Details of a Researcher - Matsuura, Yoshimitsu

Papers - Matsuura, Yoshimitsu

Division display 121 - 140 of about 142 ／ All the affair displays >>

「ロバート・Ｍ・ハッチンズの『アカデミック・フリーダム』論―イリノイ州議会治安妨害活動調査委員会証言をめぐって―」

MATSUURA YOSHIMITSU

『日本の教育史学（教育史学会紀要）』 (教育史学会) ( 32集 ) 180-194 1989.10

Research paper (scientific journal), Single Work, Accepted

"Academic Freedom" and Robert M. Hutchins : The Meaning of his Testimony before the Seditious Activities Investigation Commission of the Illinois State Legislature

Matsuura Yoshimitsu

STUDIES IN THE HISTORY OF EDUCATION (The Japan Society for Historical Studies of Education) 32 ( 32集 ) 180 - 194 1989.10

Accepted, ISSN 0386-8982

Access to Document (DOI)

「すべての人にとっての最良の教育―学習社会のリベラル・エデュケイション―」

MATSUURA YOSHIMITSU

『現代思想』1989年７月号 (青土社) 17 ( 8 ) 88-97 - 97 1989.07

Research paper (scientific journal), Single Work

「教育問題としての『指導』の概念―教育哲学的考察―」

MATSUURA YOSHIMITSU

『明治学院論叢』教育学特集11 (明治学院大学) ( 445 ) 55-79 - 79 1989.03

Research paper (bulletin of university, research institution), Single Work, ISSN 0918-9858

「受験対策講座・教職教養サブノート『教育原理』」〔第１回「教育の意義と目的」（1989年９月号: 86-8頁）; 第２回「学習指導」（1989年10月号: 102-5頁）; 第３回「学校経営・学級経営」（1989年11月号: 86-9頁）; 第４回「生徒指導」（1989年12月号: 94-6頁）; 第５回「学習指導要領」（1990年１月号: 86-9頁）; 第６回「道徳教育」（1990年２月号: 66-8頁）; 第７回「同和教育」（1990年３月号: 86-8頁）; 第８回「社会教育・生涯教育」（1990年４月号: 134-6頁）〕

MATSUURA YOSHIMITSU

『教員養成セミナー』 (時事通信社) 1989

Research paper (scientific journal), Single Work

「『八王子合宿』教育実践の意義―教師教育における『教育原理』教育のあり方を求めて―」〔山口和孝、堀江伸、松浦良充、大久保正健、田村皖司共著〕

MATSUURA YOSHIMITSU

『杉野女子大学・杉野女子大学短期大学部紀要』 (杉野女子大学・杉野女子大学短期大学部) 25 ( 25 ) 191-231 - 279 1988.12

Research paper (bulletin of university, research institution), Single Work, ISSN 0286-2778

「アメリカ教育改革における『エクセレンス』概念の意味―ポスト・スプートニク期と1980年代を比較して―」

MATSUURA YOSHIMITSU

『アメリカ教育におけるエクセレンス追求の史的研究』 (アメリカ教育史研究会) 61-76 1988.06

Research paper (conference, symposium, etc.), Single Work

THE NATIONAL DEFENSE EDUCATION ACT OF 1958:ITS MEANING AND CHARACTER IN THE HISTORY OF AMERICAN EDUCATION

HMATSUURA YOSHIMITSU, HR

『教育研究』国際基督教大学学報Ⅰ－Ａ（教育研究所） (国際基督教大学教育研究所) ( 30 ) 25 - 47 1988.03

ISSN 0452-3318

Access to Document (DOI)

「アメリカ合衆国国家防衛教育法（1958年）の教育史的意義―ロックフェラー報告・コナント報告の人材養成論との比較において―」

MATSUURA YOSHIMITSU

『教育研究』国際基督教大学学報Ⅰ－Ａ（教育研究所） (国際基督教大学教育研究所) ( 30 ) 25-47 1988.03

Research paper (bulletin of university, research institution), Single Work

「『同志社通則』綱領削除事件（1898年）と留岡幸助―『基督教ヲ以テ徳育ノ基本トス』る同志社の動揺をめぐって―」

MATSUURA YOSHIMITSU

『道徳教育における宗教教育の意義に関する基礎的研究―日・独・米の比較を中心に―』（1986-87年度文部省科学研究費補助金交付一般研究Ｂ成果報告書：研究代表者讃岐和家課題番号61450039） 105-126 1988.03

