JOHN FRANKLIN BOBBITT’TE PROGRAM DÜŞÜNCESİNİN GELİŞİMİ: TARİHSEL BİR İNCELEME

Bu çalışmanın amacı eğitim programları ve öğretim alanında oldukça güçlü bir akım olan ve günümüzde etkisini hâlâ devam ettiren rasyonel, planlamacı ve bilimsel teknik program geliştirme perspektifinin temellerini, J. F. Bobbitt'in 1911-1918 yılları arasında yayımlanan eserleri bağlamında incelemektir. J. F. Bobbitt, program alanında ortaya koyduğu perspektifle kendisinden sonra gelen program düşüncesi ve anlayışını derinden etkilemiştir. Davranışçı program geliştirme yaklaşımı ve sistem yaklaşımının temellerini oluşturması açısından önemli katkıları olan J. F. Bobbitt'in program geliştirme alanına getirdiği perspektifin temelleri onun 1911-1918 arasında katıldığı araştırma projeleri ve yazdığı makalelerde bulunabilir. Bu nedenden dolayı araştırma tarihsel süreç açısından 1911-1918 yılları arasında J.F.Bobbitt'in yaptığı çalışmaları incelemektedir. Araştırmanın odak noktasını J. F. Bobbitt'in eğitime ilişkin düşünceleri bağlamında programı nasıl anladığı sorunsalı oluşturmaktadır. Bu sorunsaldan hareketle program geliştirmedeki rasyonel, planlamacı yaklaşımın tarihsel ve felsefi arka planı çözümlenmeye çalışılmıştır. Tarihsel yöntemin kullanıldığı bu çalışmada ilk olarak Amerika Birleşik Devletleri'nde 19. yy'ın ortalarından itibaren hız kazanan sanayileşme ve beraberinde gelen sosyoekonomik değişim irdelenmiş ve bu değişimin J. F. Bobbitt'in eğitim düşüncesini nasıl etkilediği tartışılmıştır. Bu teorik perspektiften yola çıkarak bu önemli teorisyenin 1911-1918 arasında gelişen program düşüncesi, yine eserleri bağlamında irdelenmiştir. Araştırmanın özellikle ülkemizde fazlaca dikkat çekmeyen program teorisi çalışmalarına ve program geliştirme paradigmasının tarihsel köklerinin anlaşılmasına katkıda bulunacağı düşünülmektedir

