problem solving teaching philosophy

Problem-Solving Method in Teaching

The problem-solving method is a highly effective teaching strategy that is designed to help students develop critical thinking skills and problem-solving abilities . It involves providing students with real-world problems and challenges that require them to apply their knowledge, skills, and creativity to find solutions. This method encourages active learning, promotes collaboration, and allows students to take ownership of their learning.

Table of Contents

Definition of problem-solving method.

Problem-solving is a process of identifying, analyzing, and resolving problems. The problem-solving method in teaching involves providing students with real-world problems that they must solve through collaboration and critical thinking. This method encourages students to apply their knowledge and creativity to develop solutions that are effective and practical.

Meaning of Problem-Solving Method

The meaning and Definition of problem-solving are given by different Scholars. These are-

Woodworth and Marquis(1948) : Problem-solving behavior occurs in novel or difficult situations in which a solution is not obtainable by the habitual methods of applying concepts and principles derived from past experience in very similar situations.

Skinner (1968): Problem-solving is a process of overcoming difficulties that appear to interfere with the attainment of a goal. It is the procedure of making adjustments in spite of interference

Benefits of Problem-Solving Method

The problem-solving method has several benefits for both students and teachers. These benefits include:

• Encourages active learning: The problem-solving method encourages students to actively participate in their own learning by engaging them in real-world problems that require critical thinking and collaboration
• Promotes collaboration: Problem-solving requires students to work together to find solutions. This promotes teamwork, communication, and cooperation.
• Builds critical thinking skills: The problem-solving method helps students develop critical thinking skills by providing them with opportunities to analyze and evaluate problems
• Increases motivation: When students are engaged in solving real-world problems, they are more motivated to learn and apply their knowledge.
• Enhances creativity: The problem-solving method encourages students to be creative in finding solutions to problems.

Steps in Problem-Solving Method

The problem-solving method involves several steps that teachers can use to guide their students. These steps include

• Identifying the problem: The first step in problem-solving is identifying the problem that needs to be solved. Teachers can present students with a real-world problem or challenge that requires critical thinking and collaboration.
• Analyzing the problem: Once the problem is identified, students should analyze it to determine its scope and underlying causes.
• Generating solutions: After analyzing the problem, students should generate possible solutions. This step requires creativity and critical thinking.
• Evaluating solutions: The next step is to evaluate each solution based on its effectiveness and practicality
• Selecting the best solution: The final step is to select the best solution and implement it.

Verification of the concluded solution or Hypothesis

The solution arrived at or the conclusion drawn must be further verified by utilizing it in solving various other likewise problems. In case, the derived solution helps in solving these problems, then and only then if one is free to agree with his finding regarding the solution. The verified solution may then become a useful product of his problem-solving behavior that can be utilized in solving further problems. The above steps can be utilized in solving various problems thereby fostering creative thinking ability in an individual.

The problem-solving method is an effective teaching strategy that promotes critical thinking, creativity, and collaboration. It provides students with real-world problems that require them to apply their knowledge and skills to find solutions. By using the problem-solving method, teachers can help their students develop the skills they need to succeed in school and in life.

• Jonassen, D. (2011). Learning to solve problems: A handbook for designing problem-solving learning environments. Routledge.
• Hmelo-Silver, C. E. (2004). Problem-based learning: What and how do students learn? Educational Psychology Review, 16(3), 235-266.
• Mergendoller, J. R., Maxwell, N. L., & Bellisimo, Y. (2006). The effectiveness of problem-based instruction: A comparative study of instructional methods and student characteristics. Interdisciplinary Journal of Problem-based Learning, 1(2), 49-69.
• Richey, R. C., Klein, J. D., & Tracey, M. W. (2011). The instructional design knowledge base: Theory, research, and practice. Routledge.
• Savery, J. R., & Duffy, T. M. (2001). Problem-based learning: An instructional model and its constructivist framework. CRLT Technical Report No. 16-01, University of Michigan. Wojcikowski, J. (2013). Solving real-world problems through problem-based learning. College Teaching, 61(4), 153-156

/images/cornell/logo35pt_cornell_white.svg" alt="problem solving teaching philosophy"> Cornell University --> Graduate School

Teaching philosophy statement, what is a teaching philosophy statement.

A teaching philosophy statement is a narrative that includes:

• your conception of teaching and learning.
• a description of how you teach.
• justification for why you teach that way.

The statement can:

• demonstrate that you have been reflective and purposeful about your teaching.
• communicate your goals as an instructor and your corresponding actions in the classroom.
• point to and tie together the other sections of your portfolio.

What is the purpose of a teaching philosophy statement?

You generally need a teaching statement to apply for an academic position. A teaching statement:

• conveys your teaching values, beliefs, and goals to a broader audience.
• provides a set of criteria and/or standards to judge the quality of your teaching.
• provides evidence of your teaching effectiveness.

Components of a teaching philosophy statement

• educational purpose and learning goals for students
• your teaching methods
• methods for assessing students’ learning
• assessment of teaching

You also may include:

• a list of courses you have taught.
• samples of course syllabi.
• teaching evaluations.
• letters of recommendation.
• a video of a class you have taught (asked for by some universities).

Teaching values, beliefs, and goals

You should consider what you believe is the end goal or purpose of education:

• content mastery
• engaged citizenry
• individual fulfillment
• critical thinking
• problem solving
• discovery and knowledge generation
• self-directed learning
• experiential learning

What criteria are used to judge your teaching?

• student-teaching roles and responsibilities
• student-teacher interaction
• inclusiveness
• teaching methods
• assessment of learning

How do you provide evidence of your teaching effectiveness?

• peer review
• students’ comments
• teaching activities

Writing guidelines:

• There is no required content, set format, or right or wrong way to write a teaching statement. That is why writing one can be challenging. 
• Make the length suit the context. Generally, they are one to two pages.
• Use present tense and the first person, in most cases.
• Avoid technical terms and use broadly understood language and concepts, in most cases. Write with the audience in mind. Have someone from your field guide you on discipline-specific jargon and issues to include or exclude.
• Include teaching strategies and methods to help people “see” you in the classroom. Include specific examples of your teaching strategies, assignments, discussions, etc. Help them to visualize the learning environment you create and the exchanges between you and your students.
• Make it memorable and unique. The search committee is seeing many of these documents—What is going to set you apart? What will they remember? Your teaching philosophy will come to life if you create a vivid portrait of yourself as a person who is intentional about teaching practices and committed to your career.

“Own” your philosophy

Don’t make general statements such as “students don’t learn through lecture” or “the only way to teach is with class discussion.” These could be detrimental, appearing as if you have all of the answers. Instead, write about your experiences and your beliefs. You “own” those statements and appear more open to new and different ideas about teaching. Even in your own experience, you make choices about the best teaching methods for different courses and content: sometimes lecture is most appropriate; other times you may use service-learning, for example.

Teaching philosophy statement dos and don’ts:

• Don’t give idyllic but empty concepts.
• Don’t repeat your CV.
• Do research on the teaching institution and disciplinary trends.
• Do keep it short (one to two pages).
• Do provide concrete examples and evidence of usefulness of teaching concepts.
• Do discuss impact of methods, lessons learned, challenges, and innovations—how did students learn?
• Do discuss connections between teaching, research, and service.

Answer these questions to get started:

• The purpose of education is to________.
• Why do you want to teach your subject?
• Students learn best by______________.
• When you are teaching your subject, what are your goals?
• The most effective methods for teaching are___________.
• I know this because__________________.
• The most important aspects of my teaching are______________.

More information on teaching philosophy statements

An excellent guide for writing your teaching philosophy statement is Occasional Paper number 23, “Writing a Statement of Teaching Philosophy for the Academic Job Search,” from the University of Michigan’s Center for Research on Learning and Teaching, which you can find at this page on The Teaching Philosophy and Statement .

Articles on Teaching Statements:

• “Writing the Teaching Statement”  by Rachel Narehood Austin, Science Magazine
• “How to Write a Statement of Teaching Philosophy”  by Gabriela Montell, The Chronicle of Higher Education
• “What’s Your Philosophy on Teaching, and Does it Matter?”  by Gabriela Montell, The Chronicle of Higher Education
• “A Teaching Statement”  by Jeffrey Marcus, The Chronicle of Higher Education
• “Everything But the Teaching Statement”  by Jeremy S. Clay, The Chronicle of Higher Education
• “Writing a Teaching Philosophy Statement”  by Helen G. Grundman, Notices of the American Mathematical Society

Additional Resources:

• From Cornell’s Center for Teaching Innovation
• From the University of Michigan
• From University of California Berkeley
• From University of Pennsylvania

Electronic portfolios

The electronic portfolio is a way to showcase your accomplishments, skills, and philosophy on the internet. You can write a personal profile; post your CV, resume, research statement, teaching philosophy statement; give links to published articles, work samples, etc.; and post photos and other images. You can continually update it as you progress through your studies and your career. It is readably available for potential employers to see.

Sites that Host Electronic Portfolios:

• Digication (Cornell-supported option)
• Interfolio  (fee-based)
• Google Sites  (free)

Help at the Center for Teaching Innovation (CTI)

Coursework involving teaching portfolio development.

The course ALS 6015, “ Teaching in Higher Education ,” guides graduate students in how to prepare teaching portfolios and provides opportunity for peer and instructor feedback.

Individual Advice

By enrolling in the CTI’s new Teaching Portfolio Program , you will have access to consultations and advice on helping prepare elements of a teaching portfolio such as a teaching philosophy statement.

Workshops and Institutes

For graduate teaching assistants and postdocs considering academic positions in higher education, you could attend a teaching statement workshop as part of the Graduate School’s Academic Job Search Series , or a day-long Teaching Portfolio Institute offered by the CTI to help refine and document your teaching for the job search.

Shaheen Ahmed

Faculty at Minnesota State University, Mankato

Philosophy of Teaching

What is it.

The goal of my teaching philosophy is to develop the higher-order skills: critical thinking, meta-cognition, reasoning, analytical, effective communication, leadership and team management. My teaching and learning methods and techniques are designed to analyze, evaluate and synthesize a complex real-world problem. Students will practice and learn the subject matters through innovative and creative sophisticated problems around the world today. Problems being assigned and practiced for my students must be optimally challenging to avoid overloading or underloading. To achieve the goal of my teaching philosophy, I believe that knowing the abilities and inabilities of my students is the key to the successful teaching and learning. I constantly monitor my students through frequent assessments to adjust the speed of the class before it is too late. Approximately, fifteen assessment points for a 42-contact-hours (3-credit hours) course also provide me an opportunity for the consistent improvement of my teaching and learning methods. As I would like to challenge my students, so being challenged by my students is even more rewarding and satisfying as an educator!

I believe in the method of teaching by Socrates “ I can’t teach anybody anything; I can only make them think.” I believe that it is their game where I can only perform as a coach guiding them to find their own paths to walk without me. The challenge of developing an effective teaching method is to create an environment where students can share and discuss their ideas, thus learning from their peers, systems and environments. To create such an environment, I would like to introduce “Optimum-Challenge-Based-Coaching”. I prefer “coaching” over “teaching” because students will have an opportunity to practice the topics in my courses ( Seymour, 2012 ). My responsibility as a coach is to provide students with correct challenges for a particular topic. One of the principles of cognitive psychology reveals that “humans are naturally curious, but they are not good thinkers” ( Willingham, 2009 ). One of the key objectives of my coaching is to initiate the thinking process. For example, in “An Introduction to Ergonomics Course,” I would like to challenge my students to design the worst ergonomic computer-workstation instead of the best one. Students will have to go through very similar materials to accomplish this challenge, but in doing so they will teach themselves what makes a good work-station so as not to include those elements in their design. More examples of innovative and creative real-world practical problems could be found at the following two sites designed and developed by me.

The Open Educator

My YouTube Channel

Who Are My Students?

Providing examples connected to their academic, professional and personal background is the key to engage students actively because humans learn new things from known contexts ( Willingham, 2009 ). The creative and innovative examples are already there. Utilizing my multidisciplinary academic background, I assign challenges using students existing experiences as a basis to build upon for learning new methods/principles. During the problem-solving process, I help them minimize mistakes while developing better solutions to that provided prior by others, thereby encouraging competition among students to find the best possible solution. This would help students evolve their higher-order thinking to apply the newly learned methods in solving a particular problem in an effective and efficient manner.

Is Learning Happening?

The assessment of a student’s ability/skill in finding solutions to a given problem is important in making coaching an effective method to ensure that learning is actually in progress (Angelo & Cross,1993)! Most courses could be designed into two parts: (1) learning the method/ theory and (2) practical application of that method/ theory. For the first part, students can be evaluated by using traditional classroom-based tests by using innovative and creative scenario-based questions ( McKeachie & Svinicki, 2013 ). To evaluate their practical approach, a creative project would be assigned to each student to work on an individual or group basis. My approach would be to evaluate a student based on the amount of time they spend on the project as well by assessment of their methodology/approach towards solving the problem but not necessarily finding the solution. I believe that these evaluation approaches will involve both low-stake (informal) and high-stake (formal) writings, which eventually teach the students to apply the learned knowledge in practice.

What’s In It For Me?

