Chapter 5 BAB 5 Philosophy

7/24/2019 Chapter 5 BAB 5 Philosophy

1/23

+ Philosophy: The Realms of

Assumptions +

You can't do without philosophy, since everything has its hidden meaning which we mustknow.

MAXIM CORKY The Zykocos (1914)

It might be a hard thing to expect educators to be philosophers, but can they be anything else?MAX BLACKHarvard Educational Review (1956)

It is better to emit a scream in the shape of a theory than to be entirely insensible to the jars andincongruities of life and take everything as it comes in forlorn stupidity.

ROBERT LOUIS STEVENSON !rabbedAe and Youth !irini"us and #ueris$ue (1%%1)

"hilosophy begins in wonder. #nd, at the end, when philosophical thought has done its best,the wonder remains.

ALFRED NORTH WHITEHEAD &odes o' Thouht (19%)

$%&&I( &)% $(%

"hilosophy lies at the heart of educational endeavor. &his is perhaps more evident is the curriculum domain than in any

other, for curricul um is a response to the *uestion of how to live a good life. &he latter is presupposed when we ask

what is worthwhile to know or experience. +hat is the reason for knowing or experiencing something, i it is not to live

a better life? -ohn ewey /0/12 supported this emphasis when be suggested that education is the testing ground of

philosophy itself. &his idea implies that the worth of philosophical in*uiry is determined by the human growth or

education that accrues from it.

These observations refect the problem o the relationship between theory andpractice that has beset curriculum inquiry since humans began to ponder the ways inwhich others should be inducted into the human race. O what use are these ponder-ings, the refections, the theory, the philosophy? How do they aect practice? How


2/23

does practice infuence theory? !hat good can theory and practice do or one an-other?

One way to respond to such questions is to reali"e that theory or philosophicalassumptions are ever present, whether we consciously refect on them or not. #ven iwe reuse to thin$ about the assumptions that underlie our practical wor$ as educa-tors, some set o assumptions always rules. % we go to an instructional materials

display and select materials primarily because they will $eep students busy, orbecause they are easy to store, or because they contain pretty illustrations, wehave already accepted certain assumptions. %n the case o these e&amples, priority isgiven to e&pedience, custodial care, and entertainment as contrasted to deensiblenotions o genuine learning, and cosmetic appearance is granted precedence overeducational desirability.

'ny time that we alter our mode o educating others, we indirectly infuence thecharacter o some o our other assumptions about education. % a wor$shop on class-room management convinces us that a new mode o discipline should beused in our classroom, implementing this change will subtly or prooundly aect theassumptions upon which we operate. %t may confict with assumptions that guideother aspects o our curriculum. % the accepted model is behavioristic and most oour curriculum is humanistic, there is confict. The new mode will havereverberations throughout the entire curriculum system. %t will aect all aspects oclassroom lie and culture.

The assumptions that we report possessing may not be the ones that actually guideus. The old adage applies( our actions may spea$ so) loudly that it is impossible to healwhat we say.- !e may espouse humanistic and democratic principles, but our auto-cratic propensity to control others may betray them.

%n similar light, we sometimes ta$e special eort consciously to refect on ourphilosophy o education and attempt to e&plain our belies or assumptions. This isindeed admirable, and it is what we should strive to do. *evertheless, to articulatea philosophy o education does not necessarily mean that we practice it successully.!e must reali"e that it is necessary to loo$ continuously at our own thought andaction and to discover more about its character and consistency.

To clariy some o the dimensions o curricular assumptions, % will begin with thediscussion o a model that conceptually lin$s action and assumption, practice andtheory. Then the value o perennial realms o philosophical assumptions or cur-riculum deliberation will be considered, ollowed by a loo$ at implications o dier-ent schools o philosophy or curriculum. +inally, three orientations to curriculumtheory are discussed, and the guest commentators conclude the chapter withobservations and debate.

A MODEL OF THEORY AND PRACTICE

The model in +igure - may be read rom action to assumption, assumption to action, or one

may begin at any point between the two and wor$ to the e&tremes. % say this at the onset o

discussion because it is so prevalent to thin$ o only one $ind o

PERSPECTIVE


3/23

Philosophical

Action Common Sense Policy Assumptions

Practical Perception Exce llences Metaphysics

Problem to Foster solving

Reflection Daily Goals irtues an! Epistemology

Dispositions

Situational "abits to Foster

A!aptation

Practical #nterests Proce!ural Axiology

Ambiguity Rules

Spontaneous $ee!s Results of Ethics

Decision Empirical

Research

olitions Routines Mo!els an! Politics

an! Constructs

Reactions

#ntuitive Daily Plans

Political Aesthetics

%eaps Pressure

Scholarly %ogic

#n&uiry

FIGURE 5-1. Model of Theory and Pract ice

direction i.e., theory into practice2. &heory, philosophy, scientific basis, and assumptions are too

of ten thought of as author i tat ive and contro ll ing agents . "ractice is too f re*uently v iewed by

scholars and administrators as the passive reception and implementation of wisdom from high places.

+isdom, compassion, and prudent judgment in the course of action by those who are intimately familiar with the

s i tuat ion a r e considered here to be o f e*ua l impor tance wi th theory tha t emanates f rom

outside sources.

