İki Kültür Bağlamında Eğitim Programı Teorisi

Öz

İki Kültür, İki Kültür ve Bilimsel Devrim adlı kitapta, C. P. Snow'un (1959) popüler konuşma konferansının ilk bölümüdür. Temel argüman, fen ve sosyal bilimlerin Batı medeniyetinin entelektüel tarihinde "iki kültüre" ayrılmış olduğu ve bu ayrılığın hem günümüz dünyasının sorunlarını ele almada önemli bir engel haline geldiği yönündedir ki bu ayrılık, hem günümüz dünyasının sorunlarının ele alınmasında önemli bir engel haline gelmesi mekanik görüş ve kartezyen felsefe bağlamında anlaşılabilir. Fikir, yalnızca doğa bilimlerinde değil, aynı zamanda sosyal bilimlerde de kendine bir konum bulmak konusunda çok güçlü bir temel bulmuştu. Örneğin, 1800'lerin başlarında filozof Auguste Comte, bir mekanik bilimin toplumun karmaşıklıklarını ortadan kaldırmaya yardımcı olabileceği ümidi ile 'Sosyal Fizik' kavramını formüle etmişti. Eğitim programı teorisi, Fordist üretim sisteminin ilkelerine dayanan bu tür görüşlerle de başlatıldı. Ancak bilim adamları, klasik fiziğin kurallarının ve mekanik anlayışın 20. yüzyılın başların da yeterli olmadığını keşfettiler. Bugün, eğitim programı teorisindeki kartezyen perspektiften eğitim programlarında iki kültürü birleştiren daha bütüncül bir bakış açısına doğru benzer paradigma kaymasıyla karşı karşıyayız. Bu nedenle, bu makalenin temel amacı, bu tür bir paradigma kayması bağlamında eğitim programı teorisini tartışmaktır. Bu bağlamda, eğitim programı teorisi, ana odağın fikirler olduğu, eğitim deneyiminin disiplinler-üstü bir çalışması olarak ele alınmıştır.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• İki Kültür
• Epistemoloji
• Eğitim Programı Teorisi

Curriculum Theory in the Context of Two Cultures

Öz

The Two Cultures is the first part of the (1959) popular speech lecture by C. P. Snow, written as a book in the Two Cultures and Scientific Revolution the same year. His argument was that sciences and humanities had been separated into "two cultures" in "the intellectual history of Western civilization” and that this separation became a significant handicap both in addressing the problems of today’s World. This criticism can be understood in the context of mechanistic view and cartesian philosophy. The idea was so pervasive finding itself a position is not only natural science but also in social sciences. For instance, In the early 1800s, philosopher Auguste Comte formulated the name 'Social Physics' with the hope that a mechanistic science could help to break down the complexities of society. Curriculum theory was also begun by such views based on the principles of Fordist production system. However, scientists find that the rules of classical physics and mechanistic view do not necessarily extend to the beginning of the 20th century. Today, we confront a similar paradigm shift in the curriculum theory from the cartesian perspective toward a more holistic view in curriculum theory combining two cultures. Therefore, the main aim of this article is to discuss curriculum theory in the context of such a paradigm shift. In this respect, curriculum theory is taken as the transdisciplinary study of educational experience in which the main focus is ideas.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Two Cultures
• Epistemology
• Curriculum Theory

Kaynakça

1. Adıvar, A., (1969), Tarih Boyunca Bilim ve Din, İstanbul: Remzi Kitapevi.
2. Aronson, E. Wiilson, T. D. Akert, R. M. (2010). Sosyal Psikoloji, İstanbul: Kaknüs Yayınları.
3. Asch, S. E. (1956). Studies of independence and conformity: I. A minority of one against a unanimous majority. Psychological monographs: General and applied, 70(9), 1-70.
4. Asch, S. E. (1951). Effects of group pressure upon the modification and distortion of judgment. In H. Guetzkow (ed.) Groups, leadership and men. Pittsburgh, PA: Carnegie Press.
5. Bloom, B. S., Engelhart, M. D., Furst, E. J., Hill, W. H., & Krathwohl, D. R. (1956). Taxonomy of educational objectives. McKay.
6. Bohm, D. (2005). Wholeness and the Implicate Order, USA: Routledge Classics.
7. Bohm, D. (1992). Thought As a System, London: Routledge.
8. Bordens, K. S. Horowitz, I. A. (2008). Social Psychology, USA: Freeload Press.

