School of Education-Historical Analysis and International Comparison

School of Education - Historical Analysis and International Comparison

School of _Education-Historical Analysis

and International Comparison

She.n研究帥，哪帥，

ABSTRACT

All the man-created institutions based on rational idea are not, as Immanuel Kant (KantsWerke, Vol. VII,p.21) assumes,merely a casual col-lection and arbitrary arrangement of accidental cases. Rather, they are founded on the basis of some rational plans. Therefore, the organization of university in view of its class an丘 faculty is by no means by chance The division of university organization, though caused by peculiar felt needs, subjects to, in Kantian terminology, the regulation of some a prioT! principles.

Is there any rational principle regulating the process of institutionaliz ing the school of education as a faculty of university? What needs peculiar to the USA, the UK and Germany are the main impetus causing the development of the school of education (or college, department) of education in university in the respective country? What measures are taken by the school of education to cope with the challenges of recent educational reforms? In order to answer the above-mentioned questions,

historic-systematic method is used to compare the development of the school of education in USA, the UK and Gemany.

教育研究集刊

I.

Introduction

All the man-created in前itutians based on a rational idea are not, as

1. Kant (KantsWerk, VII: 21) assumes, a casual collection and arbitr盯y arrangement of accidental cases. Rather, they are foun正led on the basis of some rational plans. Therefore the organization of university in view of class and facnlty is by no means by chance. The division of university organization, though caused by peculiar felt needs, subjects to, in Kantian terminology, the regulation of some a priori principles.

The principles of classification and categorization of academic

刮目iplines vary, as Rudolf Stichweh (1984: 7) maintains, with the

differ-ent forms of social institutional日ation of education. In ancient Greek so-ciety e.g叮 where education was carried out in a form of more than one teachers unconnectedly instructing the same stu吐e肘， emphasis seemed to be put on the distinctness and unreducibility of a single discipline. Only when the school was institutionalized as a site to gather the students and teachers with fixed teaching time table and teaching subjects, the relation-ship and the separation between the disciplines were more and more em-phatically investigated. The time of intensively reforming school and uni versity is accordingly also the time of attempts to classify and re-organize the knowledge and sciences

Accompanying the radical social differentiation of educational

syste紅1S since the end of eighteenth century, there arose the needs of for

mation of professional community of education. The radical changes of the differentiation in 巴西ucational systems was characterized by the separ-ation of school educsepar-ation from family educsepar-ation. Furthermore, the tight linkage of education to religion was also broken up. For the univers1ty, the differentiation of educational systems had twofold consequences: On the one hand the quantitative extension of school education led to the ur-gent needs of school teacher with professional competence quite different

School ofEducation 一 HistoricalAnalysis and International Comparison

from the former teacher simultaneously with the missions of instruction and religious indoctrination. Furthermore, fraternal authority of education was replaced by professional one. (R. Stichweh, 1984: 78-79; N. Luhmann

& K. E. Schorr, 19且 8: 48f

o.

E吐ucational science gradually became an autonomous 出 scipline in the university. The chairs of education ha吐 been established in the universities in both Europe and the United States to meet the nee吐 s of cultivation of professional teacher and the scientific stndy of education. The appointment of Ernst Christian Trapp to the first chair of education at Halle University in 1779 marked a very prominent step toward the professionalization of teacher education as well as the scientification of educational study

However, e<lucation is tightly linked to culture. Different cultural

co位es determine, as T. S. Popkewitz (1987) ohserves, the different ways in which “people think, feel, see, and act towa玄ds the practice of schoo-ling" . The historical evolution of school of education as an incorporating component of university reflects the cultural consciousness of the needs to elevate the teacher's social status and to professionalize educational study since the en<1 of eighteenth century in the western world. Different

cultural traditions determine the differeat ways of viewing the schooling as well as the organization and operation of school of education. The new needs generated by cultural modernization in various countries have differ-ent impact on the institutional arrangemdiffer-ents for the education of teachers. This paper attempts to analyze the shifts of school of education across time as well as across space. Special attention will be directed to the func-tional differentiation for the teacher training and educafunc-tional studies of school of education from perspective of comparative education

I

I.

