Talk:Philosophy of education/Archive 1

Help

Help with the absences in this article would be much appreciated, particularly with Aristotle and Locke, on both of whom I am weak.--kaleideion

I think the History section is probably long enough already. Do we need a separate article for it?

-- TimNelson (talk) 03:00, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Lock's educational thought should be placed in the Lock's entry. Same for Aristotle. This is a page for the academic field of philosophy of education, not on what any philosopher had to say about education. Sorry --Lhakthong (talk) 02:20, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Hannah Arendt

Hannah Arendt largely avoided education as a subject, but she did so for reasons which are very interesting to educational philosophy. Her thoughts on the subject are recorded in one of the essays collected in Between Past and Future, entitled, "The Crisis in Education." In this essay, Arendt proceeds to argue that any attempt to create democracy through educational methods was a form of tyranny... (Continuation pending)

I have read Arendt essay in german, but that any attempt to create democracy through educational methods was a form of tyranny is nit from her! Look at my german article about that: http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Die_Krise_in_der_Erziehung --Ot 12:08, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Horribly sorry, but I don't know any German. Could you summarize the pertinent points in English? -- कुक्कुरोवाच|Talk‽ 18:35, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Sorry, my english is not good enough to translate it. However, I think that Arendt only make some notes about education - and this notes are about the education system of the USA. For example, she said, that it is not possible to educate (erziehen in german [its hard to get a good english word for that] adults, but it is possible to teach (lehren) adults.--Ot 10:04, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)

[1]. Ahh, Google Translate. -- TimNelson (talk) 03:01, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Democracy

This is a good start to an article; it obviously needs some filling out. I think I know what you are aiming at, but I have serious concerns about claiming the mainstream of educational philosophy to be a democratic tradition. Plato advocated a republic, which is very different from a democracy. Rousseau said about democracy, "Were there a people of gods, their government would be democratic. So perfect a government is not for men," and gave equal voice to democracy, aristocracy and monarchy in his political philosophy. And so on. Democracy is not the word for what they are all seeking. Free individualities? I'm not sure...

I'm also not sure that an article that must preserve a neutral point of view can realistically take one stream as the preferred one. On the other hand, a purely chronological list is probably not ideal, either. I would like to see a differentiation based upon something more viable in the Wikipedia setting.

I deleted a whole paragraph of the introduction (sorry); perhaps some of this is still salvageable. Here it is if someone wishes to revise it and reincorporate it.

There are certain key voices in philosophy of education, who have contributed in large part to our basic understandings of what education is and can be, and who have also provided powerful critical perspectives revealing the problems in education as it has been practiced in various historical circumstances. There is one particular strand in educational philosophy that stands out as of extreme importance in the present time, which may be identified as the "Democratic Tradition", because it is a product of philosophers who, seeking to establish or preserve democracy, turn to education as a method of choice.

how is philosophy related to education?

Philosophy treats of all subjects. There is a philosophy of history, a philosophy of science and a philosophy of education! Hgilbert 00:51, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Source

What is the source on this ??Improvcaptain

Do you mean on anything in particular, or on the whole article itself? Cormaggio ^@ 01:03, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Who came up with the philosophy itself Improvcaptain

my question is how is it the philosophy related to education.....thats what i want to hear fromt he reader......please answer us....philosophist.... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.87.182.142 (talk) 01:16, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Plato

This section is horribly anachronistic and misleading. Plato probably did NOT advocate the educational reforms mouthed by Socrates in the Republic, the City-State formulated therein is likely more thought-experiment than prescription for a actual society. I won't fix the article, because it is exactly this sort of thing that makes me think Wikipedia is hopeless.

... and while we're talking about Plato ...

It is misleading to say "art, which he considered the highest form of endeavor," given what Plato says about art in Book X of the Republic. Solri (talk) 19:49, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

John Holt, unschooling

Shouldn't there be some mention of John Holt and the 'unschooling' philosophy? I think he's probably roughly as relevant to the article as others mentioned, like John Taylor Gatto. I'm going to add a small section. Amillion 04:21, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

The Holt and Freire sections are now far longer - and more detailed - than other persons mentioned in the article. I don't know enough about either to summarize without the risk of chopping off important stuff, so please do something about it.

I'll leave it a bit before setting in with the cleaver, but methinks it might be better to build up from scratch... --Technopat (talk) 12:02, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

John Holt and John Taylor Gatto, as much as I like them (I got started reading them), are not philosophers of education. The latter might be considered an ed theorists but not a philosopher. John Taylor Gatto doesn't stand a chance. Sorry. Lhakthong (talk) 06:10, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Philosophy or theory (Merge)

Does someone want to expound on the difference between education philosophy and education theory - besides the fact that the two articles are completely imbalanced in content? – Freechild (BoomCha) 03:59, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

No difference, basically. I've put in a merge request, and we'll see the response. -- TimNelson (talk) 02:46, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

- Whether there is a difference depends where you are writing from. In the UK as the result of the work of R S Peters, Paul H Hirst, R F Deardon, John & Patrica White, L A Reid and many others, Philosophy of Education has developed as a fairly distinct segment of the academic study of education. In the US, the form of the subject doesn't exist in the same way, though through writers like John Silber and Israel Scheffler, there are some common threads. 88.108.126.42 (talk) 10:08, 10 August 2008 (UTC) pmichael73

Should Seymour Papert be added?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constructionist_learning —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 62.232.221.61 (talk) 12:35, August 22, 2007 (UTC)

After a quick glance over the article, isn't he a part of Educational progressivism? I've added a link to Constructionist learning from that article. It could also be a branch of Constructivism, and I note that article already has an appropriate link.

Maybe the question we should really be asking is, "Who belongs here, and how do we categorise them?

-- TimNelson (talk) 02:54, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Removed from article

I found the following pasted in to the article, under "Content of Education":

* meaning of philosophy and philosophy of education based on analytical school of philosophy
 functions of philosophy ( speculatative, analytical and prescriptive, and conceptual)

It seems to me like it was more like a "list of things that need to be added to this article", so I moved it here.

I don't know where it belongs, but it's not here.

-- TimNelson (talk) 01:53, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Removed from todo list

I found this in the todo list, but it's really a discussion point:

1. The term "counter-philosophy" is used in this article without explanation of what a "counter-philosophy" is. Is this a ligitimate and meaningful term?

-- TimNelson (talk) 02:58, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Education reform merger

I completely disagree with this proposal, and will soon removed the tag if there is no due rationale presented here for the merger. "Education reform" is the topic of millions of citations from across the educational cannon. This is a completely unacceptable proposal. • Freechild'sup? 01:09, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

I completely agree with user Freechild's conclusion; it is completely unacceptable to include Education reform as part of this page for more reasons than can be briefly cited.

-- "New User/wikipedia contributor", with K12 certification and PhD in (jointly) content area and Psychology

I don't believe the Philosophy and Reform pages should be merged.

Education reform should be an ongoing process of improvement

Educational philosophy is a separate content item, and philosophy will have to do until the research is complete. Wikip rhyre (talk) 22:58, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

I fully agree with Wiki rhyre and other editors, on this issue. Can see no reason for, or advantage in, merging the two pages. Common sense rules at Wikipedia! --Technopat (talk) 23:18, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

PS. Apart from the above "debate", both pages need serious work done on 'em. --Technopat (talk) 23:23, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

I guess my point is, "reform" essentially means "change the education system to fit philosophy X better". But maybe if we just put them under "See also...", that would be enough.

-- TimNelson (talk) 03:44, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Since everyone has apparently agreed that they are different topics, and since the threatened merger has been around for almost a year, I just removed it from the main article. --Pordaria (talk) 15:28, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Meatball surgery required On organization and structure of article.

