F. A. Hecht〈英德兩國學校教育比較〉之學術地位評析

An Analysis of the Academic Status of Hecht’s De re Scholastica Anglica cum Germanica Comparata

本研究旨在引介與評論比較教育學者V. Lenhart（1939-2023）發掘F. A. Hecht的研究成果，並視之為奠定比較教育學科的第一筆基礎研究之嘗試。一般來說，M.-A. Jullien（1816-1817）〈關於比較教育工作之計畫與初步意見〉咸認是比較教育研究的開端；然而，Lenhart的研究指出，Hecht在1795至1798年間以拉丁文寫就的〈英德兩國學校教育比較〉（De re Scholastica Anglica cum Germanica Comparata），才是比較教育研究的第一筆專論文獻，是建構比較教育學科發展史之不可或缺的一環，甚至將改寫和重建比較教育研究之起源。具體言之，Hecht聲稱其研究對英國公學和德國古文中學進行比較，包含教科書和學校組織的比較，並從中詮釋出「跨國性」和「民族性」等比較教育意涵。然而，該研究在實際上並未對英德兩國的學校教育體制做出全面的比較，也沒有明確提出一套比較教育的理論或方法論；其分析與詮釋亦無特別強調比較教育的「借鑒」與「傳揚」元素。儘管如此，Lenhart認為Hecht未言明的方法論是歷史的、哲學的和個殊的（idiographic）取徑，接近今日的教育質性研究，其與Jullien比較教育重視經驗的、實證的和律則的（nomothetic）取徑相較，實在是各擅勝場。惟衡諸當前相關的學術討論仍未達飽和，故應待更多研究成果來定位〈英德兩國學校教育比較〉的學術價值。

The purpose of this study is to introduce and review comparative education scholar V. Lenhart’s (1939-2023) discovery of F. A. Hecht’s research, which was considered as the first attempt at laying the groundwork for the discipline of comparative education. Generally speaking, the work Esquisse et Vues préliminaires d'un Ouvrage sur l'Éducation comparée (1816-1817) by M.-A. Jullien is recognized as the beginning of comparative education research. However, Lenhart reviewed Hecht’s De re Scholastica Anglica cum Germanica Comparata (1795-1798) written in Latin and pointed out, that work could be seen as the first research on comparative education, and thus, as an indispensable part of the development of the comparative education. That work might be able to rewrite and reconstruct the origins of comparative education research. Specifically, Hecht claimed that his study compared the British public school with the Gymnasium in Germany, including comparisons of textbooks and school organization, and interpreted some comparative educational meanings such as transnationality and national character. Nevertheless, Hecht’s research did not actually make a comprehensive comparison of the British and German school education systems, nor did it put forward a theory or methodology of comparative education; nor did it emphasize the borrowing and lending elements of comparative education in its analysis and interpretation. Despite this, Lenhart argues that Hecht’s unstated methodology is historical, philosophical, and idiographic, close to today’s qualitative research in education, and that it compares favorably with Jullien’s empirical, positivist, and nomothetic approach to comparative education. The author considers that the academic value of Hecht’s De re Scholastica Anglica cum Germanica Comparata should be recognized by more research results, as the relevant academic discussions are still insufficient.