THE DEVELOPMENT OF CURRICULUM THOUGHT IN JOHN FRANKLIN BOBBITT: AN HISTORICAL STUDY

The aim of this study is to analyze the fundamentals of therational, planning, and scientific technical curriculum development movement that has been quite powerful and still has continued influence in the field of curriculum and instruction in light of J.F. Bobbitt’s published works between 1911 and 1918. J.F. Bobbitt is the most impressive figure in curriculum field because his thought influenced behavioristic curriculum approach and system approach in curriculum development. The focal point of the study is the question of how J.F. Bobbitt’s thoughts on education shaped the understanding of curriculum. In light of this question, the study aims to unravel the historical and philosophical back story of the rational and planning approach in curriculum development. The study employees the help of historical analysis to scrutinize the effects of the industrial revolution that was gaining momentum in the US mid-19th century and the socio economic changes, it brought and their influence on J.F. Bobbitt’s thoughts on education. In addition, the study examines how this important theoretician’s thoughts on curriculum evolved between 1911 and 1918 in light of his published works. Consequently, the author hopes that this study would contribute to the understanding of curriculum theory efforts and the historical roots of curriculum development paradigm in Turkey Industrialization and urbanization, having gained a momentum especially after 1865, as well as social mobility in the forms of immigration and emigration have resulted in a significant socioeconomic transformation in the USA. Factors such as increased industrial production, higher domestic and international trade volumes, immigration, urbanization, development of the machine industry, and novel perspectives on management introduced especially during the early years of the 20th century and high efficiency in production achieved by these perspectives have not only had an influence on the cultural structure but also on education and have accelerated the socioeconomic and sociocultural transformation processes in the USA (Bensel, 2000; Blumin, 1976; Burton, 1981; Hounshell, 1984). The most significant results brought about by this socioeconomic and sociocultural transformation were observed in the form of new movements of ideas and practices introduced in the field of education. Particular attention was given to teaching the social norms to new generations and providing them with a prospering socialization process for the future of the American democracy and significant movements of ideas have emerged within this framework. Some of the most fundamental movements of ideas in that period were introduced by a number of educational reformers and philosophers such as J. Dewey, W. H. Kilpatrick, and Frank McMurry with their efforts to transform the school life into the aspects of real life in the form of activities such as handicraft and project works provided within the scope of studentcentered teaching practices (Cremin, 1964; Tanner & Tanner, 1975). A monograph titled The Principles of Scientific Management written by F. W. Taylor in 1911 paved the way for a new period in the USA by means of having an influence on a great number of activities not only in the field of industrial production but also in the social domain. Time and motion study, a system suggested by F. W. Taylor, fundamentally relied on the simplification of the production process and the performance of the work by breaking it up into smaller sections within the scope of industrial production. During his long-term engineering career, F. W. Taylor identified that it took less time when the work was broken into smaller sections whereas much more work was performed during the equal period of time and put this theory into practice in industrial production. Since the results F. W. Taylor had obtained from such practice indicated an incredible increase in productivity, he called this production model as the Scientific Management and published his work in the form of a monograph (Callahan, 1962; Haber, 1964). This monograph, published by the title of The Principles of Scientific Management, caught the attention of educationists within a short time. J. F. Bobbitt, lecturing on educational management in the University of Chicago, was also among these educationists interested in the work of F. W. Taylor (Kliebard, 1995; Seguel, 1966). J. F. Bobbitt adapted the ideas of Frederick W. Taylor, the most prominent productivity expert of the period, to the field of education. According to J. F. Bobbitt, the most important element in a curriculum was the perspective to determine the product of the curriculum. In other words, curriculum should accurately define the qualities of the product to be created. This definition process should be in accordance with the scientific methods. Achieving productivity as the basis for the principles of scientific methods substantially depends on this definition. Therefore, curriculum developers should primarily analyze the social world and social activities in terms of sociological, psychological, and economic aspects to determine which areas of skills have an influence on the development of society and democracy and then determine the objectives of curriculum in line with the conclusions obtained from such analyses. This procedure forms a basis for the scientific approach in curriculum development. On the other hand, curriculum development also entails technical aspects. Once the