nature of teaching essay

The Study of Educational Psychology

The Nature of Teaching

Exercise 1.1. your core convictions and teaching goals.

Learning is an active process. Reflecting on what you already know and what you are learning enhances understanding and application of course content. Before you read further, consider your current teaching beliefs, values, and priorities. For example, what is the role of the teacher? Which skills are required? How should teachers support student development? Motivation? Which instructional techniques are best? How will you know what students have learned? List your core convictions and teaching goals. These lists will help you formulate your teaching philosophy later.

Source: Adapted from The nature of teaching (n.d.).

Teaching is Multidimensional

Teaching involves many domains, which we will explore throughout this course. Not only do teachers need to be experts on content, but they also need to understand student development, the learning process, factors that influence learning, classroom management, instructional techniques, and assessment. All of these domains impact the effectiveness of the teacher and the ability for students to learn.

Whether working with preschoolers, elementary children, adolescents, or adults, teachers must understand their student’s development. Cognitively, learners may be in different stages, possessing varying capacities for thinking, learning, and decision-making. Physically, brain maturation, sensory-perceptual abilities, and motor skills will change with age. Psychosocial development will affect social relationships, self-regulation, and emotion management. Understanding the cognitive, physical, and psychosocial development of the students we serve makes us more effective teachers.

Teachers must learn the theories and practices of the learning processes from various approaches. These different approaches may be utilized depending on what and how something is to be learned.  The  behavioral approach  is a set of learning theories that focuses on how we are conditioned to respond to events or stimuli with predictable, observable behavior. These theories explain how experience determines behavior. In the 1950s. the  cognitive approach gained attention as new disciplinary perspectives in linguistics, neuroscience, and computer science were emerging, and these areas revived interest in the mind as a focus of scientific inquiry. The c ontextual approach  considered the relationship between individuals and their physical, cognitive, and social worlds. They also examine socio-cultural and environmental influences on development. Biopsychology  explores how our biology influences our behavior. and thinking. Neuroscience has helped us understand more about how the structure of the brain, neuro-communication, and neurochemistry allows us to learn. An educational psychologist would be interested in how these physiological systems impact learning.

Helping students learn also requires understanding motivation and learning differences. Some students are highly motivated to learn, while others need to be motivated by external factors. In some cases, there may be factors that interfere with the motivation to learn. In addition, students may have learning differences that also impact learning. Teachers need to be aware of how factors like intelligence, learning disabilities, or mental health issues can affect students’ learning and how a teacher can assist students.

A significant domain for teachers to consider is classroom management and instruction. Teachers learn many techniques for how to manage student behavior, structure their classrooms and instructional time, as well as many teaching strategies. Approaches that work well with one class or student may not work well with another. Choosing the best techniques and strategies to be effective is part of the art of teaching.

Teachers cannot assume that what they teach is what students learn. Assessment, both informal and formal, helps teachers understand what students know and do not know. In some cases, assessment is meant to inform teaching so the teacher can create opportunities for additional learning. In other cases, assessment is the final summary of what students have learned about a subject. Assessments may be teacher-created or standardized, but regardless, how, when, and what to assess must be considered as part of a complete teaching plan for effective teaching.

Teachers are Part of a System

Teachers are not an island. They, and their students, are part of a larger system with this microcosm at the core of the system. Teachers are directly influenced by the policies and practices of their departments, schools, districts, and states. School systems are influenced by larger macrosystems, such as laws, professional organization recommendations, and cultural norms.

Figure 1.4.1. Circles of systemic influence on teachers.

At the macrosystem level, federal legislation dictates that all states and school districts adhere to specific mandates that guarantee access to education and protects students’ rights (many of those laws are linked below). These laws are the basis for state and local regulations, policies, and practices. Professional organizations, such as the National Board for Professional Teaching Standards , provide standards for teacher proficiency to promote effective teaching and improvement in schools. Historical and cultural contexts also influence the classroom. Consider the increase in school shootings in the United States in recent decades. Active shooter plans are now required by state and local policies. Active shooter drills have become a regular practice. The anxiety associated with this risk is now woven into the school and American culture.

Federal Education Legislation

Legislation, regulations, guidance, and other policy documents can be found here for the  Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA) , and other topics.

Please note that in the U.S., the federal role in education is limited. Because of the Tenth Amendment, most education policy is decided at the state and local levels. So, if you have a question about a policy or issue, you may want to check with the  relevant organization in your state or school district .

Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 (ESEA), as amended

• Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA) Information page
• ESEA Flexibility:  Information about flexibility from certain No Child Left Behind requirements that ED is offering to states.
• Text of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965, as amended by ESSA and the National Defense Authorization Act, 2017: Introductory materials  —  Title I  —  Title II  —  Title III  —  Title IV  —  Title V  —  Title VI  —  Title VII  —  Title VIII
• Text of No Child Left Behind Act : For certain ESEA programs, the requirements of NCLB apply through the 2016-2017 school year.
• Guidance and Regulations

FERPA (Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act)

• Regulations

Civil Rights

• Disability Discrimination  (Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act)
• Sex Discrimination  (Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972)
• Race and National Origin Discrimination  (Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964)

IDEA (Individuals with Disabilities Education Act)

• IDEA Website
• Text of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act  (PDF, 529KB)

WIOA (Workforce Innovation and Opportunities Act)

• WIOA Information Page
• Text of the Workforce Innovation and Opportunities Act

Rehabilitation Act of 1973, as amended through P.L. 114–95

• Text of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973  (PDF, 505KB)

Higher Education Act

• Text of the Higher Education Opportunity Act
• Postsecondary Policy Initiatives

Teachers and students are directly influenced by the exosystem. These are the policies, practices, and standards established by state and local agencies. The curriculum that is mandated, the teaching materials adopted, the technology available, and the assessments required will directly impact a teacher’s choices in the classroom and students’ achievement. When considering what to teach, how to teach it, and when, teachers will need to follow the standards and curriculum set form by this ecosystem. Students’ learning experiences may be enhanced or hindered by their exosystem.

The Digital Divide

The expanding use of technology affects the lives of students both inside and outside the classroom. While exposure to learning technology inside schools and classrooms is important, access can also differ once those students are in their homes. It’s important for educators to be aware of the potential barriers to technology and internet access that students may face. A recent report from NCES,  Student Access to Digital Learning Resources Outside the Classroom , highlighted some differences in home internet access for students.

The percentage of 5- to 17-year-old students with either no internet access or only dial-up access differed by students’ race/ethnicity.

Access also differed geographically. Remote rural locales had the highest percentage of students with either no internet access or only dial-up access at home. Within these remote rural areas, the percentage of students lacking access differed by students’ race/ethnicity. Forty-one percent of Black students and 26 percent of Hispanic students living in remote rural areas had either no internet access or only dial-up access at home. This was higher than the percentage of White students (13 percent) and Asian students (11 percent) living in remote rural areas who had either no internet access or only dial-up access at home.

The percentage of students who had no access to the Internet or only dial-up access was higher for students living below the poverty threshold (26 percent) than for students living between 100 and 185 percent of the poverty threshold (15 percent) and at greater than 185 percent of the poverty threshold (4 percent).

In 2015, the two most common main reasons for children ages 3 to 18 to not have home internet access were that it was too expensive or that the family did not believe they needed it/ were not interested in having it (38 percent each). Other main reasons for not having home internet access included that the home lacked a computer or a computer adequate for internet use (8 percent), internet service was not available in the area (5 percent), the Internet could be used somewhere else (3 percent), and privacy and security concerns (i.e., online privacy and cybersecurity and personal safety concerns) (2 percent).

What Teachers Should Know and Be Able to Do

The National Board for Professional Teaching Standards  proposes five core propositions for teaching. These five propositions provide a vision for accomplished teaching and are the basis for National Board Certification.

• Accomplished teachers are committed to their students and their learning. They recognize individual differences and adjust their teaching according to their students’ needs. Teachers understand how their students develop and learn, but understand that their mission goes beyond students’ cognitive development. They treat students equitably.
• Accomplished teachers know their subject and know how to teach their subjects to students . They understand how knowledge in their subject is created, organized, and linked to other subjects. They also know how to convey their subject to students by utilizing multiple paths to knowledge.
• Accomplished teachers are responsible for managing and monitoring student learning. They utilize multiple methods for meeting their instructional goals and supporting student learning in various settings. Teachers engage students in the learning process and value student participation. They also regularly assess student progress.
• Accomplished teachers think systematically about their teaching and learn from their experience. They use feedback and research to improve their practice and make difficult choices that challenge their professional judgment.
• Accomplished teachers are members of learning communities. They collaborate with other professionals, families, and the community.

Video 1.4.1. What Teachers Should Know reviews the National Board for Professional Teach Standards five core propositions.