System Formation and Historical Evolution of

School of Education

教育研究集刊

referential closure, Niklas Luhmann (1984) develops a general system the-ory quite different from classical one, which conceived system as a whole that consists of parts and relations. Functionally autonomous system began to emerge towards the end of the eighteenth century. Externally, func-tional subsystems of society for religion, for politics, for economics and for science constituted the environmental contingencies compelling the change of meaning-selection mechanism for building a particular subsystem for education. Internally, education, as an autopoietic social

sys-te血， differentiates itself into subsystems through production of inner components within the “closure" of educational system. The establishment of the first chair of education at Halle University in Germany in 1779 marked an important step toward internal institutional differentiation of education community to cope with the emerging educational problem. In his inaugural speech, the first education chair-holder Ernst Christian Trapp (1780: JO-JJ) asserte挂 the necessity to form a special science to study the educational rules.

After the establishment of education-ch刮目 in many universItIes In Germany, the Bell Chairs of the Theory, History, and Art of Education have existed in the Universities of St. Andrews and Edinburgh, Scotland since 1876. In the U.S.A., the first appointment of William H. Payne to

the cha叮 of the “Science and Art of Teaching" of the University of

Michigan was announced in 1879. The main tasks of the newly created chair were to prepare students “for higher positions in the public school serVIce, “to promote the study of educational science," and to render "a more perfect unity to our 巴西ucational system by bringing the seconι ary schools into closer relations with the university." (B. A. Hinsdale, 1906). All these historical facts are, as B. A. Hinsdale (1896: 166) puts 祉， “ very significant, creating a strong presumption that these German,

Scottish, and America professorships are not the result of ignorance or ac-cident, but of a felt need and intelligent choice." The creation of education chair in university subjects, it may be interprete益， to some

School of Education - Historical Analysis and International Comparison

rational principles in Kantian terminology, or to the regulation of chang-ing meanchang-ing-selection mechanism, as Luhmann would say

Though attempts had been made to stand pedagogy on its own both in Europe and in the U.S.A., the study of education ranks still low in the hierarchy of academic pursuits. In Germany J. Fr. Herbart (1806) tried to establish a rigorous autonomous educational science to study lucidly the educational affairs with a view to improving the quality of teacher education. Practice school (Ubungsschule) was thus proposed to be at-tached to the teacher preparation seminar to develop prospective teacher's sagacious practical judgement through practical experience. However,

educational science remained still closely affiliated to practical philosophy and psychology.

In England the lack of intellectual merit of teacher training was criticize且 by R. H. Quick in 1884: .. I say boldly that what English schoolmasters now stand in need of is theory." (cited in 1. W. Tibb泊， 1971: 4). In response to the complaints of low quality of teacher training,

the Cross Commission was established to examine the working of 1870 Education Act an丘 the operation of teacher education. The Commission proposed the creation of Day Training College attached to university or college of university rank. In 1908 the first Board of Education Regulations for the training for the secondary schoolteacher were issued According to the regulations, the training of secondary school teacher was to be strictly postgraduate, and the applicants were required to hold either a degree or its equivalent. Despite these efforts criticism was still often levelled against the intellectual demerits of teacher training and educational studies.

In the U.S.A., efforts had also been made to search for the university's recognition of educational science. In his 1889 paper read before the Normal Department of the National Education Association,

Nashville, Tennessee, B. A. Hinsdale (1896: 166-181) tried to vindicate pedagogy as a university discipline through series of theoretical as well as

