Philosophy of Education

William Hare, John P. Portelli

• Publisher: Brush Education
• Year: 2013
• Print ISBN: 9781550594454
• eBook ISBN: 9781550594461
• Edition: 4
• Topic: Education
• Subtopic: Education Theory & Practice

Revised and updated with 25 new essays, the fourth edition of this bestselling collection brings together more than 30 leaders in the field of educational theory. An engaging exploration of the ideas and trends shaping education in today's classrooms, Philosophy of Education includes topics on high-stakes testing, consumerism in education, and social justice issues in the classroom.

How can we teach students moral values while avoiding indoctrination? How should a teacher deal with controversial issues in the classroom? What role should standards play in education, and who develops those standards? And why is the link between theory and practice in the classroom important in the first place? Philosophy of Education provides students, teachers, and administrators with a lively and accessible introduction to the central debates and issues in education today.

Part I: Philosophy, Theory, and Practice

---

The essays in this section deal with the issue of the relationship between theory and practice in education, the value of empirical research in teaching, the role of philosophy in education, and the place of ideals in teaching. The issue of theory and practice is a classic one in debates about the nature of the preparation of those in professions such as teaching. Initial teacher-education students frequently doubt the value of theory, including philosophy of education, given the perceived importance of practical school-based experiences. What is the best or most appropriate way to prepare people to become competent teachers? Should the emphasis be on theoretical and philosophical concerns or practical concerns? Should and can the two be separated or should they always be seen in tandem? Do practical matters simply involve the application of skills? Can such issues be determined on empirical grounds? Is it not worthwhile to think critically about one’s aims in teaching, and the values, principles, and ideals embedded in them? The replies to these questions will vary according to how one views the nature of theory and practice and the relationship between the two, the nature of empirical work, philosophy and ideals. And, in turn, such views will impact on how one constructs the nature of professions.

The first essay by Harold Entwistle tackles the issue of the possible causes for the split between theory and practice while developing a notion of theory from a critical stance. In this discussion Entwistle deals with several questions that have troubled educators: Is the role of theory to dictate specific actions to practitioners or to raise a critical awareness? Can and should the gap between theory and practice be lessened? What is the role of theory and practice in reflective practice? Entwistle refutes the rigid, traditional notion of theory that assumed neutrality and is expected to provide detailed, specific, secure, universal prescriptions or solutions. On the contrary, he believes that educational theory (including philosophy of education), of its nature, does not offer and is not meant to offer specific knowledge and skills “applicable to a given practical situation.” For him the role of theory is to “evoke judgment rather than rote obedience,” and to encourage professional autonomy, which entails developing new perspectives that help to analyze, question, and be aware of the complexities in the teaching context, and dealing with problems that arise from practice. Nonetheless, Entwistle concludes that although “learning the art of compromise” will help teachers to reduce the gulf between theory and practice, in the final analysis the gap is inevitable; struggling with this very fact will help us refine both theory and practice!

In the second essay Robin Barrow raises foundational questions about the nature and role of empirical research. To what extent can empirical research provide definitive answers to educational issues? Is it possible and meaningful for empirical research in education to mimic the nature of research in the natural sciences? Barrow argues that given the contested nature of education and educational concepts, as well as the fact that it is impossible to make meaningful educational claims without taking into account the unique nature of contexts that vary, it is not possible to expect exact and universal general rules that apply in a neutral manner. Expecting otherwise will limit, if not negate, the professional responsibility of teachers. For Barrow, philosophy has a crucial role in providing the clarity of educational concepts, which is needed in determining the nature of empirical research and its direction. Empirical research is inevitably based on philosophical premises and assumptions; sound empirical research needs to identify the philosophical underpinnings.

But how then should we view philosophy and its contribution to education? Is not philosophy of its very nature abstract and theoretical and hence not practical? In the third essay Heesoon Bai takes up such popular questions and articulates and argues for a conception of philosophy as practice that aims primarily to develop human agency and autonomy. Without the cultivation of human agency, which is a lifelong project, Bai contends, we would fall prey to fundamentalist dogmatism, whether it is of a religious or secular nature. Building on ideas from both Eastern and Western philosophy, she articulates a view of philosophy as “life-practice and self-making.” While arguing against a utilitarian and positivist relationship between theory and practice, Bai offers world-making, dialogue, philosophical writing, and contemplative arts as ideal ways of cultivating human agency. Based on her experience as a university professor, Bai proposes a conception and practice of philosophy that are different from popular misconceptions of philosophy: philosophy is ultimately a way of being that symbiotically incorporates a certain kind of thinking and doing.