A yo! r e ad t h e d e sc r ip t io n o f t h e m od e l, I s u gg e st t h at y ou r e fl e ct u p on y ou r o wn

pr of ess ion a l wo rk as an ed uc ator . 3o r exa mp le , yo u are eng age d in som e fo rm of da ilypr ofes si onal a ct io n. &he ac t ion tha t you take i s ce r ta in ly no t a rbi t r a ry o r r andom. You

encounter d i lemmas with in a succession of practical ambiguit ies . You must at tempt to make

sense of them4 therefore, you rely a good proportion of the time on the s ec ond pil lar of the as sum pt ion 5

action scheme, namely , co""on ene# which includes habits , daily p lans , sense perceptions,

rou t ines , and impress ions o f needs and in te res t s. You canno t make dec is ions about every

c i r cums tance in you r da i ly ac t iv ity 4 thus, i t i s mos t u seful to d r aw upon these p i l la r s o f

exper ience. 3or example, you notice that a s tudent reminds you of another s tudent in your

class f ive years ago, and you th ink that some var iat ion on the theme that motivated h im will

mo ti va te he r. You establish schedules for classroom cleanup and other menial tasks and have daily ri tu al s fo r

homework, reci tat ion , classroom depor tment, and the l ike. I t would be impossib le to make

decis ions anew about matters such as these, as , they ar ise in every , d if ferent circumstance.+e do, however , encounter a s i6able number of s i tuations that are inade*uately met by habit , common sense, daily

pl ans , and ou r us ua l mo de s of pe rcept ion , con ceptions of needs, and interests. &his re*uires us to use habits and daily plans as

E

remote guides or precedent or problem solving. !e oten nd,however, .that these guides only ta$e us part way. They are too


4/23

idiosyncratic and do not provide principles upon which to ma$edecisions. Thus, we must move to another pillar that includesscientic $nowledge and statements about desirable

e&cellences, which may be called the level o policy. /ome viewit as the realm o theories, constructs, and models. %t includesbroad goal statements o conviction that usually have logical

and institutional support and set orth descriptions o $nowledge,s$ill, appreciation, and values that are considered desirable. Theseare coupled with policy statements about how this $nowledgemight be acquired and what its essential nature is0 such state-ments are usually supported by research and are, thereore,considered by some to be more warranted than idealisticstatements o virtues or e&cellences to be taught.

1olicy, however, is not considered the nal arbiter.2enerali"ation based on science and prescriptive theory rests oncertain arguments, and convictions about e&cellences to beostered are 3ustied in a higher court. Here we probe into philoso-phy, the realm o assumptions about the nature o truth, wisdom,goodness, beauty, reason, 3ustice, and so on. This is the level o

basic or fundamental assumptions. !henever we act, we implicitlyassume something about these matters, whether we can e&plicitlystate it or not. To reali"e connections between, our actions andassumptions is to be in a better position to control and liberate ourlives. 4nowledge o this connection enables more deensible and

3ustiable action, which in turn brings educational growth. Thus,we see truth in the adage attributed to 'ristotle and others thatnothing is so practical as a good theory.

1#5#**%'6 5#'67/ O+ '//871T%O*/

Throughout much o the history o human thought, philosophy wasconsidered to be a $ind o discipline o the disciplines. %t evolved out

o the everyday wonder o pe. 0ons who wanted to $now more abouttheir origins, belies, and sense o meaning and purpose. Thediicult tas$ o 3udging the deensibility o claims about $nowledgeand values became philosophy. Those who engaged in it e&tensivelybecame philosophers. %t was philosophy to which scholars turned orintegrated wisdom gleaned rom the several disciplines.1hilosophers too$ as their 3ob the imaginative consideration o$nowledge0 they were challenged by speculation about the rontierso knowledge, by the problems o truth, beauty, goodness, 3ustice,

value, reason, and so on. /uch were the concerns o philosophersrom 1lato and 'ristotle to 'ugustine, 'quinas, and 'belard0 rom9acon, /pino"a, and :escartes to ;oltaire, 4ant, and (egel0 rom/chopenhauer, *iet"sche, 7ar&, 7ill, 6oc$e, and 5ousseau to

9ergson, s that


5/23

the tables have turned so substantially that one who wants to study human nature and

other traditional philosophic concerns should go to the

language departments and read great literature, whereas one who desires to learn about language should enroll in the

philosophy department. During the past decade, a shift back toward the more overarching role of philosophy has been

prompted by such philosophers as Jiirgen Habermas, Jacques Derrida, Richard Rorty, Richard Bernstein, Michael

Foucault, and others who recognize the importance of tracing intellectual roots back to critical theorists such as Marx,

Adorno, and Marcuse; to existentialists such as Sartre and Camus; to phenomenologists such as Husserl, Heidegger, and Merleau-

Ponty; to pragmatists such as Peirce, James, and Dewey; or to psychoanalysts such as Freud, Jung, and Fromm.

This return to the breadth of concern that characterized much of the history of philosophy has emerged in

education and curriculum discourse during the past ten years. While recent reconceptualizations in philosophy and

education ar., qualitatively different from the ancient traditions, the two possess the common purpose of seeking

wisdom, understanding, and insight that transcends the specialized disciplines, the techniques of science and logical

analysis, and everyday c-stom and convention.

Philosophy can be discussed in terms of its perennial categories: metaphysics, epistemology, axiology, ethics,

aesthetics, politics, and logic. To look briefly at each helps to point out dimensions of assumptions that lie at the heart of

all educational policy and action. Each category will be characterized, elaborated by typical questions that it addresses,

and illustrated by showing its relevance to contemporary curriculum practice. The categories are offered because those

who make educational decisions need a strategy for probing their assumptions.

Metaphysics

Metaphysics is the division of philosophy that is concerned with the nature of reality. The term metameans

beyond and$hyic refers to nature. Thus,metaphysicsis the study of that which lies beyond or is the basis of

natural phenomena.

The term metaphysics issometimes used synonymously withontolo%y#which is derived from the termsonto

(to be) and olo%y (study of). Thus, ontology is the study of being, or what it means to be or exist. Somephilosophers see this question as a subset of metaphysics; others view it as quite separate.

These issues may, at first glance, seem quite thoroughly removed from concerns of the educator. However,

one has only to reflect on the basic curriculum question (What knowledge or experience is most

worthwhile?), and the relevance of metaphysics and ontology becomes more obvious. A major feature of our

curriculum, as unexplicated and taken-for-granted as it might be, is that we make reality better known to,

students. We want students to acquire the reality of the natural world through science, the reality of the

social world through social studies, and the reality of communication through reading and language arts. Yet

how often do we seriously reflect on the nature of reality that we attempt to convey or offer? Do we treat the

ontological problem of existence as problematic, or do we act as if the answers are obvious? Does reality

orthetrue nature of existence lie behind or within appearance? Do we teach the superficial conventional

wisdom, or do we probe more deeply?