In summary, I believe that “ Optimum-Challenge-Based-Coaching” is the key to my teaching philosophy where students will be coached for higher order learning such as critical thinking and problem-solving skills to develop and grow with their full potentials. This would allow students to engage in an active learning by practicing diverged and multifaceted activities and assignments. Teaching is one of the most effective ways to learn about a topic to its core. This belief and my quest for knowledge have led me to choose teaching and learning as my profession. The resources for me as a teacher and a learner are my students, mentees, mentors, colleagues, the real-world complex problems all around us, and the new teaching and learning techniques and methods being developed by researchers to raise the level of education.

Theory of Sustained Optimal Challenge in Teaching and Learning

Teaching Philosophy of Shaheen Ahmed Presented at MSU 2015

Angelo, T. A., & Cross, K. P. (1993). Classroom assessment techniques: A handbook for college teachers .

McKeachie, W., & Svinicki, M. (2013). McKeachie’s teaching tips : Cengage Learning.

Seymour, M. (2012). Teaching Methods, Techniques and Philosophy. Mississippi State: Mississippi State University.

Willingham, D. T. (2009). Why don’t students like school? : a cognitive scientist answers questions about how the mind works and what it means for the classroom . San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

A few of my favorite teaching quotes

“Know the abilities and inabilities of students to challenge them with the right problems”

–Shaheen Ahmed

“I cannot teach anybody anything, I can only make them think.”

–Socrates (470BC-399BC)

“Thought flows in terms of stories – stories about events, stories about people, and stories about intentions and achievements. The best teachers are the best story tellers. We learn in the form of stories.”

–Frank Smith

“Every truth has four corners: as a teacher I give you one corner, and it is for you to find the other three.”

–Confucius (551BC-479BC)

“A teacher is one who makes himself progressively unnecessary.”

–Thomas Carruthers (1820 –1875)

“Tell me and I forget. Teach me and I remember. Involve me and I learn.”

— Benjamin Franklin (1706-1790)

“You cannot teach a man anything. You can only help him discover it within himself.”

–Galileo Galilei (1564-1642)

“I have never let my schooling interfere with my education.”

–Mark Twain (1835-1910)

“Not perfection as a final goal, but the ever-enduring process of perfecting, maturing, refining is the aim of living.”

–John Dewey (1859-1952)

“While we try to teach our children all about life, our children teach us what life is all about.”

–Angela Schwindt

“Teaching is the highest form of understanding.”

–Aristotle (384 BC – 322 BC)

“A little learning is a dangerous thing; Drink deep, or taste not the Pierian spring.”

–Alexander Pope (1688-1744)

“Education is what remains after one has forgotten what one has learned in school.”

–Albert Einstein (1879-1955)

“Excellence is never an accident. It is always the result of high intention, sincere effort, and intelligent execution; it represents the wise choice of many alternatives – choice, not chance, determines your destiny.”

The Study of Educational Psychology

Teaching Philosophy

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

There are  many different ways  to teach, varying circumstances to take into account, and philosophies to apply to each classroom. And what better way to have a positive impact on the world than to offer knowledge for consumption? The term ‘teacher’ can be applied to anyone who imparts knowledge of any topic, but it is generally more focused on those who are hired to do so.  In imparting knowledge to our students, it is inevitable that we must consider our own personal philosophies, or pedagogies, and determine not only how we decide what our philosophies are, but also how those impact our students.  

In order to develop a teaching philosophy, a teacher should examine and continuously reflect on the following:

• Creation of an articulated philosophy that can become a foundation upon which an individual’s life work can be built.
• Consideration of how your attitude is a function of who you are, how it affects your philosophy towards education, and how it shapes who you are as a teacher.
• Formulation of a teaching style that integrates teaching strategies with one’s own personality and philosophy.

Exercise 1.6 Educational Philosophies Self-Assessment Survey

Before reading about the various philosophies, take this assessment to find with which you most align. This assessment will assist you in writing your teaching philosophy.

• Complete the   Educational Philosophies Self-Assessment Survey
• Compile your score using  Educational Philosophies Self-Assessment Scoring Guide

What does this survey reveal about your underlying philosophy?

Lessons in Pedagogy

Teacher preparation classes frequently separated the concept of philosophy into separate schools. “Philosophy has been taught in the theoretical realm rather than the practical sense,” meaning that the ideas were placed before the teachers without the scaffolding to create a bridge into the classroom (Roberson, 2000, p. 7). The teachers, as students, were given a body of thought and expected to translate that into lessons for their own students. Once you have the idea, how do you apply it to teaching?

What, exactly, are teaching philosophies? According to Thelma Roberson (2000), most prospective teachers confuse their beliefs with the ideas of teaching. Teaching philosophies, then, are not what you want to do in class to aid learning, but why you do them and how they work. For example, Roberson’s students state they “want to use cooperative learning techniques” in their classroom. The question posed is, why? “[I]s cooperative learning a true philosophy or is it something you do in the classroom because of your belief about the way children learn?” (Roberson, 2000, p. 6). Philosophies need to translate ideas into action – if you want to use certain techniques, then you need to understand how they are effective in the classroom to create that portion of your teaching philosophy. It helps to have an overview of the various schools out there.

Ontological Frameworks of Philosophy

Generally, four ontological perspectives frame schools of educational philosophy.  Two ontological frameworks, idealism and realism, stem from Ancient Greece. The Ancient Greek philosopher Plato developed the tradition of idealism; whereas, Aristotle, Plato’s student, formed an antithetical ontology of realism. Progressivism and existentialism grew from the philosophical remnants of the Age of Enlightenment in the 19th century. Pragmatism formed within the United States during the late 1800s; at the same time, existentialism developed as a continental philosophy in Europe. While the early public education system in the United States was guided by idealism and realism, pragmatism and existentialism have served as the influential foundations of the 20th and 21st-century educational philosophies.

For Idealists, ideas are the only true reality. Conscious reasoning is the only way to locate what is true, beautiful, and just. Plato founded Idealism and outlined its tenets in his book The Republic. For Plato, there are two worlds. The first world is home to the spiritual or mental world where universal ideas and truth were permanent; this world can only be found through conscious reasoning. The second world is the world of appearances and imperfection; a world experienced through sensory experiences of sight, sound, touch, smell, and taste. Plato outlines this duality between the two worlds in “The Allegory of the Cave.” In this famous allegory, people are chained against walls with a fire behind them. What the people perceive as real are only shadowed projections on the wall of the cave. If one were to break free, leave the cave, and discover the sun, this new “realm” would discover the true source of everything that was previously known. It would be the realm of pure fact and form. This is the source of all that is real. The real world is just an imperfect projection of these ideas, forms, and truth.

Almost two centuries later, Dutch philosopher Renè Descartes shifted Platonic Idealism toward mind-body dualism with his famous phrase “Cogito, ergo sum (I think; therefore, I am).” For Descartes, the only proof of his existence is his thinking—a thinking being. Like Plato, Descartes outlined a rationale for why perceptions are unreliable, and the external world is illusory. Only through rational deduction could one obtain truth. While Plato described a dualism between two separate worlds, Descartes established an Idealism founded on mind-body dualism where the thinking mind is given privilege over the physical body and external world. This dualism would heavily influence philosophy and educational philosophy well into the 20th century.

Teaching, for Idealists, focuses on moral excellence that will benefit society. Students should focus on subjects of the mind like literature, history, and philosophy. Students will demonstrate understanding through participation in lectures and through Socratic-dialogues, which engage students in introspection and insight that bring to consciousness the universal forms and concepts.

Figure 1.6.1.  Plato.

Realism’s central tenet is based on reality, or the external universe, independent from the human mind. Aristotle, Plato’s student, contradicted his teacher’s Idealist philosophy and formulated a philosophy on determining truth through observation. Reality can be truly understood by careful observation of all the data. Because of his emphasis on careful observation, Aristotle is often referred to as the Father of the Scientific Method. Through logic, humans can reason about the physical universe . The essence of things or substances, therefore, can be determined by examination of the object or substance. Aristotle’s logic, then, emphasizes induction as well as deduction, and the real world can be determined through both.

During the Enlightenment, Common Sense Realism began to counter the Idealism of Descartes. Rather than the skepticism of the external world espoused by Idealists, the Common Sense Realists, like John Locke, argue that ordinary experiences intuit a self and the physical world without the skepticism of the real world outside the mind. This realism would influence the development of Empiricism and Pragmatism later in the Enlightenment.

For realists, teaching methods should focus on basic skills and memorization and mastery of facts. Students demonstrate content mastery of these skills through critical observation and applied experimentation.

Figure 1.6.2.  Aristotle. viena-Wien. Kunsthistorisches Museum. Cap d’Aristotil. Copia romana d’ un original qrez. Ca. 320 Dc.” by Pilar Torres.

Like Realism, Pragmatism requires empirical observation of the real world; however, unlike Realism and Idealism, the real world is not an unchanging whole but is evolving and changing according to how thought is applied to action towards a problem. Thought cannot or should not describe or represent reality, but rather, should be applied by the practical applying thoughts and experiences to problems that arise. The universe, then, is always evolving according to new applied thoughts turned into actions. Pragmatism’s founder Charles Sanders Pierce posits thought must produce action towards an ever-changing universe.

John Dewey, the founder of Progressivism, believed that experience is central to explaining the world; moreover, the experience is what is needed to be explained. One needs practical experiences and uses explanations to find models that would best fit any given problem or situation. As new experiences and explanations arise, reality will evolve or change to new situations and problems.

Pragmatists focus on hands-on, experiential learning tasks such as experimenting, and working on projects in groups. Students will demonstrate understanding through applied learning tasks to concrete problems or tasks.

Existentialism

Existentialism grew from the continental philosophies forming in Europe during the 19th and early 20th centuries, most notably hermeneutic phenomenology—the examination of lived experience. Hermeneutic phenomenology and existentialism countered the dualisms inherent in both Idealism and Realism. The world does not have any meaning outside human existence within a world. The mind/body or mind/physical world duality and cannot have any meaning without a human being actively absorbed in the world. Jean-Paul Sarte posited that “existence precedes essence,” which means one’s existence comes before the nature, or fact, of a thing. This means that individual human beings are free to determine their own meaning for life and do not possess any inherent identity different than one the individual chooses or creates.

Existentialists position the individual as responsible for their own being, or existence. “Who am I? What should I do?”  become central questions for an individual’s project in being. If one identifies with being a teacher, or any other identity like being a parent, then one must evaluate what does one who teaches (or any other identity) do? After thoughtful and careful reflection, one must choose to authentically do the project of being a teacher (or any other identity). Acting in accordance with one’s chosen beliefs and values despite social pressures is the way to have an authentic existence. However, acting or adopting false values based on social pressures would be acting in “bad faith,” and one would be living an inauthentic existence, according to Sartre.

In educational settings, Existentialists focus on giving students personal choices where they must confront others’ views in order to clarify and develop authentic actions in terms of the students’ developing identities. Existentialists have difficulty positioning students as objects to be measured, tracked, or standardized. Teachers who adhere to an Existentialist ontology create activities that guide students to self-direction and self-actualization.

Philosophical Perspective of Education

There are several philosophical perspectives currently used in educational settings. Unlike the more abstract ontology, these perspectives focus primarily on what should be taught and how it should be taught, i.e., the curriculum.

Essentialism

Essentialism adheres to a belief that a core set of essential skills must be taught to all students, a universal pool of knowledge needed by all. Essentialists tend to traditional academic disciplines that will develop prescribed skills and objectives in different content areas as well as develop a common culture. Typically, essentialism argues for a back-to-basics approach to teaching intellectual and moral standards. Schools should prepare all students to be productive members of society.

The fundamentals of teaching are the basis of the curriculum: math, science, history, foreign language, and English. Vocational classes are not seen as a necessary part of educational training. Schools should be sites of rigor where students learn to work hard and respect authority.  Because of this stance, essentialism tends to subscribe to tenets of realism.  Essentialist classrooms tend to be teacher-centered in instructional delivery with an emphasis on lecture and teacher demonstrations. Assessments are predominately through testing, and there are few, if any, projects or portfolios. These instructors easily accept the No Child Left Behind Act because test scores are the main form of evaluation (Ornstein  & Levine, 2003).

Perennialism

Perennialism advocates for seeking, teaching, and learning universal truths that span across the ages. These truths, Perennialists argue, have everlasting importance in helping humans solve problems regardless of time and place. While Perennialism resembles essentialism at first glance, perennialism focuses on the individual development of the student rather than emphasizing skills. Perennialism supports liberal arts curricula that help produces well-rounded individuals with some knowledge across the arts and sciences. All students should take classes in English Language Arts, foreign languages, mathematics, natural sciences, fine arts, and philosophy. Like Essentialism, Perennialism may tend to favor teacher-centered instruction; however, Perennialists do utilize student-centered instructional activities like Socratic Seminar, which values and encourages students to think, rationalize, and develop their own ideas on topics.

Perennialists are instructors who believe that knowledge passed through the ages should continue to be the basis of the curriculum, like the classic works of Plato and Einstein. Perennialists base their teachings on reason, logic, and analytical thought. Only information that stood the test of time is relevant. They do not elicit student input. The classes most likely to be considered under this approach would be history, science, math, and religion classes (Ganly, 2007).

Positivism is a philosophical theory that believes information is derived from sensory experience and interpreted through reason and logic. The instructors whose teaching philosophies are based on documented facts and objective truths are normally those who would be in the math and science departments. These teachers do not feel that religion and the supernatural should be a part of the thinking process. The idea of uncertainty and the unknown is considered illogical (Ganly, 2007).