But is there room for ideals in education? Would not ideals hinder educators from fulfilling their publicly defined obligations, which are primarily practical and, to an extent, bureaucratic in nature? Consistent with the nature of theory and practice as envisioned by Entwistle and Barrow, as well as the dialectical tensions involved in developing human agency as identified by Bai, in the fourth essay, David Hansen argues for a balanced understanding of ideals—one that harmonizes the view that teachers should have ideals that go beyond societal expectations with the view that they have defined obligations. He reminds us that ideals are in fact human constructs that partly depend on contexts and, as such, deserve critical examination. Ideals are different than slogans, for while they are general and abstract they call for a critical and thoughtful enacting (rather than implementing) in the reality of life. As such, Hansen concludes that “idealism and respect for reality reinforce one another.” Applying tenacious humility, according to Hansen, will greatly assist educators to navigate the productive tensions that arise between ideals and reality.

Although one may agree with the related positions developed in these essays, one may still ask, as many students have asked us: But is theory more important than practice? Are ideals more important than the actual living? The dictum of Chilean Nobel Prize winner Pablo Neruda helps: we need two hands to clap! Just as both hands are equally important for clapping, the same holds for theory (ideals) and practice (actual living). There is bound to be some division and even tension between the two. From this it doesn’t follow that we should not be concerned with theory or that anything in the practice is acceptable. What matters, however, is the kind of theory and practice that we adhere to. Hence educators and teachers, as professionals, need to be careful what to expect or demand from theory, whether it is a theory developed by them or others. To avoid being unprofessional, we need to constantly remember the unending dialectic or tension between what we aim for and what ensues, what we believe in and what we are allowed to do, and the contingent and ambiguous versus the desire for certainty and stability. From this perspective, while theory and practice are conceptually distinct, they are also inseparable, very much like the two sides of a coin. But as Paulo Freire (1998), one of the 20th century’s most influential educators, advised, the balance or relationship between theory and practice requires critical reflection: “Critical reflection on practice is a requirement of the relationship between theory and practice. Otherwise theory becomes simply ‘blah, blah, blah,’ and practice, pure activism” (p. 30). Our challenge as educators at all levels is to maintain such a relationship by finding the theoretical in the practical and the practical in the theoretical—a relationship that today is once again threatened by neoliberalism based on excessive competition, rugged individualism, blind efficiency, and extreme utilitarianism.

REFERENCE

Freire, P. (1998). Pedagogy of freedom: Ethics, democracy, and civic courage. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield.

1
The Relationship between Educational Theory and Practice

A New Look

---

HAROLD ENTWISTLE*

*This is a slightly modified version of a paper presented at Mount Saint Vincent University, Halifax, Nova Scotia, March 27, 1987.

Why a new look at educational theory and practice? I have been troubled by the problem of the relationship between the theory and practice of education for more than 40 years. As a student doing my teacher training in an English college of education (or training college as it was then called), I remember writing an article for the college newspaper denouncing the theoretical component of my course as being utterly irrelevant to conditions in the school as I found them on teaching practice. As a qualified teacher, I would experience similar frustration when inspectors, advisors, and other people who were no longer practitioners would come to my classroom and offer me unworkable advice. When I eventually went to do graduate work in education, I recall wanting to do my thesis on the relationship between theory and practice. My supervisor warned me off it—I think I now know why. Then I became a teacher trainer (or teacher educator) and found myself in the peculiar position of being accused by my own students of offering advice that was “all right in theory but no good in practice.” I suspect that most of what I have to say is the result of my efforts to come to grips with the fact that I had now become just another starry-eyed theorist.

So, for me, this is a new look at an old problem (Entwistle, 1969, 1970, 1971). But I make this point about my own changing experience and changing perspective on the problem to suggest that whatever the solution is, it is far from simple. Indeed, I think that in terms of the way that the problem is usually posed, there probably is no solution. On the one hand, I believe practitioners have a perfect right to take theorists to task for what often is quite unrealistic advice about the practice of teaching. On the other hand, when you see it as a theorist from the other side of the fence, even when you have had practical experience of the problems of teaching yourself, the theory-practice problem has a new dimension and the discrepancy invites a different kind of explanation. And I think this fact, that when experienced and successfu...

Table of contents

• Cover
• Title Page
• Copyright Page
• Table of Contents
• Acknowledgements
• Introduction
• Part I: Philosophy, Theory, and Practice
• Part II: Classroom Discussions and Controversial Issues
• Part III: Democratic Education and Social Justice
• Part IV: Standards, Efficiency, and Measurement
• Part V: Rights, Freedoms, and Conflicts in Education
• Part VI: Conceptions of Education andTeaching
• Contributors
• About the Editors