教育研究集刊

practical arguments. Before 1890 as Pay肘 's appointment as the first full-time chair of pedagogy in the United States, pedagogy was a branch, at best, of moral philosophy. In 1890s succession of attempts was made to bid pedagogy as an autonomous university disciplin己. According to E. V Johanningmeier and H. C. Johnson, Jr. (1975: 3), there were two options to raise the rank of pedagogy in the aca通emic hierarchy. One was follow the route of the newly-arrived psychology and attempt to become rigorous empirical science. However, this effort was not so successful as in the field of psychology, which escaped its philosophical history. The other option was Herbartian program. As it is known, the Herbartian Society and the attempt to create a rational educational science within the confines of the university, and particularly the graduate school, were short-lived

The emancipation from philosophy 間， as J. Oelkers (1989:3) remarks,

the condition of the progress for the individual sciences. Educational science in Europe and in the United States during the turn of this century tried to meet this condition and compete<I for its academic status in

university. The progress in e吐ucational science recursively produced new components within the “closure" of itself and outwardly promote the reorganization of teacher e位 ucation. In Germany a lea<ling representative

of experimental pedagogy Ernst Meumann attempted to utilize W. Wundt's psychological experiments in the research of education and demanded that pedagogy be redefined as a science base吐 on purely empirical study. Furthermore, he proposed that educational science should be established as an autonomous university discipline. However, his proposal was not granted by the university professor, especially by those humanistic educators. Edward Spranger, a prominent humani泣， criticized

the experimental pedagogy for the fact that it was limited to the question of schooling and teaching technique. For Spranger, the cultivation of teacher's ethos rather than the familiarity with teaching method should be underscore吐 in teacher e<lucation. Spranger proposed therefore a special

School ofEducation 一 HistoricalAnalysisan吐 InternationalComparison

independent Bildnerhochschuie favorable for the cultivatio玄n of teacher pers叩ona叫lity. This perso<nalistic ideal of teacher education was actualized i凹_n the 1925 Pn叩USSl間a盯rη1 Mini旭st旭efla剖I Decree

iehrerbildun屋 in Peussen" which provided the establishment of

Padago噩ische Akadem祉. Under the pressure of demands to elevate the teacher's professional status, the Akademie (academy) was transformed to university level p'ada屋。畢ische Hochschuie. In response to the needs of scientification of teacher education the independent Padagogische Hochschule was gradually integrated into University as a faculty of it

刮目ilar development of promoting teacher e<lucation to scienti到c

study at university level was found also in the U.K. and in the U.S.A. dur ing the turn of this century. In England after the 1908 Board of Education Regulations tensions between Day Training Colleges and Univer sity Teacher Training Program were increasing. One of the solutions to the tensions was to transform the Day Training College to a University In-stitute. In 1932 University of London Institute of Education was estab-lished through the reorganization of original London Day Training Col-lege and thus became a main center not only for teacher training but also for scientific study of education. The more thorough solution was to ere ate the Board of Education Committee under the chairmanship of Sir Arnold McNair to examine teacher e廿 ucation issues. The well known McNair Report published in 1944 proposed the establishment of Area Training Organization to coordinate the works of universities, training colleges and Local Educational Authorities (LEA). The Report

recommen位ed also the unification of personal education of the student and his prep缸 ation for professional life in the teacher education. After the publication of the Report, the training colleges were loosely associated on a regional basis with the universities. Moreover, the colleges them selves attempted to elevate their academic status through raising their standards of admission, exten也ng their courses from two to three years,

教育研究集刊

granting (with university support and accreditation) degrees to a minority of their more able students. Significantly, they were renamed as colleges of education, although efforts to incorporate them fully within the univer sity structures were not successful (H. Judge, 1991:39-40)

In the Unite<I States during the last decades of nineteenth century many Normal Schools had been transformed to State Teacher Colleges (J. Herbst, 1989). In addition, several ambitious universities, e.g. Stanford,

