philosophical foundation of education essay

10 Philosophical Foundations of Education

Philosophical foundations of education.

In this section, we will explore  philosophical  foundations  of education in the United States.

Chapter Outline

Philosophical foundations, perennialism, essentialism, progressivism, social reconstructionism.

As students ourselves, we may have a particular notion of what schooling is and should be as well as what teachers do and should do. In his book entitled Schoolteacher: A Sociological Study , Dan Lortie (1975) called this the “apprenticeship of observation” (p. 62). Many people who pursue teaching think they already know what it entails because they have generally spent at least 13 years observing teachers as they work. The role of a teacher can seem simplistic because as a student, you only see one piece of what teachers actually do day in and day out. This can contribute to a person’s idea of what the role of teachers in schools is, as well as what the purpose of schooling should be. The idea of the purpose of schooling can also be seen as a person’s philosophy of schooling.

Philosophy can be defined as the fundamental nature of knowledge, reality and existence. In the case of education, one’s philosophy is what one believes to be true about the essentials of education. When thinking about your philosophy of education, consider your beliefs about the roles of schools, teachers, learners, families, and communities. Four overall philosophies of education that align with varying beliefs include perennialism, essentialism, progressivism, and social reconstructionism, which are summarized in Table 3.1.

Table 3.1: Four Key Educational Philosophies

Perennialism is an educational philosophy suggesting that human nature is constant, and that the focus of education should be on teaching concepts that remain true over time. School serves the purpose of preparing students intellectually, and the curriculum is based on “great ideas” that have endured through history. See the following video for additional explanation.

One or more interactive elements has been excluded from this version of the text. You can view them online here: https://mtsu.pressbooks.pub/introtoedshell/?p=1037#oembed-1

Essentialism is an educational philosophy that suggests that there are skills and knowledge that all people should possess. Essentialists do not share perennialists’ views that there are universal truths that are discovered through the study of classic literature; rather, they emphasize knowledge and skills that are useful in today’s world. There is a focus on practical, useable knowledge and skills, and the curriculum for essentialists is more likely to change over time than is a curriculum based on a perennialist point of view. The following video explains the key ideas of essentialism, including the role of the teacher.

One or more interactive elements has been excluded from this version of the text. You can view them online here: https://mtsu.pressbooks.pub/introtoedshell/?p=1037#oembed-2

Progressivism emphasizes real-world problem solving and individual development. In this philosophy, teachers are more “guides on the sides” than the holders of knowledge to be transmitted to students. Progressivism is grounded in the work of John Dewey [1] . Progressivists advocate a student-centered curriculum focusing on inquiry and problem solving. The following video gives further explanation of the progressivist philosophy of learning and teaching.

One or more interactive elements has been excluded from this version of the text. You can view them online here: https://mtsu.pressbooks.pub/introtoedshell/?p=1037#oembed-3

The final major educational philosophy is social reconstructionism . Social reconstructionism theory asserts that schools, teachers, and students should take the lead in addressing social problems and improving society. Social reconstructionists feel that schooling should be used to eliminate social inequities to create a more just society. Paulo Freire [2] , a Brazilian philosopher and educator, was one of the most influential thinkers behind social reconstructionism. He criticized the banking model of education in his best known writing, Pedagogy of the Oppressed . Banking models of education view students as empty vessels to be filled by the teacher’s expertise, like a teacher putting “coins” of information into the students’ “piggy banks.” Instead, Freire supported problem-posing models of education that recognized the prior knowledge everyone has and can share with others. Conservative critics of social reconstructionists suggest that they have abandoned intellectual pursuits in education, whereas social reconstructionists believe that the analyzing of moral decisions leads to being good citizens in a democracy.

One or more interactive elements has been excluded from this version of the text. You can view them online here: https://mtsu.pressbooks.pub/introtoedshell/?p=1037#oembed-4

Common educational philosophies including perennialism, essentialism, progressivism, and social reconstructionism reflect varying beliefs about the roles education should fill.

Like learning, teaching is always developing; it is never realized once and for all. Our public schools have always served as sites of moral, economic, political, religious and social conflict and assimilation into a narrowly defined standard image of what it means to be an American. According to Britzman (as quoted by Kelle, 1996), “the context of teaching is political, it is an ideological context that privileges the interests, values, and practices necessary to maintain the status quo.” Teaching is by no means “innocent of ideology,” she declares. Rather, the context of education tends to preserve “the institutional values of compliance to authority, social conformity, efficiency, standardization, competition, and the objectification of knowledge” (p. 66-67).

Season 2: Episode 8 – The Final Exam

It’s February 2020, and Warner Elementary’s star is rising. It’s showing so much progress this year that it might be able to go from one of the lowest performing schools in Tennessee to one of the best. Now it’s just time to hunker down and work until the big state test at the end of the year. But we all know what happens next. First, a natural disaster in Nashville. Then, a global pandemic. And at a school with low-income students, these challenges hit especially hard. “I’m tired of fighting for kids. One person can’t consistently carry that burden,” Warner principal Ricki Gibbs said. “I was at a point where I was going to say, ‘You can have Warner. This is too much.’” In this dramatic final episode of Season 2, crisis brings Warner’s challenges to a breaking point.

Transcript of Podcast

It should be no surprise then that contemporary debates over public education continue to reflect our deepest ideological differences. As Tyack and Cuban (1995) have noted in their historical study of school reform, the nation’s perception toward schooling often “shift[s]… from panacea to scapegoat” (p. 14). We would go a long way in solving academic achievement and closing educational gaps by addressing the broader structural issues that institutionalize and perpetuate poverty and inequality.

• https://www.pbs.org/onlyateacher/john.html ↵
• https://iep.utm.edu/freire/ ↵

Introduction to Education Copyright © 2022 by David Rodriguez Sanfiorenzo is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License , except where otherwise noted.

Share This Book

Philosophy of Education

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

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

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

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

1.1 The open nature of philosophy and philosophy of education

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

2. Analytic philosophy of education, and its influence

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

3. Other areas of contemporary activity

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

autonomy: personal | -->Dewey, John --> | feminist (interventions): ethics | feminist (interventions): liberal feminism | feminist (interventions): political philosophy | -->feminist (topics): perspectives on autonomy --> | feminist (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 -->

82 Philosophy of Education Essay Topic Ideas & Examples

Need to write a philosophy of education essay? Looking for philosophy of education research topics or essay ideas? Read this article, and you will surely ace your paper!

🏆 Best Philosophy of Education Topic Ideas & Essay Examples

📌 interesting philosophy of education essay topics, 👍 philosophy of education research topics, ❓ essay questions on philosophy of education.

A philosophy of education essay is focused on the nature of education and philosophical issued related to it. In your paper, you can write about philosophy’s contribution to education. Or, you can study its history starting from ancient times.

In this article, you will find excellent philosophy of education essay examples and topic ideas for various assignments. Feel free to use them for inspiration!