objectives are identified, one should ensure the realization of these objectives in the most efficient fashion. This would be achieved only by means of the teaching process. J. F. Bobbitt attributed the quality of the product to be created to the teaching process and emphasized the significance of active learning. Therefore, he supported the progressivist movement that was highly prominent in education during the period in which the aforementioned work was published. In this context, J. F. Bobbitt was against the memorization of the concepts during the teaching process. Putting an emphasis on the fact that the memorization of the verbal knowledge could not possibly resolve any problems encountered by the individuals in that new age, thus J. F. Bobbitt rejected the faculty psychology of the 19th century. According to Bobbitt, information was of no value unless it was functional in everyday life (Bobbitt, 1918; 1924). According to him, the inclusion of the history of Ancient Rome and Ancient Greek civilizations, or Homer’s Iliad within the scope of the objectives of social studies had no significance. Such subjects were completely obsolete, archaic, and they remained only in the dusty pages of history. The main objective of the social studies of the 20th century should be providing the students with practical skills in terms of industry, citizenship, and urban life. Therefore, J. F. Bobbitt stood up against the philosophy of education based on the classics, essentialism, and perennialism whereas he formed his own philosophy in parallel with progressivism as the dominant philosophy of education in that period (Cremin, 1964; Schiro, 1978; 2012). Written in line with this perspective, The Curriculum became a milestone as the forerunner in the history of the curriculum field. As a reflection of a combination of Taylor’s ideas on scientific management and productivity, the functionalist perspective proposed by Herbert Spencer, and the ideas proposed within the context of the progressivist philosophy of education of the period, The Curriculum was the first in its period and it also had a profound effect on the successive literature. Publishing works in parallel with this work as in the case of educationists such as W. W. Charters lecturing in the University of Chicago resulted in the publication of many textbooks titled “The Curriculum” within a short period of time. In other words, the most significant intellectual legacy of J. F. Bobbitt was his exclusive contribution to the field of curriculum to be accepted as a praxis science. In the later periods, J. F. Bobbitt participated in field studies as a productivity expert and published a number of articles on the curriculum. Furthermore, this new perspective proposed by J. F. Bobbitt on the nature of the curriculum has formed a basis for the curriculum development efforts today. The first section of the intellectual legacy of J. F. Bobbitt was the central role of the objectives in the process of curriculum design (Jackson, 1992; Kliebard, 1970; 1995; Ornstein &Hunkins, 1988). He was the first to emphasize that the objectives were the first and the most fundamental element of the curriculum and therefore, the objectives should be taken into account in the first place with an aim to provide for an effective teaching. The second section of the intellectual legacy of J. F. Bobbitt was his emphasis on both technical and scientific processes in the development of curriculum. Whereas the scientific method identifies the objectives of the curriculum, the technical aspect is used to match these objectives with their counterparts encountered during real life experiences. By using an allegory in which J. F. Bobbitt compared the curriculum to a railway construction, he emphasized the significance of the technical processes for the efficiency of the curriculum. Technical knowledge made it possible to determine the stage at which each individual objective would be made available for the student and how the experiences and assessments associated with these objectives were to be designed. The third section of the intellectual legacy of J. F. Bobbitt was his perspective on the fact that the curriculum should not be based on uniformity but it should based on diversification in a variety of fields. J. F. Bobbitt was of the opinion that uniform curriculum was insufficient for the 20th century. He proposed that the curriculum should be exclusively designed for various aspects such as occupational, academic, and preparatory and that a multi-program structure should be adopted in schools. Therefore, the students would be able to follow various curricula in line with their own preferences and skills and receive education suitable to their interests. The final section of the intellectual legacy of J. F. Bobbitt was the idea that education could be used as a means of social control. Asserting that the society may be recreated through education, J. F. Bobbitt remarked that schools were efficient centers to rebuild the social life. Although ninety-seven years have passed since the introduction of J. F. Bobbitt’s early opinions, formed between 1911 and 1918, on curriculum and a different perspective on the curriculum design, his opinions are still followed within the scope of the efforts in the curriculum development. J. F. Bobbitt’s proposal for the analysis of the social life for the determination of the curriculum objectives was further developed by his student, Ralph W. Tyler, to incorporate the data obtained from the individual, the society, and the subject field.

