본 연구는 우리나라 “교육학계”의 “교육의 가치”에 대한 담론들 중, 정범모의 “발전교육론”, 이홍우의 “교과교육론”, 이돈희의 “교육정의론”을 전형적인 예로 간주하고, 메타가치론적으로 가치진술을 선별하여, “교육”과 “교육의 가치” 개념을 분석한 연구이다. 개념의 분석에 있어서 다음과 같은 두 가지 측면을 주목하였다. 하나는 “교육의 가치”에 관한 담론에 나타난 “교육학자”들의 가치진술의 일관성을 검토하는 것이고, 다른 하나는 가치진술에 사용된 용어의 개념적 문제를 검토하는 것이다. 그러나 결국 이 두 가지 문제는 “교육의 가치”에 관한 담론의 혼란 원인을 진단하고 그것의 개선에 기여함으로써, 보다 발전적인 담론을 위한 기반의 마련이라는 하나의 문제로 귀결된다.
이 문제를 구체화하기 위해서 다음의 네 가지 연구 문제를 설정하였다.
첫째, “교육학자”들의 논의에서 “교육의 가치”를 규정할 때 일관성이 있는가?
둘째, 만약 “교육의 가치”에 대한 “교육학자”들의 규정이 불일치하다면, 그 이유는 무엇인가? 일치한다면 어떠한 공통적인 유형을 보이는가?
셋째, 만약 “교육의 가치”에 대한 “교육학자”들의 규정이 불일치하다면, 그로 인하여 발생하는 문제는 무엇인가?
넷째, 만약 “교육의 가치”에 대한 규정이 불일치하다면, 그로 인하여 발생하는 문제를 해결하는 방법은 무엇인가?
연구 문제의 해결을 위하여 문헌분석을 수행하였다.
우선, “교육의 가치” 규정의 일관성을 검토하는 <연구 문제 1>을 해결하기 위하여, 문장을 “교육의 가치”에 대한 진술로 분류할 수 있는 기준을 설정하였다. 기존의 평가진술 위주의 분석방식을 보완하기 위하여 목적-수단 진술과 범주화 진술을 추가로 설정하여, 세 가지 유형의 진술을 “교육의 가치”에 대한 진술로 분류하여 저자 내 일관성과 저자 간 일관성을 검토하였다.
다음으로, “교육의 가치” 규정의 불일치 원인을 밝히는 <연구 문제 2>의 해결을 위하여 연구 대상 문헌에서 사용된 “교육”에 대한 진술을 인용하고, 사용된 용어에 반영된 “교육” 개념을 분석하였다.
또한, “교육의 가치” 규정의 불일치로 생기는 문제를 검토하는 <연구 문제 3>의 해결을 위하여 연구 대상 문헌에서 사용된 “교육의 가치”에 대한 진술을 인용하고, 그것에 사용된 용어에 반영된 “가치” 개념을 분석하였다.
마지막으로, “교육의 가치” 규정의 불일치로 생기는 문제의 해결을 다루는 <연구 문제 4>에서는 해체 방법을 사용하였다. <연구 문제 3>에 드러난 개념적 문제점을 개선하기 위하여, 각각의 맥락에 적합한 용어로 되돌리기를 실시하였다. 해체어는 취소선으로 표기하고 회귀어는 괄호로 병기하였다.
연구 대상 문헌의 표집은 우리나라 “교육학계”에 “교육의 목표”, “교육의 평가”, “교육의 발전”, “교육의 가치 배분”, “교육의 내재적 가치” 논의에 광범위한 영향을 미친 것으로 추정되는 세 명의 학자인 정범모, 이홍우, 이돈희가 출판한 저작들 중, “교육의 가치”에 대한 진술이 나타난 “발전교육론”, 교과교육론”, “교육정의론” 문헌으로 한정하였다.
가치진술 분류 방법으로 연구 대상 문헌을 분석한 결과, 저자 내 일관성이 부재한 것과 대조적으로, 저자 간 일관성에 있어서는 세밀한 부분에서 차이가 있지만, 공통적인 유형을 보여 주고 있었다. 첫째, 학교가 추구하는 가치를 교육의 가치와 동일시하였다. 둘째, 교과의 가치를 교육의 가치로 동일시하였다. 셋째, 교육학 이외의 학문이 교육의 가치에 대한 연구를 주도하여야 한다고 주장하거나, 교육학 이외의 학문이 수행한 연구 성과로 교육의 가치를 설명하였다. 넷째, 특정한 목적을 위한 교육의 수단적 가치를 강조하였다. “교육의 가치”에 대한 저자 내의 비일관성에도 불구하고, 저자 간에 유사한 유형의 가치가 드러나는 것에는 모종의 공통된 인식이 있을 것으로 판단되었다.