Within the problem of the nature of reality lies the enigma of human nature. Have human beings been created, or did

they evolve along with the rest of reality? Are the


6/23

students we teach essentially mind, body, or spirit? !hile it is easy to respond that theyare all three, even a casual glance at school practice reveals that we treat them largelyas minds. !hen introducing students to the human race and its accomplishments, do we give as air a treatment to physical, emotional, and spiritual aspects ohuman nature as we give to the mental or cognitive?

+ree will and determinism have brought orth no small amount o metaphysicalcontroversy. 're human beings ree to determine their own destiny? @an we ma$echoices, or does it only seem that way in a deterministic world? %s the world governedby the laws o probability as is assumed by most research in the natural and socialsciences, or do we live under the rule o coincidence a great deal o the time, as 'rthur4oestler /0782 brilliantly argues?

Time itsel is a ma3or concern in metaphysics. %s time merely a human contrivance, thebelie (n which alters our relation to reality? !hen we insist that students learn aboutand adhere to usual conventions o time, what are we teaching them? 're we teachingthem to depart rom their AchildishA antasies and to accept adult contrivance asreality? !e all $now that an hour o conventional time can be very brie i we are having aconversation with someone we respect and admire0 on the other hand, it can be very long iwe are waiting or the dentist to nish drilling our tooth. Thus, personally e&perienced

time-which 9ergson BCC=D termed d!ration is prominent in early childhood, but replacedwith cloc$s and calendars in the lives o students by those who prepare them oradulthood. %s such emphasis warranted?

@osmology, another branch o metaphysics, deals with the nature o the universe, how itcame to e&ist, and the problems o causality, space, and time. 7odern physics andastronomy. with the search or quar$s, blac$ holes, pulsars, and quasars, the discovery oour universal orces Bgravity, electromagnetism, strong orce, and wea$ orceD, and theemphasis on interdependence augment our notions o reality BToben et al. , =>ED, andthereby have numerous implications or education. %nsights about reality require that wehelp students to understand it in new ways. 7oreover, these insights have implicationsor learners, teachers, and the nature o $nowledge and learning.

Theology and religion may seem ar removed rom education where schools areconsidered an arm o the state, legally separated rom the church. *umerous orms o

education, however, are not separated rom religion. 7oreover, questions about thenature or e&istence o 2od play a central part in the lie and thought o many persons. !hensuch persons enter school buildings, they do not leave their religious belies behind. Inact, such belies serve as prominent lenses through which they interpret $nowledge to beacquired. +urther, some have argued Be.g., 7acdonald, =CD that education itsel, whenentered into with serious intent toward growth, is a personally religious endeavor. %treaches into the depths o one)s spirit and invo$es the quest or goodness. The religious ina nondoctrinaire sense is a genuinely spiritual endeavor, whether spiritual is interpretedmystically or humanistically.

logy

#pistemology is probably the branch o philosophy that most directly spea$s to

education. %t deals with the nature o $nowledge and the $nowing process. 7orespecically, epistemology deals with such questions as, :oes $nowledge have a

structure? :o dierent $inds o $nowledge have dierent structures? %s it adequate


7/23

to categori"e $nowledge in its several disciplinary domains Be.g., chemistry, psychology,and historyD? %s there a deep character o $nowledge that lies behind its supercialappearance and gives us a sense of origins? 9y what methods can $nowledge be acquiredand validated? !hat are the limits o $nowledge? To what e&tent is $nowledgegenerali"able, and to what e&tent does it depend on particular circumstances?

1ositions or general responses to these and related questions have evolved in

philosophical literature over the centuries. The acceptance or re3ection of such responseshas proound implications or curriculum. 6et us now turn to the implications o severaldierent ways o $nowing.

. 'uthority is one o the oldest ways o gaining $nowledge. Thin$ o the authority o thetribal leader in prehistory, the authority o the sage, the poet, the priest, the ruler in ancienttimes, and our pervasive tendency to report in inormal conversations, A!ell, you $now whatthey say ....A %n school, the te&tboo$, the encyclopedia, the teacher, and the administratorare custodians o authoritative $nowledge. #ven in our scientic age, authority plays amuch greater role than we are prone to admit.

F. #arly in human history revelation was considered a ma3or source o $nowledge. The sungod, ancestor worship, the orces o nature, the colorul and multiarious gods o the ancient2ree$s, 2ermanic and *orse tribes, Hindu ascetics, 'rican and islandic tribes were said toreveal prescriptions or human behavior as do ma3or religions o today. !ho, it is asserted,has the right to challenge the deity, the ultimate authority revealed in sacred scriptures,interpretation o prophets, and direct contacts? Thin$ o the massive infuence o religion oneducation throughout history. @ouple this with the act that in any period, the most powerulAreligiousA aiths are accepted as truth rather than belie. /ome assert that science isone o today)s most proound sources o $nowledge0 they assert that science reveals andtechnology ministers.

G. % there is a source o $nowledge older than authority and revelation, it is empiricism.@ontrary to its usual association with ormalistic sciences and research, the term e"$iricalsimply means the use o sense perceptions as our means to truth. Through the senses wee&perience0 how many times have we heard the adage thate&perience is the best teacherA? Our daily decision and action surely are based on

inormally gathered empirical data. %n schools we ta$e or granted that students haveappro&imately equal access to $nowledge that can be acquired through seeing, hearing,touching, and so on. % students are demonstrably dierent, they are placed in specialclasses or are classied with generic special labels. 4nowledge gained rom e&perience andobservation is called a $oteriori &no'led%e# in contrast to a $riori &no'led%e# which comes romtheory, revelation, intuition, and other sources o rst principles.(. 5eason is yet another way o $nowing. !hatever survives the test o rational or ogical

analysis is granted special credibility. %n schools we can nd logical reasoning in

mathematics. !e sometimes see emphasis placed on the identication o assumptions, the

dierentiation o act rom opinion, the construction o a deensible line o argument, the

recognition o propaganda techniques, the drawing o inerences rom data, and so on. These

are aspects o reason and have been accorded a central role in the acquisition o $nowledge

since ancient times.

