philosophy of education

Philosophy Of Education

Definition of philosophy of education.

The Philosophy of Education is a big thought bubble about how and why we learn. It’s filled with questions and deep thinking about the essence of education. To make it simpler, imagine two things:

Firstly, it’s about looking at education with a magnifying glass and asking, ‘What’s the point of school?’. Secondly, think of it as a toolbox, where the tools are different ways to understand and improve how people teach and learn.

Philosophy of Education isn’t a one-size-fits-all answer to these questions. It’s more like a conversation that helps us explore different angles of education, so we can all come up with our own ways to make it better.

So, this field is really about thinking super smart and being critical about what we want from education. If you’re curious about what makes a good teacher or why certain subjects are taught, you’re already dipping your toes into the world of Philosophy of Education!

Types of Philosophy of Education

There are many viewpoints on what Education should be like. Here are some key ones:

Perennialism: This is the belief that some ideas are timeless. These educators often focus on teaching concepts and books that have stood the test of time, much like a classic song that never gets old.
Essentialism: Essentialists are those who think that there are certain basic skills and knowledge everyone must learn. They prioritize particular subjects that they think are vital for students, like a “must-have” tools in a toolbox.
Progressivism : This philosophy is all about learning by doing. Think of it as learning to swim by actually jumping in the water. These educators focus on hands-on experiences and making lessons relevant to real-life situations.
Reconstructionism: This type of philosophy looks at education as a way to improve society. It’s about teaching students not just to learn for themselves, but to make the world a better place.
Existentialism : Existentialist teachers help students explore themselves and their place in the universe. It’s a bit like self-reflection, pondering life’s big questions, and understanding one’s own identity.

Examples of Philosophy of Education

A teacher who follows Perennialism may assign books by ancient thinkers like Plato because these works contain wisdom that remains relevant across the ages. They are examples of the topic because they emphasize learning from ideas that endure over time.
An Essentialist classroom will focus on core subjects like reading, writing, and arithmetic, as these are viewed as essential building blocks of a person’s education. They serve as examples because they underscore the belief in imparting fundamental skills.
Schools that value Progressivism might have students working on science experiments or group projects to apply what they’ve learned. This is an example because it demonstrates the importance placed on active learning and real-world application.
Reconstructionist educators might encourage their students to participate in local cleanups to understand environmental issues, showcasing the philosophy’s focus on using education to drive social change.
If a teacher believes in Existentialism , they may have deep discussions about life’s purposes, helping students to discover their own beliefs and identity, reflecting the existentialist idea of personal exploration.

Why is Philosophy of Education Important?

Understanding Philosophy of Education is like having a treasure map for learning. It guides us through the jungle of choices in teaching methods, subject matter, and educational goals. It also gives educators a mirror to see their teaching philosophies more clearly, helping them to improve their approach and connect better with their students.

Origin of Philosophy of Education

People have been sharing ideas about teaching and learning since ancient times. Famous thinkers from Greece like Socrates, Plato, and Aristotle posed big questions about knowledge and learning that still influence us today. Over centuries, people have continued to add their own thoughts, making the field of Philosophy of Education really rich and varied.

Controversies in Philosophy of Education

Big questions often lead to big debates. In the Philosophy of Education, people argue about whether schools should focus more on practical skills or personal growth. There’s also disagreement about whether tests are the best way to check if students are learning, and how much technology should be used in classrooms.

The Worldwide View of Philosophy of Education

Around the world, education looks very different. Some countries emphasize things like respect for teachers or learning by heart, while others might encourage you to think outside the box. Looking at how various cultures approach schooling can teach us a lot about their values and ideas.

Personal Philosophy of Education

Just like fingerprints, everyone’s Philosophy of Education is unique. It’s based on your personal beliefs and experiences with learning. Teachers and students alike can have their own philosophy that might change over time as they learn and grow.

Putting it All Together

By digging into the Philosophy of Education, we can make smarter choices in how we teach and learn. This field isn’t just about stuffing facts into our heads; it’s about finding the ‘why’ and ‘how’ behind education, which helps us see the big picture and mold better futures for ourselves and others.

Philosophy of Education

All human societies, past and present, have had a vested interest in education; and some wits have claimed that teaching (at its best an educational activity) is the second oldest profession. While not all societies channel sufficient resources into support for educational activities and institutions, all at the very least acknowledge their centrality—and for good reasons. For one thing, it is obvious that children are born illiterate and innumerate, and ignorant of the norms and cultural achievements of the community or society into which they have been thrust; but with the help of professional teachers and the dedicated amateurs in their families and immediate environs (and with the aid, too, of educational resources made available through the media and nowadays the internet), within a few years they can read, write, calculate, and act (at least often) in culturally-appropriate ways. Some learn these skills with more facility than others, and so education also serves as a social-sorting mechanism and undoubtedly has enormous impact on the economic fate of the individual. Put more abstractly, at its best education equips individuals with the skills and substantive knowledge that allows them to define and to pursue their own goals, and also allows them to participate in the life of their community as full-fledged, autonomous citizens.

But this is to cast matters in very individualistic terms, and it is fruitful also to take a societal perspective, where the picture changes somewhat. It emerges that in pluralistic societies such as the Western democracies there are some groups that do not wholeheartedly support the development of autonomous individuals, for such folk can weaken a group from within by thinking for themselves and challenging communal norms and beliefs; from the point of view of groups whose survival is thus threatened, formal, state-provided education is not necessarily a good thing. But in other ways even these groups depend for their continuing survival on educational processes, as do the larger societies and nation-states of which they are part; for as John Dewey put it in the opening chapter of his classic work Democracy and Education (1916), in its broadest sense education is the means of the “social continuity of life” (Dewey, 1916, 3). Dewey pointed out that the “primary ineluctable facts of the birth and death of each one of the constituent members in a social group” make education a necessity, for despite this biological inevitability “the life of the group goes on” (Dewey, 3). The great social importance of education is underscored, too, by the fact that when a society is shaken by a crisis, this often is taken as a sign of educational breakdown; education, and educators, become scapegoats.

It is not surprising that such an important social domain has attracted the attention of philosophers for thousands of years, especially as there are complex issues aplenty that have great philosophical interest. Even a cursory reading of these opening paragraphs reveals that they touch on, in nascent form, some but by no means all of the issues that have spawned vigorous debate down the ages; restated more explicitly in terms familiar to philosophers of education, the issues the discussion above flitted over were: education as transmission of knowledge versus education as the fostering of inquiry and reasoning skills that are conducive to the development of autonomy (which, roughly, is the tension between education as conservative and education as progressive, and also is closely related to differing views about human “perfectibility”—issues that historically have been raised in the debate over the aims of education); the question of what this knowledge, and what these skills, ought to be—part of the domain of philosophy of the curriculum; the questions of how learning is possible, and what is it to have learned something—two sets of issues that relate to the question of the capacities and potentialities that are present at birth, and also to the process (and stages) of human development and to what degree this process is flexible and hence can be influenced or manipulated; the tension between liberal education and vocational education, and the overlapping issue of which should be given priority—education for personal development or education for citizenship (and the issue of whether or not this is a false dichotomy); the differences (if any) between education and enculturation; the distinction between educating versus teaching versus training versus indoctrination; the relation between education and maintenance of the class structure of society, and the issue of whether different classes or cultural groups can—justly—be given educational programs that differ in content or in aims; the issue of whether the rights of children, parents, and socio-cultural or ethnic groups, conflict—and if they do, the question of whose rights should be dominant; the question as to whether or not all children have a right to state-provided education, and if so, should this education respect the beliefs and customs of all groups and how on earth would this be accomplished; and a set of complex issues about the relation between education and social reform, centering upon whether education is essentially conservative, or whether it can be an (or, the ) agent of social change.

It is impressive that most of the philosophically-interesting issues touched upon above, plus additional ones not alluded to here, were addressed in one of the early masterpieces of the Western intellectual tradition—Plato's Republic . A.N. Whitehead somewhere remarked that the history of Western philosophy is nothing but a series of footnotes to Plato, and if the Meno and the Laws are added to the Republic , the same is true of the history of educational thought and of philosophy of education in particular. At various points throughout this essay the discussion shall return to Plato, and at the end there shall be a brief discussion of the two other great figures in the field—Rousseau and Dewey. But the account of the field needs to start with some features of it that are apt to cause puzzlement, or that make describing its topography difficult. These include, but are not limited to, the interactions between philosophy of education and its parent discipline.

1.1 The open nature of philosophy and philosophy of education

1.2 the different bodies of work traditionally included in the field, 1.3 paradigm wars the diversity of, and clashes between, philosophical approaches, 2.1 the early work: c.d. hardie, 2.2 the dominant years: language, and clarification of key concepts, 2.3 countervailing forces, 2.4 a new guise contemporary social, political and moral philosophy, 3.1 philosophical disputes concerning empirical education research, 3.2 the content of the curriculum, and the aims and functions of schooling, 3.3 rousseau, dewey, and the progressive movement, 4. concluding remarks, bibliography, other internet resources, related entries, 1. problems in delineating the field.

There is a large—and ever expanding—number of works designed to give guidance to the novice setting out to explore the domain of philosophy of education; most if not all of the academic publishing houses have at least one representative of this genre on their list, and the titles are mostly variants of the following archetypes: The History and Philosophy of Education , The Philosophical Foundations of Education , Philosophers on Education , Three Thousand Years of Educational Wisdom , A Guide to the Philosophy of Education , and Readings in Philosophy of Education . The overall picture that emerges from even a sampling of this collective is not pretty; the field lacks intellectual cohesion, and (from the perspective taken in this essay) there is a widespread problem concerning the rigor of the work and the depth of scholarship—although undoubtedly there are islands, but not continents, of competent philosophical discussion of difficult and socially-important issues of the kind listed earlier. On the positive side—the obverse of the lack of cohesion—there is, in the field as a whole, a degree of adventurousness in the form of openness to ideas and radical approaches, a trait that is sometimes lacking in other academic fields. This is not to claim, of course, that taken individually philosophers of education are more open-minded than their philosophical cousins!

Part of the explanation for this diffuse state-of-affairs is that, quite reasonably, most philosophers of education have the goal (reinforced by their institutional affiliation with Schools of Education and their involvement in the initial training of teachers) of contributing not to philosophy but to educational policy and practice. This shapes not only their selection of topics, but also the manner in which the discussion is pursued; and this orientation also explains why philosophers of education—to a far greater degree, it is to be suspected, than their “pure” cousins—publish not in philosophy journals but in a wide range of professionally-oriented journals (such as Educational Researcher , Harvard Educational Review , Teachers College Record , Cambridge Journal of Education, Journal of Curriculum Studies , and the like). Some individuals work directly on issues of classroom practice, others identify as much with fields such as educational policy analysis, curriculum theory, teacher education, or some particular subject-matter domain such as math or science education, as they do with philosophy of education. It is still fashionable in some quarters to decry having one's intellectual agenda shaped so strongly as this by concerns emanating from a field of practice; but as Stokes (1997) has made clear, many of the great, theoretically-fruitful research programs in natural science had their beginnings in such practical concerns—as Pasteur's grounbreaking work illustrates. It is dangerous to take the theory versus practice dichotomy too seriously.

However, there is another consequence of this institutional housing of the vast majority of philosphers of education that is worth noting—one that is not found in a comparable way in philosophers of science, for example, who almost always are located in departments of philosophy—namely, that experience as a teacher, or in some other education-related role, is a qualification to become a philosopher of education that in many cases is valued at least as much as depth of philosophical training. (The issue is not that educational experience is irrelevant—clearly it can be highly pertinent—but it is that in the tradeoff with philosophical training, philosophy often loses.) But there are still other factors at work that contribute to the field's diffuseness, that all relate in some way to the nature of the discipline of philosophy itself.

In describing the field of philosophy, and in particular the sub-field that has come to be identified as philosophy of education, one quickly runs into a difficulty not found to anything like the same degree in other disciplines. For example, although there are some internal differences in opinion, nevertheless there seems to be quite a high degree of consensus within the domain of quantum physics about which researchers are competent members of the field and which ones are not, and what work is a strong contribution (or potential contribution). The very nature of philosophy, on the other hand, is “essentially contested”; what counts as a sound philosophical work within one school of thought, or socio-cultural or academic setting, may not be so-regarded (and may even be the focus of derision) in a different one. Coupled with this is the fact that the borders of the field are not policed, so that the philosophically-untrained can cross into it freely—indeed, over the past century or more a great many individuals from across the spectrum of real and pseudo disciplines have for whatever reason exercised their right to self-identify as members of this broad and loosely defined category of “philosophers” (as a few minutes spent browsing in the relevant section of a bookstore will verify).

In essence, then, there are two senses of the term “philosopher” and its cognates: a loose but common sense in which any individual who cogitates in any manner about such issues as the meaning of life, the nature of social justice, the essence of sportsmanship, the aims of education, the foundations of the school curriculum, or relationship with the Divine, is thereby a philosopher; and there is a more technical sense referring to those who have been formally trained or have acquired competence in one or more areas such as epistemology, metaphysics, moral philosophy, logic, philosophy of science, and the like. If this bifurcation presents a problem for adequately delineating the field of philosophy, the difficulties grow tenfold or more with respect to philosophy of education.

This essay offers a description and assessment of the field as seen by a scholar rooted firmly in the formal branch of “philosophy of education”, and moreover this branch as it has developed in the English-speaking world (some of which, of course, has been inspired by Continental philosophy); but first it is necessary to say a little more about the difficulties that confront the individual who sets out, without presuppositions, to understand the topography of “philosophy of education”.

It will not take long for a person who consults several of the introductory texts alluded to earlier to encounter a number of different bodies of work (loosely bounded to be sure) that have by one source or another been regarded as part of the domain of philosophy of education; the inclusion of some of these as part of the field is largely responsible for the diffuse topography described earlier. What follows is an informal and incomplete accounting.

First, there are works of advocacy produced by those non-technical, self-identified “philosophers” described above, who often have an axe to grind; they may wish to destroy (or to save) common schooling, support or attack some innovation or reform, shore-up or destroy the capitalist mode of production, see their own religion (or none at all) gain a foothold in the public schools, strengthen the place of “the basics” in the school curriculum, and so forth. While these topics certainly can be, and have been, discussed with due care, often they have been pursued in loose but impressive language where exhortation substitutes for argumentation—and hence sometimes they are mistaken for works of philosophy of education! In the following discussion this genre shall be passed over in silence.

Second, there is a corpus of work somewhat resembling the first, but where the arguments are tighter, and where the authors usually are individuals of some distinction whose insights are thought-provoking—possibly because they have a degree of familiarity with some branch of educational activity, having been teachers (or former teachers), school principals, religious leaders, politicians, journalists, and the like. While these works frequently touch on philosophical issues, they are not pursued to any philosophical depth and can hardly be considered as contributions to the scholarship of the discipline. However, some works in this genre are among the classics of “educational thought”—a more felicitous label than “philosophy of education”; cases in point would be the essays, pamphlets and letters of Thomas Arnold (headmaster of Rugby school), John Wesley (the founder of Methodism), J.H. (Cardinal) Newman, T.H. Huxley, and the writings on progressive schooling by A.S. Neill (of Summerhill school). Some textbooks even include extracts from the writings or recorded sayings of such figures as Thomas Jefferson, Ben Franklin, and Jesus of Nazareth (for the latter three, in works spanning more than half a century, see Ulich, 1950, and Murphy, 2006). Books and extracts in this genre—which elsewhere I have called “cultured reflection on education”—are often used in teacher-training courses that march under the banner of “educational foundations”, “introduction to educational thought”, or “introduction to philosophy of education”.

Third, there are a number of educational theorists and researchers, whose field of activity is not philosophy but—for example—might be human development or learning theory, who in their technical work and sometimes in their non-technical books and reflective essays explicitly raise philosophical issues or adopt philosophical modes of argumentation—and do so in ways worthy of careful study. If philosophy (including philosophy of education) is defined so as to include analysis and reflection at an abstract or “meta-level”, which undoubtedly is a domain where many philosophers labor, then these individuals should have a place in the annals of philosophy or philosophy of education; but too often, although not always, accounts of the field ignore them. Their work might be subjected to scrutiny for being educationally important, but their conceptual or philosophical contributions are rarely focused upon. (Philosophers of the physical and biological sciences are far less prone to make this mistake about the meta-level work of reflective scientists in these domains.)

The educational theorists and researchers I have in mind as exemplars here are the behaviorist psychologist B.F. Skinner (who among other things wrote about the fate of the notions of human freedom and dignity in the light of the development of a “science of behavior”, and who developed a model of human action and also of learning that eschewed the influence of mental entities such as motives, interests, and ideas and placed the emphasis instead upon “schedules of reinforcement”); the foundational figure in modern developmental psychology with its near-fixation on stage theories, Jean Piaget (who developed in an abstract and detailed manner a “genetic epistemology” that was related to his developmental research); and the social psychologist Lev Vygotsky (who argued that the development of the human youngster was indelibly shaped by social forces, so much so that approaches which focused on the lone individual and that were biologically-oriented—he had Piaget in mind here—were quite inadequate).

Fourth, and in contrast to the group above, there is a type of work that is traditionally but undeservedly given a prominent place in the annals of philosophy of education, and which thereby generates a great deal of confusion and misunderstanding about the field. These are the books and reflective essays on educational topics that were written by mainstream philosophers, a number of whom are counted among the greatest in the history of the discipline. The catch is this: Even great philosophers do not always write philosophy! The reflections being referred-to contain little if any philosophical argumentation, and usually they were not intended to be contributions to the literature on any of the great philosophical questions. Rather, they expressed the author's views (or even prejudices) on educational rather than philosophical problems, and sometimes—as in the case of Bertrand Russell's rollicking pieces defending progressive educational practices—they explicitly were “potboilers” written to make money. (In Russell's case the royalties were used to support a progressive school he was running with his current wife.) Locke, Kant, and Hegel also are among those who produced work of this genre.

John Locke is an interesting case in point. He had been requested by a cousin and her husband—possibly in part because of his medical training—to give advice on the upbringing of their son and heir; the youngster seems to have troubled his parents, most likely because he had learning difficulties. Locke, then in exile in Europe, wrote the parents a series of letters in which alongside sensible advice about such matters as the priorities in the education of a landed gentleman, and about making learning fun for the boy, there were a few strange items such as the advice that the boy should wear leaky shoes in winter so that he would be toughened-up! The letters eventually were printed in book form under the title Some Thoughts Concerning Education (1693), and seem to have had enormous influence down the ages upon educational practice; after two centuries the book had run through some 35 English editions and well over thirty foreign editions, and it is still in print and is frequently excerpted in books of readings in philosophy of education. In stark contrast, several of Locke's major philosophical writings—the Essay Concerning Human Understanding , and the Letter on Toleration —have been overlooked by most educational theorists over the centuries, even though they have enormous relevance for educational philosophy, theory, policy, and practice. It is especially noteworthy that the former of these books was the foundation for an approach to psychology—associationism—that thrived during the nineteenth century. In addition it stimulated interest in the processes of child development and human learning; Locke's model of the way in which the “blank tablet” of the human mind became “furnished” with simple ideas that were eventually combined or abstracted in various ways to form complex ideas, suggested to some that it might be fruitful to study this process in the course of development of a young child (Cleverley and Phillips, 1986).

Fifth, and finally, there is a large body of work that clearly falls within the more technically-defined domain of philosophy of education. Three historical giants of the field are Plato, Rousseau, and Dewey, and there are a dozen or more who would be in competition for inclusion along with them; the short-list of leading authors from the second-half of the 20 th century would include Richard Peters, Paul Hirst, and Israel Scheffler, with many jostling for the next places—but the choices become cloudy as we approach the present-day, for schisms between philosophical schools have to be negotiated.

It is important to note, too, that there is a sub-category within this domain of literature that is made-up of work by philosophers who are not primarily identified as philosophers of education, and who might or might not have had much to say directly about education, but whose philosophical work has been drawn upon by others and applied very fruitfully to educational issues. (A volume edited by Amelie Rorty contains essays on the education-related thought, or relevance, of many historically-important philosophers; significantly the essays are almost entirely written by philosophers rather than by members of the philosophy of education community. This is both their strength and weakness. See Rorty, 1998.)

The discussion will turn briefly to the difficulty in picturing the topography of the field that is presented by the influence of these philosophers.

As sketched earlier, the domain of education is vast, the issues it raises are almost overwhelmingly numerous and are of great complexity, and the social significance of the field is second to none. These features make the phenomena and problems of education of great interest to a wide range of socially-concerned intellectuals, who bring with them their own favored conceptual frameworks—concepts, theories and ideologies, methods of analysis and argumentation, metaphysical and other assumptions, criteria for selecting evidence that has relevance for the problems that they consider central, and the like. No wonder educational discourse has occasionally been likened to Babel, for the differences in backgrounds and assumptions means that there is much mutual incomprehension. In the midst of the melee sit the philosophers of education.