Behaviorism

Behaviorists believe in rewards and punishments as an approach to controlling the teaching environment due to their belief in the intrinsic nature of humans to react to internal or external stimuli. This teacher-centered system ultimately allows the students to be controlled by the educator, who makes the environment pleasant or unpleasant, depending on the students’ behavior (Ornstein  & Levine, 2003).

Progressivism

The curriculum is usually integrated across contents instead of siloed into different disciplines. Progressivism’s stance is in stark contrast to both Essentialism and Perennialism in this manner. Progressivism follows an explicit pragmatic ontology where the learner focuses on solving real-world problems through real experiences. Current events are used to keep students interested in the required subject matter. Students are active learners as opposed to passive learners. Evaluations include projects and portfolios.

Figure 1.6.3.  Progressive John Dewey.

Social Reconstructionism & Critical Pedagogy

Critical pedagogy is the application of critical theory to education. For critical pedagogues, teaching and learning is inherently a political act, and they declare that knowledge and language are not neutral, nor can they be objective. Therefore, issues involving social, environmental, or economic justice cannot be separated from the curriculum. Critical pedagogy’s goal is to emancipate marginalized or oppressed groups by developing, according to Paulo Freire, conscientização, or critical consciousness in students.

Figure 1.6.4.  Gloria Jean Watkins, better known by her pen name bell hooks.

Critical pedagogy de-centers the traditional classroom, which positions the teacher at the center. The curriculum and classroom with a critical pedagogy stance are student-centered strives to instill a desire to make the world a better place. It places a focus on controversial world issues and uses current events as a springboard for the thinking process. These students are taught the importance of working together to bring about change. These teachers incorporate what is happening in the world with what they are learning in the classroom (Ganly, 2007).

Constructivism

Active participation is the key to this teaching style. Students are free to explore their own ideas and share concepts with one another in nontraditional ways. “Hands on activity […] is the most effective way of learning and is considered true learning” (Ganly, 2007).

Humanism/ Existentialism

Also a student-centered philosophy, this educational method is based on the idea that the students should be presented with choices about the learning process. Students are engaged in all aspects of learning and work together with the teacher and her peers to develop a curriculum and evaluation system that allows for individual interests and abilities (Ganly, 2007).

“Your philosophy of education is what you believe about education and the way children learn”                   (Roberson, 2000, p. 4).

Four Philosophies in Assessment

In addition, the ‘constructivist’ school of philosophy, rooted in the Pragmatic pedagogy and branched off from the ‘Social Reconstructivist’ school, has gained much popularity. Around the turn of the century (the early 1990s), many teachers felt the rote memorization and mindless routine that was common at that time was ineffective and began to look for alternate ways to reach their students (Ornstein & Levine, 2003). Through the constructivist approach, “students “construct” knowledge through an interaction between what they already think and know and with new ideas and experiences” (Roberson, 2000, p. 8). This is an active learning process that leads to a deeper understanding of the concepts presented in class and is based on the abilities and readiness of the children rather than set curriculum guidelines. Constructivism “emphasizes socially interactive and process-oriented ‘hands-on’ learning in which students work collaboratively to expand and revise their knowledge base” (Ornstein & Levine, 2003, p. 112). Essentially, knowledge that is shaped by experience is reconstructed, or altered, to assist the student in understanding new concepts (Ornstein & Levine, 2003). You, as the teacher, help the students build the scaffolding they need to maintain the information even after the test is taken and graded.

Once you know how you want to lead your classroom, it is important to consider how to assess your students’ progress. And when we think of school, we automatically consider the threesome subjects, Reading, Writing, and ‘Rithmatic. In all aspects of learning, however, the ability to communicate comes to the forefront. Communication is used in-class discussion as well as unit test short answers. Writing is present in almost all subjects in some form, and writing translates to communication. Richard Fulkerson (2000), in his article “Four Philosophies of Composition,” questions whether “a […] set of four philosophies of composition might exist, each one stressing a different element in the communicative transaction” (p. 3). Fulkerson’s schools of communicative philosophy fall into the following categories:

• Expressionism: a way of writing that demonstrates the students’ thoughts and can be led by “non-directive teachers, some of whom insist that one neither can nor should evaluate writing” or more hands-on teachers who “design classroom activities to maximize student self-discovery” (p. 5). This school of thought emphasizes the student.
• Rhetorical:  this school states that good writing is adapted to achieve a specific reaction from the audience (p. 6). This is focused on the connection between goal and process in completing assignments, and it emphasizes the audience.
• Mimesis:  states that “a clear connection exists between good writing and good thinking” and focuses on logic and reason as exemplified in the completion of assignments (p. 5). This school emphasizes a well-rounded student in that, research, prior knowledge, and the ability to recognize both sides of an argument are necessary for success (p. 6).
• Formalism:  this school focuses primarily on the form of the assignment – it disregards content to the extent that poor grammar can distract the audience from absorbing the content, and therefore, the work is judged “primarily by whether it shows certain internal [mistakes]” (p. 4).

While most teachers fall primarily into one school of composition pedagogy, Fulkerson (2000) points out that it is necessary to hold on to them all when he states “they are not mutually exclusive” (p. 6). The trick is to learn when each is applicable and to what extent it should be employed.

Teaching philosophies are as abundant. How do you narrow the choices down? And even though the difference between one philosophy and the next seems small at the onset, the two are by no means exactly alike. Your classes will be just as diverse. You will have students from all economic classes, with differing levels of language ability, and all bringing various and beautiful experiences to your class. How do you reach each individual?

Knowing who you are as a teacher before you enter the classroom will help significantly. Teaching is so much more than just the content. Teaching is a learning curve on a philosophy that will never be finished. Just as your classroom will change every year, continue to alter your philosophies. See what works for you and your students on a collaborative level.

“A working philosophy is never completely developed, the ultimate working philosophy never reached. We’re always moving toward, hopefully, a more complete, and thus more useful, working philosophy”                   (Apps, 1973, p. 1).

Exercise 1.7 Draft Your Philosophy

While your teaching philosophy will never be finished, now is a good time to start writing one. This will be your first of many drafts. With each domain of teaching that you explore, you should expect that your new understanding will help you further develop and refine your philosophy.

Here are some helpful tools to get started:

Teaching Perspectives Inventory

Teaching Styles Inventory

Teaching Goals Inventory

Statement of Teaching Philosophy – Questions to Consider

Writing Your Teaching Philosophy

Candela Citations

• Foundations of Education. Provided by : SUNY Oneonta Education Department. Retrieved from : https://courses.lumenlearning.com/suny-oneonta-education106/. License : CC BY: Attribution
• What are Education Philosophies?. Authored by : Dionne Nichols. Provided by : Wikibooks. Retrieved from : https://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Foundations_of_Education_and_Instructional_Assessment/Educational_Philosophy/Defined. License : CC BY-SA: Attribution-ShareAlike
• Educational Philosophies Self-Assessment. Authored by : LeoNora M. Cohen. Provided by : Oregon State University. Retrieved from : http://oregonstate.edu/instruct/ed416/selfassessment.html. License : All Rights Reserved
• Educational Philosophies Self-Assessment Scoring Guide. Authored by : LeoNora M. Cohen. Provided by : Oregon State University. Retrieved from : http://oregonstate.edu/instruct/ed416/scoringguide.html. License : All Rights Reserved

Educational Psychology Copyright © 2020 by Nicole Arduini-Van Hoose is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License , except where otherwise noted.

Share This Book

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

Bibliography

Academic tools.

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

Philosophy of Education

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

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

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

1. Problems in Delineating the Field

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

The inward/outward looking nature of the field of philosophy of education alluded to above makes the task of delineating the field, of giving an over-all picture of the intellectual landscape, somewhat complicated (for a detailed account of this topography, see Phillips 1985, 2010). Suffice it to say that some philosophers, as well as focusing inward on the abstract philosophical issues that concern them, are drawn outwards to discuss or comment on issues that are more commonly regarded as falling within the purview of professional educators, educational researchers, policy-makers and the like. (An example is Michael Scriven, who in his early career was a prominent philosopher of science; later he became a central figure in the development of the field of evaluation of educational and social programs. See Scriven 1991a, 1991b.) At the same time, there are professionals in the educational or closely related spheres who are drawn to discuss one or another of the philosophical issues that they encounter in the course of their work. (An example here is the behaviorist psychologist B.F. Skinner, the central figure in the development of operant conditioning and programmed learning, who in works such as Walden Two (1948) and Beyond Freedom and Dignity (1972) grappled—albeit controversially—with major philosophical issues that were related to his work.)

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

Finally, as indicated earlier, the domain of education is vast, the issues it raises are almost overwhelmingly numerous and are of great complexity, and the social significance of the field is second to none. These features make the phenomena and problems of education of great interest to a wide range of socially-concerned intellectuals, who bring with them their own favored conceptual frameworks—concepts, theories and ideologies, methods of analysis and argumentation, metaphysical and other assumptions, and the like. It is not surprising that scholars who work in this broad genre also find a home in the field of philosophy of education.

As a result of these various factors, the significant intellectual and social trends of the past few centuries, together with the significant developments in philosophy, all have had an impact on the content of arguments and methods of argumentation in philosophy of education—Marxism, psycho-analysis, existentialism, phenomenology, positivism, post-modernism, pragmatism, neo-liberalism, the several waves of feminism, analytic philosophy in both its ordinary language and more formal guises, are merely the tip of the iceberg.

Conceptual analysis, careful assessment of arguments, the rooting out of ambiguity, the drawing of clarifying distinctions—all of which are at least part of the philosophical toolkit—have been respected activities within philosophy from the dawn of the field. No doubt it somewhat over-simplifies the complex path of intellectual history to suggest that what happened in the twentieth century—early on, in the home discipline itself, and with a lag of a decade or more in philosophy of education—is that philosophical analysis came to be viewed by some scholars as being the major philosophical activity (or set of activities), or even as being the only viable or reputable activity. In any case, as they gained prominence and for a time hegemonic influence during the rise of analytic philosophy early in the twentieth century analytic techniques came to dominate philosophy of education in the middle third of that century (Curren, Robertson, & Hager 2003).

The pioneering work in the modern period entirely in an analytic mode was the short monograph by C.D. Hardie, Truth and Fallacy in Educational Theory (1941; reissued in 1962). In his Introduction, Hardie (who had studied with C.D. Broad and I.A. Richards) made it clear that he was putting all his eggs into the ordinary-language-analysis basket:

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

About a decade after the end of the Second World War the floodgates opened and a stream of work in the analytic mode appeared; the following is merely a sample. D. J. O’Connor published An Introduction to Philosophy of Education (1957) in which, among other things, he argued that the word “theory” as it is used in educational contexts is merely a courtesy title, for educational theories are nothing like what bear this title in the natural sciences. Israel Scheffler, who became the paramount philosopher of education in North America, produced a number of important works including The Language of Education (1960), which contained clarifying and influential analyses of definitions (he distinguished reportive, stipulative, and programmatic types) and the logic of slogans (often these are literally meaningless, and, he argued, should be seen as truncated arguments), Conditions of Knowledge (1965), still the best introduction to the epistemological side of philosophy of education, and Reason and Teaching (1973 [1989]), which in a wide-ranging and influential series of essays makes the case for regarding the fostering of rationality/critical thinking as a fundamental educational ideal (cf. Siegel 2016). B. O. Smith and R. H. Ennis edited the volume Language and Concepts in Education (1961); and R.D. Archambault edited Philosophical Analysis and Education (1965), consisting of essays by a number of prominent British writers, most notably R. S. Peters (whose status in Britain paralleled that of Scheffler in the United States), Paul Hirst, and John Wilson. Topics covered in the Archambault volume were typical of those that became the “bread and butter” of analytic philosophy of education (APE) throughout the English-speaking world—education as a process of initiation, liberal education, the nature of knowledge, types of teaching, and instruction versus indoctrination.

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

The concept of indoctrination was also of great interest to analytic philosophers of education, for, it was argued, getting clear about precisely what constitutes indoctrination also would serve to clarify the border that demarcates it from acceptable educational processes. Thus, whether or not an instructional episode was a case of indoctrination was determined by the content taught, the intention of the instructor, the methods of instruction used, the outcomes of the instruction, or by some combination of these. Adherents of the different analyses used the same general type of argument to make their case, namely, appeal to normal and aberrant usage. Unfortunately, ordinary language analysis did not lead to unanimity of opinion about where this border was located, and rival analyses of the concept were put forward (Snook 1972). The danger of restricting analysis to ordinary language (“normal English usage”) was recognized early on by Scheffler, whose preferred view of analysis emphasized

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

After a period of dominance, for a number of important reasons the influence of APE went into decline. First, there were growing criticisms that the work of analytic philosophers of education had become focused upon minutiae and in the main was bereft of practical import. (It is worth noting that a 1966 article in Time , reprinted in Lucas 1969, had put forward the same criticism of mainstream philosophy.) Second, in the early 1970’s radical students in Britain accused Peters’ brand of linguistic analysis of conservatism, and of tacitly giving support to “traditional values”—they raised the issue of whose English usage was being analyzed?

