실천의 측면에서 본 顔元과 陶行知의 교육사상

Abstract

In this paper, I examined the idea of two representative educators in China who emphasized practical educational thought. The one is Yan Yuan(顔元) who lived late Ming and early Qing dynasty and the other one is Tao Xingzhi(陶行知) who lived in the era from the late Qing dynasty to the Republic of China. For that purpose, I studied the background of their growth, ideological formation process, ideological similarity.And, with this, I wondered what lessons the ideas of two person gave to our life and education experiencing the changing times. They lived in the era of the East and propose a methodology based on practice. A methodology based on educational practice. was presented by this two educator who lived in the period of turbulence. In this paper, their thoughts centered on practices is classified into three stages, examining the problem raising, concentrating problems and exploring solutions, and presenting their own solutions. They found the cause of decline of the society and the state in the education centered on Neo-confucianism and feudalism as the cause of the decline of society at the time. As a way to overcome this Yan Yuan(顔元) presented the methods of practice and practical philosophy(習行) and Tao Xingzhi(陶行知) presented life education which were applied to the site. Although there is a common point that these two educational thought emphasizes practice, there is a difference in the process and method adopted in education practice. Ultimately, Yan Yuan(顔元)’s emphasis on practical philosophy(習行) in education and Tao Xingzhi(陶行知)’s emphasis on life education does not have its own purpose, but rather attempts to overcome social problems of the day through appropriate education. The essence of proper education is generally abstract, but when it is used, it must be presented in concrete language at the level of the individual's eye. They expressed this as practical philosophy(習行) and life in education. Of course, the criteria are based on the situation they are in. Therefore, there is a sense of divergence even though their thoughts of education are classified in the same practical thought. In the end, the lesson they give us is not in the practice itself, but in the reality we are in, we have to solve the real problem based on the essence of education. And they reminded us that it is our burden to present it in a specific language according to the height of our own eyes.