It is no surprise, then, to find that the significant intellectual and social trends of the past few centuries, together with the significant developments in philosophy, all have had an impact on the content and methods of argument in philosophy of education—Marxism, psycho-analysis, existentialism, phenomenology, positivism, post-modernism, pragmatism, neo-liberalism, the several waves of feminism, analytic philosophy in both its ordinary language and more formal guises, are merely the tip of the iceberg. It is revealing to note some of the names that were heavily-cited in a pair of recent authoritative handbooks in the field (according to the indices of the two volumes, and in alphabetical order): Adorno, Aristotle, Derrida, Descartes, Dewey, Habermas, Hegel, Horkheimer, Kant, Locke, Lyotard, Marx, Mill, Nietzsche, Plato, Rawls, Richard Rorty, Rousseau, and Wittgenstein (Curren 2003; Blake, Smeyers, Smith, and Standish 2003). Although this list conveys something of the diversity of the field, it fails to do it complete justice, for the influence of feminist philosophers is not adequately represented.

No one individual can have mastered work done by such a range of figures, representing as they do a number of quite different frameworks or approaches; and relatedly no one person stands as emblematic of the entire field of philosophy of education, and no one type of philosophical writing serves as the norm, either. At professional meetings, peace often reigns because the adherents of the different schools go their separate ways; but occasionally there are (intellectually) violent clashes, rivaling the tumult that greeted Derrida's nomination for an honorary degree at Cambridge in 1992. It is sobering to reflect that only a few decades have passed since practitioners of analytic philosophy of education had to meet in individual hotel rooms, late at night, at annual meetings of the Philosophy of Education Society in the USA, because phenomenologists and others barred their access to the conference programs; their path to liberation was marked by discord until, eventually, the compromise of “live and let live” was worked out (Kaminsky, 1996). Of course, the situation has hardly been better in the home discipline; an essay in Time magazine in 1966 on the state of the discipline of philosophy reported that adherents of the major philosophical schools “don't even understand one another”, and added that as a result “philosophy today is bitterly segregated. Most of the major philosophy departments and scholarly journals are the exclusive property of one sect or another” ( Time , reprinted in Lucas, 1969, 32). Traditionally there has been a time-lag for developments in philosophy to migrate over into philosophy of education, but in this respect at least the two fields have been on a par.

Inevitably, however, traces of discord remain, and some groups still feel disenfranchised, but they are not quite the same groups as a few decades ago—for new intellectual paradigms have come into existence, and their adherents are struggling to have their voices heard; and clearly it is the case that—reflecting the situation in 1966—many analytically-trained philosophers of education find postmodern writings incomprehensible while scholars in the latter tradition are frequently dismissive if not contemptuous of work done by the former group. In effect, then, the passage of time has made the field more—and not less—diffuse. All this is evident in a volume published in 1995 in which the editor attempted to break-down borders by initiating dialogue between scholars with different approaches to philosophy of education; her introductory remarks are revealing:

Philosophers of education reflecting on the parameters of our field are faced not only with such perplexing and disruptive questions as: What counts as Philosophy of Education and why?; but also Who counts as a philosopher of education and why?; and What need is there for Philosophy of Education in a postmodern context? Embedded in these queries we find no less provocative ones: What knowledge, if any, can or should be privileged and why?; and Who is in a position to privilege particular discursive practices over others and why? Although such questions are disruptive, they offer the opportunity to take a fresh look at the nature and purposes of our work and, as we do, to expand the number and kinds of voices participating in the conversation. (Kohli, 1995, xiv).

There is an inward-looking tone to the questions posed here: Philosophy of education should focus upon itself, upon its own contents, methods, and practitioners. And of course there is nothing new about this; for one thing, almost forty years ago a collection of readings—with several score of entries—was published under the title What is Philosophy of Education? (Lucas, 1969). It is worth noting, too, that the same attitude is not unknown in philosophy; Simmel is reputed to have said a century or so ago that philosophy is its own first problem.

Having described the general topography of the field of philosophy of education, the focus can change to pockets of activity where from the perspective of this author interesting philosophical work is being, or has been, done—and sometimes this work has been influential in the worlds of educational policy or practice. It is appropriate to start with a discussion of the rise and partial decline—but lasting influence of—analytic philosophy of education This approach (often called “APE” by both admirers and detractors) dominated the field in the English-speaking world for several decades after the second world war, and its eventual fate throws light on the current intellectual climate.

2. Analytic philosophy of education, and its influence

Conceptual analysis, careful assessment of arguments, the rooting out of ambiguity, the drawing of clarifying distinctions—which make up part at least of the philosophical analysis package—have been respected activities within philosophy from the dawn of the field. But traditionally they stood alongside other philosophical activities; in the Republic , for example, Plato was sometimes analytic, at other times normative, and on occasion speculative/metaphysical. No doubt it somewhat over-simplifies the complex path of intellectual history to suggest that what happened in the twentieth century—early on, in the home discipline itself, and with a lag of a decade or more in philosophy of education—is that philosophical analysis came to be viewed by some scholars as being the major philosophical activity (or set of activities), or even as being the only viable or reputable activity (for metaphysics was judged to be literally vacuous, and normative philosophy was viewed as being unable to provide compelling warrants for whatever moral and ethical positions were being advocated).

So, although analytic elements in philosophy of education can be located throughout intellectual history back to the ancient world, the pioneering work in the modern period entirely in an analytic mode was the short monograph by C.D. Hardie, Truth and Fallacy in Educational Theory (1941; reissued in 1962). In his Introduction, Hardie (who had studied with C.D. Broad and I.A. Richards) made it clear that he was putting all his eggs into the ordinary-language-analysis basket:

The Cambridge analytical school, led by Moore, Broad and Wittgenstein, has attempted so to analyse propositions that it will always be apparent whether the disagreement between philosophers is one concerning matters of fact, or is one concerning the use of words, or is, as is frequently the case, a purely emotive one. It is time, I think, that a similar attitude became common in the field of educational theory. (Hardie, 1962, xix)

The first object of his analytic scrutiny in the book was the view that “a child should be educated according to Nature”; he teased apart and critiqued various things that writers through the ages could possibly have meant by this, and very little remained standing by the end of the chapter. Then some basic ideas of Herbart and Dewey were subjected to similar treatment. Hardie's hard-nosed approach can be illustrated by the following: One thing that educationists mean by “education according to Nature” (later he turns to other things they might mean) is that “the teacher should thus act like a gardener” who fosters natural growth of his plants and avoids doing anything “unnatural”(Hardie, 1962, 3). He continues:

The crucial question for such a view of education is how far does this analogy hold? There is no doubt that there is some analogy between the laws governing the physical development of the child and the laws governing the development of a plant, and hence there is some justification for the view if applied to physical education. But the educationists who hold this view are not generally very much concerned with physical education, and the view is certainly false if applied to mental education. For some of the laws that govern the mental changes which take place in a child are the laws of learning …. [which] have no analogy at all with the laws which govern the interaction between a seed and its environment. (Hardie, 1962, 4)

About a decade after the end of the Second World War the floodgates opened and a stream of work in the analytic mode appeared; the following is merely a sample. D.J. O'Connor published An Introduction to Philosophy of Education (1957) in which, among other things, he argued that the word “theory” as it is used in educational contexts is merely a courtesy title, for educational theories are nothing like what bear this title in the natural sciences; Israel Scheffler, who became the paramount philosopher of education in North America, produced a number of important works including The Language of Education (1960), that contained clarifying and influential analyses of definitions (he distinguished reportive, stipulative, and programmatic types) and the logic of slogans (often these are literally meaningless, and should be seen as truncated arguments); Smith and Ennis edited the volume Language and Concepts in Education (1961); and R.D. Archambault edited Philosophical Analysis and Education (1965), consisting of essays by a number of British writers who were becoming prominent—most notably R.S. Peters (whose status in Britain paralleled that of Scheffler in the USA), Paul Hirst, and John Wilson. Topics covered in the Archambault volume were typical of those that became the “bread and butter” of analytic philosophy of education throughout the English-speaking world—education as a process of initiation, liberal education, the nature of knowledge, types of teaching, and instruction versus indoctrination.

Among the most influential products of APE was the analysis developed by Hirst and Peters (1970), and Peters (1973), of the concept of education itself. Using as a touchstone “normal English usage”, it was concluded that a person who has been educated (rather than instructed or indoctrinated) has been (i) changed for the better; (ii) this change has involved the acquisition of knowledge and intellectual skills, and the development of understanding; and (iii) the person has come to care for, or be committed to, the domains of knowledge and skill into which he or she has been initiated. The method used by Hirst and Peters comes across clearly in their handling of the analogy with the concept of “reform”, one they sometimes drew upon for expository purposes. A criminal who has been reformed has changed for the better, and has developed a commitment to the new mode of life (if one or other of these conditions does not hold, a speaker of standard English would not say the criminal has been reformed). Clearly the analogy with reform breaks down with respect to the knowledge and understanding conditions. Elsewhere Peters developed the fruitful notion of “education as initiation”.

The concept of indoctrination was also of great interest to analytic philosophers of education, for—it was argued—getting clear about precisely what constitutes indoctrination also would serve to clarify the border that demarcates it from acceptable educational processes. Unfortunately, ordinary language analysis did not lead to unanimity of opinion about where this border was located, and rival analyses of the concept were put forward (Snook, 1972). Thus, whether or not an instructional episode was a case of indoctrination was determined by: the content that had been taught; or by the intention of the instructor; or by the methods of instruction that had been used; or by the outcomes of the instruction; or, of course, by some combination of these. Adherents of the different analyses used the same general type of argument to make their case, namely, appeal to normal and aberrant usage. Two examples will be sufficient to make the point: (i) The first criterion mentioned above—the nature of the content being imparted—was supported by an argument that ran roughly as follows: “If some students have learned, as factual, some material that is patently incorrect (like ‘The capital city of Canada is Washington D.C.’), then they must have been indoctrinated. This conclusion is reinforced by the consideration that we would never say students must have been indoctrinated if they believe an item that is correct!” However, both portions of this argument have been challenged. (ii) The method criterion—how the knowledge was imparted to the students—usually was supported by an argument that, while different, clearly paralleled the previous one in its logic. It ran roughly like this: “We never would say that students had been indoctrinated by their teacher if he or she had fostered open inquiry and discussion, encouraged exploration in the library and on the net, allowed students to work in collaborative groups, and so on. However, if the teacher did not allow independent inquiry, quashed classroom questions, suppressed dissenting opinions, relied heavily on rewards and punishments, used repetition and fostered rote memorization, and so on, then it is likely we would say the students were being indoctrinated”. (The deeper issue in this second example is that the first method of teaching allows room for the operation of the learners' rationality, while the second method does not. Siegel, 1988, stresses this in his discussion of indoctrination.)

After a period of dominance, for a number of important reasons the influence of APE went into decline. First, there were growing criticisms that the work of analytic philosophers of education had become focused upon minutiae and in the main was bereft of practical import; I can offer as illustration a presidential address at a US Philosophy of Education Society annual meeting that was an hour-long discourse on the various meanings of the expression “I have a toothache”. (It is worth noting that the 1966 article in Time , cited earlier, had put forward the same criticism of mainstream philosophy.) Second, in the early 1970's radical students in Britain accused the brand of linguistic analysis practiced by R.S. Peters of conservatism, and of tacitly giving support to “traditional values”—they raised the issue of whose English usage was being analyzed?

Third, criticisms of language analysis in mainstream philosophy had been mounting for some time, and finally after a lag of many years were reaching the attention of philosophers of education. There even had been a surprising degree of interest in this arcane topic on the part of the general reading public in the UK as early as 1959, when Gilbert Ryle, editor of the journal Mind , refused to commission a review of Ernest Gellner's Words and Things (1959)—a detailed and quite acerbic critique of Wittgenstein's philosophy and its espousal of ordinary language analysis. (Ryle argued that Gellner's book was too insulting, a view that drew Bertrand Russell into the fray on Gellner's side—in the daily press, no less; Russell produced examples of insulting remarks drawn from the work of great philosophers of the past. See Mehta, 1963)

Richard Peters had been given warning that all was not well with APE at a conference in Canada in 1966; after delivering a paper on “The aims of education: A conceptual inquiry” that was based on ordinary language analysis, a philosopher in the audience (William Dray) asked Peters “ whose concepts do we analyze?” Dray went on to suggest that different people, and different groups within society, have different concepts of education. Five years before the radical students raised the same issue, Dray pointed to the possibility that what Peters had presented under the guise of a “logical analysis” was nothing but the favored usage of a certain class of persons—a class that Peters happened to identify with. (See Peters, 1973, where to the editor's credit the interaction with Dray is reprinted.)

Fourth, during the decade of the seventies when these various critiques of analytic philosophy were in the process of eroding its luster, a spate of translations from the Continent stimulated some philosophers of education in Britain and North America to set out in new directions, and to adopt a new style of writing and argumentation. Key works by Gadamer, Foucault, and Derrida appeared in English, and these were followed in 1984 by Lyotard's foundational work on The Postmodern Condition . The classic works of Heidegger and Husserl also found new admirers; and feminist philosophers of education were finding their voices—Maxine Greene published a number of pieces in the 1970s; the influential book by Nel Noddings, Caring: A Feminine Approach to Ethics and Moral Education , appeared the same year as the work by Lyotard, followed a year later by Jane Roland Martin's Reclaiming a Conversation . APE was no longer the center of interest.

By the 1980s, the rather simple if not simplistic ordinary language analysis practiced in philosophy of education, was reeling under the attack from the combination of forces sketched above, but the analytic spirit lived on in the form of rigorous work done in other specialist areas of philosophy—work that trickled out and took philosophy of education in rich new directions. Technically-oriented epistemology, philosophy of science, and even metaphysics, flourished; as did the interrelated fields of social, political and moral philosophy. John Rawls published A Theory of Justice in 1971; a decade later MacIntyre's After Virtue appeared; and in another decade or so there was a flood of work on individualism, communitarianism, democratic citizenship, inclusion, exclusion, rights of children versus rights of parents, rights of groups (such as the Amish) versus rights of the larger polity. From the early 1990s philosophers of education have contributed significantly to the debates on these and related topics—indeed, this corpus of work illustrates that good philosophy of education flows seamlessly into work being done in mainstream areas of philosophy. Illustrative examples are Creating Citizens: Political Education and Liberal Democracy , Callan (1997); The Demands of Liberal Education , Levinson (1999); Social Justice and School Choice , Brighouse (2000); and Bridging Liberalism and Multiculturalism in American Education , Reich (2002). These works stand shoulder-to-shoulder with semi-classics on the same range of topics by Gutmann, Kymlicka, Macedo, and others. An excerpt from the book by Callan nicely illustrates that the analytic spirit lives on in this body of work; the broader topic being pursued is the status of the aims of education in a pluralistic society where there can be deep fundamental disagreements:

… the distinction must be underlined between the ends that properly inform political education and the extent to which we should tolerate deviations from those ends in a world where reasonable and unreasonable pluralism are entangled and the moral costs of coercion against the unreasonable variety are often prohibitive. Our theoretical as well as our commonsense discourse do not always respect the distinction…. If some of the teachings of the Roman Catholic Church conflict with our best theory of the ends of civic education, it does not follow that we have any reason to revise our theory; but neither does it mean we have any reason to impose these ends on Catholic schools and the families that they serve. (Callan, 1997, 44)

Callan and White (2003) have given an analysis of why the topics described above have become such a focus of attention. “What has been happening in philosophy of education in recent years”, they argue, mirrors “a wider self-examination in liberal societies themselves”. World events, from the fall of communism to the spread of ethnic conflicts “have all heightened consciousness of the contingency of liberal politics”. A body of work in philosophy, from the early Rawls on, has systematically examined (and critiqued) the foundations of liberalism, and philosophy of education has been drawn into the debates. Callan and White mention communitarianism as offering perhaps “the most influential challenge” to liberalism, and they write:

The debate between liberals and communitarians is far more than a theoretical diversion for philosophers and political scientists. At stake are rival understandings of what makes human lives and the societies in which they unfold both good and just, and derivatively, competing conceptions of the education needed for individual and social betterment. (Callan and White, 2003, 95-96)

It should be appended here that it is not only “external” world events that have stimulated this body of work; events internal to a number of democratic societies also have been significant. To cite one example that is prominent in the literature in North America at least, the US Supreme Court issued a ruling ( Wisconsin v. Yoder ) in which members of the Amish sect were allowed to withdraw their children from public schools before they had reached the age of sixteen—for, it had been argued, any deeper education would endanger the existence of the group and its culture. In assessing this decision—as of course philosophers have frequently done (see, for example, Kymlicka, 1995)—a balance has to be achieved between (i) the interest of civic society in having an informed, well-educated, participatory citizenry; (ii) the interest of the Amish as a group in preserving their own culture; and (iii) the interests of the Amish children, who have a right to develop into autonomous individuals who can make reflective decisions for themselves about the nature of the life they wish to lead. These are issues that fall squarely in the domain covered by the works mentioned above.

So much work is being produced on the complex and interrelated issues just outlined, that in a different context it seemed fair for me to remark (descriptively, and not judgmentally) that a veritable cottage industry had sprung up in post-Rawlsian philosophy of education. There are, of course, other areas of activity, where interesting contributions are being made, and the discusion will next turn to a sampling of these.

3. Other areas of contemporary activity

As was stressed at the outset, and illustrated with a cursory listing of examples, the field of education is huge and contains within it a virtually inexhaustible number of issues that are of philosophical interest. To attempt comprehensive coverage of how philosophers of education have been working within this thicket would be a quixotic task for a large single volume, and is out of the question for a solitary encyclopedia entry. Nevertheless, a valiant attempt to give an overview was made in the recent A Companion to the Philosophy of Education (Curren, 2003), which contained more than six-hundred pages divided into fourty-five chapters each of which surveyed a subfield of work. The following random selection of chapter topics gives a sense of the enormous scope of the field: Sex education, special education, science education, aesthetic education, theories of teaching and learning, religious education, knowledge and truth in learning, cultivating reason, the measurement of learning, multicultural education, education and the politics of identity, education and standards of living, motivation and classroom management, feminism, critical theory, postmodernism, romanticism, purposes of universities in a fluid age, affirmative action in higher education, and professional education.

There is no non-arbitrary way to select a small number of topics for further discussion, nor can the topics that are chosen be pursued in great depth. The choice of those below has been made with an eye to filling out—and deepening—the topographical account of the field that was presented in the preceding sections. The discussion will open with a topic that was not included in the Companion , despite it being one that is of great concern across the academic educational community, and despite it being one where adherents of some of the rival schools of philosophy (and philosophy of education) have had lively exchanges.

The educational research enterprise has been criticized for a century or more by politicians, policymakers, administrators, curriculum developers, teachers, philosophers of education, and by researchers themselves—but the criticisms have been contradictory. Charges of being “too ivory tower and theory-oriented” are found alongside “too focused on practice and too atheoretical”; but particularly since publication of the book by Stokes mentioned earlier, and also in light of the views of John Dewey and William James that the function of theory is to guide intelligent practice and problem-solving, it is becoming more fashionable to hold that the “theory v. practice” dichotomy is a false one.

A similar trend can be discerned with respect to the long warfare between two rival groups of research methods—on one hand quantitative/statistical approaches to research, and on the other hand the qualitative/ethnographic family. (The choice of labels here is its not entirely risk-free, for they have been contested; furthermore the first approach is quite often associated with “experimental” studies, and the latter with “case studies”, but this is an over-simplification.) For several decades these two rival methodological camps were treated by researchers and a few philosophers of education as being rival paradigms (Kuhn's ideas, albeit in a very loose form, have been influential in the field of educational research), and the dispute between them was commonly referred-to as “the paradigm wars”. In essence the issue at stake was epistemolgical: members of the quantitative/experimental camp believed that only their methods could lead to well-warranted knowledge claims, especially about the causal factors at play in educational phenomena, and on the whole they regarded qualitative methods as lacking in rigor; on the other hand the adherents of qualitative/ethnographic approaches held that the other camp was too “positivistic” and was operating with an inadequate view of causation in human affairs—one that ignored the role of motives and reasons, possession of relevant background knowledge, awareness of cultural norms, and the like. Few if any commentators in the “paradigm wars” suggested that there was anything prohibiting the use of both approaches in the one research program—provided that if both were used, they only were used sequentially or in parallel, for they were underwritten by different epistemologies and hence could not be blended together. But recently the trend has been towards rapprochement, towards the view that the two methodological families are, in fact, compatible and are not at all like paradigms in the Kuhnian sense(s) of the term; the melding of the two approaches is often called “mixed methods research”, and it is growing in popularity. (For more detailed discussion of these “wars” see Howe, 2003, and Phillips, 2008.)

The most lively contemporary debates about education research, however, were set in motion around the turn of the millenium when the US Federal Government moved in the direction of funding only rigorously scientific educational research—the kind that could establish causal factors which could then guide the development of practically effective policies. (It was held that such a causal knowledge base was available for medical decisionmaking.) The definition of “rigorously scientific”, however, was decided by politicans and not by the research community, and it was given in terms of the use of a specific research method—the net effect being that the only research projects to receive Federal funding were those that carried out randomized controlled experiments or field trials (RFTs). It has beome common over the last decade to refer to the RFT as the “gold standard” methodology.