5. The scientific method, a hybrid of reason and empiricism, evolved since the Renaissance and emerged in

full force in the twentieth century. Its steps (summarized by Dewey, 1938b) include (a) sensing a dilemma,

(b) stating the problem clearly, (c) gathering data or precedent, (d) formulating hypotheses or possible courses


8/23

of action and anticipating their consequences, (e) testing the hypotheses, (f) selecting and applying a course of

action to solve the problem, and (g) assessing the resolution in view of its consequences. Pursued by

specialists in natural and social

sciences, this way of knowing is rigorous and rather formal. Done by anyone in everyday activities, the

scientific method can be interpreted as a practical means of problem solving.

6. Intuition is yet another widelyusedform of knowing, although it is given minimal credibility in academic

institutions. Intuition refers to a variety of means of immediate apprehension of knowledge. One thinks of

immediate grasp of affinity with certain aspects of nature or the social world, which brings to mind such topics as

love at first sight and psychic phenomena as well as an intuitive or poetic grasp of a great principle (Newton's

insight into laws of motion or Einstein's presage of relativity). Although discounted in scholarly circles, it is ironic-

how substantial a part is played by intuition in the decision and action of everyday life. Teachers often

admit to a kind of intuitive development of curriculum and methods as they teach. Yet they seldom give credence

to student use of intuition. It seems that those in control of others admit to the use of intuition but do not

deem it worthwhile for use by their subordinates. Teacher educators pride themselves in intuitively knowing how

to relate to would-be teachers, but they attempt to instill in their students mechanistic, recipelike strategies of

teaching and curriculum planning.

Those who study educational psychology and learning theory, and, of course, those who advocate application

of instructional strategies or ways of managing learning environments, set forth positions that are deeply rooted

in epistemological assumptions. Those who develop curriculum and/or teach co':stantly act on such as-

sumptions. The serious teacher, policymaker, and curriculum leader realizes that if suchassumptions are not probed and studied, critical inconsistencies may accrue and an unruly array of assumptions

will rule by default.

Axiology and Ethics

The termsaxiology andethic are sometimes used interchangeably. Axiology addresses the question: What isvaluable? Ethics refers to: What is good and evil? This general domain of philosophic inquiry is too often

underestimated by educators. At first glance, it would seem that epistemology is more. thoroughly related to cur-

riculum than is axiology or ethics. However, when one reflects on the fact that most educational policies, and certainly

all curricula prescribe what ought to be done, the centrality of ethics and axiology becomes indelible. When we provide

a curricular offering, we implicitly (if not explicitly) assume that it is for personal or public good that we do

so. To say that cur-ricul?r offering x should be provided for a range of students y is to say that it is good for them

unless, of course, our intent is evil or that of blatant self-interest. If we assume that x is good for y, we assume that it

enhances the good life. The nature of the good life, a basic philosophical question, thus lies at the heart of all curricular

decision and action. If it is not, it is clear that it should be.

For what other purpose can schools be said defensibly to exist except for that of

contributing to the quality of life? Now, this opens another, much more complex problem:

What, in fact, does enhance the quality of life and what do we mean by "quality of life"?Education cannot be carried on meaningfully without addressing this question.

A principal question of axiology is:which is more worthwhile, the desired or the

desirable? Some theories hold that they are the same (i.e., that following self-interest is thekey,

to sound values). They might argue for curriculum that enables students to acquire expediently

knowledge that fits their own interests. Others hold that decision and action must be valued

with respect to consequences for other persons, places, and things, not merely to the self.

Here a curriculum would need to place emphasis on personal and public responsibility and

on the ability to perceive consequences. Still others see values as having existence that is

independent of human beings instead of being created by them. To them, values are to be


9/23

discovered and taught; those who develop curriculum must see that these true values are

learned. There are those who hold that values depend on the situation; these relativists are

engaged in perennial debate with absolutists who advocate a universal set of values.

The literature of aims and purposes of the curriculum is saturated with values and

conceptions of goodness. Such questions bear on the aims, purposes, and directions of society

in which educational systems are embedded. Can curricula do anything except reflect the

values that dominate the society? Or can curriculum be developed to redirect societal

values?

Aesthetics

Assumptions about the nature of beauty are the province of aesthetic studies. At first glance, one

might think that this area has more limited applicability to curriculum, that it pertains only to

teaching in art, music, dance, theater, and other performing, visual, and fine arts. If,

however, one looks more deeply, as does Harry Broudy (1977), and asks, "How basic is

aesthetic education?" one learns that art orders feeling by giving it expressive form

perceptible to the senses. Through aesthetic perception human beings develop what Broudy

calls an "imagic store," a context of ideas and concepts that gives meaning to reading, any other

symbolic learning, and to life experience itself. Thus, Broudy (1979) asserts that the arts are

necessary, not merely nice. Elsewhere, he argues that arts are basic to higher levels of thinking

(associative, applicative, and interpretive) that schools so often neglect in favor of replicativethought, which merely reproduces what has been presented and is soon forgotten (Broody,

1982a). Kenneth Boulding, the eminent economist, wrote a book entitledThe Image (1956)in

which he demonstrated with great facility that life itself is a process of building an image by

which we interpret the events of our life. Indeed, Eisner (1982) recently argued for an

aesthetic view of cognition that markedly broadens the usual parameters of curriculum by

showing the value of imaginative perception for any curricular area.

Perception of patterns is a basic means by which human beings orient themselves to life. We perceive patterns in the

personality of others and configurations of environmental conditions. Our decision, action, and consciousness itself

are forged by imaginative, perceptive interactions among past and present experiences and future expectations. In

referring to John Dewey, who well realized the power and per

vasiveness o aesthetic awareness in lie and education, 7a&ine 2reene B=CDpointed to the reedom that comes rom aesthetic imagination by providing thecapacity to see things as they could-be otherwise.