• Radical Philosophy of Adult Education A major focus of the radical educational philosophy is to equip learners with skills that are vital for dealing with social, political, and economic changes in society.
• Philosophy of Multicultural Education The amalgamation of cultures is both a benediction and blasphemy of the K-12 teaching space. It is safe to say that the majority of schools in richer districts are mostly white scholars and recognized teachers.
• Personal Philosophy of Education The philosophy embraces the use of intrinsic competencies and skills that have the potential to produce the most desirable results. In order to achieve the best results, a personalized model should be developed to address […]
• Philosophy of Education by Nel Noddings One of the most important and frequently addressed concepts of educational philosophy of the present days is the concept of the relationship between social and cultural diversity in the contemporary world and the changes it […]
• Thoughts on Educational Philosophy It is against this scope that this paper intends to explore the meaning of truth, how it is taught and the theoretical basis of learning and teaching.
• The Role of Globalization in Education and Knowledge The article is focused on the problem of the failure to distinguish between the notions globalization, globalism and cosmopolitanism that leads to the failure to consider the place of the current education in the modern […]
• Plato’s Philosophy on Exposure to Education Plato establishes what education is worth for both the individual and the state in The Republic, emphasizing the crucial function of those who select the materials to educate the state’s future guardians.
• Philosophy of Education: Key Points An important argument of many philosophers and thinkers is that arts and liberal education adds another very important component to the mindset and understanding of a person.
• Doctor of Philosophy in Education Leadership Additionally, education leaders have also been charged with the responsibility of enhancing the understanding of global issues in various disciplines, which calls for the regular changing of the focus in concepts in the associated disciplines […]
• Philosophy of Facilitation. Adult Education A normative contract from the group members empowers the professional facilitator to take responsibility for the processes that guide group members in discussing the content of their tasks.
• Author’s Philosophy of Education I believe that the purpose of education is to help students discover their strong characteristics and potential and employ those to become the best version of themselves and achieve future social and financial well-being.
• Philosophy Role in Education Another definition of philosophy is ‘the world view.’ The main definition for a philosophy that will be considered in this article is that which defines it as a conceptual framework that is vital in the […]
• Al-Ghazali Philosophy: Principles of Education The future of the Arab and Islamic world is dependent on the results of the battle between the teachings of al-Maududi and those of al-Ghazali.
• Teaching Philosophy in the Scope of Education Therefore, discussing the teaching philosophy, it is possible to state that a teacher is a person who assists in developing the personal potential of an individual, and teaching is a process of adopting an individual […]
• Philosophy of Education Within this system, the teacher assumes the role of a leader to give direction and guidelines to students in addition to supporting the substance of a school.
• Teaching Philosophy and the Use of Technology Teachers have diverse abilities on the use technology and application of technology in teaching. In some instances, teachers had conflicting beliefs about the use of technology in teaching and learning.
• The Notion of Educational Philosophy This enables an individual to understand properly, the formula that is the ultimate goal in the never ending pursuit of edification.
• Creating a Theoretical Framework for the Teacher’s Philosophy of Education Considering the variety of philosophical approaches to the primary goals, content, structure and methods of the educational programs, a young teacher is not obliged to decide on only one of them and can blend the […]
• The Philosophy of Education Is an Important Pedestal for a Preparing Tea
• Personal Philosophy of Education – Jerome Bruner: Concept of Discovery Learning
• History and Philosophy of Education and Special Education
• The Psychology and Philosophy of Education in Ayn Rand’s The Comprachicos
• Progressivism: The Philosophy of Education That Best Suits Me as Teacher
• The Philosophy of Education With Regard to African Americans
• Philosophy of Education, Teaching and Learning Statement
• The Philosophy of Education and Motivational Theory
• Developing the Right Philosophy of Education
• Rethinking the Philosophy of Education
• Developing a Personal Philosophy of Education
• The Philosophy of Education Is Closely Modeled by Jerome
• Types of Teachers: Classification, Philosophy of Education
• Understanding the Philosophy of Education According to a Nation at Risk
• The Foundations of Whitehead’s Philosophy of Education
• The Impact of Philosophy of Education on the Changing
• National Philosophy of Education
• The Philosophy of Education Is Its Differing Aims
• Philosophy of Education Based on Curriculum Perspectives
• The Philosophy of Education and How a Philosophical Education
• History and Philosophy of Education
• The Philosophy of Education and my Goals as a Future Teacher
• Why Is The Philosophy of Education Important
• The Philosophy of Education Is the Key Component for Education
• The Development of a Personal Philosophy of Education
• The Theory of the Philosophy of Education
• The Ancient Greek Iconoclast’s Philosophy of Education
• When It Comes to One’s Philosophy of Education Each Person
• Learning About the Philosophy of Education and Its Use
• The Philosophy of Education and Basic Values of Expeditionary
• Philosophy of Education, Worldview, and Educational Leadership
• The Importance of Educators’ Philosophy of Education in Preparing Their Students for Their Lives After School
• The Role of Albery Camus in the Philosophy of Education
• A Future Teachers Philosophy of Education
• Essentialism, a Conservative Philosophy of Education
• Christian Philosophy of Education: The Fear of the Lord
• Islamic Philosophy of Education Theory Theology Religion
• What A Philosophy of Education Is Used for A Classroom
• The Role of Relationship Building in My Philosophy of Education
• What Is the Scope of the Philosophy of Education?
• Why Do We Study the Philosophy of Education?
• How Does Philosophy Influence Education?
• Why Is the Philosophy of Education Critical?
• Why Does Philosophy of Education Play an Important Role in the Development of Young’s Abilities?
• What Are the Aims of the Philosophy of Education?
• What Is the Main Idea of the Philosophy of Education?
• What Is the Content of the Philosophy of Education?
• What Are the Merits and Demerits of Each Philosophy of Education?
• What Is a Statement of Philosophy of Education?
• What Are the Main Features of the Philosophy of Education?
• What Is the Philosophy of Education in Simple Words?
• How Is the Philosophy of Education Impacted?
• What Is the Importance of the Philosophy of Education?
• What Is the Modern Philosophy of Education?
• What Is the Most Common Educational Philosophy?
• What Is the Importance of the Philosophy of Education and Curriculum?
• What Are the Examples of the Philosophy of Education?
• What Is the Philosophy of Education for Teachers?
• Who Are the Great Philosophers of Education?
• What Is Modern Educational Philosophy?
• Which Are the Characteristics of the Philosophy of Education?
• What Are the Aims of Educational Philosophy?
• What Is a Philosophy of Education, and Why Is It Important?
• What Is a Philosophy of Education Statement?
• Chicago (A-D)
• Chicago (N-B)

IvyPanda. (2024, March 2). 82 Philosophy of Education Essay Topic Ideas & Examples. https://ivypanda.com/essays/topic/philosophy-of-education-essay-examples/

"82 Philosophy of Education Essay Topic Ideas & Examples." IvyPanda , 2 Mar. 2024, ivypanda.com/essays/topic/philosophy-of-education-essay-examples/.

IvyPanda . (2024) '82 Philosophy of Education Essay Topic Ideas & Examples'. 2 March.

IvyPanda . 2024. "82 Philosophy of Education Essay Topic Ideas & Examples." March 2, 2024. https://ivypanda.com/essays/topic/philosophy-of-education-essay-examples/.

1. IvyPanda . "82 Philosophy of Education Essay Topic Ideas & Examples." March 2, 2024. https://ivypanda.com/essays/topic/philosophy-of-education-essay-examples/.

Bibliography

IvyPanda . "82 Philosophy of Education Essay Topic Ideas & Examples." March 2, 2024. https://ivypanda.com/essays/topic/philosophy-of-education-essay-examples/.

• College Education Essay Ideas
• Teaching Philosophy Research Topics
• Literacy Development Titles
• Teamwork Research Ideas
• Cognitive Development Essay Ideas
• Developmental Psychology Essay Ideas
• Child Development Research Ideas
• Human Development Research Ideas
• Teaching Questions
• Leadership Development Essay Titles
• Emotional Development Questions
• Moral Development Essay Topics
• Classroom Management Essay Topics
• Personality Development Ideas
• Social Development Essay Topics

5. Educational Philosophies

5.1 foundations of educational philosophy.