“교육” 개념 분석 방법으로 연구 대상 문헌을 분석한 결과, 저자 간에 일정 부분 공통적인 유형의 인식을 보여 주고 있었다. 첫째, 학교나 제도를 교육과 동일시하는 개념적 문제를 가지고 있었다. 둘째, 교육을 하나의 명제로 정의하여 교육의 안과 밖을 구분하는 경계가 모호하게 되는 문제점을 가지고 있다. 셋째, 교육학이 아닌 다른 학문의 개념이나 이론을 차용하여 교육을 규정하고자 시도한 개념적 문제를 가지고 있었다. 넷째, 특정한 결과나 기능으로 교육을 규정하고자 한 개념적 문제를 가지고 있었다.
“교육의 가치” 개념 분석 방법으로 연구 대상 문헌을 분석한 결과, 저자 간에 공통적인 유형의 개념적 문제점을 보여 주고 있었다. 첫째, 가치의 다원성을 인정하지 않는 가치일원화의 문제를 가지고 있었다. 둘째, 가치의 횡적 다양성을 종적 위계로 혼동하는 문제를 가지고 있었다. 셋째, 교육학 이외의 학문이 교육의 가치를 탐구해줄 수 있다는, 가치탐구의 학문간 환원을 가정하는 문제를 가지고 있었다. 넷째, 교육의 내재적 가치나 외재적 가치를 일방적으로 강조하는 문제를 가지고 있었다.
용어의 해체 방법으로 연구 대상 문헌을 분석한 결과, 그동안 교육의 가치로 오해되어 온 학교제도가 추구하는 가치, 교과의 가치, 학문의 가치, 도덕의 가치 등을 맥락에 적절한 개념과 용어로 되돌리고, 교육의 내재적 가치와 외재적 가치를 존중할 수 있는 여건을 마련함으로써 보다 나은 의사소통과 교육의 가치 개념과 용어의 재건의 기반을 마련할 수 있었다.
그동안 “교육학”에서 “교육발전”, “교육정의”, “교과교육” 등의 주제로 “교육목적”, “교육평가”, “교육의 내재적 가치”에 대한 논의들을 지속해 왔다. 그러나 그러한 논의들에 사용된 진술들에 반영된 “교육”과 “교육의 가치”에 대한 개념적 혼란으로 인하여 고급의 담론을 형성하기 어려웠다. 이러한 논의 들을 해체하는 작업 뒤에 남겨진 과제는 이전보다 나은 교육에 대한 개념체계를 바탕으로 교육의 가치에 대한 담론을 재건하는 것이다. 추후 연구의 방향은 교육적 가치론에 대한 연구와 가치교육에 대한 연구의 두 방향으로 수행될 수 있을 것이다.

This study is based on the assumption that, Bom Mo Chung's “theory of development education”, Hong-Woo Lee's “theory of school subjects education”, and Lee Don-Hee's “Theory of Educational Justice” are a typical example of the discourses on the “value of education” conducted in Korea “academic world of educational research”. And the value statements presented in the discussion were selected modified metaethics to analyze the concepts of “education” and “value of education”.
In analyzing the concept, two aspects were noted. One is to examine the consistency of the value statements of “researcher of education” in the discourse on “the value of education.” The other is to examine the conceptual problem of terms used in value statements. But in the end, these two aspects result in a diagnosis of the confusion of the discourse on the “value of education” and contribute to its improvement.
To elaborate on this problem, the following four research questions were set.
First, is it consistent in the discussion of “researcher of education” in prescribing “the value of education”?
Second, if there are discrepancies in the discussion of “researcher of education” in prescribing “the value of education”, why? If they match, what are the common types?
Third, what is the problem that arises if there are discrepancies in prescribing “the value of education”?
Fourth, if there are inconsistencies in prescribing “the value of education”, how do you solve the problems that arise?
A literature analysis was performed to solve the research problem.
First, to solve <Research Question 1>, which examines the consistency of “the Value of Education” rule, the criteria for classifying a sentence into a statement about “Value of Education” were established. To complement the existing methods of evaluation statements-oriented analysis, additional object-mean statements and categorization statements are set up. And the three types of statements are classified as “the values of education” statements to reviewed consistency in single authors or inter authors.