There is a sense in which aesthetics has a close relation to a&iology and ethics. !henreerring to 3udgment about art ob3ects, the problem o the desirable versus the desiredis invo$ed. +riedrich /chiller B=ED went much arther with the value o aestheticeducation to claim that only aesthetics holds the $ey to relationship with theharmony and rhythm o the universe. +rom this necessary basis human beings arebetter able to $now what is worthwhile to do. %t provides a grounding that enables oneto create a lie o meaning and value to onesel and others. 's /ir Herbert 5eadsuccinctly argued, education in art evo$es within the child Athat instinct of relationshipwhich, even beore the advent o reason, enables it to distinguish the beautiul rom theugly, the good rom th evil, the right pattern o behavior rom the wrong pattern, the nobleperson rom the ignobleA B5ead, =IG, p. >D.

6ogic is the branch o philosophy that deals with the nature o reason, and the study o


10/23

it is an attempt to set orth standards or rules by which reason should proceed. %tprovides a basis or ma$ing inerences based upon data. There are at least threeormal orientations to logic( deduction, induction, and dialectics. ;ariations on the theme oeach can be seen in everyday e&perience.

:eductive reasoning reers to the syllogism that consists o two or more premisesand a conclusion. The most widely used e&ample, stemming rom ancient origins, is

Ma)or $re"ie*Allmen are mortal.Minor $re"ie* /ocrates is a man. Concl!ion* Thereore, /ocratesis mortal.

The premises, however, must be regarded as true, usually by ac$nowledging theirepistemological basis in apriori or a$oteriori $nowledge. The ma3or premise identies aclass o topics and a characteristic o that class, while the minor premise situates aspecic instance within the general class. ;alidity o deduced truth relies on the truth othe premises. Traditional adherents to the rules o deductive logic hold that one cannotdeduce value-oriented conclusions rom solely actual premises. Thus, it is aulty reasoningto conclude that one ought to drin$ orange 3uice rom the ma3or premise that vitamin @ghts inection and the minor premise that orange 3uice contains high levels o vitamin @.-%t is o course logical to conclude that orange 3uice helps to ght inection. To deduce thatone ought to drin$ orange 3uice, it is necessary to introduce a premise that says one oughtto ght inection or that one ought to pursue a healthy lie and ghting inection is one wayto do this. !ithout such a premise it is considered the naturalisticfallacy Bby logical analyst 2.#. 7oore and his ollowersD to derive conclusions o o!%ht rom is premises.This has proound bearing on curriculum because curriculum wor$ers are continuously in

the process o advocating what ought to be taught and learned. !here do they derive their

basis or such advocacy? 1revalent sources o 3ustication include cultural assumptions

and the authority o e&perts. One requently hears( +They say it is what should be taught.A

!ho is this omniscient they and how do they acquire their

omniscience? In some cases it is the accumulation of social conventions. In other cases it is scientificeducational researchers. &he mission of scientific educational research is, however, to provide greater insight

into what is or what works. +hat is and what works constitute premises of the is variety. 9y themselves, they

do not provide ade*uate warrant for deducing conclusions of ought."hilosophers would say that they may be

necessary but are not sufficient to justify conclusions that assert ought.!urriculum, by its very nature, is a

matter of asserting ought. &hus, it is necessary to have premises of ought. :ne of the great lessons

prov ided for curr iculum decision makers by deduct ive logic in our era mar ked by reverence for science is

that scientific knowledge insufficiently provides a basis for curriculum advocacy. &he need for ought premises

makes it necessary to give e*ual emphasis to philosophical development of excellences or virtues that providea sense of direction from which curricular aims and purposes can be derived.

Induction is the second form of logic that we shall examine. )ere the move is from particular to general

rather than from general to particular as in deduction. It begins by gatherin1 a set of particular instances thatcharacteri6e or explain a defined range of phenomena. &his process is a basis for scientific method that moves

toward truth by converting the confusion of a dilemma into a clarified problem, by observing and; orexperimenting with key variables, by forming an hypothesis or hypothetical solution or explanation, and by

testing the solution in controlled circumstances. 9y use of sampling techni*ues, one can increase the external

validity or probability that the conclusion may be generali6ed more widely. If hypotheses are supported, theyarc then accepted as a form of scientific truth. &he logic of induction, however, does not provide absolute

certainty. It deals in probabilities. It remains possible, though perhaps improbable, that a counterexample of an


11/23

assumed truth will be discovered. )ypotheses heretofore supported always remain subject to falsification"opper, /0782. +hile induction provides a basis for premises used in deduction, it warrants the is more than the

ought. Oughts must be derived from experience, judgment, prudence, and the like. Inductive knowledge

certainly can be used as guidance for ought premises, but it cannot provide full justification for them.:ne must use caution, therefore, when relying on scientific educational research as the basis for curriculum.

It may well provide helpful knowledge of what is likely to occur under certain circumstances, the methods thatwould be likely to work, and a whole range of technical procedures. 9ut the large *uestion of what should be

taught and why remains the purview of philosophical and practical judgment.&he final category of logic that we shall discuss is dialectical reasoning. &he most common form is to move

from thesis, to antithesis, to synthesis. &his can be interpreted as starting with a position thesis2 about a

problem and to argue its soundness , to then argue the opposite posit ion as cogently as possible, and final ly to

arrive at a synthesis or position that contains the best dimensions of both thesis and antithesis. &o stop here ismisleading, however. &he synthesis becomes a new thesis and the process proceeds by continuously renewing

itself. $uch a process is exemplified in the $ocratic dialogues of "lato, in the writings of )egel on philosophy of

history, and in the class struggle theory of


12/23

characteri"ation o each shows that the categories o philosophical inquiryBmetaphysics, epistemology, and the li$eD are answered dierently or each school othought. A a matter o act, it is possible to develop a matri& to compare and contrastthe positions.

/uch a matri& B+igure -FD, however, is only provided or heuristic purposes. That is,it is intended to stimulate you to thin$ about, study, compare, and contrast schools o

philosophic thought. 5ather than ll in the matri& with answers and substitute theappearance o certainty or elaborate discourse and argument, % leave it open endedand encourage you to ponder each cell and to thin$ about the richness o possibleinclusions derived rom your own study.

