define task in education

• Getting Started
• Introduction
• The Teacher
• The Learner

Foreign Language Teaching Methods: Speaking

Lesson 3: designing communicative tasks.

• What is a Task?
• Design Principles
• Unsuccessful Tasks
• Analyzing Tasks
• Review and Reflect

What Is a Task?

• Request a Consultation
• Workshops and Virtual Conversations
• Technical Support
• Course Design and Preparation
• Observation & Feedback

Teaching Resources

Glossary of Pedagogical Terms

Resource overview.

A quick reference and guide to pedagogical terms.

In this list you will find definitions for commonly used pedagogical terms. This list and the associated references and resources provide an overview of foundational concepts, teaching strategies, classroom structures, and philosophies. This page is meant as a quick reference and initial guide to these topics that may both answer a question and spark your curiosity to explore more deeply.

Active Learning : A teaching and learning approach that “engages students in the process of learning through activities and/or discussion in class, as opposed to passively listening to an expert. It emphasizes higher-order thinking and often involves group work.” (Freeman et.al. 2014)

Asynchronous Instruction:  Asynchronous instruction is the idea that students learn similar material at different times and locations. The term is often associated with online learning where students complete readings, assignments, or activities at their own pace and at their own chosen time.  This approach is particularly useful when students are spread across different time zones or may have limited access to technology.

Authentic Assessment:  Assessments in which student learners demonstrate learning by applying their knowledge to authentic, complex, real-world tasks or simulations. Proponents of authentic assessment argue that these types of knowledge checks “help students rehearse for the complex ambiguities of the ‘game’ of adult and professional life” (Wiggins, 1990, p.1).

Further Resources:

• Authentic Assessment . Center for Innovative Teaching and Learning, Indiana University Bloomington.
• Wiggins, G. (1998). Ensuring authentic performance.  Educative assessment: Designing assessments to inform and improve student performance . Jossey-Bass, p. 21-42.

Backwards Design:  A course design process that starts with instructors identifying student learning goals and then designing course content and assessments to help students achieve these goals. Rather than starting with exams or set textbooks backwards design argues that “one starts with the end—the desired results (goals or standards) and then derives the curriculum from the evidence of learning (performances) called for by the standard and the teaching needed to equip students to perform” (Wiggins, G. & McTighe, J., 1998)

Blended or Hybrid Course:   Blended or hybrid courses are “classes in which some percentage of seat time has been reduced and replaced with online content and activities” (Darby & Lang 2019, p.xxix). These courses continue to meet in-person for some percentage of the class time but content, activities, assessments, and other ways for students to engage with content are delivered online. It is important to note that these courses are intentionally designed to utilize both in-person and online class time to achieve effective student learning.

• Ko, S. and Rossen, S., (2017)  Teaching Online A Practical Guide , Routledge

Bloom’s Taxonomy:  Bloom’s Taxonomy is a cognitive framework of learning behaviors organized hierarchically in six categories: knowledge, comprehension, application, analysis, evaluation, and synthesis. Bloom’s taxonomy is often used as a helpful tool to create learning objectives that help define and measure the learning experience for both student and instructor. (Anderson, 2001, Bloom, 1956, Krathwohl, 2002)

Classroom Assessment Techniques (CATs):  “An approach designed to help teachers find out what students are learning in the classroom and how well they are learning it. This approach is learner-centered, teacher-directed, mutually beneficial, formative, context-specific, ongoing, and firmly rooted in good practice”. Through using a CAT the instructor is able to gather formative feedback on students learning to inform future teaching. (Angelo & Cross 1993)

Classroom Climate:  “The intellectual, social, emotional, and physical environments in which our students learn” (Ambrose et al., 2010, p. 170). Course climate is determined by factors like faculty-student interaction, the tone the instructor sets, course demographics, student-student interactions, and the range of perspectives represented in course content.

Cognitive Load:  Cognitive load refers to the demands and limitations on working memory storage given the limited amount of information processing that can occur simultaneously in the verbal and the visual processing channels of the brain. (Mayer & Moreno 2003, Schnotz & Kürschner 2007)

Collaborative Learning : an umbrella term that covers many different methods in which students work together to solve a problem, complete a task, or create a product. Collaborative learning is founded in the concept that learning and knowledge building is social and requires active engagement from students.  (Smith & MacGregor 1992)

Constructivism:  A theory of learning popularized in the twentieth century that argues that knowledge is actively constructed rather than passively absorbed by learners. Constructivists contend that when learners acquire new knowledge, it is through a dynamic process in which the learner recreates existing mental models, situating this new information in terms of what they already know. Social constructivists additionally recognize the role of social interaction (co-construction) and communication as key forces in learning. Foundational constructivists include John Dewey, Lev Vygotsky, Jerome Bruner, and Jean Piaget. Constructivist pedagogical strategies are grounded in constructivist theory and often include opportunities for experiential learning, active exploration, student interaction, and reflection. Courses designed around this principle emphasize connections among course concepts and themes and support students in forming relationships between this new knowledge and what they already know.  See also zone of proximal development  and  student-centered teaching .

• Bruner, J.S. (1974).  Toward a theory of instruction . Harvard UP.
• Eyler, J. (2018). “Sociality”  How humans learn: The science and stories behind effective college teaching . West Virginia P.

Vygotsky, L. (1978).  Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes . Harvard UP.

Culturally Responsive Pedagogy:  A pedagogical framework where instructors center students’ cultural identities as an important aspect of learning. Those committed to this framework deliberately work to make connections between course content and students’ lived experiences in order to prompt student involvement and motivation. Culturally responsive course design includes cooperative, student-centered instruction and diverse course readings from a variety of voices and perspectives, particularly those voices which may fall outside of traditional collegiate canons (Landson-Billings 2006).

• Burnham, K. (2019)  Culturally Responsive Teaching Strategies . Northeastern University Graduate Programs Blog
• Ladson-Billings, G. (1995). “But that’s just good teaching! The case for culturally relevant pedagogy.”  Theory into Practice 34 (3), 159-165.

  Experiential Learning:  Experiential learning is a process by which students develop knowledge and skills from direct experience, usually outside a traditional academic setting.  Examples include: internships, study abroad, community-based learning, service learning, and research opportunities. The concept was introduced by David Kolb in 1984 and combines both a cognitive and behavioral approach to learning (Kolb 1984).

Further Resource:

• Tran, M. (2016).  Making a Case for Experiential Learning . Pearson.

Fixed Mindset:  Mindset refers to the beliefs and attitudes held by a person and can affect their learning outcomes and achievement. Individuals with a fixed mindset (also referred to as entity theory) are outcomes-focused, don’t view intellectual ability as being malleable, and give up quickly on learning a new skill when learning becomes more challenging and difficult (Dweck, 2008, Dweck & Master 2008, Rattan et. Al. 2012, Yeager 2012).  See also growth mindset.

  Flipped Classroom:  A flipped classroom is a teaching approach where students a first exposed to content before coming to a class session and then spend class time engaging more deeply with the ideas and concepts (Brame, 2013). This model encourages the use of active learning during in-person class sessions to allow students to explore concepts, solve problems, and discuss ideas with each other and the instructor.

Formative Assessment:  Formative assessment is the process of providing feedback to students during the learning process.  These are often low stakes activities that allow the instructor to check student work and provide feedback.  An instructor writing comments and suggestions on a draft version of a paper is an example of formative assessment (Weimer 2013).

Growth Mindset:  Mindset refers to the beliefs and attitudes held by a person and can affect their learning outcomes and achievement.  Individuals with a growth mindset (also referred to as incremental theory) are process-focused, assess their performance relative to mastery of the material, and believe that intellectual ability is malleable.  Having a growth mindset involves sustained effort toward learning new knowledge and reflection on past failures so that one can increase their knowledge and ability (Dweck, 2008, Dweck & Master 2008, Rattan et. Al. 2012, Yeager 2012).  See also fixed mindset.

  Hidden Curriculum:  The hidden curriculum is a collection of unwritten norms, values, rules, and expectations that one must have awareness of in order to successfully navigate educational settings, but which remain unknown to those who have not been socialized into the dominant discourse (Smith, 2015, p.9). The hidden curriculum includes an understanding of school structures,resources, financial aid systems, and institutional rules, along with an awareness of cultural expectations for participating in class and communicating with peers and instructors. See also  social belonging  and  transparent assignments .

• Ostrove, J. & Long, S. (2007). “Social class and belonging: Implications for college adjustment.”  The review of higher education 30 (4).
• Hidden Curriculum . The Glossary of Education Reform.

Inclusive Teaching:  a mode of teaching that intentionally designs course content and curricula to engage with students of diverse backgrounds, abilities, and lived experiences. The ultimate goal of inclusive teaching is to create a learning environment where all students feel valued and supported to succeed.

• Inclusive Teaching Strategies . Center for Teaching Innovation, Cornell University.
• Making excellence inclusive . Association of American Colleges and Universities. (n.d.)
• Strategies for Inclusive Teaching . Center for Teaching and Learning, Washington University in St. Louis.   

Inquiry-Based Learning:  Inquiry-based learning is an umbrella term that includes pedagogical strategies such as problem-based learning and case-based learning that prioritize students exploring, thinking, asking, and answering content questions with peers to acquire new knowledge through a carefully designed activity.  Such activities build in opportunities for students to authentically engage in and apply the scientific process as scientists rather than following a predetermined protocol (LaForce et.al., 2017, Yew & Goh 2016).  See also problem-based learning, project-based learning.

  Learning Management System (LMS):  A Learning Management System is a platform that enables instructors to organize and distribute course materials in a digital format.  While features may vary, a typical LMS allows instructors to communicate with students, share readings, create and collect assignments, assess student work and post grades.  An LMS may be used to compliment a face-to-face course or for an entirely online course. Popular platforms include Canvas, Blackboard, and Moodle.

Learning Objective/Learning Goal/Learning Outcome:  statements that articulate the knowledge and skills you want students to acquire by the end of the course or after completing a particular unit or assignment. Learning objectives help instructors to shape course content and assessments as well as increase transparency for students by clearly communicating expectations.

• Articulate Your Learning Objectives . Eberly Center for Teaching Excellence & Educational Innovation, Carnegie Mellon University

Metacognition:  Metacognition involves metacognitive knowledge and metacognitive regulation.  Metacognitive knowledge is defined as thinking or having an awareness of one’s cognitive processes.  Metacognitive regulation is the active monitoring of one’s cognition through planning (identifying appropriate learning strategies), monitoring (forming an awareness of one’s task performance) and evaluating (assessing and refining one’s learning through reflection) (Lai, 2011, Tanner, 2012).

Motivation:  An individual’s “personal investment” in reaching a desired state or outcome as “seen in the direction, intensity, persistence, and quality of what is done and expressed” (Maeher, M.L. & Meyer, H.A., 1997, p. 373). Research suggests that motivation plays a vital role in directing and sustaining student learning. The most motivated students see value in the task, believe that they can accomplish the task, and feel that they are in a supportive environment (Ambrose et al, 2010, p. 80).

• Lazowski, R.A. & Hulleman, C.S. (2016). “Motivation interventions in education: A meta-analytic review.”  Review of Educational Research 86 (2) 602-640.

Object-Based Learning (OBL):  Object-based learning (OBL) is a teaching method whereby students engage with authentic or replica material objects in their learning in order to gain discipline-specific knowledge or to practice observational or practical skills that can be applied in various fields. “Objects” can include a number of different material items often housed in museums: specimens, works of art, architectural forms, relics, manuscripts and rare books, archival documents, or artifacts of various kinds. Research on OBL suggests that “objects can inspire, inform, fascinate and motivate learners at all stages of their education” (Jamieson, 2017, p. 12).

• Chatterjee, H. J. (2016).  Engaging the senses: Object-based learning in higher education . Routledge.

Pedagogy:  Pedagogy is the method, practice and study of effective teaching. In order to be effective, instructors must have both subject-based knowledge and pedagogic knowledge and skills (Barkley & Major, 2016).

Problem-Based Learning:   A form of student-centered teaching that focuses on having students work through open-ended problems to explore course material. Students are asked to define the problem as part of the process, research content outside of class time and iterate solutions to arrive at their final response (Nilson, L.B., 2016)

Project-Based Learning:  A form of student-centered teaching that engages students with course content as they work through a complex project. These projects are typically real-world scenarios and multifaceted. Project-based learning encourages interdisciplinary conversations and groups work.

• What is PBL?.  Buck Institute for Education: PBL Works.

Retrieval Practice:  Retrieval practice involves retrieving new knowledge from memory in order for durable retention in long-term memory.  The process is supported by experiments which explore student’s recall of new material.  Retrieval practice can take the form of frequent, low-stakes quizzes, or students may employ methods like flashcards for self-testing (Brown et.al. 2014,  retrievalpractice.org ).

  Scaffolding:  A process by which instructors build on a student’s previous experience or knowledge by adding in specific timely support structures in the form of activities or assignments for students to master new knowledge or skills and achieve learning goals (Greening, 1998, Hmelo-Silver et.al. 2007).  See also Zone of Proximal Development.

  Scholarship of Teaching and Learning (SoTL):  an approach to college-level teaching that frames teaching as a form of scholarly inquiry. Through engaging in SoTL instructors examine their students’ learning to innovate and engage in knowledge-sharing with colleagues (Huber 2013). Instructors who engage in SoTL as part of their teaching are encouraged to reflect on personal assumptions and curiosities about how their students learn. Then consider how to test the validity of these ideas. Examples of SoTL projects include exploring the impact of implementing a single active learning strategy, considering the impact of reflection on student learning, determining the impact of a complete course restructure (Poole 2018).

Social Belonging:  Social belonging is a state when students feel welcomed and included into a community where they can engage freely and foster positive relationships with others (Walton & Cohen, 2011).

  Summative Assessment:  Summative assessment is the process of measuring a student’s learning at the conclusion of a course (or a portion of the course). Summative assessments are typically associated with grades and can take the form of quizzes, exams or papers.

Stereotype Threat:  Stereotypes are negative generalizations about groups of people.  When students are subtly or overtly made aware (primed) of these stereotypes while performing challenging academic tasks in domains that are important to them, students begin to underperform in these tasks.  Anxiety about confirming a negative stereotype creates additional cognitive load that reduces the capacity of working memory in the brain (Aronson et.al. 1999, Steele & Aronson 1995).

Student-centered teaching : Instructor-center teaching refers to instructors teaching content solely through a passive approach such as lecturing while students listen and take notes with minimal interaction with other students.  Student-centered teaching, however, consists of instructors using a wide range of pedagogical approaches for students to learn and actively engage with the course content by having students construct knowledge with peers through collaboration, discussion, group projects, and problem solving (Felder & Brent 1996, Freeman et.al. 2007, Handelsman et.al. 2007).  See also inquiry-based learning, problem-based learning, project-based learning, constructivism, zone of proximal development.

  Student Engagement:  Student engagement describes the ways in which students take part in the learning process and the development of their own knowledge. An increase in student engagement is thought to be linked to an increase in student learning. Student engagement is often tied to active learning techniques and student motivation (McVitty 2015).

• Student Engagement . The Glossary of Education Reform.

Synchronous instruction:  Synchronous instruction is the idea that students learn material at the same time.  Examples of synchronous instruction might include lectures, discussions or collaborative activities. When applied to remote learning, students must be online at the same time.  This approach can be disadvantageous if students are spread across different time zones or have limited access to technology.

  Teaching Development Plan (TDP):  a written document that helps instructors focus on teaching specific career goals. A TDP encourages instructors to set goals, and periodically reflect on both progress and barriers faced while working towards these goals.

Threshold Concept:  Thresholds are crucial barriers in the learning process where students often get “stuck”. These ideas are essential to understanding a particular discipline and progress in the discipline can be blocked until that barrier to understanding has been overcome. Examples of discipline-based threshold concepts include deep time in geology or the idea of constructed narrative in history (Meyer & Land 2006, Pace 2017).

Transfer:  A cognitive process by which a learner takes what they’ve learned in one context and successfully applies it to another. Transfer is often broken down into “near transfer” (transfer of knowledge to a similar task or context) and “far transfer” (transfer of knowledge to novel tasks or contexts). Given that a central purpose of education is for students to take what they have learned into other classes and then into their lives beyond school, this has long been a critical area of study in educational and educational psychology research (Perkins & Salomon 2012).

• Transfer of Knowledge to New Contexts . Poorvu Center for Teaching and Learning, Yale University
• Building Knowledge Through Transfer . Center for Advancing Teaching and Learning Through Research, Northeastern University.

Transparent Assignment Design:  An inclusive teaching practice first proposed by Mary-Ann Winkelmes and her instructional development and research team at UNLV, transparent assignments help students understand the purpose of the assessment, clearly describe the task and how it should be accomplished, and plainly define criteria for success. Assignment transparency has been shown to significantly boost student success in terms of academic confidence, sense of belonging, and metacognitive awareness of skill development (Winkelmes et al. 2016).  See also social belonging  and  hidden curriculum.

• Hutchins, P., Winkelmes, M. “Transparency in Leaching and Learning”.  PDF of Powerpoint slides.
• Winkelmes, M. et al. (2015). “Benefits (some unexpected) of transparently designed assignments.”  National Teaching & Learning Forum 24 (4), 4-6.

Universal Design for Learning (UDL):  Universal Design for Learning is a framework to improve and optimize teaching and learning for all people based on scientific insights into how humans learn.  Designing a course according to UDL principles is centered on the key concepts of: engagement, representation, and action & expression.  These are sometimes summarized as the Why, What and How of learning (Murawski & Scott 2019, Tobin 2018,  CAST .org).

  Zone of Proximal Development (ZPD):  This developmental zone stands between what the learner can already do on their own and what they cannot yet do. It is the range in which a learner is able to move from point A to point B with assistance from peers or an instructor; in other words, the zone in which learning takes place. The concept was originally described in the work of Soviet psychologist and social constructivist, Lev Vygotsky (Vygotsky 1978).  See also constructivism  and  scaffolding .

Ambrose, S. et al. (2010).  How learning works: Seven research-based principles for  smart teaching . Jossey-Bass.

Anderson LW, Krathwohl DR. (2001).  A taxonomy for learning, teaching, and assessing: a revision of Bloom’s taxonomy of educational objectives . Longmans.

Angelo, T. A. & Cross, K.P. (1993).  Classroom Assessment Techniques: A Handbook for College Teachers.  2nd Ed. Jossey Bass

Aronson, J., Lustina, M. J., Good, C., Keough, K., Steele, C. M., & Brown, J. (1999). When White Men Can’t Do Math: Necessary and Sufficient Factors in Stereotype Threat.  Journal of Experimental Social Psychology . 35, 29-46.

Barkley, E.F. and C.H. Major (2016).  Learning Assessment Techniques: a handbook for college faculty.   Jossey Bass.

Bloom BS. (1956).  Taxonomy of educational objectives: the classification of educational goals.  Longmans.

Brame, C., (2013). Flipping the classroom. Vanderbilt University Center for Teaching. Retrieved 6/11/20 from http://cft.vanderbilt.edu/guides-sub-pages/flipping-the-classroom/.

Brown, Peter C., H.L Roediger, M.A. McDaniel (2014).  Make it stick: the science of successful learning.  Harvard University Press.

Darby, F., Lang, J.M. (2019).  Small Teaching Online: Applying Learning Science in Online Classes . Jossey-Bass

Dweck, C. (2008).  Mindsets and math/science achievement . Carnegie Foundation.