9. Brown, J. R. (2011), The Laboratory of Mind Thought Experiments in Natural Sciences, Routledge Taylor&Francis Group.
10. Brown, J. D. (1995) Mach’s Principle Before Einstein, Mach’s Principle From Newton’s Bucket to Quantum Gravity, Ed: Barbour, J., B.&Pfister, H., Birkhause.
11. Chu, E.L. (2019). Exploring Curriculum as an Experience of Consciousness Transformation, USA: Palgrave Macmıllan.
12. Coultas, Julie & van Leeuwen, Edwin J. C.. (2015). Conformity: Definitions, Types, and Evolutionary Grounding. 10.1007/978-3-319-12697-5_15.
13. De Fruyt, F. Van De Wiele, L. Van Heeringen, C. (2000). Cloninger's Psychobiological Model of Temperament and Character and the Five-Factor Model of Personality, Personality and Individual Differences, 29 (3), Pages 441-452.
14. Dillon, J.(1993) Alcinous The Handbook of Platonism, Clarendon Press, Oxford.
15. Doll, W.E. (2008). Complexity and the Culture of Curriculum, Complexity Theory and the Philosophy of Education, USA: Blackwell Publishing.
16. Duran, V. Barut, Y. (2019). Lukas Kritiği Bağlamında Eğitim Programları, 2. Uluslararası 19 Mayıs Yenilikçi Bilimsel Yaklaşımlar Kongresi, Samsun.
17. Feyerabend, P. (1993). Against Method, London: New Left Books.
18. Jaeger, L. (2018). The Second Quantum Revolution, Switzerland: Springer.
19. Gökberk, M. (1961). Felsefe Tarihi, İstanbul: Remzi.
20. Greene, B. (2010). Evrenin Dokusu, Ankara: Tübitak Yayınları.
21. Greene, B. (2008). Evrenin Zarafeti, Ankara: Tübitak Yayınları.
22. Gribbin, J. (2003), Schrödinger’s Kittens and the Search for Reality, PhoenixPaperback, Great Britain.
23. Gültekin, A.C. (2017).Michel Foucault’nun Magritte Yorumu ve Sözcük Nesne Kopukluğu,Dört Öge, 6(12).
24. Haggis, T. (2008). ‘Knowledge Must Be Contextual’: Some possible implications of complexity and dynamic systems theories for educational research, Complexity Theory and the Philosophy of Education USA: Blackwell Publishing.
25. Mason, M. (2008). What Is Complexity Theory and What Are Its Implications for Educational Change?, Complexity Theory and the Philosophy of Education,USA: Blackwell Publishing.
26. Monaco, J. (2000). How to Read a Film, Oxford University Press: New York.
27. Habermas, J. (2001). İletişimsel Eylem Kuramı, Kabalcı Yayınevi, İstanbul.
28. Heisenberg, W., (2000), Fizik ve Felsefe, İstanbul: Belge Yayınları.
29. Heidegger, M. (1968). Discourse on thinking. New York, NY: Harper & Row.
30. Joos E. (2009). Decoherence. In: Greenberger D., Hentschel K., Weinert F. (eds) Compendium of Quantum Physics. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg.
31. Kelly, A.V. (2004). The Curriculum, London: Sage Publications.
32. Kelman, H. C. (2006). Interests, Relatıonshıps, Identıtıes: Three Central Issues For Individuals And Groups İn Negotiating Their Social Environment, Annu. Rev. Psychol. 57:1–26 doi: 10.1146/annurev.psych.57.102904.190156.
33. Kenrick, D. Neuberg, S. L. Cialdini, R. B. (2009). Social Psychology: Goals in Interaction, USA: Pearson.
34. Köse, S. Sayar, K. Ak,İ. Aydın,N. Kalelioğlu,Ü. Kırpınar,İ. Reeves,R.A. Pryzbeck,T.R. Cloninger,C.R. (2004). Mizaç ve Karakter Envanteri (Türkçe TCI): Geçerlik, Güvenirliği ve Faktör Yapısı Klinik Psikofarmakoloji Bülteni;14: 107-131.
35. Kumar, A. (2013). Currıculum As Medıtatıve Inquiry, USA: Palgrave Macmıllan.
36. Krathwohl, D. R., Bloom, B. S., & Masia, B. B. (1964). The classification of educational goals, Handbook II: Affective domain. New York, NY: Longman.
37. Larsen, Knud & Ommundsen, Reidar & Van der Veer, Kees. (2008). Being human: Relationships and you. A social Psychological Analysis. USA: rozenberg publishers.
38. Lockwood, M.,(2005), The Labyrinth of Time Introducing the Universe, Oxford University Press, New York.
39. Magrini, J. M. (2015). New Approaches to Curriculum as Phenomenological Text, Switzerland: Palgrave Macmıllan.
40. Mason, M. (2008). Complexity Theory and the Philosophy of Education, Complexity Theory and the Philosophy of Education, USA: Blackwell Publishing.
41. Mckernan, J. (2007). Curriculum and Imagination, USA: Routledge.
42. McLure, H. & Fisher, G. (1969) Ideology and Opinion Making, General Problems of Analysis. Bureau of Applied Social Research: Columbia University.
43. Morrison, K. (2008). Educational Philosophy and the Challenge of Complexity Theory, Complexity Theory and the Philosophy of Education, USA: Blackwell Publishing.