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

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

Fourth, during the decade of the seventies when these various critiques of analytic philosophy were in the process of eroding its luster, a spate of translations from the Continent stimulated some philosophers of education in Britain and North America to set out in new directions, and to adopt a new style of writing and argumentation. Key works by Gadamer, Foucault and Derrida appeared in English, and these were followed in 1984 by Lyotard’s The Postmodern Condition . The classic works of Heidegger and Husserl also found new admirers; and feminist philosophers of education were finding their voices—Maxine Greene published a number of pieces in the 1970s and 1980s, including The Dialectic of Freedom (1988); the influential book by Nel Noddings, Caring: A Feminine Approach to Ethics and Moral Education , appeared the same year as the work by Lyotard, followed a year later by Jane Roland Martin’s Reclaiming a Conversation . In more recent years all these trends have continued. APE was and is no longer the center of interest, although, as indicated below, it still retains its voice.

3. Areas of Contemporary Activity

As was stressed at the outset, the field of education is huge and contains within it a virtually inexhaustible number of issues that are of philosophical interest. To attempt comprehensive coverage of how philosophers of education have been working within this thicket would be a quixotic task for a large single volume and is out of the question for a solitary encyclopedia entry. Nevertheless, a valiant attempt to give an overview was made in A Companion to the Philosophy of Education (Curren 2003), which contains more than six-hundred pages divided into forty-five chapters each of which surveys a subfield of work. The following random selection of chapter topics gives a sense of the enormous scope of the field: Sex education, special education, science education, aesthetic education, theories of teaching and learning, religious education, knowledge, truth and learning, cultivating reason, the measurement of learning, multicultural education, education and the politics of identity, education and standards of living, motivation and classroom management, feminism, critical theory, postmodernism, romanticism, the purposes of universities, affirmative action in higher education, and professional education. The Oxford Handbook of Philosophy of Education (Siegel 2009) contains a similarly broad range of articles on (among other things) the epistemic and moral aims of education, liberal education and its imminent demise, thinking and reasoning, fallibilism and fallibility, indoctrination, authenticity, the development of rationality, Socratic teaching, educating the imagination, caring and empathy in moral education, the limits of moral education, the cultivation of character, values education, curriculum and the value of knowledge, education and democracy, art and education, science education and religious toleration, constructivism and scientific methods, multicultural education, prejudice, authority and the interests of children, and on pragmatist, feminist, and postmodernist approaches to philosophy of education.

Given this enormous range, there is no non-arbitrary way to select a small number of topics for further discussion, nor can the topics that are chosen be pursued in great depth. The choice of those below has been made with an eye to highlighting contemporary work that makes solid contact with and contributes to important discussions in general philosophy and/or the academic educational and educational research communities.

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

In developing a curriculum (whether in a specific subject area, or more broadly as the whole range of offerings in an educational institution or system), a number of difficult decisions need to be made. Issues such as the proper ordering or sequencing of topics in the chosen subject, the time to be allocated to each topic, the lab work or excursions or projects that are appropriate for particular topics, can all be regarded as technical issues best resolved either by educationists who have a depth of experience with the target age group or by experts in the psychology of learning and the like. But there are deeper issues, ones concerning the validity of the justifications that have been given for including/excluding particular subjects or topics in the offerings of formal educational institutions. (Why should evolution or creation “science” be included, or excluded, as a topic within the standard high school subject Biology? Is the justification that is given for teaching Economics in some schools coherent and convincing? Do the justifications for including/excluding materials on birth control, patriotism, the Holocaust or wartime atrocities in the curriculum in some school districts stand up to critical scrutiny?)

The different justifications for particular items of curriculum content that have been put forward by philosophers and others since Plato’s pioneering efforts all draw, explicitly or implicitly, upon the positions that the respective theorists hold about at least three sets of issues.

First, what are the aims and/or functions of education (aims and functions are not necessarily the same)? Many aims have been proposed; a short list includes the production of knowledge and knowledgeable students, the fostering of curiosity and inquisitiveness, the enhancement of understanding, the enlargement of the imagination, the civilizing of students, the fostering of rationality and/or autonomy, and the development in students of care, concern and associated dispositions and attitudes (see Siegel 2007 for a longer list). The justifications offered for all such aims have been controversial, and alternative justifications of a single proposed aim can provoke philosophical controversy. Consider the aim of autonomy. Aristotle asked, what constitutes the good life and/or human flourishing, such that education should foster these (Curren 2013)? These two formulations are related, for it is arguable that our educational institutions should aim to equip individuals to pursue this good life—although this is not obvious, both because it is not clear that there is one conception of the good or flourishing life that is the good or flourishing life for everyone, and it is not clear that this is a question that should be settled in advance rather than determined by students for themselves. Thus, for example, if our view of human flourishing includes the capacity to think and act autonomously, then the case can be made that educational institutions—and their curricula—should aim to prepare, or help to prepare, autonomous individuals. A rival justification of the aim of autonomy, associated with Kant, champions the educational fostering of autonomy not on the basis of its contribution to human flourishing, but rather the obligation to treat students with respect as persons (Scheffler 1973 [1989]; Siegel 1988). Still others urge the fostering of autonomy on the basis of students’ fundamental interests, in ways that draw upon both Aristotelian and Kantian conceptual resources (Brighouse 2005, 2009). It is also possible to reject the fostering of autonomy as an educational aim (Hand 2006).

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

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

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

Second, is it justifiable to treat the curriculum of an educational institution as a vehicle for furthering the socio-political interests and goals of a dominant group, or any particular group, including one’s own; and relatedly, is it justifiable to design the curriculum so that it serves as an instrument of control or of social engineering? In the closing decades of the twentieth century there were numerous discussions of curriculum theory, particularly from Marxist and postmodern perspectives, that offered the sobering analysis that in many educational systems, including those in Western democracies, the curriculum did indeed reflect and serve the interests of powerful cultural elites. What to do about this situation (if it is indeed the situation of contemporary educational institutions) is far from clear and is the focus of much work at the interface of philosophy of education and social/political philosophy, some of which is discussed in the next section. A closely related question is this: ought educational institutions be designed to further pre-determined social ends, or rather to enable students to competently evaluate all such ends? Scheffler argued that we should opt for the latter: we must

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

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

The thinking here can be explicated in terms of the analogy of an out-of-control virulent disease, for which there is only one type of medicine available; taking a large dose of this medicine is extremely beneficial, and the hope is that taking only a little—while less effective—is better than taking none at all. Medically, this is dubious, while the educational version—forcing students to work, until they exit the system, on topics that do not interest them and for which they have no facility or motivation—has even less merit. (For a critique of Adler and his Paideia Proposal , see Noddings 2015.) It is interesting to compare the modern “one curriculum track for all” position with Plato’s system outlined in the Republic , according to which all students—and importantly this included girls—set out on the same course of study. Over time, as they moved up the educational ladder it would become obvious that some had reached the limit imposed upon them by nature, and they would be directed off into appropriate social roles in which they would find fulfillment, for their abilities would match the demands of these roles. Those who continued on with their education would eventually become members of the ruling class of Guardians.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The educational research enterprise has been criticized for a century or more by politicians, policymakers, administrators, curriculum developers, teachers, philosophers of education, and by researchers themselves—but the criticisms have been contradictory. Charges of being “too ivory tower and theory-oriented” are found alongside “too focused on practice and too atheoretical”; but in light of the views of John Dewey and William James that the function of theory is to guide intelligent practice and problem-solving, it is becoming more fashionable to hold that the “theory v. practice” dichotomy is a false one. (For an illuminating account of the historical development of educational research and its tribulations, see Lagemann 2000.)

A similar trend can be discerned with respect to the long warfare between two rival groups of research methods—on one hand quantitative/statistical approaches to research, and on the other hand the qualitative/ethnographic family. (The choice of labels here is not entirely risk-free, for they have been contested; furthermore the first approach is quite often associated with “experimental” studies, and the latter with “case studies”, but this is an over-simplification.) For several decades these two rival methodological camps were treated by researchers and a few philosophers of education as being rival paradigms (Kuhn’s ideas, albeit in a very loose form, have been influential in the field of educational research), and the dispute between them was commonly referred to as “the paradigm wars”. In essence the issue at stake was epistemological: members of the quantitative/experimental camp believed that only their methods could lead to well-warranted knowledge claims, especially about the causal factors at play in educational phenomena, and on the whole they regarded qualitative methods as lacking in rigor; on the other hand the adherents of qualitative/ethnographic approaches held that the other camp was too “positivistic” and was operating with an inadequate view of causation in human affairs—one that ignored the role of motives and reasons, possession of relevant background knowledge, awareness of cultural norms, and the like. Few if any commentators in the “paradigm wars” suggested that there was anything prohibiting the use of both approaches in the one research program—provided that if both were used, they were used only sequentially or in parallel, for they were underwritten by different epistemologies and hence could not be blended together. But recently the trend has been towards rapprochement, towards the view that the two methodological families are, in fact, compatible and are not at all like paradigms in the Kuhnian sense(s) of the term; the melding of the two approaches is often called “mixed methods research”, and it is growing in popularity. (For more detailed discussion of these “wars” see Howe 2003 and Phillips 2009.)

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

The National Research Council (NRC)—an arm of the US National Academies of Science—issued a report, influenced by postpostivistic philosophy of science (NRC 2002), that argued that this criterion was far too narrow. Numerous essays have appeared subsequently that point out how the “gold standard” account of scientific rigor distorts the history of science, how the complex nature of the relation between evidence and policy-making has been distorted and made to appear overly simple (for instance the role of value-judgments in linking empirical findings to policy directives is often overlooked), and qualitative researchers have insisted upon the scientific nature of their work. Nevertheless, and possibly because it tried to be balanced and supported the use of RFTs in some research contexts, the NRC report has been the subject of symposia in four journals, where it has been supported by a few and attacked from a variety of philosophical fronts: Its authors were positivists, they erroneously believed that educational inquiry could be value neutral and that it could ignore the ways in which the exercise of power constrains the research process, they misunderstood the nature of educational phenomena, and so on. This cluster of issues continues to be debated by educational researchers and by philosophers of education and of science, and often involves basic topics in philosophy of science: the constitution of warranting evidence, the nature of theories and of confirmation and explanation, etc. Nancy Cartwright’s important recent work on causation, evidence, and evidence-based policy adds layers of both philosophical sophistication and real world practical analysis to the central issues just discussed (Cartwright & Hardie 2012, Cartwright 2013; cf. Kvernbekk 2015 for an overview of the controversies regarding evidence in the education and philosophy of education literatures).

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

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

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

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

• PES (Philosophy of Education Society, North America)
• PESA (Philosophy of Education Society of Australasia)
• PESGB (Philosophy of Education Society of Great Britain)
• INPE (International Network of Philosophers of Education)

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

Acknowledgments

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

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

• Accessibility

Support SEP

Mirror sites.

View this site from another server:

• Info about mirror sites

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

Library of Congress Catalog Data: ISSN 1095-5054

Center for Teaching

Teaching problem solving.

Print Version

Tips and Techniques

Expert vs. novice problem solvers, communicate.

• Have students  identify specific problems, difficulties, or confusions . Don’t waste time working through problems that students already understand.
• If students are unable to articulate their concerns, determine where they are having trouble by  asking them to identify the specific concepts or principles associated with the problem.
• In a one-on-one tutoring session, ask the student to  work his/her problem out loud . This slows down the thinking process, making it more accurate and allowing you to access understanding.
• When working with larger groups you can ask students to provide a written “two-column solution.” Have students write up their solution to a problem by putting all their calculations in one column and all of their reasoning (in complete sentences) in the other column. This helps them to think critically about their own problem solving and helps you to more easily identify where they may be having problems. Two-Column Solution (Math) Two-Column Solution (Physics)

Encourage Independence

• Model the problem solving process rather than just giving students the answer. As you work through the problem, consider how a novice might struggle with the concepts and make your thinking clear
• Have students work through problems on their own. Ask directing questions or give helpful suggestions, but  provide only minimal assistance and only when needed to overcome obstacles.
• Don’t fear  group work ! Students can frequently help each other, and talking about a problem helps them think more critically about the steps needed to solve the problem. Additionally, group work helps students realize that problems often have multiple solution strategies, some that might be more effective than others

Be sensitive

• Frequently, when working problems, students are unsure of themselves. This lack of confidence may hamper their learning. It is important to recognize this when students come to us for help, and to give each student some feeling of mastery. Do this by providing  positive reinforcement to let students know when they have mastered a new concept or skill.

Encourage Thoroughness and Patience

• Try to communicate that  the process is more important than the answer so that the student learns that it is OK to not have an instant solution. This is learned through your acceptance of his/her pace of doing things, through your refusal to let anxiety pressure you into giving the right answer, and through your example of problem solving through a step-by step process.

Experts (teachers) in a particular field are often so fluent in solving problems from that field that they can find it difficult to articulate the problem solving principles and strategies they use to novices (students) in their field because these principles and strategies are second nature to the expert. To teach students problem solving skills,  a teacher should be aware of principles and strategies of good problem solving in his or her discipline .

The mathematician George Polya captured the problem solving principles and strategies he used in his discipline in the book  How to Solve It: A New Aspect of Mathematical Method (Princeton University Press, 1957). The book includes  a summary of Polya’s problem solving heuristic as well as advice on the teaching of problem solving.

