Curriculum Image From the View of Neo-Pragmatism with an Emphasis on Rorty's Ideas

Document Type : Original Article

Author

Iran, Tehran, Alzahra University, Faculty of Educational Sciences and Psychology, Department of Educational Sciences

Abstract

The purpose of the study is to provide an illustration of the curriculum of neo-pragmatism approach through the conceptual and inference methods. The features of the philosophy of Rorty (the founder of neo-pragmatism philosophy) include: the instrumental and language features of the language, the feature of the self and the community, the contradiction between public and private affairs, social solidarity instead of objectivity and critical look at the vocabulary. Regarding neo-pragmatism curriculum, it can be said that education goals are relative and variable; however, the achievement of self-development, the education of a critical citizen, the establishment of conditions for the establishment of democracy, the emphasis on the transfer of knowledge, the valuation of practical knowledge can be the goals of neo-pragmatism. Due to changes in objectives, the content is also variable and there is no consistent content. Neo-pragmatism teaching methods involve participatory learning and critical discourse. Neo-pragmatists, including Rorty, reject objective evaluation methods. In general, the goals and content, methodology and evaluation of the curriculum are flexible and adapted to the environmental conditions and so-called emerging syllabus.
 

Keywords

References

Altbach, P.G. “Higher Education: Comparative Studies.” In Husen, T. and T.N. Postlethwaite (eds).International Encyclopedia of Education, Vol 4. Oxford: Pergamon. 
Aronowitz S. and Giroux. H. (1991). “Postmodern Education”. University Of Minnesota Press.
Eisner, E. W. (2000). “Those who ignore the past 12 ‘easy’ lessons for the next millennium”. Journal of currrieculum studies, 32 (2), pp 343-357.
Habermas, J. (2003).”Truth and Justification”. Trans: Barbara Fultner, MIT press, Cambridge MA.
Inc.
Kombes, G, R. & Denelz, L, B. (2009). “Philosophical Research: Conceptual Analysis”. Berlin: Springer.
Lewis, N. S. (2004) “The Intersection of Post-Modernity and Classroom Practice”. Teacher Education Quarterly.
Nicholson, C. J. (2017). “Three Views of Philosophy and Multiculturalism: Searle, Rorty, and Taylor”. Rider University, Lawrence Township, NJ, USA.
Pinar, W. (1996).”Understanding curriculum”. New York: Peterlang Publishing,
Reiglouth, C.M. (2013). Instructional-design Theories and Models: A New Paradigm of Instructional Theory, Volume IV (Instructional Design Theories & Models): www. Springer.Com
Rorty, R. (1989). “Contingency, irony, and solidarity". Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Rorty, R. (1991). “Objectivity, relativism and truth”. Cambridge: Philosophical Papers.
Rorty, R. (1998).”Truth and Progress”. Cambridge university press.
Rorty, R. (1999).”Philosophy and Social Hope Harmindsworth: Penguin.
Rorty, R (1982). “Hermeneutics, General Studies, and Teaching,” selected papers from the Synergos Seminars, volume 2.
Rorty, R. (1979). “Philosophy and the mirror of nature”. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Rorty, R. (2010). “Analytic Philosophy and Transformative Philosophy” Published Online: 16 Sep at 17AM.
Tyler, R. (1949). “Basic principles of curriculum and instruction”. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
Wilson, R.A. (2004). “The Trouble with Truth: Anthropology's Epistemological Hypochondria”. At Anthropology Today, v. 20, No. 5, pp14-17.
Wittgenstein, L. (1969). “Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus”. trans. D. F. Pears and B. F. Mcguinnes, London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.
Journal of Curriculum Studies
Volume 14, Issue 52
June 2019
Pages 65-90

Files

History

  • Receive Date: 22 December 2018
  • Revise Date: 03 June 2019
  • Accept Date: 20 July 2019

Share

How to cite

Statistics