Columbia, Chicago, Michigan and Harvard, added professors of education to their faculties as well as departments or schools of education to their activities. However, similar to the situation in Germany and England, there were also the debates on the nature of educational science. In Chicago, e岳， John Dewey had urged students of education to familiarize themselves with psychological principles, the methods and results of the study of intelligence, ethics, and history before they turned to the study of education itself. Dewey's successor at Chicago University, Charles Ju<Id demanded contrarily that his stu<lents embark on “a complete survey of

education - that included school administration, educational measurement, history of school practice, methods of instruction, and educational psy-chology. This change involved, as J. Herbst (1989: 182) remarks, a depar-ture from philosophy and theory and from a concern for seeing education in its total social and historical context. In short, Judd's view of educational science, analogical to that of German Meumann 's, was based on rigorously empirical study resembled the isolated experiments in bio個 logical and physical science. Under the influence of this view, the schools of education in the large research universities pour their ene玄gles more into educational study than into teacher training. Despite the fact that more attention was directed to the e位 ucational study in many prestige universities during the last few decades, the study of education within the university has been viewed as a marginal enterprise (B. R. Gifford, 1984 2). Moreover, tensions between research and teacher training have been the major problems in the schools of e<lucation of prestige universities.

School ofEducation 一 HistoricalAnalysis and International Comparison

From the foregoing historical comparison it may be followed that so much in Europe as in the U.S.A., there emerged in the last few decades a general tendency to recognize teacher training institutions as part of higher education community and to associate them more closely with universities. However, the relationship between university and school of education was not a comfortable one. The imperatives of research ar巳 not those of teaching or teacher preparation. Nevertheless, research is the major field through which a university earn its reputation. Tensions are thus exacerbated as universities compete among themselves for reputation and resources. Within the schools of e<lucation there emerge also urgent

crises as confronted with the postmodern incredulity to metanarrative and emphasis on performativity in epistemology. The school of education, as autopoietic social system in Luhmannian terminology, is confronte廿 internal and external threats to its own continuity. Only through changing interaction context and reflexive communication can the autopoietic mech anism of the school of e丘ucation revives itself. These themes will be dis-cussed in the following section

II

I.

Crises of School of Education in The Postmodern

Age

The foregoing analysis has shown that educational science has been built as an autonomous 刮目中line integrate<I into university system during

the last few decades in Europe and in the Unite廿 States.However, the pos-ition of the schools of education within the universities is, as Harry Judge

(1991:46) notes, always ambiguous and often resente吐 Renowned as they are in the realm of education, these schools and their faculties are forever unable within their own institutions, by the very nature of their applied missions, to measure up to the “pure" arts an吐 sciences departments. The 1980s were marked by an impetus towards higher standard and by the government's pursuit of a greater degree of differentiation and

compe-教育研究集刊

tition among the higher education in both sides of the Atlantic. The mo" important criteria of excellence of higher education institutes relate of

co盯se to the volume an吐 quality of research undertaken and results published. Studies in education are often thought to lack of scientific

ng肘， and even worse to remain aloof from educational reality. During the 1980s a powerful current of criticism was thus directed to the schools of education

Even within the main missions of school of education, teacher train-ing, there emerge吐 also urgent crises to be confronted with by school of education. Educational sciences can, as M. Wilkin (1993: 40) maintains, be thought as the metanarratives of teacher training. They embody Lyotard's (1979: 31-32) metanarative values for they enhance the prospectIve teachers' intellectual understanding of educational reality an吐 their moral awareness in teaching. They meet thus the requirements of the legitimation principles of science in Lyotardian sense. Under the influence of postmodern incredulity to metanarratives, the theoretical educational disciplines, e.g. philosophy of education, sociology of education, have been devalued in the teacher training

.

In America the on-the-job performance assessment in beginning teacher program has been elevated in importance in teacher certification tests in many States (L. Darling Hammond & B. Berry, 1988: 23-35). In the U.K., school experience rather than theoretical reflection is specifically emphasized in teacher training as stipulated in the 1989 and 1992 Circulars (DES, 1989, 1992) on initial teacher training. Moreover, the Education Act 1994 (DFE) prov沾自 that

schools should be encouraged be become involved in teacher training through fun吐ing. Project teaching and practicums instead of theoretical studies are specifically stressed in the teacher education program of Bremen University in Germany. From all of these measures for teacher education in various countries it might be concluded that success in traln-ing is now less frequently assessed by acquisition of theoretical knowl-edge than by competence in the classroom, or by “performativity," as

School of Education - Historical Analysis and International Comparison

Lyotard (1979: 47) woul吐 say. School of education is confronte吐 with very severe challenges.

