Continuity between school curriculum and vocation: Manual labour's ineffective role
Tóm tắt
The author's thesis is that, in the foreseeable future, the school is incapable of successfully promoting favourable changes in values, attitudes and behaviour towards manual labour among the majority of pupils in any society, but particularly in low-income countries or areas of the world. The focus of this article is on the integration of manual productive work into the teaching-learning processes of school education. The relationship of formal education to other institutions in pre-literate, minimally literate and mostly literate societies is very briefly sketched. Attempts to introduce manual labour in the school curriculum in Canada, India and China are discussed. The reasons, internal to the educational system, for the failure of these attempts are listed. The article concludes by discussing the reasons external to the educational system which determine the fate of reforms if the reforms do not take account of political, cultural and international economic forces.
Tài liệu tham khảo
Bhattacharya, S. ‘Cultural and Social Constraints on Technological Innovation and Economic Development: Some Case Studies’.Indian Economic and Social History Review. 3 (September 1966), No. 3, pp. 240–267.
Carnoy, M.M. ‘Segmented Labour Markets’. In Unesco-IIEP.Education, Work and Employment-II. Paris: Unesco, 1980, pp. 1–121.
Chester, K.C., ‘Part-Work; Part-Study: Half Day Agricultural School’.Peking Review. 2 (1959), No. 13, pp. 14–15.
Foster, P.J. ‘The Vocational School Fallacy in Development Planning’. In Anderson, C.A. and Bowman, M.J. (eds.)Education and Economic Development. Chicago: Aldine, 1965, pp. 142–166.
Good, C.V. ‘Vocationalism’. InDictionary of Education. 2nd Edition. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1959.
Heilbroner, R.L. ‘The Missing Link’ (review). InNew York Review of Books. 28 (1981), No. 17.
Jones, D.C. ‘The Little Mound of Earth: The Fate of School Agriculture’. In Tomkins, G.S. (ed.)The Curriculum in Canada: Sixth Yearbook. Vancouver: Canadian Society for the Study of Education, 1979, pp. 85–94.
Mead, M. ‘Our Educational Emphases in Primitive Perspective’.American Journal of Sociology. 48 (May 1943), pp. 633–639.
Parker, F.What Can We Learn From the Schools of China? Bloomington, IN: Phi Delta Kappa Educational Foundation Fastback Series No. 89, 1977.
Poster, M.Foucault, Marxism and History: Mode of Production versus Mode of Information. Cambridge: Polity Press, 1984.
Ramanathan, G.Work Experience in General Education. Bombay: Asian Publishing House, 1972.
Simon, R.I. ‘Work Experience’. In Livingstone, D.W. et al.Critical Pedagogy and Cultural Power. Massachusetts: Bergin and Garvey, 1987, pp. 155–177.
Sohn-Rethel, A.Intellectual and Manual Labour: A Critique of Epistemology. London: Macmillan, 1978.
Unesco.World Survey of Education. Vol. 1. Paris: Unesco, 1955.
Unger, J.Education under Mao: Class and Competition in Canton Schools 1960–1980. New York: Columbia University Press, 1982.
Van Borstal, quoted in Gillespie, R.R. and Collins, C.B. ‘Productive Labour in Schools: An International Evaluation’.Prospects. 17 (1987), No. 1, p. 12.
Zachariah, M. ‘Public Authority and Village Reconstruction: The Case of Basic Education in India’.Journal of Educational Thought. 4 (August 1970), No. 2, pp. 94–106.
Zachariah, M. ‘“Massliners” versus “Capitalist Roaders” in China's Education Ring: Round Four to Capitalist Roaders?’,Comparative Education Review. 23 (1979), No. 1, pp. 101–114.
Zachariah, M.Revolution Through Reform: A Comparison of Sarvodaya and Conscientization. New York: Praeger, 1986.
Zachariah, M. and Hoffman, A. ‘Gandhi and Mao on Manual Labour in the School: A Retrospective Analysis’.International Review of Education. 31 (1985), No. 2, pp. 265–282.