The National Research Council (NRC)—an arm of the U.S. National Academies of Science—issued a report, influenced by postpostivistic philosophy of science (NRC, 2002), that argued this criterion was far too narrow. Numerous essays have appeared subsequently that point out how the “gold standard” account of scientific rigor distorts the history of science, how the complex nature of the relation between evidence and policy-making has been distorted and made to appear overly simple (for instance the role of value-judgments in linking empirical findings to policy directives is often overlooked), and qualitative researchers have insisted upon the scientific nature of their work.

Nevertheless, and possibly because it tried to be balanced and supported the use of RFTs in some research contexts, the NRC report has been the subject of symposia in four journals, where it has been supported by a few and attacked from a variety of philosophical fronts: Its authors were positivists, they erroneously believed that educational inquiry could be value-neutral and that it could ignore the ways in which exercise of power constrains the research process, they misunderstood the nature of educational phenomena, they were guilty of advocating “your father's paradigm”(clearly this was not intended as a compliment). One critic with postmodernist leanings asserted that educational research should move “toward a Nietzschean sort of ‘unnatural science’ that leads to greater health by fostering ways of knowing that escape normativity”—a suggestion that evokes the reaction discussed in Section 1.3 above, namely, one of incomprehension on the part of most researchers and those philosophers of education who work within a different tradition where a “way of knowing”, in order to be a “way”, must inevitably be normative.

The final complexity in the debates over the nature of educational research is that there are some respected members of the philosophy of education community who claim, along with Carr, that “the forms of human association characteristic of educational engagement are not really apt for scientific or empirical study at all” (Carr, 2003, 54-5). His reasoning is that educational processes cannot be studied empirically because they are processes of “normative initiation”—a position that as it stands begs the question by not making clear why such processes cannot be studied empirically.

The issue of what should be taught to students at all levels of education—the issue of curriculum content—obviously is a fundamental one, and it is an extraordinarily difficult one with which to grapple. In tackling it, care needs to be taken to distinguish between education and schooling—for although education can occur in schools, so can mis-education (as Dewey pointed out), and many other things can take place there that are educationally orthogonal (such as the provision of free or subsidized lunches, or the development of social networks); and it also must be recognized that education can occur in the home, in libraries and museums, in churches and clubs, in solitary interaction with the public media, and the like.

In developing a curriculum (whether in a specific subject area, or more broadly as the whole range of offerings in an educational institution or in a system), a number of difficult decisions need to be made. Issues such as the proper ordering or sequencing of topics in the chosen subject, the time to be allocated to each topic, the lab work or excursions or projects that are appropriate for particular topics, can all be regarded as technical issues best resolved either by educationists who have a depth of experience with the target age group or by experts in the psychology of learning and the like. But there are deeper issues, ones concerning the validity of the justifications that have been given for including particular subjects or topics in the offerings of formal educational institutions. (Why is evolution included, or excluded, as a topic within the standard high school subject Biology? Why is Driver Education part of the high school curriculum, and methods of birth control usually not—even though sex has an impact on the life of teenagers that at least is comparable to the impact of car-driving? Is the justification that is given for teaching Economics in some schools coherent and convincing? Does the justification for not including the Holocaust or the phenomenon of wartime atrocities in the curriculum in some countries stand up to critical scrutiny?)

The different justifications for particular items of curriculum content that have been put forward by philosophers and others since Plato's brilliant pioneering efforts all draw upon, explicitly or implicitly, the positions that the respective theorists hold about at least three sets of issues. First, what are the aims and/or functions of education (aims and functions are not necessarily the same), or alternatively, what constitutes the good life and human flourishing. These two formulations are related, for presumably our educational institutions should aim to equip individuals to pursue this good life. Thus, for example, if our view of human flourishing includes the capacity to act rationally and/or autonomously, then the case can be made that educational institutions—and their curricula—should aim to prepare, or help to prepare, autonomous individuals. How this is to be done, of course, is not immediately obvious, and much philosophical ink has been spilled on the matter. One influential line of argument was developed by Paul Hirst, who argued that knowledge is essential for developing a conception of the good life, and then for pursuing it; and because logical analysis shows—he argued—that there are seven basic forms of knowledge, the case can be made that the function of the curriculum is to introduce students to each of these forms. Luckily for Hirst, the typical British high school day was made up of seven instructional periods. (Hirst, 1965; for a critique see Phillips, 1987, ch.11.)

Second, is it justifiable to treat the curriculum of an educational institution as vehicle for furthering the socio-political interests and goals of a ruler or ruling class; and relatedly, is it justifiable to design the curriculum so that it serves as a medium of control or of social engineering? In the closing decades of the twentieth century there were numerous discussions of curriculum theory, particularly from Marxist and postmodern perspectives, that offered the sobering analysis that in many educational systems, including those in Western democracies, the curriculum did indeed reflect, and serve, the interests of the ruling class. Michael Apple is typical:

… the knowledge that now gets into schools is already a choice from a much larger universe of possible social knowledge and principles. It is a form of cultural capital that comes from somewhere, that often reflects the perspectives and beliefs of powerful segments of our social collectivity. In its very production and dissemination as a public and economic commodity—as books, films, materials, and so forth—it is repeatedly filtered through ideological and economic commitments. Social and economic values, hence, are already embedded in the design of the institutions we work in, in the ‘formal corpus of school knowledge’ we preserve in our curricula….(Apple, 1990, 8-9)

Third, should educational programs at the elementary and secondary levels be made up of a number of disparate offerings, so that individuals with different interests and abilities and affinities for learning can pursue curricula that are suitable? Or should every student pursue the same curriculum as far as each is able—a curriculum, it should be noted, that in past cases nearly always was based on the needs or interests of those students who were academically inclined or were destined for elite social roles. Mortimer Adler and others in the late twentieth century (who arguably were following Plato's lead in the Republic ), sometimes used the aphorism “the best education for the best is the best education for all”.

The thinking here can be explicated in terms of the analogy of an out-of-control virulent disease, for which there is only one type of medicine available; taking a large dose of this medicine is extremely beneficial, and the hope is that taking only a little—while less effective—is better than taking none at all! Medically, this probably is dubious, while the educational version—forcing students to work, until they exit the system, on topics that do not interest them and for which they have no facility or motivation—has even less merit. (For a critique of Adler and his Paideia Proposal , see Noddings, 2007.) It is interesting to compare the modern “one curriculum track for all” position with Plato's system outlined in the Republic , according to which all students—and importantly this included girls—set out on the same course of study. Over time, as they moved up the educational ladder it would become obvious that some had reached the limit imposed upon them by nature, and they would be directed off into appropriate social roles in which they would find fulfillment, for their abilities would match the demands of these roles. Those who continued on with their education would eventually be able to contemplate the metaphysical realm of the “forms”, thanks to their advanced training in mathematics and philosophy. Having seen the form of the Good, they would be eligible after a period of practical experience to become members of the ruling class of Guardians.

Plato's educational scheme was guided, presumably, by the understanding he thought he had achieved of the transcendental realm of fixed “forms”. John Dewey, ever a strong critic of positions that were not naturalistic, or that incorporated a priori premises, commented as follows:

Plato's starting point is that the organization of society depends ultimately upon knowledge of the end of existence. If we do not know its end, we shall be at the mercy of accident and caprice…. And only those who have rightly trained minds will be able to recognize the end, and ordering principle of things. (Dewey, 1916, 102-3)

Furthermore, as Dewey again put it, Plato “had no perception of the uniqueness of individuals…. they fall by nature into classes”, which masks the “infinite diversity of active tendencies” which individuals harbor (104). In addition, Plato tended to talk of learning using the passive language of seeing, which has shaped our discourse down to the present (witness “Now I see it!” when a difficult point has become clear).

In contrast, for Dewey each individual was an organism situated in a biological and social environment in which problems were constantly emerging, forcing the individual to reflect and act, and learn. Dewey, following William James, held that knowledge arises from reflection upon our actions; and the worth of a putative item of knowledge is directly correlated with the problem-solving success of the actions performed under its guidance. Thus Dewey, sharply disagreeing with Plato, regarded knowing as an active rather than a passive affair—a strong theme in his writings is his opposition to what is sometimes called “the spectator theory of knowledge”. All this is made clear enough in a passage containing only a thinly-veiled allusion to Plato's famous analogy of the prisoners in the cave whose eyes are turned to the light by education:

In schools, those under instruction are too customarily looked upon as acquiring knowledge as theoretical spectators, minds which appropriate knowledge by direct energy of intellect. The very word pupil has almost come to mean one who is engaged not in having fruitful experiences but in absorbing knowledge directly. Something which is called mind or consciousness is severed from the physical organs of activity. (164)

This passage also illuminates a passage that many have found puzzling: “philosophy is the theory of education” (387). For in the sentences above it is easy to see the tight link between Dewey's epistemology and his views on education—his anti-spectator epistemology morphs directly into advocacy for anti-spectator learning by students in school—students learn by being active inquirers. Over the past few decades this view of learning has inspired a major tradition of research by educational psychologists, and related theory-development (the “situated cognition” framework); and these bodies of work have in turn led to innovative efforts in curriculum development. (For a discussion of these, see Phillips, 2003.)

The final important difference with Plato is that, for Dewey, each student is an individual who blazes his or her unique trail of growth; the teacher has the task of guiding and facilitating this growth, without imposing a fixed end upon the process. Dewey sometimes uses the term “curriculum” to mean “the funded wisdom of the human race”, the point being that over the course of human history an enormous stock of knowledge and skills has accumulated and the teacher has the task of helping the student to make contact with this repertoire—but helping by facilitating rather than by imposing. (All this, of course, has been the subject of intense discussion among philosophers of education: Does growth imply a direction? Is growth always good—can't a plant end up misshapen, and can't a child develop to become bad? Is Dewey some type of perfectionist? Is his philosophy too vague to offer worthwhile educational guidance? Isn't it possible for a “Deweyan” student to end up without enough relevant knowledge and skills to be able to make a living in the modern world?)

Dewey's work was of central importance for the American progressive education movement in its formative years, although there was a fair degree of misunderstanding of his ideas as progressives interpreted his often extremely dense prose to be saying what they personally happened to believe. Nevertheless, Dewey became the “poster child” or the “house philosopher” of progressive education, and if he didn't make it onto many actual posters he certainly made it onto a postage stamp.

His popularity, however, sharply declined after the Soviets launched Sputnik, for Dewey and progressive education were blamed for the USA losing the race into space (illustrating the point about scapegoating made at the start of this essay). But he did not remain in disgrace for long; and for some time has been the focus of renewed interest—although it is still noticeable that commentators interpret Dewey to be holding views that mirror their own positions or interests. And interestingly, there now is slightly more interest in Dewey on the part of philosophers of education in the UK than there was in earlier years, and there is growing interest by philosophers from the Continent (see, for example, Biesta and Burbules, 2003).

To be a poster child for progressivism, however, is not to be the parent. Rather than to Dewey, that honor must go to Jean-Jacques Rousseau, and to his educational novel written in soaring prose, Emile (1762). Starting with the premise that “God makes all things good; man meddles with them and they become evil” (Rousseau, 1955, 5), Rousseau held that contemporary man has been misshapen by his education; the “crushing force” of social conventions has stifled the “Nature within him”. The remedy adopted in the novel is for the young Emile to be taken to his family estate in the country where, away from the corrupting influence of society, and under the watchful eye of his tutor, “everything should … be brought into harmony with these natural tendencies”. (This idea of education according to nature, it will be recalled, was the object of Hardie's analytic attention almost two centuries later.)

Out in the countryside, rather than having a set curriculum that he is forced to follow, Emile learns when some natural stimulus or innate interest motivates him—and under these conditions learning comes easily. He is allowed to suffer the natural consequences of his actions (if he breaks a window, he gets cold; if he takes the gardener's property, the gardener will no longer do him favors), and experiences such as these lead to the development of his moral system. Although Rousseau never intended these educational details to be taken literally as a blueprint (he saw himself as developing and illustrating the basic principles), over the ages there have been attempts to implement them, one being the famous British “free school”, A.S. Neill's Summerhill. (It is worth noting that Neill claimed not to have read Rousseau; but he was working in a milieu in which Rousseau's ideas were well-known—intellectual influence can follow a less than direct path.) Furthermore, over the ages these principles also have proven to be fertile soil for philosophers of education to till.

Even more fertile ground for comment, in recent years, has been Rousseau's proposal for the education of girls, developed in a section of the novel (Book V) that bears the name of the young woman who is destined to be Emile's soul-mate, Sophy. The puzzle has been why Rousseau—who had been so far-sighted in his discussion of Emile's education—was so hide-bound if not retrograde in his thinking about her education. One short quotation is sufficient to illustrate the problem: “If woman is made to please and to be in subjection to man, she ought to make herself pleasing in his eyes and not provoke him …her strength is in her charms” (324).

The educational principles developed by Rousseau and Dewey, and numerous educational theorists and philosophers in the interregnum, are alive and well in the twenty-first century. Of particular contemporary interest is the evolution that has occurred of the progressive idea that each student is an active learner who is pursuing his or her own individual educational path. By incorporating elements of the classical empiricist epistemology of John Locke, this progressive principle has become transformed into the extremely popular position known as constructivism, according to which each student in a classroom constructs his or her own individual body of understandings even when all in the group are given what appears to be the same stimulus or educational experience. (A consequence of this is that a classroom of thirty students will have thirty individually-constructed, and possibly different, bodies of “knowledge”, in addition to that of the teacher!) There is also a solipsistic element here, for constructivists also believe that none of us—teachers included—can directly access the bodies of understandings of anyone else; each of us is imprisoned in a world of our own making. It is an understatement to say that this poses great difficulties for the teacher. The education journals of the past two decades contain many thousands of references to discussions of this position, which elsewhere I claimed has become a type of educational “secular religion”; for reasons that are hard to discern it is particularly influential in mathematics and science education. (For a discussion of the underlying philosophical ideas in constructivism, and for an account of some of its varieties, see the essays in Phillips, ed., 2000.)

As stressed earlier, it is impossible to do justice the whole field of philosophy of education in a single encyclopedia entry. Different countries around the world—France, Germany, the Netherlands, Japan, to mention only a few—have their own intellectual traditions, and their own ways of institutionalizing philosophy of education into the academic universe, and no discussion of any of this appears in the present essay. But even in the Anglo-American world, there is such a diversity of approaches to the discipline that any author attempting to produce a synoptic account will quickly run into the borders of his or her areas of competence. Clearly this has happened in the present case.

Fortunately, in the last twenty years or so resources have become available that significantly alleviate these problems. There has been a flood of encyclopedia entries, commenting on the field as a whole or on many specific topics not well-covered in the present essay (see, as a sample, Burbules, 1994; Chambliss, 1996; Phillips, 1985; Siegel, 2007; Smeyers, 1994); two large volumes—a “Guide” (Blake, Smeyers, Smith and Standish, 2003) and a “Companion” (Curren, 2003)—have been produced by Blackwell in their well-known philosophy series; and the same publisher recently released an anthology, with 60 papers considered to be important in the field, and which also are representative of the range of work that is being done (Curren, 2007). Several encyclopedias of philosophy of education have been published or are in the works (for example, Chambliss, 1996; Siegel, 2008); there is a dictionary of key concepts in the field (Winch and Gingell, 1999), and a good textbook or two (see Noddings, 2007); in addition there are numerous volumes both of reprinted selections and of specially commissioned essays on specific topics, some of which were given short shrift in the present work (for another sampling see A. Rorty, 1998; Smeyers and Marshall, 1995; Stone, 1994); and several international journals appear to be flourishing— Educational Philosophy and Theory , Educational Theory , Journal of Philosophy of Education , Studies in Philosophy and Education , Theory and Research in Education . Thus there is enough material available to keep the interested reader busy, and to provide alternative assessments to the ones presented in this present essay.

Apple, M., 1990, Ideology and Curriculum , New York: Routledge, 2 nd . Editon.
Archambault, R., (ed.), 1965, Philosophical Analysis and Education , London: Routledge.
Biesta, G., and Burbules, N., 2003, Pragmatism and Educational Research , Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield.
Blake, N., Smeyers, P., Smith, R., and Standish, P., (eds.), 2003, The Blackwell Guide to the Philosophy of Education , Oxford: Blackwell.
Brighouse, H., 2000, Social Justice and School Choice , Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Burbules, N., 1994, “Marxism and Educational Thought”, in The International Encyclopedia of Education , (Volume 6), T. Husen and N. Postlethwaite (eds.), Oxford: Pergamon, 2 nd . Edition, pp. 3617-22.
Callan, E., 1997, Creating Citizens: Political Education and Liberal Democracy , Oxford: Clarendon Press, Oxford.
Callan, E., and White, J., 2003, “Liberalism and Communitarianism”, in The Blackwell Guide to the Philosophy of Education , N. Blake, P. Smeyers, R. Smith and P. Standish (eds.), Oxford: Blackwell, pp.95-109.
Carr, D., 2003, Making Sense of Education: An Introduction to the Philosophy and Theory of Education and Teaching , London: RoutledgeFalmer.
Chambliss, J., 1996, “History of Philosophy of Education”, in Philosophy of Education: An Encyclopedia , J. Chambliss (ed.), New York: Garland, pp.461-72.
Cleverley, J., and Phillips, D.C., 1986, Visions of Childhood , New York: Teachers College Press.
Curren, R., (ed.), 2003, A Companion to the Philosophy of Education , Oxford: Blackwell.
Curren, R., (ed.), 2007, Philosophy of Education: An Anthology , Oxford: Blackwell.
Dewey, J., 1916, Democracy and Education: An Introduction to the Philosophy of Education , New York: Macmillan.
Gellner, E., 1959, Words and Things , London: Gollancz.
Hardie, C., 1962, Truth and Fallacy in Educational Theory , New York: Teachers College Bureau of Publications.
Hirst, P., 1965, “Liberal Education and the Nature of Knowledge”, in Philosophical Analysis and Education , R. Archambault, (ed.), London: Routledge, pp. 113-138.
Hirst, P., and Peters, R., 1970, The Logic of Education , London: Routledge.
Howe, K., 2003, Closing Methodological Divides: Toward Democratic Educational Research . Dordrecht: Kluwer.
Kaminsky, J., 1996, “Philosophy of Education: Professional Organizations In”, in Philosophy of Education: An Encyclopedia , J. Chambliss, (ed.), New York: Garland, pp. 475-79.
Kohli, W., (ed.), 1995, Critical Conversations in Philosophy of Education , New York: Routledge.
Kymlicka, W., 1995, Multicultural Citizenship , Oxford: Clarendon Press, Oxford.
Levinson, M., 1999, The Demands of Liberal Education , Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Lucas, C., (ed.), 1969, What is Philosophy of Education? London: Macmillan.
Martin, J., 1985, Reclaiming a Conversation , New Haven, Conn.: Yale University Press.
Mehta, V., 1963, Fly and the Fly-Bottle : London: Weidenfeld and Nicolson.
Murphy, M., (ed.), 2006, The History and Philosophy of Education: Voices of Educational Pioneers , New Jersey: Pearson.
Noddings, N., 1984, Caring: A Feminine Approach to Ethics and Moral Education , Berkeley: University of California Press.
–––, 2007, Philosophy of Education , Boulder, CO: Westview, 2 nd . Edition.
National Research Council (NRC), 2002, Scientific Research in Education , Washington, DC: National Academies Press.
O'Connor, D., 1957, An Introduction to Philosophy of Education , London: Routledge.
Peters, R., (ed.), 1973, The Philosophy of Education , Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Phillips, D.C., 1985, “Philosophy of Education”, in International Encyclopedia of Education, T. Husen and N. Postletwaite, (eds.), pp.3859-3877.
–––, 1987, Philosophy, Science, and Social Inquiry , Oxford: Pergamon.
–––, (ed.), 2000, Constructivism in Education: Opinions and Second Opinions on Controversial Issues , (Series: 99 th . Yearbook of the National Society for the Study of Education), Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
–––, 2003, “Theories of Teaching and Learning”, in A Companion to the Philosophy of Education , R. Curren, (ed.), Oxford: Blackwell, pp. 232-245.
–––, 2008, “Empirical Educational Research: Charting Philosophical Disagreements in an Undisciplined Field”, in The Oxford Handbook of Philosophy of Education , H. Siegel (ed.), Oxford: Oxford University Press, in press.
Reich, R., 2002, Bridging Liberalism and Multiculturalism in American Education , Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Rorty, A., (ed.), 1998, Philosophers on Education: New Historical Perspectives , New York: Routledge.
Rousseau, J-J., 1955, Emile , B. Foxley, (tr.), London: Dent/Everyman.
Scheffler, I., 1960, The Language of Education , Illinois: Thomas.
Siegel, H., 1988, Educating Reason: rationality, Critical Thinking, and Education , New York: Routledge.
–––, 2007, “Philosophy of Education”, in Britannica Online Encyclopedia , [ Available online ].
–––, (ed.), 2008, The Oxford Handbook of Philosophy of Education , Oxford: Oxford University Press, in press.
Smeyers, P., 1994, “Philosophy of Education: Western European Perspectives”, in The International Encyclopedia of Education , (Volume 8), T. Husen and N. Postlethwaite, (eds.), Oxford: Pergamon, 2 nd . Edition, pp. 4456-61.
Smeyers, P., and Marshall, J., (eds.), 1995, Philosophy and Education: Accepting Wittgenstein's Challenge , Dordrecht: Kluwer.
Smith, B., and Ennis, R., (eds.), 1961, Language and Concepts in Education , Chicago: Rand McNally.
Snook, I., 1972, Indoctrination and Education , London: Routledge.
Stokes, D., 1997, Pasteur's Quadrant: Basic Science and Technological Innovation , Washington, DC: Brookings.
Stone, L., (ed.), 1994, The Education Feminism Reader , New York: Routledge.
Ulich, R., 1954, Three Thousand Years of Educational Wisdom , Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, Revised Ed.
Winch, C., and Gingell, J., 1999, Key Concepts in the Philosophy of Education , London: Routledge.
PES (Philosophy of Education Society, North America)
PESA (Philosophy of Education Society of Australasia)
PESGB (Philosophy of Education Society of Great Britain)
INPE (International Network of Philosophers of Education)
UNESCO/International Bureau of Education: Thinkers on Education

Philosophy of Education

A peer-reviewed journal of the philosophy of education society, issn 2771-9618.

