1930年代 歐元懷(1893-1978)의 大學敎育論과 敎育의 中國化

Abstract

This paper analyzes how the “Sinicization of Education” was implemented in the classroom to more fully understand unfolding discussions about this issue within the educational field. Thus, I have focused on the theory of higher education, or the theory of national revival education, formulated by Ou Yuan-Huai, vice principal of Daxia (大夏) University, which is recognized as one of the “four major private universities in Shanghai.” With an education degree from Columbia University, he was an educator belonging to the so-called “Dewey School.” First, Ou Yuan-Huai was critical of the policy of Party Education(黨化敎育) and practical teaching of the Nationalist Government. He argued that, contrary to claims of the government, there was not an excess of students in the liberal arts and law and that they did not have a disadvantage when finding a job. He stressed that Party Education and practical teaching could not achieve the purposes of college education, such as seeking the truth, academic research, and fostering future talent. His view of higher education was similar to that of the liberal educators collected in the magazine Independence Review(獨立評論). Second, he was critical of the so-called New School System based on the American model. He claimed that college education had been commercialized because of the New School System and the credit system in particular. He was in favor of the government’s education policy to change the credit system to an academic year system. However, he emphasized that students’ proactivity and creativity had to be secured even if the new system was implemented. Third, the National Revival Education(民族復興敎育) he proposed consisted of personality education, production education, and physical and military education. He insisted on rediscovering the values of traditional Chinese culture in personality education and actively using them, and on employing John Dewey’s educational theories for production education. Ou Yuan-Huai’s theory of higher education shows how complicated discussions on the “Sinicization of Education” were. In discussions on the “Sinicization of Education,” criticisms and use of John Dewey’s educational theories, criticisms, and responses to the government’s education policies, and the use and criticisms of traditional cultural resources, are intricately intertwined.