Two Views of Philosophy and Education
Is there any knowledge in the world which is so certain that no reasonable man could doubt it? This question, which at first sight might not seem difficult, is really one of the most difficult that can be asked. When we have realized the obstacles in the way of a straightforward and confident answer, we shall be well launched on the study of philosophy -- for philosophy is merely the attempt to answer such ultimate questions, not carelessly and dogmatically, as we do in ordinary life and even in the sciences, but critically after exploring all that makes such questions puzzling, and after realizing all the vagueness and confusion that underlie our ordinary ideas.Bertrand Russell, from The Problems of Philosophy, chapter 1: "Appearance and Reality" Philosophy was stated to be a form of thinking, which, like all thinking, finds its origin in what is uncertain in the subject matter of experience, which aims to locate the nature of the perplexity and to frame hypotheses for its clearing up to be tested in action. Philosophic thinking has for its differentia the fact that the uncertainties with which it deals are found in widespread social conditions and aims, consisting in a conflict of organized interests and institutional claims. Since the only way of bringing about a harmonious readjustment of the opposed tendencies is through a modification of emotional and intellectual disposition, philosophy is at once an explicit formulation of the various interests of life and a propounding of points of view and methods through which a better balance of interests may be effected. Since education is the process through which the needed transformation may be accomplished and not remain a mere hypothesis as to what is desirable, we reach a justification of the statement that philosophy is the theory of education as a deliberately conducted practice.
John Dewey, from Democracy and Education, chapter 24: "The Philosophy of Education"
Theories of education, whether ancient, modern or contemporary, are usually concerned with justifying the decisions of societies, communities, and schools concerning the form, process and content of education. Theories are considered conservative, liberal, reactionary, or radical, not only because of their proximity to what educational arrangments already exist but also because of the pictures of society they promote.
The traditional view of the philosophy of education (consistent with the Russell quotation) sees it as a questioning of the assumptions, concepts, and consequences of both the theories and practices of education, from the standpoint of ideas and theories about knowledge, action, mind, history, humanity, justice, etc. But a second, more dramatic view of the philosophy of education is that proposed by Dewey in the "Philosophy of Education" chapter of Democracy and Education. Dewey turns the traditional view on its head, and claims that rather than the philosophy of education being the techniques of philosophy brought to bear on issues in education, the concerns and techniques of philosophy itself are best understood as a generalized theory of education. This view seems so clearly at odds with how education is discussed and studied in the modern university that it's worth our considering it before continuing with Dewey and Scheffler.
John Dewey's Experience and Education (con't)
We'll continue our discussion of Dewey's book with responses to Susannah's question about the different roles computers (and technology generally) would/might play in the different models of schooling called by Dewey "traditional" and "progressive."
It's worth noting that Cuban's 1993 article, "Computers Meet Classroom: Classroom Wins," juxtaposes "traditional" and the "futuristic" models of education, the former being a combination of Dewey's traditional and progressive, and the latter a vision of a VR-drenched individualized learning environment. Susannah's question seems a more careful way to raise precisely the questions Scheffler wants to address.
Israel Scheffler's "Computers at School?" (1986)
We'll discuss Scheffler's philosophical article, led by David Edelson's comments and questions. We'll try to be clear about Scheffler's concerns and arguments in each of the four sections of the paper, and reflect on whether/how this article stands up today; the four sections are:
For next time: Read the 1999 Sviniki article for Monday, and the selected chapters from Schank and Cleary chapters for Wednesday. Both texts are online, but the Schank and Cleary is also on reserve in the Science Library. Project pages with the revised project descriptions should be up no later than next Wednesday's class.