Parallel to incredulity towards the metanarratives, the decline of the status of intellectuals represents another prominent feature of postmodernism. Traditionally, intellectuals possessed the privileged status of providing authoritative solutions to questions of cognitive truth, moral judgement and aesthetic taste (2. Bauman, 1987: 219). The essential idea of pluralistic stance of postmodernism is, as D. Harvey (1990: 48) puts 泣， “that all groups have right to speak for themselves, in their own voic己， and have that voice accepted as authentic and legitimate." The intellectuals have lost their prerogative to legitimate the authority of knowledge. They are experiencing a status crisis. A similar status crisis is also being experienced by the academic circle of educational professionals. That Kantian and Herbartian tra廿 itional educational theory can “guide'; or at least “regulate" practice has been dismissed from teacher education. In Germany the one-phase teacher education model at 01丘enburg University mandates that the Kontaktlehrer (contact teacher) at the school has the same right as the university professor to assess the performance of the student teacher. In the U.K. the school-centered courses in teacher education have been increased as demanded by recent reform efforts. Many theoretical disciplines are excluded from the teacher education curriculum. The school mentors in the p剖 tner schools are assigned the same status as the university tutors in the arrangement of teacher training. In the United States alternative teacher education programs have increased recently. Some alternative certification programs are built around the assumption that education courses are of little help to practicing teachers (L. Darling-Harmmon吐& B. Berry, 1988: 21). Anti intellectualism seems to penetrate into school of education. the functional subsystem of education within university produces its own decay, as Luhmann (1990) would say. Reorganization of school of education is es-sential to overcome its own crises

教育研究集于'J

IV. Concluding Remarks

School of educati凹， as a functional autopoietic system, incorporates itself within university as institutional arrangements for teacher education through a long history process of knowledge integration and differentiati-on. Its incorporation within university represents the gradual general rec-ognition of education as a prestigio肘， autonomous scientific discipline This signifies also the elevation of teacher's status, for the acquisition of professional knowledge becomes the gateway to teaching profession.

However, school of education is confronte正I with internal and exter-nal crises under the challenge of postmodern condition. E位 ucational studies are often criticized for the lack of scientific rigor as compared to the studies in biological and physical science. Educational studies rem血n therefore marginal especially in research-oriented universities. Making things even worse, theoretical stu<ly in education is <leclining drastically

last few decades under the pressure of postmodern incredulity to theoret卜 cal knowledge and emphasis on the performativity.

Reorganization of school of education is essential to cope with the crises. Cooperation with the liberal arts school and natural science school should be encouraged to carry out interdisciplinary research. Advancement and dissemination of knowledge concerning educational theory, policy,

process and practice should be promoted. Program for preparation of educational researchers, educational leaders an<I for the training of school

teacher should be further differentiated. The meaning-selection mechanism and communication network within the subsystem of school of education in Luhmannian terminology should be further elaborated in order that school of education can revive itself under multiple pressures of postmodern society

School of Education - Historical Analysisan廿 InternationalComparison

References

Alexander, R. J., Craft, M. & Lynch, J. (eds.) (1984) Changes in Teacher Education. London: Holt, Rinehart &Winston.

Bauman, Z. (1987) Legislators and Interpreters: On λ10dernity ，

Postmodernity, and Intellectual. London: Cambridge University Press.

Beckmann, H. K. (1968) Lehrerseminar, Akademie, Hochschuhle Weinheim und Berlin: Verlag Julius Beltz.