A philosophy grounds or guides practice in the study of existence and knowledge while developing an ontology (the study of being) on what it means for something or someone to be—or exist. Educational philosophy, then, provides a foundation which constructs and guides the ways knowledge is generated and passed on to others. Therefore, it is of critical import that teachers begin to develop a clear understanding of philosophical traditions and how the  philosophical underpinnings inform their educational philosophies; because, a clear educational philosophy will help guide and develop cohesive reasons for how each teacher designs classroom spaces and learning interactions with both teachers and students. A clear philosophy also frames the curriculum along a spectrum from teacher-centered curriculum to student-centered curriculum to society-centered curriculum.   

Over the course of history, philosophy has had several paradigm shifts that influence teaching and learning. Each of these paradigm shifts altered the ontology, epistemology, axiology and school of philosophy, which also shaped what it means to be a teacher within each historical era. While Occidental metaphysical traditions are grounded in the tradition of the Ancient Greeks and the philosophies of Plato and Aristotle, philosophical traditions from the 19th century helped ground the early foundations of educational philosophy and the development of public education in Europe and the United States.

“What does it mean to be?” is the guiding question of ontology, and stemming from one’s stance on this foundational question, a general structure (Table 1) guides an educator’s general stance on epistemology, axiology, educational philosophy, and psychological orientations; these, then, inform, or should inform, an educator’s choice of instructional methods and classroom management techniques.

Visual Literacy Activity

Rather than focusing on the difficult and the abstract, let’s focus on the concrete and work our way up.  Use Table 1 to help answer the following questions:

• Choose one instructional activity from Table 1 you feel is an effective method of instruction. Explain why?
• Choose one classroom management technique from Table 1 you feel is an effective classroom management technique. Explain why?
• Do your two choices align in a similar area of the outlined shape? If so, explain why they might align? If not, explain why they might not align.
• Trace your two choices up the table to psychological orientations, educational philosophy, axiology, epistemology, and ontology. Does this line align with where you placed on the philosophy of education assessment survey? If so, you are beginning to construct an outline for your philosophy of education. If not, you may need to explore more on what you feel is important in being a teacher. In either case, you will use the rest of this chapter to help guide your (re)developing philosophy of education.

Table 1: Philosophies of Education Matrix

• Foundations of Education. Authored by : SUNY Oneonta Education Department. License : CC BY: Attribution

Privacy Policy

Frameworks of Education: Aristotle’s Legacy and the Foundations of Knowledge

• Living reference work entry
• First Online: 12 July 2023
• Cite this living reference work entry

• Nikola Grafnetterova 2 &
• Jocelyn A. Gutierrez 3  

54 Accesses

The foundations of modern higher education can be traced back to Aristotle, one of the greatest philosophers in human history. Through the founding of his school of thought, Lyceum, Aristotle revolutionized the branches of knowledge, which in turn influenced research, teaching, and learning. This chapter outlines the influences that motivated Aristotle to address the reformation of education in society. Additionally, several of his most significant contributions to education are discussed, including (1) ways to attain knowledge; (2) development of new disciplines, logic, and terminology; (3) foundations of research; and (4) emphasis on experimental learning and lectures as teaching methods. New insights on the role of government and education in a democratic society are also provided in response to some of Aristotle’s most famous works about the relationship between education and state ( polis ). The chapter concludes with a discussion about lasting intellectual legacies of Aristotle’s philosophy that continue to be interwoven into the fabric of societies and across the world.

• Scientific Inquiry
• Public Good

Download reference work entry PDF

Introduction

The frameworks of modern education can be traced back to Ancient Greece. Concerned with the transmission and attainment of arete , meaning virtue or excellence, the Greeks looked up to education as a means to preserve the tradition-directed society for the next generations to come (Frankena, 1965 ). It was the philosopher Plato who founded the first known institution of higher learning in the western world, the Academy , as he believed that education was the key to the restoration of Athens and the development of “good citizens and capable politicians” (Himanka, 2015 : 118). However, while influential as a teacher, it was Plato’s pupil, Aristotle , who made an everlasting impact on education. The following sections outline the influences that motivated Aristotle to address education and his major contributions to this field. Additionally, this chapter highlights new insights and lasting intellectual legacies of Aristotle’s philosophy.

Influences and Motivations

Aristotle (384–322 BC) is one of the most well-known figures of Ancient Greece. He was born in Stagira to the physician of the king of Macedon (Magee, 2001 ). It is believed that the early exposure to his father’s scientific observation influenced Aristotle’s differing viewpoints from Plato’s idealism later on in life (Stonehouse et al., 2011 ). At the age of 17, Aristotle was sent to Athens to be a student of Plato’s Academy where he studied for 20 years until Plato’s death (Crisp, 2000 ; Magee, 2001 ). In 335 BC, Aristotle left the Academy and founded his own school, Lyceum (also known as Lykeion ), where he was a teacher and researcher for 11 years; the Lyceum would last the next eight centuries (Magee, 2001 ; Milch & Patterson, 1966 ).

As outlined in one of his works, Politics , Aristotle believed that the primary purpose of education was to serve the polis (the state) and ensure that the citizens were trained to become loyal, honorable, and capable of defending it through political action. As evidence, he penned:

The supreme good is the end of political science, but the principal care of this science is to produce a certain disposition in the citizens, namely to make them good and disposed to do what is noble. (Aristotle, ca. 350 B.C.E./ 1994b , Book I)

However, not all of the citizens were allowed to be educated and partake in Aristotle’s democracy. Rather, Aristotle’s Lyceum was designed for aristocratic youth and perpetuated the existing patriarchal and hierarchical order of the society where women and slaves were deprived of any rights (Moseley, 2010 ). His view on education differed slightly from Plato’s. Both philosophers posited that education aimed to serve the state and develop good citizens and capable politicians. However, unlike Aristotle, Plato believed that all children, including girls, should be educated (Himanka, 2015 ; Pedersen, 1997 ).

This was not the only difference in beliefs between the two philosophers. Specifically, Aristotle rejected Plato’s notion that there were two worlds – one that people live in and perceive through the senses and another, an abstract world within the mind, that could be accessed only through an intellect. According to Aristotle, there was only one world, the physical world, where individuals learned through observation and experience (Magee, 2001 ). For this reason, Plato is regarded as the father of Western philosophical idealism and Aristotle considered as the forerunner of Western philosophical realism (Lee, 2001 ).

In many aspects, Aristotle’s Lyceum resembled Plato’s Academy. For example, both institutions were typical Greek-Athenian private universities that were organized as a cult society where students followed specific statutes that prescribed a life of perfect order (Pedersen, 1997 ). However, the methods of seeking new knowledge differed greatly between the philosophers. While Plato educated only by teaching and focused on theoretical reflections on basis of philosophy, Aristotle added research as part of his educational methods and emphasized direct experience through exploration of natural phenomena and societal structures (Pedersen, 1997 ). Subsequently, Aristotle’s Lyceum was equipped with collections of scientific material and operated as a valid research institution. Aristotle’s pupil, Alexander the Great, gifted many of the materials for research, such as then-unknown animals, that he gathered during his remote military expeditions (Pedersen, 1997 ).

