File Name: philosophical and sociological bases of education .zip
Burbules Nathan Raybeck. The word education is used sometimes to signify the activity, process, or enterprise of educating or being educated and sometimes to signify the discipline or field of study taught in schools of education that concerns itself with this activity, process, or enterprise.
As an activity or process, education may be formal or informal, private or public, individual or social, but it always consists in cultivating dispositions abilities, skills, knowledges, beliefs, attitudes, values, and character traits by certain methods. As a discipline, education studies or reflects on the activity or enterprise by asking questions about its aims, methods, effects, forms, history, costs, value, and relations to society.
The philosophy of education may be either the philosophy of the process of education or the philosophy of the discipline of education. That is, it may be part of the discipline in the sense of being concerned with the aims, forms, methods, or results of the process of educating or being educated; or it may be metadisciplinary in the sense of being concerned with the concepts, aims, and methods of the discipline. However, even in the latter case it may be thought of as part of the discipline, just as metaphilosophy is thought of as a part of philosophy, although the philosophy of science is not regarded as a part of science.
Historically, philosophies of education have usually taken the first form, but under the influence of analytical philosophy, they have sometimes taken the second.
In the first form, philosophy of education was traditionally developed by philosophers—for example, Aristotle, Augustine, and John Locke—as part of their philosophical systems, in the context of their ethical theories.
However, in the twentieth century philosophy of education tended to be developed in schools of education in the context of what is called foundations of education, thus linking it with other parts of the discipline of education—educational history, psychology, and sociology—rather than with other parts of philosophy.
It was also developed by writers such as Paul Goodman and Robert M. Hutchins who were neither professional philosophers nor members of schools of education. As there are many kinds of philosophy, many philosophies, and many ways of philosophizing, so there are many kinds of educational philosophy and ways of doing it.
In a sense there is no such thing as the philosophy of education; there are only philosophies of education that can be classified in many different ways. Philosophy of education as such does not describe, compare, or explain any enterprises to systems of education, past or present; except insofar as it is concerned with the tracing of its own history, it leaves such inquiries to the history and sociology of education. Analytical philosophy of education is meta to the discipline of education—to all the inquiries and thinking about education—in the sense that it does not seek to propound substantive propositions, either factual or normative, about education.
It conceives of its task as that of analysis: the definition or elucidation of educational concepts like teaching, indoctrination, ability, and trait, including the concept of education itself; the clarification and criticism of educational slogans like "Teach children, not subjects"; the exploration of models used in thinking about education e. To accomplish this task, analytical philosophy uses the tools of logic and linguistics as well as techniques of analysis that vary from philosopher to philosopher.
Its results may be valued for their own sake, but they may also be helpful to those who seek more substantive empirical of normative conclusions about education and who try to be careful about how they reach them. This entry is itself an exercise in analytical philosophy of education. Normative philosophies or theories of education may make use of the results of such analytical work and of factual inquiries about human beings and the psychology of learning, but in any case they propound views about what education should be, what dispositions it should cultivate, why it ought to cultivate them, how and in whom it should do so, and what forms it should take.
Some such normative theory of education is implied in every instance of educational endeavor, for whatever education is purposely engaged in, it explicitly or implicitly assumed that certain dispositions are desirable and that certain methods are to be used in acquiring or fostering them, and any view on such matters is a normative theory of philosophy of education.
But not all such theories may be regarded as properly philosophical. They may, in fact, be of several sorts. Some simply seek to foster the dispositions regarded as desirable by a society using methods laid down by its culture. Here both the ends and the means of education are defined by the cultural tradition.
Others also look to the prevailing culture for the dispositions to be fostered but appeal as well to experience, possibly even to science, for the methods to be used. In a more pluralistic society, an educational theory of a sort may arise as a compromise between conflicting views about the aids, if not the methods, of education, especially in the case of public schools.
Then, individuals or groups within the society may have conflicting full-fledged philosophies of education, but the public philosophy of education is a working accommodation between them. More comprehensive theories of education rest their views about the aims and methods of education neither on the prevailing culture nor on compromise but on basic factual premises about humans and their world and on basic normative premises about what is good or right for individuals to seek or do.
