学習の二重性とカリキュラム研究 : コースとしてのカリキュラム再考

It has been the tendency of curriculum studies to assume that curriculum is not a "course" of study but an entire range of "experiences" of learners so that it is symbolized by what Jackson (1992) pointed out as the "confusion" among curriculum researchers who assume that curriculum is course of study. What, however, is the relationship between curriculum as "course" and curriculum as "experiences"? In this paper, we discuss such a "relationship". No matter which opinion we take, it is explicit that curriculum is nothing but what learners learn. Therefore, in this paper, we considered "curriculum" not from the perspective of "curriculum" itself, but from the perspective of "learning". Furthermore, questions such as "what is learning?" lead us to confusion. This confusion occurs because we treat "learning" as a noun. We began our research from the very simple fact that the word "learning" is not originally a noun but the verb "learn", which represents a kind of action, and we consider "the basis (the subject) " of learning as a verb. Aristotle classified human actions (behavior) into "poiēsis" (πоιησιζ) and "praxis" (πραξιζ). Supposing that "learning" is a kind of action, too, it is not unreasonable to classify "learning" into the <poiēsis model> and the <praxis model> and to consider them from this perspective. The basis (subject) of the <poiēsis model> is each individual, and it is well known that such individual-based learning is analyzed by Von Neuman-type cognitive science, which assumes that a brain functions like information processing equipment (a computer). On the other hand, the basis (subject) of the <praxis model> is only in interpersonal relations, and it can't be analyzed by individual-based cognitive science. In fact, these two seemingly mutually contradictive learning models are in the side of "learning" which appears under the different description form. The viewpoint of the <poiēsis model> occurs because learning is described in the description form of ""S + V + O", and the viewpoint of <praxis model> occurs because learning is described in the description form of "S + V". In short, such "duality of learning" occurs from different description forms, and therefore both are related in a manner that can be described as "complementary" (as defined by N. Bohr), so they cannot be separated. The "relation" between the curriculum as "course" and the curriculum as "experiences" also corresponds to such "duality of learning", and because of it, they are in "complementary" relation. Therefore, if we argue only from the side of "experiences" of the curriculum, we cannot help but say that it is a one-sided way of studying curriculum. Now we need to re-interpret curriculum as "course" beyond the dominant negative interpretation of it.