Dweck, C. S., & Master, A. (2008). “Self-theories motivate self-regulated learning”. In Schunk, D. H. Zimmerman, B. J. (Eds.),  Motivation and self-regulated learning: Theory, research, and applications  (pp. 31–51). Taylor & Francis.

Felder, R. M., & Brent, R. (1996). Navigating the bumpy road to student-centered instruction.  College teaching ,  44 (2), 43-47.

Freeman, S., O’Connor, E., Parks, J. W., Cunningham, M., Hurley, D., Haka, D., Dirks, C. & Wenderoth, M. P. (2007). Prescribed active learning increases performance in introductory biology.  CBE—Life Sciences Education ,  6 (2), 132-139.

Greening, T. (1998) Scaffolding for Success in Problem-Based Learning,  Medical Education Online , 3(1), 4297

Handelsman, J., Miller, S., & Pfund, C. (2007).  Scientific teaching . Macmillan.

Hmelo-Silver, C. E., Duncan, R. G., & Chinn, C. A. (2007). Scaffolding and achievement in problem-based and inquiry learning: a response to Kirschner, Sweller, and Clark 2006.  Educational psychologist ,  42 (2), 99-107.

Huber, M. (2013).  What is the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning?  Stanford Teaching Commons. Retrieved on 6/11/2020 from  https://teachingcommons.stanford.edu/teaching-talk/what-scholarship-teaching-and-learning-mary-huber

LaForce, M., Noble, E., & Blackwell, C. (2017). Problem-based learning (PBL) and student interest in STEM careers: The roles of motivation and ability beliefs.  Education Sciences ,  7 (4), 92.

Lai, E.R. (2011). Metacognition: A Literature Review.  Pearson’s Research Reports.  Retrieved on 6/11/2020  from  https://images.pearsonassessments.com/images/tmrs/Metacognition_Literature_Review_Final.pdf

Jamieson, A. (2017). “Object-based learning: A new way of teaching arts west.”  University of Melbourne Collections 20  (June).

Krathwohl, D. (2002). A revision of Bloom’s taxonomy: An overview.  Theory Into Practice , 41(4), 212-218.

Kolb, D. A. (1984).  Experiential learning: Experience as the source of learning and development.  Prentice-Hall.

Landson-Billings, G. (2006). “Yes, but how do we do it? Practicing culturally relevant pedagogy.”  White teachers/Diverse classrooms: A guide to building inclusive schools, promoting high expectations, and eliminating racism , p. 29-41 Stylus Publishing.

Maehr, M.L. & Meyer, H.A. (1997). “Understanding motivation and schooling: Where we’ve been, where we are, and where we need to go.”  Educational Psychology Review,  9(4) 358-375.

Mayer, R.E. & Moreno, R. (2003) Nine Ways to Reduce Cognitive Load in Multimedia Learning,  Educational Psychologist , 38(1), 43-52.

Meyer, J and R. Land (2006).  Overcoming barriers to student understanding: Threshold concepts and troublesome knowledge . Routledge.

Murawski, W. and K.L. Scott (2019).  What really works with Universal Design for Learning.  Corwin.

Nilson, L.B. (2016).  Teaching at Its Best: A Research-Based Resource for College Instructors 4 th  ed.  Jossey-Bass.

Pace, D. (2017).  Decoding the Disciplines: seven steps to increased student learning . Indiana University Press

Perkins, D.N. & Salomon. (2012). “Knowledge to go: A motivational and dispositional view of transfer.”  Educational Psychologist,  47(3), 248-258.

Poole, G. (2018). “Using Intuition, Anecdote, and Observation: Rich Sources of SoTL Projects” in  SoTL in Action: Illuminating Critical Moments of Practice  edited by Chick, N.L. Sylus Publishing.

Rattan, A., Good, C., & Dweck, C. S. (2012). “It’s ok—not everyone can be good at math”: Instructors with an entity theory comfort (and demotivate) students.  Journal of Experimental Social Psychology , 48(3), 731-737.

Schnotz, W., & Kürschner, C. (2007). A reconsideration of cognitive load theory.  Educational psychology review , 19(4), 469-508.

Smith, B. (2015).  Mentoring at-risk students through the hidden curriculum of higher education.  Lexington Books.

Steele, C. M., & Aronson, J. (1995). Stereotype threat and the intellectual test performance of African Americans.  Journal of personality and social psychology , 69(5), 797.

Tanner, K. D. (2012). Promoting student metacognition.  CBE—Life Sciences Education , 11(2), 113-120.

Tobin, T.J. (2018)  Reach Everyone, Teach Everyone: Universal Design for Learning in Higher Education.  West Virginia University Press.

Walton, G. M., & Cohen, G. L. (2011). A brief social-belonging intervention improves academic and health outcomes of minority students.  Science , 331(6023), 1447-1451.

Weimer, M. (2013).  Learner-centered teaching: five key changes to practice.  John Wiley & Sons.

Wiggins, G. (1990) “The case for authentic assessment”  Practical Assessment, Research, and Evaluation,  2 ( 2).

Wiggins, G., McTighe, J. (1998). “What is Backward Design?” from  Understanding by Design . Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.

  Winkelmes, M. et al. (2016). “A teaching intervention that increases underserved college students’ success.”  Peer Review  (Winter/Spring).

Yeager, D. S., & Dweck, C. S. (2012). Mindsets that promote resilience: When students believe that personal characteristics can be developed.  Educational Psychologist , 47 (4), 302–314.

Yew, E. H., & Goh, K. (2016). Problem-based learning: An overview of its process and impact on learning.  Health Professions Education , 2(2), 75-79.

Have suggestions?

If you have suggestions of resources we might add to these pages, please contact us:

[email protected] (314) 935-6810 Mon - Fri, 8:30 a.m. - 5:00 p.m.

Task Analysis: The Foundation for Successfully Teaching Life Skills

A Well Written Task Analysis Will Help Students Gain Independence

• Applied Behavior Analysis
• Behavior Management
• Lesson Plans
• Math Strategies
• Reading & Writing
• Social Skills
• Inclusion Strategies
• Individual Education Plans
• Becoming A Teacher
• Assessments & Tests
• Elementary Education
• Secondary Education
• Homeschooling
• M.Ed., Special Education, West Chester University
• B.A., Elementary Education, University of Pittsburgh

A task analysis is a fundamental tool for teaching life skills.  It is how a specific life skill task will be introduced and taught. The choice of forward or backward chaining will depend on how the task analysis is written.

A good task analysis consists of a written list of the discrete steps required to complete a task, such as brushing teeth, mopping a floor, or setting a table. The task analysis is not meant to be given to the child but is used by the teacher and staff supporting the student in learning the task in question.

Customize Task Analysis for Student Needs

Students with strong language and cognitive skills will need fewer steps in a task analysis than a student with a more disabling condition. Students with good skills could respond to the step "Pull pants up," while a student without strong language skills may need that task broken down into steps: 1) Grasp pants on the sides at the student's knees with thumbs inside the waistband. 2) Pull the elastic out so that it will go over the student's hips. 3) Remove thumbs from waistband. 4) Adjust if necessary.

A task analysis is also helpful as well for writing an IEP goal. When stating how performance will be measured, you can write: When given a task analysis of 10 steps for sweeping the floor, Robert will complete 8 of 10 steps (80%) with two or fewer prompts per step.

A task analysis needs to be written in a way that many adults, not just teachers but parents, classroom aides , and even typical peers, can understand it. It need not be great literature, but it does need to be explicit and use terms that will easily be understood by multiple people.   

Example Task Analysis: Brushing Teeth

• Student removes toothbrush from toothbrush case
• Student turns on water and wets bristles.
• Student unscrews toothpaste and squeezes 3/4 inches of paste onto bristles.
• Student opens mouth and brushes up and down on upper teeth.
• Student rinses his teeth with water from a cup.
• Student opens mouth and brushes up and down on lower teeth.
• Student brushes the tongue vigorously with toothpaste.
• Student replaces toothpaste cap and places toothpaste and brush in toothbrush case.

Example Task Analysis: Putting on a Tee Shirt

• Student chooses a shirt from the drawer. Student checks to be sure the label is inside.
• Student lays the shirt on the bed with the front down. Students checks to see that the label is near the student.
• Student slips hands into the two sides of the shirt to the shoulders.
• Student pulls head through the collar.  
• Student slides right and then left arm through the armholes.  

Keep in mind that, prior to setting goals for the task to be completed, it is advisable to test this task analysis using the child, to see if he or she is physically able to perform each part of the task. Different students have different skills. 

• Chaining Forward and Chaining Backwards
• Hand Over Hand Prompting for Children With Disabilities
• Ideas for Teaching Life Skills in and out of the Classroom
• Teaching Life Skills in the Classroom
• A Dental Health Activity With Eggshells and Soda
• Personal Hygiene in Space: How it Works
• How to Successfully Teach English One-to-One
• Gradual Release of Responsibility Creates Independent Learners
• Dental Health Printables
• Chunking: Breaking Tasks into Manageable Parts
• Functional Skills: Skills to Help Special Education Students Gain Independence
• Egg in Vinegar: A Dental Health Activity
• Teacher Survival Kit: 10 Essential Items
• IEP Goals for Progress Monitoring
• Writing a Lesson Plan: Independent Practice
• How to Set Up Classroom Learning Centers

Explore More

Stay in our orbit.

Stay connected with industry news, resources for English teachers and job seekers, ELT events, and more.

Explore Topics

• Global Elt News
• Job Resources
• Industry Insights
• Teaching English Online
• Classroom Games / Activities
• Teaching English Abroad
• Professional Development

Popular Articles

• 5 Popular ESL Teaching Methods Every Teacher Should Know
• 10 Fun Ways to Use Realia in Your ESL Classroom
• How to Teach ESL Vocabulary: Top Methods for Introducing New Words
• Advice From an Expert: TEFL Interview Questions & How to Answer Them
• What Is TESOL? What Is TEFL? Which Certificate Is Better – TEFL or TESOL?

What Is Task-Based Learning? A Guide to the Popular Teaching Method

Johanna kawasaki.

• April 6, 2021

As global language teachers who want to stay up to date with recent developments in education (and also stay competitive when it comes to getting that dream job), we have to constantly evolve as educators and include modern ways of teaching in our lesson planning and our teaching methods. One such method that all ESL teachers should know about is task-based learning (TBL), also referred to as task-based language teaching. What is task-based learning? Read on if you’re interested in learning about this rewarding and fun teaching method!

If you’re new to teaching, you’ll want to get initial training and qualification with a TEFL certificate . You can explore our online TEFL courses to get started!

Why is task-based learning important?

• During task-based learning, students solve tasks that are relevant and interesting to them. In order to solve the task, they need to use the target language they’re learning to communicate with their peers. They use authentic language instead of answering grammar or vocabulary questions about the language. Students — especially younger learners — don’t actually feel that they’re studying a language at that moment because they’re engrossed in the task they’re working on.
• Task-based learning is especially conducive to group learning. Learning a language as a group is also a very important contributor to effective retention. Collaborating with others and becoming confident with the language within a group is a key step in acquiring that language. Also, receiving positive feedback from peers and teachers increases confidence and motivation to learn and to communicate with others.
• Students’ understanding of the language also deepens because the realistic context in which they’re learning the language is relevant to their personal lives. It’s a good idea to ask your students about their hobbies and preferences at the beginning of a course so that you can include their interests in the tasks you set.
• In addition to the benefits for students, solid knowledge of this method will also increase your job prospects as a teacher. Some job ads specifically ask for task-based language teaching experience!

What is the task-based method?

The task-based teaching approach is one of many modern ESL teaching methods and focuses on setting a goal for students — this could be a report, a video, or a presentation — and then following three main steps to achieve that goal.

1. The pre-task

During this stage, which can take up a whole lesson if needed, the teacher introduces the task to the students and gets them motivated to solve it. Once everyone is engaged, the teacher should explain what is expected for the task.

Verbal explanations can be supported by an example from the teacher or by showing a previous student’s work. The teacher can then give further instructions if needed and offer advice on how to approach the task.

2. The task

This is the main stage of task-based learning, where students start working on the task, usually in groups or pairs. This stage is done in the target language so that students feel the need to use the language they want to learn in order to solve the task.

The teacher doesn’t usually join in the work process. Instead, he or she will monitor the students and offer hints if students really need support.

Find out about teaching English online to groups.

3. The review (or post-task)

Once the students have completed the task and have something to present, the review stage, also known as the post-task, starts.

It’s a good idea to let students evaluate each other’s work and only offer a teacher review of frequently-made errors during the task. Peer correction could be carried out in the form of comments, feedback discussions, or a checklist with additional room for free commentary.

The review stage offers students the opportunity to reflect on their work and analyze it in order to improve their skills for the future.

What is a task (vs. an activity)?

Task-based learning uses a lesson structure that incorporates different activities to solve a task. The task can span the length of an entire lesson or, if it’s project-based learning, it can take up several lessons to complete.

Essentially, the task is the big-picture assignment that students are trying to complete or solve, and the activities are the individual steps or exercises they take to achieve the task.

Examples of tasks include:

• Creating a presentation
• Making a video or short movie
• Writing a piece of text, such as a newsletter article
• Acting out a skit
• Creating an original game that includes writing down the game rules, playing the game, and evaluating the game
• Working out the solution to a practical problem, such as planning an upcoming trip or gathering missing information, like working out who started a rumor at school
• Participating in a group debate or discussion, like arguing for a favorite competitor in a TV show

You can develop some great tasks using these fun ESL games and activities for young learners and teens.

What is a task-based activity?

A task-based activity is a procedure in which students have to use the target language in order to achieve a specific outcome. The best TBL activities reflect real-life situations, so the students can see that the lesson is relevant to their own lives.

One of the main task-based learning advantages is that the activities allow students to use the language they know freely and exploratively as long as they are able to complete the overall task. Error correction can be done at the end of the lesson if necessary but not during the activity, so you encourage fluency and motivate students to use the language.

Learn more about correcting students’ mistakes with the Micro-credential Course in Error Correction in the EFL Classroom.

An example of a task-based activity could be to have each student draw a comic picture and explain the content and the inspiration behind it to the group. They then have to collaborate to put together a comic strip that includes each student’s picture, which is the main task (to create an original comic strip).

• You can also use task-based language teaching and task-based activities in the online classroom. You can have students submit their work and you can share the results with the group. Then, everyone can work together on the main task that you previously set.

Learn more about creating materials for the EFL classroom!

How can you apply a task-based approach to your teaching?

As an English teacher, you will not get around the “boring stuff,” such as grammar drills and vocabulary work. You also have to keep in mind that your students need to practice all four skills: writing, reading, speaking, and listening.

However, keeping the drills and language exercises to a necessary minimum and including more task-based learning in your curriculum can help students use the target language immediately and retain words and grammar points more effectively.

Here are two examples of task-based lesson plans:

In the physical classroom (with a group of 10-15 teenagers)

• Greeting and warm-up: While the students are settling in, you can play a song that’s popular among your students. You can let them sing along if they know the song well!
• Assign the task and give instructions: “Create your own music video in groups of 4-5 students using a song of your choice. Everybody has to have a role, from managing the camera to coming up with choreography to performing in the video. You have this lesson for planning and the next lesson for filming. We will watch all of the videos in the third lesson and give feedback to each other.”
• Do the task: Let students gather in groups and start planning their video. Monitor their language and teamwork, and take notes. Make sure that everybody is engaged and involved and that there are no students who are just standing by.
• Review: Before the lesson ends, give brief and motivating feedback to the students, and praise them for their efforts and their use of the language. Remind the students to be ready to start filming during the next lesson.

In the online classroom (with around 5 young learners)

• Greeting and warm-up: Call out each student’s name and show each of them a card with a different word on it. It could be “dog,” “play,” “boy,” “girl,” “sunny,” etc. Have each student read their word out loud.
• Assign the task and give instructions: “Create a short story that includes all of the words I gave you just now. You can decide the order of the words and how you use them in your story. You can add as many words and plot twists as you like. Each student has to contribute at least one sentence. Please start.”
• Do the task: Watch the students on camera and take notes. If communication between them comes to a standstill, you can provide some support by asking questions, such as “What do you think could happen next?” or “Who can come up with the next idea?” or “Who wants to include their word next?” Your support should encourage the students to participate without giving them an idea straight away. Finally, have the students write down the story that they created. They can then take turns reading it out loud, one sentence at a time.
• Review: Praise your students for their effort and teamwork, and applaud their story. Let the students have time for self-reflection and respond to questions such as “What did you do especially well today?” or “What would you like to improve for next time?”

If you’re not comfortable with task-based language teaching just yet, don’t let that discourage you. You can envision using this teaching method as your personal task. Set yourself a goal, try TBL out in your next lesson, and review your class afterward to reflect on what to improve and what went well!

In a teaching pinch? Try one of these last-minute ESL lesson plans that can be adapted to any class!

After backpacking Australia on a Working Holiday visa, Bridge graduate Johanna traveled to Japan for a year to teach English. She then moved to New Zealand for another two years before returning to her chosen home country, Japan, where she currently lives. Now, with more than eight years of professional English teaching experience, Johanna enjoys her expat life in Japan teaching teenagers at a private junior and senior high school, where she recently received tenure after only two years. When she’s not teaching, Johanna continues to travel regionally and explore new places.

• Request a Demo

Educators Blog

What is a Performance Task?

By Jay McTighe,

A performance task is any learning activity or assessment that asks students to perform to demonstrate their knowledge, understanding and proficiency. Performance tasks yield a tangible product and/or performance that serve as evidence of learning. Unlike a selected-response item (e.g., multiple-choice or matching) that asks students to select from given alternatives, a performance task presents a situation that calls for learners to apply their learning in context.

Performance tasks are routinely used in certain disciplines, such as visual and performing arts, physical education, and career-technology where performance is the natural focus of instruction. However, such tasks can (and should) be used in every subject area and at all grade levels.

 Performance tasks can be used to engage students in meaningful learning. Since rich performance tasks establish authentic contexts that reflect genuine applications of knowledge, students are often motivated and engaged by such “real world” challenges.

When used as assessments, performance tasks enable teachers to gauge student understanding and proficiency with complex processes (e.g., research, problem-solving, and writing), not just measure discrete knowledge. They are well suited to integrating subject areas and linking content knowledge with the 21st Century Skills such as critical thinking, creativity, collaboration, communication, and technology use.   New research shows that such performance tasks lead to deeper understanding and can improve student achievement up +39%.

To learn how educators can create and implement effective performance tasks that drive student achievement, visit www.PerformanceTask.com .

  Jay McTighe is a nationally recognized educator and author of the award-winning and best-selling Understanding by Design series with Grant Wiggins.

Editors Note: This is an excerpt from the article " What is a Performance Task ( Part  1)" published on the PerformanceTask.com blog. 

Subscribe to the #1 PBL Blog!

Receive new articles in the world of Project Based Learning, STEM/STEAM, and College & Career Readiness. 

