Each one-teach one:
A Philosophical Solution
for Education
Author Note
Anupam Debashis Roy,Freshman Student,Department of Political Science,Howard University
Student ID: @02780183
contact: writeranupam1101@gmail.com
Abstract
This paper tries to provide an introduction to philosophy and also provide a solution to the problems of education that this century is facing. The reason to add these two topics into a single research paper is that I believe that the problem with education in this century is in the very philosophy of education. I believe that a philosophical approach to the solution must be taken. To argue this I will use the first five reading critiques to provide a short introduction to philosophy for a novice reader. Then research paper tries to provide arguments as to how philosophy relates to education and why a philosophical approach towards education must be taken. The final three reading critiques try to provide some solution for the problems that have been previously stated in the earlier reading critiques. The final critiques will also try to provide direction for further research that should be done in this field from a philosophical perspective.
Introduction
‘You should not raise questions about God,because you can never have the answer’-he said, confidently, as if he was not confused at all about this idea of perpetual confusion that he so boldly projects. I said nothing because I know that religious people get angry when you question their fundamental beliefs and I had no time to waste to deal with some futile disgruntlement. I was indulged in a deeper thought. Why would there be an eternal question of God’s existence if there was no answer to it? If universe is posing a question,it is only natural that it would want us to at least try to find the answer to it.To my judgement that was my first philosophic endeavor. It was not religion and not science and it was distinct from traditional thought. It was philosophy because it deals with one of the central questions of life in a ‘hyper general way’.
But the author of ‘Thinking it through’, Kwame Anthony Appiah, might disagree and try to classify my primitive philosophic thoughts as Folk philosophy. (Appiah, 2003, p. 339). A somewhat funky name to describe the disorganized thoughts of non-academics who don’t do philosophy in a systematic way(Appiah, 2003, p. 339). But a just a few paragraphs later the writer introduces a new symbol for the same kind of thought and names it Traditional Thought(Appiah, 2003, p. 339) but fails to provide any kind of fine lining between Folk Philosophy and Traditional Thought. He seems to have no problem in letting the traditional thinkers use the term philosophy in their unsystematic line of thought but he again discerns their works from what he calls Formal Philosophy.
Soon we see that Folk Philosophy and Traditional Thought has merged into one single body and he is criticizing both of them for not being able to justify their convictions. He says that a formal philosopher is different from a folk philosopher and/or traditional thinker because he could provide valid arguments to support his thoughts. But again,he defines Philosophy as a general and systematic account of our thought and experience, one that is developed critically, in the light of evidence and argument(Appiah, 2003, p. 378). Therein lies the contradiction of his argument of merging traditional thought and philosophy together because if Folk Philosophy is Philosophy,then it must be supported by valid arguments.
In my judgement,it is wrong to discern folk philosophy or traditional thought from formal philosophy because both are basically the same thing. The thinkers of the beginning never thought if their thought would be called folk philosophy or formal philosophy but they did philosophy anyway and did it quite well. If any broad conceptual concept backed by valid argument is philosophy-then everybody can be a philosopher. Even common people who writer falsely discards as traditional thinkers. Philosophy,no matter who does it,is a pure cognitive analysis of the basic questions of existence in a broad and interdisciplinary manner and backs it up with valid arguments which conceptual and/or empirical.
Yes,I do think that Philosophy requires empirical evidence too. In my judgement, it is not only wrong to think that anything that requires physical data is not Philosophy but it is misleading. It is just an easy way out for distinguishing science from Philosophy. The assumption is unmindful of the fact that Science or Natural Science was born from the very womb of Philosophy and much of the early scientists are more famous for their Philosophic works. Author Kwambe does concur with this statement of mine by stating ‘...this(based on the use of empirical data) way of making the distinction between philosophy and science seems to me to be too simple. Much theoretical physics is very difficult to connect in any straightforward way with empirical evidence, and much philosophy of mind depends on facts about how our human minds happen to be constituted. It will not do, either, to say that the use of empirical evidence in science involves experiments, while in philosophy it does not. For thought experiments play an important role in both science and philosophy, and many branches of the sciences—cosmology, for example—have to proceed with very few, if any, experiments, just because experiments would be so hard to arrange.’ (Appiah, 2003, p. 364)
But the way of distinction the author has chosen is not too strong either. He says that, although Philosophy and Science both require empirical data, the data for Science is collected more systematically than Science(Appiah, 2003, p. 364). He proves the weakness of his argument in the very next sentence where he says this difference is also a matter of degree as some Philosophy,like that of language requires meticulous collection of data about the subject matter. This clever example serves only to prove how confused the author is about the use of data in Philosophy and Science and falls back to square one with the mistaken academics who he so passionately discredited in the previous paragraph. He differed from them only in the question of degree which is not that much different at all.
In my judgement, the question of distinguishing science from philosophy is much like asking the difference between a tree and its branch. Do they look alike?They do. Do they have the same characteristics?They do. Do they use the same source of nutrition? They do. Do they have the same function? They do. What is the difference? One is a more specialized version of the other. They have almost same characteristics and the smaller one has some additional usage. You can use the branch to beat Donald Trump with and you could use a smaller branch to pick your nose. But the tree cannot do that,it is more concerned with creating oxygen so that the whole world can live.
Philosophy is more like a tree,it is more concerned about the central questions of life when natural science is trying to ask distinct narrow question about physical world.
Science asks the How of the world when Philosophy asks the Why? This is the basic and most probably the only real difference between Science and Philosophy.
