Content deleted Content added
Citation bot (talk | contribs) Removed proxy/dead URL that duplicated identifier. | Use this bot. Report bugs. | Suggested by Corvus florensis | #UCB_webform 1903/3499 |
m Disambiguating links to Classical education (link changed to Classical education in the Western world) using DisamAssist. |
||
| (30 intermediate revisions by 20 users not shown) | |||
Line 1:
{{Short description|Study of nature and aims of education}}
{{Distinguish|Teaching philosophy}}
{{Educational research}}
The '''philosophy of education''' is the branch of applied [[philosophy]] that investigates the nature of [[education]] as well as its aims and problems. It includes the examination of educational theories, the presuppositions present in them, and the arguments for and against them. It is an interdisciplinary field that draws inspiration from various disciplines both within and outside philosophy, like [[ethics]], [[political philosophy]], [[psychology]], and [[sociology]]. These connections are also reflected in the significant and wide-ranging influence the philosophy of education has had on other disciplines. Many of its theories focus specifically on education in schools but it also encompasses other forms of education. Its theories are often divided into descriptive and [[Normativity|normative]] theories. Descriptive theories provide a value-neutral account of what education is and how to understand its fundamental concepts, in contrast to normative theories, which investigate how education should be practiced or what is the right form of education.▼
▲The '''philosophy of education''' is the branch of applied [[philosophy]] that investigates the nature of [[education]] as well as its aims and problems. It
A great variety of topics is discussed in the philosophy of education. Some studies provide a [[conceptual analysis]] of the fundamental concepts of education. Others center around the aims or purpose of education, like passing on [[knowledge]] and the development of the abilities of good [[reasoning]], judging, and acting. An influential discussion concerning the epistemic aims of education is whether education should focus mainly on the transmission of true [[belief]]s or rather on the abilities to reason and arrive at new knowledge. In this context, many theorists emphasize the importance of [[critical thinking]] in contrast to [[indoctrination]]. Another debate about the aims of education is whether the primary beneficiary is the student or the [[society]] to which the student belongs.
Many of the more specific discussions in the philosophy of education concern the contents of the [[curriculum]]. This involves the questions of whether, when, and in what detail a certain topic, like [[sex education]] or [[religion]], should be taught. Other debates focus on the specific contents and methods used in [[Moral education|moral]], art, and [[science education]]. Some philosophers investigate the relation between education and [[Power (social and political)|power]], often specifically regarding the power used by modern states to [[compulsory education|compel]] children to attend school, a practice rejected by some advocates of the movements of [[deschooling]] and [[unschooling]]. A different issue is the problem of the [[Social equality|equality]] of education, i.e. the demand that all students should be treated equally in public education. This is often understood in the sense that education should open the [[Equality of opportunity|same opportunities to everyone]]. This ideal is threatened by various sources of inequality, like active [[discrimination]] and unequal [[distribution of wealth]]. In regard to [[educational research]], some philosophers of education promote a quantitative approach, which follows the example of the [[natural sciences]] by using wide experimental studies. Others prefer a qualitative approach, which is closer to the methodology of the [[social sciences]] and tends to give more prominence to individual [[case studies]]. A topic that came to particular prominence in the contemporary discussion is the role of [[standardized testing]] in public schools.▼
▲Many of the more specific discussions in the philosophy of education concern the contents of the [[curriculum]]. This involves the questions of whether, when, and in what detail a certain topic, like [[sex education]] or [[religion]], should be taught. Other debates focus on the specific contents and methods used in [[Moral education|moral]], art, and [[science education]]. Some philosophers investigate the relation between education and [[Power (social and political)|power]], often specifically regarding the power used by modern states to [[compulsory education|compel]] children to attend school
Various schools of philosophy have developed their own perspective on the main issues of education. [[Existentialists]] emphasize the role of [[Authenticity (philosophy)|authenticity]] while [[pragmatists]] give particular prominence to active learning and discovery. [[Feminists]] and [[postmodernists]] often try to uncover and challenge biases and forms of discrimination present in current educational practices. Other philosophical movements include [[perennialism]], [[classical education]], [[Educational essentialism|essentialism]], [[critical pedagogy]], and [[progressivism]]. The history of the philosophy of education started in [[ancient philosophy]] and has remained an important topic to the present day. Despite its long and diverse history, it only emerged as a systematic branch of philosophy in the latter half of the 20th century. In universities, the philosophy of education usually forms part of departments or colleges of education.<ref>{{Cite web |url=http://www.tc.columbia.edu/arts-and-humanities/philosophy/ |title=Philosophy and Education |website=Teachers College - Columbia University |language=en |access-date=2017-04-29 |archive-date=2017-05-17 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20170517135155/http://www.tc.columbia.edu/arts-and-humanities/philosophy/ |url-status=live }}</ref><ref>{{Cite web |url=http://steinhardt.nyu.edu/humsocsci/courses/philosophy |title=Philosophy of Education - Courses - NYU Steinhardt |website=steinhardt.nyu.edu |language=en |access-date=2017-04-29 |archive-date=2017-04-01 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20170401043711/http://steinhardt.nyu.edu/humsocsci/courses/philosophy |url-status=dead }}</ref><ref>{{Cite web |url=https://www.gse.harvard.edu/doctorate/doctor-philosophy-education |title=Doctor of Philosophy in Education |website=Harvard Graduate School of Education |language=en |access-date=2017-04-29 |archive-date=2017-04-20 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20170420130222/http://www.gse.harvard.edu/doctorate/doctor-philosophy-education |url-status=live }}</ref><ref name=NoddingsPOE />▼
▲Various schools of philosophy have developed their own perspective on the main issues of education. [[Existentialists]] emphasize the role of [[Authenticity (philosophy)|authenticity]] while [[pragmatists]] give particular prominence to active learning and discovery. [[Feminists]] and [[postmodernists]] often try to uncover and challenge biases and forms of discrimination present in current educational practices. Other philosophical movements include [[perennialism]], [[Classical education in the Western world|classical education]], [[Educational essentialism|essentialism]], [[critical pedagogy]], and [[progressivism]]. The history of the philosophy of education started in [[ancient philosophy]]
== Definition ==
The philosophy of education is the branch of [[philosophy]] that examines the nature, aims, and problems of [[education]].<ref name="StanfordPhilosophyOfEducation"/><ref name="RoutledgeEducation">{{cite book |first=Randall |last=Curren |editor1-last=Craig |editor1-first=Edward |title=Routledge Encyclopedia of Philosophy |date=1996 |publisher=Routledge |url=https://philpapers.org/rec/BEAREO |chapter=Education, philosophy of |access-date=2024-05-31 |archive-date=2021-01-16 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20210116111145/https://philpapers.org/rec/BEAREO |url-status=live }}</ref><ref name="OxfordHandbookIntro">{{cite book |last1=Siegel |first1=Harvey |title=The Oxford Handbook of Philosophy of Education |date=30 October 2009 |url=https://www.oxfordhandbooks.com/view/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780195312881.001.0001/oxfordhb-9780195312881-e-001 |language=en |chapter=Introduction: Philosophy of Education and Philosophy |access-date=31 May 2024 |archive-date=19 March 2022 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20220319214557/https://www.oxfordhandbooks.com/view/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780195312881.001.0001/oxfordhb-9780195312881-e-001 |url-status=live }}</ref><ref name=NoddingsPOE>{{Cite book |last=Noddings |first=Nel |title=Philosophy of Education |publisher=Westview Press |year=1995 |location=Boulder, CO |isbn=0-8133-8429-X |page=[https://archive.org/details/philosophyofeduc00nodd/page/1 1] |url=https://archive.org/details/philosophyofeduc00nodd/page/1}}</ref> As the philosophical study of education, it investigates its topic similar to how other discipline-specific branches of philosophy, like the [[philosophy of science]] or the [[philosophy of law]], study their topics.<ref name="BritannicaPhilosophyOfEducation"/><ref name="SageHandbookWhat"/> A central task for the philosophy of education is to make explicit the various fundamental assumptions and disagreements at work in its field and to evaluate the arguments raised for and against the different positions.