• Project-Based Learning (368)
• STEM/STEAM (169)
• College and Career Readiness (54)
• Professional Learning (52)
• Career-Connected Learning (36)
• Social and Emotional Learning (35)
• Computer Science (15)
• Assessment (6)
• Highlights (1)

Subscribe to our blog

What is a Performance Task? (Part 1)

Defined Learning

Performance Task PD with Jay McTighe — Blog

A performance task is any learning activity or assessment that asks students to perform to demonstrate their knowledge, understanding and proficiency. Performance tasks yield a tangible product and/or performance that serve as evidence of learning. Unlike a selected-response item (e.g., multiple-choice or matching) that asks students to select from given alternatives, a performance task presents a situation that calls for learners to apply their learning in context.

Performance tasks are routinely used in certain disciplines, such as visual and performing arts, physical education, and career-technology where performance is the natural focus of instruction. However, such tasks can (and should) be used in every subject area and at all grade levels.

Characteristics of Performance Tasks

While any performance by a learner might be considered a performance task (e.g., tying a shoe or drawing a picture), it is useful to distinguish between the application of specific and discrete skills (e.g., dribbling a basketball) from genuine performance in context (e.g., playing the game of basketball in which dribbling is one of many applied skills). Thus, when I use the term performance tasks, I am referring to more complex and authentic performances.

Here are seven general characteristics of performance tasks:

• Performance tasks call for the application of knowledge and skills, not just recall or recognition.

In other words, the learner must actually use their learning to perform . These tasks typically yield a tangible product (e.g., graphic display, blog post) or performance (e.g., oral presentation, debate) that serve as evidence of their understanding and proficiency.

2. Performance tasks are open-ended and typically do not yield a single, correct answer.

Unlike selected- or brief constructed- response items that seek a “right” answer, performance tasks are open-ended. Thus, there can be different responses to the task that still meet success criteria. These tasks are also open in terms of process; i.e., there is typically not a single way of accomplishing the task.

3. Performance tasks establish novel and authentic contexts for performance.

These tasks present realistic conditions and constraints for students to navigate. For example, a mathematics task would present students with a never-before-seen problem that cannot be solved by simply “plugging in” numbers into a memorized algorithm. In an authentic task, students need to consider goals, audience, obstacles, and options to achieve a successful product or performance. Authentic tasks have a side benefit — they convey purpose and relevance to students, helping learners see a reason for putting forth effort in preparing for them.

4. Performance tasks provide evidence of understanding via transfer.

Understanding is revealed when students can transfer their learning to new and “messy” situations. Note that not all performances require transfer. For example, playing a musical instrument by following the notes or conducting a step-by-step science lab require minimal transfer. In contrast, rich performance tasks are open-ended and call “higher-order thinking” and the thoughtful application of knowledge and skills in context, rather than a scripted or formulaic performance.

5. Performance tasks are multi-faceted.

Unlike traditional test “items” that typically assess a single skill or fact, performance tasks are more complex. They involve multiple steps and thus can be used to assess several standards or outcomes.

6. Performance tasks can integrate two or more subjects as well as 21st century skills.

In the wider world beyond the school, most issues and problems do not present themselves neatly within subject area “silos.” While performance tasks can certainly be content-specific (e.g., mathematics, science, social studies), they also provide a vehicle for integrating two or more subjects and/or weaving in 21st century skills and Habits of Mind. One natural way of integrating subjects is to include a reading, research, and/or communication component (e.g., writing, graphics, oral or technology presentation) to tasks in content areas like social studies, science, health, business, health/physical education. Such tasks encourage students to see meaningful learning as integrated, rather than something that occurs in isolated subjects and segments.

7. Performances on open-ended tasks are evaluated with established criteria and rubrics.

Since these tasks do not yield a single answer, student products and performances should be judged against appropriate criteria aligned to the goals being assessed. Clearly defined and aligned criteria enable defensible, judgment-based evaluation. More detailed scoring rubrics, based on criteria, are used to profile varying levels of understanding and proficiency.

Let’s look at a few examples of performance tasks that reflect these characteristics:

Botanical Design (upper elementary)

Your landscape architectural firm is competing for a grant to redesign a public space in your community and to improve its appearance and utility. The goal of the grant is to create a community area where people can gather to enjoy themselves and the native plants of the region. The grant also aspires to educate people as to the types of trees, shrubs, and flowers that are native to the region. Your team will be responsible for selecting a public place in your area that you can improve for visitors and members of the community. You will have to research the area selected, create a scale drawing of the layout of the area you plan to redesign, propose a new design to include native plants of your region, and prepare educational materials that you will incorporate into the design.

Check out the full performance task from Defined STEM , here: Botanical Design Performance Task . Defined STEM is an online resource where you can find hundreds of K-12 standards-aligned project based performance tasks.

Evaluate the Claim (upper elementary/ middle school)

The Pooper Scooper Kitty Litter Company claims that their litter is 40% more absorbent than other brands. You are a Consumer Advocates researcher who has been asked to evaluate their claim. Develop a plan for conducting the investigation. Your plan should be specific enough so that the lab investigators could follow it to evaluate the claim.

Moving to South America (middle school)

Since they know that you have just completed a unit on South America, your aunt and uncle have asked you to help them decide where they should live when your aunt starts her new job as a consultant to a computer company operating throughout the region. They can choose to live anywhere in the continent.

Your task is to research potential home locations by examining relevant geographic, climatic, political, economic, historic, and cultural considerations. Then, write a letter to your aunt and uncle with your recommendation about a place for them to move. Be sure to explain your decision with reasons and evidence from your research.

Accident Scene Investigation (high school)

You are a law enforcement officer who has been hired by the District Attorney’s Office to set-up an accident scene investigation unit. Your first assignment is to work with a reporter from the local newspaper to develop a series of information pieces to inform the community about the role and benefits of applying forensic science to accident investigations.

Your team will share this information with the public through the various media resources owned and operated by the newspaper.

Check out the full performance task from Defined STEM here: Accident Scene Investigation Performance Task

In sum, performance tasks like these can be used to engage students in meaningful learning. Since rich performance tasks establish authentic contexts that reflect genuine applications of knowledge, students are often motivated and engaged by such “real world” challenges.

When used as assessments, performance tasks enable teachers to gauge student understanding and proficiency with complex processes (e.g., research, problem solving, and writing), not just measure discrete knowledge. They are well suited to integrating subject areas and linking content knowledge with the 21st Century Skills such as critical thinking, creativity, collaboration, communication, and technology use. Moreover, performance-based assessment can also elicit Habits of Mind, such as precision and perseverance.

For a collection of authentic performance tasks and associated rubrics, see Defined STEM : https://www.definedstem.com

For a complete professional development course on performance tasks for your school or district, see Performance Task PD with Jay McTighe : http://www.performancetask.com

For more information about the design and use of performance tasks, see Core Learning: Assessing What Matters Most by Jay McTighe: http://www.schoolimprovement.com

Article originally posted: URL: http://performancetask.com/what-is-a-performance-task | Article Title: What is a Performance Task? | Website Title:PerformanceTask.com | Publication date: 2015–04–12

Written by Defined Learning

More from defined learning and performance task pd with jay mctighe — blog.

Why Should We Use Performance Tasks? (Part 2)

How will we evaluate student performance on tasks? (Part 6)

How Can We Differentiate Performance Tasks? (Part 4)

How Should We Teach Toward Success with Performance Tasks? (Part 7)

Recommended from medium.

How to become a Senior Designer — from an ex-Google, Meta Designer

Growth starts with you, stepping up proactively, building opinions and voicing opinions like an owner, despite your fear and doubt….

Sufyan Maan, M.Eng

ILLUMINATION

What Happens When You Start Reading Every Day

Think before you speak. read before you think. — fran lebowitz.

Medium's Huge List of Publications Accepting Submissions

Karolina Kozmana

Common side effects of not drinking

By rejecting alcohol, you reject something very human, an extra limb that we have collectively grown to deal with reality and with each….

Hazel Paradise

How I Create Passive Income With No Money

Many ways to start a passive income today.

Torsten Walbaum

Towards Data Science

What 10 Years at Uber, Meta and Startups Taught Me About Data Analytics

Advice for data scientists and managers.

10 Seconds That Ended My 20 Year Marriage

It’s august in northern virginia, hot and humid. i still haven’t showered from my morning trail run. i’m wearing my stay-at-home mom….

Text to speech

education, community-building and change

What is teaching? A definition and discussion

In this piece Mark K Smith explores the nature of teaching – those moments or sessions where we make specific interventions to help people learn particular things. He sets this within a discussion of pedagogy and didactics and demonstrates that we need to unhook consideration of the process of teaching from the role of ‘teacher’ in schools.

Contents : introduction • what is teaching • a definition of teaching • teaching, pedagogy and didactics • approaching teaching as a process • structuring interventions and making use of different methods • what does good teaching look like • conclusion •  further reading and references • acknowledgements • how to cite this piece, linked piece: the key activities of teaching, a definition for starters : teaching is the process of attending to people’s needs, experiences and feelings, and intervening so that they learn particular things, and go beyond the given., introduction.

In teacher education programmes – and in continuing professional development – a lot of time is devoted to the ‘what’ of teaching – what areas we should we cover, what resources do we need and so on. The ‘how’ of teaching also gets a great deal of space – how to structure a lesson, manage classes, assess for learning for learning and so on. Sometimes, as Parker J. Palmer (1998: 4) comments, we may even ask the “why” question – ‘for what purposes and to what ends do we teach? ‘But seldom, if ever’, he continues: ‘do we ask the “who” question – who is the self that teaches?’

The thing about this is that the who, what, why and how of teaching cannot be answered seriously without exploring the nature of teaching itself.

What is teaching?

In much modern usage, the words ‘teaching’ and ‘teacher’ are wrapped up with schooling and schools. One way of approaching the question ‘What is teaching?’ is to look at what those called ‘teachers’ do – and then to draw out key qualities or activities that set them apart from others. The problem is that all sorts of things are bundled together in job descriptions or roles that may have little to do with what we can sensibly call teaching.

Another way is to head for dictionaries and search for both the historical meanings of the term, and how it is used in everyday language.  This brings us to definitions like:

Impart knowledge to or instruct (someone) as to how to do something; or Cause (someone) to learn or understand something by example or experience.

As can be seen from these definitions we can say that we are all teachers in some way at some time.

Further insight is offered by looking at the ancestries of the words. For example, the origin of the word ‘teach’ lies in the Old English tæcan meaning ‘show, present, point out’, which is of Germanic origin; and related to ‘token’, from an Indo-European root shared by Greek deiknunai ‘show’, deigma ‘sample ( http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/teach ).

Fostering learning

To make sense of all this it is worth turning to what philosophers of education say. Interestingly, the question, ‘What is teaching?’ hasn’t been a hotbed of activity in recent years in the UK and USA. However, as Paul Hirst (1975) concluded, ‘being clear about what teaching is matters vitally because how teachers understand teaching very much affects what they actually do in the classroom’.

Hirst (1975) makes two very important points. For him teaching should involve:

• Setting out with the intention of someone learning something.
• Considering people’s feelings, experiences and needs. Teaching is only teaching if people can take on what is taught.

To this we can add Jerome Bruner’s insights around the nature of education, and the process of learning and problem solving.

To instruct someone… is not a matter of getting him to commit results to mind. Rather, it is to teach him to participate in the process that makes possible the establishment of knowledge. We teach a subject not to produce little living libraries on that subject, but rather to get a student to think mathematically for himself, to consider matters as an historian does, to take part in the process of knowledge-getting. Knowing is a process not a product. (1966: 72)

We can begin to weave these into a definition – and highlight some forms it takes.

A definition : Teaching is the process of attending to people’s needs, experiences and feelings, and intervening so that they learn particular things, and go beyond the given.

Interventions commonly take the form of questioning, listening, giving information, explaining some phenomenon, demonstrating a skill or process, testing understanding and capacity, and facilitating learning activities (such as note taking, discussion, assignment writing, simulations and practice).

Let us look at the key elements.

Attending to people’s feelings, experiences and needs

Considering what those we are supposed to be teaching need, and what might be going on for them, is one of the main things that makes ‘education’ different to indoctrination. Indoctrination involves knowingly encouraging people to believe something regardless of the evidence (see Snook 1972; Peterson 2007). It also entails a lack of respect for their human rights. Education can be described as the ‘wise, hopeful and respectful cultivation of learning undertaken in the belief that all should have the chance to share in life’ (Smith 2015). The process of education flows from a basic orientation of respect – respect for truth, others and themselves, and the world ( op. cit. ). For teachers to be educators they must, therefore:

• Consider people’s needs and wishes now and in the future.
• Reflect on what might be good for all (and the world in which we live).
• Plan their interventions accordingly.

There are a couple of issues that immediately arise from this.

First, how do we balance individual needs and wishes against what might be good for others? For most of us this is probably something that we should answer on a case-by-case basis – and it is also something that is likely to be a focus for conversation and reflection in our work with people.

Second, what do we do when people do not see the point of learning things – for example, around grammar or safety requirements? The obvious response to this question is that we must ask and listen – they may have point. However, we also must weigh this against what we know about the significance of these things in life, and any curriculum or health and safety or other requirements we have a duty to meet. In this case we have a responsibility to try to introduce them to people when the time is right, to explore their relevance and to encourage participation.

Failing to attend to people’s feelings and experiences is problematic – and not just because it reveals a basic lack of respect for them. It is also pointless and counter-productive to try to explore things when people are not ready to look at them. We need to consider their feelings and look to their experiences – both of our classroom or learning environment, and around the issues or areas we want to explore. Recent developments in brain science has underlined the significance of learning from experience from the time in the womb on (see, for example Lieberman 2013). Bringing people’s experiences around the subjects or areas we are looking to teach about into the classroom or learning situation is, thus, fundamental to the learning process.

Learning particular things

Teaching involves creating an environment and engaging with others, so that they learn particular things. This can be anything from tying a shoe lace to appreciating the structure of a three act play. I want highlight three key elements here – focus, knowledge and the ability to engage people in learning.

This may be a bit obvious – but it is probably worth saying – teaching has to have a focus. We should be clear about we are trying to do. One of the findings that shines through research on teaching is that clear learning intentions help learners to see the point of a session or intervention, keep the process on track, and, when challenging, make a difference in what people learn (Hattie 2009: location 4478).

As teachers and pedagogues there are a lot of times when we are seeking to foster learning but there may not be great clarity about the specific goals of that learning (see Jeffs and Smith 2018 Chapter 1). This is especially the case for informal educators and pedagogues. We journey with people, trying to build environments for learning and change, and, from time-to-time, creating teaching moments. It is in the teaching moments that we usually need an explicit focus.

Subject knowledge

Equally obvious, we need expertise, we need to have content. As coaches we should know about our sport; as religious educators about belief, practice and teachings; and, as pedagogues, ethics, human growth and development and social life. Good teachers ‘have deep knowledge of the subjects they teach, and when teachers’ knowledge falls below a certain level it is a significant impediment to students’ learning’ (Coe et. al. 2014: 2).

That said, there are times when we develop our understandings and capacities as we go. In the process of preparing for a session or lesson or group, we may read, listen to and watch YouTube items, look at other resources and learn. We build content and expertise as we teach. Luckily, we can draw on a range of things to support us in our efforts – video clips, web resources, textbooks, activities. Yes, it might be nice to be experts in all the areas we have to teach – but we can’t be. It is inevitable that we will be called to teach in areas where we have limited knowledge. One of the fascinating and comforting things research shows is that what appears to count most for learning is our ability as educators and pedagogues. A good understanding of, and passion for, a subject area; good resources to draw upon; and the capacity to engage people in learning yields good results. It is difficult to find evidence that great expertise in the subject matter makes a significant difference within a lot of schooling (Hattie 2009: location 2963).

Sometimes subject expertise can get in the way – it can serve to emphasize the gap between people’s knowledge and capacities and that of the teacher. On the other hand, it can be used to generate enthusiasm and interest; to make links; and inform decisions about what to teach and when. Having a concern for learning – and, in particular, seeking to create environments where people develop as and, can be, self-directed learners – is one of the key features here.

Engaging people in learning

At the centre of teaching lies enthusiasm and a commitment to, and expertise in, the process of engaging people in learning. This is how John Hattie (2009: location 2939) put it:

… it is teachers using particular teaching methods, teachers with high expectations for all students, and teachers who have created positive student-teacher relationships that are more likely to have the above average effects on student achievement.

Going beyond the given

The idea of “going beyond the information given” was central to Jerome Bruner’s explorations of cognition and education. He was part of the shift in psychology in the 1950s and early 1960s towards the study of people as active processors of knowledge, as discoverers of new understandings and possibilities. Bruner wanted people to develop their ability to ‘go beyond the data to new and possibly fruitful predictions’ (Bruner 1973: 234); to experience and know possibility. He hoped people would become as ‘autonomous and self-propelled’ thinkers as possible’ (Bruner 1961: 23). To do this, teachers and pedagogues had to, as Hirst (1975) put it, appreciate learner’s feelings, experiences and needs; to engage with their processes and view of the world.

Two key ideas became central to this process for Jerome Bruner – the ‘spiral’ and scaffolding.

The spiral . People, as they develop, must take on and build representations of their experiences and the world around them. (Representations being the way in which information and knowledge are held and encoded in our memories). An idea, or concept is generally encountered several times. At first it is likely to be in a concrete and simple way. As understanding develops, it is likely to encountered and in greater depth and complexity. To succeed, teaching, educating, and working with others must look to where in the spiral people are, and how ‘ready’ they are to explore something. Crudely, it means simplifying complex information where necessary, and then revisiting it to build understanding (David Kolb talked in a similar way about experiential learning).

Scaffolding . The idea of scaffolding (which we will come back to later) is  close to what Vygotsky talked about as the zone of proximal development. Basically, it entails creating a framework, and offering structured support, that encourages and allows learners to develop particular understandings, skills and attitudes.

Intervening

The final element – making specific interventions – concerns the process of taking defined and targeted action in a situation. In other words, as well as having a clear focus, we try to work in ways that facilitate that focus.

Thinking about teaching as a process of making specific interventions is helpful, I think, because it:

Focuses on the different actions we take .   As we saw in the definition, interventions commonly take the form of questioning, listening, giving information, explaining some phenomenon, demonstrating a skill or process, testing understanding and capacity, and facilitating learning activities (such as note taking, discussion, assignment writing, simulations and practice).

Makes us look at how we move from one way of working or communicating to another . Interventions often involve shifting a conversation or discussion onto a different track or changing the process or activity. It may well be accompanied by a change in mood and pace (e.g. moving from something that is quite relaxed into a period of more intense activity). The process of moving from one way of working – or way of communicating – to another is far from straightforward. It calls upon us to develop and deepen our practice.

Highlights the more formal character of teaching . Interventions are planned, focused and tied to objectives or intentions. Teaching also often entails using quizzes and tests to see whether planned outcomes have been met. The feel and character of teaching moments are different to many other processes that informal educators, pedagogues and specialist educators use. Those processes, like conversation, playing a game and walking with people are usually more free-flowing and unpredictable.

Teaching, however, is not a simple step-by-step process e.g. of attending, getting information and intervening. We may well start with an intervention which then provides us with data. In addition, things rarely go as planned – at least not if we attend to people’s feelings, experiences and needs. In addition, learners might not always get the points straightaway or see what we are trying to help them learn. They may be able to take on what is being taught – but it might take time. As a result, how well we have done is often unlikely to show up in the results of any tests or in assessments made in the session or lesson.