This concept is named Division of Labor by Dr.Appiah and he says that this institution has been productive(Appiah, 2003, p. 365). He also concurs that the two disciplines are intertwined and overlaps in a manner that it is hard to distinguish where one ends and another begins.
This vague contrast between Philosophy and Science is a complete antithesis of the relationship between Philosophy and Religion. I strongly belief that contradicting religion is one of the factors that gave birth to formal philosophy. Because the very basis of the disciplines are antonyms of each other. Religion thrives on belief beyond reason when Philosophy seeks for reason beyond belief. As Dr.Appiah says, ‘The urge to give arguments and evidence for what you believe, and to make your beliefs consistent with each other so that they form a system, is one of the marks of formal philosophy.’(Appiah, 2003, p. 343)
Dr.Appiah has been very successful in discerning Religion from Philosophy in his discussions in pages 360-364. He says that philosophy is free of the bounding rituals that Religion has. One can do philosophy lying on top of his lover but Religion is a wholly different thing. Though some subfields of Philosophy like metaphysics and theology do tend to ask questions related to God,they do it in a less formal way.
But it is not particularly illogical to look for dissimilarites even when the difference is so obvious. Because sometimes Religion does try to solve Philosophical problems and (rarely) give very good answers to them. I would even argue that every Religion started off as a Philosophy. And it was a happy marriage when the concept of ‘faith’ rooted in and everybody started to believe that in order to be religious,you must stop asking questions about your creed if you are a true believer. That is the death of Philosophy. Where there is no question,there is no urge to find an answer. Where there is no urge to find an answer,there is no Philosophy.
Which brings us back to my personal first meeting with Philosophy. I endeavoured to ask a question where religion discouraged me to ask. It told that I should better belief what the holy book said and follow the rituals that the holy book said I should follow. But I understood that only because my ancestors told me it was holy and true does not mean that it is. It’s holiness is a matter of scrutiny and reasoning too. Nothing is true until I am satisfied of its trueness.
And I was to be satisfied only by rational arguments supported by quantifiable empirical or conceptual data.
That is when I started my journey in Philosophy.
And I welcome you to the never ending intellectual adventure too.
When Thinking becomes Philosophy
One of the many challenges that formal philosophers face is that of the very definition of the principle. As philosophy does not consider itself to be limited to a certain set of boundary of topics. It discusses about all of the questions of life. And we do encounter theological,scientific and mythic problems in our life. Hence,it is sometimes very hard to find out the fine lining between other principles that are solely concerned with those questions and the one that indulges in all of the questions. In his work, James L. Christian(2012) tries to cite the works of other philosophers and also use his own judgement to discern the true self of the principle(Christian,2012,pp.22). Where Professor Charles Verharen(2015) uses a freer approach towards the learning of the subject. He uses his own understanding and the understanding of the students to find out what philosophy is to the philosophers,i.e. anybody that is thinking about thinking.
Christian(2012) explores the basic difference between faith and doubt and tries to find the distinction between religion and philosophy within it(Christian,2012,pp.25). Every human is born with a great contention, to believe or to doubt. Someone could choose to take the path of majority and lead a life of intellectual luxury by choosing the path of faith. That is where religion comes in. And those of us who are not content merely with the nobility of a noble scripture, choose the way of doubt and questioning. That is what philosophy is,it is an art of questioning.
But Christian(2012) does not disregard philosophy as an important factor of a functioning society. He sides with Socrates and states that most philosophers value the pragmatic virtue and transforming power of philosophy but they rather choose to find greater solace in courageous enquiry(Christian,2012,pp.26). But then he fails to defined the three symbols,transforming power and pragmatic value of religion and the courageous enquiry that every philosopher chooses to do.
I therefore have no way but to infer from the context that he values the importance of religion as a social institution which he defines as pragmatic value. He believes that religion is important in turning a sinner into a saint which he names as transforming value(Christian,2012,pp.27). But a cynic might find this so called values valueless and cite numerous events when religion caused the death of thousands and name some of the frauds who used religion as their weapon of deceit.
The idea of courageous inquiry that Christian(2012) holds in such high esteem may be the one that is the antithesis of the blind belief he defines in his work(Christian,2012,pp.27). He says that this kind of belief holds some concepts as the truth and the sole truth even against mountains of evidences to the contrary. Maybe his idea of courageous inquiry is to inquire about beliefs even when it is against popular opinion. That is where religion is distinctly different from philosophy,a philosopher would question his belief at the first evidence that he finds to the contrary. He would examine an antithesis with as much devotion as he pays to his own hypothesis. His attitude towards his philosophy is therefore not a belief,but an intellectual hypothesis that is subject to change at any given chance provided that he can find satisfactory empirical and conceptual evidence.
The discipline that philosophy shares most characteristics with is surprisingly,science. It is surprising because many think that these two disciplines are polar opposites of each other because in their schools they are taught so(by putting philosophy and science in different sections named natural science and liberal arts). But in reality science and philosophy were born together in 585 BC in the mind of Thales when he first predicted a solar eclipse(Christian,2012,pp.503). Christian(2012) describes this event with utmost reverence and declares it as a crib for philosophy and science both but fails to distinguish between the two.
In reality if the prediction of Thales really was both the birth of philosophy and science,i would discern the two in the following method: if Thales uses the empirical precursors of the eclipse,i.e. the factual and mathematical data collected from his observation, to anticipate the time for the next eclipse in the exact same location showing the exact same precursors, it would be science. But then again if he used the same data to prescribe the general characteristics of the greater universe around us,it would be philosophy. Verharen(2012) says in his class lectures that philosophy can only be philosophy if it talks about a universal condition,not about a preset time place or environment.