Be口， A, (1981) Structure, Knowle吐ge and Social Relationship. British Journal of Sociology of Education. vol.2, no.l

Bernbaum, G., Patick, H., Jackson, S. & Reid, K. (1985) A History of Postgraduate Initial Teacher Education. In D. Hopkins & K. Reid

(e吐s，) R,ethinking Teacher Eduation. London: Croom He1血， 7-18 Best, S. & Kneller, D. (1991) Postmodern Tneory: Critical Interogations.

London: Macmillan

Beyer, L. E. (1988) Knowing and Acting: Inquiry, Ideology and Educational Studies. London: The Falmer Press

Bey缸， L. E. (1987) What Knowledge is of Most Worth in Teacher Education? In J. Smyth (ed.) Educating Teacher. London: The Falmer Press

Brusis, 1. (1980) Lehrerausbildung bleibt bildungspolitischer Dauerbr巳nner. Neue Deutsche Schule. 32. Jhr忌， H. 14/I5: 308-312.

Burke, P, J. (1985) The History and Development of Teacher Preparation. In P. J. Burke & R. G. Heideman (eds.) Career-Long Teacher Education. Springfield, III.: Charles C. Thomas

Crook，鼠， PakulsJ口， J. & Walters, M. (1992) Postmodernization: Change in Advanced Society. London: SAGE Publications.

Darling-Hammond, L. & Berry, B, The Evolution of Teacher Policy, The RAND Corporation, JRE-01, 1988.

教育研究集刊

Darling-Hammond, L., Wise, A. E. & Klein, S. P. (1995) A License to

Teach: Building a Profession for 21st Century. Boulder: Westview

Press

Department of Education and Science (1984) Circular 3/84: Initial Teacher

Training. Approval of Courses. D. E. S.

Department of Education and Science (1987) Quality in Schools. The

In-itial Training of Teachers. London: Her Majesty's Stationery Office

Department of Education and Science (1989) Circular 18/89: The Education (Teachers) Regulations. London: Her Majesty's Stationery Office

Department of Education and Science (1990) Administrative Memorandum

1/90

.

The Treatment and Assessment of Probationary Teachers.

London: Her Majesty's Office.

Department of Education and Science (1992) Circular 9/92: Initial Teachel

Training (Second Phase). London: Her Majesty's Stationery Office.

Department for Education (1993) The Government Proposals for the

Re-form of Initial Teacher Training. London: Her Majesty's Statioery

Office.

Department for E吐ucation (1994) Education Act 1994. London: Her Majesty's Stationery Office

Dietrich, Theo & Klink, Job-Gunter (1966) Struktur und Inhalt einer

P"adagogischen Fakul!at. Die Deutsche Schule. 58, Jhrg

Forneck, H. J. (1992) Moderne und Bildung. Weinheim: Deutscher Studienverlag.

Foster, H. (ed.) Postmodern Culture. London: Pluto Press.

Furlong, V. J., Hirst, P. H., Pockling, K. & Miles, S. (1988) Initial Teacher Training and the Role of School. Milton Keynes: Open University Press.

Gecks, L. C. (1989) Sozializationsphase Referendariat-objektive Struktur b-。dingungen und ihr psychologischer Preis. Frankfurt am M.: Peter Lang

School of Education - Historical Analysis and International Comparison

Giffor吐， B. R. (1984) Tbe Good School of Education: Linking Knowledge,

Teaching and Learning. Berkeley, CA.: University of California.

Giroux, H. A. (1988) Teachers as Intel1ectuals: Toward a Critical Peda

gogy of Learning. Massachusetts: Bergins & Garvey Publishers, Inc

Guthmann, J. (1964) Uber die Entwicklung des Studiums der PiJdagogik Buhl-Buden: Konkordia.

Haberman, M. & Stinne缸， T. M. (1973) Teacher Education and Profe臼IOn

of Teaching. Berkley, CA.: McCuthan.

Haberm品， J. (1981) Moderne-ein unvollendetes Proekt. In ders. Kleine

politische Schriften. Frankfurt am M.: Suhrkamp

Haberm肘， 1. (198Ia) Theorie des Kommunikativen Handelns. 2 Bde Frankfurt am M.: Suhrkamp.