Aristotle’s quest for knowledge molded him into one of the most influential philosophers in human history. He is believed to have written over 400 works on topics such as physics, biology, astronomy, literature, theology, nature of human happiness, knowledge, and rhetoric, to name a few (Crisp, 2000 ). Unfortunately, only a third of his work was preserved (Stonehouse et al., 2011 ); however, those that survived, such as Nicomachean Ethics , Politics , Physics , Metaphysics , and Poetics , built a solid foundation for modern higher education. The following section details some of the most significant contributions to education made by Aristotle.

Key Contributions

Aristotle’s impact on modern education is extensive and could easily fill the contents of many books. Tasked with selecting the most significant contributions to education, this section highlights Aristotle’s (1) ways to attain knowledge ; (2) development of new disciplines, logic, and terminology ; (3) foundations of research ; and (4) emphasis on experimental learning and lectures as teaching methods .

Ways to Attain Knowledge

Aristotle was among the first to debate on how people acquire knowledge in relation to the natural world. Famously, he wrote: “All men by nature desire to know” (Aristotle, ca. 350 B.C.E./ 1994a , Book I). Thus, he established levels of knowing ( epistemology ), starting from the simplest and progressing to more complex ways of knowing. According to Aristotle, the simplest way to acquire knowledge was through sensation ( aesthesis ), and the next level was experience ( empeiria ) which relied on memory, or as Aristotle penned, “for the several memories of the same thing produce finally the capacity for a single experience” (Aristotle, ca. 350 B.C.E./ 1994a , Book I).

The successive level of knowing was art ( techne ), “which arises when from many notions gained by experience one universal judgement about a class of objects is produced” (Aristotle, ca. 350 B.C.E./ 1994a , Book I). Once a coherent and consistent whole was derived from the art, the subsequent level of knowing, a doctrine of science ( episteme ), was reached (Himanka, 2015 ). Lastly, each doctrine of science contained a starting point ( arche ) upon which a system of knowledge was developed; as an example, the number was used as the starting point in the field of arithmetics (Himanka, 2015 ). Once the meaning of arche was determined, one could reach the final level of knowing, wisdom ( sophia ). Notably, according to Aristotle, this level was difficult to achieve, so one could find satisfaction with the attempt of acquiring wisdom and call oneself a friend of sophia or philosopher (Himanka, 2015 ).

Subsequently, Aristotle defined three forms of knowledge: (1) techne (technical knowledge), (2) episteme (scientific knowledge), and (3) phronesis (practical knowledge). This hierarchy of knowing and defining the types of knowledge served as a foundation for Aristotle’s unified approach to studying phenomena in a wide range of fields such as biology, zoology, or physics, to name a few. While Aristotle’s predecessor Plato philosophized about knowledge in an abstract way, Aristotle formulated a system of logic based on observations and experience. As an illustration, Aristotle rationalized:

Sweet things ought to be tasted. This food is sweet. Therefore it ought to be tasted. (Aristotle, ca. 350 B.C.E./ 1994b , Book VII).

Importantly, Aristotle believed that all knowledge must be built systematically and progress from general to specific (Donskikh, 2019 ). The ways to attain knowledge and the systematic approach to analysis led to the birth of scientific inquiry that has been preserved to this day.

Development of New Disciplines, Logic, and Terminology

Before Aristotle, all scientific work was carried out under the common name of philosophy; therefore, all subject matters were viewed as identical and required a singular approach of analysis (Thompson Jr., 1953 ). However, this changed with Aristotle; as Thompson (Thompson Jr., 1953 ) explicates: “Plato is analogical in the sense that the truths he seeks are widely true…. what seems true here [emphasis] is noted as related there [emphasis]… By contrast, Aristotle is literal. What is true and important is true and important about this [emphasis]” (Thompson Jr., 1953 : 100). Stonehouse et al. ( 2011 ) further summarized the difference as: “Plato searched for general truths, Aristotle looked to apply truth in context” (6). Thus, it can be concluded that Aristotle believed that a certain level of exactness was required for each discipline.

Aristotle not only sought knowledge, but he was also known to rank it, divide it, and classify it into different categories. As a result, Aristotle established a series of unique disciplines that remain in existence to this day; the disciplines include logic , physics , political science, psychology, rhetoric, economics, metaphysics , and meteorology, to name just a few (Magee, 2001 ; Pedersen, 1997 ). He divided these disciplines into three different categories: (1) theoretical sciences , (2) practical sciences , and (3) productive sciences (Shields, 2014 ). Theoretical sciences were subjects of theology, mathematics, and physics; Aristotle defined them as the sciences that seek knowledge. In contrast, practical sciences, such as economics or politics, were concerned with conduct and goodness while productive sciences (e.g., crafts and mimetic arts) studied enamored or useful subjects (Shields, 2014 ). Aristotle’s surviving treatises can be divided into three categories of sciences. However, he wrote the most about theoretical sciences (e.g., Metaphysics , Physics , Progression of Animals , etc.); works such Nicomachean Ethics and Politics exemplified the practical science while Rhetoric and Poetics epitomized productive science.

Aristotle is also credited with developing the first known system of logic and inference (Shields, 2014 ). This logic encompassed inductive and deductive reasoning (Smith, 2020 ), and his primary logical unit was syllogism , a form of deduction (Shields, 2014 ). Aristotle defined syllogism as “an argument in which, certain things having been assumed, something other than these follows of necessity from their truth, without needing any term from outside” (Aristotle, ca. 350 B.C.E./ 1994e , Book I). Aristotle was also credited with works such as Categories or Posterior Analytics on logic; typically, scholars group these essays under the title Organon (Smith, 2020 ). Importantly, Aristotle did not consider logic to be a substantive science; rather, he categorized it as a “branch of learning which subserves all the sciences in common” (Shields, 2014 : 35). In other words, the study of logic was something that Aristotle believed that everyone should undergo before attempting to learn science (Ross, 1964 ).

Aristotle’s systems of logic have stood for 2000 years (Magee, 2001 ). As Shields ( 2014 ) posited, “so powerful were his results that even until the time of Kant [1724–1804] it could be supposed that Aristotle has said all there was to be said on this topic” (138), stating:

That from the earliest times logic has travelled a secure course can be seen from the fact that since the time of Aristotle it has not had to go a single step backwards … What is further remarkable about logic is that until now it has also been unable to take a single step forward, and therefore seems to all appearance to be finished and complete. (Kant 1787, as cited in Shields, 2014 : 138).

Aristotle’s works on logic and science remain residual to today’s institutions of higher learning. As a result, modern colleges and universities are meccas of different academic thoughts that are housed under various colleges, such as Liberal Arts or Sciences. Furthermore, Aristotle also developed technical terms for those fields such as energy, induction, essence, substance, category, dynamic, universal, proposition, property, topic, accident, demonstration, and attribute (Magee, 2001 ). Institutions still use most of these terms to date when organizing colleges and universities specific to disciplines and conducting research.

Foundations of Research

If one was asked to describe the missions of today’s colleges and universities, research and teaching would likely be some of the first words to come to mind. However, the foundations of modern scientific inquiry were laid by Aristotle; for him, the goal of the scientific inquiry was to find the truth about things or at least their first causes (Quarantotto, 2020 ). Subsequently, he was the first in the world to use observation and reasoning to learn about the natural world; based on its importance, he then ordered and categorized this knowledge (Hepburn, 2021 ).

Still today, scientific inquiry follows the basic principles established by Aristotle that include: (1) observation of the natural phenomenon, (2) identification of a possible cause-and-effect explanation based on this observation, (3) formation of a potential hypothesis for the phenomenon not observed and currently under inquiry, (4) testing of the established hypothesis through an experiment or observation, and (5) revision of an experiment or observation if the hypothesis is rejected to come up with a new potential explanation (Gilman, n.d. ).