Nowadays,people seem so firm about scientific explanations. They often forget that science is also a subject to change. To them the basic laws of science,which have been working for a long time, are as good as the words of God. It is the modern myth.
In the ancient time,everybody used to believe in myths,but nowadays,nobody does. And everybody is now eluded with the modern myth that has succumbed our generation-that is named science.
But a philosopher would disagree with this common misassumption.
That is what philosophy is. It stands between myth and science/religion. It stands between something that nobody believes and something that everybody believes,as said by Verharen(2015) in his class lectures. It is the discipline that questions everything. As philosophers,we despise the idea of preconceived knowledge and try to challenge the idea of knowledge itself(as a part of epistemology).
Philosophy is nothing but the courage to question everything and the aspiration to understand everything even in the face of absolute absurdity or absolute absolution. Maybe that is the wisdom philosophers are talking about when the say they love(philia) wisdom(sophia).
Doing it like it Should be Done
After having so many contrasting evaluations of the principle,a disciple of philosophy is actually in a search of a well constructed academic definition of the principle as a conclusive work of all other examined theories. The most important thing that we must understand is that philosophy is about ourself and our perception of ourselves and the world. But doing philosophy does not involve only merely perceiving this idea,but also involves articulating it through valid and reasonable arguments. Doing philosophy is an activity of stating as convincingly as possible(Solomon and Higgins,2010,pp.3)
But this task is not as easy as it seems because many times,philosophers make sorry blunders by hanging on to some catchy phrases and terminologies rather than trying to explore their own ideas and providing valid arguments to support them. These catchy terms,or buzzwords, are just as harmful to philosophy as any indoctrinated belief because they blind the observer of the true knowledge of wisdom(Solomon and Higgins,2010,pp.4). However,philosophical terms are important to tie down the problems that are to be solved but that is all they mean(Solomon and Higgins,2010,pp.5). One person’s philosophy, no matter how great the person may be, is of no value to the other unless the other can validate it through argumentation of her own.
Which brings us to the most important attribute of philosophy,which is reflection. To philosophize is to step back and listen to the self and other people and to formulate a personalized philosophy that can be believed as clearly and as thoroughly as possible(Solomon and Higgins,2010,pp.5). This is why the primary features of philosophy contain articulation,argument,analysis and synthesis(pp.6). Articulation helps to describe the theory in understandable and concise language, argument provides support for the theory, analysis helps to understand the idea thoroughly and synthesis helps to unify the disjointed ideas into a single body of ideas.
Doing philosophy also involves disagreeing and doubting a lot. One can perfect her own theory only if she keeps on doubting it. Even a little leap of irrationality may ruin a perfectly fine theory. That is why philosophy must be done with style. Doing it with style primarily means devising a way of articulating the main ideas effectively so that they may be understandable to the reader as well as the writer.
To achieve this complex task the writer must have some tools. The first and foremost are his ideas that are to be the basis of the theory(Solomon and Higgins,2010,pp.13). Critical thinking is also very important because it helps one to scrutinize and gather information. Argumentation may be at the very core of a philosophic style because a theory is just as strong as the arguments that support it. Identifying a specific problem is a crucial part of finding the solution and imagination can be very effective tool in finding the solution. But overall,the thesis must be expresses in a lively manner,so that it is exciting,attractive,appealing, persuasive and at the same time, understandable and enlightening for the reader(Solomon and Higgins,2010,pp.14).
The success of a philosophical theory depends very much on the way it is carried out. Hence,it is very important to choose the correct path when philosophizing in order to achieve a desired result from the activity. If it is done in a disjointed and non-formal way, it may mean nothing even if the core theory is very powerful.
Welcome to the World
As most philosophers are aghast of all presuppositions and biases,they forget one simple truth,that they themselves also posses some. Therefore,no matter how much one hates the idea of presuppositions, we cannot but admit that they exist in all human beings and therefore coerces and manipulates human philosophy. A complete picture of philosophy is therefore not possible to achieve without considering real human ideas that even non academics concoct because when it comes to philosophy,all philosophers are equally prone to biases in lieu of their academic standing. When we define philosophy a total worldview,a person’s answer to the ultimate questions of life, we get a total picture of our goals as a philosopher(Nash,1999,pp.13). It is important not to disregard any of the worldviews of the thinkers of the world over time and examine them critically if one is to succeed as a philosopher(Nash,1999,pp.13). Examining the worldviews in order to find your own-this should be the alphabetics of philosophy.
Although most of the common people don’t have the faintest clue of a worldview,they still possess one. Their brain has its own function that helps it to conceive and process reality. As philosophers we must not overlook these unnoticed worldviews. We must learn to ask the unasked questions and encourage others to do them. We must help the unaware to be aware of their worldview(Nash,1999,pp.14). It is important because they first step of critically analyzing one’s worldview is to realize that they have one. And when someone also comes to know about the diverse worldviews of other people around them,that is when they can make their analysis of their own worldview a critical and philosophical one.Worldview consists of five basic clusters of belief,namely beliefs about God,metaphysics (ultimate reality), epistemology (knowledge), ethics and human nature(Nash,1999,pp.14). This definition of a worldview is congruent to the four basic questions of philosophy.
All religions are widely held worldviews. Though they may look like just a belief system, they also provide,or try to provide, the answers to people’s ultimate questions. A person’s belief or disbelief to a certain religion does not reflect her agreement to a single isolated argument or doctrine of the religion but a complete rejection of the worldview it poses. Therefore it is a fallacy to think religious answers are not philosophical ones because no matter how academics define philosophy,religion is the most basic philosophy of many of people whether they know it or not. People are incurably religious(Nash,1999,pp.18). Whether they do believe God or not,they have some sort of belief system around the matter.