Teaching, pedagogy and didactics

Earlier, we saw that relatively little attention had been given to defining the essential nature of teaching in recent years in the UK and North America. This has contributed to confusion around the term and a major undervaluing of other forms of facilitating learning. The same cannot be said in a number of continental European countries where there is a much stronger appreciation of the different forms education takes. Reflecting on these traditions helps us to better understand teaching as a particular process – and to recognize that it is fundamentally concerned with didactics rather than pedagogy.

Perhaps the most helpful starting point for this discussion is the strong distinction made in ancient Greek society between the activities of pedagogues (paidagögus) and subject teachers (didáskalos or diadacts). The first pedagogues were slaves – often foreigners and the ‘spoils of war’ (Young 1987). They were trusted and sometimes learned members of rich households who accompanied the sons of their ‘masters’ in the street, oversaw their meals etc., and sat beside them when being schooled. These pedagogues were generally seen as representatives of their wards’ fathers and literally ‘tenders’ of children (pais plus agögos, a ‘child-tender’). Children were often put in their charge at around 7 years and remained with them until late adolescence. As such pedagogues played a major part in their lives – helping them to recognize what was wrong and right, learn how to behave in different situations, and to appreciate how they and those around them might flourish.

Moral supervision by the pedagogue (paidagogos) was also significant in terms of status.

He was more important than the schoolmaster, because the latter only taught a boy his letters, but the paidagogos taught him how to behave, a much more important matter in the eyes of his parents. He was, moreover, even if a slave, a member of the household, in touch with its ways and with the father’s authority and views. The schoolmaster had no such close contact with his pupils. (Castle 1961: 63-4)

The distinction between teachers and pedagogues, instruction and guidance, and education for school or life was a feature of discussions around education for many centuries. It was still around when Immanuel Kant (1724-1804) explored education. In On Pedagogy (Über Pädagogik) first published in 1803, he talked as follows:

Education includes the nurture of the child and, as it grows, its culture. The latter is firstly negative, consisting of discipline; that is, merely the correcting of faults. Secondly, culture is positive, consisting of instruction and guidance (and thus forming part of education). Guidance means directing the pupil in putting into practice what he has been taught. Hence the difference between a private teacher who merely instructs, and a tutor or governor who guides and directs his pupil. The one trains for school only, the other for life. (Kant 1900: 23-4)

It was later – and particularly associated with the work of Herbart (see, for example, Allgemeine pädagogik – General Pedagogics, 1806 and Umriss Pädagogischer Vorlesungen , 1835 – Plan of Lectures on Pedagogy and included in Herbart 1908) – that teaching came to be seen, wrongly, as the central activity of education (see Hamilton 1999).

Didactics – certainly within German traditions – can be approached as Allgemeine Didaktik (general didactics) or as Fachdidaktik (subject didactics). Probably, the most helpful ways of translating didaktik is as the study of the teaching-learning process. It involves researching and theorizing the process and developing practice (see Kansanen 1999). The overwhelming focus within the didaktik tradition is upon the teaching-learning process in schools, colleges and university.

To approach education and learning in other settings it is necessary to turn to the pädagogik tradition . Within this tradition fields like informal education, youth work, community development, art therapy, playwork and child care are approached as forms of pedagogy. Indeed, in countries like Germany and Denmark, a relatively large number of people are employed as pedagogues or social pedagogues. While these pedagogues teach, much of their activity is conversationally, rather than curriculum, -based. Within this what comes to the fore is a focus on flourishing and of the significance of the person of the pedagogue (Smith and Smith 2008). In addition, three elements stand out about the processes of the current generation of specialist pedagogues. First, they are heirs to the ancient Greek process of accompanying and fostering learning. Second, their pedagogy involves a significant amount of helping and caring for. Indeed, for many of those concerned with social pedagogy it is a place where care and education meet – one is not somehow less than the other (Cameron and Moss 2011). Third, they are engaged in what we can call ‘bringing situations to life’ or ‘sparking’ change (animation). In other words, they animate, care and educate (ACE). Woven into those processes are theories and beliefs that we also need to attend to (see Alexander 2000: 541).

We can see from this discussion that when English language commentators talk of pedagogy as the art and science of teaching they are mistaken. As Hamilton (1999) has pointed out teaching in schools is properly approached in the main as didactics – the study of teaching-learning processes. Pedagogy is something very different. It may include didactic elements but for the most part it is concerned with animation, caring and education (see what is education? ). It’s focus is upon flourishing and well-being. Within schools there may be specialist educators and practitioners that do this but they are usually not qualified school teachers. Instead they hold other professional qualifications, for example in pedagogy, social work, youth work and community education. To really understand teaching as a process we need to unhook it from school teaching and recognize that it is an activity that is both part of daily life and is an element of other practitioner’s repertoires. Pedagogues teach, for example, but from within a worldview or haltung that is often radically different to school teachers.

Approaching teaching as a process

Some of the teaching we do can be planned in advance because the people involved know that they will be attending a session, event or lesson where learning particular skills, topics or feelings is the focus. Some teaching arises as a response to a question, issue or situation. However, both are dependent on us:

Recognizing and cultivating teachable moments. Cultivating relationships for learning. Scaffolding learning – providing people with temporary support so that they deepen and develop their understanding and skills and grow as independent learners. Differentiating learning – adjusting the way we teach and approach subjects so that we can meet the needs of diverse learners. Accessing resources for learning. Adopting a growth mindset.

We are going to look briefly at each of these in turn.

Recognizing and cultivating teachable moments

Teachers – certainly those in most formal settings like schools – have to follow a curriculum. They have to teach specified areas in a particular sequence. As a result, there are always going to be individuals who are not ready for that learning. As teachers in these situations we need to look out for moments when students may be open to learning about different things; where we can, in the language of Quakers, ‘speak to their condition’. Having a sense of their needs and capacities we can respond with the right things at the right time.

Informal educators, animators and pedagogues work differently for a lot of the time. The direction they take is often not set by a syllabus or curriculum. Instead, they listen for, and observe what might be going on for the people they are working with. They have an idea of what might make for well-being and development and can apply it to the experiences and situations that are being revealed. They look out for moments when they can intervene to highlight an issue, give information, and encourage reflection and learning.

In other words, all teaching involves recognizing and cultivating ‘learning moments’ or ‘teaching moments’.

It was Robert J Havinghurst who coined the term ‘teachable moment’. One of his interests as an educationalist was the way in which certain things have to be learned in order for people to develop.

When the timing is right, the ability to learn a particular task will be possible. This is referred to as a ‘teachable moment’. It is important to keep in mind that unless the time is right, learning will not occur. Hence, it is important to repeat important points whenever possible so that when a student’s teachable moment occurs, s/he can benefit from the knowledge. (Havinghurst 1953)

There are times of special sensitivity when learning is possible. We have to look out for them, to help create environments that can create or stimulate such moments, be ready to respond, and draw on the right resources.

Cultivating collaborative relationships for learning

The main thing here is that teaching, like other parts of our work, is about relationship. We have to think about our relationships with those we are supposed to be teaching and about the relationships they have with each other. Creating an environment where people can work with each other, cooperate and learning is essential. One of the things that has been confirmed by recent research in neuroscience is that ‘our brains are wired to connect’, we are wired to be social (Lieberman 2013). It is not surprising then, that on the whole cooperative learning is more effective that either competitive learning (where students compete to meet a goal) or individualistic learning (Hattie 2011: 4733).

As teachers, we need to be appreciated as someone who can draw out learning; cares about what people are feeling, experiencing and need; and breathe life to situations. This entails what Carl Rogers (in Kirschenbaum and Henderson 1990: 304-311) talked about as the core conditions or personal qualities that allow us to facilitate learning in others:

Realness or genuineness . Rogers argued that when we are experienced as real people -entering into relationships with learners ‘without presenting a front or a façade’, we more likely to be effective. Prizing, acceptance, trust . This involves caring for learners, but in a non-possessive way and recognizing they have worth in their own right. It entails trusting in capacity of others to learn, make judgements and change. Empathic understanding . ‘When the teacher has the ability to understand the student’s reactions from the inside, has a sensitive awareness of the way the process of education and learning seems to the student, then again the likelihood of significant learning is increased’.

In practical terms this means we talk to people, not at them. We listen. We seek to connect and understand. We trust in their capacity to learn and change. We know that how we say things is often more important than what we say.

Scaffolding

Scaffolding entails providing people with temporary support so that they deepen and develop their understanding and skills – and develop as independent learners.

Like physical scaffolding, the supportive strategies are incrementally removed when they are no longer needed, and the teacher gradually shifts more responsibility over the learning process to the student. (Great Schools Partnership 2015)

To do this well, educators and workers need to be doing what we have explored above – cultivating collaborative relationships for learning, and building on what people know and do and then working just beyond it. The term used for latter of these is taken from the work of Lev Vygotsky – is working in the learner’s zone of proximal development .

A third key aspect of scaffolding is that the support around the particular subject or skill is gradually removed as people develop their expertise and commitment to learning.

Scaffolding can take different forms. It might simply involve ‘showing learners what to do while talking them through the activity and linking new learning to old through questions, resources, activities and language’ (Zwozdiak-Myers and Capel, S. 2013 location 4568). (For a quick overview of some different scaffolding strategies see Alber 2014 ).

The educational use of the term ‘scaffolding’ is linked to the work of Jerome Bruner –who believed that children (and adults) were active learners. They constructed their own knowledge. Scaffolding was originally used to describe how pedagogues interacted with pre-school children in a nursery (Woods et. al . 1976). Bruner defined scaffolding as ‘the steps taken to reduce the degrees of freedom in carrying out some task so that the child can concentrate on the difficult skill she is in the process of acquiring’ (Bruner 1978: 19).

Differentiation

Differentiation involves adjusting the way we teach and approach subjects so that we can meet the needs of diverse learners. It entails changing content, processes and products so that people can better understand what is being taught and develop appropriate skills and the capacity to act.

The basic idea is that the primary educational objectives—making sure all students master essential knowledge, concepts, and skills—remain the same for every student, but teachers may use different instructional methods to help students meet those expectations. (Great Schools Partnership 2013)

It is often used when working with groups that have within them people with different needs and starting knowledge and skills. (For a quick guide to differentiation see BBC Active ).

Accessing resources for learning

One of the key elements we require is the ability to access and make available resources for learning. The two obvious and central resources we have are our own knowledge, feelings and skills; and those of the people we are working with. Harnessing the experience, knowledge and feelings of learners is usually a good starting point. It focuses attention on the issue or subject; shares material; and can encourage joint working. When it is an area that we need to respond to immediately, it can also give us a little space gather our thoughts and access the material we need.

The third key resource is the internet – which we can either make a whole group activity by using search via a whiteboard or screen, or an individual or small group activity via phones and other devices. One of the good things about this is that it also gives us an opportunity not just to reflect on the subject of the search but also on the process. We can examine, for example, the validity of the source or the terms we are using to search for something.

The fourth great resource is activities. Teachers need to build up a repertoire of different activities that can be used to explore issues and areas (see the section below).

Last, and certainly not least, there are the standard classroom resources – textbooks, handouts and study materials.

As teachers we need to have a range of resources at our fingertips. This can be as simple as carrying around a file of activities, leaflets and handouts or having materials, relevant sites and ebooks on our phones and devices.

Adopting a growth mindset

Last, we need to encourage people to adopt what Carol Dweck (2012) calls a growth mindset. Through researching the characteristics of children who succeed in education (and more generally flourish in life), Dweck found that some people have a fixed mindset and some a growth mindset.

Believing that your qualities are carved in stone— the fixed mindset —creates an urgency to prove yourself over and over. If you have only a certain amount of intelligence, a certain personality, and a certain moral character—well, then you’d better prove that you have a healthy dose of them. It simply wouldn’t do to look or feel deficient in these most basic characteristics…. There’s another mindset in which these traits are not simply a hand you’re dealt and have to live with, always trying to convince yourself and others that you have a royal flush when you’re secretly worried it’s a pair of tens. In this mindset, the hand you’re dealt is just the starting point for development. This growth mindset is based on the belief that your basic qualities are things you can cultivate through your efforts. Although people may differ in every which way—in their initial talents and aptitudes, interests, or temperaments—everyone can change and grow through application and experience. (Dweck 2012: 6-7)

The fixed mindset is concerned with outcomes and performance; the growth mindset with getting better at the task.

In her research she found, for example, that students with a fixed mindset when making the transition from elementary school to junior high in the United States, declined – their grades immediately dropped and over the next two years continued to decline. Students with a growth mindset showed an increase in their grades ( op. cit. : 57). The significance of this for teaching is profound. Praising and valuing achievement tends to strengthen the fixed mindset; praising and valuing effort helps to strengthen a growth mindset.

While it is possible to question elements of Dweck’s research and the either/or way in which prescriptions are presented (see Didau 2015), there is particular merit when teaching of adopting a growth mindset (and encouraging it in others). It looks to change and development rather than proving outselves.

Structuring interventions and making use of different methods

One of the key things that research into the processes of teaching and educating tells us is that learners tend to like structure; they want to know the shape of a session or intervention and what it is about. They also seem to like variety, and changes in the pace of the work (e.g. moving from something quite intense to something free flowing).

It is also worth going back to the dictionary definitions – and the origins of the word ‘teach’. What we find here are some hints of what Geoff Petty (2009) has talked about as ‘teacher-centred’ methods (as against active methods and student-centred methods).

If we ask learners about their experiences and judgements, one of things that comes strongly through the research in this area is that students overwhelming prefer group discussion, games and simulations and activities like drama, artwork and experiments. At the bottom of this list come analysis, theories, essays and lectures (see Petty 2009: 139-141). However, there is not necessarily a connection between what people enjoy doing and what produces learning.

Schoolteachers may use all of these methods – but so might sports workers and instructors, youth ministers, community development workers and social pedagogues. Unlike schoolteachers, informal educators like these are not having to follow a curriculum for much of their time, nor teach content to pass exams. As such they are able to think more holistically and to think of themselves as facilitators of learning. This means:

Focusing on the active methods in the central column; Caring about people’s needs, experiences and feeling; Looking for teachable moments when then can make inputs often along the lines of the first column (teacher-centred methods); and Encouraging people to learn for themselves i.e. take on projects, to read and study, and to learn independently and be self-directed (student-centred methods).

In an appendix to this piece we look at some key activities of teaching and provide practical guidance. [See key teaching activities ]

What does good teaching look like?

What one person sees as good teaching can easily be seen as bad by another. Here we are going to look at what the Ofsted (2015) framework for inspection says. However, before we go there it is worth going back to what Paul Hirst argued back in 1975 and how we are defining teaching here. Our definition was:

Teaching is the process of attending to people’s needs, experiences and feelings, and making specific interventions to help them learn particular things.

We are looking at teaching as a specific process – part of what we do as educators, animators and pedagogues. Ofsted is looking at something rather different.  They are grouping together teaching, learning and assessment – and adding in some other things around the sort of outcomes they want to see. That said, it is well worth looking at this list as the thinking behind it does impact on a lot of the work we do.

Inspectors will make a judgement on the effectiveness of teaching, learning and assessment by evaluating the extent to which: teachers, practitioners and other staff have consistently high expectations of what each child or learner can achieve, including the most able and the most disadvantaged teachers, practitioners and other staff have a secure understanding of the age group they are working with and have relevant subject knowledge that is detailed and communicated well to children and learners assessment information is gathered from looking at what children and learners already know, understand and can do and is informed by their parents/previous providers as appropriate assessment information is used to plan appropriate teaching and learning strategies, including to identify children and learners who are falling behind in their learning or who need additional support, enabling children and learners to make good progress and achieve well except in the case of the very young, children and learners understand how to improve as a result of useful feedback from staff and, where relevant, parents, carers and employers understand how learners should improve and how they can contribute to this engagement with parents, carers and employers helps them to understand how children and learners are doing in relation to the standards expected and what they need to do to improve equality of opportunity and recognition of diversity are promoted through teaching and learning where relevant, English, mathematics and other skills necessary to function as an economically active member of British society and globally are promoted through teaching and learning.

We see some things that many will not disagree with like having high expectations of learners, knowing what the needs of the group may be, having expertise in the area being taught; recogniting diversity and having a concern for equality of opportunity; and so on. We may also see the role that assessment plays in reinforcing learning and helping to shape future learning. However, there are things we may disagree with. Perhaps more importantly there are all sorts of things missing here. For example, why is there an emphasis on economic activity as against social, religious and political participation? Another issue, for many of you reading this, is possibly the way in which little account is made of the extent to which learners take responsibility for their own learning. They are encouraged to contribute to learning but not own it.

Good teaching is rather more than technique according to Parker J. Palmer . Good teaching, he says, ‘comes from the identity and integrity of the teacher’ (Palmer 1998: 11). It is the way we are experienced, our enthusiasm, our care, our knowledge, our interest in, and concern for, people that is the key to whether we are felt to be good teachers. As Jackie Beere (2012) and others have argued we need to be present as people in the classroom or learning environment.

This is not to say that technique isn’t important. It is. We need to be skilled at scaffolding learning; creating relationships and environments for learning; and catching teaching moments. It is just that these skills need to be employed by someone who can be respected, is experienced as real and is wise.

In this piece we have made a plea to explore teaching as a process rather than something that is usually approached as the thinking and activity associated with a particular role – the school teacher. As has been argued elsewhere a significant amount of what those called school teachers do is difficult to classify as education (see What is education? ). Even the most informal of educators will find themselves teaching. They may well work hard at building and facilitating environments where people can explore, relate and learn. However, extending or deepening that exploration often leads to short, or not so short bursts of teaching or instructing. For example, as sports coaches or outdoor educators we may be both trying to develop teamwork and build particular skills or capacities. As a specialist or religious educators we might be seeking to give information, or introduce ideas that need some explanation. These involve moments of teaching or instructing. Once we accept this then we can hopefully begin to recognize that school teachers have a lot to learn from other teachers – and vice versa.

We also need to unhook ‘pedagogy’ from school teaching within English language discussions – and to connect it with the tradition of didactics. One of the problems with the false link of school teaching to pedagogy is that it is impairing a proper discussion of pedagogy. However, that may change a little in the UK at least with the development of professional standards for social pedagogy and the emergence of graduate and post-graduate study in the area.

Further reading and references

Check out the Teaching and Learning Toolkit . The Educational Endowment Foundation has produced a very accessible review of the evidence concerning different things that schools do. Many of the things that schools do have little or no evidence to support them e.g. streaming and setting, insisting on school uniform, using performance related pay. Some things are very productive like giving feedback; teaching specific strategies to set goals, and monitor and evaluate academic development; peer tutoring; and early years’ intervention.

Key teaching activities . This infed page outlines 9 key activities and why they are central to the process of teaching.

Alber, R. (2014). 6 Scaffolding Strategies to Use With Your Students, Eductopia . [ http://www.edutopia.org/blog/scaffolding-lessons-six-strategies-rebecca-alber . Retrieved February 9, 2016].

BBC Active (2010). Methods of Differentiation in the Classroom .   London: Pearson Education .  [ http://www.bbcactive.com/BBCActiveIdeasandResources/MethodsofDifferentiationintheClassroom.aspx . Retrieved: January 31, 2016]

Beere, J. (2012). The Perfect Ofsted Lesson Bancyfelin: Independent Thinking Press.

Bruner, J. S. (1960). The Process of Education . Cambridge MA.: Harvard University Press.

Bruner, J. S. (1961). The act of discovery. Harvard Educational Review , 31, 21-32.