<ref name="BritannicaPhilosophyOfEducation"/><ref name="StanfordPhilosophyOfEducation"/> The issue of education has a great many manifestations in various fields. Because of this, both the breadth and the influence of the philosophy of education are significant and wide-ranging, touching many other branches of philosophy, such as [[ethics]], [[political philosophy]], [[epistemology]], [[metaphysics]], and [[philosophy of mind]].<ref name="BritannicaPhilosophyOfEducation">{{cite web |last1=Siegel |first1=Harvey |title=Philosophy of education |url=https://www.britannica.com/topic/philosophy-of-education |website=www.britannica.com |access-date=23 March 2022 |language=en |archive-date=24 March 2022 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20220324024617/https://www.britannica.com/topic/philosophy-of-education |url-status=live }}</ref><ref name="StanfordPhilosophyOfEducation">{{cite web |last1=Siegel |first1=Harvey |last2=Phillips |first2=D.C. |last3=Callan |first3=Eamonn |title=Philosophy of Education |url=https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/education-philosophy/ |website=The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy |publisher=Metaphysics Research Lab, Stanford University |access-date=25 March 2022 |date=2018 |archive-date=28 March 2019 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20190328075115/https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/education-philosophy/ |url-status=live }}</ref><ref name="SageHandbookWhat"/> Its theories are often formulated from the perspective of these other philosophical disciplines.<ref name="RoutledgeEducation"/> But due to its interdisciplinary nature, it also attracts contributions from scholars belonging to fields outside the domain of philosophy.<ref name="StanfordPhilosophyOfEducation"/><ref name="SageHandbookWhat">{{cite book |last1=Phillips |first1=D.C. |title=The SAGE Handbook of Philosophy of Education |date=2010 |publisher=SAGE Publications Ltd |pages=3–20 |url=https://sk.sagepub.com/reference/hdbk_philosophyeducation/n1.xml |chapter=1. What is Philosophy of Education?|doi=10.4135/9781446200872 |isbn=9781847874672 }}</ref>
While there is wide agreement on the general topics discussed in the philosophy of education, it has proven difficult to give a precise definition of it. The philosophy of education belongs mainly to applied philosophy.<ref name="StanfordPhilosophyOfEducation"/><ref name="BritannicaPhilosophyOfEducation"/> According to some definitions, it can be characterized as an offshoot of ethics.<ref name="RoutledgeEducation"/> But not everyone agrees with this characterization since the philosophy of education has a more theoretical side as well, which includes the examination of the fundamental concepts and theories of education as well as their philosophical implications. These two sides are sometimes referred to as the outward and the inward looking nature of the philosophy of education.<ref name="StanfordPhilosophyOfEducation"/> Its topics can range from very general questions, like the nature of the [[knowledge]] worth teaching, to more specific issues, like how to teach [[art]] or whether public schools should implement standardized curricula and [[Standardized test|testing]].<ref name="StanfordPhilosophyOfEducation"/><ref name="BritannicaPhilosophyOfEducation"/><ref name="RoutledgeEducation"/>
Line 21 ⟶ 24:
Another categorization divides topics in the philosophy of education into the nature and aims of education on the one hand, and the methods and circumstances of education on the other hand. The latter section may again be divided into concrete normative theories and the study of the conceptual and methodological presuppositions of these theories.<ref name="RoutledgeEducation"/> Other classifications additionally include areas for topics such as the role of [[reasoning]] and [[morality]] as well as issues pertaining to social and political topics and the curriculum.<ref name="OxfordHandbookIntro"/>
The theories within the philosophy of education can also be subdivided based on the [[Philosophical movement|school of philosophy]] they belong to. Various schools of philosophy, such as [[existentialism]], [[pragmatism]], [[Marxism]], [[postmodernism]], and [[feminism]], have developed their own perspective on the main issues of education.<ref name="RoutledgeEducation"/><ref>{{cite book |last1=Noddings |first1=Nel |title=Philosophy of Education |date=2016 |url=https://www.routledge.com/Philosophy-of-Education/Noddings/p/book/9780813349725 |language=en |chapter=Introduction |access-date=2024-05-31 |archive-date=2023-06-09 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20230609105323/https://www.routledge.com/Philosophy-of-Education/Noddings/p/book/9780813349725 |url-status=live }}</ref><ref name="StanfordPhilosophyOfEducation"/> They often include normative theories about how education should or should not be practiced and are in most cases controversial.<ref name="RoutledgeEducation"/>
Another approach is to simply list all topics discussed in the philosophy of education. Among them are the issues and presuppositions concerning [[sex education]], [[science education]], [[Aesthetics|aesthetic]] education, [[religious education]], [[moral education]], [[multicultural education]], [[professional education]], theories of teaching and learning, the measurement of learning, knowledge and its value, cultivating reason, epistemic and moral aims of education, [[authority]], fallibilism, and [[fallibility]].<ref name="StanfordPhilosophyOfEducation"/><ref name="BritannicaPhilosophyOfEducation"/>
Finally, yet another way that philosophy of education is often tacitly divided is in terms of ''western'' versus non-western and “[[global south]]” perspectives. For many generations, philosophy of education has maintained a relatively [[ethnocentric]] orientation, with little attention paid to ideas from outside Europe and North America, but this is starting to change in the 21st century due to [[decolonization]] and related movements.<ref>Hebert, David G. (2023). ''Comparative and Decolonial Studies in Philosophy of Education''. Springer Nature. {{ISBN|9819901383}}</ref>
== Main topics ==
=== Fundamental concepts of education ===
The starting point of many philosophical inquiries into a field is the examination and clarification of the fundamental concepts used in this field, often in the form of [[conceptual analysis]]. This approach is particularly prominent in the [[Analytic philosophy|analytic tradition]]. It aims to make ambiguities explicit and to uncover various implicit and potentially false assumptions associated with these terms.<ref name="BritannicaPhilosophyOfEducation"/><ref name="StanfordPhilosophyOfEducation"/>
Theorists in this field often emphasize the importance of this form of investigation since all subsequent work on more specific issues already has to assume at least implicitly what their central terms mean to demarcate their field. For example, in order to study what constitutes good education, one has to have a notion of what the term "education" means and how to achieve, measure, and evaluate it.<ref name="Watson2016">{{cite journal |last1=Watson |first1=Lani |title=The Epistemology of Education |journal=Philosophy Compass |date=March 2016 |volume=11 |issue=3 |pages=146–159 |doi=10.1111/phc3.12316 |url=https://compass.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/phc3.12316 |issn=1747-9991}}</ref> Definitions of education can be divided into thin and thick definitions. Thin definitions are neutral and descriptive. They usually emphasize the role of the transmission of knowledge and [[understanding]] in education. Thick definitions include additional normative components, for example, by stating that the process in question has to have certain positive results to be called education.<ref name="Watson2016"/> According to one thick definition, education means that the person educated has acquired knowledge and intellectual skills, values these factors, and has thus changed for the better. These characteristics can then be used to distinguish education from other closely related terms, such as "indoctrination".<ref name="StanfordPhilosophyOfEducation"/><ref name="OxfordHandbookIntro"/><ref name="RoutledgeEducation"/> Other fundamental notions in the philosophy of education include the concepts of [[teaching]], [[learning]], [[student]], [[schooling]], and [[child rearing|rearing]].<ref name="BritannicaPhilosophyOfEducation"/><ref name="StanfordPhilosophyOfEducation"/><ref name="Watson2016"/>
=== Aims of education ===