But presupposing the holiness of a scripture destroys the possibility of a fair philosophical ground. But Nash(1999) says otherwise. He says that every human must have some presupposition about at least their existence from their culture and their experience (Nash,1999,pp.20). These presuppositions are also very important in determining what worldview a given person will choose. It is more likely for a person from an educated family to be more open to philosophical discussion than a person from an undereducated conservative family who might even be downright unready to accept some belief system that opposes that of his own.
The shortcoming in the writing of Nash is not in the arguments, but in his way of posing his hypothesis. He is so busy in defining his own terminology of a worldview that he simply under allocates his time in defining philosophy itself. The author generalizes too much and tries to erase the borders between philosophy and religion and integrates all of them to a single body that is worldview. He provides no distinct definition but all through his writing he keeps referring to philosophy and worldview interchangeably which makes the reader wonder about the true intention of the author. He does not endeavour to provide a comparative analysis between philosophy and other disciplines but tries to prove that all of them including history,religion,science,maths and logic are integrated in worldview a la philosophy.
But while that may be true,the author did an excellent job in defining philosophy as a worldview which gives the beginner philosopher a sense of their intellectual responsibility that is bound by nothing. It is the world that she has to work with and it is the worldview that she must have. This definition is so powerful that it automatically succumbs every other discipline into its womb and creates a gigantic body of intellectual work that is a worldview. This new intellectual view is revolutionary in defining the aspects and prospects of philosophy and philosopher and therefore should be kept in mind while constructing one’s own philosophical body of works.
Philosophy for a better life
Philosophy and Philosophers can be annoying(Curnow, 2012, Chapter 1, para.2). The key mission of philosophy is to question everything there is to question about the observable universe. And this process can be a bit annoying. But it is in no way redundant. If we come down from the universal scope of the discipline and try to talk about the basic function of the discipline in our everyday lives,we find astonishing usages. Philosophy helps us question ourselves,which in turn makes us question our belief and lifestyle. It is very easy to pick up bad habits but very hard to justify how or why we picked them up in the first place(Curnow, 2012, Chapter 1, para. 5). But once we hold the beliefs and the habit under the light of philosophy,we learn truly discern whether they are desirable or not,at least according to our own ethics.
In the course of questioning, philosophy even questions our inexplicable habits. Many of us vote the same party again and again in an election without even justifying the reason. We keep supporting them even if they move away from the basic morale that they received our supports for. When we start thinking philosophically,we try to ask ourselves about this actions and correct ourselves if we are unable to find any. Philosophy sets us free because it not only makes us aware of our choices,it gives us an outlet for us to gain control over them (Curnow,2012,Chapter 1, para 7). This is the first step in creating a better, a la more desirable life.
As we age, we seldom wonder if our beliefs and presuppositions have matured with us. Many times that not, our ideas and beliefs stay immature instead of our maturing. We grab hold of some of our suppositions about life which we got in a very early age and don’t let them go. This, according to philosophy, is a very wrong thing to do. In contrast, if we do examine all of our ideas philosophically and try to do away with inconsistencies and errors, it is almost definite that we will see the world in a different,clearer view (Curnow, 2012, Chapter 1, para 8). Having a better view of our beliefs, helps us to have a better grasp of ourselves which helps us to live a better life.
Many ethical doctrines that we hold so dearly and think of as immutable rules of having a good life should also be held under scrutiny if we are to established a truly good life. Many highly esteemed ethical doctrines like that of telling the truth does not stand under scrutiny when it comes to practical use. It is disadvantageous for all the involved parties if none of them considers to use occasional lies. Many truths downright hinders the means of having a good life, whereas some lies facilitates well being. Some other lies, though not absolutely necessary, are somewhat permitted by the society. Lies, such as those told when haggling, are considered harmless crimes and therefore somewhat permissible(Curnow, 2012, Chapter 3, para 4). The same applies when someone is asked ‘How are you?’. The absolute truth is rarely expected when asking this. A sooting answer befitting to the social convention is more expected here(Curnow, 2012, Chapter 3, para 9). Therefore, not lying ever does not seem possible. But it is only true when you are not thinking philosophically. To a philosopher,there is no absolute good or bad. Therefore, there is nothing innately gratifying in telling a truth,or stating matters like they are in reality. If lying, a distorted or reversed form of reality, is more befitting with the person’s philosophy, there should be no doubt about the fact that lying is far better than telling the truth. Therefore, philosophy creates a better way to live your life than does societal presupposition.
This is the role of philosophy in practical life. It creates a far sense of ethics and responsibility that is more compatible to one’s personal philosophy. Since all sorts of rigid presumptions imposed by society are done away with, a philosopher is able to find out a true guideline for her life and be clear to at least herself. Because when you measure the pros and cons, it is better to adopt your own philosophy and be clear to at least yourself than adopt one certain philosophy and be discredited by the followers of all other doctrines. The true meaning of a good life can only come from within oneself. Therefore one must find one’s own answer to the philosophical questions and lead their life accordingly in order to live a good life.
Making intelligent Educational Decisions by means of Philosophy
Making intelligent decisions in education is the most important function of the society since the intelligence of the adult populace depends on the education of the children. It is not enough to let the society make educational decisions arbitrarily since education defines the destiny of not only the children but the world in a broader sense. That is why educators need to be guided by more than mere hunches, and start to make decision based upon knowledge and understanding what knowledge actually is and what is its effect and what society should do, if anything, to maximize it (Fitzgibbons, 1981, p. 6).