Bruner, J. S. (1966). Toward a Theory of Instruction , Cambridge, MA.: Belkapp Press.

Bruner, J. (1973) Going Beyond the Information Given , New York: Norton.

Bruner, J. S. (1978). The role of dialogue in language acquisition. In A. Sinclair, R., J. Jarvelle, and W. J.M. Levelt (eds.) The Child’s Concept of Language. New York: Springer-Verlag.

Bruner, J. S. (1996). The Culture of Education . Cambridge, MA.: Harvard University Press.

Capel, S., Leask, M. and Turner T. (eds.) (2013). Learning to teach in the secondary school. A companion to school experience . 6e. Abingdon: Routledge.

Castle, E. B. (1961). Ancient Education and Today . Harmondsworth: Pelican.

Coe, R. et. al. (2014). What makes great teaching. Review of the underpinning research. London: The Sutton Trust. [ http://www.suttontrust.com/researcharchive/great-teaching/ . Retrieved December 20, 2014].

Covington, M. V. (2000). ‘Goal theory, motivation and school achievement: An integrative review’, Annual Review of Psychology , 51:171-200.

Cowley, S. (2011). Teaching for Dummies . Chichester: John Wiley.

Davey, A. G. (1972) ‘Education or indoctrination’, Journal of Moral Education 2 (1):5-15.

Department for Education and Skills. (2004a). Pedagogy and Practice: Teaching and Learning in the Secondary School, Unit 6 Modelling . London: Department for Education and Skills. [ http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20110809101133/http://wsassets.s3.amazonaws.com/ws/nso/pdf/c60e7378e118be7f7d22d7660f85e2d8.pdf . Retrieved: February 25, 2016]

Department for Education and Skills. (2004b). Pedagogy and Practice: Teaching and Learning in the Secondary School, Unit 7 Questioning . London: Department for Education and Skills. [ http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20110809101133/http://wsassets.s3.amazonaws.com/ws/nso/pdf/027c076de06e59ae10aeb9689a8a1c04.pdf . Retrieved: February 25, 2016]

Department for Education and Skills. (2004c). Pedagogy and Practice: Teaching and Learning in the Secondary School, Unit 8 Explaining . London: Department for Education and Skills. [ http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20110809101133/http://nsonline.org.uk/node/96982?uc=force_uj . Retrieved: February 25, 2016].

Department for Education and Skills. (2004d). Pedagogy and Practice: Teaching and Learning in the Secondary School, Unit 10 Group work . London: Department for Education and Skills. [ http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20110809101133/http://nsonline.org.uk/downloader/100963eebbb37c81ada6214ed97be548.pdf . Retrieved: February 25, 2016]

Department for Education and Skills. (2004e). Pedagogy and Practice: Teaching and Learning in the Secondary School, Unit 11 Active engagement techniques . London: Department for Education and Skills. [ http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20110809101133/http://nsonline.org.uk/node/96205?uc=force_uj . Retrieved: February 25, 2016].

Department for Education and Skills. (2004f). Pedagogy and Practice: Teaching and Learning in the Secondary School, Unit 12 Assessment for learning . London: Department for Education and Skills. [ http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20110809101133/http://nsonline.org.uk/downloader/2deff878cffd2cdcd59a61df29e73105.pdf . Retrieved: February 25, 2016].

Didau, D. (2015). What if everything you knew about education was wrong? Bancyfelin: Crown House Publishing.

Dweck, C. S. (2012). Mindset . London: Robinson.

Gervis and Capel (2013). ‘Motivating pupils’ in S. Capel e t. al. (eds.) Learning to teach in the secondary school. A companion to school experience . 6e. Abingdon: Routledge.

Great Schools Partnership (2013). ‘Differentiation’, S. Abbott (ed.) The Glossary of Education Reform . [ http://edglossary.org/differentiation/ . Retrieved February 10, 2016].

Great Schools Partnership (2015). ‘Scaffolding’, S. Abbott (ed.) The Glossary of Education Reform . [ http://edglossary.org/scaffolding/ . Retrieved February 10, 2016].

Hattie, J. (2009). Visible Learning: A Synthesis of Over 800 Meta-Analyses Relating to Achievement . Abingdon: Routledge.

Hamilton, D. (1999). ‘The pedagogic paradox (or why no didactics in England?)’, Pedagogy, Culture & Society , 7:1, 135-152. [ http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/pdf/10.1080/14681369900200048 . Retrieved: February 10, 2012].

Havinghurst, R. J. (1953). Human Development and Education . London: Longman, Green.

Herbart, J. F (1892). The Science of Education: its general principles deduced from its aim and the aesthetic revelation of the world , translated by H. M. & E. Felkin. London: Swann Sonnenschein.

Herbart, J. F., Felkin, H. M., & Felkin, E. (1908). Letter and lectures on education: By Johann Friedrich Herbart ; Translated from the German, and edited with an introduction by Henry M. and Emmie Felkin and a preface by Oscar Browning. London: Sonnenschein.

Hirst, P. (1975). What is teaching? In R. S. Peters (ed.) The Philosophy of Education . London: Routledge and Kegan Paul.

Jeffs, T. and Smith, M. K. (2018) Informal Education .London: Educational Heretics.

Kant, I. (1900). Kant on education (Ueber pa?dagogik) . Translated by A. Churton. Boston: D.C. Heath. [ http://files.libertyfund.org/files/356/0235_Bk.pdf . Accessed October 10, 2012].

Kansanen, P. (1999). ‘The “Deutsche Didadtik” and the American research on teaching’ in B. Hudson et. al. (eds.) Didadtik-Fachdidadtik as science(s) of the teaching profession ? Umeå Sweden: TNTEE Publications. [ tntee.umu.se/publications/v2n1/pdf/2_1complete.pdf . Retrieved: February 26, 2016].

Kirschenbaum, H. and Henderson, V. L. (eds.) (1990). The Carl Rogers Reader . London: Constable.

Lieberman, M. D. (2013). Social. Why Our Brains Are Wired to Connect . Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Nuthall, G. A. (2007). The hidden lives of learners . Wellington, New Zealand: New Zealand Council for Educational Research.

Ofsted (2015). The common inspection framework: education, skills and early years. London: Ofsted. [ https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/461767/The_common_inspection_framework_education_skills_and_early_years.pdf . Retrieved May 28, 2018]

Palmer, P. J. (1998). The Courage to Teach. Exploring the inner landscape of a teacher’s life . San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Petty, G. (2009). Teaching Today. A practical guide . Cheltenham: Nelson Thornes.

Smith, M. K. (2012). ‘What is pedagogy?’, The encyclopedia of pedagogy and informal education. [ https://infed.org/mobi/what-is-pedagogy/ . Retrieved: February 25, 2012].

Smith, M. K. (2015). What is education? A definition and discussion. The encyclopedia of pedagogy and informal education . [ https://infed.org/mobi/what-is-education-a-definition-and-discussion/ . Retrieved: February 25, 2016].

Snook, I.  (1972). Concepts of Indoctrination: Philosophical Essays . London: Routledge and Kegan Paul.

Wilson, L. (2009) Practical Teaching. A guide to PTLLS and DTLLS . Andover: Cengage.

Wood, D. J., Bruner, J. S., & Ross, G. (1976). The role of tutoring in problem solving. Journal of Child Psychiatry and Psychology , 17(2), 89-100.

Wragg, E. C. and Brown, G. (2001). Questioning in the Secondary School . London: RoutledgeFalmer.

Young, N. H. (1987). ‘Paidagogos: The Social Setting of a Pauline Metaphor’, Novum Testamentum 29: 150.

Zwozdiak-Myers, P. and Capel, S. (2013). Communicating with Pupils in Capel, S., Leask, M. and Turner T. (eds.) Learning to teach in the secondary school. A companion to school experience . 6e. Abingdon: Routledge.

Acknowledgements

The section ‘teaching, pedagogy and didactics’ draws heavily on another piece written by Mark K Smith for infed.org ( see Smith 2012 ).

The ACE diagram is taken from Smith, M. K. (forthcoming). Working with young people in difficult times (Chapter 1). https://infed.org/mobi/working-with-young-people-in-difficult-times/

Picture:   Group project by Brande Jackson . Flickr | ccbyncnd2 licence

How to cite this piece : Smith, M. K. (2018). ‘What is teaching?’ in The encyclopedia of pedagogy and informal education . [ https://infed.org/mobi/what-is-teaching/ . Retrieved: insert date].

© Mark K Smith 2016, 2018.

Last Updated on August 24, 2020 by infed.org

What Is Performance Assessment?

• Share article

Project-based learning is nothing new. More than 100 years ago, progressive educator William Heard Kilpatrick published “The Project Method,” a monograph that took the first stab at defining alternatives to direct instruction. Predictably, the document sparked a squabble over definitions and methods—between Kilpatrick and his friend and colleague John Dewey.

Not much has changed. Today, despite major advances in ways to measure learning, we still don’t have common definitions for project-based learning or performance assessment.

Sometimes, for example, performance assessment is framed as the opposite of the dreaded year-end, state-required multiple-choice tests used to report on schools’ progress. But in fact, many performance assessments are standardized and can—and do—produce valid and reliable results.

Experts also emphasize the “authentic” nature of performance assessment and project-based learning, although “authentic” doesn’t always mean lifelike: A good performance assessment can use simulations, as long as they are faithful to real-world situations. (An example: In science class, technology can simulate plant growth or land erosion, processes that take too long for a hands-on experiment.)

In the absence of agreed-upon definitions for this evolving field, Education Week reporters developed a glossary based on interviews with teachers, assessment experts, and policy analysts. They’ve organized the terms here generally from less specific to more specific. These terms aren’t mutually exclusive. (A performance assessment, for instance, may be one element of a competency-based education program.)

Proficiency-based or competency-based learning: These terms are interchangeable. They refer to the practice of allowing students to progress in their learning as they master a set of standards or competencies. Students can advance at different rates. Typically, there is an attempt to build students’ ownership and understanding of their learning goals and often a focus on “personalizing” students’ learning based on their needs and interests.

Project-based learning: Students learn through an extended project, which may have a number of checkpoints or assessments along the way. Key features are inquiry, exploration, the extended duration of the project, and iteration (requiring students to revise and reflect, for example). A subset of project-based learning is problem-based learning, which focuses on a specific challenge for which students must find a solution.

Standards-based grading: This refers to the practice of giving students nuanced and detailed descriptions of their performance against specific criteria or standards, not on a bell curve. It can stand alone or exist alongside traditional letter grading.

Performance assessment: This assessment measures how well students apply their knowledge, skills, and abilities to authentic problems. The key feature is that it requires the student to produce something, such as a report, experiment, or performance, which is scored against specific criteria.

Portfolio: This assessment consists of a body of student work collected over an extended period, from a few weeks to a year or more. This work can be produced in response to a test prompt or assignment but is often simply drawn from everyday classroom tasks. Frequently, portfolios also contain an element of student reflection.

Exhibition: A type of performance assessment that requires a public presentation, as in the sciences or performing arts. Other fields can also require an exhibition component. Students might be required, for instance, to justify their position in an oral presentation or debate.

Performance task: A piece of work students are asked to do to show how well they apply their knowledge, skills, or abilities—from writing an essay to diagnosing and fixing a broken circuit. A performance assessment typically consists of several performance tasks. Performance tasks also may be included in traditional multiple-choice tests.

With thanks to: Paul Leather, director for state and local partnerships at the Center for Innovation in Education; Mark Barnes, founder of Times 10 Publications; Peter Ross, principal at Education First; Scott Marion, executive director at the Center for Assessment; Sean P. “Jack” Buckley, president, Imbellus; Starr Sackstein, an educator and opinion blogger at edweek.org; and Steve Ferrara, senior adviser at Measured Progress.

Have we missed any terms that confuse you? Why not write and tell us?

A version of this article appeared in the February 06, 2019 edition of Education Week as Performance Assessment: A Guide to the Vocabulary

Sign Up for EdWeek Update

Edweek top school jobs.

Sign Up & Sign In

• Our Mission

What Is Education For?

Read an excerpt from a new book by Sir Ken Robinson and Kate Robinson, which calls for redesigning education for the future.

What is education for? As it happens, people differ sharply on this question. It is what is known as an “essentially contested concept.” Like “democracy” and “justice,” “education” means different things to different people. Various factors can contribute to a person’s understanding of the purpose of education, including their background and circumstances. It is also inflected by how they view related issues such as ethnicity, gender, and social class. Still, not having an agreed-upon definition of education doesn’t mean we can’t discuss it or do anything about it.

We just need to be clear on terms. There are a few terms that are often confused or used interchangeably—“learning,” “education,” “training,” and “school”—but there are important differences between them. Learning is the process of acquiring new skills and understanding. Education is an organized system of learning. Training is a type of education that is focused on learning specific skills. A school is a community of learners: a group that comes together to learn with and from each other. It is vital that we differentiate these terms: children love to learn, they do it naturally; many have a hard time with education, and some have big problems with school.

There are many assumptions of compulsory education. One is that young people need to know, understand, and be able to do certain things that they most likely would not if they were left to their own devices. What these things are and how best to ensure students learn them are complicated and often controversial issues. Another assumption is that compulsory education is a preparation for what will come afterward, like getting a good job or going on to higher education.

So, what does it mean to be educated now? Well, I believe that education should expand our consciousness, capabilities, sensitivities, and cultural understanding. It should enlarge our worldview. As we all live in two worlds—the world within you that exists only because you do, and the world around you—the core purpose of education is to enable students to understand both worlds. In today’s climate, there is also a new and urgent challenge: to provide forms of education that engage young people with the global-economic issues of environmental well-being.

This core purpose of education can be broken down into four basic purposes.

Education should enable young people to engage with the world within them as well as the world around them. In Western cultures, there is a firm distinction between the two worlds, between thinking and feeling, objectivity and subjectivity. This distinction is misguided. There is a deep correlation between our experience of the world around us and how we feel. As we explored in the previous chapters, all individuals have unique strengths and weaknesses, outlooks and personalities. Students do not come in standard physical shapes, nor do their abilities and personalities. They all have their own aptitudes and dispositions and different ways of understanding things. Education is therefore deeply personal. It is about cultivating the minds and hearts of living people. Engaging them as individuals is at the heart of raising achievement.

The Universal Declaration of Human Rights emphasizes that “All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights,” and that “Education shall be directed to the full development of the human personality and to the strengthening of respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms.” Many of the deepest problems in current systems of education result from losing sight of this basic principle.

Schools should enable students to understand their own cultures and to respect the diversity of others. There are various definitions of culture, but in this context the most appropriate is “the values and forms of behavior that characterize different social groups.” To put it more bluntly, it is “the way we do things around here.” Education is one of the ways that communities pass on their values from one generation to the next. For some, education is a way of preserving a culture against outside influences. For others, it is a way of promoting cultural tolerance. As the world becomes more crowded and connected, it is becoming more complex culturally. Living respectfully with diversity is not just an ethical choice, it is a practical imperative.

There should be three cultural priorities for schools: to help students understand their own cultures, to understand other cultures, and to promote a sense of cultural tolerance and coexistence. The lives of all communities can be hugely enriched by celebrating their own cultures and the practices and traditions of other cultures.

Education should enable students to become economically responsible and independent. This is one of the reasons governments take such a keen interest in education: they know that an educated workforce is essential to creating economic prosperity. Leaders of the Industrial Revolution knew that education was critical to creating the types of workforce they required, too. But the world of work has changed so profoundly since then, and continues to do so at an ever-quickening pace. We know that many of the jobs of previous decades are disappearing and being rapidly replaced by contemporary counterparts. It is almost impossible to predict the direction of advancing technologies, and where they will take us.

How can schools prepare students to navigate this ever-changing economic landscape? They must connect students with their unique talents and interests, dissolve the division between academic and vocational programs, and foster practical partnerships between schools and the world of work, so that young people can experience working environments as part of their education, not simply when it is time for them to enter the labor market.

Education should enable young people to become active and compassionate citizens. We live in densely woven social systems. The benefits we derive from them depend on our working together to sustain them. The empowerment of individuals has to be balanced by practicing the values and responsibilities of collective life, and of democracy in particular. Our freedoms in democratic societies are not automatic. They come from centuries of struggle against tyranny and autocracy and those who foment sectarianism, hatred, and fear. Those struggles are far from over. As John Dewey observed, “Democracy has to be born anew every generation, and education is its midwife.”

For a democratic society to function, it depends upon the majority of its people to be active within the democratic process. In many democracies, this is increasingly not the case. Schools should engage students in becoming active, and proactive, democratic participants. An academic civics course will scratch the surface, but to nurture a deeply rooted respect for democracy, it is essential to give young people real-life democratic experiences long before they come of age to vote.

Eight Core Competencies

The conventional curriculum is based on a collection of separate subjects. These are prioritized according to beliefs around the limited understanding of intelligence we discussed in the previous chapter, as well as what is deemed to be important later in life. The idea of “subjects” suggests that each subject, whether mathematics, science, art, or language, stands completely separate from all the other subjects. This is problematic. Mathematics, for example, is not defined only by propositional knowledge; it is a combination of types of knowledge, including concepts, processes, and methods as well as propositional knowledge. This is also true of science, art, and languages, and of all other subjects. It is therefore much more useful to focus on the concept of disciplines rather than subjects.

Disciplines are fluid; they constantly merge and collaborate. In focusing on disciplines rather than subjects we can also explore the concept of interdisciplinary learning. This is a much more holistic approach that mirrors real life more closely—it is rare that activities outside of school are as clearly segregated as conventional curriculums suggest. A journalist writing an article, for example, must be able to call upon skills of conversation, deductive reasoning, literacy, and social sciences. A surgeon must understand the academic concept of the patient’s condition, as well as the practical application of the appropriate procedure. At least, we would certainly hope this is the case should we find ourselves being wheeled into surgery.

The concept of disciplines brings us to a better starting point when planning the curriculum, which is to ask what students should know and be able to do as a result of their education. The four purposes above suggest eight core competencies that, if properly integrated into education, will equip students who leave school to engage in the economic, cultural, social, and personal challenges they will inevitably face in their lives. These competencies are curiosity, creativity, criticism, communication, collaboration, compassion, composure, and citizenship. Rather than be triggered by age, they should be interwoven from the beginning of a student’s educational journey and nurtured throughout.

From Imagine If: Creating a Future for Us All by Sir Ken Robinson, Ph.D and Kate Robinson, published by Penguin Books, an imprint of Penguin Publishing Group, a division of Penguin Random House, LLC. Copyright © 2022 by the Estate of Sir Kenneth Robinson and Kate Robinson.

Created by the Great Schools Partnership , the GLOSSARY OF EDUCATION REFORM is a comprehensive online resource that describes widely used school-improvement terms, concepts, and strategies for journalists, parents, and community members. | Learn more »

Scaffolding

In education, scaffolding refers to a variety of instructional techniques used to move students progressively toward stronger understanding and, ultimately, greater independence in the learning process. The term itself offers the relevant descriptive metaphor: teachers provide successive levels of temporary support that help students reach higher levels of comprehension and skill acquisition that they would not be able to achieve without assistance. Like physical scaffolding, the supportive strategies are incrementally removed when they are no longer needed, and the teacher gradually shifts more responsibility over the learning process to the student.