A central question in the philosophy of education concerns the aims of education, i.e. the question of why people should be educated and what goals should be pursued in the process of education.<ref name="BritannicaPhilosophyOfEducation"/><ref name="StanfordPhilosophyOfEducation"/><ref name="OxfordHandbookIntro"/><ref name="Schmitt2005">{{cite journal |last1=Schmitt |first1=Frederick |title=What Are the Aims of Education? |journal=Episteme |date=2005 |volume=1 |issue=3 |pages=223–234 |doi=10.3366/epi.2004.1.3.223 |s2cid=144420008 |url=https://philpapers.org/rec/SCHWAT-3 |access-date=2024-05-31 |archive-date=2023-11-03 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20231103113057/https://philpapers.org/rec/SCHWAT-3 |url-status=live }}</ref> This issue is highly relevant for evaluating educational practices and products by assessing how well they manage to realize these goals. There is a lot of disagreement and various theories have been proposed concerning the aims of education. Prominent suggestions include that education should foster knowledge, [[curiosity]], [[creativity]], [[rationality]], and critical thinking while also promoting the tendency to think, feel, and act morally.<ref name="BritannicaPhilosophyOfEducation"/><ref name="StanfordPhilosophyOfEducation"/><ref name="OxfordHandbookIntro"/> The individual should thereby develop as a person, and achieve [[self-actualization]] by realizing their [[potential]]. Some theorists emphasize the cultivation of [[Liberalism|liberal ideals]], such as [[freedom]], [[autonomy]], and [[open-mindedness]], while others stress the importance of docility, [[Obedience (human behavior)|obedience]] to authority, and ideological purity, sometimes also with a focus on [[piety]] and [[religious faith]].<ref name="BritannicaPhilosophyOfEducation"/><ref name="StanfordPhilosophyOfEducation"/><ref name="OxfordHandbookIntro"/> Many suggestions concern the social domain, such as fostering a sense of community and solidarity and thus turning the individual into a productive member of society while protecting them from the potentially negative influences of society. The discussion of these positions and the arguments cited for and against them often include references to various disciplines in their justifications, such as [[ethics]], [[psychology]], [[anthropology]], and [[sociology]].<ref name="BritannicaPhilosophyOfEducation"/><ref name="StanfordPhilosophyOfEducation"/><ref name="OxfordHandbookIntro"/><ref>{{cite book |last1=Brighouse |first1=Harry |title=The Oxford Handbook of Philosophy of Education |date=30 October 2009 |url=https://www.oxfordhandbooks.com/view/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780195312881.001.0001/oxfordhb-9780195312881-e-003 |language=en |chapter=Moral and Political Aims of Education |access-date=31 May 2024 |archive-date=27 December 2021 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20211227154851/https://www.oxfordhandbooks.com/view/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780195312881.001.0001/oxfordhb-9780195312881-e-003 |url-status=live }}</ref>
There is wide consensus concerning certain general aims of education, like that it should foster all students, help them in the development of their ability to reason, and guide them in how to judge and act. But these general characteristics are usually too vague to be of much help and there are many disagreements about the more specific suggestions of what education should aim for.<ref name="StanfordPhilosophyOfEducation"/><ref name="Schmitt2005"/> Some attempts have been made to provide an overarching framework of these different aims. According to one approach, education should at its core help the individual lead a good life. All the different more specific goals are aims of education to the extent that they serve this ultimate purpose.<ref>{{cite journal |last1=Haack |first1=Robin |title=Education and the Good Life |journal=Philosophy |date=1981 |volume=56 |issue=217 |pages=289–302 |doi=10.1017/S0031819100050282 |jstor=3750273 |s2cid=144950876 |url=https://www.jstor.org/stable/3750273 |issn=0031-8191 |access-date=2024-05-31 |archive-date=2022-04-07 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20220407165937/https://www.jstor.org/stable/3750273 |url-status=live }}</ref><ref name="StanfordPhilosophyOfEducation"/> On this view, it may be argued that fostering rationality and autonomy in the students are aims of education to the extent that increased rationality and autonomy will result in the student leading a better life.<ref name="StanfordPhilosophyOfEducation"/>
The different theories of the aims of education are sometimes divided into ''goods-based'', ''skills-based'', and ''character-based'' accounts. ''Goods-based'' accounts hold that the ultimate aim of education is to produce some form of epistemic good, such as truth, knowledge, and understanding. ''Skills-based'' accounts, on the other hand, see the development of certain skills, like rationality as well as critical and independent [[thinking]] as the goal of education. For ''character-based'' accounts, the character traits or virtues of the learner play the central role, often with an emphasis on moral and civic traits like [[kindness]], [[justice]], and [[honesty]].<ref name="Watson2016"/>
==== Epistemic ====
Many theories emphasize the epistemic aims of education.<ref name="RoutledgeEducation"/><ref name="StanfordPhilosophyOfEducation"/><ref name="MacmillanEducationEpistemological">{{cite book |editor1-last=Borchert |editor1-first=Donald |title=Macmillan Encyclopedia of Philosophy, 2nd Edition |date=2006 |publisher=Macmillan |url=https://www.encyclopedia.com/humanities/encyclopedias-almanacs-transcripts-and-maps/philosophy-education-epistemological-issues |chapter=Philosophy Of Education, Epistemological Issues In |access-date=2024-05-31 |archive-date=2024-05-31 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20240531092733/https://www.encyclopedia.com/humanities/encyclopedias-almanacs-transcripts-and-maps/philosophy-education-epistemological-issues |url-status=live }}</ref><ref name="Robertson2009">{{cite book |last1=Robertson |first1=Emily |title=The Oxford Handbook of Philosophy of Education |date=30 October 2009 |url=https://www.oxfordhandbooks.com/view/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780195312881.001.0001/oxfordhb-9780195312881-e-002 |chapter=The Epistemic Aims of Education |access-date=31 May 2024 |archive-date=28 December 2021 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20211228183510/https://www.oxfordhandbooks.com/view/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780195312881.001.0001/oxfordhb-9780195312881-e-002 |url-status=live }}</ref> According to the epistemic approach, the central aim of education has to do with [[knowledge]], for example, to pass on knowledge accumulated in the societal effort from one generation to the next. This process may be seen both as the development of the student's [[mind]] as well as the transmission of a valuable heritage.<ref name="RoutledgeEducation"/> Such an approach is sometimes rejected by [[Pragmatism|pragmatists]], who emphasize experimentation and critical thinking over the transmission of knowledge.<ref name="BritannicaPhilosophyOfEducation"/> Others have argued that this constitutes a [[false dichotomy]]: that the transmission of knowledge and the development of a rational and critical mind are intertwined aims of education that depend on and support each other.<ref name="RoutledgeEducation"/> In this sense, education aims also at fostering the ability to acquire new knowledge. This includes both instilling true [[belief]]s in the students as well as teaching the methods and forms of [[evidence]] responsible for verifying existing beliefs and arriving at new knowledge. It promotes the epistemic autonomy of students and may help them challenge unwarranted claims by epistemic authorities.<ref name="RoutledgeEducation"/><ref name="MacmillanEducationEpistemological"/><ref name="Robertson2009"/> In its widest sense, the epistemic approach includes various related goals, such as imparting true beliefs or knowledge to the students as well as teaching dispositions and abilities, such as rationality, critical thinking, understanding, and other [[intellectual virtue]]s.<ref name="RoutledgeEducation"/><ref name="StanfordPhilosophyOfEducation"/>
==== Critical thinking and indoctrination ====
[[Critical thinking]] is often cited as one of the central aims of education.<ref name="Siegel">{{cite book |last1=Siegel
The problem of critical thinking is closely connected to that of [[indoctrination]].<ref name="OxfordHandbookIntro"/><ref name="RoutledgeEducation"/> Many theorists hold that indoctrination is in important ways different from education and should be avoided in education.<ref name="BritannicaPhilosophyOfEducation"/><ref name="StanfordPhilosophyOfEducation"/> But others contend that indoctrination should be part of education or even that there is no difference between the two. These different positions depend a lot on how "indoctrination" is to be defined. Most definitions of indoctrination agree that its goal is to get the student to accept and embrace certain beliefs.<ref name="BritannicaPhilosophyOfEducation"/> It has this in common with most forms of education but differs from it in other ways.<ref name="StanfordPhilosophyOfEducation"/> According to one definition, the belief acquisition in indoctrination happens without regard for the [[Evidence#Nature of the evidential relation|evidential support]] of these beliefs, i.e. without presenting proper arguments and reasons for adopting them.<ref name="BritannicaPhilosophyOfEducation"/><ref name="StanfordPhilosophyOfEducation"/> According to another, the beliefs are instilled in such a way as to discourage the student to question or assess for themselves the believed contents. In this sense, the goals of indoctrination are exactly opposite to other aims of education, such as rationality and critical thinking.<ref name="BritannicaPhilosophyOfEducation"/> In this sense, education tries to impart not just beliefs but also make the students more [[open-minded]] and conscious of human [[fallibility]].<ref name="StanfordPhilosophyOfEducation"/><ref name="Adler2009">{{cite book |last1=Adler |first1=Jonathan E. |title=The Oxford Handbook of Philosophy of Education |date=2009 |url=https://www.oxfordhandbooks.com/view/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780195312881.001.0001/oxfordhb-9780195312881-e-006 |chapter=Why Fallibility Has Not Mattered and How It Could |access-date=2024-05-31 |archive-date=2021-12-30 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20211230022523/https://www.oxfordhandbooks.com/view/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780195312881.001.0001/oxfordhb-9780195312881-e-006 |url-status=live }}</ref><ref>{{cite book |last1=Petrik |first1=Kathryn Rose |title=A fallibilistic approach to education policy |date=2016 |url=https://oaktrust.library.tamu.edu/bitstream/handle/1969.1/156937/PETRIK-THESIS-2016.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y |access-date=2024-05-31 |archive-date=2023-01-21 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20230121202707/https://oaktrust.library.tamu.edu/bitstream/handle/1969.1/156937/PETRIK-THESIS-2016.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y |url-status=live }}</ref> An intimately related issue is whether the aim of education is to mold the mind of the pupil or to liberate it by strengthening its capacity for critical and independent inquiry.<ref name="StanfordPhilosophyOfEducation"/>