Having a lot of knowledge definitely does not let someone make intelligent decisions by default but it certainly helps. A certain sort of knowledge is absolutely necessary for making sound decisions. But knowledge is certainly a difficult goal to attain. Every new knowledge that is created takes a long period of painstaking endeavour to achieve. This painstaking endeavor is sometime eased by the existence of exposure to previous knowledge. Issac Newton said that he stood on the shoulder of giants, meaning because of his education on the discoveries of other inventors, he was able to do what he did (Fitzgibbons, 1981, p. 7).
An educational decision, by default is something that is not possible to bypass for a society. The adults of a society must find out a way to pass on their knowledge to the young people of the society. Deciding not to pass on the knowledge, is also a decision regarding this matter by default (Fitzgibbons, 1981, p. 7). It is also important that these decisions are made intelligently because without deliberate intelligent decisions, the children of the society can not be guided to a right or at least desirable path.
Intelligently made decisions are always based upon beliefs and educational decisions are not exceptions to this fact(Fitzgibbons, 1981, p. 9). The intelligence of our educational decisions depends on the intelligence of our belief system. The beliefs guide the basic educational decisions that are what should the outcomes of education be, what should be taught and how it should be taught(Fitzgibbons, 1981, p. 11). The answers to these question depend on the belief of the answerer and the belief of the answerer most definitely depends on his or her philosophy. A person’s philosophy of education, is not just any belief of the person but only a particular subset of his complete philosophy.
The role of belief in educational decision making can be divided into two types. One is empirical and the other is the philosophical belief. The empirical may be the essence of the person’s decision about constructing the subject matter curricula but the metaphysical, epistemological,logical or normative beliefs actually determine the way the person would drive his or her education(Fitzgibbons, 1981, p. 28). Philosophy also stands to justify the very reason of educating in the first place. Philosophy also helps an educational decision maker to question his decision and ratify his decisions according to his ethics.
The philosophy of education therefore helps educational decision makers to find out the basic purpose of education, the means of education, the aim of education and the justification of his or her educational decisions. That is why philosophy is indispensible in making decisions in education.
Why we need philosophy to teach
The concept of Education is broadly philosophical to begin with. Because in education we are trying to prepare our children for the adult life in a desirable way. The philosophical dilemma lies exactly there. We cannot be sure of what is desirable and what is not. It is quite possible for a man to want to educate his children differently than children are generally educated in the society (O’Hear, 1981, p.1). Though education is commonly presented as a function of the society, the function of education can also be very personal and it should not be undesirable. As life is more personal than social, the foundation that dictates the way of life should be a personal one as well.
The philosophy of education is asking what men ought to be. This question may be asked by the society or by a sole person. The philosophy of education is actually but an accumulation of the society or a person’s answer to how people should live their lives (O’Hear, 1981, p.1). This specific question relates to one of the four major questions of philosophy that is Praxeology, or how people should live their lives. The philosophy of education asks questions about the set values about this social presents and means that have been set up to achieve such preset. The philosophy of education attempts to specify what education should do and whether or not that is aligned with our ethical values (O’Hear, 1981, p.1). Only through the philosophy of education can we learn what we want our children to learn by the end of their education.
But it is not the function of a philosopher to plan a curriculum for the children in detail. That is for subject expert, curriculum planners and psychologists. But what the curriculum should aim at, are related to the ethics and values of the society and must be judged philosophically(O’Hear, 1981, p.2). There are dissidents that claim that philosophers should not intervene the subject experts in their way of work and rather focus on the central concepts of various activities(O’Hear, 1981, p.2). Many propose that the interrelation of philosophy of education should be just like the interrelation of philosophy and science. But the determining fact in this matter is that the aims of science is broadly accepted by the scientific community. But the aims of education.in contast, is much more controversial and therefore, philosophical. There is no general consensus as to what education is or should be (O’Hear, 1981, p.3).
Therefore, we cannot take the answers regarding the aims of education from one group of educators in a given society and apply it to another given society. Even if the aims of education in one society is decoded,its function in any other society still remains an enigma which, by default is a philosophical dilemma(O’Hear, 1981, p.3). But when this question is addressed, it is bare impossible but to lay down some educational directives that the subject experts can and should use in order to make education more relevant and aligned with the values and ethics of the society.
Basic curricular decisions could not be taken in isolation from one’s general view of the society. A particular view of man and society lead to certain decisions about what should be taught and to whom it should be taught (O’Hear, 1981, p.164). A common starting point and ending point must be existent in both the teacher and the student for the education to be relevant for the students’ experience. If we consider all education to be just different forms of moral education and as functions of shaping someone’s worldview, a common philosophy of the world but be existent between the world and the student in order for the education to be functional. Therefore, a firm understanding of the philosophy of education is absolutely indispensable in order to create a working curriculum for an effective education.
Kill the Exam
I have had a total of five courses in my first semester of freshman year in Howard University and I have final examinations as a primary assessment method in only two of them. Those two courses are the most stressful courses I have and I like the courses with alternative assessment techniques way better. The reason I cite this personal experience in this paper because this experience is very relevant, even indispensary, in determining the need for an intelligent alternative assessment technique for education. The downside of current conventional assessment technique-the ever dreaded education is evident by the hatred of most students towards it. A viable and efficient alternative assessment method has therefore become and absolutely necessary.