Research paper (conference, symposium, etc.), Single Work

「R．M．ハッチンズ対Ｊ．デューイ論争の再検討―1936～37年の高等教育論争の意味―」

MATSUURA YOSHIMITSU

『日本デューイ学会紀要』 (日本デューイ学会) ( 28 ) 75-81 - 81 1987.06

Research paper (scientific journal), Single Work, ISSN 0549-3080

「1980年代アメリカ教育改革論議と伝統主義教育思想(1)―教育におけるエクセレンス概念の把握をめぐって―」

MATSUURA YOSHIMITSU

『教育研究』国際基督教大学学報Ⅰ－Ａ（教育研究所） (国際基督教大学教育研究所) 29 ( 29 ) 23-51 - 51 1987.03

Research paper (bulletin of university, research institution), Single Work, ISSN 0452-3318

The purpose of this study is to examine the influence of Traditionalism in education over the Great School Debate in the 1980s in the United States. As the first part of the study, this paper aims to clarify the meaning and definition of excellence as an educational goal. And it will develop a conceptual framework to consider the position and trends of the current educational reform movement: the "excellence movement," and the debate about it (the Great School Debate), in the United States. Between 1982 and 1985 lots of reports on the state of the nation's schools were issued in the United States. They emanated from diverse sources: the federal government and its agencies, state governments and their agencies, various private philanthropic organizations, business interests, testing organizations, and individuals. It is not too much to say that, in the 1980s, there has never been more spirited controversy about what schools should do in the history of American education. The key term of the current educational reform movement and the debate on it is the concept of excellence which is an ambiguous and underfined word. American people seems to be favorably disposed towards excellence in education. But it is used uncritically as an emotive slogan to support and justify practically any change, any reform, and any criticism of present educational policy. The author of this paper tries to clarify the conceptions of excellence and to develop a conceptual framework of it, from following four points of view: 1. To examine what kind of conceptions of educational excellence the commission and individual reports for educational reform adopt. 2. To examine the discussion and criticism about the conceptions of the reports. 3. To examine some conceptual frameworks of educational excellence which educational philosophers attempt to develop. 4. To examine the conceptions of educational excellence which developed in the discipline-centered education after the Russian's success in launching Sputnik in 1957. It is given as a conclusion that there are two conceptions of excellence in education. The first conception means seeking to educate everyone to the limit of his or her ability and pursuing the development of human diverse potentiality at all levels. This conception is the characteristic of the 1960s'. The second conception of excellence in education means the attainment of academic and intellectual standards, basic skills, and a common core curriculum which is measurable by the minimum competency tests. This is the typical conception of the 1980s.

Access to Document (DOI)

Problems of the Paideia Education Reform (1982-1984): A Critical Examination of M. J. Adler's Education Reform

Matsuura Yoshimitsu

Studies in the Philosophy of Education (The Japanese Society for the Philosophy of Education) 1986 ( 54 ) 57 - 71 1986.11

ISSN 0387-3153

The purpose of this paper is, by means of a critical examination, to point out problems in the logical structure of an educational reform plan proposed by the paideia group under the direction of Mortimer J. Adler during the years 1982-1984. These reflections include the following points : (1) Under what kind of problem awareness in connection with the social and educational situation in America did Adler develop his reform plans ? (2) To what degree does his reform plan conform to his problem awareness ? As a result of these reflections the following points become clear : Adler's problem awareness included two points : (1) For the realization of democratic education it is necessary to establish an educational system with quantative and qualitative equality ; (2) educational reform is necessary for the economic development of America. On this basis he maintains that all American children should be offered the same educational objectives and the same educational curriculum. However, by analyzing the logical structure of the reform conception it becomes clear that (1) in his concept of 'equality', the inequality 'in the point of degree' of children's capacity on the one hand, and the inequality of the educational 'outcome' on the other hand, is presupposed ; (2) school education is expected to serve the function of promoting the values of the existing industrial society. These two points are in conflict with Adler's problem awareness and thus his reform theory contains, from the viewpoint of logical structure, problems as yet to be overcome.