44. Murillo, F. M. (2018). A Lacanian Theory of Curriculum in Higher Education, Switzerland: Palgrave Macmıllan.
45. Nicholson, D. & Parboteeah, D. & Nicholson, J. & Valacich, J. (2005). Using Distraction-Conflict Theory to Measure the Effects of Distractions on Individual Task Performance in a Wireless Mobile Environment.. 10.1109/HICSS.2005.657.
46. Öner, E. (2017). Nıetzsche’nin Platon Eleştirisi, Yayımlanmamış Doktora Tezi, https://tez.yok.gov.tr/ Erişim Tarihi: 14.06.20
47. Özçelik, D. (2019). Aristoteles ve Kınalızade Ali Efendi'de adalet, Yayımlanmamış Yüksek Lisans Tezi, https://tez.yok.gov.tr/ Erişim Tarihi: 14.06.20
48. Paraskeva, J.M. (2011). Conflicts in Curriculum Theory, USA: Palgrave Macmıllan.
49. Penrose, R., (2010) The Road To Reality A Complete Guide to the Laws Of Universe, Jonathan Cape, London
50. Peters, M.A. (2008). Foreword: Complexity and knowledge systems, Complexity Theory and the Philosophy of Education, USA: Blackwell Publishing.
51. Popper, K. (2000) In Search of a Better World: Lectures and Essays from Thirty Years, Routledge, London.
52. Pinar, W. F. (1974). Heightened Consciousness, Cultural Revolution, and Curriculum Theory: An Introduction. In W. F. Pinar (Ed.), Heightened Consciousness, Cultural Revolution, and Curriculum Theory (pp. 1–15). The Proceedings of the Rochester Conference (Rochester, New York, May 3–5, 1973).
53. Pinar, W. F. (2004). What Is Curriculum Theory? London: Lawrence Erlbaum.
54. Pinar, W.F: (2011). The Character of Curriculum Studies, Switzerland: Palgrave Macmıllan.
55. Pinar, W. F. (2012) . What Is Curriculum Theory? 2nd ed. New York: Routledge. Pinar , William F ., and Madelaine R. Grumet . 1976 . Toward a Poor Curriculum . Dubuque, IA: Kendall/Hunt.
56. Pinar, W. (1991). The white cockatoo. In: W. Schubert & G. Willis (Eds.) Reflections from the heart of educational inquiry: Understanding curriculum and teaching through the arts (244–249). Albany, NY: SUNY Press.
57. Pinar, William F., & Grumet, Madeleine R. (1976). Toward a Poor Curriculum. Dubuque, IA: Kendall/Hunt.
58. Roy, K. (2018). Rethinking Curriculum in Times of Shifting Educational Context, USA: Palgrave Macmıllan.
59. Sakınmaz, S. (2019). Atinalı solon ve Aristoteles’in yasa ve adalet anlayışı, Yayımlanmamış Yüksek Lisans Tezi, https://tez.yok.gov.tr/ Erişim Tarihi: 14.06.20
60. Schlosshauer, M. (2019). Quantum Decoherence, 10.1016/j.physrep.2019.10.001
61. Sherif, M. (1936). The psychology of social norms. Harper.
62. Semetsky, I. (2008). Re-reading Dewey through the Lens of Complexity Science, or: On the creative logic of education, Complexity Theory and the Philosophy of Education, USA: Blackwell Publishing.
63. Slattery, P. (2006). Curriculum Development in the Postmodern Era, USA: Routledge.
64. Spencer, H. (1902). Education: Intellectual, Moral and Physical. London: Williams and Norgate.
65. Susskind, L. (2008). The Black Hole War, USA: Back Bay Books
66. Stamenković, D. (2009). The Overpopulatıon Of Popper's World 3: Rıck Roderıck's Vıews On The Excess Of Informatıon In The Postmodern World, Linguistics and Literature 7 (1), 113 - 121
67. Tegmark, M. (1997), The Interpretatıon Of Quantum Mechanıcs: Many Worlds or Many Words?Erişim Tarihi: 23 Haziran 2014, http://arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/9709032v1
68. Tegmark, M. Wheeler, J.A. (2001), 100 Years of the Quantum, February Issue, https://arxiv.org/pdf/quant-ph/0101077.pdf
69. Torres Santomé, J. (1990) “La Práctica Refléxiva y la Comprensión de lo que Acontece en las Aulas,” in Ph. Jackson (1990) La Vida en las Aulas. Madrid: Morata.
70. Unger, R. M. Smolin, L. (2015). The Singular Universe and the Reality of Time A Proposal in Natural Philosophy, UK: Cambridge University Press
71. Wheeler, John A. (1983), "Law Without Law", in: J.A. Wheeler & W.H. Zurek (eds.), Quantum Theory and Measurement, pp. 182-213. Princeton University Press.
72. Wheeler, J., A., (1979), Beyond the Black Hole, University of Texas Center for Theoretical Physics,23 June2014,http://jawarchive.files.wordpress.com/2012/02/beyond-the-black-hole.pdf
73. Yıldızdöken, Ç. (2017). Platon Bağlamında Varlıktan Bilgiye Giden Yol, Uluslararası Sosyal Araştırmalar Dergisi,50 (10), 441-450.