Haberm帥， J. (1985) Der philosophischer Diskurs der ModernιFrankfurt am M.:Suhrkamp.

Herbart, J. F. (1806) Al1gemeine Padagogik. Gottingen

Herbst, J. (1989) And Sadly Teach. Teacher Education and Professionaliz.

ation in American Culture. Wisconsin: University of Wisconsin

Press.

Hilliard, F. H. (1968) Universities and the Education of Teachers. An Inaugural Lecture deliverd in the University of Birmingham on 22nd October, 1968

Hinsdale, B. A. (1896) Studies in Education, Science, Art, History Chicago & New York Werner School Book Company.

Hindsale, B. A. (1906) History of the University of Michigan. Ann Arbor,

Michigan: University of Michigan

Hirch誨， H. (1979) Ein Vergleich der Verordnungen zum Vorbereitungs往1 enst von Referedaren an berufbildendenSchulen in den einzelnen Bundeslandern. Erziehungswissenschaft und Beruf. 27. Jhrg. H. 2: 287-302.

Hirst P. H. (1979) Professional Studies in Initial Teacher Education: Some Conceptual Issues. In R. Alexander & E. Wormald (eds.) Prefessional

教育研究集刊

Studies in Teaching. Society for Research in Higher Education.

Hollinger, R. (1994) Postmodernism and Social Sciences. Thousan位 Oaks ， CA.: SAGE

Homfeld, W. (1978) Theorie und Praxis der Lehrerausbildung. Weinheim: Beltz Verlag.

Homfeldt, H. G. (hrsg.) (1991) Ausbildung und Fortbildung. Bad HeilbrunnjObb.: Verlag Julius Klinkhardt

Horkheimer, M. & Adorno, Th. W. (1969) Dialektik der Aufkhirung Frankfurt am M.: S. Fischer.

Jameson, F. (1984) Postmodernism or the Cultural Logic of Capitalism

New Left Review, nco 146: 53-93

Johanningmeier, E. V. & Johanson, Jr., H. C. (1975) The Education Professoriate. A Historical Consideration of its Work and Growth In A. Bagley (ed.) The Professor of Education: An Assessment of

Conditions. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota.

Judge, H. (1991) Schools of Education and Teacher Training. Oxford

Studies in Comparative Education. vol. I: 37-55

Kallwe泣， 0.(1988) Zwischen Theorie un吐 Praxis aus der Innenperspektive eines Studienseminars. Die Deutsche Schule, 80. Jhrg. H.2: 393-408. Kant. I. (1798) KantsWerk, Bd. VII, Akadem阻 Textausgabe ， Berl凹， 1968 Kellner, G. (1988) Postmodernism as Social Theory: Some Problems and

Challenges . Theory, Culture and Society, vol.5, nos. 3 & 4.

Korker, A. & Cook, O. (1988) The Postmodern Scene: Excremental Culture and Hyper-Aesthetics. London: Macmillan

Kumar, K. (1988) The Rise of Modern Society: Aspects of the Social and

Political Development of the West. Oxford: Blackwell

Laclau, E. (1990) New Reflections on the Revolution of Our Time. London: Verso.

Luhmann, N. (1984) Soziale Systeme. Frankfurt am M.: Suhrkamp.

Luhmann, N. (1990) Essays on Self-Reference. New York: Columbia Uni-versity Press

School of Education - Historical Analysis and International Comparison

Luhmann, N. & Schorr, K. E. (1988) Reflexionsprobleme im Erziehungssy一

stem. Frankfurt am M.: Suhrkamp.

Lyortard, J. F. (1979) The Postmodern Condition: A Report on Knowledge Manchester: Manchester University Press.