An important consequence of this debate concerns the [[Philosophy of testimony|problem of testimony]], i.e to what extent students should [[Trust (social science)|trust]] the claims of teachers and books.<ref>{{cite book |last1=Siegel |first1=Harvey |title=Routledge Encyclopedia of Philosophy |date=2018 |url=https://www.rep.routledge.com/articles/thematic/epistemology-of-education/v-1/sections/3-teaching-indoctrination-and-belief |language=en |chapter=Epistemology of education |access-date=2024-05-31 |archive-date=2024-02-23 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20240223030751/https://www.rep.routledge.com/articles/thematic/epistemology-of-education/v-1/sections/3-teaching-indoctrination-and-belief |url-status=live }}</ref><ref name="StanfordPhilosophyOfEducation"/><ref name="Taylor2016">{{cite journal |last1=Taylor |first1=Rebecca M. |title=Indoctrination and Social Context: A System-Based Approach to Identifying the Threat of Indoctrination and the Responsibilities of Educators |journal=Journal of Philosophy of Education |date=2016 |volume=50 |issue=4 |pages=38–58 |doi=10.1111/1467-9752.12180 |url=https://philpapers.org/rec/TAYIAS-4 |access-date=2024-05-31 |archive-date=2023-11-02 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20231102183413/https://philpapers.org/rec/TAYIAS-4 |url-status=live }}</ref><ref name="Callan2009">{{cite book |last1=Callan |first1=Eamonn |last2=Arena |first2=Dylan |title=The Oxford Handbook of Philosophy of Education |date=30 October 2009 |url=https://www.oxfordhandbooks.com/view/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780195312881.001.0001/oxfordhb-9780195312881-e-007 |language=en |chapter=Indoctrination |access-date=31 May 2024 |archive-date=30 December 2021 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20211230022547/https://www.oxfordhandbooks.com/view/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780195312881.001.0001/oxfordhb-9780195312881-e-007 |url-status=live }}</ref> It has been argued that this issue depends a lot on the age and the intellectual development of the student. In the earlier stages of education, a high level of trust on the side of the students may be necessary. But the more their intellectual capacities develop, the more they should use them when trying to assess the plausibility of claims and the reasons for and against them.<ref name="StanfordPhilosophyOfEducation"/> In this regard, it has been argued that, especially for young children, weaker forms of indoctrination may be necessary while they still lack the intellectual capacities to evaluate the reasons for and against certain claims and thus to critically assess them.<ref name="StanfordPhilosophyOfEducation"/> In this sense, one can distinguish unavoidable or acceptable forms of indoctrination from their avoidable or unacceptable counterparts. But this distinction is not always affirmed and some theorists contend that all forms of indoctrination are bad or unacceptable.<ref name="StanfordPhilosophyOfEducation"/><ref name="Taylor2016"/><ref name="Callan2009"/>
==== Individual and society ====
A recurrent source of disagreement about the aims of education concerns the question of who is the primary beneficiary of education: the [[individual]] educated or the [[society]] having this individual as its member.<ref name="Reich2009">{{cite book |last1=Reich |first1=Rob |title=The Oxford Handbook of Philosophy of Education |date=30 October 2009 |url=https://www.oxfordhandbooks.com/view/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780195312881.001.0001/oxfordhb-9780195312881-e-026 |language=en |chapter=Educational Authority and the Interests of Children |access-date=31 May 2024 |archive-date=27 December 2021 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20211227154804/https://www.oxfordhandbooks.com/view/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780195312881.001.0001/oxfordhb-9780195312881-e-026 |url-status=live }}</ref><ref name="BritannicaPhilosophyOfEducation"/> In many cases, the interests of both are aligned. On the one hand, many new opportunities in life open to the individual through education, especially concerning their career. On the other hand, education makes it more likely that the person becomes a good, law-abiding, and productive member of society.<ref name="StanfordPhilosophyOfEducation"/><ref>{{cite journal |last1=Partington |first1=Geoffrey |title=Educating for a More Law-Abiding Society |journal=The Australian Quarterly |date=1990 |volume=62 |issue=4 |pages=346–360 |doi=10.2307/20635601 |jstor=20635601 |url=https://www.jstor.org/stable/20635601 |issn=0005-0091 |access-date=2024-05-31 |archive-date=2023-11-03 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20231103014614/https://www.jstor.org/stable/20635601 |url-status=live }}</ref> But this issue becomes more problematic in cases where the interests of the individual and society conflict with each other. This poses the question of whether individual [[autonomy]] should take precedence over communal welfare.<ref name="BritannicaPhilosophyOfEducation"/> According to ''comprehensive liberals'', for example, education should emphasize the self-directedness of the students. On this view, it is up to the student to choose their own path in life. The role of education is to provide them with the necessary resources but it does not direct the student with respect to what constitutes an ethically [[good]] path in life. This position is usually rejected by [[communitarians]], who stress the importance of [[social cohesion]] by being part of the community and sharing a common good.<ref name="RoutledgeEducation"/><ref>{{cite journal |last1=Davis |first1=Gordon |last2=Neufeld |first2=Blain |title=Political Liberalism, Civic Education, and Educational Choice |journal=Social Theory and Practice |date=2007 |volume=33 |issue=1 |pages=47–74 |doi=10.5840/soctheorpract200733135 |jstor=23558510 |url=https://www.jstor.org/stable/23558510 |issn=0037-802X |access-date=2024-05-31 |archive-date=2023-11-02 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20231102183413/https://www.jstor.org/stable/23558510 |url-status=live }}</ref><ref>{{cite journal |last1=Golby |first1=Micheal |title=Communitarianism and education |journal=Curriculum Studies |date=1 July 1997 |volume=5 |issue=2 |pages=125–138 |doi=10.1080/14681369700200010 |issn=0965-9757|doi-access=free }}</ref>
=== Curriculum ===
An important and controversial issue in the philosophy of education concerns the contents of the [[curriculum]], i.e. the question of what should be taught to students. This includes both the selection of subjects to be taught and the consideration of arguments for and against the inclusion of a particular topic. This issue is intimately tied to the aims of education: one may argue that a certain subject should be included in the curriculum because it serves one of the aims of education.<ref name="StanfordPhilosophyOfEducation"/><ref name="OxfordHandbookIntro"/><ref name="BritannicaPhilosophyOfEducation"/>
While many positions about what subjects to include in the curriculum are controversial, some particular issues stand out where these controversies go beyond the academic discourse to a wide public discourse, like questions about [[Sex education|sexual]] and [[religious education]].<ref name="BritannicaPhilosophyOfEducation"/><ref name="Allison">{{cite web |last1=Jones |first1=Allison |title=Ontario government releases new sex-ed curriculum, similar to scrapped version |url=https://globalnews.ca/news/5792416/ontario-new-sex-ed-curriculum/ |website=Global News |access-date=2024-05-31 |archive-date=2024-03-22 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20240322232715/https://globalnews.ca/news/5792416/ontario-new-sex-ed-curriculum/ |url-status=live }}</ref><ref name="Barnes2019">{{cite book |last1=Barnes |first1=L. Philip |title=Crisis, Controversy and the Future of Religious Education |date=5 December 2019 |publisher=Routledge |isbn=978-1-000-73002-9 |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=EfvADwAAQBAJ |language=en |chapter=Introduction |access-date=31 May 2024 |archive-date=2 November 2023 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20231102231841/https://books.google.com/books?id=EfvADwAAQBAJ |url-status=live }}</ref><ref name="Arragon2015"/> Controversies in sex education involve both biological aspects, such as the functioning of [[sex organs]], and social aspects, such as [[Human sexual activity|sexual practices]] and [[gender identities]]. Disagreements in this area concern which aspects are taught and in which detail as well as to which age groups these teachings should be directed.