Apart from the overwhelming impression of POV for the article as a whole, the so-called chronological list seems to have gone haywire. As it should be fairly straighforward to sort that out, will do a bit now, but still needs serious work.--Technopat (talk) 23:48, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

I agree. Many philosophers comment on many different things. If we wanted to included every philosopher who said anything about education, this page would take up a terabyte. I suggest we start with people who are philosophers of education as such and those who have monographs or equivalent works dedicated to education and who are, dare I say "canonical". The list should be of people anyone at a philosophy of education conference would recognize and consider such without dissent. At least to start. Some of these would be Plato (Meno), Rousseau (Emile), Dewey (many things), Maxine Greene, etc. I think Hegel's Phenomenology of Spirit is fundamentally about education in its broadest conception and should be included (but that might be a stretch for some). We might want to add people from the analytic tradition as well like Alfred North Whitehead. We should also not exclude people who write about higher education or people not from the Western-Greek lineage. I'm not too familiar with either of the latter two, though, so I can't contribute there. Lhakthong (talk) 06:24, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Upon further consideration, I think it makes more sense to organize the page in terms of the branches of PoE - aesthetics and education, ethics and education, language analysis and education, etc. Within each section, we can mention a couple major thinkers, but we should no go into too much dteail, leaving their thought for their own page. For example, we could mention briefly Maxine Greene in the section on Aesthetics and Education but not talk too much about her. As a philosopher of education, her page should give enough information on her thought. Although philosophers have asked questions regarding education for millenia, Dewey was the beginning of the academic field as such, and the narrative should begin there, perhaps giving a nod to Plato, Aristotle, Rousseau, etc, to point out that education was not foreign to philosophy prior to Dewey. Lhakthong (talk) 19:57, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

I recently obtained a copy of George Kneller's _Introduction to the Philosophy of Eduction_, which seems to be out of print. I think it might make sense to organize the list of philosophers in part in the categories he uses rather than have a ginormous list. It would basically reflect the structure of the current educational philosophies section and would look more like an encyclopedia article. I'm thinking along the lines of the legal philosophy page. This article would then be organized:

-Philosophy and of Education-

• Idealism: Plato, Kant, Hegel
• Realism: Aristotle, Locke, Rousseau, Tufail, Avicenna, Broudy
• Scholasticism: Aquinus, Milton
• Pragmatism: Dewey, Pierce, James
• Analytic: R.S. Peters, Paul Hirst
• Existentialism: Jaspers, Buber, Gadamer, Maxine Greene,
• Postmodernism: Lyotard, Foucault,

-Educational Philosophies-

• Progressivism: Dewey, Kilpatrick, Piaget, Bruner, Noddings(?)
• Perennialism: Adler, Hutchins, Bloom
• Essentialism: Bagley, E.D. Hirsch
• Social Reconstructionism: Counts, Freire, Bell Hooks
• Free Schooling Schooling: A.S. Neill
• Unschooling: Ivan Illich
• Montessori: Maria Montessori
• Waldorf: Rudolf Steiner

These are just suggestions, of course.--Lhakthong (talk) 23:48, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

We would still need to deal with Fröbel. I would not categorize him as a philosopher but theorist anyway and thus suggest reference to him on the theory page, perhaps.--Lhakthong (talk) 02:51, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

If there are no objections to this proposed re-org by 22 Nov 2010, I'll assume it is tentatively approved.--Lhakthong (talk) 02:45, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Now that the content has been organized on the page, I would like to second whoever, at least two years ago said on the to-do list "Too much space dedicated to some/many of the people mentioned in the article, especially when/if there is a wikilink to a main article on said person/s. Content in this article should be a summary of what is developed elsewhere." I think the education material of each philosopher should be moved to that philosophers page, if it is not already there, and the sections be developed as explications of the categories given, not of people. This is not to say people should not be mentioned or given "see also" tags but that they are not the central content of the sections. I know of two contemporary foundations of education textbooks that have useful information, and I am sure there are phil of ed books that would help too.--Lhakthong (talk) 22:23, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Regarding UNESCO-IBE List of Authors

I see no reason why UNESCO-IBE should be included on a philosophy of education page. It's an NGO for educational development. Am I missing something? --Lhakthong (talk) 02:17, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

I will remove this item from the To-Do list unless there is an objection by December 1.--Lhakthong (talk) 21:22, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Deleting "History section"

For reasons expressed in "Meatball Surgery/On Organization and Structure", I think the whole History section should be wiped. There's some good stuff there, and I think editors who wrote it might want to place that info on each thinkers page. It will always be in the edit history for those that want to retrieve it. For example, put Aristotle's educational though on the page for Aristotle. This is a page for the field of philosophy of education, not a list of what any and every philosopher ever said about education. A history should be a history of the field, starting with Dewey, with nods to previous philosophers thinking about the topic, for reasons also expressed above. Considering it seems several people people think it's unwieldy, I'm going to be bold here and delete it, we can always revert it. --Lhakthong (talk) 02:32, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

I've reverted it, in part because there's not much left of the article without it. I think some of the sections can be pared down, but at the same time, some of the background, like out of Plato's section, is useful to the overall picture. —C.Fred (talk) 02:47, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

I agree there's not much left afterwards, but shouldn't stop the cut if it needs to be had? Let's start with this question to make sure we're on the same page: do you agree that this page is about the academic field of philosophy of education and not 1) what any philosopher has said about education 2) a restating of what is on another Wikipedia page or 3) a list of philosophies of education? Do you agree that it should look similar to the philosophy of science page? They are similar in both being applied philosophy, no? OK, maybe that was more than one question. --Lhakthong (talk) 15:56, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

The outer structure of the philosophy of science page does appear to differ from that of this article, but the POS article is similarly chiefly concerned with the ideas of named philosophers of science. The question is whether to organize topically or by philosopher; the content might not be fundamentally different in these cases.

I would suggest that education is a less coherent field than science - in the latter, each contributor's work fits into a single coherent whole - and that it would be difficult to find categories that would neatly organize the field of the philosophy of education. But it probably could be done. I'm not sure that it would be an advantage, but would be willing to work with either approach. hgilbert (talk) 18:34, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

You raise a good point about the categories. Certainly education is much broader. Do you think my recent additions seen here would work for categories? I just think a list of information that can be found elsewhere or placed on a pre-existing page is not a good way to build this one. If we do mention authors, I think it should have a purpose to explaining a part of the field of phil of ed and be limited to just that. --Lhakthong (talk) 22:13, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Piaget

I suspect we're going to need to hash this out… --Lhakthong (talk) 22:45, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

If we're going to put Piaget in, we might have to re-write the lede WP:LEDE to give a different defintion of what phil of ed is. I would argue that although Piaget was very influential, he did not apply philosophy to questions regarding human development. He as no academic training in philosophy (as far as I know) and was largely a natural scientist and educational psychologist. We have to draw the line somewhere. --Lhakthong (talk) 22:58, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Piaget's theories of human development are fundamental to the philosophy of education. I agree that there is a border to be drawn somewhere, but I would err on the conservative side here and include him. hgilbert (talk) 13:50, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Placeholders

The article is developing far too many placeholder entries. I am moving most of these to a Talk:Philosophy of education/workshop page so we can work on them there, or simply pick them up there and move them back in as we develop content to fill them. I hope this makes sense to everybody hgilbert (talk) 14:03, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Renaissance Humanism and the Seventeenth Century

Renaissance humanism was in many ways a program of education and therefore it ought to be mentioned. For the humanistic education was for over 2000 years the western European ideal until very recently -- perhaps up until the 1970s. In in the Renaissance it was given renewed emphasis with a return to the (mostly Latin) philosophical sources, chiefly the writings of Cicero and Seneca (or Christian writings in the Middle Ages attributed to Seneca). The idea was that in civil life, law and rhetoric (persuasion), through the use of reason, should take the place of the brute violence and endless vendetta of the non-civil state. (The emphasis on education for citizenship on the model of ancient Rome was a Renaissance innovation).

It was agreed that rhetoric was a tool that, if it were not to have a pernicious effect, should be employed only to lead men to virtue and concord. The humanistic curriculum, was meant to prepare young students for the study of rhetoric and law by leading them to knowledge of the seven virtues: the four cardinal: prudence, fortitude, temperance (restraint) and justice; and three theological ones of faith hope and charity. A person who has acquired these virtues is said to possess onestas (honesty). The possession of honesty was a requirement for citizenship and a prerequisite for legal and clerical studies. The humanistic educational program consists of: literature and poetry (which teach eloquence read in the original languages (poetry, therefore, included foreign languages), history (which teaches prudence); moral philosophy, and justice. Cicero famously said of the humane studies (particularly literature):

"Si ex his studiis delectatio sola peteretur, tamen, ut opinor, hanc animi remissionem humanissimam ac liberalissimam iudicaretis. Nam ceterae neque temporum sunt neque aetatum omnium neque locorum; at haec studia adulescentiam alunt, senectutem oblectant, res secundas ornant, adversis perfugium ac solacium praebent, delectant domi, non impediunt foris, pernoctant nobiscum, peregrinantur, rusticantur."

"Even if mere entertainment were our only objective in the study of literature, you would still, in my opinion, regard this pursuit as the most humanizing and liberating of intellectual activities. For no other pursuit is appropriate to all times, all ages, all situations; but this study nurtures our youth, delights our old age, brightens the good times, and provides a refuge and comfort in bad times; literature brings us pleasure at home, does not hamper us at work, and is the companion of our nights, our travels, our country retreats.": --Cicero, Pro Archia Archia Poeta 7.16)

Erasmus famously wanted to institute a humanistic curriculum at the University of Louvain (now Leuven), but this never came to fruition.

