On Professor Park Yeong-min's recommendation, I'm reading through Professor Lee Hong-woo's books. This is the second of them, and the first book was so difficult that even as I read I didn't understand well and in the end I don't remember the content. It was a book that made my head hurt to the point of being hard to understand the sentences. (Not in a negative sense, but the kind of book where, unless you concentrate intensely, each line doesn't read well..) But this book was a little different. Moreover, since there were matters worth pondering, I'll jot down a bit.
- 'What is a curriculum/subject?' - Is it experience or content? Dewey's educational content is, after all, experience, yet we are teaching 'content.' In other words, 'educational content' is the experience the school provides to the student. We don't teach the 'subject,' we teach the 'child.' (We teach children, not subjects) But the experience of the subject is not different from the experience of everyday life. - Preface, main text pp. 35-36.
- 'What does it mean to teach a subject well?' - One must teach the subject in a subject-like way, or in a form faithful to the character of that subject. - p. 42.
What on earth is the 'character' of the Korean-language subject? I myself have never once pondered what on earth the character of the Korean-language subject is. If I were to make a definition, it would roughly be like this.
It can be divided into a skill-subject character and a content-subject character; here the 'skill subject' can be distinguished into 'speaking, listening, reading, writing' and their advanced forms 'rhetoric/speech, reading, composition,' and the content-subject character can be distinguished into 'literature' and 'grammar.' But here, since the 'skill subject' and 'content subject' are organically connected to each other to the point that it's hard to call them entirely separate disciplines, one can define that, rather than placing emphasis on any single 'one,' they need to be dealt with from a broad perspective.
If speech, composition, and reading aren't established as a foundation, then in conducting any class there can only be a lack of 'expression' of content and accurate 'understanding,' so the importance of the skill subject is considerable. Only when one considers how to speak and listen well, and how to read properly and write accurately, can the character of the 'skill subject' be roughly grasped; and the character of the 'content subject' can be linked to 'grammar,' the linguistic knowledge of 'Korean,' and to understanding 'literature' of Korean-language-based society and connecting it to life. Ugh, but it's ambiguous how literature and grammar should have their characters defined. Discovering 'life' through literature is one of the very difficult things. Having read over 50 books and over 50 papers in the military and thereby figured out that literature speaks of 'life' and depicts 'life,' to me the 'literature' subject class seems like a subcategory of a knowledge-transmission class on methods of understanding literary passages on the College Scholastic Ability Test (CSAT).. To break out of this, it seems it'd only be possible if the CSAT system were abolished or improved, but how on earth are they going to solve this.. The 'grammar' subject is at least a bit better, I think. At least the breadth that students can understand is a bit wider; regarding the phenomena of the Korean language itself, the path is wide, I think. Only, the 'problem' is utility. It's true that by learning grammar one can have a more correct 'language life,' but it's hard to explain well whether this is 'useful'.. Is this a matter to ponder further..
- Within the phrase 'the structure of knowledge,' one must be able to think about what exactly the 'educational content' we should teach is. - p. 51.
Regarding the content of education that should be taught, more deliberation is needed. Though I'm a Korean-language teacher, it's not as if I'll teach only the 'Korean-language subject,' is it; and I'm still at the stage of doubting whether there even is a structure of knowledge in the 'Korean-language subject'..
- What is the true meaning of Socrates' 'maieutics (midwifery)'? - Through the bewilderment one feels when one comes to feel that one didn't know what one thought one knew, it makes students themselves come to have the desire and interest to 'want to learn.'
I'm in favor of 'maieutics.' I think 'questioning' is the most basic thing, and 'maieutics' fits that purpose very well. I want students not to be frustrated by 'what they don't know' but to acquire the 'virtue of learning' on their own. That's my modest goal. I know it's a very difficult thing. It's because the habits formed in elementary school are highly likely to dominate students. But to be frustrated by that feels a little regrettable. In fact, in middle school perhaps the possibility of 'change' is greater. Well, at any rate, I'm always in favor of growing students through steady questioning. I also intend to do it as much as possible..
- It is absolutely not teaching only the fragmentary ideas in the textbook. A 'teacher' must always think about the 'core idea' of the subject. - p. 79.
What on earth is the 'core idea'? I have no experience pondering the core idea of the Korean-language subject. As I write, only more embarrassing stories keep coming out, so the embarrassment truly seems endless. The core idea of the Korean-language subject seems to be accurate reading and interpretation.. but if this really is the core idea, then there would be far too many people who have failed to carry out this 'core idea.'
The rest requires more context to mention, so for now I'll write only up to here. When I have a bit more time, I'll organize my thoughts little by little and record them.
Comments 0
No comments yet. Be the first.