Exercise 1.2. Self-Assessment of Teaching

Questionnaire for self-assessment of teaching. Reflect on these characteristics and consider which skills you will improve during this course.

Effective Teaching

Exercise 1.3. traits of an effective teacher.

Think about the most effective teachers in your experience. What made them effective? What characteristics, attributes, or skills did they possess that made them effective?

What is an effective teacher? Walker (2008)  asked in-service and pre-service teachers to identify characteristics of their most effective teachers–“effective” meaning that these teachers made the most significant and positive impact on their lives. From those responses, twelve characteristics emerged.

• Prepared.  Effective teachers are prepared for each class and are ready to teach. Time on task is a priority. Students report that it is easy to learn because the teacher is prepared and time passes quickly because they are engaged in learning.
• Positive. Effective teachers are optimistic about teaching and about their students. They look for the positives in every situation. They also are available to students, communicate with students about their progress, and give praise. These teachers also support students to respond positively to each other.
• Hold High Expectations . Effective teachers hold the highest standards and believe that all students can be successful. They challenge their students to do their best and build students’ confidence.
• Creative . Effective teachers are resourceful and inventive. They will do things outside of the norm to keep students engaged and motivated.
• Fair. Effective teachers are fair in how they handle students and grading. They allow students equal opportunities. They give clear and consistent expectations. They also recognize that not all students learn the same way, and “fair” does necessarily mean treating everyone the same.
• Display a Personal Touch.  Effective teachers are approachable and connect with their students personally. They share experiences and take an interest in their students.
• Cultivate a Sense of Belonging.  Effective teachers project that their preferred place is in the classroom and they make students feel welcome and comfortable there as well.
• Compassionate.  Effective teachers are concerned about students’ academics, but also their personal issues. They show sensitivity and compassion toward their students.
•   Have a Sense of Humor.  Effective teachers can make learning fun and do not take everything seriously. They use humor while teaching and dealing with difficult situations.
• Respect Students.  Effective teachers give the highest respect and get the highest respect from students. They do not deliberately embarrass students. They respect their privacy and speak to students alone about sensitive issues, grades, or conduct.
• Forgiving.  Effective teachers forgive students for inappropriate behavior and do not hold grudges. They refuse to give up on difficult students.
• Admit Mistakes.  Effective teachers admit when they are wrong and apologize for mistakes.

What Makes a Good Teacher Great?

Video 1.4.2.  What Makes a Good Teacher Great discusses some of the lessons Azul Terronez learned about being an effective teacher from his students.

Exercise 1.4. Traits that Make Me an Effective Teachers

Which of these personal and professional characteristics and skills do you possess? When you formulate your teaching philosophy, you can discuss the characteristics of an effective teacher that you possess.

Candela Citations

• Adolescent Psychology. Authored by : Nicole Arduini-Van Hoose. Provided by : Hudson Valley Community College. Retrieved from : https://courses.lumenlearning.com/adolescent. License : CC BY-NC-SA: Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike
• What Teachers Should Know. Provided by : National Board for Professional Teach Standards. Retrieved from : https://youtu.be/J4_o20MgLqg. License : Public Domain: No Known Copyright
• What Makes a Good Teacher Great. Authored by : Azuel Terronez. Provided by : Ted. Retrieved from : https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vrU6YJle6Q4. License : All Rights Reserved
• Laws & Guidance. Provided by : U.S. Department of Education. Retrieved from : https://www2.ed.gov/policy/landing.jhtml?src=ft. License : CC0: No Rights Reserved
• The Digital Divide: Differences in Home Internet Access. Authored by : Lauren Musu. Provided by : National Center for Education Statistics. Retrieved from : https://nces.ed.gov/blogs/nces/post/the-digital-divide-differences-in-home-internet-access. License : CC0: No Rights Reserved

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

Share This Book

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

• View all journals
• My Account Login
• Explore content
• About the journal
• Publish with us
• Sign up for alerts
• Open access
• Published: 23 March 2018

The nature and nurture of education

• Pankaj Sah 1 ,
• Michael Fanselow 2 ,
• Gregory J. Quirk 3 ,
• John Hattie 4 ,
• Jason Mattingley   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0003-0929-9216 1 &
• Tracey Tokuhama-Espinosa 5  

npj Science of Learning volume  3 , Article number:  6 ( 2018 ) Cite this article

22k Accesses

2 Citations

18 Altmetric

Metrics details

Learning is a life-long endeavour that continues from infancy to old age. We each navigate the learning process in different ways, yielding to our experiences and the circumstances in which we find ourselves. For many people, formal education takes place between the ages of 6–18, where we are educated based on core curricula that are delivered through a schooling system. Many countries have some form of compulsory education for children until they reach adulthood, but the route through the school system can vary greatly. In many first world countries, the choice is between public schools, generally funded by the state, and private schools which are funded through a combination of individual tuition fees, and religious or corporate institutions. School education is generally required by government mandate, and the cost of admission and tuition in public schools is borne by the state. In contrast, entry into a private school is often primarily dependent on socioeconomic status and some form of selection process—either formal testing or religious affiliation.