By today’s standards, Aristotle’s paradigm would be considered positivism, which provides the foundation for quantitative research (Creswell & Plano Clark, 2011 ). Quantitative researchers believe that reality is a stable and objective construct and can be divided into separate fragments and studied independently from each other (Lincoln & Guba, 1985 ; Merriam, 2007 ). Quantitative research utilizes a deductive approach, which means that researchers first develop hypotheses based on a priori theory and then collect numerical or quantifiable data via structured research instruments such as questionnaires to test their hypotheses (Creswell, 2013 ; Glesne, 2016 ). The goal of quantitative research is to make generalizations about a certain phenomenon, find explanations about their causes, and predict those causes (Glesne, 2016 ).

Aristotle’s underpinnings of scientific inquiry also contributed to the development of qualitative research. Much like Aristotle’s interplay of arche , ontology was a starting point of epistemology (ways of knowing) for qualitative research. Aristotle’s goal of scientific inquiry was to find the first truth about things. Qualitative investigation follows a similar pattern in that researchers posit that multiple truths exist and are socially constructed by people via their lived experiences (Merriam, 2007 ). These truths can only be studied holistically (Lincoln & Guba, 1985 ). The goal of qualitative research is to gain an in-depth understanding of the subjective meaning individuals attribute to a phenomenon in a certain social context and time (Creswell, 2013 ). Similarly, qualitative research utilizes inductive approach, much like Aristotle’s method of reasoning.

Simultaneously, Aristotle also created the framework for naturalistic inquiry, a form of human subject research and methodology used for qualitative research by rationalizing ontology (Lincoln & Guba, 2013 ). Naturalistic inquiry operates within two principles of investigation, which are insights into relationships and validation of findings (Erlandson et al., 1993 ; Lincoln & Guba, 1985 ). Naturalistic inquiry continues to be imperative to the foundational work of scientific inquiry in understanding human sciences at a critical level.

Emphasis on Experimental Learning and Lectures as Teaching Methods

Another important contribution to education by Aristotle concerns his introduction of two types of teaching methods that are still utilized to this date: experimental learning and lectures . Learning by experience (used interchangeably with the terms of experimental and experiential learning) can be defined as mastering knowledge by doing . As discussed in previous sections, Aristotle was a huge proponent of observing the natural world and relying on one’s senses and experience. Not surprisingly, his educational methods advocated for students to rely on those same means to gather knowledge. Aristotle described: “All powers and abilities are either innate like that of the senses or acquired by practice like that of playing the flute, or acquired by learning like that of the arts” (Aristotle, ca. 350 B.C.E./ 1994d , Book VIII).

Aristotle believed that experimental learning allowed for the development of phronesis (practical knowledge) through a process of continuous reflection and experience. For phronesis to grow, the experience had to contain two elements: the shared life and practice. By shared life, Aristotle empathized learning through community (e.g., family, education, and friendship) (Stonehouse et al., 2011 ). Many modern educators rely on these exact principles when educating students by utilizing hands on activities and groupwork in the classroom.

Aristotle’s focus on exploring the world by observation through utilization of one’s senses also impacted his reliance on hearing as a tool for teaching. Specifically, he wrote that when it comes to “developing intelligence, hearing takes precedence” (Aristotle, ca. 350 B.C.E./ 1994c , Part I). He also penned that “it is hearing that contributes most to the growth of intelligence” (Aristotle, ca. 350 B.C.E./ 1994c , Part I); for this reason, at Lyceum, Aristotle often lectured while walking (Donskikh, 2019 ). The works of the Nicomachean Ethics and Politics were actual records of Aristotle’s lectures that he used to instill knowledge in his students. To this day, lectures are one of the most common modes of teaching used by professors at colleges and universities. However, it is important to note that Aristotle believed in the importance of context of the knowledge (Stonehouse et al., 2011 ). Therefore, while some information is best taught through lecturing, other forms of knowledge are better grasped through experience by practicing and applying it in a community of learners.

Aristotle influenced many foundational frameworks for education and remains residual in how societies organizationally structure institutions of learning and facilitation of instruction. The subsequent section provides insight into how Aristotle’s philosophical work has impacted new developments in the way education is operationalized today.

New Insights

Aristotle’s perspective on the role of the polis (state) as the formative work of a child’s undertaking (Tress, 1995 ) introduced a paradigm of how educational frameworks could be established. Considering Aristotle’s three broad classes of knowledge, productive sciences ( Generation of Animals ), theoretical ( Nichomachean Ethics ), and practicality ( Politics ) (Shields, 2014 ), it can be concluded that Aristotle attempted to account for the holistic well-being of the state’s citizens (Tress, 1995 ). From the genesis of children, Aristotle sought to create a ledger of the interactions of state citizens from birth to adulthood. His rational followed four domains:

(1) “that for the sake of which the thing exists, considered as its End,” i.e. the final cause; (2) “the logos of the thing’s essence,” i.e. the final cause; (3) “the matter of the thing,” i.e. the material cause; and (4) “that from which comes the principle of the thing’s movement,” i.e. the moving cause. (Aristotle, ca. 350 B.C.E./1992, as cited in Tress, 1995 : 6)

Aristotle also rationalized that biology ( Generation of Animals ), ethics ( Nichomachean Ethics ), politics ( Politics ) were symbiotic and that citizens who possessed all three characteristics contributed to society’s good. The evidence of Aristotle’s rationalization can be seen through the illumination of ethics found within the Nichomachean Ethics. Aristotle’s examination of the moral life underscored the moral framework in relation to the natural human goal of happiness ( eudaimonia ), a moral characteristic in the form of ethics (Tress, 1995 ). Aristotle’s third class of knowledge, Politics , can be concluded as the methodology in which Aristotle constructed his didactic reasoning for a forged state-direction education, arguing for either an indirect legislative directive or directive through state-run school for state citizens (Moseley, 2010 ).

Polis- Education as a Public Good

In succession, the semblance of Aristotle’s three broad classes of knowledge still influences the educational frameworks across the world, but evidently in Western society. This framework has catechized the adage, “should education be for the public good or a private good?” (Saltmarsh & Hartley, 2011 ). Aristotle lamented that education for citizens was necessary for the attainment of a good, and happy life ( eudaimonia ) (Tress, 1995 ). However, evidence also suggests that Aristotle’s educational framework ( polis ) was highly motivated by political activity, creating an anthesis argument of whether the responsibility of educating citizen was indeed the state’s responsibility (Moseley, 2010 ). Early European Scholastics considered Aristotle’s polis to be a social contradiction, in that a prodigy of polis could be characteristically considered “a good citizen” but not by democratic principles, but by a “forced” type of compulsory education. It is within the position of early European Scholastics that the political and social contradiction (Freire, 2009 ) of Aristotle’s pontification of polis is clearly visible as flawed. To what extent is the reach of the state in forging citizen accounting for democracy, but stripping the autonomy of its citizenry of choosing education as a “good” for themselves? Ethics and morality seem to create a juxtaposition for Aristotle’s argument in providing a public good ( polis ) but simultaneously interrupting the role of democracy when forcing polis upon its citizens.

Twenty-First Century – Education as Public Good

Presently within the twenty-first century, scholars, legislators, and citizens continue with similar challenges as in Aristotle’s day in defining the relationship between education and society. These challenges are most evident in the education systems found within the United States (Fowler, 2013 ). From compulsory education to higher education, both systems have been challenged with the question, “Is education a public good?” The commercialization of higher education in the United States has rendered the argument in favor of a capitalist plight to create a demand of “good” by reinforcing the cylindrical oppressive societal systems of social economic status and class for those who do not engage with this public good .

