Suffice it to say that some philosophers, as well as focusing inward on the abstract philosophical issues that concern them, are drawn outwards to discuss or comment on issues that are more commonly regarded as falling within the purview of professional educators, educational researchers, policy-makers and the like. An example is Michael Scriven, who in his early career was a prominent philosopher of science; later he became a central figure in the development of the field of evaluation of educational and social programs.
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 Phylosophy 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, Phylosophy of education 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.
Part of the explanation for this diffuse state of affairs is that, quite reasonably, many 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.
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 dangerous to take the theory versus practice dichotomy too seriously.
However, there is another consequence of this institutional housing of the vast majority of philosophers 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. 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 or potential contribution.
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. What follows is an informal and incomplete accounting. 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, school principals, religious leaders, politicians, journalists, and the like.
While these works frequently touch on philosophical issues, they are not pursued in any philosophical depth and can hardly be considered as contributions to the scholarship of the discipline.
Huxley, and the writings on progressive schooling by A. 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 Ulichand Murphy Third, there are a number of educational theorists and researchers whose field of activity is not philosophy but for example 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.
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 who are relevant as exemplars here are the behaviorist psychologist B. 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!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. What Is Your Educational Philosophy?
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. Please share your philosophy. Metaphysics / Philosophy of Education: Discussion on Educational Philosophy, Teaching Philosophy, Truth and Reality - Famous Philosophers (Albert Einstein, Jean Jacques Rousseau, Michel de Montaigne, Aristotle, Plato) Quotes Quotations on Education, .
Help shape the future of philosophy of education through graduate research at Teachers College, Columbia University. Our program attracts students from all over the nation and the world who want to be part of a collaborative and scholarly community.
As a graduate student in this program, the only.
Philosophy of Education [Nel Noddings] on srmvision.com *FREE* shipping on qualifying offers. The first edition of Nel Noddings' Philosophy of Education was acclaimed as the “best overview in the field” by the journal Teaching Philosophy and predicted to become “the standard textbook in philosophy of education” by Educational Theory/5(25).
Philosophy of Education (Example #1) My personal goal for my future classroom is to challenge students and watch them grow to their full potential.
I want to take students at different levels and see them develop together for the.