Access to Document (DOI)

【研究ノート】「パイデイア教育改革提案（1982-4年）の問題点―Ｍ．J．アドラー教育改革論の批判的検討―」

MATSUURA YOSHIMITSU

『教育哲学研究』 (教育哲学会) ( 54 ) 57-71 1986.11

Research paper (scientific journal), Single Work

"ジャパン・バッシング"で対日観は変ったか

ベンジャミン・C. デューク, 松浦良充, 松浦陽子

中央公論 (中央公論新社) 101 ( 7 ) p120 - 129 1986.07

ISSN 0529-6838

「シカゴ・プランとＲ．M．ハッチンズ―1930～40年代のシカゴ大学カレッジ・カリキュラム改革をめぐって―」

MATSUURA YOSHIMITSU

『教育研究』国際基督教大学学報Ⅰ－Ａ（教育研究所） (国際基督教大学教育研究所) 28 ( 28 ) 25-48 - 48 1986.03

Research paper (bulletin of university, research institution), Single Work, ISSN 0452-3318

This paper historically examines the relations between Robert Maynard Hutchins' ideas of higher education and the actual college curricular reforms in history during his presidency and chancellorship at the University of Chicago. Hutchins at the age of thirty, Dean of the Yale School of Law, was named to be the fifth President of the University of Chicago on April 17, 1929. While he was President (1929-1945) and later Chancellor (1945-1951) of the university, many innovative educational concepts and practices were introduced particularly to the collegiate education of the university. The curricular reforms and controversial educational programs at the College of the University of Chicago during the 1930s and the 40s, during Hutchins' presidency and chancellorship, was called "The Chicago Plan," which was one of the most comprehensive experiments in general education in the history of American higher education. However there are lots of confusions about the relations between the educational ideas of Hutchins and the Chicago Plan. It is generally believed that the plan was completely the embodiment of the ideas of Hutchins, and that the plan offered the prescribed Great Books curriculum for all college students. The Chicago Plan has been loosely identified with the curriculum of St. John's College of Annapolis, Maryland, or with the Great Books program which has been conducted in the university extension. On the contrary, this paper will prove that the Chicago Plan was somewhat removed from the educational ideas or ideal plans of Hutchins. The curriculum offered in the Chicago Plan never carried a complete great books program. Through a historical analysis, this study demonstrates that the Chicago Plan is not President Hutchins' original or favorable one. Hutchins took metaphysics for a guiding principle of higher education. It was reflected in his views on the administrative system of university and the ideal curriculum of general education at college. He intended to divide a university into four divisions, the College Division, the Division of the Metaphysics, the Division of the Social Sciences, and the Division of the Natural Sciences. His purpose of general education was to train the minds of students for intelligent action which meant to study the first principles, namely, metaphysics. So his ideal program of college education aimed to help students to master the leading ideas in the principal fields of knowledge which could be learned by reading and understanding the great books, and to help them to learn the arts of reading, writing, and thinking which he called the liberal arts, in his context, it meant grammar, rhetoric, logic, and mathematics. Have such ideal plans of Hutchins ever been attained at the University of Chicago? A historical study from the following points of view will show an answer to this question. 1. On October 22, 1930, the University of Chicago was reorganized into five divisions, the College Division, the Division of the Biological Sciences, the Division of the Humanities, the Division of the Physical Sciences, and the Division of the Social Sciences. But there was not the Division of Metaphysics which included in Hutchins' original plan. 2. The College faculty adopted the new college program on March 5, 1931, and it put into operation the following autumn. It included the system of comprehensive examinations at the end of the courses by an independent examination staff. The plan of comprehensive examinations, however, had been already seen in the unaccomplished college program in 1928. 3. On November 19, 1932, President Hutchins proposed grouping the last two years of the secondary school with the first two years of college, and to form a new college devoted entirely to general education. At the end of that four-year period, the student would be given a Bachelor of Arts degree. But it revived an earlier suggestion of William Rainey Harper, the founding president of the University of Chicago. 4. The major curricular reforms at the College of the University of Chicago in 1932, 1937, and 1947 never adopted a complete great books program which was Hutchins' ideal curriculum. To conclude, the Chicago Plan was never Hutchins' original plan or his ideal program. Thus Hutchins was in deep disappointment over his failure in the reforms and experiments at Chicago. But the failure played an important role on developing his educational ideas. His experience and failure as president of the University of Chicago changed his educational thought, so that he deepened his insight into the reality of American education and society.