About This Journal

Philosophy of Education publishes a wide range of work that addresses philosophical questions about education, with philosophical and education both construed broadly. This international peer-reviewed journal welcomes work in ethics, epistemology, politics, and aesthetics, including work in the overlapping domains of race and gender theory, pedagogy, and methodology. Philosophy of Education is committed to the rigorous and vigorous exploration of questions about curriculum, pedagogy, school policy, higher education, and the school’s relationship with the larger society.

The journal is produced in 4 issues per year, with a distinctively dialogical aspect. Articles are paired with responses, which may support, challenge, and/or extend the ideas in the original article. Philosophy of Education invites readers to consider these pairs as a set, and as a particularly philosophical mode of publication that treats ideas always as the prompt to further conversation.

Philosophy of Education has always been and will remain a fully Open Access journal. There are no fees or costs involved with publishing in the journal or accessing content.

News and Announcements

Subject List
Take a Tour
For Authors
Subscriber Services
Publications
African American Studies
African Studies
American Literature
Anthropology
Architecture Planning and Preservation
Art History
Atlantic History
Biblical Studies
British and Irish Literature
Childhood Studies
Chinese Studies
Cinema and Media Studies
Communication
Criminology
Environmental Science
Evolutionary Biology
International Law
International Relations
Islamic Studies
Jewish Studies
Latin American Studies
Latino Studies
Linguistics
Literary and Critical Theory
Medieval Studies
Military History
Political Science
Public Health
Renaissance and Reformation
Social Work
Urban Studies
Victorian Literature
Browse All Subjects

How to Subscribe

Free Trials

In This Article Expand or collapse the "in this article" section Philosophy of Education

Introduction, general overviews.

Introductory Works
Greek Philosophy
19th Century
Early 20th Century
Philosophical Contributions from Social Work and the Sciences
Middle 20th Century
Analytic Philosophy
Continental Philosophy
Philosophy and Education Research
Political Philosophy and Education
Philosophy with Children

Other Subject Areas

Forthcoming articles expand or collapse the "forthcoming articles" section.

Black Women in Academia
Girls' Education in the Developing World
History of Education in Europe
Find more forthcoming articles...
Export Citations
Share This Facebook LinkedIn Twitter

Philosophy of Education by Chad Lykins LAST REVIEWED: 15 December 2011 LAST MODIFIED: 15 December 2011 DOI: 10.1093/obo/9780199756810-0028

Philosophy of education includes the investigation of the ethical, political, social, epistemological, metaphysical, and ontological dimensions of education. Philosophy of education is certainly the oldest of the educational subfields, dating at least as far back as ancient Athens with its Sophists and their greatest critics, Socrates and Plato. The central challenge in philosophy of education is to produce insights that are relevant both to educational practice and philosophical theory. In some cases, philosophical theories are examined in light of their educational implications. In other cases, educational practices are examined in terms of their philosophical assumptions and implications. The challenge for philosophy of education is to contribute both into educational practice and philosophical theory. The pressure to balance these two demands continues to influence the professionalization of philosophy of education, its self-exile from mainstream philosophy, and its tenuous relationship with educational practice. The following bibliography serves as a portal through which readers can access some important figures and problems in philosophy of education. It focuses on Western philosophy, specifically philosophy written or translated into English. While this bibliography does not cover all work in philosophy of education, it does a good job providing interested readers and students with extensive guidance to many of the most influential thinkers and traditions in the field.

The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy ( Phillips 2008 ) and the Encyclopaedia Britannica ( Siegel 2010 ) have terrific overviews of philosophy of education. Readers looking for a broad sampling of educational “thinkers,” many of whom count as philosophers, should turn to the two volumes Palmer, et al. 2003 and Palmer, et al. 2001 . For a volume that gives overviews not just of figures but also of major concepts, readers should consult Chambliss 1996 . Though the breadth of the 228 entries may overwhelm the novice reader while leaving the expert reader yearning for more depth, it successfully conveys the diversity of the field and includes many overlooked historical sources of philosophical insight.

Chambliss, J. J., ed. 1996. Philosophy of education: An encyclopedia . Garland Reference Library of the Humanities 1671. New York: Garland.

This hefty volume contains dense but readable coverage of an incredible range of thinkers and concepts. It is best used to answer casual questions and to stimulate further inquiry rather than for definitive statements on any given issue.

Palmer, J., L. Bresler, and D. E. Cooper, eds. 2003. Fifty major thinkers on education: From Confucius to Dewey . Routledge Key Guides. London: Routledge.

The editors provide a series of entries on major “thinkers,” many of whom count as philosophers and philosophers of education. The juxtaposition next to religious figures, psychologists, and others makes for interesting reading.

Palmer, J., D. E. Cooper, and L. Bresler, eds. 2001. Fifty modern thinkers on education: From Piaget to the present day . Routledge Key Guides. London: Routledge.

See also Palmer, et al. 2003 , which contains many more entries on empirical researchers.

Phillips, D. C., ed. 2008. Philosophy of education . In The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy . Edited by Edward N. Zalta.

Phillips gives a brief overview of the recent history and current directions of philosophy of education. He also gives a rather extensive bibliography of major works.

Siegel, H. 2010. Philosophy of education . In Encyclopaedia Britannica Online .

Siegel’s introduction also includes a helpful bibliography and a useful narrative about the main problems in the field.

Users without a subscription are not able to see the full content on this page. Please subscribe or login .

Oxford Bibliographies Online is available by subscription and perpetual access to institutions. For more information or to contact an Oxford Sales Representative click here .

About Education »
Meet the Editorial Board »
Academic Achievement
Academic Audit for Universities
Academic Freedom and Tenure in the United States
Action Research in Education
Adjuncts in Higher Education in the United States
Administrator Preparation
Adolescence
Advanced Placement and International Baccalaureate Courses
Advocacy and Activism in Early Childhood
African American Racial Identity and Learning
Alaska Native Education
Alternative Certification Programs for Educators
Alternative Schools
American Indian Education
Animals in Environmental Education
Art Education
Artificial Intelligence and Learning
Assessing School Leader Effectiveness
Assessment, Behavioral
Assessment, Educational
Assessment in Early Childhood Education
Assistive Technology
Augmented Reality in Education
Beginning-Teacher Induction
Bilingual Education and Bilingualism
Black Undergraduate Women: Critical Race and Gender Perspe...
Blended Learning
Case Study in Education Research
Changing Professional and Academic Identities
Character Education
Children’s and Young Adult Literature
Children's Beliefs about Intelligence
Children's Rights in Early Childhood Education
Citizenship Education
Civic and Social Engagement of Higher Education
Classroom Learning Environments: Assessing and Investigati...
Classroom Management
Coherent Instructional Systems at the School and School Sy...
College Admissions in the United States
College Athletics in the United States
Community Relations
Comparative Education
Computer-Assisted Language Learning
Computer-Based Testing
Conceptualizing, Measuring, and Evaluating Improvement Net...
Continuous Improvement and "High Leverage" Educational Pro...
Counseling in Schools
Critical Approaches to Gender in Higher Education
Critical Perspectives on Educational Innovation and Improv...
Crossborder and Transnational Higher Education
Cross-National Research on Continuous Improvement
Cross-Sector Research on Continuous Learning and Improveme...
Cultural Diversity in Early Childhood Education
Culturally Responsive Leadership
Culturally Responsive Pedagogies
Culturally Responsive Teacher Education in the United Stat...
Curriculum Design
Data Collection in Educational Research
Data-driven Decision Making in the United States
Deaf Education
Desegregation and Integration
Design Thinking and the Learning Sciences: Theoretical, Pr...
Development, Moral
Digital Age Teacher, The
Digital Citizenship
Digital Divides
Disabilities
Distance Learning
Distributed Leadership
Doctoral Education and Training
Early Childhood Education and Care (ECEC) in Denmark
Early Childhood Education and Development in Mexico
Early Childhood Education in Aotearoa New Zealand
Early Childhood Education in Australia
Early Childhood Education in China
Early Childhood Education in Europe
Early Childhood Education in Sub-Saharan Africa
Early Childhood Education in Sweden
Early Childhood Education Pedagogy
Early Childhood Education Policy
Early Childhood Education, The Arts in
Early Childhood Mathematics
Early Childhood Science
Early Childhood Teacher Education
Early Childhood Teachers in Aotearoa New Zealand
Early Years Professionalism and Professionalization Polici...
Economics of Education
Education For Children with Autism
Education for Sustainable Development
Education Leadership, Empirical Perspectives in
Education of Native Hawaiian Students
Education Reform and School Change
Educational Statistics for Longitudinal Research
Educator Partnerships with Parents and Families with a Foc...
Emotional and Affective Issues in Environmental and Sustai...
Emotional and Behavioral Disorders
English as an International Language for Academic Publishi...
Environmental and Science Education: Overlaps and Issues
Environmental Education
Environmental Education in Brazil
Equity and Improvement: Engaging Communities in Educationa...
Equity, Ethnicity, Diversity, and Excellence in Education
Ethical Research with Young Children
Ethics and Education
Ethics of Teaching
Ethnic Studies
Evidence-Based Communication Assessment and Intervention
Family and Community Partnerships in Education
Family Day Care
Federal Government Programs and Issues
Feminization of Labor in Academia
Finance, Education
Financial Aid
Formative Assessment
Future-Focused Education
Gender and Achievement
Gender and Alternative Education
Gender, Power and Politics in the Academy
Gender-Based Violence on University Campuses
Gifted Education
Global Mindedness and Global Citizenship Education
Global University Rankings
Governance, Education
Grounded Theory
Growth of Effective Mental Health Services in Schools in t...
Higher Education and Globalization
Higher Education and the Developing World
Higher Education Faculty Characteristics and Trends in the...
Higher Education Finance
Higher Education Governance
Higher Education Graduate Outcomes and Destinations
Higher Education in Africa
Higher Education in China
Higher Education in Latin America
Higher Education in the United States, Historical Evolutio...
Higher Education, International Issues in
Higher Education Management
Higher Education Policy
Higher Education Research
Higher Education Student Assessment
High-stakes Testing
History of Early Childhood Education in the United States
History of Education in the United States
History of Technology Integration in Education
Homeschooling
Inclusion in Early Childhood: Difference, Disability, and ...
Indigenous Education in a Global Context
Indigenous Learning Environments
Indigenous Students in Higher Education in the United Stat...
Infant and Toddler Pedagogy
Inservice Teacher Education
Integrating Art across the Curriculum
Intelligence
Intensive Interventions for Children and Adolescents with ...
International Perspectives on Academic Freedom
Knowledge Development in Early Childhood
Leadership Development, Coaching and Feedback for
Leadership in Early Childhood Education
Leadership Training with an Emphasis on the United States
Learning Analytics in Higher Education
Learning Difficulties
Learning, Lifelong
Learning, Multimedia
Learning Strategies
Legal Matters and Education Law
LGBT Youth in Schools
Linguistic Diversity
Linguistically Inclusive Pedagogy
Literacy Development and Language Acquisition
Mathematics Identity
Mathematics Instruction and Interventions for Students wit...
Mathematics Teacher Education
Measurement for Improvement in Education
Measurement in Education in the United States
Meta-Analysis and Research Synthesis in Education
Methodological Approaches for Impact Evaluation in Educati...
Methodologies for Conducting Education Research
Mindfulness, Learning, and Education
Mixed Methods Research
Motherscholars
Multiliteracies in Early Childhood Education
Multiple Documents Literacy: Theory, Research, and Applica...
Multivariate Research Methodology
Museums, Education, and Curriculum
Music Education
Narrative Research in Education
Native American Studies
Nonformal and Informal Environmental Education
Note-Taking
Numeracy Education
One-to-One Technology in the K-12 Classroom
Online Education
Open Education
Organizing for Continuous Improvement in Education
Organizing Schools for the Inclusion of Students with Disa...
Outdoor Play and Learning
Outdoor Play and Learning in Early Childhood Education
Pedagogical Leadership
Pedagogy of Teacher Education, A
Performance Objectives and Measurement
Performance-based Research Assessment in Higher Education
Performance-based Research Funding
Philosophy of Education
Physical Education
Podcasts in Education
Policy Context of United States Educational Innovation and...
Politics of Education
Portable Technology Use in Special Education Programs and ...
Post-humanism and Environmental Education
Pre-Service Teacher Education
Problem Solving
Productivity and Higher Education
Professional Development
Professional Learning Communities
Program Evaluation
Programs and Services for Students with Emotional or Behav...
Psychology Learning and Teaching
Psychometric Issues in the Assessment of English Language ...
Qualitative Data Analysis Techniques
Qualitative, Quantitative, and Mixed Methods Research Samp...
Qualitative Research Design
Quantitative Research Designs in Educational Research
Queering the English Language Arts (ELA) Writing Classroom
Race and Affirmative Action in Higher Education
Reading Education
Refugee and New Immigrant Learners
Relational and Developmental Trauma and Schools
Relational Pedagogies in Early Childhood Education
Reliability in Educational Assessments
Religion in Elementary and Secondary Education in the Unit...
Researcher Development and Skills Training within the Cont...
Research-Practice Partnerships in Education within the Uni...
Response to Intervention
Restorative Practices
Risky Play in Early Childhood Education
Scale and Sustainability of Education Innovation and Impro...
Scaling Up Research-based Educational Practices
School Accreditation
School Choice
School Culture
School District Budgeting and Financial Management in the ...
School Improvement through Inclusive Education
School Reform
Schools, Private and Independent
School-Wide Positive Behavior Support
Science Education
Secondary to Postsecondary Transition Issues
Self-Regulated Learning
Self-Study of Teacher Education Practices
Service-Learning
Severe Disabilities
Single Salary Schedule
Single-sex Education
Single-Subject Research Design
Social Context of Education
Social Network Analysis
Social Science and Education Research
Social Studies Education
Sociology of Education
Standards-Based Education
Statistical Assumptions
Student Access, Equity, and Diversity in Higher Education
Student Assignment Policy
Student Engagement in Tertiary Education
Student Learning, Development, Engagement, and Motivation ...
Student Participation
Student Voice in Teacher Development
Sustainability Education in Early Childhood Education
Sustainability in Early Childhood Education
Sustainability in Higher Education
Teacher Beliefs and Epistemologies
Teacher Collaboration in School Improvement
Teacher Evaluation and Teacher Effectiveness
Teacher Training and Development
Teacher Unions and Associations
Teacher-Student Relationships
Technologies, Teaching, and Learning in Higher Education
Technology Education in Early Childhood
Technology, Educational
Technology-based Assessment
The Bologna Process
The Regulation of Standards in Higher Education
Theories of Educational Leadership
Three Conceptions of Literacy: Media, Narrative, and Gamin...
Tracking and Detracking
Traditions of Quality Improvement in Education
Transformative Learning
Transitions in Early Childhood Education
Tribally Controlled Colleges and Universities in the Unite...
Understanding the Psycho-Social Dimensions of Schools and ...
University Faculty Roles and Responsibilities in the Unite...
Using Ethnography in Educational Research
Value of Higher Education for Students and Other Stakehold...
Virtual Learning Environments
Vocational and Technical Education
Wellness and Well-Being in Education
Women's and Gender Studies
Young Children and Spirituality
Young Children's Learning Dispositions
Young Children's Working Theories
Privacy Policy
Cookie Policy
Legal Notice
Accessibility

[185.80.151.9]
185.80.151.9

Games & Quizzes
History & Society
Science & Tech
Biographies
Animals & Nature
Geography & Travel
Arts & Culture
On This Day
One Good Fact
New Articles
Lifestyles & Social Issues
Philosophy & Religion
Politics, Law & Government
World History
Health & Medicine
Browse Biographies
Birds, Reptiles & Other Vertebrates
Bugs, Mollusks & Other Invertebrates
Environment
Fossils & Geologic Time
Entertainment & Pop Culture
Sports & Recreation
Visual Arts
Demystified
Image Galleries
Infographics
Top Questions
Britannica Kids
Saving Earth
Space Next 50
Student Center
Introduction
Principal historical figures

The aims of education

Clarification of educational concepts, rights, power, and authority.

Critical thinking
Indoctrination
The individual and society
Moral education
Teaching, learning, and curriculum
Educational research
Feminist, multiculturalist, and postmodern criticisms

Why is Jean-Jacques Rousseau famous?
What are John Locke’s most famous works?
What contributions did John Locke make to epistemology?
What contributions did John Locke make to political theory?
How did John Locke influence the design of U.S. government?

Problems, issues, and tasks

Our editors will review what you’ve submitted and determine whether to revise the article.

Wrexham Glyndwr University - What is the philosophy of education?
The Basics of Philosophy - Philosophy of Education
Academia - Philosophy of Education
StateUniversity.com - Education Encyclopedia - Philosophy of Education
Kansas State University Libraries - Center for the Advancement of Digital Scholarship - Foundational Philosophies of Education
Social Science LibreTexts - What are philosophies of education?
Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy - Philosophy of Education
Table Of Contents

There are a number of basic philosophical problems and tasks that have occupied philosophers of education throughout the history of the subject.

The most basic problem of philosophy of education is that concerning aims: what are the proper aims and guiding ideals of education? What are the proper criteria for evaluating educational efforts, institutions, practices, and products? Many aims have been proposed by philosophers and other educational theorists; they include the cultivation of curiosity and the disposition to inquire; the fostering of creativity; the production of knowledge and of knowledgeable students; the enhancement of understanding; the promotion of moral thinking, feeling, and action; the enlargement of the imagination; the fostering of growth, development, and self-realization; the fulfillment of potential; the cultivation of “liberally educated” persons; the overcoming of provincialism and close-mindedness; the development of sound judgment; the cultivation of docility and obedience to authority; the fostering of autonomy; the maximization of freedom, happiness, or self-esteem; the development of care, concern, and related attitudes and dispositions; the fostering of feelings of community , social solidarity, citizenship, and civic-mindedness; the production of good citizens; the “civilizing” of students; the protection of students from the deleterious effects of civilization; the development of piety, religious faith, and spiritual fulfillment; the fostering of ideological purity; the cultivation of political awareness and action; the integration or balancing of the needs and interests of the individual student and the larger society; and the fostering of skills and dispositions constitutive of rationality or critical thinking .

All such proposed aims require careful articulation and defense, and all have been subjected to sustained criticism . Both contemporary and historical philosophers of education have devoted themselves, at least in part, to defending a particular conception of the aims of education or to criticizing the conceptions of others. The great range of aims that have been proposed makes vivid the philosopher of education’s need to appeal to other areas of philosophy, to other disciplines (e.g., psychology , anthropology, sociology, and the physical sciences), and to educational practice itself. Given that consideration of education’s proper aims is of fundamental importance for the intelligent guidance of educational activities, it is unfortunate that contemporary discussions of educational policy rarely address the matter.

A perennial conception of the nature of philosophy is that it is chiefly concerned with the clarification of concepts, such as knowledge, truth , justice , beauty, mind, meaning, and existence . One of the tasks of the philosophy of education, accordingly, has been the elucidation of key educational concepts, including the concept of education itself, as well as related concepts such as teaching, learning, schooling, child rearing, and indoctrination. Although this clarificatory task has sometimes been pursued overzealously—especially during the period of so-called ordinary language analysis in the 1960s and ’70s, when much work in the field seemed to lose sight of the basic normative issues to which these concepts were relevant—it remains the case that work in the philosophy of education, as in other areas of philosophy, must rely at least in part on conceptual clarification. Such analysis seeks not necessarily, or only, to identify the particular meanings of charged or contested concepts but also to identify alternative meanings, render ambiguities explicit, reveal hidden metaphysical , normative, or cultural assumptions, illuminate the consequences of alternative interpretations, explore the semantic connections between related concepts, and elucidate the inferential relationships obtaining among the philosophical claims and theses in which they are embedded.

