Volume 67 No.4 - 2021-12-31

Rethinking Pedagogical Relation: Origins, Meanings and Challenges

再思考教育關係：源起、意義與挑戰

Author：
Chien-Fu Lin / 林建福
Keyword：
pedagogy, pedagogical relation, Geisteswissenshaftliche pedagogy / 教育學、教育關係、精神科學教育學
  • Summary
  • Chinese Summary
  • Reference
  • Scholarly references
　　It is generally believed that, in order to flourishingly grow up, human children need to establish the relationship conducive to their development with adults. Pedagogical relation is this sort of human relation with the aforementioned nature. In the light of this, this study is aimed to investigate the “pedagogical relation” put forward in the West European “Geisteswissenshaftliche” pedagogy, focusing on its meanings, evolutions and challenges confronted. Adopting text interpretation and conceptual analysis, three findings are obtained as follows. Firstly, pedagogical relation is a relation sui generis established between educators and educatees, the disadvantaged or relatively immature states of the latter evoke the care and support of the former. Taking both their present states and ideal states of the educatees into consideration, the educators perform pedagogical actions to help the educatees grow and develop well, as a result of which the original temporary immaturity, the asymmetry or pedagogical relation vanishes or comes to an end.Secondly, although there are various challenges faced by pedagogical relation, such as whether it is a relation sui generis, whether it entails adult’s dominance, suppression and control, whether individualism, instrumental reason or technicization threatens its viability, whether self-transparency of educators/adults or the third space mentioned by G. Biesta is necessarily an obstacle to it, its viability can be maintained and it is even necessary to make it thrive. Finally, in view of the vital significance and nature of pedagogical relation, either the construction of educational theory or the performance of educational actions should be founded on pedagogical relation. Meanwhile, it is only in the development of pedagogical relation that the intrinsic good inherent in this relation can be obtained. Taking the role of pedagogical relation as the foundation of pedagogy (science of education) and the pedagogical relation-building ability as the core virtuosity cultivated in teacher education as examples, the vital educational implications of the previously-mentioned views concerning this relation are expounded.
　　一般相信兒童順遂成長有賴於和成人建立有助於其發展的關係，西歐「精神科學」教育學則提出「教育關係」的說法，主張教育的實務或理論都必須以這種教育關係為基礎，不過其立論也遭遇到諸多挑戰。本文採用文本詮釋與觀念分析的方法進行探究，有下列三個發現：一、教育關係是教育者與被教育者之間所建立自成一類的（sui generis）特別關係，後者天生的不利或相對未成熟狀態，引發前者的關懷與支持，在同時考量被教育者之現況與其理想狀態之下，教育者實踐教育行動以協助被教育者順遂地成長與發展，進而使原先兩者之間相對未成熟、不對稱性或教育關係消失或停止。二、儘管教育關係面臨種種挑戰，諸如它是否為自成一類的特別關係、它是否隱含著成人的宰制、壓抑或控制、它面對個人主義、工具理性、技術化所帶來的威脅、教育者／成人的自我洞悉與G. Biesta所論第三空間所形成的可能障礙等，教育關係仍然具有存在的可能性，甚至有蓬勃發展的必要性。三、基於教育關係的重要意義與性質，建構教育理論或推動教育實務都必須建立在這種關係的基礎上，同時，教育關係屬內在的善，這種善必須在具體營造這種關係之中獲致，本文以教育關係作為教育（學）的基礎和師資培育的核心素養—教師建立教育關係的能力為例，闡發有關教育關係之見解的重要教育蘊義。

林建福（2001）。教育哲學—情緒層面的特殊觀照（第一版）。台北市：五南。

〔Lin, C.-F. (2001). Philosophy of education- With special consideration to human emotions. Taipei,

　　Taiwan: Wu-Nan Book〕

林建福（2006）。德行、情緒、與道德教育。台北市：學富。

〔Lin, C.-F. (2006). Virtue, emotion and moral education. Taipei, Taiwan: Pro-ED.〕

林建福（2008）。布巴哲學中的教師圖像。載於林逢祺和洪仁進（主編），教師哲學：哲學中的教師圖像（頁

　　203-217）。台北市：五南。

〔Lin, C.-F. (2008). The picture of teacher in Martin Buber’s philosophy. In F.-C. Lin & R.-J. Hung (Eds.),

