| Project/Area Number |
15K17357
|
|---|
| Research Category |
Grant-in-Aid for Young Scientists (B)
|
| Allocation Type | Multi-year Fund |
|---|
| Research Field |
Education
|
|---|
| Research Institution | Seitoku University |
|---|
Principal Investigator |
|
|---|
| Project Period (FY) |
2015-04-01 – 2019-03-31
|
| Project Status |
Completed (Fiscal Year 2018)
|
| Budget Amount *help |
¥3,900,000 (Direct Cost: ¥3,000,000、Indirect Cost: ¥900,000)
Fiscal Year 2018: ¥910,000 (Direct Cost: ¥700,000、Indirect Cost: ¥210,000)
Fiscal Year 2017: ¥910,000 (Direct Cost: ¥700,000、Indirect Cost: ¥210,000)
Fiscal Year 2016: ¥910,000 (Direct Cost: ¥700,000、Indirect Cost: ¥210,000)
Fiscal Year 2015: ¥1,170,000 (Direct Cost: ¥900,000、Indirect Cost: ¥270,000)
|
|---|
| Keywords | 戦後日本教育史 / 教員養成史 / 教師教育史 / 教員養成 / 教師教育 / 教育学 / 戦後教育改革 |
|---|
| Outline of Final Research Achievements |
The purpose of this research is to clarify the actual situation of each university that actually carries out teacher training from the curriculum level, organize the results and problems of post-world war ii teacher training, and to respond to contemporary problems about teacher training from the viewpoint of history research. The research period is from around 1949 when the post-war teacher training was first established to around 1988.
After the period of teacher shortage in the early postwar period, many universities were forced to reconsider the way of curriculum and training education since the 1960s, when the necessary number of teachers could be secured. Minimum number of credits required for graduation and required courses were gradually increased and learning and research were not emphasized enough at many Universities.
|
| Academic Significance and Societal Importance of the Research Achievements |
従来、戦後教員養成に関する研究は、「開放制か目的養成か」といった二項対立論を乗り越えるため、各大学における養成教育の実際に即した研究の重要性が指摘されてきた。他方で、今まで研究対象となってきたのは、国立の教員養成系大学・学部に偏ってきた。
これに対し、本研究は、「開放制」を支える国・公・私立の多様な大学・学部について幅広く事例を選定し、カリキュラムレベルから戦後教員養成の成果と課題を検討した点に意義がある。また、先行研究では十分に検討されてこなかった、教員を採用する行政側の批判や課題意識、養成教育を実際に受ける学生側の評価も視野に入れた点は、教員養成史研究の今後の発展につながるだろう。
|