In many countries, studies have suggested that students attending private schools attain better educational outcomes, and long-term socioeconomic benefits. These data are then used by private schools to encourage attendance in this selective system. Private schools are generally expensive but may provide more individualized programs of study with better student–faculty ratios then those provided by public schools.

The choice parents make in selecting schools for their children, and the differences between public and private schools has been the subject of much debate, that is largely couched in social and economic terms. In a collection of manuscripts published in npj Science of Learning , two groups of researchers have approached this discussion from an interesting new direction—genetics. The Nature versus Nurture question has been greatly debated for many years, because it is not entirely clear which is the greatest influence on human development and behaviour. Although we are all born with a specific set of genes, with no control over our genetic allocation, we now know our life-style choices and different experiences though development and maturity also influence gene expression, and thus exert control over our behaviour via epigenetic modifications. Epigenetic mechanisms regulate the structure and activity of the genome in response to cellular and environmental cues, one such mechanism involves DNA methylation. Thus, biological processes are controlled by a combination of inherited genes and the life-long impact of epigenetic modifications that regulates their expression. Who we are is not simply a result of either nature or nurture but rather is shaped by a combination of these factors. Recent advances in genomic and epigenomic sequencing, have led to a growing interest in using this information to predict biological outcomes, and disease pathogenesis and help guide individuals in lifestyle choices and behaviour.

Two papers 1 , 2 published in npj Science of Learning have worked to address the question of 'Does an individual’s genetic makeup, and epigenetic modification, affect his or her educational attainment?'. Educational attainment is a measure of the highest level of education that an individual has completed at the end of full-time compulsory education. Educational attainment has been shown to strongly correlate with mental and physical health, as well as socioeconomic status, and is one of the strongest predictors of lifetime success, not only economically but also in terms of health and longevity.

In one study, 1 Smith–Woolley and colleagues looked at educational attainment in three groups of students in Britain that attended either: public schools, private schools or selective schools. The researchers found that as previously reported, students in private schools had higher levels of educational attainment than those in public schools. They then examined the genetic differences between students in these groups, and surprisingly, there were differences in genetic markers between them. Interestingly, when differences in genetics were accounted for, educational attainment differences between students attending the different schools disappeared.

In another study, 2 van Dongen and colleagues examine the DNA methylation status of genes in people with different levels of educational attainment. They found differential sites of DNA methylation at specific regions (loci) correlate with educational attainment and the methylation status of these sites are largely influenced by environmental factors such as smoking. These sites of differential methylation were found to be located in and near genes with neuronal, immune and developmental functions. Differential levels of DNA methylation in these regions could impact the expression of these genes during critical periods of childhood development. Together, the two studies point to the role of genetics and epigenetic changes in educational outcome. Two accompanying perspective pieces, one by Nick Martin 3 and the other by Sue Thompson, 4 provide a commentary on the implications of these studies from the genetic 3 and educational 4 viewpoint.

There is a growing interest in genomic and epigenomic sequencing of different populations, with the data generated being incorporated into many different databases. Large-scale projects like the ENCODE (Encyclopedia of DNA Elements) Consortium, which is an international collaboration of research groups funded by the National Human Genome Research Institute (NHGRI), and the British 100,000 genomes project, led by Genomics England, are leading the way in trying to understand how these factors influence biological processes. The two studies published in npj Science of Learning raise the question of the use of genomic data to help predict educational outcomes. Just as the management of our health is increasingly being found to be affected by genetic and epigenetic determinants, it may be that individuals progress through the education system based upon these factors as well.

Smith-Woolley, E. et al. Differences in exam performance between pupils attending selective and non-selective schools mirror the genetic differences between them. npj Sci. Learn. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41539-018-0019-8 (2018).

van Dongen, J. et al. DNA methylation signatures of educational attainment. npj Sci. Learn. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41539-018-0020-2 (2018).