　　Philosophy of the teacher (pp.203-217). Taipei, Taiwan: Wu-Nan Book.〕

梁福鎮(2004)。改革教育學 : 起源、內涵與問題的探究。台北市：五南。

〔Liang, F. Z. (2004). Reform pedagogy：The study of origin, contents and problems. Taipei, Taiwan: Wu-

　　Nan Book.〕

楊深坑(2000)。精神科學教育學(Geisteswissenschaftliche Pädagogik)。國家教育研究院教育大辭書。

　　取自https://pedia.cloud.edu.tw/Entry/Detail/?title=%E7%B2%BE%E7%A5%9E%E7%A7%91%E5%AD

　　%B8%E6%95%99%E8%82%B2%E5%AD%B8

〔Yang, S.-K. (2000). Geisteswissenschaftliche Pädagogik. Encyclopedic Dictionary of Education. Retrieved

　　from https://pedia.cloud.edu.tw/Entry/Detail/?title=%E7%B2%BE%E7%A5%9E%E7%A7%91%E5%AD

　　%B8%E6%95%99%E8%82%B2%E5%AD%B8〕

劉淑範(2019)。「精神科學」(“Geisteswissenschaft-en”）概念淺釋：從「精神哲學」到「精神科學」之集

　　合概念。載于人文與社會科學簡訊，21（1），176-184。

〔Liou, S.-F. (2019). A brief explanation of the concept of“Geisteswissenschaft-e n”： From

　　“Geistesphilosophie” to the aggregate concept of Geisteswissen schaft-en. Humanities and Social

　　Sciences Newsletter Quarterly, 21(1), 176-184.〕

Biesta, G. (2004). "Mind the gap!" : communication and the educational relation. In C. Bingham& A. M.

　　Sidorkin (Eds.), No education without relation (pp. 11-22). New York, NY: P. Lang.

Biesta, G. (2012a). No education without hesitation: Exploring the limits of educational relations. In C. W.

　　Ruitenberg (Ed.), Philosophy of education 2012 (pp. 1–13). Urbana, IL: Champaign.

Biesta, G. (2012b). The future of teacher education: Evidence, competence or wisdom? RoSE- Research on

　　Steiner Education, 3(1), 8-21.

Biesta, G. (2013). Teacher education for educational wisdom. Retried March 8, from https://www.

　　waldorflibrary.org/images/stories/Journal_Articles/rb18_1biesta.pdf

Bingham, C., & Sidorkin, A. M. (2004). The pedagogy of relation : an introduction. In C. Bingham & A. M.

　　Sidorkin (Eds.), No education without relation (pp. 1-4). New York, NY: P. Lang.

Bollnow, O. F. (1980). Herman Nohl and pedagogy. Western European Education, 12(1), 89-106.

Buber, M. (1958). I and thou (R. G. Smith, Trans.). New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons. (Original work

　　published 1923)

Buber, M. (1963). Between man and man (R. G. Smith, Trans. ＆ Intro.). London, UK: The Fontana Library.

　　(Original work published 1947)

Buber, M. (1988). The knowledge of man: Selected essays (M. Friedman & R. G. Smith, Trans.). Atlantic

　　Highlands, NJ: Humanities Press. (Original work published 1965)

Buber, M. (1991). 我與你（陳維綱，譯）。臺北市：東大。（原著出版於1923）

[Buber, M. (1991). I and Thou (W.-G. Chen, Trans.). Taipei, Taiwan: The Great East Book. (Original work

　　published 1923)]

Flyvbjerg, B. (1991). Sustaining non-rationalized practices: Body-mind, power and situational ethics. An

　　interview with Hubert and Stuart Dreyfus. Praxis International, 11(1), 93-113.

Friesen, N. (2017a, April). Hesitating with the pedagogical relation. Paper presented at the Annual

Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, San Antonio, TX.

Friesen, N. (2017b). The pedagogical relation past and present: experience, subjectivity and failure.

　　Journal of Curriculum Studies, 49(6), 1-14. Doi:10.1080/00220272.2017.1320427

Friesen, N. (2020a, March). Asymmetry in pedagogical relations. Paper presented at the Workshop

　　"Relationale (Medien)pädagogik," Vienna, Austria.

Friesen, N. (2020b). ‘Education as a Geisteswissenschaft:’ an introduction to human science pedagogy.