Although a rather radical step of setting up a new assessment technique will be discussed in this paper, it will not go so far as to nullify the necessity of assessment altogether as many students demand. Because assessment is necessary for educational decision making. As most subjects are organized according to a hierarchy, assessments are necessary for the organization,progression and communication within the educational community(Herman, Aschbacher, & Winters, 1992, p. 2). The dispute herein, is not about the necessity but the approach of assessment.
Several terms are used when talking about a different approach to the reliable assessment model. These include terms like alternative assessment, reliable assessment, and performance based assessment (Herman, Aschbacher, & Winters, 1992, p. 2). Exhibitions, projects, journals, portfolios are examples of the common methods that are denoted as alternative assessment in most cases (Herman, Aschbacher, & Winters, 1992, p. 2).
But the question still remains, are these methods effective enough as a viable alternative to the examination model which has sunk its teeth in the education system for so long a time? The answer,sadly, is no. These methods are often seen as an supplementary or complementary method of assessment that is used side by side with the examination model. Therefore the assessment model becomes an inconsistent and ineffective fusion of two different assessment methods with completely different educational philosophies,serving none of them. Examination might be a much simpler form of assessment and easier to execute due to widespread practice and enduring existence, but it provides a data that is too simplistic, overlooking the more complex perspective of education that is related to human development. Though examination is a tool of resource allocation decisions (Herman, Aschbacher, & Winters, 1992, p. 3), resource allocation must not become the primary objective of the process. Instead, assessment must answer questions that are more in line with human development, like how we are doing and how we can do better (Herman, Aschbacher, & Winters, 1992, p. 3).
Traditional assessment techniques, namely examination in it’s many forms, do not account to these questions. Instead, test scores only denotes that students are being drilled and killed on expected test contents (Herman, Aschbacher, & Winters, 1992, p. 5). Therefore an increase in test score does not attest to the improvement of human conditions but only gives testament to a better genocide by a meager education system.
These give birth to the rise of alternative methods. These new assessments stress on the importance of examining the process as well as the product of learning (Herman, Aschbacher, & Winters, 1992, p. 6). They encourage the students to move away from the one correct answer attitude and try to provide open ended,complex and realistic set of questions that are more coherent with real life (Herman, Aschbacher, & Winters, 1992, p. 6).
The alternative methods that are currently being used for assessing the process are interviews, journals, self-evaluation, behavioral checklists etc. (Herman, Aschbacher, & Winters, 1992, p. 7). Product assessment includes essay writing, projects, portfolios, explanatory questions etc (Herman, Aschbacher, & Winters, 1992, p. 7). But these all fall short when compared to multiple choice testing because most of the alternatives produce complex qualitative data that requires a lot of time and energy to assess and quantify which might prove to be infeasible. These assessment methods are resource intensive which becomes a special disadvantage especially in resource poor countries. Therefore, they tend to move back to traditional assessment method and no significant improvement is done except that of creating better ways to cram some given exam contents.
Therefore creation of a sustainable assessment method is important. In doing this, this paper will focus on a specific framework. These must be done before establishing a viable alternative assessment methods. They are: specification of the nature of the skill, specification of illustrative tasks, specification of criteria and standards for judgement, development of a reliable rating process, gathering evidence of validity of the inferences made from the method and specification of usage as an improvement medium and feedback model (Herman, Aschbacher, & Winters, 1992, p. 8). The effectivity of the task will be measured by the ability of the task to measure something beyond the given contents to cover (Herman, Aschbacher, & Winters, 1992, p. 9). These are measured under a specific framework too. They are: consequences,fairness, transfer and generalizability, cognitive complexity, content quality, content complexity, meaningfulness and cost and efficiency (Herman, Aschbacher, & Winters, 1992, p. 10).
Therefore, merely stating the inefficiency of the current evaluation methods is not enough for the search of an alternative assessment method. Academics must think of a new way to assess educational performance that is more lenient with the modern educational philosophy according to the provided framework.
Using the Internet to Connect and Create
The most revolutionary step for twenty first century is massive access to the world wide web. From the most advanced countries to the least, internet has spread everywhere. And through enjoyable online services like the social networking websites, using the internet, for whatever purpose has become easy at least for the upcoming generation. The youth spends a large amount of time on the internet. The internet was basically invented for didactic reason other than a lot of modern technology (UNESCO INSTITUTE FOR INFORMATION TECHNOLOGIES IN EDUCATION, 2003, p. 6). Therefore, it will be an intelligent idea to integrate internet with the education curriculum.
But there are specific problems to this idea. First of, all the information in the internet is not reliable. Internet is the most democratic arena for people to voice their opinion in any way they wish (UNESCO INSTITUTE FOR INFORMATION TECHNOLOGIES IN EDUCATION, 2003, p. 7). Most of the information provided on the internet does not undergo any kind of examination. Therefore, young student might find their learning experience with the internet as detrimental rather than helpful.
Therefore, research through the world wide web must be done in an intelligent manner. A certain way to do this is to ask the questions: who? when? and where? (UNESCO INSTITUTE FOR INFORMATION TECHNOLOGIES IN EDUCATION, 2003, p. 7). If the information is posted by a reputed government agency, a teacher, a researcher or an interest group of the specific field, it might be quite useful. If the publication date in close to the current date, the information may be relevant. If the information is from a reputable source, it may be useful. (UNESCO INSTITUTE FOR INFORMATION TECHNOLOGIES IN EDUCATION, 2003, p. 8). But then again, discerning the useful information from the cessful of information can be tricky. This is where the passing students, who will be addressed as instructors from here on, can help the students find out the specific important resources for the specific field. The teacher, who will act as a supervisor in this cases, will provide encouragement for using up to date relevant information from a reliable source as a medium of teaching and learning. This will create a didactic environment that is more lenient with the modern society. If the teachers fall short of the technical knowledge of navigating the internet themselves, the instructors may assist them as well as the students in search of newer knowledge and teaching techniques.
