THE JAPANESE JOURNAL OF EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH
Online ISSN : 2187-5278
Print ISSN : 0387-3161
ISSN-L : 0387-3161
Volume 73 , Issue 1
Showing 1-14 articles out of 14 articles from the selected issue
  • Kunio KAWAHARA
    Type: Article
    2006 Volume 73 Issue 1 Pages 1-14
    Published: March 31, 2006
    Released: November 28, 2017
    JOURNALS FREE ACCESS
    A large number of studies have been made of Max Weber's (1864-1920) writings on the problems of the German universities. In these studies the policy aspects of science or his methodology have been examined. Little attention, however, has been given to his educational thought that German university professors should have "pedagogical tasks". The notion "Weber as Educator" (Wilhelm Hennis, 1996) offers the key to an understanding of his educational thoughts. In his best-known work on science "science as a vocation" Weber said: "He [A German university professor] should be qualified not only as a research worker but also as a teacher". The purposes of this paper are to propound Weber's theory of the German higher education from the viewpoint of teaching and learning practice inside the classroom (a "compulsory" organization), and to consider the significance of theory in the history of educational ideas since Humboldt's fundamental principles (1809). This paper, like Dirk Kaesler's suggestive paper (2003) gives weight to Weber's critical diagnosis regarding the capitalization, mass-democratization and bureaucratization on the universities. The results of Weber's theories were as follows: 1) Professors need not meet the demands of a large audience, seeking above all to be "interesting". They should "expose scientific problems in such a manner that an untrained but receptive mind can understand them and think independently about them". 2) Professors who are not to be as leaders but as teachers in the classroom, should not inculcate absolute or ultimate moral values under the name of "academic freedom". But they should (and can) teach the capacity to think clearly and "to know what one wants". 3) An intense enthusiasm for idols of "personality" and "experience" has become prevalent among the younger generation. In science, only the person who serves his task has "personality", which is true not only of science. It is important for science that the individual (student) can accomplish something by the most rigorous specialization. Weber's educational ideal in these arguments is also characterized as the important term "Sachlichkeit" in his general sociology. Weber was well aware that his ideal was in accord with the tradition of the German universities. In fact, Weber's theory succeeded Humboldt's principles regarding the "genuine" community of professor and students for the pursuit of truths, and "unintended" formation of personality through scientific training, except for his emphasis on specialization. At the same time his theory revealed an acute problem-solving principle of higher education in the face of inevitable situations encountered by modern societies. Finally, Weber's theoretical standpoints - like Humbolt's - had a duality deeply traditionalistic on the one hand, and actually contemporary on the other. In other words, Max Weber expected professors (including himself) to be "teachers" with "aristocratic spirit" inside classrooms, each living in the tension between two historical standpoints. Similarly, he expected students to be so. Moreover the tension contains, apparently unlike Humbolt's, other meaning: Weber's educational demand on "specialization" indispensably needs an attitude of "Sachlichkeit", characterized by the viewpoint of bureaucratic principles and educational ideas which seem to be incompatible. Such characteristics of "Sachlichkeit" could be mutually converted by teacher and student approaches.