Teaching Guides

• Online Course Development Resources
• Principles & Frameworks
• Pedagogies & Strategies
• Reflecting & Assessing
• Challenges & Opportunities
• Populations & Contexts

Quick Links

• Services for Departments and Schools
• Examples of Online Instructional Modules

• MyU : For Students, Faculty, and Staff
• Academic Leaders
• Faculty and Instructors
• Graduate Students and Postdocs

Center for Educational Innovation

• Campus and Collegiate Liaisons
• Pedagogical Innovations Journal Club
• Teaching Enrichment Series
• Recorded Webinars
• Video Series
• All Services
• Teaching Consultations
• Student Feedback Facilitation
• Instructional Media Production
• Curricular and Educational Initiative Consultations
• Educational Research and Evaluation
• Thank a Teacher
• All Teaching Resources
• Aligned Course Design
• Active Learning
• Team Projects
• Active Learning Classrooms
• Leveraging the Learning Sciences
• Inclusive Teaching at a Predominantly White Institution
• Strategies to Support Challenging Conversations in the Classroom
• Assessments
• Online Teaching and Design
• AI and ChatGPT in Teaching
• Documenting Growth in Teaching
• Early Term Feedback
• Scholarship of Teaching and Learning
• Writing Your Teaching Philosophy
• All Programs
• Assessment Deep Dive
• Designing and Delivering Online Learning
• Early Career Teaching and Learning Program
• International Teaching Assistant (ITA) Program
• Preparing Future Faculty Program
• Teaching with Access and Inclusion Program
• Teaching for Student Well-Being Program
• Teaching Assistant and Postdoc Professional Development Program

Your teaching philosophy is a self-reflective statement of your beliefs about teaching and learning. It's a one to two page narrative that conveys your core ideas about being an effective teacher in the context of your discipline. It develops these ideas with specific, concrete examples of what the teacher and learners will do to achieve those goals. Importantly, your teaching philosophy statement also explains why you choose these options.

+ Getting Started

Your reasons for writing a teaching philosophy may vary. You might be writing it as an exercise in concisely documenting your beliefs so that you can easily articulate them to your students, peers, or a search committee. It might serve as the introduction to your teaching portfolio. Or, it can serve as a means of professional growth as it requires you to give examples of how you enact your philosophy, thus requiring you to consider the degree to which your teaching is congruent with your beliefs.

Generating ideas

Teaching philosophies express your values and beliefs about teaching. They are personal statements that introduce you, as a teacher, to your reader. As such, they are written in the first person and convey a confident, professional tone. When writing a teaching philosophy, use specific examples to illustrate your points. You should also discuss how your values and beliefs about teaching fit into the context of your discipline.

Below are categories you might address with prompts to help you begin generating ideas. Work through each category, spending time thinking about the prompts and writing your ideas down. These notes will comprise the material you’ll use to write the first draft of your teaching philosophy statement. It will help if you include both general ideas (‘I endeavor to create lifelong learners’) as well as specifics about how you will enact those goals. A teaching philosophy template is also available to help you get started.

Questions to prompt your thinking

Your concept of learning.

What do you mean by learning? What happens in a successful learning situation? Note what constitutes "learning" or "mastery" in your discipline.

Your concept of teaching

What are your values, beliefs, and aspirations as a teacher? Do you wish to encourage mastery, competency, transformational learning, lifelong learning, general transference of skills, critical thinking? What does a perfect teaching situation look like to you and why? How are the values and beliefs realized in classroom activities? You may discuss course materials, lesson plans, activities, assignments, and assessment instruments.

Your goals for students

What skills should students obtain as a result of your teaching? Think about your ideal student and what the outcomes of your teaching would be in terms of this student's knowledge or behavior. Address the goals you have for specific classes or curricula and that rational behind them (i.e., critical thinking, writing, or problem solving).

Your teaching methods

What methods will you consider to reach these goals and objectives? What are your beliefs regarding learning theory and specific strategies you would use, such as case studies, group work, simulations, interactive lectures? You might also want to include any new ideas or strategies you want to try.

Your interaction with students

What are you attitudes towards advising and mentoring students? How would an observer see you interact with students? Why do you want to work with students?

Assessing learning

How will you assess student growth and learning? What are your beliefs about grading? Do you grade students on a percentage scale (criterion referenced) or on a curve (norm referenced)? What different types of assessment will you use (i.e. traditional tests, projects, portfolios,  presentations) and why?

Professional growth

How will you continue growing as a teacher? What goals do you have for yourself and how will you reach them? How have your attitudes towards teaching and learning changed over time? How will you use student evaluations to improve your teaching? How might you learn new skills? How do you know when you've taught effectively?

+ Creating a Draft

Two ways of organizing your draft.

Now that you've written down your values, attitudes, and beliefs about teaching and learning, it's time to organize those thoughts into a coherent form. Perhaps the easiest way of organizing this material would be to write a paragraph covering each of the seven prompts you answered in the Getting Started section. These would then become the seven major sections of your teaching philosophy.

Another way of knitting your reflections together—and one that is more personal—is to read through your notes and underscore ideas or observations that come up more than once. Think of these as "themes" that might point you toward an organizational structure for the essay. For example, you read through your notes and realize that you spend a good deal of time writing about your interest in mentoring students. This might become one of the three or four major foci of your teaching philosophy. You should then discuss what it says about your attitudes toward teaching, learning, and what's important in your discipline.

No matter which style you choose, make sure to keep your writing succinct. Aim for two double-spaced pages. And don't forget to start with a "hook." Your job is to make your readers want to read more; their level of engagement is highest when they read your opening line. Hook your readers by beginning with a question, a statement, or even an event from your past.

Using specific examples

Remember to provide concrete examples from your teaching practice to illustrate the general claims you make in your teaching philosophy. The following general statements about teaching are intended as prompts to help you come up with examples to illustrate your claims about teaching. For each statement, how would you describe what happens in your classroom? Is your description specific enough to bring the scene to life in a teaching philosophy?

"I value helping my students understand difficult information. I am an expert, and my role is to model for them complex ways of thinking so that they can develop the same habits of mind as professionals in the medical field."

"I enjoy lecturing, and I'm good at it. I always make an effort to engage and motivate my students when I lecture."

"It is crucial for students of geology to learn the techniques of field research. An important part of my job as a professor of geology is to provide these opportunities."

"I believe that beginning physics students should be introduced to the principles of hypothesis generation, experimentation, data collection, and analysis. By learning the scientific method, they develop critical thinking skills they can apply to other areas of their lives. Small group work is a crucial tool for teaching the scientific method."

"As a teacher of writing, I am committed to using peer review in my classes. By reading and commenting on other students' work in small cooperative groups, my students learn to find their voice, to understand the important connection between writer and audience, and to hone their editing skills. Small group work is indispensible in the writing classroom."

Go back to the notes you made when getting started and underline the general statements you’ve made about teaching and learning. As you start drafting, make sure to note the specific approaches, methods, or products you use to realize those goals.

+ Assessing Your Draft

Assessing your draft teaching philosophy.

According to a survey of search committee chairs by the University of Michigan Center for Research on Learning and Teaching, there are five elements that are shared by strong teaching philosophy statements:

• They offer evidence of practice (specific examples)
• They are student-centered
• They demonstrate reflectiveness
• They demonstrate that the writer values teaching
• They are well written, clear, and readable

Now that you’ve completed an initial draft, ask whether your statement captures these elements and how well you articulate them.

You might find it useful to compare your draft to other teaching philosophies in your discipline. It can also be useful to have a colleague review your draft and offer recommendations for revision. Consider printing out a teaching philosophy rubric from our “Rubrics and Samples” tab to provide your reviewer with guidelines to assess your draft. These exercises will give you the critical distance necessary to see your teaching philosophy objectively and revise it accordingly.

+ Rubrics and Samples

Rubrics and sample teaching philosophies.

Here are links to three teaching philosophy rubrics to help you assess your statement. We have included four different rubrics for you to choose from. These rubrics cover similar elements, and one is not necessarily better than the other. Your choice of which to use should be guided by how comfortable you feel with the particular instrument and how usable you find it. 

• Teaching Philosophy Rubric 1   This rubric allows a reader to rate several elements of persuasiveness and format on a scale of 1 to 5.
• Teaching Philosophy Rubric 2   This rubric contains prompts for assessing purpose and audience, voice, beliefs and support, and conventions.
• Teaching Philosophy Rubric 3   This rubric contains prompts for assessing content, format, and writing quality.
• Rubric for Statements of Teaching Philosophy  This rubric was developed by Kaplan et. al. from the University of Michigan.
• Marisol Brito – philosophy 
• Benjamin Harrison – biology  
• Jamie Peterson – psychology
• The University of Michigan has a wide variety of  samples  organized by field of study.
• Research and Resources
• Why Use Active Learning?
• Successful Active Learning Implementation
• Addressing Active Learning Challenges
• Why Use Team Projects?
• Project Description Examples
• Project Description for Students
• Team Projects and Student Development Outcomes
• Forming Teams
• Team Output
• Individual Contributions to the Team
• Individual Student Understanding
• Supporting Students
• Wrapping up the Project
• Addressing Challenges
• Course Planning
• Working memory
• Retrieval of information
• Spaced practice
• Active learning
• Metacognition
• Definitions and PWI Focus
• A Flexible Framework
• Class Climate
• Course Content
• An Ongoing Endeavor
• Learn About Your Context
• Design Your Course to Support Challenging Conversations
• Design Your Challenging Conversations Class Session
• Use Effective Facilitation Strategies
• What to Do in a Challenging Moment
• Debrief and Reflect On Your Experience, and Try, Try Again
• Supplemental Resources
• Align Assessments
• Multiple Low Stakes Assessments
• Authentic Assessments
• Formative and Summative Assessments
• Varied Forms of Assessments
• Cumulative Assessments
• Equitable Assessments
• Essay Exams
• Multiple Choice Exams and Quizzes
• Academic Paper
• Skill Observation
• Alternative Assessments
• Assessment Plan
• Grade Assessments
• Prepare Students
• Reduce Student Anxiety
• SRT Scores: Interpreting & Responding
• Student Feedback Question Prompts
• Research Questions and Design
• Gathering data
• Publication
• GRAD 8101: Teaching in Higher Education
• Finding a Practicum Mentor
• GRAD 8200: Teaching for Learning
• Proficiency Rating & TA Eligibility
• Schedule a SETTA
• TAPD Webinars

10 Philosophical Foundations of Education

Philosophical foundations of education.

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

Chapter Outline

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

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

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

Table 3.1: Four Key Educational Philosophies

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Season 2: Episode 8 – The Final Exam

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

Transcript of Podcast

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

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

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

Share This Book

Want to create or adapt books like this? Learn more about how Pressbooks supports open publishing practices.

6 Chapter 6: Progressivism

This chapter will provide a comprehensive overview of Progressivism. This philosophy of education is rooted in the 
 philosophy of pragmatism. Unlike Perennialism, which emphasizes a universal truth, progressivism favors “human experience as the basis for knowledge rather than authority” (Johnson et. al., 2011, p. 114). By focusing on human experience as the basis for knowledge, this philosophy of education shifts the focus of educational theory from school to student.

In order to understand the implications of this shift, an overview of the key characteristics of Progressivism will be provided in section one of this chapter. Information related to the curriculum, instructional methods, the role of the teacher, and the role of the learner will be presented in section two and three. Finally, key educators within progressivism and their contributions are presented in section four.

Characteristics of Progressivim

6.1 Essential Questions

By the end of this section, the following Essential Questions will be answered:

• In which 
 school 
of thought is Progressivism rooted?
• What is the educational 
 focus of Progressivism?
• What do Progressivist 
 believe are 
 the primary 
 goals of schooling?

Progressivism is a very student-centered philosophy of education. Rooted in pragmatism, the educational focus of progressivism is on engaging students in real-world problem- solving activities in a democratic and cooperative learning environment (Webb et. al., 2010). In order to solve these problems, students apply the scientific method. This ensures that they are actively engaged in the learning process as well as taking a practical approach to finding answers to real-world problems.

Progressivism was established in the 
 mid-1920s and continued to be one of the most 
influential philosophies of education through the mid-1950s. One of the primary reasons for this is that a main tenet of progressivism is for the school to improve society. This was sup posed to be achieved by engaging students in tasks related to real-world problem-solving. As a result, Progressivism was deemed to be a working model of democracy (Webb et. al., 2010).

6.2 A Closer Look

Please read the following article for more information on progressivism: Progressive education: Why it’s hard to beat, but also hard to find.

As you read the article, think about the following Questions to Consider:

• How does the author define progressive 
 education?
• What does the author say progressive 
 education is not?
• What elements of progressivism make sense, 
 according to the author? Progressive education: Why it’s hard to beat, but also hard to find

6.3 Essential Questions

• How is a Progressivist curriculum best described?
• What subjects 
 are included in 
 a Progressivist curriculum?
• Do you think 
 the focus of this curriculum is beneficial for students? Why 
 or why not?

As previously stated, Progressivism focuses on real-world problem-solving activities. Consequently, the Progressivist curriculum is focused on providing students with real-world experiences that are meaningful and relevant to them rather than rigid subject-matter content.

Dewey (1963), who is often referred to as the “father of progressive education,” believed that all aspects of study (i.e., arithmetic, history, geography, etc.) need to be linked to materials based on students every- day life-experiences.

However, Dewey (1938) cautioned that not all experiences are equal:

The belief that all genuine education comes
 about through experience does not mean that
 all experiences are genuinely or equally 
 educative. Experience and education cannot
 be directly equated to each other. For some
 experiences are mis-educative. Any experience
 is mis-education that has the effect of arresting
 or distorting the growth or further experience (p. 25).

An example of miseducation would be that of a bank robber. He or she many learn from the experience of robbing a bank, but this experience can not be equated with that of a student learning to apply a history concept to his or her real-world 
 experiences.