___

  • Angus, D. L.,& Mirel, J. (1999). The failed promise of the American high school, 1890-1995. New York: Teachers College Press.
  • Bensel, R. F. (2000). The political economy of American industrialization, 1877-1900. New York: Cambridge UniversityPress.
  • Blumın, S. M. (1976). The urban threshold: Growth and change in a nineteenth century American community. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
  • Bobbıtt, J. F. (1911). A city school as a community art and musical center. TheElementary School Teacher, 12(3). 119-126.
  • Bobbıtt, J. F. (1911). Theefficiency of the consolidated rural school. TheElementary School Teacher, 12(4). 169-175.
  • Bobbıtt, J. F. (1912). Theelimination of waste in education. The Elementary School Teacher, 12(6). 259-271.
  • Bobbıtt, J. F. (1913). Some general principles of management applied to the problems of cityschool systems: The supervision of city schools. Twelfth yearbook of the national society for the study of education, (pp. 7-96) Part I, Bloomington, Illinois: The University of Chicago Press.
  • Bobbıtt, J. F. (1915). The San Antonio public school system: A survey. San Antonio, Texas: The San Antonio School Board. G. F. Sigmund Press.
  • Bobbıtt, J. F. (1915). What schools teach and might teach. The Survey Committee of the Cleveland Foundation Cleveland: Ohio.
  • Bobbıtt, J. F. (1917). Thework of theschools: Elementary schools. Report of the school survey of school district No. 1 in the city and county of Denver. Part II. Denver, Colorado: The School SurveyCommittee.
  • Bobbıtt, J. F. (1918). Thecurriculum situation, Survey of the St. Louis public schools .Vol. II, (pp. 77-116). Yonkers on Hudson, New York: World BookCompany.
  • Bobbıtt, J. F. (1918). The curriculum. Boston: HoughtonMifflinCompany.
  • Bobbıtt, J. F. (1924). How tomake a curriculum. Boston: HoughtonMifflinCompany.
  • Bobbıtt, J. F.,Boyce, A. C. &Perkins, M. L. (1913). Literature in the elementary curriculum. The Elementary School Teacher, 14(4), 158-166.
  • Bohan, C. H. (2003). Early vanguards of progressive education: The committee of ten, the committee of seven, and social education. Journal of Curriculum and Supervision,19(1), 73-94.
  • Burton, W. F. (1981). Urban capitalists: Entrepreneurs and city growth in Pennsylvania Lackawanna and Lehigh regions, 1800-1920. Baltimore: John Hopkins UniversityPress.
  • Callahan, R. E. (1962). Education and cult of efficiency. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
  • Chicago EducatorArrivestoAid in Survey of Schools. (1914, May 8). South Bend News Times, 31(135). pp. 12. https://newspapers.library.in.gov/cgibin/Indiana?a=d&d=SBNT19140508.1.12# adresinden 24. 08. 2015 tarihinde alındı.
  • Cremın, L. A. (1964). The transformation of the school: Progressivism in American education. New York: Vintage Books.
  • Dewulf, B. G. (1962). The educational ideas of John Franklin Bobbitt. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. Washington University.
  • Foner, E. (2011). Reconstruction: America's unfinished revolution, 1863-1877. New York: Harper Collins.
  • Francıs, M. (2007). Herbert Spencer and the invention of modern life, Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.
  • Goldın, C. D.,&Lewis, F. D. (1975). The economic cost of theAmerican Civil War: Estimates and implications. The Journal of EconomicHistory, 35(2), 299-326.
  • Goodlad, J. I. (1985). Curriculum as a field of study. In T. Husen&T. N. Postlethwaite (Eds.), The international encyclopedia of education. Pergamon: Oxford. pp. 1141-1144.
  • Haber, S. (1964). Efficiency and uplift: Scientific management in the progressive era 1890–1920. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
  • Hawkıns, M. (1997) Social darwinism in European and American thought: 1860–1945, Cambridge: Cambridge UniversityPress
  • Hogan, W. T. (1971) Economic history of the iron and steel industry in the United States. Lexington, MA: D. C. Heath.
  • Hounshell, D. A. (1984). From the American system to mass production, 1800-1932. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.
  • Jackson, P. (1992). Conceptions on curriculum and curriculum specialist. In P. Jackson. (Ed. ), Handbook of research on curriculum. (pp. 3-40). New York: McMillan.
  • Klıebard, H. (1970). The Tyler rationale. The School Review, 78(2). 259-272.
  • Klıebard, H. (1995). The struggle for the American curriculum. New York: Routledge.
  • Krug, E. A. (1972). The shaping of theAmerican high school. Madison, WI: University of Wisconsin Press.
  • Longstreet, W. (1978). John Franklin Bobbitt. In J. F. Ohles (Ed. ), Biographicaldictionary of Americaneducators, Westport, Connecticut: GreenwoodPress.
  • Mısa, T. J. (1995). A nation of steel: The making of modern America, 1865–1925. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins UniversityPress.
  • Natıonal Educatıon Assocıatıon. (1918). Cardinal principles of secondary education: A report of the commission of the reorganization of secondary education. Washington, DC: U. S. Government Printing Office.
  • Ornsteın, C.A.& Hunkıns, P.F. (1988). Curriculum: Foundations, principles, issues. Allyn& Bacon.
  • Parısh, P. J. (1975). TheAmerican civil war. New York: Holmes&MeierPublishersInc.
  • Perrın, R. G. (1976). Herbert Spencer's four theories of social evolution. American Journal of Sociology, 80(6), 1339-1359.
  • Ransom, R. L. (1989). Conflict and compromise: The political economy of slavery, emancipation and the American Civil War. New York: Cambridge University Press.
  • Schıro, M. (1978). Curriculum for beter schools: The great ideological debate. New Jersey: Educational Technology Publications.
  • Schıro, M. S. (2012). Curriculum theory: Conflicting visions and enduring concerns. Los Angeles, CA: Sage Publisihing.
  • Seguel, M. L. (1966). The curriculum field: It’s formative years. New York: Teachers College Press.
  • Tanner, D. & Tanner, L. N. (1975). Curriculum development: Theory into practice. New York: Macmillan Publishing.
  • Temın, P. (1964) Iron and steel in nineteenth-century America: An economic inquiry. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Turkish Studies (Elektronik)-Cover
  • ISSN: 1308-2140
  • Yayın Aralığı: Yılda 4 Sayı
  • Başlangıç: 2006
  • Yayıncı: Mehmet Dursun Erdem
Sayıdaki Diğer Makaleler