    Download PDF (1714K)
  • Hiroto TAKAHASHI
    Type: Article
    2006 Volume 73 Issue 1 Pages 15-26
    Published: March 31, 2006
    Released: November 28, 2017
    JOURNALS FREE ACCESS
    The purpose of this paper is to explore the legislative history of Law for the Special Regulations Concerning Educational Public Service (LEPS) which was enacted in 1949 under occupation, as well as to study the early plan of the Ministry of Education. This paper will also explore how the plan has been changed, and discuss views on teacher status of the Ministry of Education, Civil Information and Education Section (CIE), Civil Service Division (CSD), the Japan University Accreditation Association (JUAA), the University Professors Association of Japan (UPAJ), and how they affected the law. Many Japanese and English historical documents were collected and examined. Reflecting on the results of these studies, I point out problems and make a suggestion for the current teacher status. The early Teacher Status Law was drafted on the basis of the idea of Kotarou Tanaka, a minister of education, who thought that teacher status should be stable. In the plan, dismissal or demotion of teachers against their will was conducted upon hearing the opinion of a teachers' inquiry committee whose members were appointed from among the persons of educational experience and information. Jiro Tanaka, who was a professor of Tokyo University, suggested introducing the teaching term system, but it was criticized by the Japan Educational Reform Committee (JERC). On account of this, it was transformed into a system in which a teachers' inquiry committee periodically evaluates teachers. In the early plan, it was intended that not only national and public school teachers but also private school teachers be subject to the Teacher Status Law. This was strongly opposed by CIE and CSD, and resulted in the Ministry of Education changing the law into LEPS. Moreover, GHQ denied the needs of the regulations. However, Shigeru Miyaji, a ministry officer in charge, persistently pointed out that it would cause obstacles if the Public Service Law alone should be applied to national or public school teachers. As a result, GHQ admitted the necessity for regulations on teacher status. JUAA, UPAJ and JERC stated that university and college faculty should be responsible for personnel administration, and that periodical professor evaluation was not necessary. Their requests were approved by CIE and the section of university teachers in LEPS was regulated accordingly. Status security of teachers by LEPS is based on the principle of independence of public administration from politics. Teachers' status should be stable, not because of the needs for independence of administration but for independence of education. Teachers must be independent in order to teach the truth. Not only national or public schools, but private schools also need to secure teacher status. After April 2004, the LEPS became ineffective on national university or college professors. It is now necessary for us to establish a new system to secure the status of teachers, based on the principle of independence of education, referring to the ideas of early plans after the Second World War which were studied in this article.
    Download PDF (1540K)
  • Akira IWASHITA
    Type: Article
    2006 Volume 73 Issue 1 Pages 27-38
    Published: March 31, 2006
    Released: November 28, 2017
    JOURNALS FREE ACCESS
    The purpose of this paper is to study the structural relations between people, objects, and their arrangement in the monitorial system, which was at the heart of the early nineteenth-century church schools in England. To address this problem, the author reconstructs Sarah Trimmer's educational thought. Trimmer, one of the most famous promoters of the Sunday School movement, started the 'Bell-Lancaster controversy' by criticizing Joseph Lancaster, and played an important role in organizing the National Society for Promoting the Education of the Poor. In 1805 Trimmer criticized Lancaster's British System not only for its meritocracy and non-sectionalism, but also for teaching monitor skills, which led pupils to learn Christian knowledge by rote without understanding it. We can find her critical remarks of rote learning in her works from the 1780's-1790's. Trimmer criticized contemporary Charity Schools for their teaching method which heavily depended upon memory. According to Trimmer, Charity Schools had two defects. One was the difficulty of the textbooks used in them, and the other was the poor skill of their teachers. Her textbooks such as spelling books, readers, and manuals for Charity Schools and Sunday Schools were designed to help unskilled Charity School teachers enable pupils to understand 'Christian Principles'. Trimmer found her own Sunday schools in Brentford. Upon investigating her schools, we can see how her educational thought was realized. Trimmer's textbooks on religious education were used and applied to the monitorial system-especially to Bell's schools. They were divided into simple and clear sentences, in order to promote pupils' understanding. However, applied to the monitorial system, they could also promote rote learning, which originally should have been removed from the education of the poor, for ushers could teach and examine pupils mechanically without paying attention to their understanding due to the simple and clear form of her textbooks. Although their form was suitable to the monitorial system, ironically, it once again, brought about rote learning without understanding it. Through the investigation above, we can see how the attributes of the person giving the lessons, form of textbooks, and class-organization in the monitorial system were integrated. We can also see how Trimmer's textbooks enabled, as well as regulated, the form of teaching and learning behavior in the monitorial system. Moreover, we can make it clear what pupils actually did, and what kind of knowledge they acquired in the monitorial system.
    Download PDF (1471K)
Book Review
Book Review
feedback
Top