Consequently, the contemporary issues found in American higher education systems have long spanned its 370-year history and have remained residual in the anachronistic practice of systemic inequitable access to this public good for U.S. citizens, especially of those in minoritized populations (Hersh & Merrow, 2005 ). The complexities of higher education in the United States can only be rectified when scholars, legislators, and citizens recognize the democratic role of public education, and how the education system plays a pivotal role in shaping the larger society (Kezar et al., 2005 ). A critical issue facing contemporary society in the United States is the increasing number of occupations requiring postsecondary education ( public good ). The stability of economic growth for the United States is largely dependent upon the number of citizens who obtain degree completion thus forcing the demand of the “good” in which the public is forced to engage much like that of Aristotle’s polis .

Education and society remain symbiotic in relationship, and therefore they continue to democratically evolve in ways how the education serves the public good. The following section further expands on Aristotle’s themes and legacies as unfinished business.

Legacies and Unfinished Business

Scholars (Saltmarsh & Hartley, 2011 ) suggest that without a democratic purpose, education, as a public good , is reduced to a political function within educational systems. Scholars also conclude that radical democratic engagement changes are needed in education and are crucial to the transformation of a more genuine democratic society. However, the legacy of polis (Pedersen, 1997 ) has left societies in wanting, as Aristotle’s seminal educational frameworks indicate a moral bent in terms of what is ethical and good . Here rests the “unfinished business” in relation to what is good . Who or what decides goodness? Historically, moral frameworks, that were left to the state or governments, ensued tyranny. When the moral framework was left to the people, carnage emanated, such as that of the gladiatorial arenas (Gutierrez et al., 2007 ), and democracy was reduced to a singular digit of the thumb to determine the appeasement of “live” or “die” for the people.

In the twenty-first century, progressive societies continue in the same macabre justifications of utilizing the “thumb” to determine goodness in virtual arenas. With the latest inventions of technology, societies enter the digital colosseum daily in search of virtual political witch hunts to socially execute those who do not conform or contribute to the majority’s versions of democracy. Extending the virtual thumb to determine “like” or “dislike” parallels much of the ancient world’s version of “live” or “die”. Additionally by ancient standards, the immediacy in which the arena could vomitora (Gutierrez et al., 2007 ) or figuratively spit out spectators was expedient. The expediency in which society virtually vomitoras who should “live” or “die” metaphorically is just as disconcerting today as it was in ancient times. How then can goodness be defined? The fact remains that Aristotle’s conceptual framework of education as a public good remains residual in the social and communal thought structure of many societies, but has left the paradox of how goodness is both defined and operationalized.

As evidenced in this chapter, the frameworks of the modern education can be traced back to the times of Ancient Greece, more specifically Aristotle. In response to the preservation of the tradition-directed society, Aristotle conceptualized how education can respond to the needs of the society. Through the Lyceum’s school of thought, he revolutionized the branches of knowledge, techne , episteme , and phronesis which in turn influenced research, teaching, and learning. Aristotle’s work later evolved into the primary purpose of education (    polis ) to ensure that citizens were loyal, honorable, and capable of political action.

An additional and most prolific contribution to modern education was Aristotle’s quest of knowledge that would later translate to scientific inquiry. His educational methods would encompass teaching and research through direct experience and observation. Aristotle’s impact on modern education was so extensive that it influenced ways to attain knowledge, development of new disciplines, foundational research, types of learning, and teaching methods.

Aristotle’s introduction of educational frameworks introduced a paradigm that accounted for the holistic well-being of its state citizens. However, his philosophical views on education and educating were highly contested by European Scholastics in defining education as a public good. This dissention would continue to shape how modern societies debate about the role of government and education in a genuine democratic society.

Aristotle’s contribution to education remains immortal as his gift of scientific inquiry and quest of knowledge continue to influence scientific innovation. He is truly defined as the father of philosophy. His legacies are interwoven into the fabric of societies across the world and will continue to serve as the foundation for the “ ways of knowing .”

Aristotle. (1994a). Metaphysics . (W. D. Ross, Trans.). The Internet Classics Archive. http://classics.mit.edu/Aristotle/metaphysics.html (Original work published ca. 350 B.C.E.)

Aristotle. (1994b). Nicomachean ethics . (W. D. Ross, Trans.). The Internet Classics Archive. http://classics.mit.edu/Aristotle/nicomachaen.html (Original work published ca. 350 B.C.E.)

Aristotle. (1994c). On the sense and the sensible . (J. I. Beare, Trans.). The Internet Classics Archive. http://classics.mit.edu/Aristotle/sense.html (Original work published ca. 350 B.C.E.)

Aristotle. (1994d). Politics . (B. Jowett, Trans.). The Internet Classics Archive. http://classics.mit.edu/Aristotle/politics.html (Original work published ca. 350 B.C.E.)

Aristotle. (1994e). Prior analytics. (J. J. Jenkinson, Trans.). The Internet Classics Archive. http://classics.mit.edu/Aristotle/prior.html (Original work published ca. 350 B.C.E.)

Creswell, J. W. (2013). Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches (4th ed.). Sage Publications, Inc.

Google Scholar  

Creswell, J. W., & Plano Clark, V. L. (2011). Designing and conducting mixed methods research (2nd ed.). Sage Publications.

Crisp, R. (2000). Nicomachean ethics . Cambridge University Press.

Donskikh, O. A. (2019). Significance of Aristotle’s teaching practice for modern education. In R. B. Monyai (Ed.), Teacher education in the 21st century . IntechOpen. https://doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.84180

Chapter   Google Scholar  

Erlandson, D. A., Harris, E. L., Skipper, B. L., & Allen, S. D. (1993). Doing naturalistic inquiry: A guide to methods . Sage Publications, Inc.

Fowler, F. C. (2013). Policy studies for educational leaders: An introduction (4th ed.). Allyn & Bacon.

Frankena, W. K. (1965). Three historical philosophies of education . Scott.

Freire, P. (2009). The pedagogy of the oppressed . The Continuum International Publishing Group.

Gilman, L. (n.d.). Science philosophy and practice: The scientific method . https://www.encyclopedia.com/science/science-magazines/science-philosophy-and-practice-scientific-method

Glesne, C. (2016). Becoming qualitative researchers: An introduction (5th ed.). Pearson.

Gutierrez, D., Frischer, B., Cerezo, E., Gomez, A., & Seron, F. (2007). AI and virtual crowds: Populating the colosseum. Journal of Cultural Heritage, 8 (2), 176–185. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.culher.2007.01.007

Article   Google Scholar  

Hepburn, B. (2021). Scientific method. Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/scientific-method/#:~:text=Aristotle%20is%20recognized%20as%20giving,methods%20of%20inquiry%20into%20nature

Hersh, R. H., & Merrow, J. (2005). Declining by degrees: Higher education at risk . Palgrave Macmillan.

Himanka, J. (2015). On the Aristotelian origins of higher education. Higher Education, 69 , 117–128. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10734-014-9764-7

Kezar, A., Chambers, T., & Burkhardt, J. (2005). Higher education for the public good . John Wiley and Sons, Inc.

Lee, J. (2001). Educational thoughts of Aristotle and Confucius. The Journal of Educational Thought, 35 (2), 161–180. https://www.jstor.org/stable/23767153

Lincoln, Y. S., & Guba, E. G. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry. Sage Publications, Inc, 9, 438.