Scaffolding is widely considered to be an essential element of effective teaching, and all teachers—to a greater or lesser extent—almost certainly use various forms of instructional scaffolding in their teaching. In addition, scaffolding is often used to bridge learning gaps —i.e., the difference between what students have learned and what they are expected to know and be able to do at a certain point in their education. For example, if students are not at the reading level required to understand a text being taught in a course, the teacher might use instructional scaffolding to incrementally improve their reading ability until they can read the required text independently and without assistance. One of the main goals of scaffolding is to reduce the negative emotions and self-perceptions that students may experience when they get frustrated, intimidated, or discouraged when attempting a difficult task without the assistance, direction, or understanding they need to complete it.

Scaffolding vs. Differentiation As a general instructional strategy, scaffolding shares many similarities with  differentiation , which refers to a wide variety of teaching techniques and lesson adaptations that educators use to instruct a diverse group of students, with diverse learning needs, in the same course, classroom, or  learning environment . Because scaffolding and differentiation techniques are used to achieve similar instructional goals—i.e., moving student learning and understanding from where it is to where it needs to be—the two approaches may be blended together in some classrooms to the point of being indistinguishable. That said, the two approaches are distinct in several ways. When teachers scaffold instruction, they typically break up a learning experience, concept, or skill into discrete parts, and then give students the assistance they need to learn each part. For example, teachers may give students an excerpt of a longer text to read, engage them in a discussion of the excerpt to improve their understanding of its purpose, and teach them the vocabulary they need to comprehend the text before assigning them the full reading. Alternatively, when teachers differentiate instruction, they might give some students an entirely different reading (to better match their reading level and ability), give the entire class the option to choose from among several texts (so each student can pick the one that interests them most), or give the class several options for completing a related assignment (for example, the students might be allowed to write a traditional essay, draw an illustrated essay in comic-style form, create a slideshow “essay” with text and images, or deliver an oral presentation).

The following examples will serve to illustrate a few common scaffolding strategies:

• The teacher gives students a simplified version of a lesson, assignment, or reading, and then gradually increases the complexity, difficulty, or sophistication over time. To achieve the goals of a particular lesson, the teacher may break up the lesson into a series of mini-lessons that progressively move students toward stronger understanding. For example, a challenging algebra problem may be broken up into several parts that are taught successively. Between each mini-lesson, the teacher checks to see if students have understood the concept, gives them time to practice the equations, and explains how the math skills they are learning will help them solve the more challenging problem (questioning students to check for understanding and giving them time to practice are two common scaffolding strategies). In some cases, the term guided practice may be used to describe this general technique.
• The teacher describes or illustrates a concept, problem, or process in multiple ways to ensure understanding. A teacher may orally describe a concept to students, use a slideshow with visual aids such as images and graphics to further explain the idea, ask several students to illustrate the concept on the blackboard, and then provide the students with a reading and writing task that asks them articulate the concept in their own words. This strategy addresses the multiple ways in which students learn—e.g., visually, orally, kinesthetically, etc.—and increases the likelihood that students will understand the concept being taught.
• Students are given an exemplar or model of an assignment they will be asked to complete.  The teacher describes the exemplar assignment’s features and why the specific elements represent high-quality work. The model provides students with a concrete example of the learning goals they are expected to achieve or the product they are expected to produce. Similarly, a teacher may also model a process—for example, a multistep science experiment—so that students can see how it is done before they are asked to do it themselves (teachers may also ask a student to model a process for her classmates).
• Students are given a vocabulary lesson before they read a difficult text.  The teacher reviews the words most likely to give students trouble, using metaphors, analogies, word-image associations, and other strategies to help students understand the meaning of the most difficult words they will encounter in the text. When the students then read the assignment, they will have greater confidence in their reading ability, be more interested in the content, and be more likely to comprehend and remember what they have read.
• The teacher clearly describes the purpose of a learning activity, the directions students need to follow, and the learning goals they are expected to achieve. The teacher may give students a handout with step-by-step instructions they should follow, or provide the scoring guide or rubric that will be used to evaluate and grade their work. When students know the reason why they are being asked to complete an assignment, and what they will specifically be graded on, they are more likely to understand its importance and be motivated to achieve the learning goals of the assignment. Similarly, if students clearly understand the process they need to follow, they are less likely to experience frustration or give up because they haven’t fully understood what they are expected to do.
• The teacher explicitly describes how the new lesson builds on the knowledge and skills students were taught in a previous lesson. By connecting a new lesson to a lesson the students previously completed, the teacher shows students how the concepts and skills they already learned will help them with the new assignment or project (teachers may describe this general strategy as “building on prior knowledge” or “connecting to prior knowledge”). Similarly, the teacher may also make explicit connections between the lesson and the personal interests and experiences of the students as a way to increase understanding or engagement in the learning process. For example, a history teacher may reference a field trip to a museum during which students learned about a particular artifact related to the lesson at hand. For a more detailed discussion, see relevance .

Alphabetical Search

Task‐Based Instruction

• Reference work entry
• pp 1175–1186
• Cite this reference work entry

• Teresa Pica 3  

1474 Accesses

10 Citations

Introduction

Task‐based instruction is characterized by activities that engage language learners in meaningful, goal‐oriented communication to solve problems, complete projects, and reach decisions. Tasks have been used for a broad range of instructional purposes, serving, for example, as units of course syllabi, activities for structure or function practice, and language focusing enhancements to content‐based curricula. Although the language used to carry out a task need not be prespecified, a task can be designed so that attaining its goal depends on linguistic and communicative precision, or requires the use of specific grammatical forms (e.g., Ellis, 2003 ; Loschky and Bley‐Vroman, 1993 ). The communication strategies and learning processes that emerge during task goal attainment are consistent with those advanced in second language acquisition (SLA) theory and found in SLA research. Demands on the learners' attention, comprehension, and production as they carry out a task that can...

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Institutional subscriptions

Allwright, R.: 1979, ‘Language learning through communication practice’, in C. Brumfit and K. Johnson (eds.), The Communicative Approach to Language Teaching , Oxford University Press, London.

Google Scholar  

Beretta, A. and Davies, A.: 1985, ‘Evaluation of the Bangalore project’, ELT Journal 39, 121–127.

Article   Google Scholar  

Breen, M.: 1987, ‘Learner contributions to task design’, in C. Candlin and D. Murphy (eds.), Language Learning Tasks , Prentice Hall International, Englewood Cliffs, NJ.

Brumfit, C. and Johnson, K. (eds.): 1979, The Communicative Approach to Language Teaching , Oxford University Press, Oxford.

Bruton, A.: 2002, ‘From task purposes to purposing tasks’, ELT Journal 56, 280–288.

Bygate, M.: 2001, ‘Effects of task repetition on the structure and control of oral language’, in M. Bygate, P. Skehan, and M. Swain (eds.), Researching Pedagogic Tasks, Second Language Learning, Teaching, and Testing , Longman, Harlow

Bygate, M., Skehan, P., and Swain, M.: 2001, Researching Pedagogic Tasks, Second Language Learning, Teaching, and Testing , Longman, Harlow.

Candlin, C.: 1987, ‘Towards task‐based learning’, in C. Candlin and D. Murphy (eds.), Language Learning Tasks , Prentice Hall International, Englewood Cliffs, NJ.

Crookes, G. and Gass, S. (eds.): 1993, Tasks and Language Learning: Integrating Theory and Practice , Multilingual Matters, Clevedon.

Doughty, C. and Williams, J.: 1998, Focus on Form in Classroom Second Language Acquisition , Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, New York.

Ellis, R.: 2002, ‘Does form‐focussed instruction affect the acquisition of implicit knowledge? A review of the research’, Studies in Second Language Acquisition 24, 223–236.

Ellis, R.: 2003, Task‐Based Language Learning and Teaching , Oxford University Press, Oxford.

Johnson, K.: 1982, ‘Five principles in a “communicative” exercise type’, in K. Johnson (ed.), Communicative Syllabus Design and Methodology , Pergamon, Oxford.

Long, M.: 1981, ‘Input, interaction, and second language acquisition’, in H. Winitz (ed.), Native Language and Foreign Language Acquisition , Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, New York, 379.

Long, M.: 1991, ‘Focus on form: A design feature in language teaching methodology’, in K. de Bot, R. Ginsberg, and C. Kramsch (eds.), Foreign Language Research in Cross Cultural Perspective , Benjamins, Amsterdam.

Long, M. and Crookes, G.: 1992, ‘Three approaches to task‐based syllabus design’, TESOL Quarterly 26, 27–56.

Loschky, L. and Bley‐Vroman, R.: 1993, ‘Creating structure‐based communication tasks for second language development’, in G. Crookes and S. Gass (eds.), Tasks and Language Learning: Integrating Theory and Practice , Multilingual Matters, Clevedon, UK.

Nunan, D.: 1989, Designing Tasks for the Communicative Classroom , Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

Pica, T.: 2005, ‘Classroom learning, teaching, and research: A task‐based perspective’, The Modern Language Journal 3, 339–352.

Pica, T., Kanagy, R., and Falodun, J.: 1993, ‘Choosing and using communication tasks for second language instruction’, in G. Crookes and S.M. Gass (eds.), Tasks and Language Learning , Multilingual Matters, Clevedon, UK.

Pica, T., Kang, S., and Sauro, S.: In press, ‘Information gap tasks: Their multiple roles and contributions to interaction research methodology’, Studies in Second Language Acquisition 28, 2, 301–338.

Prabhu: 1987, Second Language Pedagogy , Oxford University Press, Oxford.

Samuda, V.: 2001, ‘Guiding relationships between form and meaning during task performance: The role of the teacher’, in M. Bygate, P. Skehan, and M. Swain (eds.), Researching Pedagogic Tasks, Second Language Learning, Teaching, and Testing , Longman, Harlow.

Skehan, P.: 2003, ‘Task based instruction’, Language Teaching 36, 1–14.

Skehan, P. and Foster, P.: 1997, ‘Task type and task processing conditions as influences on foreign language performance’, Language Teaching Research 1, 185–211.

Swain, M. and Lapkin, S.: 2001, ‘Focus on form through collaborative dialogue: Exploring task effects’, in M. Bygate, P. Skehan, and M. Swain (eds.), Researching Pedagogic Tasks, Second Language Learning, Teaching, and Testing , Longman, Harlow.

Warschauer, M. and Healey, D.: 1998, ‘Computers and language learning: An overview’, Language Teaching 31, 57–71.

Willis, J.: 1996, A Framework for Task‐Based Learning , Longman, Harlow.

Willis, J. and Willis, D.: 1987, ‘Varied activities for variable language learning’, ELT Journal 4, 12–18.

Download references

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

University of Pennsylvania, 3700 Walnut Street,  , Pennyslvania

Teresa Pica

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Editor information

Editors and affiliations.

Graduate School of Education, University of Pennsylvania, 19104-6216, Philadelphia, PA, USA

Nancy H. Hornberger

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2008 Springer Science+Business Media LLC

About this entry

Cite this entry.

Pica, T. (2008). Task‐Based Instruction. In: Hornberger, N.H. (eds) Encyclopedia of Language and Education. Springer, Boston, MA. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-0-387-30424-3_90

Download citation

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/978-0-387-30424-3_90

Publisher Name : Springer, Boston, MA

Print ISBN : 978-0-387-32875-1

Online ISBN : 978-0-387-30424-3

eBook Packages : Humanities, Social Sciences and Law

Share this entry

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• Publish with us

Policies and ethics

• Find a journal
• Track your research

• More from M-W
• To save this word, you'll need to log in. Log In

Definition of task

 (Entry 1 of 2)

Definition of task  (Entry 2 of 2)

transitive verb

• intrust

task , duty , job , chore , stint , assignment mean a piece of work to be done.

task implies work imposed by a person in authority or an employer or by circumstance.

duty implies an obligation to perform or responsibility for performance.

job applies to a piece of work voluntarily performed; it may sometimes suggest difficulty or importance.

chore implies a minor routine activity necessary for maintaining a household or farm.

stint implies a carefully allotted or measured quantity of assigned work or service.

assignment implies a definite limited task assigned by one in authority.

Examples of task in a Sentence

These examples are programmatically compiled from various online sources to illustrate current usage of the word 'task.' Any opinions expressed in the examples do not represent those of Merriam-Webster or its editors. Send us feedback about these examples.

Word History

Middle English taske , from Middle French dialect (Picardy, Flanders) tasque , from Medieval Latin tasca tax or service imposed by a feudal superior, alteration of *taxa , from taxare to tax

14th century, in the meaning defined at sense 1a

14th century, in the meaning defined at sense 1

Phrases Containing task

• brought to task
• called to task
• take to task
• the task at hand

Articles Related to task

Can 'Task' Be Used as a Verb?

Taking a usage peeve to task

Dictionary Entries Near task

Tasikmalaya

task-and-bonus system

Cite this Entry

“Task.” Merriam-Webster.com Dictionary , Merriam-Webster, https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/task. Accessed 7 Jun. 2024.

Kids Definition

Kids definition of task, medical definition, medical definition of task, more from merriam-webster on task.

Nglish: Translation of task for Spanish Speakers

Britannica English: Translation of task for Arabic Speakers

Subscribe to America's largest dictionary and get thousands more definitions and advanced search—ad free!

Can you solve 4 words at once?

Word of the day.

See Definitions and Examples »

Get Word of the Day daily email!

Popular in Grammar & Usage

What's the difference between 'fascism' and 'socialism', more commonly misspelled words, commonly misspelled words, how to use em dashes (—), en dashes (–) , and hyphens (-), absent letters that are heard anyway, popular in wordplay, 8 words for lesser-known musical instruments, 9 superb owl words, 'gaslighting,' 'woke,' 'democracy,' and other top lookups, 10 words for lesser-known games and sports, etymologies for every day of the week, games & quizzes.

• Table of Contents
• Random Entry
• Chronological
• Editorial Information
• About the SEP
• Editorial Board
• How to Cite the SEP
• Special Characters
• Advanced Tools
• Support the SEP
• PDFs for SEP Friends
• Make a Donation
• SEPIA for Libraries
• Entry Contents

Bibliography

Academic tools.

• Friends PDF Preview
• Author and Citation Info
• Back to Top

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 its influence so profound, the subject is wide-ranging, involving issues in ethics and social/political philosophy, epistemology, metaphysics, philosophy of mind and language, and other areas of philosophy. Because it looks both inward to the parent discipline and outward to educational practice and the social, legal, and institutional contexts in which it takes place, philosophy of education concerns itself with both sides of the traditional theory/practice divide. Its subject matter includes both basic philosophical issues (e.g., the nature of the knowledge worth teaching, the character of educational equality and justice, etc.) and problems concerning specific educational policies and practices (e.g., the desirability of standardized curricula and testing, the social, economic, legal and moral dimensions of specific funding arrangements, the justification of curriculum decisions, etc.). In all this the philosopher of education prizes conceptual clarity, argumentative rigor, the fair-minded consideration of the interests of all involved in or affected by educational efforts and arrangements, and informed and well-reasoned valuation of educational aims and interventions.

Philosophy of education has a long and distinguished history in the Western philosophical tradition, from Socrates’ battles with the sophists to the present day. Many of the most distinguished figures in that tradition incorporated educational concerns into their broader philosophical agendas (Curren 2000, 2018; Rorty 1998). While that history is not the focus here, it is worth noting that the ideals of reasoned inquiry championed by Socrates and his descendants have long informed the view that education should foster in all students, to the extent possible, the disposition to seek reasons and the ability to evaluate them cogently, and to be guided by their evaluations in matters of belief, action and judgment. This view, that education centrally involves the fostering of reason or rationality, has with varying articulations and qualifications been embraced by most of those historical figures; it continues to be defended by contemporary philosophers of education as well (Scheffler 1973 [1989]; Siegel 1988, 1997, 2007, 2017). As with any philosophical thesis it is controversial; some dimensions of the controversy are explored below.

This entry is a selective survey of important contemporary work in Anglophone philosophy of education; it does not treat in detail recent scholarship outside that context.

1. Problems in Delineating the Field

2. analytic philosophy of education and its influence, 3.1 the content of the curriculum and the aims and functions of schooling, 3.2 social, political and moral philosophy, 3.3 social epistemology, virtue epistemology, and the epistemology of education, 3.4 philosophical disputes concerning empirical education research, 4. concluding remarks, other internet resources, related entries.

The inward/outward looking nature of the field of philosophy of education alluded to above makes the task of delineating the field, of giving an over-all picture of the intellectual landscape, somewhat complicated (for a detailed account of this topography, see Phillips 1985, 2010). 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. See Scriven 1991a, 1991b.) At the same time, there are professionals in the educational or closely related spheres who are drawn to discuss one or another of the philosophical issues that they encounter in the course of their work. (An example here is the behaviorist psychologist B.F. Skinner, the central figure in the development of operant conditioning and programmed learning, who in works such as Walden Two (1948) and Beyond Freedom and Dignity (1972) grappled—albeit controversially—with major philosophical issues that were related to his work.)

What makes the field even more amorphous is the existence of works on educational topics, written by well-regarded philosophers who have made major contributions to their discipline; these educational reflections have little or no philosophical content, illustrating the truth that philosophers do not always write philosophy. However, despite this, works in this genre have often been treated as contributions to philosophy of education. (Examples include John Locke’s Some Thoughts Concerning Education [1693] and Bertrand Russell’s rollicking pieces written primarily to raise funds to support a progressive school he ran with his wife. (See Park 1965.)

Finally, as indicated 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, and the like. It is not surprising that scholars who work in this broad genre also find a home in the field of philosophy of education.

As a result of these various factors, 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 of arguments and methods of argumentation 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.

Conceptual analysis, careful assessment of arguments, the rooting out of ambiguity, the drawing of clarifying distinctions—all of which are at least part of the philosophical toolkit—have been respected activities within philosophy from the dawn of the field. 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. In any case, as they gained prominence and for a time hegemonic influence during the rise of analytic philosophy early in the twentieth century analytic techniques came to dominate philosophy of education in the middle third of that century (Curren, Robertson, & Hager 2003).

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)

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), which 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, he argued, should be seen as truncated arguments), Conditions of Knowledge (1965), still the best introduction to the epistemological side of philosophy of education, and Reason and Teaching (1973 [1989]), which in a wide-ranging and influential series of essays makes the case for regarding the fostering of rationality/critical thinking as a fundamental educational ideal (cf. Siegel 2016). B. O. Smith and R. H. 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 prominent British writers, most notably R. S. Peters (whose status in Britain paralleled that of Scheffler in the United States), 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 (APE) 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. Thus, whether or not an instructional episode was a case of indoctrination was determined by the content taught, the intention of the instructor, the methods of instruction used, the outcomes of the instruction, or 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. 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). The danger of restricting analysis to ordinary language (“normal English usage”) was recognized early on by Scheffler, whose preferred view of analysis emphasized

first, its greater sophistication as regards language, and the interpenetration of language and inquiry, second, its attempt to follow the modern example of the sciences in empirical spirit, in rigor, in attention to detail, in respect for alternatives, and in objectivity of method, and third, its use of techniques of symbolic logic brought to full development only in the last fifty years… It is…this union of scientific spirit and logical method applied toward the clarification of basic ideas that characterizes current analytic philosophy [and that ought to characterize analytic philosophy of education]. (Scheffler 1973 [1989: 9–10])

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. (It is worth noting that a 1966 article in Time , reprinted in Lucas 1969, had put forward the same criticism of mainstream philosophy.) Second, in the early 1970’s radical students in Britain accused Peters’ brand of linguistic analysis 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 on the part of the general reading public in the United Kingdom 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 a list 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 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 and 1980s, including The Dialectic of Freedom (1988); 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 . In more recent years all these trends have continued. APE was and is no longer the center of interest, although, as indicated below, it still retains its voice.