There are several issues that fall under this heading. What justifies the state in compelling children to attend school—in what does its authority to mandate attendance lie? What is the nature and justification of the authority that teachers exercise over their students? Is the freedom of students rightly curtailed by the state? Is the public school system rightly entitled to the power it exercises in establishing curricula that parents might find objectionable—e.g., science curricula that mandate the teaching of human evolution but not creationism or intelligent design and literature curricula that mandate the teaching of novels dealing with sexual themes? Should parents or their children have the right to opt out of material they think is inappropriate? Should schools encourage students to be reflective and critical generally—as urged by the American philosophers Israel Scheffler and Amy Gutmann, following Socrates and the tradition he established—or should they refrain from encouraging students to subject their own ways of life to critical scrutiny, as the American political scientist William Galston has recommended?

The issue of legitimate authority has been raised recently in the United States in connection with the practice of standardized testing, which some critics believe discriminates against the children of some racial, cultural, religious, or ethnic groups (because the test questions rely, implicitly or explicitly, on various culturally specific cues or assumptions that members of some groups may not understand or accept). In such controversial cases, what power should members of allegedly disadvantaged groups have to protect their children from discrimination or injustice? The answer to this question, as to the others raised above, may depend in part on the status of the particular school as public (state-supported) or private. But it can also be asked whether private schools should enjoy more authority with respect to curricular matters than public schools do, particularly in cases where they receive state subsidies of one form or another.

These questions are primarily matters of ethics and political philosophy, but they also require attention to metaphysics (e.g., how are “groups” to be individuated and understood?), philosophy of science (e.g., is “intelligent design” a genuinely scientific theory?), psychology (e.g., do IQ tests discriminate against members of certain minority groups?), and other areas of philosophy, social science , and law.

Tools and Resources
Customer Services
Original Language Spotlight
Alternative and Non-formal Education
Cognition, Emotion, and Learning
Curriculum and Pedagogy
Education and Society
Education, Change, and Development
Education, Cultures, and Ethnicities
Education, Gender, and Sexualities
Education, Health, and Social Services
Educational Administration and Leadership
Educational History
Educational Politics and Policy
Educational Purposes and Ideals
Educational Systems
Educational Theories and Philosophies
Globalization, Economics, and Education
Languages and Literacies
Professional Learning and Development
Research and Assessment Methods
Technology and Education
Share This Facebook LinkedIn Twitter

The Oxford Encyclopedia of Philosophy of Education

The Oxford Encyclopedia of Philosophy of Education aims to engage a broad array of scholars from around the world in order to reflect philosophically on a range of contemporary issues in education. The editor is particularly interested in diversifying the field of philosophy of education by including non-Western voices and perspectives, both in terms of uncovering alternative points of view and seeking out work from people outside of dominant Western contexts. The Encyclopedia comprises ten sections, including philosophical traditions and explorations in education; non-Western, indigenous, and post/decolonial philosophies of education; race, gender, sexuality, and marginalized perspectives; globalization, democracy, and citizenship education; and many other areas.

Editor in Chief

Kathy Hytten, University of North Carolina at Greensboro

Associate Editors

Nuraan Davids, Stellenbosch University

Paula Echeverri Sucerquia, Universidad de Antioquia

Liz Jackson, The University of Hong Kong

Tone Kvernbekk, University of Oslo

Printed from Oxford Research Encyclopedias, Education. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a single article for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy and Legal Notice).

date: 15 June 2024

Cookie Policy
Privacy Policy
Legal Notice
Accessibility
[185.80.151.9]
185.80.151.9

Grades 6-12
School Leaders

100 Last-Day-of-School Activities Your Students Will Love!

40 Philosophy of Education Examples, Plus How To Write Your Own

Learn how to define and share your teaching philosophy.

Short Philosophy of Education Examples Feature

These days, it’s become common for educators to be asked what their personal teaching philosophy is. Whether it’s for a job interview, a college class, or to share with your principal, crafting a philosophy of education can seem like a daunting task. So set aside some time to consider your own teaching philosophy (we’ll walk you through it), and be sure to look at philosophy of education examples from others (we’ve got those too!).

What is a philosophy of education?

Before we dive into the examples, it’s important to understand the purpose of a philosophy of education. This statement will provide an explanation of your teaching values and beliefs. Your teaching philosophy is ultimately a combination of the methods you studied in college and any professional experiences you’ve learned from since. It incorporates your own experiences (negative or positive) in education.

Many teachers have two versions of their teaching philosophy: a long form (a page or so of text) and a short form. The longer form is useful for job application cover letters or to include as part of your teacher portfolio. The short form distills the longer philosophy into a couple of succinct sentences that you can use to answer teacher job interview questions or even share with parents.

What’s the best teaching philosophy?

Here’s one key thing to remember: There’s no one right answer to “What’s your teaching philosophy?” Every teacher’s will be a little bit different, depending on their own teaching style, experiences, and expectations. And many teachers find that their philosophies change over time, as they learn and grow in their careers.

When someone asks for your philosophy of education, what they really want to know is that you’ve given thought to how you prepare lessons and interact with students in and out of the classroom. They’re interested in finding out what you expect from your students and from yourself, and how you’ll apply those expectations. And they want to hear examples of how you put your teaching philosophy into action.

What’s included in strong teaching philosophy examples?

Depending on who you ask, a philosophy of education statement can include a variety of values, beliefs, and information. As you build your own teaching philosophy statement, consider these aspects, and write down your answers to the questions.

Purpose of Education (Core Beliefs)

What do you believe is the purpose of teaching and learning? Why does education matter to today’s children? How will time spent in your classroom help prepare them for the future?

Use your answers to draft the opening statement of your philosophy of education, like these:

Education isn’t just about what students learn, but about learning how to learn.
A good education prepares students to be productive and empathetic members of society.
Teachers help students embrace new information and new ways of seeing the world around them.
A strong education with a focus on fundamentals ensures students can take on any challenges that come their way.
I believe education is key to empowering today’s youth, so they’ll feel confident in their future careers, relationships, and duties as members of their community.
Well-educated students are open-minded, welcoming the opinions of others and knowing how to evaluate information critically and carefully.

Teaching Style and Practices

Do you believe in student-led learning, or do you like to use the Socratic method instead? Is your classroom a place for quiet concentration or sociable collaboration? Do you focus on play-based learning, hands-on practice, debate and discussion, problem-solving, or project-based learning? All teachers use a mix of teaching practices and styles, of course, but there are some you’re likely more comfortable with than others. Possible examples:

I frequently use project-based learning in my classrooms because I believe it helps make learning more relevant to my students. When students work together to address real-world problems, they use their [subject] knowledge and skills and develop communication and critical thinking abilities too.
Play-based learning is a big part of my teaching philosophy. Kids who learn through play have more authentic experiences, exploring and discovering the world naturally in ways that make the process more engaging and likely to make a lasting impact.
In my classroom, technology is key. I believe in teaching students how to use today’s technology in responsible ways, embracing new possibilities and using technology as a tool, not a crutch.
While I believe in trying new teaching methods, I also find that traditional learning activities can still be effective. My teaching is mainly a mix of lecture, Socratic seminar, and small-group discussions.
I’m a big believer in formative assessment , taking every opportunity to measure my students’ understanding and progress. I use tools like exit tickets and Kahoot! quizzes, and watch my students closely to see if they’re engaged and on track.
Group work and discussions play a major role in my instructional style. Students who learn to work cooperatively at a young age are better equipped to succeed in school, in their future careers, and in their communities.

Students and Learning Styles

Why is it important to recognize all learning styles? How do you accommodate different learning styles in your classroom? What are your beliefs on diversity, equity, and inclusion? How do you ensure every student in your classroom receives the same opportunities to learn? How do you expect students to behave, and how do you measure success?

Sample teaching philosophy statements about students might sound like this:

Every student has their own unique talents, skills, challenges, and background. By getting to know my students as individuals, I can help them find the learning styles that work best for them, now and throughout their education.
I find that motivated students learn best. They’re more engaged in the classroom and more diligent when working alone. I work to motivate students by making learning relevant, meaningful, and enjoyable.
We must give every student equal opportunities to learn and grow. Not all students have the same support outside the classroom. So as a teacher, I try to help bridge gaps when I see them and give struggling students a chance to succeed academically.
I believe every student has their own story and deserves a chance to create and share it. I encourage my students to approach learning as individuals, and I know I’m succeeding when they show a real interest in showing up and learning more every day.
In my classroom, students take responsibility for their own success. I help them craft their own learning goals, then encourage them to evaluate their progress honestly and ask for help when they need it.
To me, the best classrooms are those that are the most diverse. Students learn to recognize and respect each other’s differences, celebrating what each brings to the community. They also have the opportunity to find common ground, sometimes in ways that surprise them.

How do I write my philosophy of education?

Think back to any essay you’ve ever written and follow a similar format. Write in the present tense; your philosophy isn’t aspirational, it’s something you already live and follow. This is true even if you’re applying for your first teaching job. Your philosophy is informed by your student teaching, internships, and other teaching experiences.

Lead with your core beliefs about teaching and learning. These beliefs should be reflected throughout the rest of your teaching philosophy statement.

Then, explain your teaching style and practices, being sure to include concrete examples of how you put those practices into action. Transition into your beliefs about students and learning styles, with more examples. Explain why you believe in these teaching and learning styles, and how you’ve seen them work in your experiences.

A long-form philosophy of education statement usually takes a few paragraphs (not generally more than a page or two). From that long-form philosophy, highlight a few key statements and phrases and use them to sum up your teaching philosophy in a couple of well-crafted sentences for your short-form teaching philosophy.

Still feeling overwhelmed? Try answering these three key questions:

Why do you teach?
What are your favorite, tried-and-true methods for teaching and learning?
How do you help students of all abilities and backgrounds learn?

If you can answer those three questions, you can write your teaching philosophy!

Short Philosophy of Education Examples

We asked real educators in the We Are Teachers HELPLINE group on Facebook to share their teaching philosophy examples in a few sentences . Here’s what they had to say:

I am always trying to turn my students into self-sufficient learners who use their resources to figure it out instead of resorting to just asking someone for the answers. —Amy J.

My philosophy is that all students can learn. Good educators meet all students’ differentiated learning needs to help all students meet their maximum learning potential. —Lisa B.

I believe that all students are unique and need a teacher that caters to their individual needs in a safe and stimulating environment. I want to create a classroom where students can flourish and explore to reach their full potential. My goal is also to create a warm, loving environment, so students feel safe to take risks and express themselves. —Valerie T.

In my classroom, I like to focus on the student-teacher relationships/one-on-one interactions. Flexibility is a must, and I’ve learned that you do the best you can with the students you have for however long you have them in your class. —Elizabeth Y

I want to prepare my students to be able to get along without me and take ownership of their learning. I have implemented a growth mindset. —Kirk H.

My teaching philosophy is centered around seeing the whole student and allowing the student to use their whole self to direct their own learning. As a secondary teacher, I also believe strongly in exposing all students to the same core content of my subject so that they have equal opportunities for careers and other experiences dependent upon that content in the future. —Jacky B.

All children learn best when learning is hands-on. This works for the high students and the low students too, even the ones in between. I teach by creating experiences, not giving information. —Jessica R.

As teachers, it’s our job to foster creativity. In order to do that, it’s important for me to embrace the mistakes of my students, create a learning environment that allows them to feel comfortable enough to take chances, and try new methods. —Chelsie L.

I believe that every child can learn and deserves the best, well-trained teacher possible who has high expectations for them. I differentiate all my lessons and include all learning modalities. —Amy S.

All students can learn and want to learn. It is my job to meet them where they are and move them forward. —Holli A.

I believe learning comes from making sense of chaos. My job is to design work that will allow students to process, explore, and discuss concepts to own the learning. I need to be part of the process to guide and challenge perceptions. —Shelly G.

I want my students to know that they are valued members of our classroom community, and I want to teach each of them what they need to continue to grow in my classroom. —Doreen G.

Teach to every child’s passion and encourage a joy for and love of education and school. —Iris B.

I believe in creating a classroom culture of learning through mistakes and overcoming obstacles through teamwork. —Jenn B.

It’s our job to introduce our kids to many, many different things and help them find what they excel in and what they don’t. Then nurture their excellence and help them figure out how to compensate for their problem areas. That way, they will become happy, successful adults. —Haley T.

Longer Philosophy of Education Examples

Looking for longer teaching philosophy examples? Check out these selections from experienced teachers of all ages and grades.

Learning To Wear the Big Shoes: One Step at a Time
Nellie Edge: My Kindergarten Teaching Philosophy
Faculty Focus: My Philosophy of Teaching
Robinson Elementary School: My Teaching Philosophy
David Orace Kelly: Philosophy of Education
Explorations in Higher Education: My Teaching Philosophy Statement
University of Washington Medical School Faculty Teaching Philosophy Statements

Do you have any philosophy of education examples? Share them in the We Are Teachers HELPLINE Group on Facebook!

Want more articles and tips like this be sure to subscribe to our newsletters to find out when they’re posted..

Many educators are being asked to define their teaching philosophy. Find real philosophy of education examples and tips for building yours.

Collage of teaching portfolio examples, including traditional digital portfolios

15 Inspiring Teaching Portfolio Examples (Plus How To Create Your Own)

Show them what you've got. Continue Reading

school Campus Bookshelves
menu_book Bookshelves
perm_media Learning Objects
login Login
how_to_reg Request Instructor Account
hub Instructor Commons

Margin Size

Download Page (PDF)
Download Full Book (PDF)
Periodic Table
Physics Constants
Scientific Calculator
Reference & Cite
Tools expand_more
Readability

selected template will load here

This action is not available.

3.1: What are philosophies of education?

Last updated
Save as PDF
Page ID 172665

Jennfer Kidd, Jamie Kaufman, Peter Baker, Patrick O'Shea, Dwight Allen, & Old Dominion U students

Jennfer Kidd, Jamie Kaufman, Peter Baker, Patrick O'Shea, Dwight Allen, & Old Dominion U students
Old Dominion University

\( \newcommand{\vecs}[1]{\overset { \scriptstyle \rightharpoonup} {\mathbf{#1}} } \)

\( \newcommand{\vecd}[1]{\overset{-\!-\!\rightharpoonup}{\vphantom{a}\smash {#1}}} \)

\( \newcommand{\id}{\mathrm{id}}\) \( \newcommand{\Span}{\mathrm{span}}\)

( \newcommand{\kernel}{\mathrm{null}\,}\) \( \newcommand{\range}{\mathrm{range}\,}\)

\( \newcommand{\RealPart}{\mathrm{Re}}\) \( \newcommand{\ImaginaryPart}{\mathrm{Im}}\)

\( \newcommand{\Argument}{\mathrm{Arg}}\) \( \newcommand{\norm}[1]{\| #1 \|}\)

\( \newcommand{\inner}[2]{\langle #1, #2 \rangle}\)

\( \newcommand{\Span}{\mathrm{span}}\)

\( \newcommand{\id}{\mathrm{id}}\)

\( \newcommand{\kernel}{\mathrm{null}\,}\)

\( \newcommand{\range}{\mathrm{range}\,}\)

\( \newcommand{\RealPart}{\mathrm{Re}}\)

\( \newcommand{\ImaginaryPart}{\mathrm{Im}}\)

\( \newcommand{\Argument}{\mathrm{Arg}}\)

\( \newcommand{\norm}[1]{\| #1 \|}\)

\( \newcommand{\Span}{\mathrm{span}}\) \( \newcommand{\AA}{\unicode[.8,0]{x212B}}\)

\( \newcommand{\vectorA}[1]{\vec{#1}} % arrow\)

\( \newcommand{\vectorAt}[1]{\vec{\text{#1}}} % arrow\)

\( \newcommand{\vectorB}[1]{\overset { \scriptstyle \rightharpoonup} {\mathbf{#1}} } \)

\( \newcommand{\vectorC}[1]{\textbf{#1}} \)

\( \newcommand{\vectorD}[1]{\overrightarrow{#1}} \)

\( \newcommand{\vectorDt}[1]{\overrightarrow{\text{#1}}} \)

\( \newcommand{\vectE}[1]{\overset{-\!-\!\rightharpoonup}{\vphantom{a}\smash{\mathbf {#1}}}} \)

by Dionne Nichols

Introduction

What makes a teacher? Teaching is like a salad. Think about it. If you were to attend a party for any given holiday, the number of and variations to each salad recipe that might be present for consumption could outnumber those present at the party. There are so many different ways to teach, varying circumstances to take into account, and philosophies to apply to each classroom. In imparting knowledge to our students, it is inevitable that we must take into account our own personal beliefs and values, our pedagogies (methods of teaching), and see what larger philosophies of education align with those beliefs, values and pedagogies.

An analogy (such as the analogy of the salad in the paragraph above) is one of a teacher's most useful tools. It helps the instructor relate a difficult concept to something the students will already have the infrastructure for, thus enabling the students to cement the ideas in their mind.

What is an educational philosophy?

What, exactly, are education philosophies? According to Thelma Roberson (2000), most prospective teachers confuse their beliefs with the ideas of teaching (p. 6). Education philosophies, then, are not what you want to do in class to aid learning, but why you do them and how they work. For example, Roberson’s students state they “want to use cooperative learning techniques” in their classroom. The question posed is, why? “[I]s cooperative learning a true philosophy or is it something you do in the classroom because of your belief about the way children learn?” (Roberson, 2000, p. 6). Philosophies need to translate ideas into action – if you want to use certain techniques, then you need to understand how they are effective in the classroom to create that portion of your education philosophy. It helps to have an overview of the various schools out there.

Philosophies of Education have traveled down a tree of branches. The first four support branches of philosophy are the Idealist school, the Realist school, the Pragmatist school, and the Existential schools of thought (Ornstein, 2003, p. 99). It might help to look at the tree and its individual branches rather than read about them...

Idealism - focuses on a subject-matter curriculum emphasizing the great ideas of the culture. You must ponder ideas to make them whole (Ornstein, 2003, p. 99).
Perennialism - Focuses on human concerns that have caused concern for centuries, revealed through 'great works' (Ornstein, 2003, p. 110)
Essentialism - Rooted partially in Idealism, as well - Emphasizes skills and subjects that demonstrate the cultural heritage and contribute to society (Ornstein, 2003, p. 110)
Progressivism - Instruction features problem solving and group activities - The instructor acts as a facilitator as opposed to a leader (Ornstein, 2003, p. 110)
Social Reconstructionism - Instruction that focuses on significant social and economic problems in an effort to solve them (Ornstein, 2003, pg.110)
Existentialism - Classroom dialogue stimulates awareness - each person creates an awareness gleaned from discussion and encourages deep personal reflection on his or her convictions (Ornstein, 2003, p. 108).

Perennialism

Perennialists are instructors who feel that the knowledge that has been passed through the ages should be continued as the basis of the curriculum, like the classic works of Plato and Einstein. Perennialists base their teachings on reason, logic, and analytical thought. Only information that stood the test of time is relevant. They do not illicit student input. The classes most likely to be considered under this approach would be history, science, math, and religion classes (Educational Philosophies in the Classroom, pg.1).

The instructors whose teaching philosophies are based on documented facts and tangible truths are normally those who would be in the math and science departments. These teachers do not feel that religion and the supernatural should be a part of the thinking process. The idea of uncertainty and the unknown is considered illogical (Educational Philosophies in the Classroom, pg.1).

Behaviorism

Behaviorists believe in rewards and punishments as an approach to controlling the teaching environment due to their belief in the intrinsic nature of humans to react to internal or external stimuli. This teacher-centered system ultimately allows the students to be controlled by the educator, who makes the environment pleasant or unpleasant depending on the students' behavior (Foundations of Education, pg.1).

Essentialism

Essentialists believe that there is a universal pool of knowledge needed by all students. The fundamentals of teaching are the basis of the curriculum: math, science, history, foreign language, and English. Vocational classes are not seen as a necessary part of educational training. Classrooms are formal, teacher-centered, and students are passive learners. Evaluations are predominately through testing, and there are few, if any, projects or portfolios. These instructors easily accept the No Child Left-Behind Act because test scores are the main form of evaluation (Foundations of Education, pg. 1).

Progressivism

This is a student-centered form of instruction where students follow the scientific method of questioning and searching for the answer. Evaluations include projects and portfolios. Current events are used to keep students interested in the required subject matter. Students are active learners as opposed to passive learners. The teacher is a facilitator rather than the center of the educational process. Student input is encouraged, and students are asked to find their interpretation of the answer (Educational Philosophies in the classroom, pg.1).

Reconstructionism

This student-centered philosophy strives to instill a desire to make the world a better place. It places a focus on controversial world issues and uses current events as a springboard for the thinking process. These students are taught the importance of working together to bring about change. These teachers incorporate what is happening in the world with what they are learning in the classroom (Educational Philosophies in the Classroom, pg.1).

Constructivism

Active participation is the key to this teaching style. Students are free to explore their own ideas and share concepts with one another in nontraditional ways. “Hands on activity […] is the most effective way of learning and is considered true learning” (Educational Philosophies in the Classroom, pg.1).

Humanism/ Existentialism

Also a student-centered philosophy, this educational method is based on the idea that the students should be presented with choices about the learning process. The student is engaged in all aspects of learning and works together with the teacher and her peers to develop a curriculum and evaluation system that allows for individual interests and abilities (Educational philosophies in the Classroom, pg.1).