Proponents of such theories may reach their premises either by reason including science and philosophy or by faith and divine authority. Both types of theories are called philosophies of education, but only those based on reason and philosophy are properly philosophical in character; the others might better be called theologies of education.
Even those that are purely philosophical may vary in complexity and sophistication. In such a full-fledged philosophical normative theory of education, besides analysis of the sorts described, there will normally be propositions of the following kinds:.
For example, Aristotle argued that the Good equals happiness equals excellent activity; that for a individual there are two kinds of excellent activity, one intellectual e. In general, the more properly philosophical part of such a full normative theory of education will be the proposition it asserts in 1 , 2 , and 3 ; for the propositions in 4 and hence 5 it will, given those in 3 , most appropriately appeal to experience and science.
Different philosophers will hold different views about the propositions they use in 1 and 2 and the ways in which these propositions may be established. Although some normative premises are required in 1 as a basis for any line of reasoning leading to conclusions in 3 or 5 about what education should foster or how it should do this, the premises appearing in 2 may be of various sorts—empirical, scientific, historical, metaphysical, theological, or epistemological.
No one kind of premise is always necessary in 2 in every educational context. Different philosophers of education will, in any case, have different views about what sorts of premises it is permissible to appeal to in 2.
All must agree, however, that normative premises of the kind indicated in 1 must be appealed to. Thus, what is central and crucial in any normative philosophy of education is not epistemology, metaphysics, or theology, as is sometimes thought, but ethics, value theory, and social philosophy.
Let us assume, as we have been doing, that philosophy may be analytical, speculative, or narrative and remember that it is normally going on in a society in which there already is an educational system. Then, in the first place, philosophy may turn its attention to education, thus generating philosophy of education proper and becoming part of the discipline of education.
Second, general philosophy may be one of the subjects in the curriculum of higher education and philosophy of education may be, and presumably should be, part of the curriculum of teacher education, if teachers are to think clearly and carefully about what they are doing.
Third, in a society in which there is a single system of education governed by a single prevailing theory of education, a philosopher may do any of four things with respect to education: he may analyze the concepts and reasoning used in connection with education in order to make people's thinking about it as clear, explicit, and logical as possible; he may seek to support the prevailing system by providing more philosophical arguments for the dispositions aimed at and the methods used; he may criticize the system and seek to reform it in the light of some more philosophical theory of education he has arrived at; or he may simply teach logic and philosophy to future educators and parents in the hope that they will apply them to educational matters.
Fourth, in a pluralistic society like the United States, in which the existing educational enterprise or a large segment of it is based on a working compromise between conflicting views, a philosopher may again do several sorts of things. He may do any of the things just mentioned. In the United States in the first half of the twentieth century professional philosophers tended to do only the last, but at the end of the twentieth century they began to try to do more.
Indeed, there will be more occasions for all of these activities in a pluralistic society, for debate about education will always be going on or threatening to be resumed.
A philosopher may even take the lead in formulating and improving a compromise theory of education. He might then be a mere eclectic, but he need not be, since he might defend his compromise plan on the basis of a whole social philosophy. In particular, he might propound a whole public philosophy for public school education, making clear which dispositions it can and should seek to promote, how it should promote them, and which ones should be left for the home, the church, and other private means of education to cultivate.
In any case, he might advocate appealing to scientific inquiry and experiment whenever possible. A philosopher may also work out a fully developed educational philosophy of his own and start an experimental school in which to put it into practice, as John Dewey did; like Dewey, too, he may even try to persuade his entire society to adopt it. Then he would argue for the desirability of fostering certain dispositions by certain methods, partly on the basis of experience and science and partly on the basis of premises taken from other parts of his philosophy—from his ethics and value theory, from his political and social philosophy, or from his epistemology, metaphysics, or philosophy of mind.
It seems plausible to maintain that in a pluralistic society philosophers should do all of these things, some one and some another. In such a society a philosopher may at least seek to help educators concerned about moral, scientific, historical, aesthetic, or religious education by presenting them, respectively, with a philosophy of morality, science, history, art, or religion from which they may draw conclusions about their aims and methods.