Those who create and implement curriculum operate on positions represented by these

schools o thought, whether or not they are conscious o them, although such positions are

not necessarily distinct and consistent with ormal schools o thought, nor should they be

necessarily. To the e&tent that curricularists are able to articulate their own philosophical

assumptions and relate them to e&isting schools o thought, however, the better they are

able to $now themselves and the sense o direction that they are striving to help others

reali"e. %n short, such awareness enables reali"ation

Idealism Realism Neo'(homism Naturalism Pragmatism Phenomenology Existentialism

Metaphysics

Epistemology

Axiology

Ethics

Aesthetics

Logic

Politics

FIGURE 5 -,. Co"$arin% A!"$ti on o f Ph iloo$hic al rienta tion* A e!ri tic /e0ice

o the converse o the /ocratic ma&im that the une&amined lie is not worth living0 towit, the e&amined lie is worth living. The curricular correlates would be that theune&amined curriculum is not worth oering and the e&amined curriculumis worth oering. !ith this in mind, let us consider very briefy some o thecurriculum assumptions brought to light by ma3or schools o curriculum thought.

Idealism

tv nen one sees educational practice in which the learner is viewed as a mind to bemolded by the teacher, when classics o sub3ect matter are deemed the best answerto ideas that have stood the test o time, when rigorous discipline o the mind isconHered the means to these ideas, and when emulation o the teacher is considereda prime inducement to learning, one would do well to e&plore roots in idealism. /uchroots trace to 1lato, who saw a universe o ideas that was more real than sensedevents. The spirit o idealism was integrated with @hristianity in the 7iddle 'ges and


13/23

perpetuated in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries by %mmanuel 4ant Bwhoadvocated the e&istence o Athings-in-themselvesA beyond ordinary e&perienceD,2eorge !ilhelm Hegel Bwho posited the e&istence o absolute mindD, and theirollowers in the twentieth century.

Realism

Those educators who emphasi"e the validity o the senses to interpret the physicalworld, who promote the acquisition o s$ills necessary to acquire and master actual$nowledge, and who strive to ad3ust learners to realities o the physical world andbehavior sanctioned by adult culture should turn their attention to the heritage orealism. /uch educators promote heavy doses o science and mathematics,.(sys-temati"ed

pac$ages and procedures or teaching and learning, scientic educationalresearch, and highly technical modes o evaluation and testing that are believed to possess

ob3ectivity. 'lthough the history o realism is comple& and variegated, it is clear that its

origins trace bac$ to 'ristotle, and it was revived and perpetuated

during the #nlightenment by


14/23

he believed nature to be basic reality. His CE boo$ Ed!cation* Intellect!al# Moral andPhyical had much infuence on broader conceptions o education and curriculum thatwere to emerge in the twentieth century. '. /. *eill)s S!"tnerhill B=ED is surely acontemporary classic o naturalistic educational thought and practice.

tism

/ome educators call or careul attention to the e&periences o students. They want tobegin with the psychological Bstudent interestsD and demonstrate to students that they can

resolve meaningul problems by moving toward the logical B$nowledge, organi"ed by

human cultureD. They believe and teach that reality is in a state o continuous fu&, that

the truth o ideas or propositions depends upon their consequences in the broadest sense

o the public an! personal goo! they bring,, and that human beings create $nowledge

through the reconstruction o e&perience. 1ioneers o pragmatism are primarily o the

nineteenth and twentieth century( @harles /anders 1eirce, !illiam arl -aspers and to an extent !hristian

existentialists such as "aul &illich and =einhold iebuhr2 often are referred to in the same literature asphenomenologists such as


15/23

&here are those in the curr iculum field e.g., !. #. 9owers, /0A@2 who argue that there are better ways to introduce

educators to philosophy than through the isms. 9owers asserts that educators should study philosophy of culture

because curriculum

is derived rom the repertoire o a culture. He argues that they should study philosophy olanguage because teaching itsel is language and this is the medium orcommunicating curriculum. +inally he suggests that since we are interested in ends oroutcomes, we should study the patterns o thought, or it is in acquired perspectives, notbehavior alone, that the depth of curricular infuences can be discovered.

Thus, 9owers would directly ocus philosophical inquiry in education on that which iscentral to curriculum, instruction, and evalution.

ICULU.M THEORY

@urriculum theory is treated here as a subset o philosophy, the parent discipline thattreats undamental questions and assumptions undergirding all disciplines and areas ostudy( natural sciences, social sciences, humanities, the arts, proessional studies,technical training, vocational education, and everyday lie. @utting across several o these,we nd curriculum studies. Thus, curriculum theory is a strange amalgam, and one nds anumber o dierent orientations to it.

/ome Be.g., 9eauchamp, =CD argue that curriculum theory is a relatively new domain,younger than the general eld o curriculum studies that is oten said to have begun at theonset o the twentieth century. 9eauchamp ac$nowledges the contributions o theoreticaldebate that went into deliberations on questions that ormed a consensus statement or theTwenty-/i&th Jearboo$ o the *ational /ociety or the /tudy o #ducation B5ugg, =F>bD, as

noted in @hapter +our. 9ut a12(

curriculum theory conerence at the 8niversity o@hicago, he asserts, was the birthplace o curriculum theory. The proceedings, edited in1256 by ;irgil Herric$ and 5alph Tyler, included papers by noted curricularists o the daywho addressed the question o what curriculum theory should entail. One importantreason that 9eauchamp and others see this as a milestone publication in curriculumtheory is doubtless that it was a ma3or call or scientic theory building in the positivistic

vein that 9eauchamp)s own wor$ went on to develop.Those who do not adhere to this tradition o positive science might go so ar as to say

that all serious, philosophical writing about the aims and nature o education is curriculumtheory. This would include a range rom the pre-/ocratics to present. % one connesonesel to the twentieth century alone, surely it should be admitted that


16/23


17/23

rists have the 3ob o discovering true $nowledge. 8ncritical advocacy merely per-petuates the society and its value systems0 it restricts growth and inhibits renewal.