<ref name="BritannicaPhilosophyOfEducation"/><ref name="Allison"/><ref>{{cite journal |last1=Khubchandani |first1=Jagdish |last2=Clark |first2=Jeffrey |last3=Kumar |first3=Raman |title=Beyond Controversies: Sexuality Education for Adolescents in India |journal=Journal of Family Medicine and Primary Care |date=2014 |volume=3 |issue=3 |pages=175–179 |doi=10.4103/2249-4863.141588 |pmid=25374847 |pmc=4209665 |issn=2249-4863 |doi-access=free }}</ref> Debates on religious education include questions like whether [[religion]] should be taught as a distinct subject and, if so, whether it should be compulsory. Other questions include which religion or religions should be taught and to what degree religious views should influence other topics, such as [[ethics]] or sex education.<ref name="Barnes2019"/><ref name="Arragon2015">{{cite book |last1=Arragon |first1=Leo Van |last2=Beaman |first2=Lori G. |title=Issues in Religion and Education |date=1 January 2015 |publisher=Brill |isbn=978-90-04-28981-9 |url=https://brill.com/view/book/9789004289819/B9789004289819-s002.xml |language=en |chapter=Introduction |access-date=31 May 2024 |archive-date=16 June 2022 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20220616032249/https://brill.com/view/book/9789004289819/B9789004289819-s002.xml |url-status=live }}</ref>
Another prominent topic in this field concerns the subject of [[moral education]]. This field is sometimes referred to as "educational ethics". Disagreements in this field concern which moral beliefs and [[Value (ethics)|values]] should be taught to the students. This way, many of the disagreements in moral philosophy are reflected in the field of moral education.<ref name="BritannicaPhilosophyOfEducation"/> Some theorists in the [[Kantianism|Kantian tradition]] emphasize the importance of [[moral reasoning]] and enabling children to become morally [[autonomous]] agents who can tell right from wrong.<ref name="RoutledgeEducation"/> Theorists in the [[Aristotelianism|Aristotelian tradition]], on the other hand, focus more on moral [[habituation]] through the development of [[virtue]]s that concern both perception, affect, and judgment in regard to moral situations.<ref name="RoutledgeEducation"/> A related issue, heavily discussed in [[ancient philosophy]], is the extent to which [[morality]] can be taught at all instead of just being an inborn disposition.<ref>{{cite journal |last1=Desjardins |first1=Rosemary |title=Knowledge and Virtue: Paradox in Plato's "Meno" |journal=The Review of Metaphysics |date=1985 |volume=39 |issue=2 |pages=261–281 |jstor=20128314 |url=https://www.jstor.org/stable/20128314 |issn=0034-6632 |access-date=2024-05-31 |archive-date=2023-11-02 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20231102231821/https://www.jstor.org/stable/20128314 |url-status=live }}</ref><ref>{{cite web |last1=Gordon |first1=John-Stewart |title=Modern Morality and Ancient Ethics |url=https://iep.utm.edu/modern-morality-ancient-ethics/ |website=Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy |access-date=1 April 2022 |archive-date=25 March 2022 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20220325130203/https://iep.utm.edu/modern-morality-ancient-ethics/ |url-status=live }}</ref>
Various discussions also concern the role of [[art]] and [[aesthetics]] in public education. It has been argued that the [[creativity]] learned in these areas can be applied to various other fields and may thereby benefit the student in various ways. It has been argued that aesthetic education also has indirect effects on various other issues, such as shaping the student's sensibilities in the fields of morality and politics as well as heightening their awareness of self and others.<ref name="RoutledgeEducation"/><ref>{{cite journal |last1=Heybach |first1=Jessica A. |title=Aesthetics and Education |journal=Oxford Research Encyclopedia of Education |date=27 August 2020 |doi=10.1093/acrefore/9780190264093.013.413 |isbn=978-0-19-026409-3 |url=https://oxfordre.com/education/view/10.1093/acrefore/9780190264093.001.0001/acrefore-9780190264093-e-413 |language=en |access-date=31 May 2024 |archive-date=30 September 2022 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20220930162756/https://oxfordre.com/education/view/10.1093/acrefore/9780190264093.001.0001/acrefore-9780190264093-e-413 |url-status=live }}</ref><ref>{{cite journal |last1=Smith |first1=Ralph A. |title=The Relations of Philosophy of Education to Aesthetic Education |journal=Journal of Aesthetic Education |date=1969 |volume=3 |issue=2 |pages=161–164 |doi=10.2307/3331533 |jstor=3331533 |url=https://www.jstor.org/stable/3331533 |issn=0021-8510 |access-date=2024-05-31 |archive-date=2023-11-02 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20231102183418/https://www.jstor.org/stable/3331533 |url-status=live }}</ref>
Some researchers reject the possibility of [[Objectivity (science)|objectivity]] in general. They use this claim to argue against universal forms of education, which they see as hiding particular [[worldview]]s, beliefs, and interests under a false cover.<ref name="BritannicaPhilosophyOfEducation"/> This is sometimes utilized to advance an approach focused on more diversity, for example, by giving more prominence in education to the great variety of cultures, customs, languages, and lifestyles without giving preference to any of them.<ref name="BritannicaPhilosophyOfEducation"/><ref name="RoutledgeEducation"/>
Different approaches to solving these disputes are employed. In some cases, [[psychology]] in the field of [[child development]], [[learning]], and [[motivation]] can provide important general insights.<ref name="RoutledgeEducation"/><ref>{{cite journal |last1=Ogden |first1=Robert Morris |title=The relation of psychology to philosophy and education. |journal=Psychological Review |date=1913 |volume=20 |issue=3 |pages=179–193 |doi=10.1037/h0072120 |url=https://doi.org/10.1037/h0072120 |language=en |issn=0033-295X |access-date=2024-05-31 |archive-date=2024-05-31 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20240531092737/https://psycnet.apa.org/api/request/browsePA.getJournals |url-status=live }}</ref> More specific questions about the curriculum of a particular subject, such as [[mathematics]], are often strongly influenced by the philosophy of this specific discipline, such as the [[philosophy of mathematics]].<ref name="RoutledgeEducation"/><ref>{{cite book |last1=Ernest |first1=Paul |last2=Skovsmose |first2=Ole |last3=van Bendegem |first3=Jean Paul |last4=Bicudo |first4=Maria |last5=Miarka |first5=Roger |last6=Kvasz |first6=Ladislav |last7=Moeller |first7=Regina |series=ICME-13 Topical Surveys |title=The Philosophy of Mathematics Education |date=2016 |publisher=Springer International Publishing |isbn=978-3-319-40569-8 |pages=1–26 |url=https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-3-319-40569-8_1 |language=en |doi=10.1007/978-3-319-40569-8_1 |access-date=2024-05-31 |archive-date=2023-12-09 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20231209174341/https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-3-319-40569-8_1 |url-status=live }}</ref>
=== Power ===
The problem of [[Power (social and political)|power]] is another issue in the philosophy of education. Of specific interest on this topic is that the modern states compel children to attend school, so-called [[compulsory education]].<ref name="BritannicaPhilosophyOfEducation"/><ref name="Moss2012">{{cite book |last1=Moss |first1=Peter |title=Early Childhood and Compulsory Education: Reconceptualising the relationship |date=27 November 2012 |publisher=Routledge |isbn=978-1-136-16933-5 |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=-kYg1Uyxm1UC |language=en |chapter=1. The relationshipt between early childhood and compulsory education |access-date=31 May 2024 |archive-date=2 November 2023 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20231102183412/https://books.google.com/books?id=-kYg1Uyxm1UC |url-status=live }}</ref> The children and their parents usually have few to no ways of opting out or changing the established curriculum. An important question in this respect is why or whether modern states are justified to use this form of power.<ref name="BritannicaPhilosophyOfEducation"/><ref name="Moss2012"/> For example, various liberationist movements belonging to the fields of [[deschooling]] and [[unschooling]] reject this power and argue that the children's welfare is best served in the absence of compulsory schooling in general. This is sometimes based on the idea that the best form of learning does not happen while studying but instead occurs as a side-effect while doing something else.<ref name="RoutledgeEducation"/><ref>{{cite book |last1=Dickerson |first1=Adam |title=John Holt: The Philosophy of Unschooling |date=17 May 2019 |publisher=Springer |isbn=978-3-030-18726-2 |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=FQiZDwAAQBAJ |language=en |chapter=1. Only the Experts Shall Speak or Be Heard}}</ref><ref>{{cite book |last1=Griffith |first1=Mary |title=The Unschooling Handbook: How to Use the Whole World As Your Child's Classroom |date=5 May 2010 |publisher=Crown |isbn=978-0-307-48970-8 |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=qVFmz38KA8cC |language=en |chapter=Introduction |access-date=31 May 2024 |archive-date=2 November 2023 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20231102183412/https://books.google.com/books?id=qVFmz38KA8cC |url-status=live }}</ref> This position is often rejected by pointing out that it is based on overly optimistic presuppositions about the children's natural and unguided development of [[rationality]].<ref name="RoutledgeEducation"/> While some objections focus on compulsory education in general, a less radical and more common criticism concerns specific compulsory topics in the curriculum, for example, in relation to sexuality or religion. Another contemporary debate in the United States concerns the practice of standardized testing: it has been argued that this discriminates against certain racial, cultural, or religious minorities since the standardized test may implicitly assume various presuppositions not shared by these minorities.<ref name="BritannicaPhilosophyOfEducation"/><ref name="Beuchert"/><ref name="Knoester2017"/> Other issues in relation to power concern the authority and responsibility teachers have towards their students.<ref name="BritannicaPhilosophyOfEducation"/>