Your philosophy of education is what you believe about education and the way children learn.” - Roberson pg 4

In addition, the ‘constructivist’ school of philosophy, rooted in the Pragmatic pedagogy and branched off from the 'Social Reconstructivist' school, has gained much popularity. Around the turn of the century (early 1990s), many teachers felt the rote memorization and mindless routine that was common then was ineffective, and began to look for alternate ways to reach their students (Ornstein, 2003, p. 111). Through the constructivist approach, "students “construct” knowledge through an interaction between what they already think and know and with new ideas and experiences” (Roberson, 2000, p. 8). This is an active learning process that leads to deeper understanding of the concepts presented in class, and is based on the abilities and readiness of the children rather than set curriculum guidelines (Ornstein, 2003, p. 112). Constructivism "emphasizes socially interactive and process-oriented 'hands on' learning in which students work collaboratively to expand and revise their knowledge base" (Ornstein, 2003, p. 112). Essentially, knowledge which is shaped by experience is reconstructed, or altered, to assist the student in understanding new concepts (Ornstein, 2003, p. 112). You, as the teacher, help the students build the scaffolding they need to maintain the information even after the test is taken and graded.

Four Philosophies in Assessment

Once you know how you want to lead your classroom, it is important to consider how to assess your students' progress. And when we think of school, we automatically consider the threesome subjects, Reading, Writing, and ‘Rithmatic. In all aspects of learning, however, the ability to communicate comes to the forefront. Communication is used in class discussion as well as unit test short answers. Writing is present in almost all subjects in some form, and writing translates to communication. Richard Fulkerson (2000), in his article “Four Philosophies of Composition,” questions whether “a […] set of four philosophies of composition might exist, each one stressing a different element in the communicative transaction” (p. 3). Fulkerson’s schools of communicative philosophy fall into the following categories:

Expressionism: a way of writing that demonstrates the students’ thoughts and can be lead by “non-directive teachers, some of whom insist that one neither can nor should evaluate writing” or more hands-on teachers who “design classroom activities to maximize student self-discovery” (p. 5). This school of thought emphasizes the student.
Rhetorical: this school states that good writing is adapted to achieve a specific reaction from the audience (p. 6). This is focused on the connection between goal and process in completing assignments, and it emphasizes the audience.
Mimesis: states that “a clear connection exists between good writing and good thinking” and focuses on logic and reason as exemplified in the completion of assignments (p. 5). This school emphasizes a well-rounded student in that, research, prior knowledge, and the ability to recognize both sides of an argument are necessary for success (p. 6).
Formalism: this school focuses primarily on the form of the assignment – it disregards content to the extent that poor grammar can distract the audience from absorbing the content, and therefore, the work is judged “primarily by whether it shows certain internal [mistakes]” (p. 4).

While most teachers fall primarily into one school of composition pedagogy, Fulkerson (2000) points out that it is necessary to hold on to them all when he states “they are not mutually exclusive” (p. 6). The trick is to learn when each is applicable and to what extent it should be employed.

Hooked on Phonics?

So, you know how you want to lead your class, and you have an idea as to which kind of 'grader' you are. What next? Another area where teachers have struggled is simply in helping their students learn to or improve their reading. How do we teach reading? The two battling schools of thought are between those who support Whole Language, and those who support Phonics. “The disputes have been dubbed the Reading Wars, and the participants call them ‘vicious’” (Collins, 1997, n.p.). Several states have even intervened and enacted laws mandating one or the other.

But what are they? Just as their names state, the difference is in how the words are read. Phonics was taught primarily in the 1970s (Collins, 1997, n.p.) and study the individual components of each word, called ‘phonemes,’ which are the “smallest meaningful sounds in a language” (Collins, 1997, n.p.). “Cat, for example, has three: “kuh-aa-tuh” (Collins, 1997, n.p.). A reader needs to understand how the words are broken up and that each letter has its own sound in order to read (Collins, 1997, n.p.). Phonic teaching focuses on code learning. Once the students understand the ‘code,’ and how the words phonemes are put together, they are supposed to be able to understand the entire word.

Whole language advocates disagree with the process of breaking each word down. They feel readers cannot focus on every letter in a word, or every word in a text (Collins, 1997, n.p.) and made their opinions known during the 1980s (Collins, 1997, n.p.). If they did, “and if they tried to translate what they saw into sounds, reading would be much too cumbersome” (Collins, 1997, n.p.). Instead, whole language teachers instruct their students in ‘skipping strategies’ – ways of guessing which word comes next to fill in any blanks (Collins, 1997, n.p.). Overall, reading is considered an organic process by which the students learn phonics “only when a question about phonics comes up in the course of reading” (Collins, 1997, n.p.). Whole language focuses on the meaning behind the words.

Which is better?

Just as in many other walks of life, statistics and studies show that one philosophy of teaching will prevail over another. The National Assessment of Educational Progress, as stated in J. Collin’s article (1997), claims that “from 1971 to 1980 there was a steady improvement in the reading comprehension of nine-year-olds. However, during the 1980s…the scores did not improve and rather declined” (n.p.).

The 1990s brought the topic full circle. It was then that Marilyn Adams, a cognitive psychologist, wrote a book describing the best methods to teach learning. “Programs that combined systematic phonics instruction with meaning emphasis seemed to work best of all” (Collins, 1997, n.p.). The key to reading is that words need to be recognized so the brain can interpret the meaning behind it (Collins, 1997, n.p.). Thus, putting the two methods together was necessary for correct comprehension of the concepts presented.

What else do I need to know?

We’ve discussed the accepted definition of pedagogy, varying schools of thought for assessment, and the difference between reading philosophies. Your salad components are increasing by number exponentially. But what toppings to you add to your thought salad? What else do you need to consider when you are setting up your classroom, your teaching styles, and your lessons?

Teaching is the hardest job you can have. You are in a position to touch hundreds of lives over the course of a career, and yet, how do you succeed? The fact remains that “when a teacher and his/her students face each other in the classroom they must truly work with each other” (Cadenas, 1999, n.p.). How else can you ensure that the students are learning what you are teaching?

The first thing to keep in mind is your own knowledge basis. Cadenas (1999) recommends that you “renew and refresh your knowledge of the subject matter” (n.p.) to stay on top of changes and help you incorporate them in to your lessons. Our world changes so rapidly that to stay on top of technology, your field of expertise, or even other areas that can be integrated into your subject matter, it is necessary to take a class or attend a seminar every once in a while (Cadenas, 1999, n.p.).

Next, “prepare interesting, colorful, captivating lesson plans and deliver then with gusto” (Cadenas, 1999, n.p.). An entertaining teacher will help cement information into a student’s memory with much more ease than one who is monotone or inactive (Cadenas, 1999, n.p.). The more entertaining you are, the deeper a connection you will make with your students, as well.

In addition to the captivating lesson, make sure “it [is] a number one priority to ensure that your student can follow the lesson” (Cadenas, 1999, n.p.). This will assist all your students in grasping the information you are placing before them in class, and will help you reach students of all learning styles (Cadenas, 1999, n.p.). You don’t want to end up teaching only to the auditory learners and leaving the visual learners to fend for themselves!

Last, “help your students to put their learning to use immediately” (Cadenas, 1999, n.p.). Show them how the lessons you are teaching are applicable to them so they feel like school is worth an investment of time and energy (Cadenas, 1999, n.p.). If nothing else, have them help each other out in class to reinforce the lesson!

[You] may spend as much as 60 hours a week creating lesson plans, teaching, advising students, grading, supervising extracurricular activities and meeting with colleagues and parents” Valerie Marchant – Time

You are ready to graze at a Fourth of July picnic. You walk over to the table, and you see an array of salads ready for you to dive in to them. How do you pick which ones you want to sample now or save for later? How do you narrow the choices down?

Educational philosophies are as abundant as salads at any holiday spread. And even though the difference between one potato salad and the one next to it is an addition of mustard, the two are by no means exactly alike. Your classes will be just as diverse. You will have students from all economic classes, with differing levels of English language ability, and all bringing various and beautiful experiences to your class. How do you reach each individual?

Knowing who you are as a teacher before you enter the classroom will help significantly. Teaching is so much more than just the content. Teaching is a learning curve on philosophy that will never be finished. Just as your classroom will change every year, continue to alter your philosophies. See what works for you and your students on a collaborative level. In the words of J. W. Apps, “a working philosophy is never completely developed the ultimate working philosophy never reached. We’re always moving toward, hopefully, a more complete, and thus more useful, working philosophy.” (The Educational Philosophies of Training and Development Professors, Leaders, and Practitioners, pg. 1)

Cadenas, H. G. (1999). Revitalize your teaching—four key elements for success. Contemporary Education , 70 (2), 5-7. Retrieved on January 28, 2008, from Wilsonweb.com website: http://vnweb.hwwilsonweb.com.proxy.lib.odu.edu/hww/jumpstart.jhtml?recid=0bc05f7a67b1790e1e9c442f93fe94fd3dd814f5b54d3854a715b6e9cc14f3538d830ddf5e8d15a6&fmt=H

Chef Larry's fall salad with fruit and roasted nut confetti walnut vinaigrette (n.d.). County Television Network . Retrieved on February 2, 2008, from USASearch.gov website: usasearch.gov/search?v%3aproject=firstgov-images&v%3afile=viv_896%4031%3ahDAOGw&v%3aframe=viewimage&v%3astate=root%7croot-20-20%7c0&id=Ndoc22&rpaid=&

Collins, J. (1997, October 27). How Johnny should read. Time . Retrieved on January 28, 2008, from Time.com website: www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,987253-1,00.html

Fulkerson, R. (2000). Four philosophies of composition. In E. Corbett, N. Myers and G. Tate (Eds.), The writing teacher’s sourcebook (4th ed.) (pp. 3–8). New York: Oxford University Press.

Marchant, V. (2000, May 29). Why not teach next? Time . Retrieved on January 28, 2008, from Time.com website: www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,997031-1,00.html

Ornstein, A. and Daniel Levine. (2003). Foundations of education (8th ed.). Boston: Houghton Mifflin Company.

Pedagogy. (n.d.). Wordnet 3.0 . Retrieved February 3, 2008, from Dictionary.com website: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/pedagogy

Roberson, T. (2000 September 29). Philosophy of philosophy: making the connection between philosophy and pedagogy for preservice teachers (Paper presented at Meeting for the Society for Philosophy and History of Education, Biloxi, MS 2000).

teach. (n.d.). Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.1). Retrieved February 3, 2008, from Dictionary.com website: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/teach

Ganly, S. Educational philosophies in the classroom . Retrieved February 2, 2008, from Associated Content website: http://www.associatedcontent.com

This page has been edited and revised by Alice Hale (Chabot College) using Libretexts remixing tool.

Want to create or adapt books like this? Learn more about how Pressbooks supports open publishing practices.

4 Chapter 4: Foundational Philosophies of Education

A philosophy is often defined as the foundation upon which knowledge is based. However, when you break apart the actual word, a much different meaning emerges. Derived from the Greek “philos,” which means love , and “sophos,” which means wisdom , the actual meaning of the word philosophy is love of wisdom (Johnson et. al., 2011).

In this chapter, we will explore how traditional philosophies have evolved over time by briefly looking at three key branches of philosophy. Then, the schools of philosophy and their influence on education will be presented. Finally, you will hear from educators in the field and see how they put their “philosophies” of education into practice.

Section I: Schools of Philosophy

4.1 Essential Questions

At the end of this section, the following essential questions will be answered:

What are the four   main schools of philosophy?
Who were the   key philosophers within each   school of   philosophy?
What are the key implications of   each school of philosophy  on education   today?

There are four broad schools of thought that reflect the key philosophies of education that we know today. These schools of thought are: Idealism, Realism, Pragmatism, and Existentialism. It is important to note that idealism and realism, otherwise known as general or world philosophies, have their roots in the work of the ancient Greek philosophers: Plato and Aristotle. Whereas pragmatism and existentialism are much more contemporary schools of thought.

It is important to study each school of thought because they shape the way we approach education today. Specifically, each school of thought directly impacts how curriculum is developed, implemented, and assessed.

Idealism is a school of philosophy that emphasizes that “ideas or concepts are the essence of all that is worth knowing” (Johnson et. al., 2011, p. 87). In other words, the only true reality is that of ideas. Based on the writings of Plato, this school of philosophy encourages conscious reasoning in the mind. Furthermore, idealists look for, and value, universal or absolute truths and ideas. Consequently, idealists believe that ideas should remain constant throughout the centuries.

Key Philosophers

Plato (ca. 427 –   ca. 347 BCE):

4.2 A Closer Look

How does the Allegory of the Cave give us insight into Plato’s conception of reality?
What are some other examples of “cave-like” thinking?
Do you agree with Plato’s premise? Why or why not?

Socrates (ca. 470 – ca. 399 BCE):

4.3 A Closer Look

In what ways does the Socratic Method actively engage students in the learning process?
Do you think this method improves students understanding?
How does this method promote higher-order thinking?
Elementary Example: Socratic Seminar Strategies for the Second Grade Classroom
Secondary Example: Scaffolding Discussion Skills with a Socratic Circle

Kant (1724 – 1804):

Educational Implications of Idealism

When translated to the classroom, teachers with an Idealist school of though would emphasize being role models of these absolute truths, ideas, and values. Curriculum would focus on broad ideas, particularly those contained in great works of literature and/or scriptures. Teaching methods used within idealism include: lecture, discussion, and Socratic dialogue. Essential to these teaching methods is posing questions that generate thoughts and spark connections.

Paul (n/d) suggests the following six types of Socratic questions:

How does this relate to our discussion?

What would be an example?
What is another way to look at it?
What are the consequences of that assumption?
What was the point of this question?

Realism is a school of   philosophy with origins in the work of Aristotle. This philosophy emphasizes that “reality, knowledge, and value exist independent of the human mind” (Johnson, 2011, p. 89). Realists argue for the use of the senses and scientific investigation in order to discover truth. The application of the scientific method also allows individuals to classify things into different groups based on their essential differences.

Aristotle (384 –   322 BCE):

4.4 A Closer Look

Scientific Method Clip

Locke (1632 – 1704):

John Locke believed in the tabula rasa, or blank tablet, view of the mind. According to this view, a child’s mind is a blank slate when they are born. All the sensory experiences they have after birth fill up the slate through the impressions that are made upon the mind.

4.5 A Closer Look

Do you agree with Locke’s claim that “at birth our minds are like a sheet of white paper?” Why or why not?
How is this idea more similar to “nature” vs. “nurture?”

Educational Implications of Realism

Within a realist educational philosophy, the curricular focus is on scientific research and development as Realists’ consider education a matter of reality rather than speculation. The teacher role is to teach students about the world they live in. Realists view the subject expert as the source and authority for determining the curriculum.

Outcomes of this thinking in classrooms today include the appearance of standardized tests, serialized textbooks, and specialized curriculum (Johnson et. al., 2011). Teaching methods used in realism include:

Critical thinking
Observation
Experimentation

Pragmatism is “a process  philosophy  that stresses evolving and  change rather than being” (Johnson et. al., 2011, p. 91). In other words, pragmatists believe that reality is constantly changing so we learn best through experience.

According to pragmatists, the learner is constantly conversing and being changed by the environment with whom he or she is interacting. There is “no absolute and unchanging truth, but rather, truth is what works” (Cohen, 1999, p.1). Based on what is learned at any point and time, the learner or the world in which he or she is interacting can be changed.

Peirce (1839 – 1914):

Charles Sanders Peirce is one of the first pragmatic thinkers. He introduced the pragmatic method in which students are supplied a procedure for constructing and clarifying meanings. In addition, this system helps to facilitate communication among students.

Dewey (1859 – 1952):

Dewey also believed that the application of the “scientific method” could solve an array of problems. He saw ideas as the instruments to solving problems and advocated for the application of the following steps to meet this goal:

Recognize that the problem exists.
Clearly define the problem.
Suggest possible solutions.
Consider the potential consequences of the possible solutions.
Carry out further observation and experiment leading to the solution’s acceptance or rejection. (Timm, 2020)

4.6 A Closer Look

What did the “new” or “Romantic” side believe about education? What did the “old” or “traditional” side believe about education? Which side(s) did Dewey lean toward and why?
What else did Dewey think we should take into account? Why is this so important to Dewey?
Why did Dewey want to connect education with society?
What is the question of education according to Dewey? Do you agree? Why or why not?

Educational Implications of Pragmatism

According to a Pragmatic school of thought, curriculum should be so planned in such a way that it teaches the learner how to think critically rather than what to think. Teaching should, therefore, be more exploratory in nature than explanatory. To promote this approach to teaching, students should be actively engaged in the learning process and be challenged to solve problems. The teachers job is to help support students learning by promoting questioning and problem-solving during the natural course of lesson delivery.

The curriculum is also interdisciplinary. Teaching methods used in pragmatism include:

Hands-on problem solving
Experimenting
Cooperative Learning

Existentialism

Existentialism is a school of philosophy   that “focuses on the  importance of the individual rather than on external standards” (Johnson et. al., 2011, p. 93). Existentialists believe that our reality is made up of nothing more than our lived experiences, therefore our final realities reside within each of us as individuals. As such,   the physical world has no real meaning outside our human   experience and there is no objective, authoritative truth about metaphysics, epistemology, and ethics.

Kierkegaard (1813-1855):

Soren Kierkegaard was a Danish minister and philosopher. He is

considered to be the founder of existentialism.

4.7 A Closer Look

Kierkegaard’s Philosophy

Nietzsche (1844-1900):

Friedrich Nietzcshe stressed the importance of the individuality of each person. According to Johnson et. al. (2011), his work provided a “strategy to liberate people from the oppression of feeling inferior within themselves, and a teaching of how not to judge what one is in relation to what one should be” (p. 95).

Educational Implications of Existentialism

Within an existentialist classroom, subject matter takes second place to helping the students understand and appreciate themselves for who they are as individuals. The teacher’s role is to help students accept individual responsibility for their personal thoughts, feelings, and actions. To do this, the teacher is responsible for creating an environment in which student may freely choose their own preferred way of learning by giving students latitude in their choice of subject matter.

Furthermore, answers come from within the individual in an existential classroom, not from the teacher. For this reason, Existentialists strongly oppose standardized assessments which measure or track student learning. Instead, they want the educational experience of the student to focus on creating opportunities for self-direction and self-actualization of the whole person, not just the mind (Cohen, 1999).

In an Existentialist classroom, curriculum is structured to provide students with experiences that will help unleash their own creativity and self-expression through an emphasis on teaching humanities. For example, rather than emphasizing historical events, existentialists focus upon the actions of historical individuals, each of whom provides possible models for the students’ own behavior. Math and science may be de-emphasized because their subject matter would be considered “cold,” “dry,” “objective,” and therefore less fruitful to self-awareness. In teaching art, existentialism encourages individual creativity and imagination more than copying and imitating established models.

As described above, Existentialist methods focus on the individual. Learning is self-paced, self directed, and includes a great deal of individual contact with the teacher, who relates to each student openly and honestly. Although elements of existentialism occasionally appear in public schools, this philosophy has found wider acceptance in private schools and in alternative public schools founded in the late 1960s and early 1970s.

4.8 A Closer Look

Now that you have learned about the four main schools of thought, let’s find out which one you most align to right now. In order to do this, you are going to take the quiz below. Note: Make sure to write down which school of thought you are based on your quiz results.

What school of thought were you?
Do you agree that you align with the school of thought identified by the quiz? Why or why not?
What are some specific implications for you as a future teacher given the school of thought you were identified as from the quiz?

Section II: Defining your own philosophy

4.9 Essential Questions

What is a philosophy?
What elements do you consider to be most important to include in your philosophy of education?
Think about the elements identified in this section, do you think all of them are essential to include when writing a philosophy of education? Why or why not?

As discussed in section one, there are   several key schools of thought that reflect key philosophies of education. In this section, we are going to look at the “definition” of a   philosophy. We will also explore the   importance of defining your own education philosophy as a future teacher. Finally, we will identify essential elements that should   be considered when writing your educational philosophy.

What is a Philosophy?

When asked to think about the following question, what comes to mind: What is a Philosophy?

Common responses   include:

• A set of beliefs

• A personal platform

• Our personal thoughts

A philosophy is indeed all of these things, and so much more! According to the New Oxford American Dictionary (2005), a philosophy is “the study of the fundamental nature of knowl- edge, reality, and existence” (p. 1278).

When it comes to our educational philosophy, Webb et. al. (2010) state that our “philosophy of education enables us to recognize certain educational principles that define our views about the learner, the teacher, and the school” (p. 50). As such, it critical to determine what school of thought you most align to as this will shape the way you see the students, curriculum and educational setting.

Articulating Your Philosophy of Education

When articulating your philosophy of education, it is   essential to reflect on the multiple dimension of teaching  that would impact your philosophy. As demonstrated by the diagram, there are a lot of factors to consider. Take a moment to reflect on the diagram, are there any elements you feel are more important than the others? Are there elements missing that you would include? If so, what are they and why do you feel they are important?

When approaching the writing of your philosophy of education, we recommend using the following key elements to ensure that your philosophy of education is well thought out and supported, no matter which school of thought it is based upon.

