개인구독
소속 기관이 없으신 경우, 개인 정기구독을 하시면 저렴하게
논문을 무제한 열람 이용할 수 있어요.
지원사업
학술연구/단체지원/교육 등 연구자 활동을 지속하도록 DBpia가 지원하고 있어요.
커뮤니티
연구자들이 자신의 연구와 전문성을 널리 알리고, 새로운 협력의 기회를 만들 수 있는 네트워킹 공간이에요.
이용수
초록· 키워드
오류제보하기
American universities radically changed during the critical period of 50 years between the Civil War and World War Ⅰ. Pre-Civil War colleges have insisted that the sciences fostered a religious interpretation of reality and natures explained the act of an omnipotent God's act of creation. However, late-nineteenth-century universities came to maintain that theology and religious learning are not the appropriate source of knowledge nor the effective methodological principle to deal with the natural and social phenomena.
The dominant cause of this decisive turning point in the history of American higher education was the battle to reform the college curriculum. In the winter of 1885, president Charles W. Eliot of Harvard and president James McCosh of Princeton conducted debate on the ideal college curriculum. The national prominence of this encounter detonated a battle on curriculum which has prolonged for a century.
Influenced by Darwinism, Eliot suggested three elements for the free elective system: freedom in the choice of studies, opportunity to win academic distinction in single subjects, and a discipline which distinctly imposes on each individual the responsibility of forming his own habits and guiding his own conduct. Under Eliot's forty-year leadership, Harvard adopted an 'elective system' and made the transition from a small college to a modem university.
A Scottish Presbyterian philosopher, McCosh insisted that free election is merely the principle of laissez-faire and it obviously encouraged dilettantism. He maintained that regular attendance should be required, and the whole curriculum should be carefully weighed and logically worked out for all four years, including obligatory core course and a reasonable variety of solid electives. He suggested the curriculum of Princetonian trinity, namely, language and literature, science, and philosophy.
Under the ground of this nationally prominent debate and the inside of the issues in the educational controversies of this century, there had been always the "interplay and opposition of the secular and the sacred". As W. B. Carnochan rightly observed, the belief in the sacredness of learning has in America never been entirely lost.
The dominant cause of this decisive turning point in the history of American higher education was the battle to reform the college curriculum. In the winter of 1885, president Charles W. Eliot of Harvard and president James McCosh of Princeton conducted debate on the ideal college curriculum. The national prominence of this encounter detonated a battle on curriculum which has prolonged for a century.
Influenced by Darwinism, Eliot suggested three elements for the free elective system: freedom in the choice of studies, opportunity to win academic distinction in single subjects, and a discipline which distinctly imposes on each individual the responsibility of forming his own habits and guiding his own conduct. Under Eliot's forty-year leadership, Harvard adopted an 'elective system' and made the transition from a small college to a modem university.
A Scottish Presbyterian philosopher, McCosh insisted that free election is merely the principle of laissez-faire and it obviously encouraged dilettantism. He maintained that regular attendance should be required, and the whole curriculum should be carefully weighed and logically worked out for all four years, including obligatory core course and a reasonable variety of solid electives. He suggested the curriculum of Princetonian trinity, namely, language and literature, science, and philosophy.
Under the ground of this nationally prominent debate and the inside of the issues in the educational controversies of this century, there had been always the "interplay and opposition of the secular and the sacred". As W. B. Carnochan rightly observed, the belief in the sacredness of learning has in America never been entirely lost.
목차
Ⅰ. 서론
Ⅱ. 세속화의 배경으로서의 학문전통의 변화
Ⅲ. 세속화의 현시화(顯示化)로서의 교과과정 논쟁
Ⅳ. 결론
참고문헌
Abstract
참고문헌 (27)
참고문헌 신청
함께 읽어보면 좋을 논문
논문 유사도에 따라 DBpia 가 추천하는 논문입니다. 함께 보면 좋을 연관 논문을 확인해보세요!
-
The Secularization of Higher Education : Narratives in Twentieth Century America
Journal of Christian Education & Information Technology
2014 .10
-
세속화론에 대한 지구화론적 관점의 이해
종교문화연구
2009 .06
-
한국종교의 세속화에 대한 경험적 연구
신학과세계
1998 .12
-
Beyond Secularization Thesis: Towards a Sociological Understanding of the Growth and Decline of Korean Protestantism
대학과 선교
2016 .01
-
The Secularization of Korean Buddhism Under the Japanese Colonialism
Korea Journal
1979 .07
-
개인주의적 영성운동과 세속화 논쟁
담론201
2010 .01
-
[기획:사회,교육환경의 변화와 대학 한국사교육의 진로]미국 대학의 자국사 교육의 역사와 현실
역사와현실
2004 .06
-
성(聖)의 복귀? : 종교쇠퇴로서의 세속화론에 대한 재고
신학과세계
2000 .12
-
교양 교육과정 모형 개발연구
아시아문화연구
2005 .02
-
미국의 자국학 연구 : 세계화 속에서 한국학 연구의 가능성
한국학(구 정신문화연구)
2002 .03
-
Multicultural Korean-American Curriculum
Journal of Christian Education & Information Technology
2008 .10
-
T. S. Eliot and James Joyce: 1915-1922
미래영어영문학회 학술대회 자료집
2019 .11
-
한국 대학의 기업화
역사비평
2010 .08
-
하밀톤의 그리스도론적 세속화론
신학연구
1979 .04
-
역사 교육과정 개발 방법 : 역사교육 개선의 방향 설정과 역사교육 연구 성과 활용 방안을 중심으로
역사교육
2018 .06
-
국내 중국 관련 학과 교육과정 분석: 전공 교과과정 편성 실태 및 개선방안
언어와 정보사회
2019 .01
-
헤겔의 '낭만적 예술형식'에 나타난 세속화 이후 근대예술
美學(미학)
2020 .01
-
중세 대학을 통해 본 기독교 대학의 교육적 과제
대학과 복음
2004 .12
-
『2007년 수정 국어과 교육과정』에 대한 비판적 이해 : 공통 교육과정의 「내용」 영역을 중심으로
국어국문학
2007 .05
-
한국학생들의 미국문화에 관한 인식과 실제
인문학연구
2012 .12
이 논문의 저자 정보
이 논문과 함께 이용한 논문
최근 본 자료
댓글(0)
0
UCI(KEPA) : I410-ECN-0101-2009-235-016282304