Revisiting “Occupations”:Contemporary Enlightenment of Dewey’s Curriculum Theory and Practice from the Perspective of Labor Education

Abstract

Abstract:

“Occupations”,which are at the core of Dewey’s curriculum theory and practice,has rich implications with labor. Dewey hoped to change the situation that school education was separated from productive labor through “Occupations”,creating a vast space for labor education in his curriculum structure. In terms of the selection of curriculum experience,Dewey focused on social labor that meets the basic needs of ethnic groups. In terms of organization,he presented the form and significance of labor under different productivity conditions in a similar way to the cultural epoch theory. Also incorporating labor homework into school curriculum,Dewey’s exploration highlighted the social value of labor homework more than the two major movements of “manual training” and “child studies” at the same time,and showed how social relations connected by labor are deeply embedded in social and historical situations. Dewey’s curriculum theory and practice provided useful inspiration for solving problems such as how to highlight the ideological and social nature of labor education,and how to give full play to the educational value of traditional labor.

Key words: John Dewey, labor education, active “occupation”, curriculum theory, curriculum history

CLC Number:

G40-015

Wang Wenzhi, Liu Zhengwei. Revisiting “Occupations”:Contemporary Enlightenment of Dewey’s Curriculum Theory and Practice from the Perspective of Labor Education[J]. Education Science, 2023, 39(5): 37-44.

References 65

[1]	童宏亮. 杜威的劳动教育思想及其时代启示[J]. 衡阳师范学院学报, 2020, 41(1):135-142.
[2]	SCHUBERT W H. Educationally recovering Dewey in curriculum[J]. Education and culture, 1987, 7(1):1-32.
[3]	CASWELL H L. Influence of John Dewey on the curriculum of American schools[J]. Teachers college record: the voice of scholarship in education, 1949, 51(3):1-3.
[4]	LABAREE D F, TANNER D, TANNER L. Does the subject matter? Dewey, democracy, and the history of curriculum[J]. History of education quarterly, 1991, 31(4): 513-521. doi: 10.2307/368171
[5]	王文智. 美国课程史学的话语变迁[M]. 济南: 山东教育出版社, 2015:50.
[6]	WRAGA W G, HLEBOWITSH P S. Toward a renaissance in curriculum theory and development in the USA[J]. Journal of curriculum studies, 2003, 35(4):425-437. doi: 10.1080/00220270305527
[7]	HLEBOWITSH P S. Critical theory versus curriculum theory: reconsidering the dialogue on Dewey[J]. Educational theory, 1992, 42(1): 69-82. doi: 10.1111/edth.1992.42.issue-1
[8]	[11] SEAMAN J, NELSEN P J. An overburdened term: Dewey’s concept of “experience” as curriculum theory[J]. Education and culture, 2011, 27 (1): 5-25. doi: 10.1353/eac.2011.0005
[9]	[29] HARRIS F. Dewey’s materialist philosophy of education: a resource for critical pedagogues?[J]. The european legacy, 2006, 11(3) : 259-288. doi: 10.1080/10848770600668266
[10]	袁锐锷. 杜威的课程论探讨[J]. 华南师范大学学报(社会科学版), 1985(3):127-133.
[12]	[13] [14] 约翰·杜威. 杜威全集·晚期著作(1925—1953):第一卷(1925)[M].傅统先,郑国玉,刘华初,译. 上海: 华东师范大学出版社, 2015:302,303,303.
[15]	张华. 经验课程研究[D]. 上海: 华东师范大学, 2000:44.
[16]	[25] 侯怀银. 杜威的课程观述评[J]. 课程·教材·教法, 1999(10):52-56.
[17]	COPPOLA S. Deweyan educational philosophy in occupation-centered curricula[A]//CUTCHIN M, DICKIE V. Transactional perspectives on occupation. Dordrecht: Springer, 2012:199-213.
[18]	[39] [41] WADDINGTON D I. Good work for a better society: John Dewey and education through occupations[D]. Stanford, USA: Stanford University, 2006.
[19]	[21] [42] [50] [60] KLIEBARD H M. The struggle for the American curriculum: 1893—1958[M]. 2nd ed. New York: Routledge, 2004: 61,60,59,38,69.
[20]	[35] [36] [46] [53] [56] [59] 凯瑟琳·坎普·梅休, 安娜·坎普·爱德华兹. 杜威学校[M].王承绪,赵祥麟,顾岳中,等译. 北京: 教育科学出版社, 2013:4,15,4,38,18,9,112.
[22]	DEFALCO A. An analysis of John Dewey’s notion of occupations: still pedagogically valuable?[J]. Education & culture, 2010, 26 (1): 82-99.
[23]	郭元祥. 论活动课程[J]. 课程·教材·教法, 1994(11): 6-8.
[24]	李文奎. 试论杜威的课程论思想:从“活动作业”到“分科教学”[J]. 高等师范教育研究, 1992(5):21-25.
[26]	[30] [49] [52] [54] [57] [61] 约翰·杜威. 杜威全集·中期著作(1899—1924):第一卷(1899—1901)[M].刘时工,白玉国,译. 上海: 华东师范大学出版社, 2015:65,8,164-165,8,8,8,6.
[27]	[28] [32] [33] [34] [38] [40] [44] [45] [55] [58] [63] [64] 约翰·杜威. 民主主义与教育[M].王承绪,译. 北京: 人民教育出版社, 2005:198,199,188,195,195,192,195-196,203,278,195,196,209,194.
[31]	[51] 约翰·杜威. 学校与社会[M].赵祥麟,任钟印,译. 北京: 人民教育出版社, 2005: 31,92.
[37]	约翰·杜威. 杜威全集·中期著作(1899—1924):第九卷(1916)[M].俞吾金,孔慧,译. 上海: 华东师范大学出版社, 2012:163.
[43]	褚宏启. 对杜威课程理论的再认识[J]. 课程·教材·教法, 2000, 20(7):51-55.
[47]	张斌贤, 兰玉, 殷振群. 迎接工业化的挑战:1870—1910年的美国手工训练运动[J]. 清华大学教育研究, 2013(5):5-15.
[48]	高玲, 曹春平. 美国手工训练运动史:目标、机构与生存[J]. 外国教育研究, 2021, 48(4):89-101.
[62]	约翰·杜威. 杜威全集·早期著作(1882—1898):第五卷(1895—1898)[M].杨小微,罗德红,译. 上海: 华东师范大学出版社, 2010:171-175.
[65]	班建武. 新时代劳动教育要代表先进生产力的发展方向[J]. 中国德育, 2022(9):5-7.