The truth is undeniable that internet provides a huge amount of resources that, if accessed in an efficient manner, can transform the whole education system. A consortium of online libraries can provide the students with free pdf copies of any books from the library that they needs to their fingertips. Students can receive tutoring or even full course lectures from places that are physically far away that is know as distance education (UNESCO INSTITUTE FOR INFORMATION TECHNOLOGIES IN EDUCATION, 2003, p. 8). Internet can be used to educate across the border of countries. Educators in more advanced countries can provide less fortunate students with the resources that are available to them via internet. The gap between urban and rural education can also be mitigated by the use of internet. If the students can engage in healthy intellectual competition among themselves via the internet, they will get a broader stimulus to increase their knowledge which they might not get if they keep competing with the same group of people. Teleconferencing with a broad range of tutors and educators across the world, the student s can have a huge window of opportunity opened in front of them.(UNESCO INSTITUTE FOR INFORMATION TECHNOLOGIES IN EDUCATION, 2003, p. 9).
The philosophy herein is to provide the students to assess their choices of career and academia philosophically by broadening their range of experiences and urging them to assess their decisions in contrast and comparison to decisions of the contemporaries. The goal is also to provide the students with a specific amount of autonomy through world wide web so that they can get out of the specific paths created by the society and create something of their own.
Educating the developing world
Education presents with some specific problems when we talk about it in the context of limited resources. This becomes most vivid when we have to consider the case in the developing world. The developing world has the most acute need for education,but then paradoxically has the most limited resources to fulfill those needs. Newer jobs created by the expanding economy require more training and higher education but still the higher education is critically underfunded and therefore face extreme strain (Task Force on Higher Education and Society, 2000, p. 10) Therefore, much scholarship should be devoted towards the education of the third world in order to maximize the utility of the resources in fulfilling the need of the expanding reality. These needs are very specific yet very different from the other, more developed, parts of the world.
There are specific important objectives that must be kept in mind when doing educational work in the developing world. The students must be provided with specialized career oriented training that might meet the needs of the domestic economy as well as global as the number of specialized jobs is increasing very rapidly (Task Force on Higher Education and Society, 2000, p. 10). But in doing this, a space for innovation must also be provided so that the students can make relevant changes to the economic and social structures following the pace of the fast changing world. Providing a current and up-to-date knowledge is also a critical requirement for this case so that they can bring their societies up to pace with the modern world.
But practicality is another important aspect of planning education for the third world. A specific realistic funding model must be established for any education plan to be implemented.
A funding model can be established through the help of the government. But a more efficient funding may come from the private sector, philanthropists and the students themselves(Task Force on Higher Education and Society, 2000, p. 11). But the problem with privatization remains that the private firms may try to maximize their profits by turning the service of education into a product. This is a philosophical problem because the role of education is a controversial topic. Many think that education also works on a give and take basis. What the parents and the students work may not alway be lenient with the needs of the society. The parents and the students themselves may sometimes opt for a more career oriented education and may want to use education as a tool for getting a secured job while the society might want education to fulfill a different role. Because the most important role of education is to encourage the students to innovate and create new knowledge. This is even more important for the third world where knowledge coming from a different worldview may not be compatible in a different reality and a different form of knowledge may be required. In this case, privatization might lead to a philosophy of creating a more efficient working class for the expanding labor market while the society at large should want more innovators and thinkers. That is why a societal model of funding will be required. This funding may come from government agencies, from philanthropy but the best way to fund these programs would be from the students themselves. Instructors could come up with innovative projects as assessment tools that produces marketable goods that the school system could use to raise some additional money. This process could even nourish some young inventors and innovators.
But this requires the need to access high quality information and resources. A more efficient use for physical and human resources must be coupled with the use of technology to connect the developing world with the intellectual mainstream (Task Force on Higher Education and Society, 2000, p. 11). This provides the importance for mass access of internet and technology in the hands of the students. The school system must try to provide cheap or preferably free laptop computers to students and must provide free internet in all the schools so that the students can experience an unabridged flow of the information superhighway and use external resources as much as they want. And this use of outside resources in the classroom must be encouraged. The school system could introduce bonus points for such fact findings.
All of this huge project requires good governance. Only a good governance can provide real assessment of the problems at hand and provide intelligent decisions of future steps to address the problems (Task Force on Higher Education and Society, 2000, p. 11). This governance should not be authoritative but should be more democratic. Most developing countries still depend on the government too much when it comes to administering the schools. But the schools should be given more autonomy and the teachers and the administrators should be given the freedom to plan their school curriculum. It is fine if the country wants to follow a specific set of national textbooks but the school should be left alone in practising it’s freedom in its methods of teaching. Many schools are now forming their own governing body with the combination of the school administrators, teachers and parent representatives. This moves should be encouraged and much power should be handed over to these bodies. An elected member of the senior most class of the school might be appointed as student representative in the governing body as well to help the students voice their concerns as well.
Overall, all of this sums up to the need of a strong and robust curricula that must be developed to promote strong base of knowledge as well as innovation in the developing world. And in setting a curriculum, science and technology and the general curriculum must be equally valued (Task Force on Higher Education and Society, 2000, p. 12). Many times, science and technology is more valued in the curriculum because they are more related to getting a secured high salary job but very less research is done in this or any field for that matter. This must be condoned and policies must be made that encourage students to pursue research in any chosen fields. The students must also given equal chance to pursue career in any field they want to rather than funneling all of them through a specific sector. Any such activity or policy must be abandoned.