Montaigne's educational program anticipated that of Comenus and Rousseau in its recommendation to to engage the interest of the child and to avoid pointless memorization. Montaigne was extremely influential and deserves prominent mention in any historical survey of the history of education.

Why is this here? Can the author explain? Is it a deleted edit from the main article?--Lhakthong (talk) 02:47, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Boundary issues and intro/tone

I'm wondering about the division between philosophies of education and normative educational philosophies. It seems to me that there is a smooth transition here from primarily theoretical to primarily practical thinkers. For example, how does Freire fit into the philosophies rather than normative philosophies category? I wonder if we can clarify (or modify as necessary) the article's structure?

The tone of the whole seems excessively academic at the moment; almost everything said in the main introduction and subsidiary introductions is simply a quote. We should rewrite for style. hgilbert (talk) 13:26, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

First question(s): the distinction--philosophy of education and educational philosophies/theories of education was taken from that of both the contemporary textbook by Webb, et.al. and by George Kneller's book _Introduction to the Philosophy of Education_. An educational philosophy as object, however, is /not/ considered the same as "philosophy of education as an activity" by any of the aforementioned authors. More to the point, Noddings's _Philosophy of Education_ makes practically no mention of educational philosophies (objects), and instead she dedicates the book to sections titled ethics/logic/political philosophy/epistemology/analytic philosophy and education. The absence of educational philosophies is also true in Steven Cahn's reader in philosophy of education. As an object, what is meant is educational philosophies or normative theories--not philosophical inquiry itself. I only moved the educational philosophies (object) here because sometimes "philosophy of education" is used not as the activity but as an object. If we want to focus on the activity of philosophy of education, and follow all of the aforementioned authors, I'd be up for a wholesale move of the educational philosophies to the educational theory page, if we want.

Second question, Freire is given a substantial place in both the Noddings and the Cahn text, so I figure he belongs in philosophy. There's nothing preventing him from appearing in both, though. Although not appropriate for every philosopher of ed, it is true for some.

Finally, I'm OK with writing for style, so long as what we say is verifiable and referenced. Just to note, though, the pages on mathematics and philosophy tend to be pretty academic in parts too. One of the two quotes in the intro of this page was taken directly from The Encyclopedia of Education, so I'm not sure how much less academic we we want to make it from what is already in an encyclopedia. If you have something in mind in terms of making the intro more accessible without loosing the general content, then by all means go just for it. --Lhakthong (talk) 21:00, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

List of Professional Organizations

Should we move this to another page (or delete it altogether)? The article is too long as it is (by 48 kb), and I'm not sure what value this section adds for the reader as far as understanding or learning about the field. Couldn't someone just type "philosophy of education society" into a search engine and get basically the same list?--Lhakthong (talk) 17:10, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

I think the External Links section would suffice.--Lhakthong (talk) 17:16, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

File:IbnSina-Dushanbe.jpg Nominated for Deletion

An image used in this article, File:IbnSina-Dushanbe.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests March 2012 What should I do? Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so. If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use) If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used. To take part in any discussion, or to review a more detailed deletion rationale please visit the relevant image page (File:IbnSina-Dushanbe.jpg) This is Bot placed notification, another user has nominated/tagged the image --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 01:35, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Philosophers of Ed since Dewey

Suggested beginning list of philosophers of ed since Dewey worth mentioning:

William H. Kilpatrick

William Chandler Bagley

Maxine Greene

Paolo Freire

We should try to stick to people who have had secondary sources written about them and their work. Since the field is only 100 years old (some would argue it didn't really even start as an academic discipline until mid-century), we might not come up with a whole lot. --Lhakthong (talk) 17:41, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

The theorists need to be placed on the Education theory page separate from the Philosophers. Stmullin (talk) 21:16, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

See also

Per WP:SEEALSO, the See also section should be used as a temporary repository for links to articles which will be summarized in this article when it is more developed. Nothing should be included that is already mentioned or does not pass this criterion. --John (talk) 16:25, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

Since Instructional Theory includes all of the links that you deleted . . . it works out OK . . . Stmullin (talk) 16:30, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

Chief philosophers

According to the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, the following philosophers are amongst those notable in the field: Adorno, Aristotle, Derrida, Descartes, Dewey, Habermas, Hegel, Horkheimer, Kant, Locke, Lyotard, Marx, Mill, Nietzsche, Plato, Rawls, Richard Rorty, Rousseau, Wittgenstein, C.D. Hardie, Richard Peters, Paul Hirst, and Israel Scheffler. Most of these do not have any entry here; at the moment, the article is heavily weighted toward those who have formulated practical approaches to education. 18:41, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

Strange that Socrates would be absent from that list. 65.190.196.45 (talk) 20:31, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

Hard to find his works these days...except via Plato..hgilbert (talk) 21:05, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

;-)Stmullin (talk) 15:31, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

Additional Literature Review

Merriam, S. and Caffarella (1991, 1998) Learning in Adulthood. A comprehensive guide, San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. 528 pages. Now pretty much the standard text, Merriam and Caffarella provide a good overview of learning theory. In the new edition, part two deals with adult development and learning; and part three with the learning process.

http://infed.org/mobi/learning-theory-models-product-and-process/

Learning theory: models, product and process infed.org: Ideas, Index, Informal and non-formal education, Learning, Lifelong learning and adult education, organizational learning, Teaching and pedagogyStmullin (talk) 20:48, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for all that you do to keep Wikipedia reliable. Stmullin (talk) 16:59, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

Philosophy of Education vs. Educational Theory

Please do not confuse the two. For example, John Holt certainly theorizes about child learning, but his though does not fall within the tradition or discourse of philosophy. We have to start with the fact that Phil of Ed is an academic discipline, and, rightly or wrongly, it has boundaries. BF Skinner is also not a philosopher. Piaget, a psychologist who comments on development and therefore has import for educational psychology does not write texts in philosophy. He is a psychologist who had an interest in developmental psychology as educational theory, not a philosopher. Lhakthong (talk) 07:11, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Philosophy of education is a way to categorize information and is not treated as a separate area of inquiry within the Education curriculum. The Philosophy branch is Epistemology.Stmullin (talk) 12:21, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

"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." On this, we agree. Stmullin (talk) 18:28, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

On a separate note, the journal Educational Theory is not limited to philosophy of education. The latter can be one form of educational theory. Curriculum theory is not philosophy, but it is often educational theory. Some philosophy of education is educational theory and vice versa, but it is not the case that one subsumes either other en toto. Do not merge pages. Lhakthong (talk) 07:15, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Behaviorism, Cognitivism, Humanism, and Constructivism have well developed philosophies of education, which now have their own pages. BF Skinner is considered a Behaviorist, Piaget a Cognitivist, Rogers a Humanist, and Dewey a Constructivist. Individual theorists generally have a guiding philosophy though some have made contribution to several educational theories such as Marie Montessori's contributions to learning theories stemming from both Humanism and Constructivism.Stmullin (talk) 06:57, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

Epistemology vs Educational philosophy

Just looked through the Epistemology article and believe that some of the information on this page would be more appropriate to Epistemology than Educational Philosophy . . . specifically Perennialism, Essentialism, Romanticism, and Progressivism. Much of the conflict here could be resolved by allowing Educational philosophies to exist here and moving Epistemology related information to that page .Stmullin (talk) 16:21, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

Can you provide some reasoning, please? I do not understand how what these things would be epistemology.--Lhakthong (talk) 21:09, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

Because they are studies of the nature of knowledge, in particular its foundations, scope, and validity which is the definition of the branch of philosophy Epistemology.Stmullin (talk) 18:01, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

Educational essentialism, perennialsim, etc. as used in this article and referenced in educational textbooks are not studies of the nature of knowledge, they are comprehensive normative theories of education. I looks like you were referencing a different use of the term essentialism. This one is what is refereed to on this page: Educational essentialism, Educational perennialism, educational progressivism. These were the pages linked to in the original article. In educational discourse the descriptor "educational" is usually left off when discussing these theories or "philosophies".--Lhakthong (talk) 18:21, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

Excellent Articles! Unfortunate that few people will find them with a key word search. Stmullin (talk) 22:46, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

Behaviorism, etc.