Next, to solve <Research Question 2>, cited the statement of “education” used in the research literature and analyzed the concept of “education” reflected in the terms to explain the cause of the discrepancy of “the value of education”.
It also, to solve <Research Question 3>, cited a statement of the “the value of education” used in the research literature and analyzed the concept of “value” reflected in the terms to resolve the problem caused by the discrepancy of “the value of education”.
Finally, the deconstructing method was used in <Research Question 4>, which deals with the solution of the problems caused by the inconsistency of “the value of education”. To remedy the conceptual problems revealed in <Research Question 3>, the cited phrase rewrote to terms appropriate for each context. Deconstruction words are marked with strikethrough and regression words are given in parentheses.
The sampling of the research literature was limited to works published by three alleged scholars, Bom Mo Chung, Hong-Woo Lee, and Lee Don-Hee. Because they were a broad influence on the discussion of “objectives of education”, “evaluation of education”, “development of education”, “sharing value of education” and “intrinsic value of education” Korea in “academic world of educational research”.
As a result of analyzing the research literature by the value statement classification method, in contrast to the lack of coherence in the authors, the coherence between the authors showed a common type, although there were some differences in details. First, the values pursued by the school were identified with the values of education. Second, the value of the subject was identified as the value of education. Third, they insisted that studies other than pedagogy should lead research on the value of education, or explained the value of education through the results of research conducted by non-education studies. Fourth, it emphasized the instrumental value of education for specific purposes. Despite the author's inconsistency in the “value of education”, it was judged that there would be some common perception that similar types of values emerged between authors.
Analyzing the literature to be researched using the “education” concept analysis method showed some common types of perception among the authors. First, there was a conceptual problem that attempted to define education by school or institution with education. Second, there was a problem of blurring the boundary that separates the inside and the outside of education by defining it as just one proposition. Third, there was a conceptual problem that attempted to define education by borrowing the concept or theory of other academic disciplines. Forth, there was a conceptual problem in trying to define education by outcome or function.
As a result of analyzing the study literature using the “value of education” concept analysis method, it showed a common type of conceptual problem among the authors. First, it had a problem of value unification that did not recognize the pluralism of value. This discussion stems from the conceptual problem of all three scholars attempted to define education as schools or institutions. Discussion based on the concept of “education” that attempted to define education as a school or institution is misrecognizing politics, economy, society, culture, and religion in the space within the school as education. So, home education, workplace education, academy education, hall education, virtual space education cannot be recognized.
The school is a certain living space and institution, and the categories of the same may be home, work, academy, various halls, and virtual spaces. On the other hand, education is distinguished by unique rules in human life, and its categories may be political, economic, social, cultural, and religious.
The discussion on the “value of education” based on the concept of “education”, which treats school and education as the same concept without this distinction, treats all values pursued in school as values of education and can't recognize the pluralism of values. So, it breaks down the boundaries between values and can cause problems of value unification, which makes it impossible to distinguish between intrinsic and extrinsic values.
Second, there was a problem of confusing the transverse diversity of values into longitudinal superiority. This problem has two causes. One is that all three scholars were the illusion of equating contents of education with the contents of the school subjects from the conceptual problem of identifying the school or institution as education. The other was the illusion of equating education with the means of achieving the objectives of the school subjects from the conceptual problem of equating everything with specific consequences as education.
Education and school subjects have different kinds of values because they are divided into separate areas with distinct boundaries. School subjects are cultural content consisting of academics, arts, and morals that are dealt with mainly in class. The value of the school subjects is made up of the value of academics, the good of morals, and the beauty of arts. However, the value of education that uses of the material should be defined separately from the value of the material, and the criteria for evaluation of it should also be distinguished.
What is one good is based on the value of education, and what is others good is based on the values of academic, moral, artistic, political, economic, and social. Therefore, it is not possible to judge superiority by evaluating one criterion. Therefore, there should always be a clue that good is always a specific good in a specific field. Without these clues, the desirability of treating other disciplines at the top of the list and treating education as a means, or estimating the ‘best’ across all territories is a problem of confusing the transverse diversity of values into longitudinal superiority.
Third, there was a problem of assuming the interdisciplinary reduction of the value research, that research of non-education can explore the value of education. This discussion stems from the conceptual problem of all three scholars attempting to define education by borrowing concepts or theories from disciplines other than research of education. Such an attempt is not limited to three scholars but is easily found in the classification of “education” doctoral programs in Korean graduate schools.