Theory

@ritical theory derives rom the wor$ o post-7ar&ist theorists oten characteri"ed asthe +ran$urt /chool. 1rincipal gures in the movement include 'dorno, 7arcuse,Hor$heimer, and Habermas. @ritical theory deals with careul refection on theta$ing or granted o socioeconomic class structure and- the ways)in which curricularistsunwittingly perpetuate such structures. /uch perpetuation, it is argued, eectuallyenslaves sub3ugated classes. %n his widely acclaimed wor$ with 9ra"ilian peasants,1aulo +reire B=>D demonstrates how a $ro8le"-$oin% $eda%o%y can replace the prevalent8an&in% pedagogy to help emancipate oppressed p( rsons. The urther point is thatsub3ugated classes predominate every culture and require a liberating pedagogy.

Intent. The purpose o critical theory according to Henry 2irou& B=CGD, who hasinterpreted its pedagogical character, is to

'ssess the newly emerging forms of capitalism along with the changing forms ofdomination that accompanied them ... to rethin$ and radically reconstruct themeaning of human emancipation Kp. 7] . . . and (to engage inD self-consciouscritique and ... to develop a discourse of social transformation and emancipationthat does not cling dogmatically to its own doctrinal assumptions. [p. 8]

Thus, critical theorists intend to penetrate and e&pose social relationships that ta$e onthe status o things or ob3ects. +or instance, by e&amining notions such as money,consumption, distribution, and production, it becomes clear that none o these representsan ob3ective thing or act, but rather all are Ahistorically contingent conte&ts mediatedby relationships o domination and subordinationA B2irou&, =CG, p. CD. %n pointing out

contradictions in culture, it becomes possible to distinguish what should be rom whatis and to strive compassionately or the ormer as the conditions o suering arerecogni"ed and articulated B2irou&, =CG, pp. C-=D.

@riticism. :espite its worldwide currency in intellectual circles, critical theory isattac$ed by political conservatives and reactionaries because it stems rom 7ar&istorigins. %t is also critici"ed by moderates who view theory as scientic, hold that there isno place in scientic wor$ or ideology, and assume that it is possible or inquiry to beree rom ideology and values. Opposition also centers on critical theorists) advocacy oradical change and concomitant destabili"ation o society.

1 Theorizing

Exm!"es. The term theoris. %t is associated with the wor$ o writers who see$ to reconceptuali"e the

eld o curriculum. /uch writers are categori"ed as reconce$t!alit in wor$s by !illiam

1inar B1inar, =>I, =>0 1inar and 2rumet, =>E0 2irou&, 1enna, and 1inar, =CD.

1inar intentionally uses a verb) orm to e&press


18/23

curriculum concerns, namely,theoriID. Orlos$y and /mith B=>CD oer our-part classication o styles o curriculumtheory( BD humanistic, BFD disciplines o $nowledge, BGD technological or analytic, and BID


19/23


20/23

theory. !e $now that the great boo$s oer the best education0 it remains only toadvocate them in a way that will be widely accepted. %t is silly to describe ande&plain, as descriptive theorists want to do, when what is ocused on is so blatantlysupercial. 8nortunately, we are aced with the descriptive theorist)s deication oscience. The other two modernists % would call hopelessly naive. 9oth critical theoristsand personal theorists want to rema$e the world. They ignore the dar$ side o human

nature that the great boo$s reveal along with the) virtuous side.

Social Behaviorist

True to my propensity or parsimony, % plan to be economical in what % say. Jes, % agreethat we need a philosophy to do research well and to oer viable prescriptionsor practitioners. 9ut we don)t need to beat a dead horse, as the saying goes.

'rmchair philosophers are a dime a do"en today, even with infation. !e can)t spendthe day pondering when there is wor$ to do. 'nyone who has loo$ed at schools, unli$ethe intellectual traditionalist and e&perientialist, $nows that there is plenty o wor$to do. !e need to clariy and dene our philosophy o education and then get to wor$putting it into practice.

's or my philosophy, % am certainly a realist0 % rely on my senses and my analysiso overt behavior, !e can never $now what)s hidden in the blac$ bo& o consciousness

Bor preconsciousnessD, and % can)t say that it matters much. 1roductive perormanceis what is important. % used to thin$ this value made me a pragmatist, at least until %read the author)s account o pragmatism. % believe in what wor$s 7aybe I#meclectic0 % draw rom whatever philosophy wor$s or the problem that needs resolu-tion.

7y curriculum theory orientation is clearly descriptive. !e need more good research

studies to reveal what wor$s. Then we can e&ert the $ind o control necessary to

acquisition o specied treatment. To $now what e&ists, what wor$s, is the only solid ground %

$now o or deciding what should be. Thus, sound descriptive studies are the basis o

deensible prescriptions. They allow us to predict and control behavior. The other two

curriculum theories aren)t theories at all0 they are ideological radicalism and sotminded

sub3ectivism. % don)t $now why they are even included in this boo$.

Experientialist

The worth o this chapter depends on how it is used. % guess that ma$es me apragmatist. % believe that the theory-practice model should be used by each reader to

clariy and develop his or her perspective on curriculum. The great categories ophilosophical questioning should not primarily be used to nd out what the masterssay and internali"e it Bas the intellectual traditionalist would advocateD, nor is it todiscover some absolute answer to each question. The purpose is to continue thequestioning and always to grow. The categories provide the best set o dimensionsthat % $now or building a well-integrated holistic philosophy o curriculum.

% am not so $een on the use o isms0 summary treatments do an in3ustice to therichness that can be gained rom reading philosophers to understand the e&perientialstyle in which they create ideas. % orced to respond to the schools o philosophic


21/23

thought, % would claim to be eclectic. I see some good in each and can imaginesituations in which each might give the quality o perspective that % need. % do havea heavy leaning toward pragmatism as interpreted through :ewey in contrast to thesocial behaviorist, who denes consequences as Awhat wor$sA and who doubtlessly

views what wor$s as what promotes sel-interest. !e need more attention to conse-quences or others0 thus, the critical theorist)s attention to those who suer and the

need or compassion spea$ strongly to me. %t seems, too, that careul observation othe interdependency or ecology o nature can give us clues about living together inmore empathic understanding. There is no better avenue toward this end than toreali"e, as the e&istentialist does, the need to ta$e responsibility or creating one)sworld. /imilarly, % can thin$ o no better way to do this Than through conscientious,personal theori"ing. As more people embar$ on such theori"ing and consciously createtheir better worlds or themselves, % can)t help but thin$ that the world at large willbecome better too.