He may also philosophize about the discipline of education, asking whether it is a discipline, what its subject matter is, and what its methods, including the methods of the philosophy of education, should be.
Insofar as the discipline of education is a science and one question here would be whether it is a science this would be a job for the philosopher of science in addition to one just mentioned. Logicians, linguistic philosophers, and philosophers of science may also be able to contribute to the technology of education, as it has come to be called, for example, to the theory of testing or of language instruction.
Finally, in a society that has been broken down by some kind of revolution or has newly emerged from colonialism, a philosopher may even supply a new full-fledged normative philosophy for its educational system, as Karl Marx did for Russia and China. In fact, as in the case of Marx, he may provide the ideology that guided the revolution in the first place. Plato tried to do this for Syracuse, and the philosophes did it for France in the eighteenth century.
Something like this may be done wherever the schools "dare to build a new society," as many ask schools to do. Dewey once said that since education is the process of forming fundamental dispositions toward nature and our fellow human beings, philosophy may even be defined as the most general theory of education.
Here Dewey was thinking that philosophy is the most general normative theory of education, and what he said is true if it means that philosophy, understood in its widest sense as including theology and poetry as well as philosophy proper, is what tells us what to believe and how to feel about humanity and the universe. It is, however, not necessarily true if it refers to philosophy in the narrower sense or means that all philosophy is philosophy of education in the sense of having the guidance of education as its end.
This is not the whole end of classical philosophy or even of philosophy as reconstructed by Dewey; the former aimed at the truth rather than at the guidance of practice, and the latter has other practical ends besides that of guiding the educational enterprise. Certainly, analytical philosophy has other ends. However, although Dewey did not have analytical philosophy in mind, there is nevertheless a sense in which analytical philosophy can also be said to be the most general theory of education.
Although it does not seek to tell us what dispositions we should form, it does analyze and criticize the concepts, arguments, and methods employed in any study of or reflection upon education. Again it does not follow that this is all analytical philosophy is concerned with doing. Even if the other things it does—for example, the philosophy of mind or of science—are useful to educators and normative theorists of education, as, it is hoped, is the case, they are not all developed with this use in mind.
Foundation Disciplines and the Study of Education. Toronto: Macmillan. Philosophical Analysis and Education. New York: Humanities Press. Philosophy of Education. New York: Macmillan. Philosophy for the Study of Education. Boston: Houghton Mifflin. What Is Philosophy of Education?
Modern Movements in Educational Philosophy. Introduction to the Philosophy of Education. London: Routledge. Selected Readings in the Philosophy of Education, 3rd edition.
Philosophy and Education, 2nd edition. Boston: Allyn and Bacon. Philosophy of education is a field characterized not only by broad theoretical eclecticism but also by a perennial dispute, which started in the mid-twentieth century, over what the scope and purposes of the discipline even ought to be. In the "Philosophy of Education" article that was included in the previous edition of this encyclopedia, William Frankena wrote, "In a sense there is no such thing as the philosophy of education" p.
During certain periods of the history of the philosophy of education, there have been dominant perspectives, to be sure: At one time, the field was defined around canonical works on education by great philosophers Plato of ancient Greece, the eighteenth-century Swiss-born Frenchman Jean-Jacques Rousseau, and others ; at other times, the field was dominated, in the United States at least, by the figure of John Dewey — and educational Progressivism; at other times, the field was characterized by an austere analytical approach that explicitly rejected much of what had come before in the field as not even being proper "philosophy" at all.
But even during these periods of dominance there were sharp internal disputes within the field such as feminist criticisms of the "Great Man" approach to philosophy of education and vigorous critiques of the analytical method. Such disputes can be read off the history of the professional societies, journals, and graduate programs that institutionalize the field, and they can be documented through a succession of previous encyclopedia articles, which by definition attempt to define and delimit their subject matter.
These sorts of struggles over the maintenance of the disciplinary boundary, and the attempt to define and enforce certain methods as paramount, are hardly unique to philosophy of education. But such concerns have so preoccupied its practitioners that at times these very questions seem to become the substance of the discipline, nearly to the exclusion of thinking about actual educational problems.