Access to Document (DOI)

The Meaning of 'Freedom' in the Philosophy of Liberal Education: The Case of Robert M. Hutchins

Matsuura Yoshimitsu

Studies in the Philosophy of Education (The Japanese Society for the Philosophy of Education) 1985 ( 51 ) 56 - 70 1985.05

ISSN 0387-3153

The purpose of this paper is to examine and clarify the meaning of the concept of 'freedom' in the philosophy of liberal education of Robert M. Hutchins. The term 'freedom' is always a controversial concept in regard to many contemporary problems of education. This is due to the ambiguity of its meaning. Hence, this paper as a kind of case study, tries to examine and to readjust this controversial concept by taking as an example Hutchins' concept of 'liberal' education. The logical structure of Hutchins' theory of liberal education includes the following three theses 1. Liberal education was originally (in ancient Greece) the education suited to free men who were political rulers. 2. At present, universal suffrage, the foundation of democracy, makes every man a ruler; industry garantees everybody leisure, hence every man can become a free man. 3. Consequently at our time liberal education is the education for all men. Furthermore, this paper examines the above-mentioned concepts of 'liberal' educationand '

Access to Document (DOI)

「リベラル・エデュケイションにおける『自由』の意味―Ｒ．M．ハッチンズの場合―」

MATSUURA YOSHIMITSU

『教育哲学研究』 (教育哲学会) ( 51 ) 56-70 1985.05

Research paper (scientific journal), Single Work

「ブラメルドによるハッチンズ批判の検討―ハッチンズ自由教育思想の再評価に向けて―」

MATSUURA YOSHIMITSU

『教育研究』国際基督教大学学報Ⅰ－Ａ（教育研究所） (国際基督教大学教育研究所) 27 ( 27 ) 47-68 - 68 1985.03

Research paper (bulletin of university, research institution), Single Work, ISSN 0452-3318

This essay is an endeavor to reexamine the validity of Theodore Brameld's criticism of the philosophy of education of Robert M. Hutchins (1899-1977). It has been said up to the present that the philosophy of education of Hutchins, who is famous for his long presidency at the University of Chicago, puts great emphasis on its rationalistic concept of human nature and traditional views on education. The program of the Great Books and liberal arts curriculum is a good example of it. Hutchins' conventional image in textbooks on American philosophy or history of education has been generally been that of an intellectual elitist, and he has commonly been classified as a "perennialist". This largely derived from the fact that Brameld assigned Hutchins to the perennialist category of his typology, that is, "culturology of philosophies of education". Brameld regards Hutchins as the best-known and influential lay perennialist in American contemporary education. Many studies on Hutchins' philosophy of education in the United States and Japan have endorsed this assignation without due consideration of the validity of it. Brameld also gives more credit to Hutchins than to anyone else for the movement sometimes termed neo-Scholasticism or neo-Thomism. And he criticizes Hutchins from the two points of view as follows; 1. Hutchins' philosophy of education is unconditionally based on the assumption that there are transcendental truths, one specific metaphysical system: the Aristotelian or Thomist. 2. Hutchins insists that the educator avoid the concept of the elementary and secondary schools as in any sense agencies of social reform. Brameld concludes by saying that the kind of education that perennialists like Hutchins propose for the majority is not primarily education for responsible and participative rule by or of the majority. Accordingly Brameld looks upon Hutchins' philosophy of education as a reactionary challenge to democracy. However the comprehensive examination of the corpus of Hutchins' philosophy of education demonstrates that his assignment to the category of "perennialist" lacks validity. Although indeed it might be said that Hutchins believed in some metaphysical and transcendental truths in the 1930's, the early stage of his development of philosophy of education, he denies his belief in them later from the 1940's on. Hutchins advocated "liberal education for all" so that everybody could be free socially, politically, and mentally. He denied the concept that the educational systems were the agencies of social reform, because he radically criticized the existing public educational systems which turned into the service stations for the states, in order to realize his ideal of liberal education for all. I suppose that Hutchins' philosophy of education is worthy of being reevaluated in the present age. Now the stereotype "perennialist" which Brameld provides for Hutchins prevents us from reevaluating Hutchins' philosophy of education. Herin lies the reason why this essay should reexamine Brameld's criticism of Hutchins' philosophy of education.

Access to Document (DOI)

「ロバート・Ｍ・ハッチンズ『学習社会』論の思想的基盤―自由教育思想と公教育制度批判―」

MATSUURA YOSHIMITSU

『関東教育学会紀要』 (関東教育学会) ( 11 ) 28-39 - 39 1984.09

Research paper (scientific journal), Single Work, ISSN 0285-9491

　 Previous page - Next page 　