I still have serious problems with the passages detailing perspectives such as behaviorism, etc. For one thing, many of the educationalists cited do not fit neatly into any particular perspective -- Montessori was not merely a constructivist, and Condillac was certainly not merely a behaviorist, a psychological perspective that long postdated his time. For another, the only citations are to the editor's unpublished PhD thesis; this is too one-sided an approach for broad claims, as mentioned above, and there are far better sources. I've created an example of a possible solution, however.

For example, the behaviorism of ^{who are genuine behaviorist educational philosophers??} suggests that the learning process effects a change in knowledge as the result of strictly controlled stimulus response conditioning, viewing the learner as dependent, adopting knowledge from an instructor, while the constructivism of educationalists such as ^{are all the following really constructivists??} John Dewey, Maria Montessori, and David A. Kolb emphasizes experiential learning.

Great! Thanks for the insight!

Philosophers

I am doubtful whether Skinner or Rogers can really be considered a philosopher of education. I may have made some comments on fishing in one of my books, but that doesn't make me a fisherman. hgilbert (talk) 14:23, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

Skinner no . . . Carl Rogers yes . . .Stmullin (talk) 14:36, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

Educational Philosophies

Why were the normative theories of education listed in textbooks and that follow the cited definitions in the section deleted from the section on philosophies of education? Just wondering.--Lhakthong (talk) 14:49, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

My fault. Using two different computers and never saved the edit.--Lhakthong (talk) 14:52, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

Lede

The lede is meant to summarize the article's content. It included a sentence about a few philosophical directions that (1) was a seemingly arbitrary selection of the many employed in education, and (2) was not followed up in any way in the article body. I have moved the sentence to the section detailing philosophical directions within education--a section that is also very incomplete, incidentally--as a more appropriate place for it. I do think the list should be more complete and balanced if it is to remain. This article remains in real need of some expert attention!! hgilbert (talk) 17:46, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

I agree that the article is far from complete. As an educator, it is important that these philosophies of education are well referenced and documented starting on this page and continuing to the articles on Behaviorism (philosophy of education), Cognitivism (philosophy of education), Humanism (philosophy of education), and Constructivism (philosophy of education) as root philosophies of education. What concerns me is the collaboration process between Philosophy and Education experts . . . if we continue to undue each others edits, without reading citation and reviewing links, we will do more harm than good. I bristle at suggestion that our revered educational philosophies would be regarded as arbitrary and would ask that you follow the links to the articles before constructing edits specific to Philosophy with little regard for Education. Constructing a paragraph rather than leaving a dangling sentence would also be helpful.Stmullin (talk) 20:05, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

I strongly disagree that behaviorism, cognitive, constructivism, and humanism are philosophies of education. They are all learning theories (and mostly products of psychology, not philosophy). The Macmillan Encyclopedia of Education does not list them as philosophies of education (it lists what are in this article now called "approaches" as philosophies of education). For the time being I am going to edit along those lines, because it is backed by an authoritative third-party source.--Lhakthong (talk) 03:25, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

Agree with Lhakthong. In addition, I notice that all three of these four articles have recently been created by Stmullin. hgilbert (talk) 03:35, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

Could you both be thinking Epistemology rather than Philosophy of Education? I believe there is a distinction.Stmullin (talk) 21:11, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

However, constructivism (philosophy of education) seems a significant theory. Oddly enough, it is not included in the philosophies described in the first content section of this article. Perhaps, Stmullin, you could add a section covering this? hgilbert (talk) 04:01, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

Done! Thanks for asking.Stmullin (talk) 21:43, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

Yet constructivism is just that: an educational theory, and, more precisely a descriptive theory from (educational) psychology. It belongs on the educational theory page, and/or the educational psychology page, but not here. This position is even supported in the language of the constructivism (philosophy of education) page, title not withstanding.--Lhakthong (talk) 14:27, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

OK; thanks for the clarification. Perhaps the title on that page should be improved to constructivism (educational psychology), or the like? hgilbert (talk) 05:19, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

Please do not start an edit war between Psychology and Education. Stmullin (talk) 21:11, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

Do we need a concept map here? Does this help give a conceptual base . . .

Review of the Behaviorist's perspective. According to the Behaviorist (e. g. Condillac, 1746/1970, 1749/1970, 1754/1982, 1756; Itard, 1801/1962; Skinner, 1954), learning process effects a change in knowledge as the result of strictly controlled stimulus response conditioning. This type of learning is a conditioned response or rote memorization of facts, assertions, rules, laws, and terminology. The type of learner is a dependent learner who adopts knowledge from an instructor. Appendix B: Learning Theory Matrix summarizes the Multiple Intelligence [MI] focus as visual/spatial, musical/rhythmic, and bodily/kinesthetic. The purpose in education is to build schema by adopting knowledge from an instructor. The educator’s role is to build schema by demonstrating factual knowledge. The Instructor observes, measures, and modifies behavioral change in a specified direction. The learning goal is the lowest order of learning: memorization of factual knowledge, skill development, and training. "Behaviorism was a movement in psychology and philosophy that emphasized the outward behavioral aspects of thought and dismissed the inward experiential, and sometimes the inner procedural, aspects as well; a movement harking back to the methodological proposals of John B. Watson, who coined the name. Watson’s 1912 manifesto proposed abandoning Introspectionist attempts to make consciousness a subject of experimental investigation to focus instead on behavioral manifestations of intelligence. B. F. Skinner later hardened behaviorist strictures to exclude inner physiological processes along with inward experiences as items of legitimate psychological concern."

Review of the Cognitivist (e. g. Piaget, 1926, 1936/1975; Vygotsky 1962; Bruner, 1960, 1966, 1971) learning process is based on an individual’s sequential development of cognitive abilities, such that mental processes of recognize, recall, analyze, reflect, apply, create, understand, and evaluate are developed through careful guidance by a trained instructor. The type of learning is adoptive learning of techniques, procedures, organization, and structure to develop internal cognitive structure by strengthening synapses in the brain. The learner requires expert assistance to develop prior knowledge and integrate new knowledge – learning how to learn. Sequential development of cognitive abilities involves verbal/linguistic and logical/mathematical intelligences, which are part of the MI focus [shown in Appendix B: Learning Theory Matrix]. The purpose in education is to develop schema using knowledge gained from others and the environment. The educator’s role is to develop conceptual knowledge and manage the content of learning activities. The learning goal is low order learning of conceptual knowledge, techniques, procedures, and algorithmic problem solving [solving well-defined problems].

Review of the Humanist (e. g. Rogers, 1951; Rogers and Freiberg, 1993; Maslow, 1954; Glasser, 1984, 1996; Motschnig-Pitrik, 2002, 2005) learning process is needs motivated adaptive learning. The type of learning involves development of strategy, personal interpretation, evaluation, reasoning, and decision-making that ultimately develop expertise. The type of learner is self-directed toward acquisition, development, and integration of knowledge. The development of strategy, personal interpretation, evaluation, reasoning, and decision-making draws upon interpersonal and intrapersonal intelligence, which are part of the MI focus [shown in Appendix B: Learning Theory Matrix]. A Humanist’s purpose in education is to become self-actualized with intrinsic motivation toward accomplishment. This learner is able to adapt prior knowledge to new experience. The educator’s role is to encourage and enable the learner andragogically by providing access to appropriate resources without obtrusive interference. The learning goal is high order learning of procedural knowledge, strategy, reasoning, abstract analysis, and development of expertise. "Humanism is a group of philosophies and ethical perspectives which emphasize the value and agency of human beings, individually and collectively, and generally prefers individual thought and evidence (rationalism, empiricism) over established doctrine or faith (fideism). The term humanism can be ambiguously diverse, and there has been a persistent confusion between several related uses of the term because different intellectual movements have identified with it over time.[1] In philosophy and social science, humanism refers to a perspective that affirms some notion of a 'human nature'."