Why do you teach?
Why have you chosen to teach elementary,   secondary, or a particular content area?
What are your values as a teacher?
FOUNDATIONS OF EDUCATION
What philosophy of education do you MOST   align with and why (revisit Ch. 4 – Ch. 9 of   your iBook)?
How has education changed historically in the   last 50/60 years (revisit Ch. 2 & Ch. 3 of your iBook)?
What impact have movements like the civil   rights had on schools (revisit Ch. 2 of your   iBook)?
How have educational policies like NCLB   and the standardized testing movement   impacted educators and instructional decisions/programming?
In what ways has the increased diversity   in our educational settings impacted the   need for teachers to be prepared to address   the needs of linguistically and culturally   diverse students in their classrooms now   more than ever before?

3. UNDERSTANDING OF TEACHING AND   LEARNING

What approaches, methods, pedagogy do you   use and why and how are these influenced   by the philosophy you MOST aligned with  (revisit Ch. 4 – Ch. 9 of your iBook)?
Which elements of effective instruction do you   think are most important to apply to support   ALL students learning?
What strategies do you apply to actively engage   ALL your students throughout the lesson?
How do you motivate your students to learn?
How do you motivate yourself to be the teacher   your students need you to be?

4. CLASSROOM ENVIRONMENT

How do you create a community of learners   (revisit Ch. 1 of your iBook)?
What is your “code of conduct” (revisit Ch. 1   of your iBook)?
How do you engage students to limit disruptions   and time off task?
If disruptions do occur, what do you do?

5. INCLUSIVENESS

Do you understand your own bias and how this   impacts your teaching (revisit Ch. 2 of your iBook)?
How are you effective with ALL students (revisit   Ch. 2 of your iBook)?
How do you create a culturally responsive class  room environment (revisit Ch. 1 of your iBook)?
How do you teach UNCONDITIONALLY so   that all your students get the best education   possible and you demonstrate respect for the   customs and beliefs of the diverse student groups   represented in your classroom?
What specific strategies do you use to support   diverse learners?
In what ways do you act as an advocate for your   students, their families, and the   community?

Take a moment to reflect on all the information   you read about educational philosophies. Your challenge is to write at least a one-page,   single-spaced philosophy of education paper  that summarizes your current philosophy of   education.

Section III: The importance of student voices

4.10 Essential Questions

By the end of this section, the following essential questions will be answered.

What can we learn from student voices?
What insights might you gain from the student quotes?
What did you learn from watching the video clips?
What links did you make between the what the speakers shared in the video clips and the different schools of thought discussed in this chapter?

To best understand the power of an educational philosophy in practice, this section is going to provide you with two different sets of evidence. The first set of evidence comes from KSU students. The second set comes from a student and two educators in the field. As you read and listen to the   information being shared, please reflect on the questions to consider. Although you do not need to document your responses to each of the questions, they have been provided to help you critical reflect on the information being presented.

4.11 Student Voices

“My philosophical belief is that I want to   prepare my children, not for the next grade or college;  but for their future in society through tools learned in   the classroom.” ASU16
“I feel that after studying several popular philosophies  of education my personal philosophy is a medley of all   of them, making it completely mine.” DP U16
“Every experience I have impacts the way I look at the   world and I will continue to strive to keep my teaching  the same while as the same time adapting to the needs of my students.” MLU16

4.12 A Closer Look

The following video provides and more in-depth look the importance of having a solid philosophy of education from a student’s point of view. As you watch this video, consider the following questions:

What insights did you gain from the video?
Based on the information shared, what school of thought(s) do you think influenced prior educational experiences of this student?
What school of thought do you think this student is   advocating for in the future? Why?

As demonstrated in the student voices, and video by Adora Avitak, being able to articulate your philosophy of education is essential as a future educator. For your philosophy of education shapes your delivery of academic content, but more importantly guides your beliefs when it comes to working with students. To learn more about the importance of how educators view students, let’s watch Rita Pierson.

4.7 A Closer Look

As you listen to Rita Pierson, consider the following questions:

Based on the information shared, what school of thought(s) do you think influence this teacher?
How might you apply what you learned from Rita Pierson to your own future practice?

Rita Pierson is such a powerful educator and advocate for students. I hope you learned a lot from her TedTalk! As we wrap up this chapter, I leave you with one final question: How will you be a champion for your future students?!

Media Attributions

To the extent possible under law, Della Perez has waived all copyright and related or neighboring rights to Social Foundations of K-12 Education , except where otherwise noted.

Share This Book

Philosophy of Education S ociety

Executive Board
Commission on Professional Affairs (COPA)
Committee on Race and Ethnicity (CORE)
Committee on the Status of Women (COSW)
Conference Management Committee
Elections Committee
Finance Committee
Graduate Student Committee
Just Community Committee
Membership Committee
Mentoring and Development Committee
Program Committee
Decolonial Studies
Phenomenology and Existential Philosophy
Religion and Spirituality
Education's Autonomy
Become a Member
Philosophy of Education
GroundWorks
Subscribe to Educational Theory
Past Conferences
Next Conference
PES Conference FAQ
Affiliated Societies

The Philosophy of Education Society is an international forum that promotes the philosophic treatment of educational practice, policy and research, advances the quality of teaching the philosophy of education, and cultivates fruitful relationships between and among philosophers, philosophers of education and educators.

PES 2025 Conference

Education and the future of the future, march 6-10, 2025 | baltimore, maryland, pes 2025 pre-conference workshop, philosophy of education beyond the human, march 6, 2025 | baltimore, maryland.

View the call for papers here.

   Contact: Natasha Levinson (email [email protected])

Want to create or adapt books like this? Learn more about how Pressbooks supports open publishing practices.

5 What is an Educational Philosophy?

Jennifer Beasley and Myra Haulmark

What makes a teacher? Teaching is like a salad. Think about it. If you were to attend a party for any given holiday, the number of and variations to each salad recipe that might be present for consumption could outnumber those present at the party. There are so many different ways to teach, varying circumstances to take into account, and philosophies to apply to each classroom. And what better way to have a positive impact on the world than to offer knowledge for consumption? The term ‘teacher’ can be applied to anyone who imparts knowledge of any topic, but it is generally more focused on those who are hired to do so (teach, n.d., n.p.). In imparting knowledge to our students, it is inevitable that we must take into account our own personal philosophies or pedagogies, and determine not only how we decide what our philosophies are, but also how those impact our consumers.

Objectives and Key Terms

In this chapter, readers will…

Define, describe, and identify the four branches of educational philosophy
Outline at least two educational philosophies that influence our schools
Explain how educational philosophies influence the choice of curriculum and classroom instructional practices
Develop a personal philosophy concerning teaching and learning

Key terms in the chapter are…

Constructivism

Perennialism, essentialism, progressivism.

Romanticism
Behaviorism

Lessons in Pedagogy

Perennialism – focuses on human concerns that have caused concern for centuries, revealed through ‘great works’ (Ornstein, 2003, p. 110) It focuses on great works of art, literature and enduring ideas.
Essentialism – Emphasizes skills and subjects that are needed by all in a productive society. This is the belief in “Back to Basics”. Rote learning is emphasized and
Progressivism – Instruction features problem-solving and group activities – The instructor acts as a facilitator as opposed to a leader (Ornstein, 2003, p. 110)
Social Reconstructionism – Instruction that focuses on significant social and economic problems in an effort to solve them (Ornstein, 2003, pg.110)
Existentialism – Classroom dialogue stimulates awareness – each person creates an awareness gleaned from discussion and encourages deep personal reflection on his or her convictions (Ornstein, 2003, p. 108).
The knowledge that has been passed through the ages should be continued as the basis of the curriculum, like the classic works of Plato and Einstein.
Reason, logic, and analytical thought are valued and encouraged
Only information that stood the test of time is relevant. It is believed these prepare students for life and help to develop rational thinking.
The classes most likely to be considered under this approach would be history, science, math, and religion classes (Educational Philosophies in the Classroom, pg.1).
Essentialists believe that there is a universal pool of knowledge needed by all students.
The fundamentals of teaching are the basis of the curriculum: math, science, history, foreign language, and English. Vocational classes are not seen as a necessary part of educational training.
Classrooms are formal, teacher-centered, and students are passive learners.
Evaluations are predominately through testing, and there are few, if any, projects or portfolios.

Watch the following video for a little more about this philosophy:

This is a student-centered form of instruction where students follow the scientific method of questioning and searching for the answer.
Evaluations include projects and portfolios.
Current events are used to keep students interested in the required subject matter.
Students are active learners as opposed to passive learners.
The teacher is a facilitator rather than the center of the educational process.
Student input is encouraged, and students are asked to find their interpretation of the answer, have a choice in projects and assignments. (Educational Philosophies in the classroom, pg.1).
Real-world problem solving emphasized.
Subjects are integrated.
Interaction among students.
Students have a voice in the classroom.

Social Reconstructivism

This student-centered philosophy strives to instill a desire to make the world a better place.
It places a focus on controversial world issues and uses current events as a springboard for the thinking process.
These students are taught the importance of working together to bring about change.
These teachers incorporate what is happening in the world with what they are learning in the classroom (Educational Philosophies in the Classroom, pg.1).

What do you think?

Additional Beliefs in Regards to Teaching/Learning

Active participation is the key to this teaching style. Students are free to explore their own ideas and share concepts with one another in nontraditional ways. “Hands-on activity […] is the most effective way of learning and is considered true learning” (Educational Philosophies in the Classroom, pg.1).

What is Constructivism?

The root word of Constructivism is “construct.” Basically, Constructivism is the theory that knowledge must be constructed by a person, not just transmitted to the person. People construct knowledge by taking new information and integrating it with their own pre-existing knowledge (Cooper, 2007; Woolfolk, 2007). It means they are actively involved in seeking out information, creating projects, and working with material being presented versus just sitting and listening to someone “talk at them”.

Jean Piaget’s Theory of Constructivism

Jean Piaget was one of the major constructivists in past history. His theory looks at how people construct knowledge cognitively. In Piaget’s theory, everybody has schemata. These are the categories of information we create to organize the information we take in. For example, “food” is one schema we may have. We have a variety of information on food. It can be organized into different food groups such as the following: bread/pasta, fruits, vegetables, meats, dairy, and sweets (Kail & Cavanaugh, 2007). We use these schemas to help us “make sense” of what we see, hear and experience, and integrate this information into our knowledge bank.

According to Piaget’s theory, one way people construct knowledge is through assimilation. People assimilate when they incorporate new knowledge and information into pre-existing schemes. Here is an example: A child sees a car and learns that it can be called a vehicle. Then the child sees a motorcycle and learns that it can be called a vehicle as well. Then the child sees a truck and calls it a vehicle. Basically, the child developed a schema for “vehicles” and incorporated trucks into that schema (Kail & Cavanaugh, 2007).

Another way people construct knowledge, according to Piaget’s theory, is through accommodation. People accommodate when they modify or change their pre-existing schemes. Here is an example.: A child sees a dog (a furry four-legged animal) and learns that it can be called a pet. Then the child sees a cat (a furry four-legged animal) and learns that it can be called a pet as well. Then the child sees a raccoon (also a furry four-legged animal) and calls it a pet. Afterward, the child learns from his or her parents that a raccoon is not a pet. At first, the child develops a schema for “pet” which includes all furry four-legged animals. Then the child learns that not all furry four-legged animals are pets. Because of this, the child needs to accommodate his or her schema for “pet.” According to Piaget, people learn through a balance of assimilation and accommodation (Kail & Cavanaugh, 2007).

Lev Vygotsky’s Theory of Constructivism

Lev Vygotsky was another major constructivist in past history. While Jean Piaget’s theory is a cognitive perspective, Vygotsky’s theory is a sociocultural perspective. His theory looks at how people construct knowledge by collaborating with others. In Vygotsky’s theory, people learn and construct knowledge within the Zone of Proximal Development. People have an independent level of performance where they can do things independently. Likewise, people have a frustration level where tasks are too difficult to be able to perform on their own. In between, there is an instructional level where they can do things above the independent level with the help and guidance of others. The range, or zone, between the independent and frustration levels is the Zone of Proximal Development (Cooper, 2007; Kail & Cavanaugh, 2007; Woolfolk, 2007).

In the Zone of Proximal Development, assistance needs to be given by another person. This assistance, help, or guidance is known as scaffolding. Because the zone has a range, assistance needs to be given, but not too much. If not enough assistance is given, a person may not be able to learn the task. On the other hand, if too much assistance is given, the person may not be able to fully construct the newly acquired information into knowledge. For example, a child needs help doing math homework. With no help, the child may not be able to do it. With too much help, the homework is done for the child, so the child may not fully understand the math homework anyway (Cooper, 2007; Kail & Cavanaugh, 2007; Woolfolk, 2007).

Constructivism in the Classroom

In the classroom, the teacher can u se Constructivism to help teach the students. The teacher can base the instruction on the cognitive strategies, experiences, and culture of the students. The teacher can make the instruction interesting by correlating it with real-life applications, especially applications within the students’ own communities. Students can work and collaborate together during particular activities. The teacher can provide feedback for the students so they know what they can do independently and know what they need help with. New concepts can be related to the students’ prior knowledge. The teacher can also explain how new concepts can be used in different contexts and subjects. All these ideas are based on Constructivism (Sherman & Kurshan, 2005).

Research shows that constructivist teaching can be effective. According to research conducted by Jong Suk Kim at Chungnum National University in Korea, constructivist teaching is more effective than traditional teaching when looking at the students’ academic achievement. The research also shows that students have some preference for constructivist teaching (Kim, 2005). Again, whe n the theory of Constructivism is actually applied in the classroom, it can be effective for teaching students.

It is not the sole responsibility of the teachers to educate the students. According to Constructivism, students have some responsibilities when learning. A student may be quick to blame the teacher for not understanding the material, but it could be the case that the student is not doing everything he or she could be doing. Because knowledge is constructed, not transmitted, students need to make an effort to assimilate, accommodate, and make sense of information. They also need to make an effort to collaborate with others, especially if they are having a hard time understanding the information.

Four Philosophies in Assessment

In addition, the ‘constructivist’ school of philosophy, rooted in the Pragmatic pedagogy and branched off from the ‘Social Reconstructivist’ school, has gained much popularity. Around the turn of the century (the early 1990s), many teachers felt the rote memorization and mindless routine that was common was ineffective and began to look for alternate ways to reach their students (Ornstein, 2003, p. 111). Through the constructivist approach, “students “construct” knowledge through an interaction between what they already think and know and with new ideas and experiences” (Roberson, 2000, p. 8). This is an active learning process that leads to a deeper understanding of the concepts presented in class and is based on the abilities and readiness of the children rather than set curriculum guidelines (Ornstein, 2003, p. 112). Constructivism “emphasizes socially interactive and process-oriented ‘hands-on’ learning in which students work collaboratively to expand and revise their knowledge base” (Ornstein, 2003, p. 112). Essentially, the knowledge that is shaped by experience is reconstructed or altered, to assist the student in understanding new concepts (Ornstein, 2003, p. 112). You, as the teacher, help the students build the scaffolding they need to maintain the information even after the test is taken and graded.

Creating Your Philosophy

Educators continue to build upon their philosophy over their careers. They often choose elements from various philosophies and integrate them into their own. When identifying a philosophy, here are things to consider:

What is the purpose of education?
What do you believe should be taught?
How do you think the curriculum should be taught?
What is your role as the teacher?
What is the role of the student?
What is the value of teacher-centered instruction and student-centered instruction; where and when do you incorporate each?

What philosophy are you leaning towards? Take the following quiz to find out!

Make a copy and take the quiz on your own:

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1riF81PX9IDZLlQ4K0rBpkZMPlIA5cQ-twb-Soz6ygnA/copy

The following resources are provided when “digging deeper” into the chapter.

What is your Educational Philosophy? https://www.edutopia.org/blog/what-your-educational-philosophy-ben-johnson
Four Philosophies and Their Applications to Education https://docs.google.com/document/d/149dx9pNRqIYp-EAYVHgXkxUV_u2cnmbGmvMgS863P4o/edit

Modified from “Foundations of Education and Instructional Assessment” by Dionne Nichols licensed under CC BY-SA 4.0

Share This Book

We will keep fighting for all libraries - stand with us!

Internet Archive Audio

This Just In
Grateful Dead
Old Time Radio
78 RPMs and Cylinder Recordings
Audio Books & Poetry
Computers, Technology and Science
Music, Arts & Culture
News & Public Affairs
Spirituality & Religion
Radio News Archive

Flickr Commons
Occupy Wall Street Flickr
NASA Images
Solar System Collection
Ames Research Center

All Software
Old School Emulation
MS-DOS Games
Historical Software
Classic PC Games
Software Library
Kodi Archive and Support File
Vintage Software
CD-ROM Software
CD-ROM Software Library
Software Sites
Tucows Software Library
Shareware CD-ROMs
Software Capsules Compilation
CD-ROM Images
ZX Spectrum
DOOM Level CD

Smithsonian Libraries
FEDLINK (US)
Lincoln Collection
American Libraries
Canadian Libraries
Universal Library
Project Gutenberg
Children's Library
Biodiversity Heritage Library
Books by Language
Additional Collections

Prelinger Archives
Democracy Now!
Occupy Wall Street
TV NSA Clip Library
Animation & Cartoons
Arts & Music
Computers & Technology
Cultural & Academic Films
Ephemeral Films
Sports Videos
Videogame Videos
Youth Media

Search the history of over 866 billion web pages on the Internet.

Mobile Apps

Wayback Machine (iOS)
Wayback Machine (Android)

Browser Extensions

Archive-it subscription.

Explore the Collections
Build Collections

Save Page Now

Capture a web page as it appears now for use as a trusted citation in the future.

Please enter a valid web address

Donate Donate icon An illustration of a heart shape

Philosophy of education

Bookreader item preview, share or embed this item, flag this item for.

Graphic Violence
Explicit Sexual Content
Hate Speech
Misinformation/Disinformation
Marketing/Phishing/Advertising
Misleading/Inaccurate/Missing Metadata

plus-circle Add Review comment Reviews

1,063 Views

10 Favorites

Better World Books

DOWNLOAD OPTIONS

No suitable files to display here.

IN COLLECTIONS

Uploaded by station20.cebu on March 14, 2020

SIMILAR ITEMS (based on metadata)

Philosophy of Education

Behind every school and every teacher is a set of related beliefs--a philosophy of education--that influences what and how students are taught. A philosophy of education represents answers to questions about the purpose of schooling, a teacher's role, and what should be taught and by what methods.

Teacher-centered philosophies tend to be more authoritarian and conservative, and emphasize the values and knowledge that have survived through time. The major teacher-centered philosophies of education are essentialism and perennialism.
Student-centered philosophies are more focused on individual needs, contemporary relevance, and preparing students for a changing future. School is seen as an institution that works with youth to improve society or help students realize their individuality. Progressivism, social reconstructionism, and existentialism place the learner at the center of the educational process: Students and teachers work together on determining what should be learned and how best to learn it.
y?

Essentialism focuses on teaching the essential elements of academic and moral knowledge. Essentialists urge that schools get back to the basics; they believe in a strong core curriculum and high academic standards.
Perennialism focuses on the universal truths that have withstood the test of time. Perennialists urge that students read the Great Books and develop their understanding of the philosophical concepts that underlie human knowledge.
Progressivism is based largely on the belief that lessons must be relevant to the students in order for them to learn. The curriculum of a progressivist school is built around the personal experiences, interests, and needs of the students.
Social reconstructionists separated from progressivism because they desired more direct and immediate attention to societal ills. They are interested in combining study and social action, and believe that education can and should go hand in hand with ameliorating social problems.
Existentialism is derived from a powerful belief in human free will, and the need for individuals to shape their own futures. Students in existentialist classrooms control their own education. Students are encouraged to understand and appreciate their uniqueness and to assume responsibility for their actions.

Essentialism and perennialism give teachers the power to choose the curriculum, organize the school day, and construct classroom activities. The curriculum reinforces a predominantly Western heritage while viewing the students as vessels to be filled and disciplined in the proven strategies of the past. Essentialists focus on cultural literacy, while perennialists work from the Great Books.
Progressivism, social reconstructionism, and existentialism view the learner as the central focus of classroom activities. Working with student interests and needs, teachers serve as guides and facilitators in assisting students to reach their goals. The emphasis is on the future, and on preparing students to be independent-thinking adults. Progressivists strive for relevant, hands-on learning. Social reconstructionists want students to actively work to improve society. Existentialists give students complete freedom, and complete responsibility, with regard to their education.

Constructivism has its roots in cognitive psychology, and is based on the idea that people construct their understanding of the world. Constructivist teachers gauge a student's prior knowledge, then carefully orchestrate cues, classroom activities, and penetrating questions to push students to higher levels of understanding.
B. F. Skinner advocated behaviorism as an effective teaching strategy. According to Skinner, rewards motivate students to learn material even if they do not fully understand why it will have value in their futures. Behavior modification is a system of gradually lessening extrinsic rewards.
The practices and beliefs of peoples in other parts of the world, such as informal and oral education, offer useful insights for enhancing our own educational practices, but they are insights too rarely considered, much less implemented.