Martin, N. Getting to the genetic and environmental roots of educational inequality. npj Sci. Learn. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41539-018-0021-1 (2018).

Thomson, S. Achievement at school and socioeconomic background—an educational perspective. npj Sci. Learn. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41539-018-0022-0 (2018).

Download references

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Queensland Brain Institute, The University of Queensland, Brisbane, QLD, 4072, Australia

Pankaj Sah & Jason Mattingley

Staglin Center for Brain and Behavioral Health, University of California, Los Angeles, Los Angeles, CA, USA

Michael Fanselow

School of Medicine, University of Puerto Rico, San Juan, Puerto Rico

Gregory J. Quirk

Graduate School of Education, The University of Melbourne, Parkville, Australia

John Hattie

Applied Educational Research Center, Latin American School of Social Sciences, Harvard Extension School, Harvard University, Cambridge, MA, USA

Tracey Tokuhama-Espinosa

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Contributions

P.S., M.F., G.J.Q., J.H., J.M. and T.T.E. contributed to the writing and editing of the manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Pankaj Sah .

Ethics declarations

Competing interests.

The authors declare no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher's note: Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons license, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons license and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this license, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ .

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article.

Sah, P., Fanselow, M., Quirk, G.J. et al. The nature and nurture of education. npj Science Learn 3 , 6 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41539-018-0023-z

Download citation

Received : 07 February 2018

Accepted : 15 February 2018

Published : 23 March 2018

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1038/s41539-018-0023-z

Share this article

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

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

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

Quick links

• Explore articles by subject
• Guide to authors
• Editorial policies

Sign up for the Nature Briefing newsletter — what matters in science, free to your inbox daily.

Academia.edu no longer supports Internet Explorer.

To browse Academia.edu and the wider internet faster and more securely, please take a few seconds to  upgrade your browser .

Enter the email address you signed up with and we'll email you a reset link.

• We're Hiring!
• Help Center

On the Nature of Teaching and Teacher Education: Difficult Practices that Look Easy

2000, Journal of Teacher Education

Related Papers

David Labaree

Educational Researcher

In this article, some difficulties are examined involving turning edu- cational practitioners into educational researchers at American ed- ucation schools. Teachers bring many traits that are ideal for this new role. At the same time, students and professors in researcher training programs often encounter a cultural clash between the world- views of the teacher and researcher. Students may feel they

hiba khaled

Harvard Educational Review

... from context). The Holmes and Carnegie reports make virtually no reference to the former traits in their description of teaching as a profession; instead, they argue that thisprofession should be grounded in a scientific knowledge base, ar ...

RELATED PAPERS

James Burns , Katherine Bertolini , Andrew Stremmel , Christine Nganga

Bryan Wehrli, Ph.D.

Journal of teacher education

Yearbook of The National Society for The Study of Education

Dirck Roosevelt

Teaching and Teacher Education

Clifford Mayes

Educational Research: Proofs, Arguments, and Other Reasonings

Iwan Syahril

António Pedro Duarte

Trish Gomez

Anastasia Samaras

Sally Campbell Pirie

Courtney Bell , Jodie Galosy

Kim Metcalf

Teaching and Teacher …

Maria Smith

Jeff Carpenter , Daniel G Krutka

Robyn Ewing , Rosie Le Cornu

Encyclopedia of Educational Philosophy and Theory

Douglas Yacek , Bruce Kimball

misheck kazembe

Douglas Robertson

Journal of Thought

Connor K Warner

Sophia M AL

Christine Manara

Avner Segall

European Educational Research Journal

John Loughran , Kim Schildkamp , Jacobiene Meirink

The Sixth International Conference on Self- …

Patricia Paugh

Christi Edge

… Conference on Self-Study of Teacher …

Robyn Brandenburg

Journal of Teacher Education

Anne Freese , Linda R Kroll , Sandra Schuck , Jeffrey S Kaplan

Ali AlSaeedi

The Sixth International Conference on Self-Study of Teacher Education Practices

Christine Mallozzi , Bob Fecho , Cheryl McLean

The Sixth International Conference on Self-Study of …

Cristy Kessler

Yearbook of the National Society for the Study of Education

Karen Seashore Louis

RELATED TOPICS

•   We're Hiring!
•   Help Center
• Find new research papers in:
• Health Sciences
• Earth Sciences
• Cognitive Science
• Mathematics
• Computer Science
• Academia ©2024