[[Postmodernism|Postmodern]] theorists often see established educational practices as instruments of power used by elites in society to further their own interests.<ref name="BritannicaPhilosophyOfEducation"/><ref name="StanfordPhilosophyOfEducation"/> Important aspects in this regard are the unequal power relation between the state and its institutions in contrast to the individual as well as the control that can thus be employed due to the close connection between [[Power-knowledge|power and knowledge]], specifically the knowledge passed on through education.<ref>{{cite journal |last1=Leonard |first1=Peter |title=KNOWLEDGE/POWER AND POSTMODERNISM: Implications for the Practice of a Critical Social Work Education |journal=Canadian Social Work Review / Revue canadienne de service social |date=1994 |volume=11 |issue=1 |pages=11–26 |jstor=41669550 |url=https://www.jstor.org/stable/41669550 |issn=0820-909X |access-date=2024-05-31 |archive-date=2023-11-02 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20231102183417/https://www.jstor.org/stable/41669550 |url-status=live }}</ref><ref>{{cite journal |last1=RØMER |first1=THOMAS AASTRUP |title=Postmodern Education and the Concept of Power |journal=Educational Philosophy and Theory |date=January 2011 |volume=43 |issue=7 |pages=755–772 |doi=10.1111/j.1469-5812.2009.00566.x |s2cid=219541268 |url=https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/j.1469-5812.2009.00566.x |issn=0013-1857 |access-date=2024-05-31 |archive-date=2023-11-02 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20231102183412/https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/j.1469-5812.2009.00566.x |url-status=live }}</ref><ref>{{cite book |last1=Burbules |first1=Nicholas C. |title=The Oxford Handbook of Philosophy of Education |date=30 October 2009 |url=https://www.oxfordhandbooks.com/view/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780195312881.001.0001/oxfordhb-9780195312881-e-029?rskey=RMXvXj&result=4&q=action |language=en |chapter=Postmodernism and Education |access-date=31 May 2024 |archive-date=31 May 2024 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20240531092737/https://academic.oup.com/edited-volume/28239/chapter-abstract/213341678?redirectedFrom=fulltext |url-status=live }}</ref>
=== Equality ===
A recurrent demand on public education is that all students should be treated equally and in a fair manner.<ref name="RoutledgeEducation"/> One reason for this demand is that education plays a central role for the child's path and prospects in life, which should not be limited by unfair or arbitrary external circumstances.<ref name="StanfordEquality">{{cite web |last1=Shields |first1=Liam |last2=Newman |first2=Anne |last3=Satz |first3=Debra |title=Equality of Educational Opportunity |url=https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/equal-ed-opportunity/ |website=The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy |publisher=Metaphysics Research Lab, Stanford University |date=2017 |access-date=2024-05-31 |archive-date=2024-05-31 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20240531092734/https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/equal-ed-opportunity/ |url-status=live }}</ref> But there are various disagreements about how this demand is best understood and whether it is applicable in all cases. An initial problem concerns what is meant by "[[Social equality|equality]]". In the field of education, it is often understood as [[equality of opportunity]]. In this sense, the demand for equality implies that education should open the same opportunities to everyone. This means, among other things, that students from higher social classes should not enjoy a competitive advantage over others.<ref name="StanfordPhilosophyOfEducation"/><ref name="StanfordEquality"/> One difficulty with this demand, when understood in a wide sense, is that there are many sources of [[educational inequality]] and it is not always in the best interest to eliminate all of them. For example, parents who are concerned with their young children's education may read them bedtime stories early on and thereby provide them with a certain advantage over other children who do not enjoy this privilege. But disallowing such practices to level the field would have serious negative side-effects.<ref name="StanfordEquality"/> A weaker position on this issue does not demand full equality but holds instead that educational policies should ensure that certain factors, like [[Race (human categorization)|race]], [[native language]], and [[disabilities]], do not pose obstacles to the equality of opportunity.<ref name="RoutledgeEducation"/>
A closely related topic is whether all students, both high and low performers, should be treated equally. According to some, more resources should be dedicated to low performers, to help them get to an average level, while others recommend a preferential treatment for high performers in order to help them fully develop their exceptional abilities and thereby benefit society at large.<ref name="BritannicaPhilosophyOfEducation"/><ref name="StanfordPhilosophyOfEducation"/><ref name="RoutledgeEducation"/> A similar problem is the issue of specialization. It concerns the question of whether all students should follow the same curriculum or to what extent they should specialize early on in specific fields according to their interests and skills.<ref name="BritannicaPhilosophyOfEducation"/><ref name="StanfordPhilosophyOfEducation"/>
[[Marxism|Marxist]] critiques of the school systems in [[Capitalism|capitalist]] societies often focus on the inequality they cause by sorting students for different economic positions. While overtly this process happens based on individual effort and desert, they argue that this just masks and reinforces the underlying influence of the preexisting [[Social class|social class structure]].<ref name="RoutledgeEducation"/><ref name="Cole2019">{{cite journal |last1=Cole |first1=Mike |title=Marxism and Educational Theory |journal=Oxford Research Encyclopedia of Education |date=25 January 2019 |doi=10.1093/acrefore/9780190264093.013.105 |isbn=978-0-19-026409-3 |url=https://oxfordre.com/education/view/10.1093/acrefore/9780190264093.001.0001/acrefore-9780190264093-e-105 |language=en |access-date=31 May 2024 |archive-date=12 November 2021 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20211112000118/https://oxfordre.com/education/view/10.1093/acrefore/9780190264093.001.0001/acrefore-9780190264093-e-105 |url-status=live }}</ref><ref name="Hickox1982">{{cite journal |last1=Hickox |first1=M. S. H. |title=The Marxist Sociology of Education: A Critique |journal=The British Journal of Sociology |date=1982 |volume=33 |issue=4 |pages=563–578 |doi=10.2307/589362 |jstor=589362 |url=https://www.jstor.org/stable/589362 |issn=0007-1315}}</ref> This is sometimes integrated into a wider Marxist perspective on society which holds that education in capitalist societies plays the role of upholding this inequality and thereby reproduces the [[Capitalist mode of production (Marxist theory)|capitalist relations of production]].<ref name="Hickox1982"/><ref name="Cole2019"/>
Other criticisms of the dominant paradigms in education are often voiced by [[Feminism|feminist]] and postmodern theorists.<ref name="BritannicaPhilosophyOfEducation"/> They usually point to alleged biases and forms of discrimination present in current practices that should be eliminated. Feminists often hold that traditional education is overly man-oriented and thereby oppresses women in some form.<ref name="Noddings2009">{{cite book |last1=Noddings |first1=Nel |title=The Oxford Handbook of Philosophy of Education |date=30 October 2009 |url=https://www.oxfordhandbooks.com/view/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780195312881.001.0001/oxfordhb-9780195312881-e-028 |language=en |chapter=Feminist Philosophy and Education |access-date=31 May 2024 |archive-date=1 January 2022 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20220101041026/https://www.oxfordhandbooks.com/view/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780195312881.001.0001/oxfordhb-9780195312881-e-028 |url-status=live }}</ref> This bias was present to severe degrees in earlier forms of education and a lot of progress has been made towards more [[gender-equal]] forms of education. Nonetheless, feminists often contend that certain problems still persist in contemporary education. Some argue, for example, that this manifests itself in the prominence given to cognitive development in education, which is said to be associated primarily with [[masculinity]] in contrast to a more [[Femininity|feminine]] approach based on emotion and intuition.<ref name="Noddings2009"/><ref name="BritannicaPhilosophyOfEducation"/> A related criticism holds that there is an overemphasis on abilities belonging to the [[public sphere]], like [[reason]] and [[Objectivity (science)|objectivity]], in contrast to equally important characteristics belonging to the [[private sphere]], like [[compassion]] and [[empathy]].<ref name="BritannicaPhilosophyOfEducation"/>