Lincoln, Y. S., & Guba, E. G. (2013). The constructivist credo . Left Coast Press.

Magee, B. (2001). The story of philosophy: A concise introduction to the world’s greatest thinkers and their ideas . A Dorling Kindersley Limited.

Merriam, S. B. (2007). Qualitative research and case study applications in education (2nd ed.). Jossey-Bass.

Milch, R., & Patterson, C. H. (1966). Aristotle's Nicomachean ethics: Notes, including Aristotle's life . Aristotle's works.

Moseley, A. (2010). Aristotle . Bloomsbury Publishing.

Pedersen, O. (1997). The first universities: Studium generale and the origins of university education in Europe . Cambridge University Press.

Quarantotto, D. (2020). Aristotle on science as problem solving. Topoi, 39 , 857–868. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11245-018-9548-2

Ross, D. (1964). Aristotle . University Paperbacks.

Saltmarsh, J., & Hartley, M. (2011). “To serve a larger purpose”: Engagement for democracy and the transformation of higher education . Temple University Press.

Shields, C. (Ed.). (2014). Aristotle (2nd ed.). Routledge.

Smith, R. (2020, Fall Edition). Aristotle’s Logic . The Stanford encyclopedia of philosophy. https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/fall2020/entries/aristotle-logic/

Stonehouse, P., Allison, P., & Carr, D. (2011). Aristotle, Plato, and Socrates: Ancient Greek perspectives on experiential learning. In T. E. Smith & C. E. Knapp (Eds.), Sourcebook of experiential education: Key thinkers and their contributions . Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203838983

Thompson, M. H., Jr. (1953). Aristotle: Divide and classify. The Journal of General Education, 7 (2), 100–108. https://www.jstor.org/stable/27795422

Tress, D. M. (1995). Aristotle’s child: Formation through genes, Oikos, polis. The Society for Ancient Greek Philosophy Newsletter, 358 , 1–19. https://orb.binghamton.edu/sagp/358

Further Reading

McKeon, R. (2001). The basic works of Aristotle . Modern Library.

Shields, C. (Ed.). (2012). The Oxford handbook of Aristotle . Oxford University Press.

Download references

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Texas A&M University-Corpus Christi, Corpus Christi, TX, USA

Nikola Grafnetterova

University of North Dakota, Grand Forks, ND, USA

Jocelyn A. Gutierrez

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Nikola Grafnetterova .

Editor information

Editors and affiliations.

Educational Leadership, Western Michigan University, Kalamazoo, MI, USA

Brett A. Geier

Section Editor information

Western Michigan University, Kalamazoo, MI, USA

Regina Garza Mitchell Professor

Index Words

Alexander the Great

Epistemology

Experimental learning

Metaphysics

Methodology

Naturalistic inquiry

Nicomachean Ethics

Observation

Public good

Qualitative

Quantitative

Deductive reasoning

Inductive reasoning

Practical science

Productive science

Theoretical science

Scientific inquiry

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2023 This is a U.S. Government work and not under copyright protection in the U.S.; foreign copyright protection may apply

About this entry

Cite this entry.

Grafnetterova, N., Gutierrez, J.A. (2023). Frameworks of Education: Aristotle’s Legacy and the Foundations of Knowledge. In: Geier, B.A. (eds) The Palgrave Handbook of Educational Thinkers . Palgrave Macmillan, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-81037-5_2-1

Download citation

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-81037-5_2-1

Received : 01 February 2023

Accepted : 07 February 2023

Published : 12 July 2023

Publisher Name : Palgrave Macmillan, Cham

Print ISBN : 978-3-030-81037-5

Online ISBN : 978-3-030-81037-5

eBook Packages : Springer Reference Education Reference Module Humanities and Social Sciences Reference Module Education

• Publish with us

Policies and ethics

• Find a journal
• Track your research

• Advanced Search
• All new items
• Journal articles
• Manuscripts
• All Categories
• Metaphysics and Epistemology
• Epistemology
• Metaphilosophy
• Metaphysics
• Philosophy of Action
• Philosophy of Language
• Philosophy of Mind
• Philosophy of Religion
• Value Theory
• Applied Ethics
• Meta-Ethics
• Normative Ethics
• Philosophy of Gender, Race, and Sexuality
• Philosophy of Law
• Social and Political Philosophy
• Value Theory, Miscellaneous
• Science, Logic, and Mathematics
• Logic and Philosophy of Logic
• Philosophy of Biology
• Philosophy of Cognitive Science
• Philosophy of Computing and Information
• Philosophy of Mathematics
• Philosophy of Physical Science
• Philosophy of Social Science
• Philosophy of Probability
• General Philosophy of Science
• Philosophy of Science, Misc
• History of Western Philosophy
• Ancient Greek and Roman Philosophy
• Medieval and Renaissance Philosophy
• 17th/18th Century Philosophy
• 19th Century Philosophy
• 20th Century Philosophy
• History of Western Philosophy, Misc
• Philosophical Traditions
• African/Africana Philosophy
• Asian Philosophy
• Continental Philosophy
• European Philosophy
• Philosophy of the Americas
• Philosophical Traditions, Miscellaneous
• Philosophy, Misc
• Philosophy, Introductions and Anthologies
• Philosophy, General Works
• Teaching Philosophy
• Philosophy, Miscellaneous
• Other Academic Areas
• Natural Sciences
• Social Sciences
• Cognitive Sciences
• Formal Sciences
• Arts and Humanities
• Professional Areas
• Other Academic Areas, Misc
• Submit a book or article
• Upload a bibliography
• Personal page tracking
• Archives we track
• Information for publishers
• Introduction
• Submitting to PhilPapers
• Frequently Asked Questions
• Subscriptions
• Editor's Guide
• The Categorization Project
• For Publishers
• For Archive Admins
• PhilPapers Surveys
• Bargain Finder
• About PhilPapers
• Create an account

The Philosophical Foundations of Education  [Book Review]

Reprint years, philarchive, external links.

• pdcnet.org (no proxy)

Through your library

• Sign in / register and customize your OpenURL resolver
• Configure custom resolver

Similar books and articles

Citations of this work.

No citations found.

References found in this work

No references found.

Home — Essay Samples — Philosophy — Personal Philosophy — Personal Philosophy on Education

Personal Philosophy on Education

• Categories: Personal Philosophy

About this sample

Words: 738 |

Published: Jan 31, 2024

Words: 738 | Pages: 2 | 4 min read

References:

• "The Importance of Education" by Julie Lucero, Journal of Education, vol. 45, no. 2, 2018, pp. 56-68.
• Smith, John. "Effective Teaching Strategies for Student-Centered Learning" Education Today, vol. 20, no. 4, 2019, pp. 112-125.
• Johnson, Karen. "Promoting Inclusive Education: Strategies for Educators" Diversity in Education Quarterly, vol. 8, no. 3, 2020, pp. 72-85.
• Anderson, David. "Assessment Methods Beyond Traditional Testing" Educational Assessment, vol. 12, no. 1, 2017, pp. 34-47.

Cite this Essay

Let us write you an essay from scratch

• 450+ experts on 30 subjects ready to help
• Custom essay delivered in as few as 3 hours

Get high-quality help

Dr Jacklynne

Verified writer

• Expert in: Philosophy

+ 120 experts online

By clicking “Check Writers’ Offers”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy policy . We’ll occasionally send you promo and account related email

No need to pay just yet!