Features of a Progressive Curriculum

There are several key features that distinguish a progressive curriculum. According to Lerner (1962), some of the key features of a progressive curriculum include:

• A focus on the student
• A focus on peers
• An emphasis on growth
• Action centered
• Process and change centered
• Equality centered
• Community centered

To successfully apply these features, a progressive 
 curriculum would feature an open classroom environment. In this type of environment, students would “spend considerable time in direct contact with the community or cultural surroundings beyond the confines of the classroom or school” (Webb et. al., 2010, p. 74). For example, if students in Kansas were studying Brown v. Board of Education in their history class, they might visit the Brown v. Board of Education National Historic Site in Topeka. By visiting the National Historic Site, students are no longer just studying something from the past, they are learning about history in a way that is meaningful and relevant to them today, which is essential in a Progressive curriculum.

• In what ways have you experienced elements 
 of a Progressivist curriculum as a student?
• How might you implement a Progressivist 
 curriculum as a future teacher?
• What challenges do you see in implementing 
 a Progressivist curriculum and how might 
 you overcome them?

Instruction in the Classroom

6.4 Essential Questions

• What are the 
 main methods of instruction in a Progressivist classroom?
• What is the teachers 
 role in the classroom?
• What is the students 
 role in the classroom?
• What strategies do students use in a Progressivist classrooms?

Within a Progressivist classroom, key instructional methods include: group work and the project method. Group work promotes the experienced-centered focus of the Progressive philosophy. By giving students opportunities to work together, they not only learn critical skills related to cooperation, they are also able to engage in and develop projects that are meaningful and have relevance to their everyday lives.

Promoting the use of project work, centered around the scientific method, also helps students engage in critical thinking, problem solving, and deci- sion making (Webb et. al., 2010). More importantly, the application of the scientific method allows Progressivists to verify experi ence through investigation. Unlike Perennialists and Essentialists, who view the scientific method as a means of verifying the truth (Webb et. al., 2010).

Teachers Role

Progressivists view teachers as a facilitator in the classroom. As the facilitator, the teacher directs the students learning, but the students voice is just as important as that of the teacher. For this reason, progressive education is often equated with student-centered instruction.

To support students in finding their own voice, the teacher takes on the role of a guide. Since the student has such an important role in the learning, the teacher needs to guide the students in “learning how to learn” (Labaree, 2005, p. 277). In other words, they need to help students construct the skills they need to understand and process the content.

In order to do this successfully, the teacher needs to act as a collaborative partner. As a collaborative partner, the teachers works with the student to make group decisions about what will be learned, keeping in mind the ultimate out- comes that need to be obtained. The primary aim as a collaborative partner, according to Progressivists, is to help students “acquire the values of the democratic system” (Webb et. al., 2010, p. 75).

Some of the key instructional methods used by Progressivist teachers include:

• Promoting discovery and self-directly learning.

• Integrating socially relevant themes.
• Promoting values of community, cooperation, 
 tolerance, justice, and democratic equality.
• Encouraging the use of group activities.
• Promoting the application of projects to enhance 
 learning.
• Engaging students in critical thinking.
• Challenging students to work on their problem 
 solving skills.
• Developing decision making techniques.
• Utilizing cooperative learning strategies. (Webb et. al., 2010).

6.5 An Example in Practice

Watch the following video and see how many of the bulleted instructional methods you can identify! In addition, while watching the video, think about the following questions:

• Do you think you have the skills to be a 
Constructivist teacher? Why or why not?
• What qualities do you have that would make you 
 good at applying a Progressivist approach in the 
 classroom? What would you need to improve 
upon?

Based on the instructional methods demonstrated in the video, it is clear to see that progressivist teachers, as facilitators of students learning, are encouraged to help their stu dents construct their own understanding by taking an active role in the learning process. Therefore, one of the most com- mon labels used to define this entire approach to education today is: C onstructivism .

Students Role

Students in a Progressivist classroom are empowered to take a more active role in the learning process. In fact, they are encourage to actively construct their knowledge and understanding by:

• Interacting with their environment.
• Setting objectives for their own learning.
• Working together to solve problems.
• Learning by doing.
• Engaging in cooperative problem solving.
• Establishing classroom rules.
• Evaluating ideas.
• Testing ideas.

The examples above clearly demonstrate that in the Progressive classroom, the students role is that of an 
 active learner.

6.6 An Example in Practice

Mrs. Espenoza is an 6th grade teacher at Franklin Elementary. She has 24 students in her class. Half of her students are from diverse cultural backgrounds and are receiving free and reduced lunch. In order to actively engage her students in the learning process, Mrs. Espenoza does 
not use traditional textbooks in her classroom. Instead, she uses more real-world resources 
 and technology that goes beyond the four walls of the classroom. In order to actively engage 
 her students in the learning process, she seeks out members of the community to be guest 
 presenters in her classroom as she believes 
 this provides her students with an way to 
 interact with/learn about their community. 
 Mrs. Espenoza also believes it is important for 
 students to construct their own learning, so she emphasizes: cooperative problem solving, project-based learning, and critical thinking.

6.7 A Closer Look

For more information about Progressivism, please watch the following videos. As you watch the videos, please use the “Questions to Consider” as a way to reflect on and monitor your own learnings.

• What are two new insights you gain about the 
Progressivist philosophy from the first video?
• What is the role of the Progressivist teacher according to the second video? Do you think you would be good in this role? Why or why not?
• How does Progessivism accommodate different learning styles? Give at least one specific example. What is the benefit of making this accommodation for the student?
• Can you relate elements of this philosophy to 
 your own educational experiences? If so, how? 
 If not, can you think of an example?

Key Educators

6.8 Essential Questions

• Who were 
 the key educators 
 of Progressivism?
• What 
impact did 
 each of the 
 key educators 
 of Progressivism have 
 on this philosophy of education?

The father of progressive education is considered to be Francis W. Parker. Parker was the superintendent of schools in Quincy, Massachusetts, and later became the head of the Cook County Normal School in Chicago (Webb et. al., 2010). 
 John Dewey is the American educator most commonly associated with progressivism. William H. Kilpatrick also played an important role in advancing progressivism. Each of these key educators, and their contributions, will be further explored in this section.

Francis W. Parker (1837 – 1902)

Francis W. Parker was the superintendent of schools in Quincy, Massachusetts (Webb, 2010). Between 1875 – 1879, Parker developed the Quincy plan and implemented an experimental program based on “meaningful learning and active understanding of concepts” (Schugurensky, 2002, p. 1). When test results showed that students in Quincy schools outperformed the rest of the school children in Massachusetts, the progressive movement began.

Based on the popularity of his approach, Parker founded the Parker School in 1901. The Parker School

“promoted a more holistic and social 
 approach, following Francis W. Parker’s 
 beliefs that education should include the 
 complete development of an individual 
 (mental, physical, and moral) and that 
 education could develop students into 
 active, democratic citizens and lifelong learners” (Schugurensky, 2002, p. 2).

Parker’s student-centered approach was a dramatic change from the prescribed curricula that focused on rote memorization and rigid student disciple. However, the success of the Parker School could not be disregarded. Alumni of the school were applying what they learned to improve their community and promote a more democratic society.

John Dewey (1859 – 1952)

John Dewey’s approach to Progressivism is best articulated in his book: The School and Society

(1915). In this book, he argued that America needed new educational systems based on “the larger whole of social life” (Dewey, 1915, p. 66). In order to achieve this, Dewey proposed actively 
 engaging students in inquiry-based learning and experimentation to promote active learning and growth among 
 students.

As a result of his work, Dewey set the foundation for 
 approaching teaching and learning from a student-driven 
 perspective. Meaningful activities and projects that actively engaging the students’ interests and backgrounds as the 
 “means” to learning were key (Tremmel, 2010, p. 126). In this way, the students could more fully develop as learning would be more meaningful to them.

6.9 A Closer Look

For more information about Dewey and his views on education, please read the following article titled: My 
 Pedagogic Creed. This article is considered Dewey’s 
 famous declaration concerning education as presented in five key articles that summarize his beliefs.

My Pedagogic Creed

William H. Kilpatrick (1871-1965)

Kilpatrick is best known for advancing Progressive 
 education as a result of his focus on experience-centered 
 curriculum. Kilpatrick summarized his approach in a 1918 
 essay titled “The Project Method.” In this essay, Kilpatrick (1918) advocated for an educational approach that involves

“whole-hearted, purposeful activity proceeding in a social 
 environment” (p. 320).

As identified within The Project Method, Kilpatrick (1918) emphasized the importance of looking at students’ 
 interests as the basis for identifying curriculum and developing pedagogy. This student-centered approach was very 
 significant at the time, as it moved away from the traditional approach of a more mandated curriculum and prescribed 
 pedagogy.

Although many aspects of his student-centered approach were highly regarded, Kilpatrick was also criticized given the diminished importance of teachers in his approach in favor of the students interests and his “extreme ideas about student- centered action” (Tremmel, 2010, p. 131). Even Dewey felt that Kilpatrick did not place enough emphasis on the importance of the teacher and his or her collaborative role within the classroom.

Reflect on your learnings about Progressivism! Create a T-chart and bullet the pros and cons of 
 Progressivism. Based on your T-chart, do you 
 think you could successfully apply this 
 philosophy in your future classroom? Why 
or why not?

Media Attributions

• Progressivism Quote © quotemaster.org
• Dewey Curriculum © quotesgram.com
• Action Centered © Photos for Class
• Stop and Think © DWRose
• Project Based Learning © Blendspace
• Collaboration © photosforclass.com
• Learning by Doing © PBL Education - WordPress.com
• Francis W. Parker Quote © azquotes.com
• School and Society © Amazon.com
• The Project Method © Goodreads.com

To the extent possible under law, Della Perez has waived all copyright and related or neighboring rights to Social Foundations of K-12 Education , except where otherwise noted.

Share This Book

Constructivism Learning Theory & Philosophy of Education

Saul Mcleod, PhD

Editor-in-Chief for Simply Psychology

BSc (Hons) Psychology, MRes, PhD, University of Manchester

Saul Mcleod, PhD., is a qualified psychology teacher with over 18 years of experience in further and higher education. He has been published in peer-reviewed journals, including the Journal of Clinical Psychology.

Learn about our Editorial Process

Olivia Guy-Evans, MSc

Associate Editor for Simply Psychology

BSc (Hons) Psychology, MSc Psychology of Education

Olivia Guy-Evans is a writer and associate editor for Simply Psychology. She has previously worked in healthcare and educational sectors.

On This Page:

Constructivism is a learning theory that emphasizes the active role of learners in building their own understanding. Rather than passively receiving information, learners reflect on their experiences, create mental representations , and incorporate new knowledge into their schemas . This promotes deeper learning and understanding.

Constructivism is ‘an approach to learning that holds that people actively construct or make their own knowledge and that reality is determined by the experiences of the learner’ (Elliott et al., 2000, p. 256).

In elaborating on constructivists’ ideas, Arends (1998) states that constructivism believes in the personal construction of meaning by the learner through experience and that meaning is influenced by the interaction of prior knowledge and new events.

Constructivism Philosophy

Knowledge is constructed rather than innate, or passively absorbed.

Constructivism’s central idea is that human learning is constructed, that learners build new knowledge upon the foundation of previous learning.

This prior knowledge influences what new or modified knowledge an individual will construct from new learning experiences (Phillips, 1995).

Learning is an active process.

The second notion is that learning is an active rather than a passive process.

The passive view of teaching views the learner as ‘an empty vessel’ to be filled with knowledge, whereas constructivism states that learners construct meaning only through active engagement with the world (such as experiments or real-world problem-solving).

Information may be passively received, but understanding cannot be, for it must come from making meaningful connections between prior knowledge, new knowledge, and the processes involved in learning.

John Dewey valued real-life contexts and problems as an educational experience. He believed that if students only passively perceive a problem and do not experience its consequences in a meaningful, emotional, and reflective way, they are unlikely to adapt and revise their habits or construct new habits, or will only do so superficially.

All knowledge is socially constructed.

Learning is a social activity – it is something we do together, in interaction with each other, rather than an abstract concept (Dewey, 1938).

For example, Vygotsky (1978) believed that community plays a central role in the process of “making meaning.” For Vygotsky, the environment in which children grow up will influence how they think and what they think about.

Thus, all teaching and learning is a matter of sharing and negotiating socially constituted knowledge.

For example, Vygotsky (1978) states cognitive development stems from social interactions from guided learning within the zone of proximal development as children and their partners co-construct knowledge.

All knowledge is personal.

Each individual learner has a distinctive point of view, based on existing knowledge and values.

This means that same lesson, teaching or activity may result in different learning by each pupil, as their subjective interpretations differ.

This principle appears to contradict the view the knowledge is socially constructed.

Fox (2001, p. 30) argues:

• Although individuals have their own personal history of learning, nevertheless they can share in common knowledge, and
• Although education is a social process powerfully influenced by cultural factors, cultures are made up of sub-cultures, even to the point of being composed of sub-cultures of one.
• Cultures and their knowledge base are constantly in a process of change and the knowledge stored by individuals is not a rigid copy of some socially constructed template. In learning a culture, each child changes that culture.

Learning exists in the mind.

The constructivist theory posits that knowledge can only exist within the human mind, and that it does not have to match any real-world reality (Driscoll, 2000).

