Beitrag versucht die didaktische Funktion der ?Lernaufgaben“ im Lehrbuch durch eine Vergleichsstudie zu Lehrbuchern in Japan und Deutschland zu untersuchen. Einerseits in Japan wird die Notwendigkeit, die Beziehung zwischen der von Lehrer/Innen gezeigten Aufgaben und der von Schuler/Innen bearbeiteten Lernaufgaben zu analysieren und zu uberlegen, erkannt. Trotzdem kann der Forschungsbereich ?Lernaufgaben“ im Lehrbuch in der allgemeinen didaktischen und dem curriculumtheoretischen Forschungskontext noch nicht ausreichend festgelegt werden.

Andererseits steht in der didaktischen Diskussion in Deutschland nach der internationalen Leistungsstudien (TIMSS, PISA) der Forschungsbereich ?Lernaufgaben“ als interdisziplinarer Forschungsbereich im Fokus. IQB (Institut zur Qualitatsentwicklung im Bildungswesen) versucht, Kompetenzstufenmodelle und Aufgabenbeispiele zu entwickeln und zu veroffentlichen. Auf Grund der ?neuen Lernaufgabenkultur“, die aus der ?neuen Lernkultur“ und der ?neuen Aufgabenkultur“ gemischt wird, werden viele Forschungen uber ?Lernaufgaben“ von empirischen Lehr-Lern-Forschern, Fachdidaktikern und allgemeinen Didaktikern angesammelt.

In diesem Kontext wird in der Perspektive fur die allgemeine didaktische Analysenkategorie beachtet, dass die Zusammenarbeit von Hanna Kiper und Thorsten Bohl auf Grund der empirischen und psychologischen Forschungsergebnisse die facherubergreifende Analysenkategorie vorschlagen kann. Aus der zwei Forschungen konnen die folgenden Kategorieelemente gefuhrt werden: 1. Die grundlagenden Informationen (Lehrbuchtitel, Seite, Proportion, u. a.), 2. ?Wissensart“ (Deklaratives Wissen, Prozedurales Wissen und Metakognitives Wissen), 3. Lebensweltbezug, Prasentationsorientierung und Arbeits- und Lernform, 4. Diagnostitische Aufgaben und Pruf- und Testaufgaben.

Auf Grund der Analysenkategorie analysierte ich die ?Lernaufgaben“ der 26 Lehrbuchern 5-7 in Japan und in Deutschland im Bereich Mathematik, Deutsch/ Japanisch und Naturwissenschaft. Die daher gewonnenen Ergebnisse zeigen, dass die Lehrbucher nach PISA meistens von der ?Lernaufgaben“ gestaltet und geordnet werden, dass die Lehrbucher in Deutschland und im Bereich Mathematik in Japan viele Lernaufgaben mit ?Prasentationsorientierung“ und ?Arbeits- und Lernform“ haben, dass wenige Lehrbucher ?Diagnostitische Aufgaben“ haben. Aus dem Gesichtspunkt ?Wissensart“ wird es gezeigt, dass es drei verschiedene Anordnungsreihen, (?Prozedurales Wissen → Deklaratives Wissen → Prufaufgaben“, ?Prozedurales Wissen →Erklarung“ und ?Erklarung →Deklaratives Wissen →Erklarung“) gibt, und dass die Lehrbucher in Japan die wenigen Metakognitiven Wissensaufgaben haben.

Auf Grund dieser Betrachtung erklarte ich, dass der Forschungsbereich ?Lernaufgaben“ zur interdisziplinaren Zusammenforschung entwickelt werden kann, dass die Erweiterung und Vertiefung der Analysenkategorie fur die facherubergreifenden Analysen der Lernaufgaben ein wichtiges Forschungsthema ist. Wichtiger ist immer, dass die didaktische Funktion stark von ?Lernaufgaben“ im Lehrbuch von der Situation des Lernens im Unterrcht abhangig ist, d.h. dass die praktische Bedeutung und Aufgabe von der zusammen mit Lehrer/Innen und Schuler/Innen umgearbeiteten Lernaufgaben noch empirisch und hermeneutisch zu erforschen sind.

How can academic subject matter be integrated with children’s agentive learning? This is a persistent problem in curriculum and lesson studies. In traditional schooling, the core activity is classroom-based teaching that is intended simply to transfer the contents of the textbook to children. The dominant classroom discourse in this case is focused on low-level academic tasks. This kind of discrete teaching limits the knowledge available to both the teacher and student to that which the teacher can control and thus minimizes the level of ambiguity, uncertainty, and cognitive demand in their academic relationships. The transfer of agency from teacher to student is also minimal in discrete teaching.

To move beyond this narrow idea of schooling and create learning activities that foster greater agency among students, and to determine whether an educational innovation helps children become agents of their learning activity, this article examines art-integrated science and social studies learning activities called inquiry at the University of California, Los Angeles (UCLA) Lab School, which is part of the university’s Graduate School of Education and Information Studies. Inquiry encourages students to accept responsibility for their own learning, namely, to have a learner’s sense of agency.

In order to analyze the process of implementing such an innovative and experimental pedagogical practice at the Lab School, this article draws on cultural-historical activity theory. Activity theory offers a conceptual framework that views the object-oriented collective activity system as the basic unit of analysis of human practices and development. It also focuses on ideas and tools for transforming activity and expanding the agency of participants. Based on the activity theory framework, this article explores how instructional practice can break through segregated activities and facilitate joint learning between teachers and students to foster greater children’s agency; achieving this entails analyzing ethnographic research data on inquiry-based learning activities from the Lab School. The following two questions highlight key issues related to exercising children’s agency over inquiry-based learning in pedagogical classroom practice:

1) What kind of learning activity in which students participate as they learn can provide children with opportunities to expand their agency for the practice of inquiry and scientific concept formation?

2) How can children’s engagement in creating multiple representations of their experiences and learning be meaningfully integrated into an inquiry practice such as exercising one’s agency over concept learning?

(View PDF for the rest of the abstract.)