Related Essays

2 pages / 971 words

3 pages / 1186 words

1 pages / 557 words

4 pages / 1689 words

Remember! This is just a sample.

You can get your custom paper by one of our expert writers.

121 writers online

Still can’t find what you need?

Browse our vast selection of original essay samples, each expertly formatted and styled

Related Essays on Personal Philosophy

Philosophy in nursing stems from providing competent and optimal care to patients and communities. These values are the stepping stones to be a successful nurse. For as long as I can remember I have been overwhelmed with a [...]

Life is how we go about day by day, month by month, year by year. Our actions, even the slightest, can twist and turn our paths like a labyrinth. Life is quite unpredictable, though it is what we make of it. Whatever happens in [...]

Life is a complex journey filled with ups and downs, challenges and opportunities. As individuals, we often find ourselves searching for meaning and purpose in this vast and mysterious existence. In this essay, I will share my [...]

Education is a powerful force that shapes the future of individuals and societies. As an educator, my personal philosophy of education serves as the guiding compass for my teaching practices and the principles that underpin my [...]

Dante believed that justice was capital and proportionate to the injustice. He believed that the nature of the crime also affected the nature of the punishment. Along with this he alluded to crimes against God being more severe [...]

Personal success is considered as the triumph that each person achieves in their daily lives. The objectives and goals only serve as motivations that depend on the interests, values and principles of each individual. The path to [...]

Related Topics

By clicking “Send”, you agree to our Terms of service and Privacy statement . We will occasionally send you account related emails.

Where do you want us to send this sample?

By clicking “Continue”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy policy.

Be careful. This essay is not unique

This essay was donated by a student and is likely to have been used and submitted before

Download this Sample

Free samples may contain mistakes and not unique parts

Sorry, we could not paraphrase this essay. Our professional writers can rewrite it and get you a unique paper.

Please check your inbox.

We can write you a custom essay that will follow your exact instructions and meet the deadlines. Let's fix your grades together!

Get Your Personalized Essay in 3 Hours or Less!

We use cookies to personalyze your web-site experience. By continuing we’ll assume you board with our cookie policy .

• Instructions Followed To The Letter
• Deadlines Met At Every Stage
• Unique And Plagiarism Free

• Get IGI Global News

• All Products
• Book Chapters
• Journal Articles
• Video Lessons
• Teaching Cases

Call for Chapters: Educational Philosophy and Sociological Foundation of Education

Call for chapters, introduction, target audience, recommended topics.

• Definition of Educational Philosophy: Concepts and Scope
• The Relationship between Philosophy and Education
• Education for Values: National, Social, Esthetic, and Moral Dimensions
• A Comparative Study of Schools of Philosophy: Naturalism, Realism, Pragmatism, Idealism
• Existentialism in Education: Principles, Aims, Curriculum, and Teaching Methods
• Impact of Educational Philosophy on National Policy of Education
• Basics of Sociology of Education: Socialization, Social Change
• Culture and Education: Influence, Preservation, National Culture
• Concepts of Sociology of Education: Social Stratification, Social Mobility, Modernization
• Education and Economic Order
• Education and Secularism
• Education and National Integration

Submission Procedure

Full chapters are expected to be submitted by April 25, 2024 , and all interested authors must consult the guidelines for manuscript submissions at https://www.igi-global.com/publish/contributor-resources/before-you-write/ prior to submission. All submitted chapters will be reviewed on a double-blind review basis. Contributors may also be requested to serve as reviewers for this project.

Note: There are no submission or acceptance fees for manuscripts submitted to this book publication, Educational Philosophy and Sociological Foundation of Education. All manuscripts are accepted based on a double-blind peer review editorial process.

All proposals should be submitted through the eEditorial Discovery ® online submission manager.

This book is scheduled to be published by IGI Global (formerly Idea Group Inc.), an international academic publisher of the "Information Science Reference" (formerly Idea Group Reference), "Medical Information Science Reference," "Business Science Reference," and "Engineering Science Reference" imprints. IGI Global specializes in publishing reference books, scholarly journals, and electronic databases featuring academic research on a variety of innovative topic areas including, but not limited to, education, social science, medicine and healthcare, business and management, information science and technology, engineering, public administration, library and information science, media and communication studies, and environmental science. For additional information regarding the publisher, please visit https://www.igi-global.com . This publication is anticipated to be released in 2024.

Important Dates

April 25, 2024 : Full Chapter Submission May 12, 2024 : Review Results Returned June 1, 2024 : Final Acceptance Notification June 8, 2024 : Final Chapter Submission

Classifications

Foundations of Education Past Papers Exam Questions

Guess paper 1: foundations of education fall – 2020 past papers.

Time Allowed:  3 hours

Total Marks:     70, Passing Marks (35)

Q1. Define Philosophy of Education. Discuss Nature of Philosophy with relevant examples.

Q2. Furnish a comparative analysis of Idealism, Realism, and Pragmatism with examples.

Q3. How Progressivism differs from Perennialsim? Discuss.

Q4. Discuss the general role of Philosophy in Education in detail.

Q5. Explain concept of Economics of Education. Also discuss benefits of education.

Q6. What is the basis of logical and scientific thinking in education? Give relevant examples keeping in view Education as Science.

Q7. Attempt any two of the following: • Education for Vocation and Knowledge • Epistemology of Islam • Financing of Education

Guess Paper 2: Foundations of Education Spring- 2020 Past Papers

Q.1 Write short notes on the following: a) Axiology b) Philosophy of Education c) Financial decision-making

Q.2 Elaborate the logical and scientific thinking in basic education. Q.3 Discuss the general role of Psychology in Education. Q.4 Describe any two Contemporary Educational Philosophies: a. Perennialism b. Progressivism c. Essentialism

Q.5 “Main values enjoyed by Islam”, Explain. Q.6 Identify the important features of Islamic Philosophy. Q.7 What do you know about “Reconstructionism”? Elaborate. Q.8 Write short note on any Two of the following: a) Sociology of Education b) Sources of Knowledge c) Scientific Research

Guess Paper 3: Foundations of Education Fall – 2019 Past Papers

Q1. Write a detail note on any two of the following:

i. Idealism ii. Reconstructionism iii. Maturation

Q2. How academic performance be affected by individual differences? Q3. Explain Islamic Foundation in light of: a. Quran b. Hadith Q4. In case of socio-economic foundation of education explain politics and education with suitable examples. Q5. Education as investment” explains with suitable examples. Q6. Explain with suitable examples aims, goals and objectives. Q7. Elaborate formal and non-formal modes of education. Q8. Write a comprehensive note on “population education in Pakistan”.

Guess Paper 4: Foundations of Education Spring- 2019 Past Papers

Q1. Define Philosophy of Education. Discuss Principles of Philosophy with relevant examples. Q2. Present comparative analysis of Naturalism and Pragmatism with examples. Q3. How Existentialism differs from Perennialsim? Discuss. Q4. Discuss the general role of Philosophy in Education in detail. Q5. Explain concept of Economics of Education. Also discuss benefits of education. Q6. What is the basis of logical and scientific thinking in education? Give relevant examples keeping in view Education as Science. Q7. Attempt any two of the following: i. Education and its philosophy ii. Epistemology of Islam iii. Financing of Education

Related Posts:

• Foundations of Effective Instruction (Special Education) MCQs
• Women Education Past Papers and important Exam Questions
• Credit Management Past Papers Exam Questions
• Critical Logic Thinking Past Papers Exam Questions
• Data Communication Past Papers Exam Questions
• Data Structures Past Papers Exam Questions

You must be logged in to post a comment.