3. Areas of Contemporary Activity

As was stressed at the outset, 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 A Companion to the Philosophy of Education (Curren 2003), which contains more than six-hundred pages divided into forty-five chapters each of which surveys 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, truth and 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, the purposes of universities, affirmative action in higher education, and professional education. The Oxford Handbook of Philosophy of Education (Siegel 2009) contains a similarly broad range of articles on (among other things) the epistemic and moral aims of education, liberal education and its imminent demise, thinking and reasoning, fallibilism and fallibility, indoctrination, authenticity, the development of rationality, Socratic teaching, educating the imagination, caring and empathy in moral education, the limits of moral education, the cultivation of character, values education, curriculum and the value of knowledge, education and democracy, art and education, science education and religious toleration, constructivism and scientific methods, multicultural education, prejudice, authority and the interests of children, and on pragmatist, feminist, and postmodernist approaches to philosophy of education.

Given this enormous range, 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 highlighting contemporary work that makes solid contact with and contributes to important discussions in general philosophy and/or the academic educational and educational research communities.

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, and many other things can take place there that are educationally orthogonal (such as the provision of free or subsidized lunches and 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 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/excluding particular subjects or topics in the offerings of formal educational institutions. (Why should evolution or creation “science” be included, or excluded, as a topic within the standard high school subject Biology? Is the justification that is given for teaching Economics in some schools coherent and convincing? Do the justifications for including/excluding materials on birth control, patriotism, the Holocaust or wartime atrocities in the curriculum in some school districts 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 pioneering efforts all draw, explicitly or implicitly, upon 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)? Many aims have been proposed; a short list includes the production of knowledge and knowledgeable students, the fostering of curiosity and inquisitiveness, the enhancement of understanding, the enlargement of the imagination, the civilizing of students, the fostering of rationality and/or autonomy, and the development in students of care, concern and associated dispositions and attitudes (see Siegel 2007 for a longer list). The justifications offered for all such aims have been controversial, and alternative justifications of a single proposed aim can provoke philosophical controversy. Consider the aim of autonomy. Aristotle asked, what constitutes the good life and/or human flourishing, such that education should foster these (Curren 2013)? These two formulations are related, for it is arguable that our educational institutions should aim to equip individuals to pursue this good life—although this is not obvious, both because it is not clear that there is one conception of the good or flourishing life that is the good or flourishing life for everyone, and it is not clear that this is a question that should be settled in advance rather than determined by students for themselves. Thus, for example, if our view of human flourishing includes the capacity to think and act autonomously, then the case can be made that educational institutions—and their curricula—should aim to prepare, or help to prepare, autonomous individuals. A rival justification of the aim of autonomy, associated with Kant, champions the educational fostering of autonomy not on the basis of its contribution to human flourishing, but rather the obligation to treat students with respect as persons (Scheffler 1973 [1989]; Siegel 1988). Still others urge the fostering of autonomy on the basis of students’ fundamental interests, in ways that draw upon both Aristotelian and Kantian conceptual resources (Brighouse 2005, 2009). It is also possible to reject the fostering of autonomy as an educational aim (Hand 2006).

Assuming that the aim can be justified, how students should be helped to become autonomous or develop a conception of the good life and pursue it is of course not immediately obvious, and much philosophical ink has been spilled on the general question of how best to determine curriculum content. One influential line of argument was developed by Paul Hirst, who argued that knowledge is essential for developing and then pursuing a conception of the good life, 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 (Hirst 1965; see Phillips 1987: ch. 11). Another, suggested by Scheffler, is that curriculum content should be selected so as “to help the learner attain maximum self-sufficiency as economically as possible.” The relevant sorts of economy include those of resources, teacher effort, student effort, and the generalizability or transfer value of content, while the self-sufficiency in question includes

self-awareness, imaginative weighing of alternative courses of action, understanding of other people’s choices and ways of life, decisiveness without rigidity, emancipation from stereotyped ways of thinking and perceiving…empathy… intuition, criticism and independent judgment. (Scheffler 1973 [1989: 123–5])

Both impose important constraints on the curricular content to be taught.

Second, is it justifiable to treat the curriculum of an educational institution as a vehicle for furthering the socio-political interests and goals of a dominant group, or any particular group, including one’s own; and relatedly, is it justifiable to design the curriculum so that it serves as an instrument 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 powerful cultural elites. What to do about this situation (if it is indeed the situation of contemporary educational institutions) is far from clear and is the focus of much work at the interface of philosophy of education and social/political philosophy, some of which is discussed in the next section. A closely related question is this: ought educational institutions be designed to further pre-determined social ends, or rather to enable students to competently evaluate all such ends? Scheffler argued that we should opt for the latter: we must

surrender the idea of shaping or molding the mind of the pupil. The function of education…is rather to liberate the mind, strengthen its critical powers, [and] inform it with knowledge and the capacity for independent inquiry. (Scheffler 1973 [1989: 139])

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 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 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 2015.) 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 become members of the ruling class of Guardians.

The publication of John Rawls’s A Theory of Justice in 1971 was the most notable event in the history of political philosophy over the last century. The book spurred a period of ferment in political philosophy that included, among other things, new research on educationally fundamental themes. The principles of justice in educational distribution have perhaps been the dominant theme in this literature, and Rawls’s influence on its development has been pervasive.

Rawls’s theory of justice made so-called “fair equality of opportunity” one of its constitutive principles. Fair equality of opportunity entailed that the distribution of education would not put the children of those who currently occupied coveted social positions at any competitive advantage over other, equally talented and motivated children seeking the qualifications for those positions (Rawls 1971: 72–75). Its purpose was to prevent socio-economic differences from hardening into social castes that were perpetuated across generations. One obvious criticism of fair equality of opportunity is that it does not prohibit an educational distribution that lavished resources on the most talented children while offering minimal opportunities to others. So long as untalented students from wealthy families were assigned opportunities no better than those available to their untalented peers among the poor, no breach of the principle would occur. Even the most moderate egalitarians might find such a distributive regime to be intuitively repugnant.

Repugnance might be mitigated somewhat by the ways in which the overall structure of Rawls’s conception of justice protects the interests of those who fare badly in educational competition. All citizens must enjoy the same basic liberties, and equal liberty always has moral priority over equal opportunity: the former can never be compromised to advance the latter. Further, inequality in the distribution of income and wealth are permitted only to the degree that it serves the interests of the least advantaged group in society. But even with these qualifications, fair equality of opportunity is arguably less than really fair to anyone. The fact that their education should secure ends other than access to the most selective social positions—ends such as artistic appreciation, the kind of self-knowledge that humanistic study can furnish, or civic virtue—is deemed irrelevant according to Rawls’s principle. But surely it is relevant, given that a principle of educational justice must be responsive to the full range of educationally important goods.

Suppose we revise our account of the goods included in educational distribution so that aesthetic appreciation, say, and the necessary understanding and virtue for conscientious citizenship count for just as much as job-related skills. An interesting implication of doing so is that the rationale for requiring equality under any just distribution becomes decreasingly clear. That is because job-related skills are positional whereas the other educational goods are not (Hollis 1982). If you and I both aspire to a career in business management for which we are equally qualified, any increase in your job-related skills is a corresponding disadvantage to me unless I can catch up. Positional goods have a competitive structure by definition, though the ends of civic or aesthetic education do not fit that structure. If you and I aspire to be good citizens and are equal in civic understanding and virtue, an advance in your civic education is no disadvantage to me. On the contrary, it is easier to be a good citizen the better other citizens learn to be. At the very least, so far as non-positional goods figure in our conception of what counts as a good education, the moral stakes of inequality are thereby lowered.

In fact, an emerging alternative to fair equality of opportunity is a principle that stipulates some benchmark of adequacy in achievement or opportunity as the relevant standard of distribution. But it is misleading to represent this as a contrast between egalitarian and sufficientarian conceptions. Philosophically serious interpretations of adequacy derive from the ideal of equal citizenship (Satz 2007; Anderson 2007). Then again, fair equality of opportunity in Rawls’s theory is derived from a more fundamental ideal of equality among citizens. This was arguably true in A Theory of Justice but it is certainly true in his later work (Dworkin 1977: 150–183; Rawls 1993). So, both Rawls’s principle and the emerging alternative share an egalitarian foundation. The debate between adherents of equal opportunity and those misnamed as sufficientarians is certainly not over (e.g., Brighouse & Swift 2009; Jacobs 2010; Warnick 2015). Further progress will likely hinge on explicating the most compelling conception of the egalitarian foundation from which distributive principles are to be inferred. Another Rawls-inspired alternative is that a “prioritarian” distribution of achievement or opportunity might turn out to be the best principle we can come up with—i.e., one that favors the interests of the least advantaged students (Schouten 2012).

The publication of Rawls’s Political Liberalism in 1993 signaled a decisive turning point in his thinking about justice. In his earlier book, the theory of justice had been presented as if it were universally valid. But Rawls had come to think that any theory of justice presented as such was open to reasonable rejection. A more circumspect approach to justification would seek grounds for justice as fairness in an overlapping consensus between the many reasonable values and doctrines that thrive in a democratic political culture. Rawls argued that such a culture is informed by a shared ideal of free and equal citizenship that provided a new, distinctively democratic framework for justifying a conception of justice. The shift to political liberalism involved little revision on Rawls’s part to the content of the principles he favored. But the salience it gave to questions about citizenship in the fabric of liberal political theory had important educational implications. How was the ideal of free and equal citizenship to be instantiated in education in a way that accommodated the range of reasonable values and doctrines encompassed in an overlapping consensus? Political Liberalism has inspired a range of answers to that question (cf. Callan 1997; Clayton 2006; Bull 2008).

Other philosophers besides Rawls in the 1990s took up a cluster of questions about civic education, and not always from a liberal perspective. Alasdair Macintyre’s After Virtue (1984) strongly influenced the development of communitarian political theory which, as its very name might suggest, argued that the cultivation of community could preempt many of the problems with conflicting individual rights at the core of liberalism. As a full-standing alternative to liberalism, communitarianism might have little to recommend it. But it was a spur for liberal philosophers to think about how communities could be built and sustained to support the more familiar projects of liberal politics (e.g., Strike 2010). Furthermore, its arguments often converged with those advanced by feminist exponents of the ethic of care (Noddings 1984; Gilligan 1982). Noddings’ work is particularly notable because she inferred a cogent and radical agenda for the reform of schools from her conception of care (Noddings 1992).

One persistent controversy in citizenship theory has been about whether patriotism is correctly deemed a virtue, given our obligations to those who are not our fellow citizens in an increasingly interdependent world and the sordid history of xenophobia with which modern nation states are associated. The controversy is partly about what we should teach in our schools and is commonly discussed by philosophers in that context (Galston 1991; Ben-Porath 2006; Callan 2006; Miller 2007; Curren & Dorn 2018). The controversy is related to a deeper and more pervasive question about how morally or intellectually taxing the best conception of our citizenship should be. The more taxing it is, the more constraining its derivative conception of civic education will be. Contemporary political philosophers offer divergent arguments about these matters. For example, Gutmann and Thompson claim that citizens of diverse democracies need to “understand the diverse ways of life of their fellow citizens” (Gutmann & Thompson 1996: 66). The need arises from the obligation of reciprocity which they (like Rawls) believe to be integral to citizenship. Because I must seek to cooperate with others politically on terms that make sense from their moral perspective as well as my own, I must be ready to enter that perspective imaginatively so as to grasp its distinctive content. Many such perspectives prosper in liberal democracies, and so the task of reciprocal understanding is necessarily onerous. Still, our actions qua deliberative citizen must be grounded in such reciprocity if political cooperation on terms acceptable to us as (diversely) morally motivated citizens is to be possible at all. This is tantamount to an imperative to think autonomously inside the role of citizen because I cannot close-mindedly resist critical consideration of moral views alien to my own without flouting my responsibilities as a deliberative citizen.

Civic education does not exhaust the domain of moral education, even though the more robust conceptions of equal citizenship have far-reaching implications for just relations in civil society and the family. The study of moral education has traditionally taken its bearings from normative ethics rather than political philosophy, and this is largely true of work undertaken in recent decades. The major development here has been the revival of virtue ethics as an alternative to the deontological and consequentialist theories that dominated discussion for much of the twentieth century.

The defining idea of virtue ethics is that our criterion of moral right and wrong must derive from a conception of how the ideally virtuous agent would distinguish between the two. Virtue ethics is thus an alternative to both consequentialism and deontology which locate the relevant criterion in producing good consequences or meeting the requirements of moral duty respectively. The debate about the comparative merits of these theories is not resolved, but from an educational perspective that may be less important than it has sometimes seemed to antagonists in the debate. To be sure, adjudicating between rival theories in normative ethics might shed light on how best to construe the process of moral education, and philosophical reflection on the process might help us to adjudicate between the theories. There has been extensive work on habituation and virtue, largely inspired by Aristotle (Burnyeat 1980; Peters 1981). But whether this does anything to establish the superiority of virtue ethics over its competitors is far from obvious. Other aspects of moral education—in particular, the paired processes of role-modelling and identification—deserve much more scrutiny than they have received (Audi 2017; Kristjánsson 2015, 2017).

Related to the issues concerning the aims and functions of education and schooling rehearsed above are those involving the specifically epistemic aims of education and attendant issues treated by social and virtue epistemologists. (The papers collected in Kotzee 2013 and Baehr 2016 highlight the current and growing interactions among social epistemologists, virtue epistemologists, and philosophers of education.)

There is, first, a lively debate concerning putative epistemic aims. Alvin Goldman argues that truth (or knowledge understood in the “weak” sense of true belief) is the fundamental epistemic aim of education (Goldman 1999). Others, including the majority of historically significant philosophers of education, hold that critical thinking or rationality and rational belief (or knowledge in the “strong” sense that includes justification) is the basic epistemic educational aim (Bailin & Siegel 2003; Scheffler 1965, 1973 [1989]; Siegel 1988, 1997, 2005, 2017). Catherine Z. Elgin (1999a,b) and Duncan Pritchard (2013, 2016; Carter & Pritchard 2017) have independently urged that understanding is the basic aim. Pritchard’s view combines understanding with intellectual virtue ; Jason Baehr (2011) systematically defends the fostering of the intellectual virtues as the fundamental epistemic aim of education. This cluster of views continues to engender ongoing discussion and debate. (Its complex literature is collected in Carter and Kotzee 2015, summarized in Siegel 2018, and helpfully analyzed in Watson 2016.)

A further controversy concerns the places of testimony and trust in the classroom: In what circumstances if any ought students to trust their teachers’ pronouncements, and why? Here the epistemology of education is informed by social epistemology, specifically the epistemology of testimony; the familiar reductionism/anti-reductionism controversy there is applicable to students and teachers. Anti-reductionists, who regard testimony as a basic source of justification, may with equanimity approve of students’ taking their teachers’ word at face value and believing what they say; reductionists may balk. Does teacher testimony itself constitute good reason for student belief?

The correct answer here seems clearly enough to be “it depends”. For very young children who have yet to acquire or develop the ability to subject teacher declarations to critical scrutiny, there seems to be little alternative to accepting what their teachers tell them. For older and more cognitively sophisticated students there seem to be more options: they can assess them for plausibility, compare them with other opinions, assess the teachers’ proffered reasons, subject them to independent evaluation, etc. Regarding “the teacher says that p ” as itself a good reason to believe it appears moreover to contravene the widely shared conviction that an important educational aim is helping students to become able to evaluate candidate beliefs for themselves and believe accordingly. That said, all sides agree that sometimes believers, including students, have good reasons simply to trust what others tell them. There is thus more work to do here by both social epistemologists and philosophers of education (for further discussion see Goldberg 2013; Siegel 2005, 2018).

A further cluster of questions, of long-standing interest to philosophers of education, concerns indoctrination : How if at all does it differ from legitimate teaching? Is it inevitable, and if so is it not always necessarily bad? First, what is it? As we saw earlier, extant analyses focus on the aims or intentions of the indoctrinator, the methods employed, or the content transmitted. If the indoctrination is successful, all have the result that students/victims either don’t, won’t, or can’t subject the indoctrinated material to proper epistemic evaluation. In this way it produces both belief that is evidentially unsupported or contravened and uncritical dispositions to believe. It might seem obvious that indoctrination, so understood, is educationally undesirable. But it equally seems that very young children, at least, have no alternative but to believe sans evidence; they have yet to acquire the dispositions to seek and evaluate evidence, or the abilities to recognize evidence or evaluate it. Thus we seem driven to the views that indoctrination is both unavoidable and yet bad and to be avoided. It is not obvious how this conundrum is best handled. One option is to distinguish between acceptable and unacceptable indoctrination. Another is to distinguish between indoctrination (which is always bad) and non-indoctrinating belief inculcation, the latter being such that students are taught some things without reasons (the alphabet, the numbers, how to read and count, etc.), but in such a way that critical evaluation of all such material (and everything else) is prized and fostered (Siegel 1988: ch. 5). In the end the distinctions required by the two options might be extensionally equivalent (Siegel 2018).

Education, it is generally granted, fosters belief : in the typical propositional case, Smith teaches Jones that p , and if all goes well Jones learns it and comes to believe it. Education also has the task of fostering open-mindedness and an appreciation of our fallibility : All the theorists mentioned thus far, especially those in the critical thinking and intellectual virtue camps, urge their importance. But these two might seem at odds. If Jones (fully) believes that p , can she also be open-minded about it? Can she believe, for example, that earthquakes are caused by the movements of tectonic plates, while also believing that perhaps they aren’t? This cluster of italicized notions requires careful handling; it is helpfully discussed by Jonathan Adler (2002, 2003), who recommends regarding the latter two as meta-attitudes concerning one’s first-order beliefs rather than lessened degrees of belief or commitments to those beliefs.

Other traditional epistemological worries that impinge upon the epistemology of education concern (a) absolutism , pluralism and relativism with respect to knowledge, truth and justification as these relate to what is taught, (b) the character and status of group epistemologies and the prospects for understanding such epistemic goods “universalistically” in the face of “particularist” challenges, (c) the relation between “knowledge-how” and “knowledge-that” and their respective places in the curriculum, (d) concerns raised by multiculturalism and the inclusion/exclusion of marginalized perspectives in curriculum content and the classroom, and (e) further issues concerning teaching and learning. (There is more here than can be briefly summarized; for more references and systematic treatment cf. Bailin & Siegel 2003; Carter & Kotzee 2015; Cleverley & Phillips 1986; Robertson 2009; Siegel 2004, 2017; and Watson 2016.)

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 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. (For an illuminating account of the historical development of educational research and its tribulations, see Lagemann 2000.)

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 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 epistemological: 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 were used only 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 2009.)

The most lively contemporary debates about education research, however, were set in motion around the turn of the millennium 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 decision-making.) The definition of “rigorously scientific”, however, was decided by politicians 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 become common over the last decade to refer to the RFT as the “gold standard” methodology.