Socrates, Plato, and Aristotle are the three most legendary ancient Greek philosophers. Socrates is hailed today as the personification of wisdom and the philosophical life. He gave rise to what is now called the Socratic method, in which the teacher repeatedly questions students to help them clarify their own deepest thoughts.
Plato, Socrates's pupil, crafted eloquent dialogues that present different philosophical positions on a number of profound questions. Plato believed that a realm of externally existing"ideas," or"forms," underlies the physical world.
Aristotle, Plato's pupil, was remarkable for the breadth as well as the depth of his knowledge. He provided a synthesis of Plato's belief in the universal, spiritual forms and a scientist's belief in the physical world we observe through our senses. He taught that the virtuous life consists of controlling desires by reason and by choosing the moderate path between extremes.

Metaphysics deals with the nature of reality, its origin, and its structure. Metaphysical beliefs are reflected in curricular choices: Should we study the natural world, or focus on spiritual or ideal forms?
Epistemology examines the nature and origin of human knowledge. Epistemological beliefs influence teaching methods."How we know" is closely related to how we learn and therefore, how we should teach.
Ethics is the study of what is"good" or"bad" in human behavior, thoughts, and feelings. What should we teach about"good" and"bad," and should we teach that directly, or by modeling?
Political philosophy analyzes how past and present societies are arranged and governed and proposes ways to create better societies in the future. How will a classroom be organized, and what will that say about who wields power? How will social institutions and national governments be analyzed?
Aesthetics is concerned with the nature of beauty. What is of worth? What works are deemed of value to be studied or emulated?

To learn more about the book this website supports, please visit its .

and .
is one of the many fine businesses of .

You must be a registered user to view the in this website. If you already have a username and password, enter it below. If your textbook came with a card and this is your first visit to this site, you can to register, or .
Username:
Password:

'); document.write(''); } // -->

( )
.'); } else{ document.write('This form changes settings for this website only.'); } //-->
		Send mail as:
		'); } else { document.write(' '); } } else { document.write(' '); } // -->
	'); } else { document.write(' '); } } else { document.write(' '); } document.write('
TA email:		'); } else { document.write(' '); } } else { document.write(' '); } // -->
Other email:		'); } else { document.write(' '); } } else { document.write(' '); } // -->

"Floating" navigation?	'); } else if (floatNav == 2) { document.write(' '); } else { document.write(' '); } // -->
Drawer speed:	'; theseOptions += (glideSpeed == 1) ? ' ' : ' ' ; theseOptions += (glideSpeed == 2) ? ' ' : ' ' ; theseOptions += (glideSpeed == 3) ? ' ' : ' ' ; theseOptions += (glideSpeed == 4) ? ' ' : ' ' ; theseOptions += (glideSpeed == 5) ? ' ' : ' ' ; theseOptions += (glideSpeed == 6) ? ' ' : ' ' ; document.write(theseOptions); // -->




1.	(optional) Enter a note here:
2.	(optional) Select some text on the page (or do this before you open the "Notes" drawer).
3.	Highlighter Color:
4.

Search for:
Search in:


Course-wide Content


	News, Articles & Links

	Quizzes

	Interactive Exercises


Instructor Resources


	Course-wide Content

Our Mission

What Is Your Educational Philosophy?

While lesson planning this summer, educators might also take time to reflect on their core beliefs about learning and teaching.

Girl sitting at a table next to stairs working on her laptop

Over the summer, teachers reflect on the year and often redesign and perfect their teaching strategies and plans. In essence, they get back to the basics of what they believe is the best way to inspire learning in their students -- in other words, they revisit and refine their philosophy of education.

A school district might ask a teacher or principal applying for a job about her or his philosophy of education. In this post, I've decide to share mine, and I am curious to see if any of my beliefs resonate with you. So here they are:

1. Students need to learn.

Students want and need to learn as much as they need food, clothing, and shelter. An educator's primary job is to fill that primal need for learning by creating engaging and relevant learning experiences every day. The greatest gift a teacher can give students is motivating them to experience repeated learning success.

2. Students need to be active participants in learning.

Students learn best by doing, and active teaching encourages active learning. Teachers should treat students as active participants in the learning process, providing them with skills, such as:

How to study
How to take notes
How to memorize
How to express themselves effectively

These skills will help them be part of a high-performance learning team. Also, students need to be encouraged to explore and research information beyond the confines of the classroom and textbook.

3. Learning is a physiological activity involving the whole body.

The best way to engage a student is to have a solid classroom management plan and a well-planned lesson that is grounded in relevant, purposeful activities designed to enhance that student's knowledge and skills and leave her or him wanting to learn more. Teachers should be strongly aligned with student-centered and student-directed learning that embraces exploration, discovery, experiential learning, and the production of academically rigorous products.

4. Students need timely feedback to improve.

Teachers gather data on student performance to adjust the learning environment and instruction so that they can target students' learning needs. Teachers administer pretests to find a starting point for learning and post-tests to determine the students' increase in performance level as well as the teachers' effectiveness.

5. Students need structure and repetition to learn.

A teacher should be able to organize a standards-based lesson sequence, successfully implement the plan, and then evaluate student learning. A teacher should be able to create an exciting learning environment that makes it difficult for students to not learn. A teacher should know how to include all students in learning at their own level, and a teacher should be able to inspire the students to push themselves to the next level.

6. Students need information, knowledge, and skills.

Having access to knowledge resources is as important to a child's education as the actual curriculum content. Relevant and current information must be at the teachers' and students' fingertips to provide answers when the questions are still fresh. Information "on demand" is more valuable than information "just in case."

7. Students need tools and resources.

Students should know how their taxon and locale memory systems work. Students should have skills and strategies to be able to work effectively in the different levels of the cognitive domain as defined by Benjamin Bloom. Students should be aware of their own learning preferences, and teachers should assist with creating a plan to develop other learning skills. Educational tools are a means to an end. For example, technology used appropriately can greatly magnify the students' capacity to learn and the teachers' capacity to teach, inspire, and motivate.

Please share your philosophy in the comment section below. Also, if you wish to analyze mine and give me feedback, I would appreciate that, too.

The Edvocate

Lynch Educational Consulting
Dr. Lynch’s Personal Website
Write For Us
The Tech Edvocate Product Guide
The Edvocate Podcast
Terms and Conditions
Privacy Policy
Assistive Technology
Best PreK-12 Schools in America
Child Development
Classroom Management
Early Childhood
EdTech & Innovation
Education Leadership
First Year Teachers
Gifted and Talented Education
Special Education
Parental Involvement
Policy & Reform
Best Colleges and Universities
Best College and University Programs
HBCU’s
Higher Education EdTech
Higher Education
International Education
The Awards Process
Finalists and Winners of The 2023 Tech Edvocate Awards
Award Seals
GPA Calculator for College
GPA Calculator for High School
Cumulative GPA Calculator
Grade Calculator
Weighted Grade Calculator
Final Grade Calculator
The Tech Edvocate
AI Powered Personal Tutor

Teaching Students About the Age of Millennials: A New Approach to Education

Teaching students about yerba mate: a cultural and educational experience, teaching students about deliverance cast education, teaching students about malcolm butler: inspiring lessons for the classroom, teaching students about andrew thomas: a fresh approach to learning about a brilliant mind, teaching students about tommy ford: an insight into his life and career, teaching students about the lord of the rings: the fellowship of the ring, teaching students about joe rogan young: inspiring the next generation, teaching students about ma rainey: the mother of the blues, teaching students about bayer leverkusen: an introduction to the world of german football, 5 things that educators should know about the philosophy of education.

The word philosophy is derived from two Greek words. The first word, philo , means “love.” The second, sophy , means “wisdom.” Literally, then, philosophy means “love of wisdom” (Power, 1982). Each individual has an attitude toward life, children, politics, learning, and previous personal experiences that informs and shapes their set of beliefs. Although you may not be conscious of it, this set of beliefs, or personal philosophy, informs how you live, work, and interact with others. What you believe is directly reflected in both your teaching and learning processes. This article explores the various philosophical views influence the teaching profession.

It is important to understand how philosophy and education are interrelated. In order to become the most effective teacher you can be, you must understand your own beliefs, while at the same time empathizing with others. In this chapter we will examine the study of philosophy, the major branches of philosophy, and the major philosophical schools of thought in education. You will have a chance to examine how these schools of thought can help you define your personal educational philosophy. Developing your own educational philosophy is a key part of your journey to becoming a teacher. In this article, we will discuss the 5 things that educators should know about the philosophy of education.

What are the major branches of philosophy? The four main branches of philosophy are metaphysics, epistemology, axiology, and logic. Metaphysics considers questions about the physical universe and the nature of ultimate reality. Epistemology examines how people come to learn what they know. Axiology is the study of fundamental principles or values. Logic pursues the organization of the reasoning process. Logic can be divided into two main components: deductive reasoning, which takes general principles and relates them to a specific case; and inductive reasoning, which builds up an argument based on specific examples.

What are the major schools of thought in philosophy? Idealism can be divided into three categories: classical, religious, and modern. Classical idealism, the philosophy of the Greeks Socrates and Plato, searches for an absolute truth. Religious idealism tries to reconcile God and humanity. Modern idealism, stemming from the ideas of Descartes, links perception and existence.

Realism, the school of thought founded by Aristotle, believes that the world of matter is separate from human perceptions. Modern realist thought has led to the “blank slate” notion of human capabilities. Pragmatism believes that we should select the ideas, actions, and consequences with the most desirable outcome, as well as learning from previous experiences to achieve desirable consequences. John Dewey’s Experimentalism brought the scientific method of inductive reasoning to the educational sphere.

Postmodernism and existentialism focus on intricate readings of texts and social and political conventions, examining existing structures for flaws. Essentially, they focus heavily on the present, and on understanding life as we know it. Jacques Derrida’s deconstruction methods of reading texts suggests that universal rationality is not found in objective reality, but in the text. Michel Foucault, another postmodern philosopher, examined the relationship between truth and power.

What are the major philosophies of education? The major philosophies of education can be broken down into three main types: teacher-centered philosophies, student-centered philosophies, and society-centered philosophies. These include Essentialism, Perennialism, Progressivism, Social Reconstructionism, Existentialism, Behaviorism, Constructivism, Conservatism, and Humanism.

Essentialism and Perennialism are the two types of teacher-centered philosophies of education. Essentialism is currently the leading style of public education in the United States. It is the teaching of basic skills that have been proven over time to be needed in society. Perennialism focuses on the teaching of great works.

There are three types of student-centered philosophies of education. Progressivism focuses on developing the student’s moral compass. Humanism is about fostering each student to his or her fullest potential. Constructivism focuses on using education to shape a student’s world view.

There are two types of socially-centered philosophies of education. Reconstructionism is the perspective that education is the means to solve social problems. Behaviorism focuses on cultivating behaviors that are beneficial to society.

What additional ideologies of educational philosophy exist? Other notable ideologies of educational philosophy include Nationalism, American Exceptionalism, Ethno-nationalism, Liberalism, Conservatism, and Marxism. Nationalism is a national spirit, or love of country, that ties the interests of a nation to the symbols that represent it. American Exceptionalism is a form of Nationalism that implies that the United States is a special country that is privileged to have a manifest destiny. Ethno-nationalism is similar to nationalism, but rather than the loyalty lying with one’s nation, it lies with one’s ethnic or racial group. Liberalism is the ideology that people should enjoy the greatest possible individual freedoms and that it should be guaranteed by due process of law. The opposite of liberalism is conservatism. Conservatism is the belief that institutions should function according to their intended original purpose and any concepts that have not been maintained should be restored. Finally, Marxism is an ideological and political movement that focuses on the class system as a form of conflict within the social, political, and educational realms.

How is an educator’s educational philosophy determined? It is important to identify your own philosophy of education in order to understand your own system of values and beliefs so that you are easily able to describe your teaching style to potential employers.

While writing your own personal philosophy of education statement, it is vital to address several key components: How do I think? What is the purpose of education? What is the role of the teacher? How should the teacher teach? What is the role of the student? What should be taught? Additionally, make sure that you be yourself and are clear and concise. Do some research about the school you are applying for and address their missions and goals in your statement. Remember that education is about the students and also remember to focus on your discipline. Think of the great teachers you have had in your life. Remember to get feedback. Additionally, don’t make it long and don’t ramble. Don’t rehash your resume, be a know-it-all, or use strong statements.

Did we miss anything?

Click here to read all of the articles from this series.

How to Teach Reading in the Digital ...

Understanding academic language and its connection to ....

Matthew Lynch

Understanding the 4 Main Schools of Philosophy: Principle of Idealism

When do children learn to write? Earlier than you might think

How to Rate a University’s Value Proposition

Automaticity: How can it be sometimes bad, sometimes good?

Bridging the gap between school and community

2023 best colleges and universities in ohio.

COMMENTS

Philosophy of Education
Philosophy of Education. Philosophy of education is the branch of applied or practical philosophy concerned with the nature and aims of education and the philosophical problems arising from educational theory and practice. Because that practice is ubiquitous in and across human societies, its social and individual manifestations so varied, and ...
Philosophy of education
An overview of the branch of applied philosophy that investigates the nature, aims, and problems of education. Learn about its topics, methods, history, and philosophical movements.
Philosophy of education
Learn about the philosophical reflection on the nature, aims, and problems of education from ancient Greece to the present. Explore the views and contributions of key figures such as Socrates, Plato, Aristotle, Rousseau, and Dewey.
Philosophy Of Education: Explanation and Examples
Learn what Philosophy of Education is and how it helps us think critically about teaching and learning. Explore different educational philosophies, such as Perennialism, Essentialism, Progressivism, Reconstructionism, and Existentialism, and see how they apply to real-life situations.
Philosophy of Education
This is a file in the archives of the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Philosophy of Education. First published Mon Jun 2, 2008. All human societies, past and present, have had a vested interest in education; and some wits have claimed that teaching (at its best an educational activity) is the second oldest profession.
Philosophy of Education
Philosophy of Education publishes peer-reviewed articles and responses on philosophical questions about education, with broad definitions of philosophy and education. The journal is dialogical, international, and free to access and publish.
Introduction: Philosophy of Education and Philosophy
For much of the history of Western philosophy, philosophical questions concerning education were high on the philosophical agenda. From Socrates, Plato, and Aristotle to twentieth‐century figures such as Bertrand Russell, John Dewey, R. S. Peters, and Israel Scheffler, general philosophers (i.e., contemporary philosophers working in departments of philosophy and publishing in mainstream ...
Philosophy of Education
Learn about the history, theory, and practice of philosophy of education from various perspectives and sources. Explore the main problems, figures, and concepts in the field with this comprehensive bibliography.
Philosophy of education
Explore the basic philosophical problems and tasks of education, such as the aims, concepts, rights, and critical thinking of education. Learn how philosophers of education have addressed these issues and how they relate to other disciplines and practices.
Educational Philosophy and Philosophers
Educational philosophy is where the hard questions about education are pondered, answered, reflected upon, and reanswered. It is derived from the larger discipline of philosophy itself, which generally consists of three branches: ontology (or metaphysics; the study of being or reality); epistemology (the study of what knowledge is, what is worth knowing, and how we know); and axiology (the ...
The Oxford Encyclopedia of Philosophy of Education
The editor is particularly interested in diversifying the field of philosophy of education by including non-Western voices and perspectives, both in terms of uncovering alternative points of view and seeking out work from people outside of dominant Western contexts. The Encyclopedia comprises ten sections, including philosophical traditions and ...
40 Philosophy of Education and Teaching Philosophy Examples
A long-form philosophy of education statement usually takes a few paragraphs (not generally more than a page or two). From that long-form philosophy, highlight a few key statements and phrases and use them to sum up your teaching philosophy in a couple of well-crafted sentences for your short-form teaching philosophy.
3.1: What are philosophies of education?
Philosophies of Education have traveled down a tree of branches. The first four support branches of philosophy are the Idealist school, the Realist school, the Pragmatist school, and the Existential schools of thought (Ornstein, 2003, p. 99). It might help to look at the tree and its individual branches rather than read about them...
4 Chapter 4: Foundational Philosophies of Education
Learn about the four main schools of philosophy (idealism, realism, pragmatism, and existentialism) and their implications for education. Explore the key philosophers, concepts, and examples of each school and how they shape curriculum, teaching methods, and assessment.
Philosophy of Education Society
An international forum for philosophers, philosophers of education and educators to discuss educational practice, policy and research. Learn about the 2025 conference, the pre-conference workshop and the podcast on philosophy of education.
What is an Educational Philosophy?
Learn what educational philosophies are and how they influence teaching and learning. Explore the four branches of educational philosophy and some of the most common philosophies that shape schools and classrooms.
Philosophy of education : Noddings, Nel : Free Download, Borrow, and
3rd ed. xvii, 284 pages : 23 cm. The first edition of Nel Noddings' Philosophy of Education was acclaimed as the "best overview in the field" by the Teaching Philosophy and predicted to "become the standard textbook in philosophy of education" by Educational Theory. This now classic text, originally designed to give the education student a ...
(PDF) What Is "Philosophy of Education"?
Philosophy of education refers to the systematic process of understanding and explicating key concepts related to educational practice. Analytic philosophy of education is a contemporary approach ...
Philosophy of Education
Learn about the major philosophies of education in the United States, such as essentialism, perennialism, progressivism, and existentialism. Explore how these philosophies influence school practices, curriculum, and student learning.
PDF Educational Philosophies Definitions and Comparison Chart
The Progressive education philosophy was established in America from the mid 1920s through the mid 1950s. John Dewey was its foremost proponent. One of his tenets was that the school should improve the way of life of our citizens through experiencing freedom and democracy in schools. Shared decision making, planning of teachers
What Is Your Educational Philosophy?
Educational tools are a means to an end. For example, technology used appropriately can greatly magnify the students' capacity to learn and the teachers' capacity to teach, inspire, and motivate. Please share your philosophy in the comment section below. Also, if you wish to analyze mine and give me feedback, I would appreciate that, too.
5 Things That Educators Should Know About the Philosophy of Education
The major philosophies of education can be broken down into three main types: teacher-centered philosophies, student-centered philosophies, and society-centered philosophies. These include Essentialism, Perennialism, Progressivism, Social Reconstructionism, Existentialism, Behaviorism, Constructivism, Conservatism, and Humanism.
12 Common Teaching Philosophies (With Definitions)
Learn what a teaching philosophy is and how to develop your own. Explore 12 common types of teaching philosophies, such as behaviorism, constructivism, essentialism and humanism, with examples and definitions.

Philosophy Of Education

Types of Philosophy of Education

Examples of Philosophy of Education

Why is Philosophy of Education Important?

Origin of Philosophy of Education

Controversies in Philosophy of Education

The Worldwide View of Philosophy of Education

Personal Philosophy of Education

Putting it All Together

Related Topics

Philosophy of Education

1.1 The open nature of philosophy and philosophy of education

2. Analytic philosophy of education, and its influence

3. Other areas of contemporary activity

Philosophy of Education

About This Journal

News and Announcements

How to Subscribe

In This Article Expand or collapse the "in this article" section Philosophy of Education

Related Articles Expand or collapse the "related articles" section about

Other Subject Areas

Philosophy of Education by Chad Lykins LAST REVIEWED: 15 December 2011 LAST MODIFIED: 15 December 2011 DOI: 10.1093/obo/9780199756810-0028

The aims of education

Problems, issues, and tasks

The Oxford Encyclopedia of Philosophy of Education

Editor in Chief

Associate Editors

40 Philosophy of Education Examples, Plus How To Write Your Own

What is a philosophy of education?

What’s the best teaching philosophy?

What’s included in strong teaching philosophy examples?

Purpose of Education (Core Beliefs)

Teaching Style and Practices

Students and Learning Styles

How do I write my philosophy of education?

Short Philosophy of Education Examples

I am always trying to turn my students into self-sufficient learners who use their resources to figure it out instead of resorting to just asking someone for the answers. —Amy J.

I believe learning comes from making sense of chaos. My job is to design work that will allow students to process, explore, and discuss concepts to own the learning. I need to be part of the process to guide and challenge perceptions. —Shelly G.

Longer Philosophy of Education Examples

Do you have any philosophy of education examples? Share them in the We Are Teachers HELPLINE Group on Facebook!

You Might Also Like

15 Inspiring Teaching Portfolio Examples (Plus How To Create Your Own)

Margin Size

3.1: What are philosophies of education?

Introduction

What is an educational philosophy?

Perennialism

Behaviorism

Essentialism

Progressivism

Reconstructionism

Constructivism

Humanism/ Existentialism

Four Philosophies in Assessment

Hooked on Phonics?

Which is better?

What else do I need to know?

4 Chapter 4: Foundational Philosophies of Education

Section I: Schools of Philosophy

Key Philosophers

Educational Implications of Idealism

Educational Implications of Realism

Educational Implications of Pragmatism

Existentialism

Educational Implications of Existentialism

Section II: Defining your own philosophy

What is a Philosophy?

Articulating Your Philosophy of Education

Section III: The importance of student voices

Media Attributions

Share This Book

PES 2025 Conference

5 What is an Educational Philosophy?

Objectives and Key Terms

Constructivism

Lessons in Pedagogy

Social Reconstructivism

What do you think?

Additional Beliefs in Regards to Teaching/Learning

What is Constructivism?