% guess that % have tal$ed about schools o philosophy and orientations to curriculumtheory at the same time. 5ather than critici"e the positions that % did not mention, %wish to end on a positive note Bat least this timeD. %t is in the continuous doing ophilosophy, in the questioning o the ta$en-or-granted, in the admission that each o uscan always grow, e&pand, and mature that the world can become a better place.

(%$&% =%#I(

Muite a number o sources have been mentioned throughout the chapter. % willpresent, thereore, mostly additional sources or those who wish to read more.

On both the basic philosophical questions and schools o thought, % recommend appropriate

sections o the eight-volume The Encyclopedia of PhilosophyB#dwards, =E>D published by @ollier-

7acmillan. /imilarly, % recommend the ve-volumeictionary of the History of IdeasB!einer,

=>ID published by @harles /cribner)s /ons. There are a great many histories o

philosophy( The Story of Philosophy (1961) by!ill :urant and 9ertrand 5ussell)s !isdom of the

West (1959)are two, o the best $nown. #mile 9rehier)s The History of Philosophyin seven volumes

Bpublished during the late 1960sby the 8niversity o @hicago 1ressD is recommended or the

more ambitious. In addition, there are numerous anthologies of excerpts from philosophical classics.

With particular reference to philosophy of education, I suggestPhiloo$hie of Ed!cationby Philip Phenix (1961a) for

an excellent collection and!ildin% a Philoo$hy of Ed!cation 8y Harry S. Broudy (1961) for those who want to entertain

the great questions systematically. Two yearbooks of the National Society for the Study of Education: The Forty-

first (Part I, Henry, 1942) entitledPhiloo$hie of Ed!cation and the Eightieth (Part I, Soltis, 1981a) entitled

Philoo$hy and Ed!cation portray the development of the area quite well. I would add to this pairPhiloo$hy ofEd!cation Since Mid-Cent!ry edited by Jonas Soltis (1981b). For a concise summation of orientations to educational

philosophy in recent years, I recommend Kneller (1984).

Concerning curriculum theory, such work as Beauchamp (1981 and previous editions), Eisner (1985), Eisner and

Valiance (1974), Giroux (1983), Herrick and Tyler (1950), Pinar (1975), Molnar and Zahorik (1977), Levit (1971), and

others have already been mentioned. Other texts such as Tanner and Tani.e (1980), Schiro (1978), and Zais (1976)

contain informative treatments of curriculum philosophy and theory. In addition, I want to note a special issue ofTheory

into Practice (Winter 1982, 21(1)) edited by Gail McCutcheon. The volume contains articles by a wide range of cur-

riculum theorists (Herbert Kliebard. George Beauchamp, Jean Anyon, Max van Manen, Elizabeth Valiance, William


22/23

Pinar, Madeleine Crumet, James B. Macdonald, Decker Walker, Tom Barone, Gail McCutcheon, and Cleo

Cherryholmes).

RECOMMENDATIONS FOR REFLECTION

1. What are three to five principles that you, as an educator, use to guide your educational situation? Howdo these principles or guidelines relate to curriculum?

2. Think of a problematic situation that you faced recently. Explain how you drew upon each of the above

principles or guidelines as you dealt with the situation. To what extent were your actions in harmony with your

principles? To what extent might your actions have been adapted to be more compatible with the principles? To

what extent do your actions reveal that your principles themselves should be reconstructed to represent your

actions more fully?

3. Think of the action on which you reflected in activity 2. (Or select another situation that you remember well.)

Think backward to deeper levels that show origins of your decision and action. Use the "Model of Theory and

Practice" (Figure 5-1). Begin at the level of action and characterize your situation relative to the terms within pillar

I. Then move to pillar II and ask: How was my situational decision and action derived from various contributors

to common sense? Do the same for the policy level, pillar 111. Then proceed to pillar IV and ask: What basic

assumptions are represented by my decision and action case?

4. Reflect on pillar IV of the "Model of Theory and Practice." Can you sketch some of your basic assumptions in each of

the dimensions of philosophical inquiry? Review the characterization of each in the chapter.

5. Compare your response to the last question in activity 3 with the characterization of your position on the major

philosophical questions in activity 4. Is there any discrepancy? There usually is, so don't be alarmed. Realize thateveryone's philosophy should be a growing process. Sometimes one's action leads the way and later becomes part of

one's philosophy. At other times one has difficulty realizing the

ideals that one sets for oneself.

6. Can you identify basic assumptions that you currently have that were different last year at this time? Five years

ago? Ten years ago? Would you characterize your philosophy as continuously growing or relatively fixed? What

accounts for its growth or fixity?

7. How does your practical experience influence your curriculum philosophy? How do policy mandates in your

professional situation affect your philosophy and your practical action? How does your philosophy guide your daily

decision and action? What influences that which we usually call common sense? In short, consider the dynamic

interplay among action, common sense, policy, and philosophy in your

l i f - .

8. How does your philosophy of curriculum compare with that of the institution for which you work (or have worked

in the past if not currently working)? What are the major similarities and diffe:'ences? At the institutional level? At thebuilding level? At the department level? At the interpersonal level?

9. Try to fill in the open-ended cells of Figure 5-2 to portray assumptions of philosophic schools. If you were to

characterize your own philosophy of education as closest to one of the schools of philosophy, which would it be most

consonant with? Can you rank the othets in order of their affinity to you: own position?

10. Which school of philosophy would you like to learn more about? Which orientation to curriculum theory? Why did

you select the one that you selected? How might you go about learning more about it?

11. What school of philosophy and what orientation to curriculum theory best characterizes your school or place of

work, or former places where you have worked in an educational capacity? Which best characterizes institutions of


23/23

higher education that you have attended? What about the program you are now taking?

1 , #What do you consider to be three strengths and three weaknesses of each of the four orientations to curriculum

theory presented in this chapter? Which orientation do you think is most helpful to the future of the curriculum

field? Why?

Chapter 5 BAB 5 Philosophy

Documents

Transcript of Chapter 5 BAB 5 Philosophy