The Constructivist (e. g. Dewey, 1926, 1933/1998; Montessori, 1946; Kolb, 1976, 1984) learning process is experiential learning through real life experience to construct and conditionalize knowledge. The type of learning is problem based adaptive learning that challenges faulty schema, integrates new knowledge with existing knowledge, and allows for creation of original work or innovative procedures. The type of learner is self-directed, creative, and innovative. Adaptive learning that challenges faulty schema, integrates new knowledge with existing knowledge, and allows for creation of original work or innovative procedures draws upon visual/spatial, musical/rhythmic, bodily kinesthetic, verbal/linguistic, logical/mathematical, interpersonal, intrapersonal, and naturalistic intelligences which are part of the MI focus [shown in Appendix B: Learning Theory Matrix]. The purpose in education is to become creative and innovative through analysis, conceptualizations, and synthesis of prior experience to create new knowledge. The educator’s role is to mentor the learner during heuristic problem solving of ill-defined problems by enabling quested learning that may modify existing knowledge and allow for creation of new knowledge. The learning goal is the highest order of learning: heuristic problem solving, metacognitive knowledge, creativity, and originality. "[Constructivist] epistemology is a branch in philosophy of science maintaining that natural science consists of mental constructs that are constructed with the aim to explain sensory experience (or measurements) of natural world. According to it, the scientific knowledge is constructed by scientific community, seeking to measure and construct models of the natural world." Stmullin (talk) 15:00, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

I think that we might be missing the mark on both sides in a way. It seems that many of the sources suggested by Stmullin are primary sources (I could be wrong on this) and the encyclopedia suggested by Lhakthong is a tertiary source. So is it that we are not finding the right kind of sources? Lexandalf (talk) 16:56, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

The Literature Review pp. 33 - 41 , by definition, is from secondary sources.Stmullin (talk) 00:24, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

Here is a secondary source: Lombardi, S.M. (2011). Internet Activities for a Preschool Technology Education Program Guided by Caregivers (Doctoral dissertation). North Carolina State University, 2011. Retrieved 29 December 2011 from http://repository.lib.ncsu.edu/ir/bitstream/1840.16/6826/1/etd.pdf. Where, as I said, I treated the philosophies as theories and it was Greg Bard (talk) that noted Behaviorism, Cognitivism, Humanism, and Constructivism are at the rank of Philosophies in juried academic articles (not peer review but juried articles). Elevating these to philosophies was done by someone other than me, and it was done by experts in a field that I respect.Stmullin (talk) 18:13, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

You cannot use your doctoral thesis as a reference in the article, nor is it a significant data point in the discussion we are having here. --John (talk) 16:25, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I can, I read the rules and Literature Review pp. 33 - 41 , by definition, is from secondary sources.Stmullin (talk) 17:17, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

To support a broad claim, such as the one here that there are (the following...) four primary divisions of the philosophy of education, it would be good to have a few secondary sources of high quality. A doctoral dissertation could give supportive evidence of this, but unless some published sources also make this division, it does not look like it has achieved wide acceptance. hgilbert (talk) 18:21, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

I agree with Hgilbert. We generally use sources like textbooks or multiple published, peer-reviewed papers to support broad claims like this. A doctoral thesis (however learned and well-written) wouldn't do it. --John (talk) 18:31, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

My standards are higher than that . . . I am using Juried [Refereed] Academic sources other than my own. Please see the work of Sharan Merriam, Rosemary Caffarella and Lisa Baumgartner if you want further support.Stmullin (talk) 00:24, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

So we restate the premise such that Behaviorism, Cognitivism, Humanism, and Constuctivism are noted philosophies of education as supported by other Wikipedian articles which, by the way, I did not write but strongly agree with their classification as Philosophies.65.190.196.45 (talk) 20:31, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

What I am looking for is a logical progression from Philosophy of education to Education theory to Learning theory to Instructional theory then to the philosophers and theorists biographies. I want to create a logical concept map for the Education portal.Stmullin (talk) 20:38, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

I did write the articles on Behaviorism (philosophy of education), Cognitivism (philosophy of education), Humanism (philosophy of education) but they were originally titled (learning theory) which, as I mentioned, Greg Bard renamed (philosophy of education) and I agreed with his decision.Stmullin (talk) 21:33, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

I think the highest standard we could be using are encyclopedia entries authored by philosophers of education. That was originally what was used: an entry co-authored by Nicholas Burbules, who earned his doctorate in philosophy of education at Stanford, leads one of the most highly respected programs in philosophy of education in the world, and is editor of Educational Theory, one of the top journals in educational philosophy and theory in the English speaking world. Whether textbook in foundations of education (e.g., Webb, Metha, Jordan) or philosophy of education (e.g., Noddings), whether encyclopedia entry online (e.g., Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy) or in print (e.g., Macmillan), behaviorism, constructivism, etc. are not considered part of philosophy of education. If one looks at the textbook in philosophy of education authored by George Kneller (who has a named lecture at the Philosophy of Education Society meetings), or the more recent textbook in ideological and philosophical voices in education by Gutek, one sees perennialsm, essentialism, etc, listed, NOT behaviorism and constructivism. In fact, in the Nel Noddings textbook in philosophy of education not only is constructivism, etc not listed, but neither is essentialism, perennialism, etc. So, in other words, if any exception is to be made it is for essentialism, perennialism, etc., not behaviorism and constructivism. For those interested, the Macmillan entry co-authored by Burbules can also be (oddly enough) found online here.--Lhakthong (talk) 18:34, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

The referenced encyclopedia entry is also co-authored with William Frankena, a former member of the philosophy department at the University of Michigan.

They are indeed respected Philosophers (PhD); however, respected Educators (PhD) have a different viewpoint and it would take 35 experts to agree (according to Delphi theory) before a generalization could be drawn. I am in the process of getting those 35 references from Education (PhD) for you in-between full-time work and parenting. It is a worthy discourse. I will make time to follow up on this. The distinction between what should be with Epistemology and what should be with Educational philosophy needs to be well defined.Stmullin (talk) 18:56, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

One of 35 entries by EXPERTS . . .Journal of Behavioral Education December 1992, Volume 2, Issue 4, pp 345-365 Radical behaviorism: A productive and needed philosophy for education William L. Heward Ed.D., John O. Cooper Ed.D. "Radical behaviorism is the philosophy of the science of behavior originating in the work of B. F. Skinner and elaborated over the years by a community of researchers, scholars, and practitioners. Radical behaviorism is a complete, or thoroughgoing behaviorism in that all human behavior, public and private, is explained in terms of its functional relations with environmental events. Radical behaviorism is often misrepresented in the literature of education and psychology. Two fundamental misconceptions of radical behaviorism are that its followers (1) are logical positivists who require that a phenomenon be observed by two or more people before it qualifies for scientific analysis, and (2) either will not or cannot incorporate private events (e.g., thoughts, feelings) into their analyses of human behavior. This paper offers an advocacy perspective on contemporary radical behaviorism. In particular, we define radical behaviorism and briefly outline the history of the term's use in psychological literature, discuss the scientific practice of behavior analysts, explain the “intolerance” exhibited by radical behaviorists, and comment on the use of popularity as a criterion for good science. The paper concludes with a discussion of the recent shift in educational research and practice from empiricism and outcome-oriented intervention toward a holistic/constructivist philosophy described by its advocates as incompatible with behaviorally-based instruction."Just because you have not read it does not mean it doesn't exist. If you refuse to read anything but what you agree with then the hope of reliable, unbiased information is lost. I'll will tag with NPOV if you revert again. Stmullin (talk) 22:00, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

The article text above calls behaviorism a "philosophy of science of behavior", and it discusses it within a discourse of psychological literature, not philosophical literature. The text of the article is talking about a philosophy of research or of practice, not of education, and I don't think it makes sense to cite an article title. Passing reference in a journal article doesn't provide justification to universalize that to be consensus in scholarly communities. Encyclopedia entries and textbooks by their very nature seem to me to be the most reliable for that, especially when defining an academic field of study or when providing an analytic definition. Secondary sources help to talk about specific events, people, or ideas, but even they do not in themselves represent necessarily consensus views. In fact, if a journal article advanced a consensus view--a generally already accepted position--it probably wouldn't be published. There are primary two sections of this wikipedia article (as I understand it): One is a discussion of philosophy of education as a line of inquiry/academic discipline. Second is a discussion of normative theories commonly called "philosophies of education", the criteria of which is described in the Frankena, Burbules, Raybeck encyclopedia entry (where a learning theory is necessary but not sufficient for such a philosophy). On the first point, the Stanford encyclopedia entry has the only analysis we've found yet for where these psychological theories "fit": behaviorism, constructivism, and cognitivism raise philosophical questions, and so such theories have to be answered by philosophy of education (as an academic discipline), but they are not philosophy. The theory of evolution raises challenges to religion, and religion has to answer to them (and does), but that does not mean that on that account alone that Darwin was proposing a theology. On the second point, a philosophy of education (as normative theory) in its broadest sense is defined by Burbules, et. al, as including normative assumptions about what is good as well as assumptions about the human condition. Behaviorism, cognitivism, and constructivism do not include these assumptions. As such, these psychological theories might be necessary for broad philosophies of education (namely the learning theory part), but they alone are not enough. The broadest philosophies of education are listed in a number of textbooks and encyclopedias on the subject as essentialism, progressivism, etc. So, 1) if we make an exception to include normative theories colloquially called "philosophies of education" then, a) they should include essentialism, perennialism, etc, because these are referenced as such in a slew of sources and are the broadest form of a philosophy of education (normative theory of the whole educational enterprise)). 2) Behaviorism, cognitivism, and constructivism are of a different genre altogether than progressivism, perennialsim, etc., so calling both genres "philosophies of education" would be a category error. For example, constructivism grounds progressivism as a philosophy of education but constructivism is not a philosophy of education in the same way (because progessivism also carries assumptions about what a good society--what constitutes a democratic society). 3) If behaviorism, constructivism, cognitivism, are mentioned in a philosophy of education article, we need to find a way to account for all of this. 4) Please don't make assumption about what I have and have not read. You have no idea.--Lhakthong (talk) 01:44, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