As we have seen above, it is possible to think of politics, economy, society, culture, religion, and education as distinctive patterns in human life. For each of them, politics, economics, sociology, cultural anthropology, and religion study reveal the unique bylaws of life. But instead of constructing its own theoretical system, only toxic “research of education” has taken for granted borrowing the theoretical system from philosophy, psychology, sociology, cultural anthropology, and administration.
Discussions on a value other than education are also taken as discussions on the value of education, given that the “education” concept captured by a research of non-education is based on the premise that non-education phenomena are based on education.
The discussion based on the concept of “education” captured by academics other than education research is conducted on the premise that non-education phenomena are education. So, discussions on a value other than education, which is explored by academics other than education research, are also taken as discussions on the value of education.
In the discussions assuming that the exploration of values between two different disciplines can be reduced, there is no boundary to distinguish between the value of education and those other than education. Thus, it is impossible to discuss the intrinsic value of education and the extrinsic value of education.
So far, research of education has borrowed the power of other disciplines to explore the value of education. However, from now on, research of education itself should establish a standard that can distinguish the extrinsic values of education and intrinsic values of education.
Other studies are not the research of education. Thus, research on the intrinsic value of education cannot be delegated. Without such conceptual distinction, it can be said that the identification of the value of a discipline other than the research of education with the value of education is forgotten. Rather, this claim seriously damages the identity of pedagogy. It also hinders the study of the intrinsic value of education, which is an inherent area of inquiry in the research of education. And it has a problem of being subordinate to other disciplines.
Fourth, there was a problem of unilaterally emphasizing the intrinsic value or the extrinsicl value of education. This problem has two causes. One is all three scholars attempting to define education as a proposition instead of capturing it as a theory and another is a conceptual problem of defining education with specific outcomes or functions.
There are a number of factors that can produce a particular result or function. Therefore, in order to define a certain aspect of life, it is necessary to identify the unique rules of its own compliance, not the result or function. When the bylaw is expressed as a line, it can be said that the crossing lines make a fence, a conceptual structure, to distinguish between inside and outside. If one chooses to define education as a means for a particular purpose, it is no less than trying to fish without nets or to build a clock with a hammer.
The value of one area can be divided into the intrinsic value that only the area can have and the extrinsic value that can be acquired in relation to other areas. Thus, pursuing the extrinsic value of education cannot be regarded as inappropriate.
Education also has its own intrinsic value in that it is distinguished from other areas, and it also has an extrinsic value by its relation to other areas. Too much emphasis on the extrinsic value of education, however, can underestimate the intrinsic value of education, which can also lead to the problem of misinterpreting the extrinsic value of education as the intrinsic value of education.
Discussion based on the customary “education” concept of identifying a school or institution as education defines all the heterogeneous values pursued in that space or institution as “the value of education”. Such provisions may insist on values that were once pursuant to the needs of schools or institutions, and at other times value neutrality, in pursuit of objectives contrary to the previous goals.
Discussions based on the result-oriented “education” concept of defining “education” as a means of bringing a particular result or function defines all that results in a particular result as “education”. Therefore, all the mechanisms that bring about various human changes, such as intuition, socialization, conditioning, and culturalization, are all accepted into the category of education.
But disparate mechanisms seek disparate intrinsic values, and there are mechanisms that pursue incompatible values. In addition, the mechanism that succeeds in producing a specific result is “education” and the “successful education” in realizing the “value of education”, but the mechanism that failed to produce such a result is “failed education” and is excluded from the value of education. In this regard, there is a problem of contradiction that defines a value as “value of education” and at the same time defines it as not “value of education”.
As a result of the above analysis, the concept of “education” and “value of education” used in the research target literature have confused the discussion of education objective, education evaluation and the intrinsic value of education for the development of education. The purpose of this study was to deconstruct the termed “value of education” to reveal the substance of the problem and to contribute to the better communication of the participants in the discussion. To reconstruct the discourse on the value of education based on the deconstruction conducted in this study, it was judged that research on educational value theory and research on value education would be necessary.
Educational value theory should conceptually identify the inherent value justification mechanism inherent in education and thereby conduct research that complements the blindness of value justification revealed by other disciplines as well as the justification of the value of education itself.
The other is the study of value education. If educational value theory is the study that reveals the mechanism of justifying the value of education through thought experimentation, then the study of value education is an area that studies the pattern of education that takes place on the subject of real value.
These two directions of research will lay the foundation for the correct recognition of the value of education prevalent in our lives. In addition, we will be able to provide momentum for development by setting the right goals and evaluating them properly so that we can develop value education that has been actively conducted.