Literaturnachweis - Detailanzeige
Autor/in | Hardarson, Alti |
---|---|
Titel | Aims of Education: How to Resist the Temptation of Technocratic Models |
Quelle | In: Journal of Philosophy of Education, 51 (2017) 1, S.59-72 (14 Seiten)Infoseite zur Zeitschrift
PDF als Volltext |
Sprache | englisch |
Dokumenttyp | gedruckt; online; Zeitschriftenaufsatz |
ISSN | 0309-8249 |
DOI | 10.1111/1467-9752.12182 |
Schlagwörter | Stellungnahme; Role of Education; Models; Curriculum Design; Educational Experience; Educational Objectives; Educational Change |
Abstract | A technocratic model of curriculum design that has been highly influential since the middle of last century assumes that the aims of education can be, and should be: 1. Causally brought about by administering educational experiences; 2. Specified as objectives that can be attained, reached or completed; 3. Changes in students that are described in advance. Richard S. Peters argued against the first of these three tenets by making a distinction between aims that are causally brought about by the means and aims that are constituted by the means. I argue that further distinctions between ways in which ends and means can be related throw doubt on the remaining two tenets. My argument against the second one rests on a distinction between open aims that cannot be completed and closed aims that can be reached. I use a third distinction, between aims as principles of design and aims as principles of reform, to show that the third tenet of the technocratic model is also suspect. I conclude that a realistic view of educational aims must take into account that they are more multifarious than envisaged by the technocratic model of curriculum design. (As Provided). |
Anmerkungen | Wiley-Blackwell. 350 Main Street, Malden, MA 02148. Tel: 800-835-6770; Tel: 781-388-8598; Fax: 781-388-8232; e-mail: cs-journals@wiley.com; Web site: http://www.wiley.com/WileyCDA |
Erfasst von | ERIC (Education Resources Information Center), Washington, DC |
Update | 2020/1/01 |