Once again: passing references that can be variously interpreted are insufficient support for broad claims. In this case, even the title of the article seems to be primarily suggesting that behaviorism is a needed and productive philosophy of education, not that it is an established one. I don't know how relevant the wish to establish behaviorism is to this article. hgilbert (talk) 07:24, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

I would also add that because someone calls a philosophy constructivist (adjective) does not make constructivism (noun) itself a philosophy, just like a progressivist teacher does not make the teacher progressivism. Likewise, I am not sure that just because a theory/philosophical stance is used in educational practice makes it a theory/philosophy of education. Regarding the scope of this WP article, I think the reason why essentialism, etc. were left/put in this article in the last major overhaul was because comprehensive normative theories are colloquially called "philosophies of education", and I think that was explicitly expressed in the Burbules, et.al. entry. So, knowing that some readers might come to this page looking for these normative theories, they were left/put in this page. However, I now wonder if it makes sense to make this page only the academic discipline/line of inquiry, move essentialism, etc. over to the educational theory page as normative theories, and only make brief mention of them here, directing readers to the appropriate section of the educational theory page. I am not sure I agree with the idea, but I am just wondering if it would help prevent the current confusion in the future.--Lhakthong (talk) 13:42, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

Thank you! I now understand your point of view and can respect why you made the edits. It is very threatening to work hard on something you believe to be true then suddenly see it disappear from the page. Now that I have discovered that I can retrieve the information it is less frustrating. I do not think that I made the revisions to the lede and I believe the previous lede was stronger. I do believe that the philosophy of knowledge (Epistomology?)covers essentialism, progressivism, perennialsim, etc. and those subgroups are correctly located on the Epistemology page. After reading the philosophies of science article, I believe the conflict here is the very definition of education. My background is STEM (science, technology, engineering, and math) so my philosophical reference for education is similar to Constructivist epistemology and I see education closely allied to the philosophy of science, especially with the recent neuroscience contributions to education. Behaviorism, Humanism, Constructivism are legitimate philosophies with prescriptive instructional theories. Stmullin (talk) 17:46, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

The problem is the utilization of terminology. Behaviorism's theoretical legitimacy is not the point. The theories you are using are categorically different than those like educational perennialism, which are what are referred to in textbooks and encyclopedias when "philosophies of education" are discussed, and so using the term "philosophy of education" to describe psychological theories would not be accurate. The fact that physiological theories guide one's teaching doesn't mean they guide the educational endeavor as a whole. For example, behaviorism doesn't take a stand on how important the arts are in a curriculum or whether enduring questions should be central to the curriculum. The problem here is a conflation of teaching and education.--Lhakthong (talk) 18:48, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

Look at the cited definition of an educational philosophy at the beginning of the educational philosophies section of this article, where behaviorism is listed. Does behaviorism include a theory of knowledge and of ethics? Does it propound a view as to "what dispositions [education] should cultivate, why it ought to cultivate them, how and in whom it should do so, and what forms it should take?" An educational philosophy have all of this in addition to claiming premises of a psychology of learning an teaching methods.--Lhakthong (talk) 18:59, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I think it can be referenced. I've just cut and pasted the questions into a word document so that a matrix can be created with references. Again, please note that this is a hobby and my work will be interrupted so please forgive the delay in responding. Stmullin (talk) 20:14, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

I'm not sure that reverting the lede was a good idea. The Noddings quote in its current form (the philosophy of education is a philosophical study of education and its problems) seems tautologous and empty of useful content. The previous version ( A sub-field of applied philosophy, it examines philosophical views about the purposes and nature of education, as well as philosophies that promote a specific type or vision of education.) placed it in reference to its larger context, applied philosophy, and explicated its two major aspects. But if people feel this was for some reason an improvement, I won't stand in the way of keeping the present version. hgilbert (talk) 20:10, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

I see your point about Noddings. I'm not sure the alternative sentence is any less tautological; basically it reads, "philosophy of education examines philosophical views about education." Anything we put will probably be tautological to some degree, given we're trying to define a technical academic sub-field to the average reader. I think the way you discussed the qualities of the alternative sentence makes sense. How about making the first sentence of the lede the following, while striking the rest of the first para. (and still keeping the second para of the lede): "Philosophy of education is a field of applied philosophy that examines the aims, forms, methods, and results of education." "Aims, forms, methods and results" is cited, covers the "purposes and natures", and allows for discussion of descriptive and normative theories as well as policy and "visions of education".--Lhakthong (talk) 02:36, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

The philosophy of education may be either the philosophy of the process of education as found in the well defined Learning theories and prescriptive Instructional theories of the Philosophies of Behaviorism, Humanism, Constructivism, and Cognitivism or may be extensions of the Epistemological branch of Philosophywith the descriptors of essentialism, perennialism, and progressivism. That is, it may be 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 epistemology. Stmullin (talk) 14:57, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

You are employing terms differently than they are commonly used in the field of philosophy of education (which this page is about). Please understand that editing Wikipedia means attempting to present, with the consensus of page editors, verifiable information from authoritative sources that do not represent fringe views, and we editors need to stay way from original research. Wikipedia is not about pushing one's opinion with a single purpose account. I ask that you read about what Wikipedia is not. Thank you.--Lhakthong (talk) 02:09, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

The Philosophies of Behaviorism, Humanism, and Constructivism are not fringe views and I did not write those articles. How can I explain this to you so that you understand?Stmullin (talk) 03:36, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

Large scale restructuring proposed

Some problems:

• Most listings in the "philosophies of education" section are simply links to other articles, with absolutely no substantive content. These would better be replaced by a list of other philosophers who treat education at the end of the article
• Many categories, such as "Perennialism", have only one entry (in this case, Bloom). Again, these should be grouped in more meaningful ways.
• Nearly all of the entries with actual content in the "philosophies of education" section could just as well be in the "normative" group. For example, Plato's is surely a normative view of education, as is Freire's.
• Not every philosopher who proposed something relating to education needs be mentioned here. Allan Bloom suggested reinvigorating the academy; this is hardly a philosophy of education.
• There is excessive use of the "main article" template, where links to Wikipedia articles would normally suffice.

I suggest the "philosophies" and "normative philosophies" sections be merged into a single "philosophies of education" section, that most categories with only one entry be merged into larger categories, and that minor and marginal contributors to the philosophy of education (even if they are major philosophers in other fields) not be given separate sections. See Talk:Philosophy of education/Revision proposal for a workspace to explore this alternative, if it meets with general approval. hgilbert (talk) 15:19, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

I think that the existing page is becoming the stronger copy. We still need to move Perennialism, Essentialism, Romanticism, and Progressivism to Epistemology and the education movements to Education theory so that we do not elevate those movements to philosophy status inadvertently.Stmullin (talk) 20:22, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

After reviewing educational theory, learning theory, instructional theory, Cognitivism (philosophy of education), Humanism (philosophy of education), Constructivism (philosophy of education), Behaviorism (philosophy of education), I am inclined to believe the Philosophy of education article needs to be the lead article for all of the others . . . that would include copy/edit for all 8 article to make them coherent but not redundant because each article has important information that needs to exist independent of the other articles for organizational reasons . . . anyone up to the challenge? Stmullin (talk) 22:17, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

I suggest that the section on 'Educational approaches' would be more valuable at either Education theory or Learning.65.190.196.45 (talk) 21:26, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

• I can see the case for moving educational approaches to education theory. However, in everyday educational discourse and even in current encyclopedia entries and older textbooks on philosophy of education, these approaches are often considered part of "philosophy of education". Thus, if they are moved to education theory, I think there needs to be some indicators for the general reader that "philosophies of education", a.k.a. normative educational theories, are on the educational theory page. --Lhakthong (talk) 02:56, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