=== Epistemology ===
The philosophy of education is also interested in the ''epistemology of education''.<ref name="BritannicaPhilosophyOfEducation"/><ref name="StanfordPhilosophyOfEducation"/> This term is often used to talk about the epistemic aims of education, i.e. questions like whether educators should aim at transmitting justified true beliefs rather than merely true beliefs or should additionally foster other epistemic virtues like critical thinking.<ref name="RoutledgeEducation"/><ref name="MacmillanEducationEpistemological"/><ref name="Robertson2009"/> In a different sense, the epistemology of education concerns the issue of how we arrive at knowledge on educational matters. This is especially relevant in the field of educational research, which is an active field of investigation with many studies being published on a regular basis. It is also quite influential in regard to educational policy and practice. Epistemological questions in this field concern the objectivity of its insights.<ref name="BritannicaPhilosophyOfEducation"/><ref name="StanfordPhilosophyOfEducation"/>
An important methodological divide in this area, often referred to as the "paradigm wars", is between the ''quantitative'' or ''statistical approach'' in contrast to the ''qualitative'' or ''ethnographical approach''.<ref name="StanfordPhilosophyOfEducation"/><ref name="BritannicaPhilosophyOfEducation"/><ref name="Pivovarova2020">{{cite journal |last1=Pivovarova |first1=Margarita |last2=Powers |first2=Jeanne M. |last3=Fischman |first3=Gustavo E. |title=Moving Beyond the Paradigm Wars: Emergent Approaches for Education Research |journal=Review of Research in Education |date=March 2020 |volume=44 |issue=1 |pages=vii–xvi |doi=10.3102/0091732x20909400 |s2cid=219092623 |issn=0091-732X|doi-access=free }}</ref><ref name="Galvez2019">{{cite journal |last1=Munoz-Najar Galvez |first1=Sebastian |last2=Heiberger |first2=Raphael |last3=McFarland |first3=Daniel |title=Paradigm Wars Revisited: A Cartography of Graduate Research in the Field of Education (1980–2010) |journal=American Educational Research Journal |date=9 July 2019 |volume=57 |issue=2 |pages=612–652 |doi=10.3102/0002831219860511 |s2cid=199141723 |issn=0002-8312|doi-access=free }}</ref><ref name="Gage1989">{{cite journal |last1=Gage |first1=N. L. |title=The Paradigm Wars and Their Aftermath: A "Historical" Sketch of Research on Teaching since 1989 |journal=Educational Researcher |date=1989 |volume=18 |issue=7 |pages=4–10 |doi=10.2307/1177163 |jstor=1177163 |url=https://www.jstor.org/stable/1177163 |issn=0013-189X |access-date=2024-05-31 |archive-date=2023-11-02 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20231102183417/https://www.jstor.org/stable/1177163 |url-status=live }}</ref> The quantitative approach usually focuses on wide [[experimental studies]] and employs [[statistical method]]s to uncover the general causal factors responsible for educational phenomena. It has been criticized based on the claim that its method, which is inspired by the [[natural sciences]], is inappropriate for understanding the complex cultural and motivational patterns investigated by the [[social sciences]]. The qualitative approach, on the other hand, gives more weight to particular case studies for reaching its conclusions. Its opponents hold that this approach lacks the methodological rigor to arrive at well-warranted knowledge.<ref name="StanfordPhilosophyOfEducation"/><ref name="Pivovarova2020"/><ref name="Galvez2019"/><ref name="Gage1989"/> The ''mixed-method research'' is a recent contemporary approach in which the methods of both camps are combined. The question of the most promising approach is relevant to how funding budgets are spent on research, which in its turn has important implications for policymaking.<ref name="StanfordPhilosophyOfEducation"/>
=== Others ===
One question concerns how the learners are to be conceptualized. [[John Locke]] sees the mind as a blank slate or a [[tabula rasa]] that passively absorbs information and is filled with contents through [[experience]]. This view contrasts with a more [[Pragmatism|pragmatist]] perspective, which in its emphasis on practice sees students not as passive absorbers but as active learners that should be encouraged to discover and learn things by themselves.<ref name="BritannicaPhilosophyOfEducation"/><ref>{{cite journal |last1=Androne |first1=Mihai |title=Notes on John Locke's Views on Education |journal=Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences |date=9 July 2014 |volume=137 |pages=74–79 |doi=10.1016/j.sbspro.2014.05.255 |language=en |issn=1877-0428|doi-access=free }}</ref><ref>{{cite book |last1=Curren |first1=Randall |title=The Oxford Handbook of Philosophy of Education |date=30 October 2009 |url=https://www.oxfordhandbooks.com/view/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780195312881.001.0001/oxfordhb-9780195312881-e-027 |language=en |chapter=Pragmatist Philosophy of Education |access-date=31 May 2024 |archive-date=30 December 2021 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20211230032828/https://www.oxfordhandbooks.com/view/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780195312881.001.0001/oxfordhb-9780195312881-e-027 |url-status=live }}</ref>
Another disputed topic is the role of [[Test (assessment)|testing]] in public education. Some theorists have argued that it is counterproductive since it puts undue pressure on the students.<ref name="BritannicaPhilosophyOfEducation"/> But testing also plays various critical roles, such as providing feedback on the learning progress both to the student, their parents, and their teachers. Concrete discussions on the role of testing often focus less on whether it should be done at all and more on how much importance should be ascribed to the test results.<ref>{{cite journal |last1=Smith |first1=William C. |last2=Holloway |first2=Jessica |title=School testing culture and teacher satisfaction |journal=Educational Assessment, Evaluation and Accountability |date=1 November 2020 |volume=32 |issue=4 |pages=461–479 |doi=10.1007/s11092-020-09342-8 |s2cid=228904306 |language=en |issn=1874-8600|doi-access=free |hdl=10536/DRO/DU:30146806 |hdl-access=free }}</ref> This also includes questions about the form of testing, for example, whether it should be [[Standardized test|standardized]].<ref name="BritannicaPhilosophyOfEducation"/><ref name="Beuchert">{{cite journal |last1=Beuchert |first1=Louise |last2=Eriksen |first2=Tine Louise Mundbjerg |last3=Krægpøth |first3=Morten Visby |title=The impact of standardized test feedback in math: Exploiting a natural experiment in 3rd grade |journal=Economics of Education Review |date=1 August 2020 |volume=77 |pages=102017 |doi=10.1016/j.econedurev.2020.102017 |s2cid=225349085 |url=https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0272775719307642 |language=en |issn=0272-7757 |access-date=31 May 2024 |archive-date=2 November 2023 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20231102183806/https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0272775719307642 |url-status=live }}</ref> Standardized tests present the same questions and scoring system to all students taking the test and are often motivated by a desire for objective and fair evaluations both of students and schools. Opponents have argued that this approach tends to favor certain social groups over others and severely limits the creativity and effectiveness of teachers.<ref name="BritannicaPhilosophyOfEducation"/><ref name="Knoester2017">{{cite journal |last1=Knoester |first1=Matthew |last2=Au |first2=Wayne |title=Standardized testing and school segregation: like tinder for fire? |journal=Race Ethnicity and Education |date=2 January 2017 |volume=20 |issue=1 |pages=1–14 |doi=10.1080/13613324.2015.1121474 |s2cid=146223396 |issn=1361-3324|doi-access=free }}</ref>
== Philosophical movements ==
Line 102 ⟶ 107:
===Essentialism===
{{Main|Educational essentialism}}
===Social reconstructionism and critical pedagogy===
Line 116 ⟶ 119:
=== Progressivism ===
{{Main|Educational progressivism}}
Educational progressivism is the belief that education must be based on the principle that humans are [[social animals]] who learn best in real-life activities with other people. [[Progressivism|Progressivists]], like proponents of most educational theories, claim to rely on the best available scientific theories of learning. Most progressive educators believe that children learn as if they were scientists, following a process similar to John Dewey's model of learning known as "the pattern of inquiry":<ref>{{Cite book |url=https://archive.org/details/logictheoryofinq00dewe |title=Logic, the theory of inquiry |last=Dewey |first=John |date=1938 |publisher=New York, H. Holt and Company}}</ref> 1) Become aware of the problem. 2) Define the problem. 3) Propose hypotheses to solve it. 4) Evaluate the consequences of the hypotheses from one's past experience. 5) Test the likeliest solution.[https://books.google.com/books?