The National Research Council (NRC)—an arm of the US National Academies of Science—issued a report, influenced by postpostivistic philosophy of science (NRC 2002), that argued that 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 the exercise of power constrains the research process, they misunderstood the nature of educational phenomena, and so on. This cluster of issues continues to be debated by educational researchers and by philosophers of education and of science, and often involves basic topics in philosophy of science: the constitution of warranting evidence, the nature of theories and of confirmation and explanation, etc. Nancy Cartwright’s important recent work on causation, evidence, and evidence-based policy adds layers of both philosophical sophistication and real world practical analysis to the central issues just discussed (Cartwright & Hardie 2012, Cartwright 2013; cf. Kvernbekk 2015 for an overview of the controversies regarding evidence in the education and philosophy of education literatures).

As stressed earlier, it is impossible to do justice to the whole field of philosophy of education in a single encyclopedia entry. Different countries around the world have their own intellectual traditions and their own ways of institutionalizing philosophy of education in 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 that any author attempting to produce a synoptic account will quickly run into the borders of his or her competence. Clearly this has happened in the present case.

Fortunately, in the last thirty years or so resources have become available that significantly alleviate these problems. There has been a flood of encyclopedia entries, both on the field as a whole and also on many specific topics not well-covered in the present essay (see, as a sample, Burbules 1994; Chambliss 1996b; Curren 1998, 2018; Phillips 1985, 2010; Siegel 2007; Smeyers 1994), two “Encyclopedias” (Chambliss 1996a; Phillips 2014), a “Guide” (Blake, Smeyers, Smith, & Standish 2003), a “Companion” (Curren 2003), two “Handbooks” (Siegel 2009; Bailey, Barrow, Carr, & McCarthy 2010), a comprehensive anthology (Curren 2007), a dictionary of key concepts in the field (Winch & Gingell 1999), and a good textbook or two (Carr 2003; Noddings 2015). 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 here (for another sampling see A. Rorty 1998, Stone 1994), and several international journals, including Theory and Research in Education , Journal of Philosophy of Education , Educational Theory , Studies in Philosophy and Education , and Educational Philosophy and Theory . Thus there is more than enough material available to keep the interested reader busy.

• Adler, Jonathan E., 2002, Belief’s Own Ethics , Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
• –––, 2003, “Knowledge, Truth and Learning”, in Curren 2003: 285–304. doi:10.1002/9780470996454.ch21
• Anderson, Elizabeth, 2007, “Fair Opportunity in Education: A Democratic Equality Perspective”, Ethics , 117(4): 595–622. doi:10.1086/518806
• Archambault, Reginald D. (ed.), 1965, Philosophical Analysis and Education , London: Routledge.
• Audi, Robert, 2017, “Role Modelling and Reasons: Developmental and Normative Grounds of Moral Virtue”, Journal of Moral Philosophy , 14(6): 646–668. doi:10.1163/17455243-46810063
• Baehr, Jason, 2011, The Inquiring Mind: On Intellectual Virtues and Virtue Epistemology , Oxford: Oxford University Press. doi:10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199604074.001.0001
• ––– (ed.), 2016, Intellectual Virtues and Education: Essays in Applied Virtue Epistemology , New York: Routledge.
• Bailey, Richard, Robin Barrow, David Carr, and Christine McCarthy (eds), 2010, The SAGE Handbook of the Philosophy of Education , Los Angeles: Sage. doi:10.4135/9781446200872
• Bailin, Sharon and Harvey Siegel, 2003, “Critical Thinking”, in Blake et al. 2003: 181–193. doi:10.1002/9780470996294.ch11
• Ben-Porath, Sigal R., 2006. Citizenship Under Fire: Democratic Education in Times of Conflict , Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
• Blake, Nigel, Paul Smeyers, Richard Smith, and Paul Standish (eds.), 2003, The Blackwell Guide to the Philosophy of Education , Oxford: Blackwell. doi:10.1002/9780470996294
• Brighouse, Harry, 2005, On Education , London: Routledge.
• –––, 2009, “Moral and Political Aims of Education”, in Siegel 2009: 35–51.
• Brighouse, Harry and Adam Swift, 2009, “Educational Equality versus Educational Adequacy: A Critique of Anderson and Satz”, Journal of Applied Philosophy , 26(2): 117–128. doi:10.1111/j.1468-5930.2009.00438.x
• Bull, Barry L., 2008, Social Justice in Education: An Introduction , New York: Palgrave MacMillan.
• Burbules, Nicholas C., 1994, “Marxism and Educational Thought”, in The International Encyclopedia of Education , (Volume 6), Torsten Husén and T. Neville Postlethwaite (eds.), Oxford: Pergamon, second edition, pp. 3617–22.
• Burnyeat, Myles F., 1980, “Aristotle on Learning to be Good”, in Amélie Oksenberg Rorty (ed.), Essays on Aristotle’s Ethics , Berkeley CA: University of California Press, pp. 69–92.
• Callan, Eamonn, 1997, Creating Citizens: Political Education and Liberal Democracy , Oxford: Clarendon Press. doi:10.1093/0198292589.001.0001
• –––, 2006, “Love, Idolatry, and Patriotism”, Social Theory and Practice , 32(4): 525–546. doi:10.5840/soctheorpract200632430
• Carr, David, 2003, Making Sense of Education: An Introduction to the Philosophy and Theory of Education and Teaching , London: RoutledgeFalmer.
• Carter, J. Adam and Ben Kotzee, 2015, “Epistemology of Education”, Oxford Bibliographies Online , last modified: 26 October 2015.
• Carter, J.Adam and Duncan Pritchard, 2017, “Epistemic Situationism, Epistemic Dependence, and the Epistemology of Education”, in Abrol Fairweather and Mark Alfano (eds.), Epistemic Situationism , Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 168–191. doi:10.1093/oso/9780199688234.003.0010
• Cartwright, Nancy D., 2013, Evidence: For Policy and Wheresoever Rigor Is a Must , London: London School of Economics and Political Science.
• Cartwright, Nancy D. and Jeremy Hardie, 2012, Evidence-based Policy: A Practical Guide to Doing It Better , Oxford: Oxford University Press.
• Chambliss, J.J. (ed.), 1996a, Philosophy of Education: An Encyclopedia , New York: Garland.
• Chambliss, J.J., 1996b, “History of Philosophy of Education”, in Chambliss 1996a, pp. 461–472.
• Clayton, Matthew, 2006, Justice and Legitimacy in Upbringing , Oxford: Oxford University Press. doi:10.1093/0199268940.001.0001
• Cleverley, John and D.C. Phillips, 1986, Visions of Childhood: Influential Models from Locke to Spock , New York: Teachers College Press.
• Curren, Randall R., 1998, “Education, Philosophy of”, in E.J. Craig (ed.), Routledge Encyclopedia of Philosophy , vol. 3, pp. 231–240.
• –––, 2000, Aristotle on the Necessity of Public Education , Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield.
• –––, (ed.), 2003, A Companion to the Philosophy of Education , Oxford: Blackwell. doi:10.1002/9780470996454
• –––, (ed.), 2007, Philosophy of Education: An Anthology , Oxford: Blackwell.
• –––, 2013, “A Neo-Aristotelian Account of Education, Justice and the Human Good”, Theory and Research in Education , 11(3): 231–249. doi:10.1177/1477878513498182
• –––, 2018, “Education, History of Philosophy of”, revised second version, in Routledge Encyclopedia of Philosophy Online . doi:10.4324/9780415249126-N014-2
• Curren, Randall, Emily Robertson, and Paul Hager, 2003, “The Analytical Movement”, in Curren 2003: 176–191. doi:10.1002/9780470996454.ch13
• Curren, Randall and Charles Dorn, 2018, Patriotic Education in a Global Age , Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
• Dworkin, Ronald, 1977, Taking Rights Seriously , Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
• Elgin, Catherine Z., 1999a, “Epistemology’s Ends, Pedagogy’s Prospects”, Facta Philosophica , 1: 39–54
• –––, 1999b, “Education and the Advancement of Understanding”, in David M. Steiner (ed.), Proceedings of the 20 th World Congress of Philosophy , vol. 3, Philosophy Documentation Center, pp. 131–140.
• Galston, William A., 1991, Liberal Purposes: Goods, Virtues, and Diversity in the Liberal State , Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. doi:10.1017/CBO9781139172462
• Gellner, Ernest, 1959, Words and Things: A Critical Account of Linguistic Philosophy and a Study in Ideology , London: Gollancz.
• Gilligan, Carol, 1982, In a Different Voice: Psychological Theory and Women’s Development , Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
• Goldberg, Sanford, 2013, “Epistemic Dependence in Testimonial Belief, in the Classroom and Beyond”, Journal of Philosophy of Education , 47(2): 168–186. doi:10.1111/1467-9752.12019
• Goldman, Alvin I., 1999, Knowledge in a Social World , Oxford: Oxford University Press. doi:10.1093/0198238207.001.0001
• Greene, Maxine, 1988, The Dialectic of Freedom , New York: Teachers College Press.
• Gutmann, Amy and Dennis F. Thompson, 1996, Democracy and Disagreement , Cambridge, MA: Belknap Press of Harvard University Press.
• Hand, Michael, 2006, “Against Autonomy as an Educational Aim”, Oxford Review of Education , 32(4): 535–550. doi:10.1080/03054980600884250
• Hardie, Charles Dunn, 1941 [1962], Truth and Fallacy in Educational Theory , New York: Teachers College Bureau of Publications.
• Hirst, Paul, 1965, “Liberal Education and the Nature of Knowledge”, in Philosophical Analysis and Education , Reginald D. Archambault, (ed.), London: Routledge, pp. 113–138.
• Hirst, Paul and R.S. Peters, 1970, The Logic of Education , London: Routledge.
• Hollis, Martin, 1982, “Education as A Positional Good”, Journal of Philosophy of Education , 16(2): 235–244. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9752.1982.tb00615.x
• Howe, Kenneth R., 2003, Closing Methodological Divides: Toward Democratic Educational Research , Dordrecht: Kluwer. doi:10.1007/0-306-47984-2
• Jacobs, Lesley A., 2010, “Equality, Adequacy, And Stakes Fairness: Retrieving the Equal Opportunities in Education Approach”, Theory and Research in Education , 8(3): 249–268. doi:10.1177/1477878510381627
• Kotzee, Ben (ed.), 2013, Education and the Growth of Knowledge: Perspectives from Social and Virtue Epistemology , Oxford: Wiley. doi:10.1002/9781118721254
• Kristjánsson, Kristján, 2015, Aristotelian Character Education , London: Routledge.
• –––, 2017, “Emotions Targeting Moral Exemplarity: Making Sense of the Logical Geography of Admiration, Emulation and Elevation”, Theory and Research in Education , 15(1): 20–37. doi:10.1177/1477878517695679
• Kvernbekk, Tone, 2015, Evidence-based Practice in Education: Functions of Evidence and Causal Presuppositions , London: Routledge.
• Lagemann, Ellen Condliffe, 2000, An Elusive Science: The Troubling History of Educational Research , Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
• Locke, J., 1693, Some Thoughts Concerning Education , London: Black Swan in Paternoster Row.
• Lucas, Christopher J. (ed.), 1969, What is Philosophy of Education? , London: Macmillan.
• Lyotard, J-F., 1984, The Postmodern Condition: A Report on Knowledge , Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.
• MacIntyre, Alasdair, 1984, After Virtue: A Study in Moral Theory , second edition, Notre Dame, IN: University of Notre Dame Press.
• Martin, Jane Roland, 1985, Reclaiming a Conversation: The Ideal of the Educated Woman , New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
• Mehta, Ved, 1963, Fly and the Fly-Bottle: Encounters with British Intellectuals , London: Weidenfeld and Nicolson.
• Miller, Richard W., 2007, “Unlearning American Patriotism”, Theory and Research in Education , 5(1): 7–21. doi:10.1177/1477878507073602
• National Research Council (NRC), 2002, Scientific Research in Education , Washington, DC: National Academies Press. [ NRC 2002 available online ]
• Noddings, Nel, 1984, Caring: A Feminine Approach to Ethics and Moral Education , Berkeley: University of California Press.
• –––, 1992, The Challenge to Care in Schools: An Alternative Approach to Education , New York: Teachers College Press.
• –––, 2015, Philosophy of Education , fourth edition, Boulder, CO: Westview.
• O’Connor, D.J., 1957, An Introduction to Philosophy of Education , London: Routledge.
• Park, J., (ed.), 1965, Bertrand Russell on Education , London: Allen and Unwin.
• Peters, R.S., (ed.), 1973, The Philosophy of Education , Oxford: Oxford University Press.
• –––, 1981, Moral Development and Moral Education , London: G. Allen & Unwin.
• Phillips, D.C., 1985, “Philosophy of Education”, in International Encyclopedia of Education , Torsten Husén and T. Neville Postlethwaite, (eds.), pp. 3859–3877.
• –––, 1987, Philosophy, Science, and Social Inquiry: Contemporary Methodological Controversies in Social Science and Related Applied Fields of Research , Oxford: Pergamon.
• –––, 2009, “Empirical Educational Research: Charting Philosophical Disagreements in an Undisciplined Field”, in Siegel 2009: 381–406.
• –––, 2010, “What Is Philosophy of Education?”, in Bailey et al. 2010: 3–19. doi:10.4135/9781446200872.n1
• –––, (ed.), 2014, Encyclopedia of Educational Theory and Philosophy , Los Angeles: Sage.
• Pritchard, Duncan, 2013, “Epistemic Virtue and the Epistemology of Education”, Journal of Philosophy of Education , 47(2): 236–247. doi:10.1111/1467-9752.12022
• –––, 2016, “Intellectual Virtue, Extended Cognition, and the Epistemology of Education”, in Baehr 2016: 113–127.
• Rawls, John, 1971, A Theory of Justice , Cambridge MA: Harvard University Press.
• –––, 1993, Political Liberalism , New York: Columbia University Press.
• Robertson, Emily, 2009, “The Epistemic Aims of Education”, in Siegel 2009: 11–34.
• Rorty, Amélie Oksenberg (ed.), 1998, Philosophers on Education: New Historical Perspectives , New York: Routledge.
• Satz, Debra, 2007, “Equality, Adequacy, and Education for Citizenship”, Ethics , 117(4): 623–648. doi:10.1086/518805
• Scheffler, Israel, 1960, The Language of Education , Springfield, IL: Thomas.
• –––, 1965, Conditions of Knowledge: An Introduction to Epistemology and Education , Chicago: Scott, Foresman.
• –––, 1973 [1989], Reason and Teaching , Indianapolis, IN: Hackett.
• Schouten, Gina, 2012, “Fair Educational Opportunity and the Distribution of Natural Ability: Toward a Prioritarian Principle of Educational Justice”, Journal of Philosophy of Education , 46(3): 472–491. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9752.2012.00863.x
• Scriven, Michael, 1991a, “Beyond Formative and Summative Evaluation”, in Milbrey McLaughlin and D.C. Phillips (eds.), Evaluation and Education: At Quarter Century , Chicago: University of Chicago Press/NSSE, pp. 19–64.
• –––, 1991b, Evaluation Thesaurus , Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
• Siegel, Harvey, 1988, Educating Reason: Rationality, Critical Thinking, and Education , New York: Routledge.
• –––, 1997, Rationality Redeemed?: Further Dialogues on an Educational Ideal , New York: Routledge.
• –––, 2004, “Epistemology and Education: An Incomplete Guide to the Social-Epistemological Issues”, Episteme , 1(2): 129–137. doi:10.3366/epi.2004.1.2.129
• –––, 2005, “Truth, Thinking, Testimony and Trust: Alvin Goldman on Epistemology and Education”, Philosophy and Phenomenological Research , 71(2): 345–366. doi:10.1111/j.1933-1592.2005.tb00452.x
• –––, 2007, “Philosophy of Education”, in Britannica Online Encyclopedia , last modified 2 February 2018. URL = <https://academic.eb.com/levels/collegiate/article/philosophy-of-education/108550>
• –––, (ed.), 2009, The Oxford Handbook of Philosophy of Education , New York: Oxford University Press. doi:10.1093/oxfordhb/9780195312881.001.0001
• –––, 2016, “Israel Scheffler”, In J. A Palmer (ed.), Routledge Encyclopaedia of Educational Thinkers , London: Routledge, pp. 428–432.
• –––, 2017, Education’s Epistemology: Rationality, Diversity, and Critical Thinking , New York: Oxford University Press.
• –––, 2018, “The Epistemology of Education”, Routledge Encyclopedia of Philosophy Online , doi:10.4324/0123456789-P074-1.
• Skinner, B.F., 1948 [1962], Walden Two , New York: Macmillan.
• –––, 1972, Beyond Freedom and Dignity , London: Jonathan Cape.
• Smeyers, Paulus, 1994, “Philosophy of Education: Western European Perspectives”, in The International Encyclopedia of Education , (Volume 8), Torsten Husén and T. Neville Postlethwaite, (eds.), Oxford: Pergamon, second Edition, pp. 4456–61.
• Smith, B. Othanel and Robert H. Ennis (eds.), 1961, Language and Concepts in Education , Chicago: Rand McNally.
• Snook, I.A., 1972, Indoctrination and Education , London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.
• Stone, Lynda (ed.), 1994, The Education Feminism Reader , New York: Routledge.
• Strike, Kenneth A., 2010, Small Schools and Strong Communities: A Third Way of School Reform , New York: Teachers College Press.
• Warnick, Bryan R., 2015, “Taming the Conflict over Educational Equality”, Journal of Applied Philosophy , 32(1): 50–66. doi:10.1111/japp.12066
• Watson, Lani, 2016, “The Epistemology of Education”, Philosophy Compass , 11(3): 146–159. doi:10.1111/phc3.12316
• Winch, Christopher and John Gingell, 1999, Key Concepts in the Philosophy of Education , London: Routledge.

How to cite this entry . Preview the PDF version of this entry at the Friends of the SEP Society . Look up topics and thinkers related to this entry at the Internet Philosophy Ontology Project (InPhO). Enhanced bibliography for this entry at PhilPapers , with links to its database.

• 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)

autonomy: personal | Dewey, John | feminist philosophy, interventions: ethics | feminist philosophy, interventions: liberal feminism | feminist philosophy, interventions: political philosophy | feminist philosophy, topics: perspectives on autonomy | feminist philosophy, topics: perspectives on disability | Foucault, Michel | Gadamer, Hans-Georg | liberalism | Locke, John | Lyotard, Jean François | -->ordinary language --> | Plato | postmodernism | Rawls, John | rights: of children | Rousseau, Jean Jacques

Acknowledgments

The authors and editors would like to thank Randall Curren for sending a number of constructive suggestions for the Summer 2018 update of this entry.

Copyright © 2018 by Harvey Siegel D.C. Phillips Eamonn Callan

• Accessibility

Support SEP

Mirror sites.

View this site from another server:

• Info about mirror sites

The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy is copyright © 2023 by The Metaphysics Research Lab , Department of Philosophy, Stanford University

Library of Congress Catalog Data: ISSN 1095-5054

Federal Acquisition Regulation

Full far download in various formats, browse far part/subpart and download in various formats.

• Data Initiatives
• Regulations
• Smart Matrix
• Regulations Search
• Acquisition Regulation Comparator (ARC)
• Large Agencies
• Small Agencies
• CAOC History
• CAOC Charter
• Civilian Agency Acquisition Council (CAAC)
• Federal Acquisition Regulatory Council
• Interagency Suspension and Debarment Committee (ISDC)

ACQUISITION.GOV

An official website of the General Services Administration