Learners will be constantly trying to develop their own individual mental model of the real world from their perceptions of that world.

As they perceive each new experience, learners will continually update their own mental models to reflect the new information, and will, therefore, construct their own interpretation of reality.

Types of Constructivism

Typically, this continuum is divided into three broad categories: Cognitive constructivism, based on the work of Jean Piaget ; social constructivism, based on the work of Lev Vygotsky; and radical constructivism.

According to the GSI Teaching and Resource Center (2015, p.5):

Cognitive constructivism states knowledge is something that is actively constructed by learners based on their existing cognitive structures. Therefore, learning is relative to their stage of cognitive development.

Cognitivist teaching methods aim to assist students in assimilating new information to existing knowledge, and enabling them to make the appropriate modifications to their existing intellectual framework to accommodate that information.

According to social constructivism, learning is a collaborative process, and knowledge develops from individuals” interactions with their culture and society.

Social constructivism was developed by Lev Vygotsky (1978, p. 57), who suggested that:

Every function in the child’s cultural development appears twice: first, on the social level and, later on, on the individual level; first, between people (interpsychological) and then inside the child (intrapsychological).

The notion of radical constructivism was developed by Ernst von Glasersfeld (1974) and states that all knowledge is constructed rather than perceived through senses.

Learners construct new knowledge on the foundations of their existing knowledge. However, radical constructivism states that the knowledge individuals create tells us nothing about reality, and only helps us to function in your environment. Thus, knowledge is invented not discovered.

Radical constructivism also argues that there is no way to directly access an objective reality, and that knowledge can only be understood through the individual’s subjective interpretation of their experiences.

This theory asserts that individuals create their own understanding of reality, and that their knowledge is always incomplete and subjective.

The humanly constructed reality is all the time being modified and interacting to fit ontological reality, although it can never give a ‘true picture’ of it. (Ernest, 1994, p. 8)

Constructivism Teaching Philosophy

Constructivist learning theory underpins a variety of student-centered teaching methods and techniques which contrast with traditional education, whereby knowledge is simply passively transmitted by teachers to students.

What is the role of the teacher in a constructivist classroom?

Constructivism is a way of teaching where instead of just telling students what to believe, teachers encourage them to think for themselves. This means that teachers need to believe that students are capable of thinking and coming up with their own ideas. Unfortunately, not all teachers believe this yet in America.

The primary responsibility of the teacher is to create a collaborative problem-solving environment where students become active participants in their own learning.

From this perspective, a teacher acts as a facilitator of learning rather than an instructor.

The teacher makes sure he/she understands the students” preexisting conceptions, and guides the activity to address them and then build on them (Oliver, 2000).

Scaffolding is a key feature of effective teaching, where the adult continually adjusts the level of his or her help in response to the learner’s level of performance.

In the classroom, scaffolding can include modeling a skill, providing hints or cues, and adapting material or activity (Copple & Bredekamp, 2009).

What are the features of a constructivist classroom?

A constructivist classroom emphasizes active learning, collaboration, viewing a concept or problem from multiple perspectives, reflection, student-centeredness, and authentic assessment to promote meaningful learning and help students construct their own understanding of the world.

Tam (2000) lists the following four basic characteristics of constructivist learning environments, which must be considered when implementing constructivist teaching strategies:

1) Knowledge will be shared between teachers and students. 2) Teachers and students will share authority. 3) The teacher’s role is one of a facilitator or guide. 4) Learning groups will consist of small numbers of heterogeneous students.

What are the pedagogical (i.e., teaching) goals of constructivist classrooms?

Honebein (1996) summarizes the seven pedagogical goals of constructivist learning environments:

• To provide experience with the knowledge construction process (students determine how they will learn).
• To provide experience in and appreciation for multiple perspectives (evaluation of alternative solutions).
• To embed learning in realistic contexts (authentic tasks).
• To encourage ownership and a voice in the learning process (student-centered learning).
• To embed learning in social experience (collaboration).
• To encourage the use of multiple modes of representation, (video, audio text, etc.)
• To encourage awareness of the knowledge construction process (reflection, metacognition).

Brooks and Brooks (1993) list twelve descriptors of constructivist teaching behaviors:

• Encourage and accept student autonomy and initiative. (p. 103)
• Use raw data and primary sources, along with manipulative, interactive, and physical materials. (p. 104)
• When framing tasks, use cognitive terminology such as “classify,” analyze,” “predict,” and “create.” (p. 104)
• Allow student responses to drive lessons, shift instructional strategies, and alter content. (p. 105)
• Inquire about students’ understandings of the concepts before sharing [your] own understandings of those concepts. (p. 107)
• Encourage students to engage in dialogue, both with the teacher and with one another. (p. 108)
• Encourage student inquiry by asking thoughtful, open-ended questions and encouraging students to ask questions of each other. (p. 110)
• Seek elaboration of students’ initial responses. (p. 111)
• Engage students in experiences that might engender contradictions to their initial hypotheses and then encourage discussion. (p. 112)
• Allow wait time after posing questions. (p. 114)
• Provide time for students to construct relationships and create metaphors. (p. 115)
• Nurture students’ natural curiosity through frequent use of the learning cycle model. (p. 116)

Critical Evaluation

Constructivism promotes a sense of personal agency as students have ownership of their learning and assessment.

The biggest disadvantage is its lack of structure. Some students require highly structured learning environments to be able to reach their potential.

It also removes grading in the traditional way and instead places more value on students evaluating their own progress, which may lead to students falling behind, as without standardized grading teachers may not know which students are struggling.

Summary Tables

What is constructivism in the philosophy of education.

Constructivism in the philosophy of education is the belief that learners actively construct their own knowledge and understanding of the world through their experiences, interactions, and reflections.

It emphasizes the importance of learner-centered approaches, hands-on activities, and collaborative learning to facilitate meaningful and authentic learning experiences.

How would a constructivist teacher explain 1/3÷1/3?

They might engage students in hands-on activities, such as using manipulatives or visual representations, to explore the concept visually and tangibly.

The teacher would encourage discussions among students, allowing them to share their ideas and perspectives, and guide them toward discovering the relationship between dividing by a fraction and multiplying by its reciprocal.

Through guided questioning, the teacher would facilitate critical thinking and help students arrive at the understanding that dividing 1/3 by 1/3 is equivalent to multiplying by the reciprocal, resulting in a value of 1.

Arends, R. I. (1998). Resource handbook. Learning to teach (4th ed.). Boston, MA: McGraw-Hill.

Brooks, J., & Brooks, M. (1993). In search of understanding: the case for constructivist classrooms, ASCD. NDT Resource Center database .

Copple, C., & Bredekamp, S. (2009). Developmentally appropriate practice in early childhood programs . Washington, DC: National Association for the Education of Young Children.

Dewey, J. (1938) Experience and Education . New York: Collier Books.

Driscoll, M. (2000). Psychology of Learning for Instruction . Boston: Allyn& Bacon

Elliott, S.N., Kratochwill, T.R., Littlefield Cook, J. & Travers, J. (2000). Educational psychology: Effective teaching, effective learning (3rd ed.) . Boston, MA: McGraw-Hill College.

Ernest, P. (1994). Varieties of constructivism: Their metaphors, epistemologies and pedagogical implications. Hiroshima Journal of Mathematics Education, 2 (1994), 2.

Fox, R. (2001). Constructivism examined . Oxford review of education, 27(1) , 23-35.

Honebein, P. C. (1996). Seven goals for the design of constructivist learning environments. Constructivist learning environments : Case studies in instructional design, 11-24.

Oliver, K. M. (2000). Methods for developing constructivism learning on the web. Educational Technology, 40 (6)

Phillips, D. C. (1995). The good, the bad, and the ugly: The many faces of constructivism . Educational researcher, 24 (7), 5-12.

Tam, M. (2000). Constructivism, Instructional Design, and Technology: Implications for Transforming Distance Learning. Educational Technology and Society, 3 (2).

Teaching Guide for GSIs. Learning: Theory and Research (2016). Retrieved from http://gsi.berkeley.edu/media/Learning.pdf

von Glasersfeld, E. V. (1974). Piaget and the radical constructivist epistemology . Epistemology and education , 1-24.

von Glasersfeld, E. (1994). A radical constructivist view of basic mathematical concepts. Constructing mathematical knowledge: Epistemology and mathematics education, 5-7.

Von Glasersfeld, E. (2013).  Radical constructivism  (Vol. 6). Routledge.

Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes . Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Further Reading

Constructivist Teaching Methods

Constructivism Learning Theory: A Paradigm for Teaching and Learning Strategies Which Can be Implemented by Teachers When Planning Constructivist Opportunities in the Classroom

Problem-Solving Philosophy

Cite this chapter.

• Graham Tarr  

22 Accesses

We have seen that the work that the manager and the analyst have to do together can broadly be called problem-solving. Analysis is needed when there is a problem: the organisation not behaving as you want it to; or the right response to the future not being clear.

For where is the man that has uncontestable evidence of the truth of all that he holds, or of the falsehood of all that he condemns; or can say, that he has examined to the bottom all his own or other man’s opinions? John Locke, ‘Essay Concerning Human Understanding’

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

Access this chapter

• Available as PDF
• Read on any device
• Instant download
• Own it forever

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Unable to display preview.  Download preview PDF.

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Copyright information

© 1983 Graham Tarr

About this chapter

Tarr, G. (1983). Problem-Solving Philosophy. In: The Management Barrier. Palgrave Macmillan, London. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-349-06794-7_8

Download citation

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-349-06794-7_8

Publisher Name : Palgrave Macmillan, London

Print ISBN : 978-1-349-06796-1

Online ISBN : 978-1-349-06794-7

eBook Packages : Palgrave Business & Management Collection Business and Management (R0)

Share this chapter

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

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

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• Publish with us

Policies and ethics

• Find a journal
• Track your research

• Math for Kids
• Parenting Resources
• ELA for Kids
• Teaching Resources

How to Teach Number Formation in 5 Easy Steps

13 Best Resources for Math Videos for Kids: Math Made Fun

How to Teach Skip Counting to Kids in 9 Easy Steps

10 Best Math Intervention Strategies for Struggling Students

How to Teach Division to Kids in 11 Easy Steps

How to Cope With Test Anxiety in 12 Easy Ways

Developmental Milestones for 4 Year Olds: The Ultimate Guide

Simple & Stress-Free After School Schedule for Kids of All Ages

When Do Kids Start Preschool: Age & Readiness Skills

Kindergarten Readiness Checklist: A Guide for Parents

How to Teach Letter Formtaion to Kids in 9 Easy Steps

15 Best Literacy Activities for Preschoolers in 2024

12 Best Poems About Teachers Who Change Lives

6 Effective Ways to Improve Writing Skills

40 Four Letter Words That Start With A

60 Fun Animal Facts for Kids

12 best behavior management techniques for the classroom.

13 Best Online Teaching Tips for Teachers

How to Teach Kids to Write in 9 Easy Steps

13 Challenges for Teachers and How to Address Them

4 Types of Educational Philosophies for Teachers

2. Pragmatism

3. perennialism, 4. behaviorism, the role of teachers as mentors, teaching through empathy, teaching impacts societal growth.

Teachers who want to excel in their approach to education need to understand the core philosophy of education behind the system. By fully gauging the role of learning in society and the various philosophical schools of thought, you can expand your horizon beyond the classroom.

SplashLearn: Most Comprehensive Learning Program for PreK-5

SplashLearn inspires lifelong curiosity with its game-based PreK-5 learning program loved by over 40 million children. With over 4,000 fun games and activities, it’s the perfect balance of learning and play for your little one.

You can also inspire students to learn holistically and improve their performance with the right teaching philosophy and approach . 

Whether it be math or science, imparting knowledge from a place of wisdom is essential to teaching effectiveness across grades. That’s why educators are trying to understand the different teaching philosophies and extract insights on what can be helpful in the long term. 

When we say that different teachers have different styles, it is an informal way of understanding the differences between teaching philosophies. We can have a unique teaching style based on our core beliefs about education and the role we play as teachers in the lives of our students. We can gauge more about what techniques we can incorporate by understanding the different philosophies of education.

The philosophy of education, known as realism, focuses on the role of scientific observation, experimentation, and hands-on learning. It emphasizes the benefits of students grasping an intuitive sense of any subject or topic.

It also understands the limitations of bias and asks teachers to inculcate a desire to learn and expand the mind. Realism encourages practical knowledge and building upon that knowledge base for a more complex understanding of different subjects.

Pragmatism focuses on the core value of problem-solving and imparting the right skill sets that help students solve specific challenges. You can use the philosophy of pragmatism in your approach to teaching when you want to improve student output and help kids learn how to tackle complex problems.

You can also use pragmatism to help weaker students who need expedited assistance in improving their grades. These students may not have the proper facilities to focus on subjects through the lens of realism, in which case teachers can strengthen their ability to solve problems directly.

This philosophy of education relies on traditional teachings as core foundations through which you can teach your students. The basic laws of math, grammar, physics, and chemistry are emphasized and taught to students who are actively learning.

Perennialism may be perceived as non-collaborative, but it can be a strong pillar for teachers to establish group learning. Schools often use perennialism during the earlier years of teaching to ensure consistency across classes for standardized testing.

Behaviorism looks at the role of positive and negative reinforcement to establish specific outcomes. You can use this philosophy of education to create positive habits in the lives of your students through the proper positive reinforcement techniques.