===Unschooling===
{{Main|Unschooling}}
Unschooling is a range of [[education]]al philosophies and practices centered on allowing [[child]]ren to [[learn]] through their natural life experiences, including child directed [[play (activity)|play]], [[game]] play, [[household]] responsibilities, work experience, and [[social interaction]], rather than through a more traditional school curriculum. Unschooling encourages exploration of activities led by the children themselves, facilitated by the adults. Unschooling differs from conventional schooling principally in the thesis that standard [[curricula]] and conventional [[
===Contemplative education===
[[Contemplative education]] focuses on bringing introspective practices such as mindfulness and yoga into curricular and pedagogical processes for diverse aims grounded in secular, spiritual, religious and post-secular perspectives.<ref>{{cite book |last1=Lewin |first1=David |title=Educational philosophy for a post-secular age |date=2016 |publisher=Routledge |isbn=978-1138923669}}</ref><ref>{{cite journal |last1=Ergas |first1=Oren |title=Mindfulness in education at the intersection of science, religion, and healing |journal=Critical Studies in Education |date=13 December 2013 |volume=55 |issue=1 |pages=58–72 |doi=10.1080/17508487.2014.858643 |s2cid=144860756}}</ref> Contemplative approaches may be used in the classroom, especially in tertiary or (often in modified form) in secondary education. [[Parker Palmer]] is a recent pioneer in contemplative methods. [[The Center for Contemplative Mind in Society]] founded a branch focusing on education, [[The Association for Contemplative Mind in Higher Education]].
Contemplative methods may also be used by teachers in their preparation; [[Waldorf education]] was one of the pioneers of the latter approach. In this case, inspiration for enriching the content, format, or teaching methods may be sought through various practices, such as consciously reviewing the previous day's activities; actively holding the students in consciousness; and contemplating inspiring pedagogical texts. Zigler suggested that only through focusing on their own spiritual development could teachers positively impact the spiritual development of students.<ref>{{cite journal |last=Zigler |first=Ronald Lee |title=Tacit Knowledge and Spiritual Pedagogy |journal=Journal of Beliefs & Values: Studies in Religion and Education |year=1999 |volume=20 |issue=2 |pages=162–172 |doi=10.1080/1361767990200202}}</ref>
Line 129 ⟶ 132:
== History ==
{{Overly detailed|section|date=April 2022}}
=== Ancient ===
==== Plato ====
Line 228 ⟶ 232:
In ''[[Democracy and Education|Democracy and Education: An Introduction to the Philosophy of Education]]'', [[John Dewey]] stated that education, in its broadest sense, is the means of the "social continuity of life" given the "primary ineluctable facts of the birth and death of each one of the constituent members in a social group". Education is therefore a necessity, for "the life of the group goes on."<ref>{{Cite web |title=Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy |url=http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/education-philosophy/ |access-date=22 December 2008 |archive-date=10 July 2010 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20100710165726/http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/education-philosophy/ |url-status=live }}</ref> Dewey was a proponent of [[Educational Progressivism]] and was a relentless campaigner for reform of education, pointing out that the [[authoritarian]], strict, pre-ordained knowledge approach of modern traditional education was too concerned with delivering knowledge, and not enough with understanding students' actual experiences.<ref>Neil, J. (2005) [http://wilderdom.com/experiential/ExperientialDewey.html John Dewey, the Modern Father of Experiential Education] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20170723045512/http://www.wilderdom.com/experiential/ExperientialDewey.html |date=2017-07-23 }}. Wilderdom.com. Retrieved 6/12/07.</ref>
In 1896, Dewey opened the Laboratory School at the University of Chicago in an institutional effort to pursue together rather than apart "utility and culture, absorption and expression, theory and practice, [which] are [indispensable] elements in any educational scheme.<ref>{{Cite journal |last=Dewey |first=John |date=1904 |title=Significance of the School of Education |jstor=992709 |journal=The Elementary School Teacher |volume=4 |issue=7 |pages=441–453 |doi=10.1086/453348|doi-access=
====Maria Montessori====
Line 244 ⟶ 248:
====Martin Heidegger====
[[Martin Heidegger]]'s philosophizing about education was primarily related to higher education. He believed that teaching and research in the university should be unified and
====Jean Piaget====
Line 253 ⟶ 257:
====Mortimer Jerome Adler====
[[Mortimer Jerome Adler]] was an [[American philosopher]], educator, and popular author. As a philosopher he worked within the [[Aristotelianism|Aristotelian]] and [[Thomistic]] traditions. He lived for the longest stretches in [[New York City]], [[Chicago]], [[San Francisco]], and [[San Mateo, California]]. He worked for [[Columbia University]], the [[University of Chicago]], [[Encyclopædia Britannica]], and Adler's own Institute for Philosophical Research. Adler was married twice and had four children.<ref name="NYT Obit">{{cite news| url = https://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9C07E6D71739F93AA15755C0A9679C8B63&sec=&spon=&pagewanted=all| title = William Grimes, "Mortimer Adler, 98, Dies; Helped Create Study of Classics," New York Times, June 29, 2001| newspaper = The New York Times| date = 29 June 2001| last1 = Grimes| first1 = William| access-date = 31 May 2024| archive-date = 31 May 2024| archive-url = https://web.archive.org/web/20240531093737/https://www.nytimes.com/2001/06/29/nyregion/mortimer-adler-98-dies-helped-create-study-of-classics.html| url-status = live}}</ref> Adler was a proponent of [[educational perennialism]].
====Harry S. Broudy====
Line 301 ⟶ 305:
==See also==
{{Portal|Philosophy|Education}}
* [[Education sciences]]
* [[Methodology]]
* [[Learning theory (education)]]
Line 314 ⟶ 319:
*''A Companion to the Philosophy of Education'' (Blackwell Companions to Philosophy), ed. by Randall Curren, Paperback edition, 2006, {{ISBN|1-4051-4051-8}}.
*''The Blackwell Guide to the Philosophy of Education'', ed. by Nigel Blake, Paul Smeyers, Richard Smith, and Paul Standish, Paperback edition, 2003, {{ISBN|0-631-22119-0}}.
* {{Cite book |last1=Hebert |first1=David G. |editor-first1=David G. |editor-last1=Hebert |title=Comparative and Decolonial Studies in Philosophy of Education |date=2023-02-11 |url=https://link.springer.com/book/10.1007/978-981-99-0139-5 |language=en |isbn=978-981-99-0138-8 |publisher=Springer Press |doi=10.1007/978-981-99-0139-5 |s2cid=257585276 |df=mdy-all }}
* {{Cite book |last1=Hytten |first1=Kathy |title=The Oxford Encyclopedia of Philosophy of Education |date=2022-06-23 |url=https://www.oxfordreference.com/view/10.1093/acref/9780190919726.001.0001/acref-9780190919726 |language=en |isbn=978-0-19-091972-6 |publisher=Oxford University Press |df=mdy-all }}
*''Philosophy of Education'' (Westview Press, Dimension of Philosophy Series), by Nel Noddings, Paperback edition, 1995, {{ISBN|0-8133-8430-3}}.
* Andre Kraak, Michael ''Young Education in Retrospect: Policy And Implementation Since 1990'' [https://books.google.com/books?
* Daan Thoomes, ''The necessity of education''. In: ''The History of education and childhood''. Radboud University, Nijmegen, 2000 [https://dspace.library.uu.nl/handle/1874/33639]
Line 325 ⟶ 331:
* ''[https://oxfordre.com/education/page/philosophy-ed Encyclopedia of Philosophy of Education]''
* [http://www.ibe.unesco.org/en/document/thinkers-education Thinkers of Education. UNESCO-International Bureau of Education website]
{{Philosophy of education}}
{{Philosophy topics}}
{{Education}}
▲{{Philosophy of education}}
{{Social and political philosophy}}
{{Authority control}}
| |||