• In everyday educational discourse, my colleagues and I seldom use the terms Essentialism, Progressivism, Perennialism, or Existentialism but we do use the terms Cognitivism , Humanism , Constructivism, and Behaviorism .Stmullin (talk) 19:48, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

Various sources suggest some subgroup of the following as core philosophies of education: Essentialism, Progressivism, Perennialism, Existentialism, Behaviorism, idealism, realism,pragmatism, existentialism, objectivism, Marxism, postmodernism. There may be more out there. We're better off just explaining each of these than attempting to promote any particular ones as especially central. hgilbert (talk) 17:51, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

Some of those subgroups belong to Epistemology, some to Educational theory, and some belong here with Philosophy of education. Can we agree on which subgroup belongs to which article?Stmullin (talk) 21:05, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

I think hgilbert'slist of core philosophies should be added to a section called such. I am not sure "sub-groups" quite explains it, and I don't know if everything currently under "sub-groups" belongs on this page. For example, critical pedagogy could be discussed under Marxism, democratic education could be discussed under progressivism, etc. We also need to distinguish a school of philosophy form a normtative theory that might draw from more than one school. For example, Perennialism and Essentialism have idealist and realist roots (according to Gutek textbook). Then the task is to find out where to place things like behaviorism, constructivism such that they are woven in in the manner similar to the one hgilbert demonstrated in the "Behaviorism, etc." section of this talk page. For example, would behaviorism be part of essentialism? If so, can we find a citation for that?--Lhakthong (talk) 12:26, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

I think Hgilbert is on the right track. This is a good place to link to important information in other Wikipedia articles that might be missed in a key word search . . . for example learning gets more hits than epistemology . . . so maybe the thread to epistemological links should begin at learning. Careful with the learning page . . . it includes computer learning and animal learning which also needs developing. Stmullin (talk) 12:36, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

I've moved all personal exchanges off of the article talk and onto the User pages as recommended by Wikipedia Civility standards. Thank you for weaving the Humanist perspective into this article . . . would be nice to do the same for Cognitivist, Behaviorist, and Constructivist, as Perspectives not Movements.Stmullin (talk) 12:37, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

Movements/Philosophies/approaches sections

Hello, everyone. It was my understanding that the documented sources we could find about philosophy of education constituted two things: the academic discipline of applied philosophy and those comprehensive normative theories of education. I agree with the renaming of the "sub-groups" section to "movements"--it seems much more accurate label. I'm just wondering whether or not they belong on a page for philosophy of education. I have no evidence that they are the domain of philosophy of education as a discipline, nor have I found any sources that list them as comprehensive philosophies of education. Would they be better suited for the straight-up Education page? If not, are there ways we can source them such that we can move them to the educational philosophies section? To some extent, I can see how perennialism and essentialism might fall under the category of classical education as contemporary forms, and maybe progressivism and critical theory under humanism, but I really have no verifiable way to claim that.--Lhakthong (talk) 15:47, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

There are many more sources so your definition is incomplete but that is a conceptual problem not an editing problem which may require disambiguation with a page on Educational Philosophy. We agree that the sub groups do not belong on this page. Placing them on Education may work since moving them to Education theory was not accepted. Perennialism, Essentialism, and Progressivism have their lead on the Epistemology page where they fit nicely. If the lede with the interior links had not been omitted, then they would be a logically connected to the Epistemology page and the Educational philosophy articles. Your accusations of Fringe theory for the Philosophies of Behaviorism, Humanisim and Constructivism and their family of philosophies (including education, psychology, politics, etc.) have no bearing since internal links on Wikipedia are available on the topics . . . so Wikipedia is the tertiary source . . . and I did not write those article so the accusation of original research is not valid. Bullying me will not make these revisions NPOV. My editing style is not the problem. A logical concept map is the problem. The edit that you slammed me for is the edit that you are about to make . . . getting the sub groups off of this page. Stmullin (talk) 03:31, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

Maybe to help with clarity, are we talking about movements in philosophy of education specifically or movements in education broadly? I only ask because a movement in education might be influenced by the field of philosophy of education but not wholly be a part of it. Not to repeat but some of these categories are already accounted for in the educational philosophies section and maybe we can merger/weave them together somehow, so long as were not too far from sources.--Lhakthong (talk) 16:07, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

We should work on these issues. A lot remains to be done. I'm looking at tertiary sources to make a beginning. (Which is where the text on humanistic education came from) hgilbert (talk) 17:17, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

65.190.196.45, I am not claiming they should be moved of of the page. I am claiming that something doesn't look right, because of the overlap between the educational philosophies and the movements, and I am asking a genuine question about where others think the Movements belong. I see ways in which the Movements can be a part of this page, and I can ways in which they might better be placed somewhere else. So, I am inviting other editors to talk about where it makes the most sense to place those things, given the way it is currently structured is not making sense to me. Please note that general practice on Wikipedia is that when you comment on a section of a talk page, you make those comments at the very end of the section, not in the middle of it. It also helps if you make comments specific to the section of the page. So, comments on whether behaviorism is a philosophy belongs in the section where that is already discussed, not in a new section to deal with a different issue.--Lhakthong (talk) 17:38, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

hgilbert, one thing that is interesting is that on the Wikipedia page for the classical education movement, it mentions Hutchins and Adler as proponents. These are the exact same two people credited with contemporary educational perennialism. So, there must be some way to weave in at least some of these movements into the educational philosophies section, if only to discuss influences (or possible more). I just wish I knew of a source that said the "classical education movement is associated with educational perennialism" or something like that. I might take a stab at things, but no guarantees.--Lhakthong (talk) 17:38, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

Correct me if I am wrong, but it appears that perennialism is of classical humanism, critical theory and social reconstructionism fall into radical humanism, educational existentialism is a form of existential humanism, unschooling is a form of romantic humanism, and progressivism is just as humanistic as democratic schooling. Essentialism, given its emphasis on the liberal arts (if we follow Bestor's thought) would also be classical humanism. Does it make sense to call classical education a movement? Classical education, being classical, was the original, and thus it was not a movement (what would it be a movement against, being the beginning?). The return to it is a movement, but that is a movement that is aligned with classical humanism. So it seems educational movements are either humanistic or contemplative, and the educational philosophies can all be subsumed under humanism of some form. No?--Lhakthong (talk) 02:25, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

Interesting reasoning, but we should probably stick with conventional classifications here. Certainly many Ed. Philosophers will be hard to classify, or fit into multiple categories. hgilbert (talk) 05:33, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

Assessment comment

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Philosophy of education/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

In WPs Alternative ed, Philosophy The references need to be verified and converted to a consistent format. Stmullin (talk) 08:25, 4 July 2013 (UTC) The value of the article is to outline the overlap of philosophy and education . . . which hasn't yet happened. There needs to be some plan of action to tie the noted individuals together into a well formatted explanation of how each person contributed specifically to the philosophy of education. Stmullin (talk) 09:02, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

Last edited at 09:02, 4 July 2013 (UTC). Substituted at 15:33, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

Philosophers

I thought that I could begin work on the missing philosophers. I can do those in my 'sandbox' so that it does not interfer . . . this page is very much improved . . . Stmullin (talk) 23:16, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

I was just thinking about this section. I wonder if it makes sense to organize this page in some other way than just a list of educational philosophers. Is that really the best way to communicate the landscape of the field? For example, take a look at Philosophy of law, philosophy of science or philosophy of history. It seems to me more sensible to talk about these philosophers within the context of something else. One idea I had was to present the philosophical treatment of education by schools of thought. However, I tried to structure the page like that before, and it seems that didn't go over well. We might also distinguish education as a broad process (e.g., Bildung) and the narrow form which takes place specifically in a school. Any ideas?--Lhakthong (talk) 01:57, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

Though It would be good to counterbalance the list with more context, Tertiary sources indicate that this field is less well structured, or even coherent, than other areas of philosophy. I can imagine this being in the form of a history of inluences and trends. hgilbert (talk) 05:30, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

It is less structured but not entirely unstructured. Both Noddings's Philosophy of Education and Gutek's Philosophical and Ideological Voices in Education explain philosophical influences on education by types of philosophy/philosophical schools of thought. The Stanfrod article provides some categories, and I am sure there are other themes we could find that are listed in tertiary sources, if that's how we want to categorize. So, that work has already been done in tertiary sources--at least in defining some organizing categories. Finding secondary sources to illustrate the different ways philosophy has influenced education from within those categories would be the real challenge, I think.--Lhakthong (talk) 14:52, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

Seven sages of Greece

This section seems to have nothing to do with the philosophy of education. Is there some reason it belongs in this article? HGilbert (talk) 20:51, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