Max-Planck-Institut fur Bildungsforschung (1976) Empirische Untersuchung zur Ausbildung von Studienreferendar. Berlin

MOTE (Modes of Teacher Edcuation) Barret，且， Barton, L., Galv凹， C.,

Mil凹， S. & Whitty, G. (1992) Initial Teacher Edcuation in England

and Wales: a Topology. Goldsmiths College, London University

Oelkers, J. (1989) Die grosse A 月:piration: Zur Herausbildung der

Erziehun-gswissenschaft im 19. J ahrhundert. Oarmsta<It: Wissenschaftliche

Buchgesellschft

Popkewitz, T. S. (1987) Ideology and Social Formation in Teacher Education. In T. S. Popkewitz (ed.) Critical Studies in Teacher Education. Lon<Ion: The Palmer Press

Popkewitz, T. S. (1991) A Political Sociology of Educational Reform New York: Teachers College Press.

Schach, B. (1987) Professionalisierung und Berufethos. Berlin: Ouncker &

Humboldt.

Schriewer, J. & Harney, K. (1978) On “System" of Education and their Comparability: Methodological Comments and Theoretical Alternatives. In O. K. Muller, F. Ringer & B. Simon (eds.) The Rise

of Modern Educational System. Cambridge: Cambridge University

Press.

Spranger, E. (1920) Gedaken iiber Lehrerbildung. Leipzig: Quelle &

Meyer

Stichweh, R. (1984) Zur Entstehung des modernen Systems

wissenschaftli-cher Diszipilnen. Frankfurt am M.: Suhukamp

Stritzke, R. (hrsg.)(l980) Erfolgreiches Praktikum im Vorbereitungsdienst Oonauworth: Ludwig Auer

教育研究集刊

Titze, H. (1993) Die Tradition der Padagogik und die Selbstkritik der Moderne. In J. Oelkers (hrsg.) Aufklarung, BiIdung und

Offentlichkeit. Weinheim: Beltz Verlag.

Trapp, E. Chr. (1780) Versuch einer Padagogik. Paderborn: Ferdinand Schoningh (1970 Nachdruck).

von der Bur耳， U吐。 (1989) Entstehung und Entwicklung der Gymnasialsem

inar bis 1945. Bochum: Studien Verlag Dr. N. Brockmeyer

Waller, W. (1932) Socinlogy of Teaching. New York: John Wiley (reprinte丑 in 1965).

Welsch, W. (1991) Unsere postmoderne Moderne. Weinheim: VCH Acta Humaniora.

Wilk間， M. (1993) Initial Training as a Case of Postmodern Development: Some Implications for Mentoring. In D. McIntyre, H. Hagger & M. Wilkin (eds.) Mentoring. London: Kogan Page

Yan萃， Shen-Keng (1991) Social Dynamics and Induction Phase of Teacher Education. Bulletin of Graduate Institute of Education, National

Taiwan NOTmal Universit., vol. XXXIII.

Yang, Shen-Keng (\993) Reforms of Teacher E吐ucation Program in Cul-tural Contexts. Bulletin of Graduate Institute of Education, National

Taiwan Normal University. vol. XXXV.

Zeichner, K. M. (1983) Alternative Programs of Teacher Education. Journal of Teacher Education, vol. 34, no.3: 3-9.

F 國立臺灣師範大學教育學系公告 (民盟八十六年五月六日) 主旨:本系碩士班招生簡章，自八十七學年度起，有關報考資格、考試 科目及計分方式，均有所改變，有意庭、考者，請特別留意並互相 轉告。 說明:一、報告資格 (一)甲組 符合左列資格之一者: 1.圈內外大學暨獨立學院畢業，共有學士學位者。 2. 兵有同等學力資格者。 乙 F且 大學校院畢業生，且須 f奢華研究所四十學分進修班者。 口同 一科文又 回一同圈英 科組共山間 試甲 L 考 H 乙 f且 1.共同科目 (l)國又 (2)英文 2. 教育專業科目 (1)教育哲學 (2)教育心理學 (3) 教育社會學 (的教育史 2.教育專業科目 (1)教育哲學 (2)教育行政與政策 (3)課程與教學 三、主十分方式﹒每科總分均為一百分，但教育專業科目加重計分 100% 。 教育學系辦公室 敬啟