Another specific problem that is common for most countries in the developing world is that of overpopulation. Severely overcrowded classes, inadequate library and laboratory facilities, distracting living conditions, and few, if any, student services are realities that students have to face everyday (Task Force on Higher Education and Society, 2000, p. 24). This problem has to be addressed through turning students passing the class into instructors for the class and grading their performance according to performance of the class that they taught. The underlying principle is rather simple: if you really know something, you can teach it. If you cannot teach something very well, you do not know it very well. A qualified supervisor will of course oversee the whole procedure and provide tests or quizzes for the incoming class that is being taught to assess the passing students’ abilities. And the instructor will of course provide lecture for the bigger class once they are done with their introductory sessions with the passing students but using the passing students will give the new students a sense of what they should expect from the class and they will also have a more intimate care that they would not have in a large class. Assessing students by their ability to teach will also provide a better assessment model than that of traditional examinations. This will also encourage newer teaching methods and techniques. The achievement of the student is the achievement of the teacher, therefore the passing student will try her best to help the new student get the best knowledge accessible. This will make the passing student go through world wide web resources and coming up with a personalized course plan for her student that will also mitigate the problem of limited resources and smaller library. This problem can be solved by creating a national and/or consortium of schools that will allow students to access a wide range of resources through world wide web.
Higher education in the developing world is specific philosophical problem because a controversy lies as to where the education should focus. Should a country set up an educational philosophy of creating a more efficient working class as the economy demands or should the philosophy be incubating more researchers and innovators which may be more time consuming that the first and could not have direct results in short time window? The answer is the latter. Because most people would like to join the expanding workforce for a secure job whether the educational philosophy wants them or not. People are less likely to research when they can get more direct benefits from getting a high paying job with a four year degree. Therefore, the society should nurture the few academics who try and adhere to researching as much as they can to create new knowledge that is compatible with the world which is much different from the world that the current knowledge comes from. The educational philosophy should be more oriented to creating researchers and innovators than creating a more efficient workforce.
Conclusion
The paper points out some specific problems in the current education system and education policy. The first is that education is currently being used as a medium of judging the qualification of a candidate for a job rather than a medium for the society to build up its upcoming generation in a desirable manner. Higher performance is valued over higher understanding. Students are forced into higher earning majors than to pursue the careers they choose for themselves. Possible high standard philosophers are forced to become substandard computer engineers. This, in return, incubates a society where financial achievement is valued over intellectual achievement. A society where money is valued over happiness.
All of these problems relate back to the problems in our educational philosophy because our philosophy of education determines the philosophy of the future society. The current philosophy of education is to create high achieving students in terms of grade, the easiest method of quantifying achievement. That is why the society in return values human life in terms of assets, which is the easiest method of quantifying achievement in this case. But when it comes to education, we must take the longer way around and start to evaluate more important things than grades and scores. Things that really matter for society. We should endeavor to set up standards for innovation and leadership. That in turn, might lead to a society that values some standards that matter most to the society. Values like individual well being and community bonding.
The process that this shift of philosophy would take is still a subject of further research. I do wish to continue my years in college continuing the research myself. The method described in the reading critiques can be a start, where the merit of students as instructors will be mode of evaluation other than examination. This process might encourage innovation in classroom and study techniques since the instructor-students would try their best to help the novice students’ understanding. This will also create a greater community bonding where a wellness of others means the wellness of oneself. This step might create a more closely bonded society in exchange of the concentrated individualistic consumer society we currently live in. Internet can also be used as a method of transpiring knowledge beyond borders and generations. If all of the educational resources can be made available for free for all students in the world from all institutions, the gap in the quality of education around the world might close in and create a more educated society.
I am aware that these are still not enough to achieve the goals that have been described in the reading critiques and earlier in this conclusion. But these can be a start to a much larger educational reform which keeps the educational philosophy set forth by this paper as a standard that must be achieved. If this specific standard is set for the educational policy in form a renewed educational philosophy, educational policy makers around the world can come around to create newer policies that is befitting to their own place and time. All we need is to bear in mind the specific philosophical goal that is to create a society that focuses on individual wellbeing and community bonding as measures of achievement through educational policies that promote innovation and leadership.
References
Appiah, A. (2003). Thinking it through: An introduction to contemporary philosophy.
Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Christian, J. L. (2011). Philosophy: An introduction to the art of wondering.
Australia: Wadsworth/Cengage Learning.
Solomon, R. C. (2010). The big questions: A short introduction to philosophy.
Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.
Nash, R. H. (1999). Life's ultimate questions: An introduction to philosophy. Grand Rapids,
MI: Zondervan Publishing House.
Curnow, T. (2012). Introducing philosophy for everyday life: A practical guide. London: Icon.
Fitzgibbons, R. (1981).Making educational decisions: An introduction to philosophy
of education. New York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich.
Hear, A. (1981). Education, society, and human nature: An introduction to the philosophy of education. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.
Herman, J. L., Aschbacher, P. M., & Winters, L. (1992). A Practical Guide to
Alternative Assessment. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision &
Curriculum Development.
UNESCO INSTITUTE FOR INFORMATION TECHNOLOGIES IN EDUCATION.
(2003). Internet in Education: Support Material for Educators. Moscow,
Russia: Education-Service.
Task Force on Higher Education and Society. (2000). Higher education in developing
countries:Peril and promise. Washington, DC: World Bank.