The Seven Greek Sages predate Socrates and show the line back to ancient Egypt for philosophy of education, specifically, math and geometry education. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.99.59.109 (talk) 22:48, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

I don't see how that illuminates ideas, concepts, theories, etc. in philosophy of education. If you have information to share about the specifics of the educational philosophical ideas of these new thinkers, then that would be relevant for this page. As it stands, I say the section doesn't belong here.--Lhakthong (talk) 03:15, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

The concept of higher education for an adult that derives from a relationship with a mentor, the idea that education is a hands-on experience, and the mathematical theorems generated from these experiences are relevant. This is consistent with Constructivist perspective and highly relevant to the philosophy of adult education. Stmullin (talk) 13:25, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

Lhakthong, I know that your writing skills are strong, please edit the passage to your standards with the understanding that constructivist philosophy is important to educators, especially in adult education. Stmullin (talk) 13:58, 29 January 2014 (UTC):::

My point is that what should go here are the specific educational philosophies of thinkers like Thales, Solon, etc. If we don't know what those philosophies are, then we should not be mentioning those people in an article that outlines the educational philosophies of certain thinkers.--Lhakthong (talk) 16:59, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

I've omitted all but the information on Thales. 174.99.59.109 (talk) 17:09, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

I agree with Lhakthong that only educational philosophies are relevant here. It is not a place for biographies of any figure, and certainly not one that has no educational philosophy. I see nothing in the entire section as currently written that falls under the topic of the philosophy of education. HGilbert (talk) 21:15, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

Thales of Miletus (/ˈθeɪliːz/; Greek: Θαλῆς (ὁ Μιλήσιος), Thalēs; c. 624 – c. 546 BC) was a pre-Socratic Greek philosopher who:

1. was one of the 'great teachers,'

2. received higher education from a priest of Egypt as well as travels with Solon [Constructivist philosophy of adult education],

3. is credited with the first use of deductive reasoning applied to geometry by deriving four corollaries to Thales' Theorem [In the philosophy of mathematics, constructivism asserts that it is necessary to find or "construct" a mathematical object to prove that it exists.],

4 has been hailed as the first true mathematician and is the first known individual to whom a mathematical discovery has been attributed,

5. used deductive reasoning rather than inductive reasoning, and

6. derived conclusions from definitions and axioms using mathematical rigor for proofs . . .

are all evidence of Thales importance to the Philosophy of education . . . if my wording is not clear, you are welcome to edit using words that have more meaning to you . . . but Thales is a significant philosopher of education. Stmullin (talk) 21:34, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

These are all interesting things, but none of them directly relates to education. Just because we teach mathematics and deductive reasoning, does not mean someone who developed mathematics and deductive reasoning has contributed to the philosophy of education. We also teach geology and biology, but Lyell and Darwin were not philosophers of education and do not belong here.

Similarly, that someone was a great teacher does not mean that that person is a philosopher of education. HGilbert (talk) 00:47, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

This philosopher lived 2538 years before the vocabulary you insist upon using was developed. You are applying an early 20th century vocabulary/understanding to something that is far greater than the scope of a 20th century education in Philosophy. All 6 elements that I named have significant connection to philosophy as well as to education. As new evidence is unearthed and published, we must remain open to correcting false and limited views of the past especially where education is concerned. I will invite others to comment. Thales is evidence of constructivist teaching method in early Greece which shows that even early scientists and mathematicians knew the importance of hands on teaching and life long education. I understand why a stringent behaviorist would reject this opposing view . . . but all view points must be represented. 00:35, 31 January 2014 (UTC)Stmullin (talk) 03:56, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

What you are advocating sounds like original research, and we should not be publishing original thought. We would need to find verifiable, reliable sources that specifically state the influence of these thinkers on educational philosophical thought.--Lhakthong (talk) 15:08, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

Why would you consider these ORIGINAL Research? Eudemus ap. Proclus, 65.7 Diogenes Laertius I.24 Diogenes Laertius I.27 and Plutarch (De Is. et Os. 131) Hdt. II.178; Stobaeus, Ecl., jEklogaiv ['Selections'] Strab. 17.1.18 Contra Apionem I.2 Hdt. I.30 Diogenes Laertius I.43-44 Retrieved 28 January 2014 from http://www.iep.utm.edu/thales/ Boyer 1991, "Ionia and the Pythagoreans" p. 43 Stmullin (talk) 15:33, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Rs#Scholarship: Secondary sources are preferred, especially for claims such as you are making. Note that none of the above, primary sources suggested that they were doing the philosophy of education. If no one since has suggested it either (in a scholarly work), there's no basis for their inclusion here. HGilbert (talk) 16:51, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

Those sources are secondary sources referenced in other Wikipedia articles. What is your true reason for questioning Thales? Stmullin (talk) 17:30, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

If you can't provide explicit sources that link those writing to the modern concept of "philosophy of education" as described in this article then yes, that is original research to make that link yourself. If there is such a clear and undisputed link as you seem to be claiming then it shouldn't be very hard to provide references that explicitly support that claim, right? ElKevbo (talk) 17:34, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

There is nothing in the article to restrict discussion to "modern" and if there was such a restiction then the terms Behaviorism, Cognitivism, Humanism, and Constructivism would be the discussion headers . . . because those are the "modern" philosophies of education.Stmullin (talk) 18:01, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

There is much evidence that Thales was an educator who taught philosophy. This qualifies him for a history of philosophy teachers, but not for an article on the philosophy of education. HGilbert (talk) 21:29, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

Eight secondary sources were carefully cited . . . I suppose if any of us could read Ancient Greek or had access to the tablets we could argue about syntax . . . but that being unlikely (proficiency in Ancient Greek as well as access to the tablets) the best we can hope for is to share the knowledge in a proactive way. It would be a shame to deprive access to this valuable information about the earliest Greek philosopher of education just because we do not approve of the syntax.Stmullin (talk) 00:18, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

Can you recognize that other editors are not convinced, and gracefully accept the consensus that the material as currently presented, and absent any support from other interpreters of classical philosophy, does not belong here? HGilbert (talk) 12:25, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

WE disagree.

RfC: Is Thales a philosopher of education?

Should Thales be included as a philosopher of education? Stmullin (talk) 17:39, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

Thales

What is the state of opinion on the section on Thales? Please vote, with any possible reflections below. (See Seven sages of Greece for background discussion) HGilbert (talk) 14:39, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

• Keep

Keep due to the significant, well cited contributions of Thales of Miletus to the the Academy of Athens as a philosopher of education with significant contributions to mathematics and deductive reasoning. Stmullin (talk) 00:12, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

• Remove

Remove due to irrelevance to topic HGilbert (talk) 14:41, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

Remove, original research and lack of relevance to the specific topic of this article.--Lhakthong (talk) 17:56, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

Remove pending relevant, convincing evidence establishing these as being linked to the topic of this article. ElKevbo (talk) 01:08, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

Thales discussion

Please watch out for users who may have been canvassed here: I was left this note on my talk page, and Stmullin canvassed others here, here and here. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 10:47, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

This is allowed . . . Notes are on the user talk pages of concerned editors. Examples include:

   Editors who have participated in previous discussions on the same topic (or closely related topics)
   Editors known for expertise in the field   

Stmullin (talk) 12:22, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

WP:CANVASS says that "Notifications must be...neutrally worded with a neutral title" and specifically bans promoting a particular point of view ("campaigning") in the canvassing. Your asking for "support" clearly violates this principle. I will assume that you were not aware of this, but please respect it in the future. HGilbert (talk) 12:35, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

I have used a strike prompt to neutrally word the invitation.Stmullin (talk) 14:14, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

It's usually best to stick to leaving notices at places like WikiProjects, as it's a lot harder to violate WP:CANVASS that way. Probably WT:WikiProject Philosophy and WT:WikiProject Education would be your best bets. For what it's worth, I don't think I fall into either category you mention in your 12:22 post above. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 14:30, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

Thank you Mr. Stradivarius, your name is on my User talk page for help so I contacted you. I hope I added the RfC correctly . . . this is a first so I'm not clear about the process. Also, when my smart phone syncs with my computer I get unexpected results with the browser so my posts are interrupted and my log disrupted . . . I apologize for that confusion but i do not yet know how to schedule the sync so it will not interfere.Stmullin (talk) 17:45, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

If someone can rewrite the section on Historical and theoretical roots to read like an encyclopedic article then I think this format might be a good compromise. It does get rid of the biography issue that caused concern from many editors in an earlier discussion.Stmullin (talk) 19:33, 13 February 2014 (UTC)