You can also create repeatability and course adherence by rewarding successful performance with stars, gifts, names on boards, and other behaviorism tools. You can also set long-term and short-term rewards to incentivize students to continue improving their performance.

Why Should Teachers Focus on the Philosophy of Education ?

Teachers play multiple roles in the lives of their students, from being mentors to confidants. Understanding our teaching philosophy’s impact on student development over time is essential. We can make them fall in love with a subject by using the proper techniques that best resonate with our students.

Teachers are mentors in shaping how students think about challenges and problems. Mentorship also relies on the right teaching philosophy, such as rewarding positive behavior, focusing on collaborative learning, and prioritizing harmony. Teachers need the right philosophical approach when applying for a new role and extracting maximum potential from their students.

The philosophy of education focuses heavily on understanding what students feel when being taught. By putting ourselves in our students’ shoes, we can uncover the benefits of multisensory learning, learning tools, artifacts of teaching, and the impact of engagement. Through empathy, we can also find our philosophy of education.

The future of our world depends on teachers as we navigate the complex challenge of educating the next generation of leaders. Concepts such as essentialism and pragmatism can be used when thinking about how our teaching methodology will impact the future with what values we are teaching.

How to Select the Right Type of Philosophy for Teaching ?

When you consider the inherent insights driven by a philosophy of education, you emerge at a crossroads between epistemology and pedagogy. How we teach is intrinsically related to why we teach and our goals with teaching. Whether pre-K kids or college students, how we approach education is one of the most critical aspects of our skills as teachers.

The right type of philosophy of education depends on the following factors –

1. Types of students in class, their proficiency, and what they respond to best.

2. Your role as a teacher is to be a mentor & counselor in their lives.

3. The impact of your curriculum on their innate grasping of the concept.

4. The time and resources available to proceed with the right approach.

5. The use of technology in the teaching program to scale approach and philosophy.

Ultimately, you must test different philosophies and leverage the ones you feel most comfortable with. While some students may respond to behaviorism better, others may prefer the practical benefits of realism.

You can use different philosophies, techniques, and tools to customize your teaching philosophy based on the class type and your goals for the year.

The Role of Teaching Philosophy in the Digital Age

With more schools using hybrid online and offline teaching models, the role of philosophy amplifies significantly. You need the right teaching approach, either essentialism or pragmatism, to scale up your teaching strategy. By focusing on your teaching approach, your students can learn in an environment conducive to learning.

You can also leverage the principles of constructivism and understand how group participation impacts performance in the classroom. Whether a group activity is designed with an objective in mind is a critical philosophical question that you should ask yourself. Using the right digital tools will also be more effective when understanding the philosophical benefits of software solutions.

Teachers Can Make Learning More Fun and Engaging With the Right Online Solution

SplashLearn aligns with your teaching approach and prioritizes student engagement and fun learning. With games, activities, and worksheets, SplashLearn encourages students of all ages to learn at their own pace and improve performance through intuitive learning. Students can practice on their smart devices or play games in class while being tested through complex challenges. Both math and ELA games are designed to boost output and bring back the joy of learning for every child.

Teachers can create a free account and get started here.

Want to talk to us about our offerings? Send us an email here.

Frequently Asked Questions

What are some of the other philosophies of education.

Apart from student-oriented, teacher-oriented, and society-oriented philosophies, there are also other philosophies of education. Essentialism, progressivism, social reconstructionism, etc., also form a part of the teaching approach of some teachers. It is best to formulate your strategy for teaching philosophies.  

Why is education important?

The right type of education can change a person’s life forever. By providing the right set of skills during their formative years, you can significantly enhance a child’s potential. Education also sets the foundation for deeper learning, role in society, output in the workplace, etc.

What is Socrates' philosophy of education?

At its core, Socrates believed that we must know our ignorance and then find the right teacher to help close the gap within our understanding. This means that teachers play a vital role in developing their students’ understanding and bridging knowledge gaps as they progress.

How can I find my teaching style?

Your teaching style needs to be developed over time but can be initiated with your essential “why.” You should focus on why you want to be a teacher and use that as a starting point for your teaching style. Whether you want to change how students learn or shape the next generation, the core reason for teaching can map your way ahead.

Most Popular

15 Best Report Card Comments Samples

117 Best Riddles for Kids (With Explanation)

40 Best Good Vibes Quotes to Brighten Your Day

Recent posts.

30 End of the School Year Quotes for Students and Teachers

Math & ELA | PreK To Grade 5

Kids see fun., you see real learning outcomes..

Watch your kids fall in love with math & reading through our scientifically designed curriculum.

Parents, try for free Teachers, use for free

About SplashLearn

Enter the Splashverse! Inspire lifelong curiosity with this game-based PreK-5 learning experience loved by over 40 million children. SplashLearn is the perfect balance of learning and game-play that your little one needs to build math and reading confidence.

• Games for Kids
• Worksheets for Kids
• Math Worksheets
• ELA Worksheets
• Math Vocabulary
• Number Games
• Addition Games
• Subtraction Games
• Multiplication Games
• Division Games
• Addition Worksheets
• Subtraction Worksheets
• Multiplication Worksheets
• Division Worksheets
• Times Tables Worksheets
• Reading Games
• Writing Games
• Phonics Games
• Sight Words Games
• Letter Tracing Games
• Reading Worksheets
• Writing Worksheets
• Phonics Worksheets
• Sight Words Worksheets
• Letter Tracing Worksheets
• Prime Number
• Order of Operations
• Long multiplication
• Place value
• Parallelogram
• SplashLearn Success Stories
• SplashLearn Apps
• [email protected]

© Copyright - SplashLearn

Make learning a game for your students

Unlock endless learning fun with 14,000+ games & activities, 450+ lesson plans, and more—free forever.

Teachers, Use for Free

• Study Guides
• Homework Questions

Teaching Philosophy

Cultivating change: TU courses exploring innovative solutions to global problems

Using technology to solve social and environmental issues is one of the world’s greatest social challenges.

Dr Deirdre Garvey: 'We are cognisant of the wider global challenges of climate change, biodiversity loss, increasing social inequalities and increased migration and our role as a third-level education provider, in creating awareness, developing agency, and leading by our actions.'

Courses at technological universities have always had a particular focus on hands-on, practical learning that addresses the needs of industry and society.

At this moment in time, one of the greatest social challenges is how we can use technology to address social and environmental challenges, particularly in areas such as sustainability and healthcare.

Unsurprisingly, technological universities have a number of courses that are providing the next generation of key workers.

Courses focused on social good

TU Dublin: At TU Dublin, Lynda Young is senior manager for undergraduate student recruitment.

Hot school meals: A close look at the ingredients list is not pretty. This is industrial food

Four-bed period house and mews a short walk from Greystones for €975,000

Have your say on ‘quiet quitting’: Do you feel pressure to work long hours?

Is the landlord or management company responsible for upgrading our windows?

“At TU Dublin we believe it is our duty to educate the next generation on both the technological and societal challenges that they will face as graduates,” she says.

“There is an element of technology used for social good across all our programmes. For example, our school of computer science teaches artificial intelligence [AI], and while students learn how to build and apply AI, they also learn how to deal with the societal choices that come with it, and [explore] how AI can be socially harmonious.”

TUS: Renewable and electrical energy engineering is among the courses at TUS that use technology to address social and environmental challenges. Indeed, the majority, if not all, of the sustainability and environmental courses at TUS rely, at least in part, on technology.

One example is TUS’s renewable and electrical energy engineering course, which is offered as a three-year level seven degree or a four-year level eight, with progression facilitated for students who want to gain that honours degree.

The programme equips students with the knowledge and skills related to producing energy, and in particular electrical energy, from renewable sources. The course is a mixture of theory and practical hands-on learning in all aspects of renewable energy technology, electrical technology and automated monitoring and control of energy systems.

The students also learn about the challenges of utilising and maximising renewable electricity on the electricity grid – critically important for meeting our ambitious energy, climate and sustainability targets and goals.

There is a paid work placement in year three of the programme, with many students offered jobs with their placement employer (see panel: Méabh Hourigan). Graduates go on to work in areas such as design, implementation and optimisation of renewable energy systems, management of energy in buildings, design and control of electrical engineering systems. There is a 100 per cent employment record from the course.

SETU: SETU currently delivers courses across multiple disciplines with the largest concentrations across health and welfare, business and engineering.

It runs a number of courses that contribute to social good including, at undergraduate level, a level eight BEng in sustainable farm management and agribusiness, and a level eight BSc in sports rehabilitation and athletic therapy.

ATU: ATU, with campuses throughout the west and northwest, formed the department of environmental humanities and social sciences in 2021.

“It has distinctive strengths in cross-disciplinary collaboration, sustainability leadership, place-based learning, experiential learning and community development,” says Dr Deirdre Garvey, head of the department.

“We are cognisant of the wider global challenges of climate change, biodiversity loss, increasing social inequalities and increased migration and our role as a third-level education provider, in creating awareness, developing agency and leading by our actions.

“Our long-established programme in outdoor education has been refocused to a new outdoor and environmental education common entry degree, offering different degree award options including geography and therapeutic applications. A philosophy of stewardship and care for the environment is woven into the programme and is especially evident in all the practical elements of the programme when the students are outdoors. Students develop empathetic approaches to the natural world and to find a sense of place, connection and belonging with nature,” Garvey says.

Meanwhile, Prof Graham Heaslip, head of the school of engineering at ATU Galway-Mayo, says technology is already shaping learning in higher education but will become more influential.

“There are countless examples where technology has had a positive impact on the communities we live in by addressing the very real-world problems of poverty, hunger, sanitation and clean drinking water,” Heaslip says.

“One innovative course in ATU is the certificate in sustainable development goals, partnership, people, planet and prosperity. The aim of the programme is to introduce the theory and application of the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals (SDG) with a particular focus on their application in the regional context.

“A recent development is the BSc in sustainable engineering technologies, a tertiary programme [where students begin at further education and progress to higher education] where graduates will lead the integration of sustainability issues at all levels and sectors of the organisation, from product/service and process design to infrastructure management.”

MTU: At MTU, meanwhile, there is also a range of courses which use technology for good.

“We have a dedicated research unit which leads a number of European projects in regenerative tourism as well as offering the first masters of its kind in this area,” says Michael Loftus, vice-president for external affairs at MTU.

“MTU offers a level-eight BEng in sustainable energy engineering, a level-eight BSc in environmental science and sustainable technology and a BEng in environmental engineering, as well as incorporating a wide range of sustainability-focused modules across its academic portfolio.

“These courses feature high levels of laboratory time, strong engagement with industry-related project work and strong input from industry in relation to course design,” Loftus says.

“Interest in these courses has remained strong over a period of several years. MTU envisages that this will remain to be the case over coming years as global sustainability challenges will continue to feature centrally.”

This year will also see the first offering of the new masters in arts in regenerative tourism, says Loftus.

“Regenerative tourism offers tourism businesses and destinations a new mindset of tourism development through a regenerative lens, and is a more balanced, holistic approach that includes championing local places, tackling climate action, benefiting host communities, empowering visitors to be responsible and ensuring long-term sustainability,” he says.

Progression and pathways

Technological universities have blazed a trail in forging stronger links and pathways between the further and higher education sectors.

TU Dublin: “TU Dublin’s breadth of courses means we offer everything from apprenticeships to PhDs with access points at levels six, seven and eight across all faculties,” says Young. “We make more offers to QQI applicants than any other Irish third-level institution – 21 per cent of all offers nationwide.

“Our aim is to welcome a greater number of students at level six and seven, taking advantage of all the diverse pathways on offer.

MTU: From a student progression perspective, students who join MTU through the engineering common entry route have the option to join the level eight BEng (Hons) in sustainable energy engineering, says Loftus.

“Meanwhile, students from all of these programmes can exploit the MTU ladder system to progress to cognate programmes at higher NFQ levels offered by MTU and other higher education institutions,” he says.

TUS: Students can enter and exit courses at various levels, and the university has long recognised and accredited skills and knowledge obtained on further education and training (FET) programmes. Students can use their level five or six major award to apply, through the CAO, for a place in the first year of a higher education course.

TUS has established links with several partner colleges of further education, offering preferential entry to applicants that hold a QQI level five or level six award from one of the university’s partner colleges, once the applicant satisfies entry criteria.

• Sign up for push alerts and have the best news, analysis and comment delivered directly to your phone
• Find The Irish Times on WhatsApp and stay up to date
• Listen to our Inside Politics podcast for the best political chat and analysis

IN THIS SECTION

Trinity students block book of kells exhibition in protest against planned cost increases, ‘students are struggling in ways we haven’t seen before’, most students in single-sex schools want mixed enrolment, technological universities: bridging the gap between classroom and career, large household size makes ireland clear outlier in europe - esri report, woman ordered to remove walls, gates and foundations erected without planning permission, asylum seeker ‘shantytown’ in dublin will be cleared of tents and refugees housed, taoiseach tells dáil, emergency legislation will allow ‘operational agreement’ between ireland and uk on return of asylum seekers to come into force, government says, miriam lord: independent td turns on ‘drew harris and his gang’, latest stories, telecoms company magnet+ investigating possible cyber attack, martyn turner, man detained by british home office told he is being sent to rwanda, says ngo, dublin port conservation project lifts lid on hidden heritage of city docks.

• Terms & Conditions
• Privacy Policy
• Cookie Information
• Cookie Settings
• Community Standards