And so it is not very surprising to find, for example, a book such as Philosophers on Education. Consisting of a series of essays written by professional philosophers entirely outside the discipline of philosophy of education, the collection cites almost none of the work published within the discipline; because the philosophers have no doubts about the status of the discipline of philosophy of education, they have few qualms about speaking authoritatively about what philosophy has to say to educators.
On the other hand, a fruitful topic for reflection is whether a more self-critical approach to philosophy of education, even if at times it seems to be pulling up its own roots for examination, might prove more productive for thinking about education, because this very tendency toward self-criticism keeps fundamental questions alive and open to reexamination.
Education takes place in a any society constituted of individuals. It is a social process and has a social function as well as relevance. A school is created by the society and the society is shaped and moulded by the school. Thus, education is both a cause and product of society. It originates in the society and it must fulfil the needs and aspirations of the society.
This introductory article explains the coverage of this book, which is about the philosophical aspects of education. It explains that the philosophy of education is the branch of philosophy that addresses philosophical questions concerning the nature, aims, and problems of education. The book examines the problems concerning the aims and guiding ideals of education. It also explores the problems concerning students' and parents' rights, the best way to understand and conduct moral education, and the character of purported educational ideals. Keywords: education , philosophy , students' rights , parents' rights , moral education , educational ideals.
SOE publishes research that examines how social institutions and individuals 39 experiences within these institutions affect educational processes and social development. The professor when I took this course is Ms. Purpose The purpose of this module is to equip graduate students with knowledge skills and values to understand the sociological dimension of childhood education with special reference to birth to nine years. In the first section of this chapter we give a definition of sociology many of the terms and concepts in sociology of education come directly from sociology.
Social Foundations perspectives comparative, cultural, historical, and philosophical are applied to examine and analyze an educational aspect or issue and Before starting prepare for Studies in the philosophical and Sociological foundations of education explore humanities, sociology, philosophy and the history of educational trends.. Relationship between philosophy and education.
The sociology of education is the study of how public institutions and individual experiences affect education and its outcomes. It is mostly concerned with the public schooling systems of modern industrial societies, including the expansion of higher , further , adult , and continuing education. Education is seen as a fundamentally optimistic human endeavour characterised by aspirations for progress and betterment. Social interactions between people through education is always causing further development no matter what age they are. It is also perceived as one of the best means of achieving greater social equality. Few would argue that any education system accomplishes this goal perfectly.
Save extra with 2 Offers. It is through the power of knowledge, our Philosophers laid a foundation of educational theories, and set a stepping stone for the modern day education system and educational institutions. This book gives a comprehensive account of the fundamental theories laid by the philosophers, and the societys role in shaping them up. Beginning with explaining the theories like Idealism, Naturalism, Pragmatism, and so on, the book moves on to the Philosophers Indian and Western and their contribution to the world of education. The book further goes on explaining the contribution of the society and community in overall development of a child. Besides, the chapters elucidate the role of institutions like school, college and home in inculcating the values in a child. The concluding chapters delve on the concepts of Secularism, Democracy and National integration vis--vis education.
Discussion of Standard I Foundations of Education study employs a number of different disciplinary perspectives to discern how schools equip young people to assume adult positions in American society. The aim of such study is not simply to describe accurately the connection between the internal organization of schools and their socializing mission. Foundations also refers to a tradition of academic inquiry that seeks to expose and make explicit the relationship between educational methods and values.
Save extra with 2 Offers. It is through the power of knowledge, our Philosophers laid a foundation of educational theories, and set a stepping stone for the modern day education system and educational institutions. This book gives a comprehensive account of the fundamental theories laid by the philosophers, and the societys role in shaping them up.
Стратмор был блестящими программистом-криптографом, но его диапазон был ограничен работой с алгоритмами и тонкости этой не столь уж изощренной и устаревшей технологии программирования часто от него ускользали. К тому же Сьюзан написала свой маячок на новом гибридном языке, именуемом LIMBO, поэтому не приходилось удивляться, что Стратмор с ним не справился. - Я возьму это на себя, - улыбнулась она, вставая.
SYLLABUS. Philosophical and Sociological Foundations of Education. Objectives: •. To understand the importance of various philosophical bases of education.