　　Journal of Curriculum Studies, 52(3), 307-322. doi.org/10.1080/00220272.2019.1705917

Friesen, N. (2020c). Translator’s introduction. in D. F. E. Schleiermacher (Ed.), Outlines of the art of

　　education－Introductory lecture－Selections. (N. Friesen & K. Kenklie, Trans., pp. 1-2).　https://

　　www.academia.edu/43120702/D_F_E_Schleiermacher_Outlines_of_the_Art_of_Education_

　　Introductory_Lecture_Selections

Hare, W. (1993). What makes a good teacher? London, UK: The Althouse Press.

Herman Nohl. (n.d.). Wikipedia. Retrieved March 8, 2021, from https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Herman_

　　Nohl#cite_ref-5

Holmes Group (1986). Tomorrow’s teachers. East Learning, MI: University of Michigan Press.

Kansanen, P. (2003). Studying--the realistic bridge between instruction and leaning. An Attempt to a

　　Conceptual whole of the teaching-studying-learning process. Educational Studies, 29(2/3), 221-232.

Løvlie, L. (2007). Does paradox count in education? Utbilding & Demokratu, 16(3), 9-24.

MacIntyre, A. (1985). After virtue: A study in moral theory. Notre Dame, IN: University of Notre Dame

　　Press.

Miller, A. (1990). For your own good: Hidden cruelty in child-rearing and the roots of violence (Hildegarde

　　& Hunter Hannum, Trans.). New York, NY: Farrar, Straus, Giroux. (Original work published 1980)

Noddings, N., Bingham, C., Sidokin, A. M., Biesta, G., & Margonis, F. (2004). Manifesto of relational

　　pedagogy: Meeting to learn, learning to meet. In C. Bingham & A. M. Sidorkin (Eds.), No education

　　withoutrelation (pp. 5-7). New York, NY: P. Lang.

Nohl, H. (2019). The pedagogical relation and the formative community (N. Friesen, Trans.). doi:10.13140/

　　RG.2.2.23767.21927 (Original work published 1933)

Rousseau, J. J. (1948). Emile. (B. Foxley, Trans.). London, UK: J. M. Dent. (Original work published 1763)

Schleiermacher, D. F. E. (2020). Outlines of the art of education－Introductory lecture－Selections. (N.

　　Friesen & K. Kenklies, Trans., pp. 4-11). doi:10.13140/RG.2.2.31368.03840

Spiecker, B. (1984). The pedagogical relationship. Oxford Review of Education, 10, 203-209.

Taylor, C. (1991). The ethics of authenticity. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Uljens, M. (2001, November). The pedagogical paradox and the problem of subjectivity and

　　intersubjectivity. Paper presented at the Australia Association for Philosophy of Education, Perth,

　　Australia.

Vandenberg, D. (1974). Phenomenology and educational research. In D. E. Denton (Ed.). Existentialism and

　　phenomenology in education (pp. 183-220). New York, NY: Teachers College Press.

van Manen, M. (1991). The tact of teaching: The meaning of pedagogical thoughtfulness. Albany, NY:

　　State University of New York Press.

van Manen, M. (1994). Pedagogy, virtue, and narrative identity in teaching. Curriculum inquiry, 24(2),

　　135-170.

van Manen, M. (2013). The call of pedagogy as the call of contact. Phenomenology & Practice, 5(2), 8-34.

van Manen, M. (2015). Pedagogical tact: Knowing what to do when you don’t Know what to do. Walnut

　　Creek, CA: Left Coast Press.

van Manen, M., & Adams, C. (2014). Phenomenological pedagogy. In D. C. Phillips (ed.), Encyclopedia of

　　educational theory and philosophy (pp. 606-610). Los Angeles, CA: Sage.

Watkins, C., ＆ Mortimore, P. (1999). Pedagogy: What do we know? In P. Mortimore (Ed.). Understanding

　　pedagogy and its impact on learning (pp. 1-19). London, UK: Paul Chapman.

Yang, S.-K (1993). Explanation and understanding in comparative education. Journal of National Taiwan

　　Normal University, 38, 1-18.

Yaron, K. (2006). Martin Buber. Retrieved from http://www.ibe.unesco.org/sites/default/files/bubere.pdf

 

 


EndNote
下載可匯入格式