ORTA ÖĞRETİM ÖĞRENCİLERİNİN E-KİTAP OKUMAYA İLİŞKİN TUTUMLARININ DEĞERLENDİRİLMESİ

Fatma SUSAR KIRMIZI, FİRDEVS GÜNEŞ

ORTAOKUL ÖĞRENCİLERİNİN COĞRAFYA OKURYAZARLIK DÜZEYLERİNİN BELİRLENMESİ

Hüseyin EROL, HAKKI YAZICI

KURUM/EV ERKEN DİL VE OKURYAZARLIK GÖZLEM ARACININ GEÇERLİK VE GÜVENİLİRLİK ÇALIŞMASI

Selda YARAR, HATİCE ZEYNEP İNAN

ÖĞRETMENLERİN LİDERLİK STİLLERİ İLE SINIF İÇİ ÖĞRETMEN DAVRANIŞLARI ARASINDAKİ İLİŞKİNİN İNCELENMESİ

SALİH PAŞA MEMİŞOĞLU, Mehmet ÇAKIR

ACCUSATIVE CASE AS BOTH “CAUSE” AND “SOLUTION” FOR LANGUAGE LEARNING PLATEAU IN TFL

CELİLE EREN ÖKTEN, Hande ÖZDEMİR

ÖĞRETMEN ADAYLARININ SINIF YÖNETİMİNE YÖNELİK TUTUM VE İNANÇLARININ İNCELENMESİ (ÇUKUROVA ÜNİVERSİTESİ ÖRNEĞİ)

M. Sencer BULUT OZSEZER, FATMA SADIK

TÜRKÇE OLİMPİYATLARINDA DENEME YARIŞMASINA KATILAN SLAV DİLLERİNE MENSUP ÖĞRENCİLERİN YAZILI METİNLERİNDE BAĞDAŞIKLIK GÖRÜNÜMLERİ

Nilüfer GÜRDAL, MUSTAFA ÇETİN

ÖĞRETMENLERİN ÖĞRETİM ETKİNLİKLERİNİ GERÇEKLEŞTİRME SÜRECİNDE YAŞADIKLARI SORUNLARIN BAZI DEĞİŞKENLER AÇISINDAN İNCELENMESİ

Yaşar ADIGÜZELLİ

İLKÖĞRETİM ÖĞRENCİLERİNE VATANDAŞLIK BİLİNCİ KAZANDIRMADA KAVRAM KARİKATÜRÜ KULLANIMININ ETKİSİ

MELEK BABA ÖZTÜRK, YÜCEL ÖKSÜZ

İLKOKUL İKİNCİ SINIF İNGİLİZCE DERSİNİN İNGİLİZCE ÖĞRETMENLERİNİN GÖRÜŞLERİNE DAYALI OLARAK DEĞERLENDİRİLMESİ

BİRSEL AYBEK