Philosophy of Education

All human societies, past and present, have had a vested interest in education; and some wits have claimed that teaching (at its best an educational activity) is the second oldest profession. While not all societies channel sufficient resources into support for educational activities and institutions, all at the very least acknowledge their centrality—and for good reasons. For one thing, it is obvious that children are born illiterate and innumerate, and ignorant of the norms and cultural achievements of the community or society into which they have been thrust; but with the help of professional teachers and the dedicated amateurs in their families and immediate environs (and with the aid, too, of educational resources made available through the media and nowadays the internet), within a few years they can read, write, calculate, and act (at least often) in culturally-appropriate ways. Some learn these skills with more facility than others, and so education also serves as a social-sorting mechanism and undoubtedly has enormous impact on the economic fate of the individual. Put more abstractly, at its best education equips individuals with the skills and substantive knowledge that allows them to define and to pursue their own goals, and also allows them to participate in the life of their community as full-fledged, autonomous citizens.

But this is to cast matters in very individualistic terms, and it is fruitful also to take a societal perspective, where the picture changes somewhat. It emerges that in pluralistic societies such as the Western democracies there are some groups that do not wholeheartedly support the development of autonomous individuals, for such folk can weaken a group from within by thinking for themselves and challenging communal norms and beliefs; from the point of view of groups whose survival is thus threatened, formal, state-provided education is not necessarily a good thing. But in other ways even these groups depend for their continuing survival on educational processes, as do the larger societies and nation-states of which they are part; for as John Dewey put it in the opening chapter of his classic work Democracy and Education (1916), in its broadest sense education is the means of the “social continuity of life” (Dewey, 1916, 3). Dewey pointed out that the “primary ineluctable facts of the birth and death of each one of the constituent members in a social group” make education a necessity, for despite this biological inevitability “the life of the group goes on” (Dewey, 3). The great social importance of education is underscored, too, by the fact that when a society is shaken by a crisis, this often is taken as a sign of educational breakdown; education, and educators, become scapegoats.

It is not surprising that such an important social domain has attracted the attention of philosophers for thousands of years, especially as there are complex issues aplenty that have great philosophical interest. Even a cursory reading of these opening paragraphs reveals that they touch on, in nascent form, some but by no means all of the issues that have spawned vigorous debate down the ages; restated more explicitly in terms familiar to philosophers of education, the issues the discussion above flitted over were: education as transmission of knowledge versus education as the fostering of inquiry and reasoning skills that are conducive to the development of autonomy (which, roughly, is the tension between education as conservative and education as progressive, and also is closely related to differing views about human “perfectibility”—issues that historically have been raised in the debate over the aims of education); the question of what this knowledge, and what these skills, ought to be—part of the domain of philosophy of the curriculum; the questions of how learning is possible, and what is it to have learned something—two sets of issues that relate to the question of the capacities and potentialities that are present at birth, and also to the process (and stages) of human development and to what degree this process is flexible and hence can be influenced or manipulated; the tension between liberal education and vocational education, and the overlapping issue of which should be given priority—education for personal development or education for citizenship (and the issue of whether or not this is a false dichotomy); the differences (if any) between education and enculturation; the distinction between educating versus teaching versus training versus indoctrination; the relation between education and maintenance of the class structure of society, and the issue of whether different classes or cultural groups can—justly—be given educational programs that differ in content or in aims; the issue of whether the rights of children, parents, and socio-cultural or ethnic groups, conflict—and if they do, the question of whose rights should be dominant; the question as to whether or not all children have a right to state-provided education, and if so, should this education respect the beliefs and customs of all groups and how on earth would this be accomplished; and a set of complex issues about the relation between education and social reform, centering upon whether education is essentially conservative, or whether it can be an (or, the ) agent of social change.

It is impressive that most of the philosophically-interesting issues touched upon above, plus additional ones not alluded to here, were addressed in one of the early masterpieces of the Western intellectual tradition—Plato's Republic . A.N. Whitehead somewhere remarked that the history of Western philosophy is nothing but a series of footnotes to Plato, and if the Meno and the Laws are added to the Republic , the same is true of the history of educational thought and of philosophy of education in particular. At various points throughout this essay the discussion shall return to Plato, and at the end there shall be a brief discussion of the two other great figures in the field—Rousseau and Dewey. But the account of the field needs to start with some features of it that are apt to cause puzzlement, or that make describing its topography difficult. These include, but are not limited to, the interactions between philosophy of education and its parent discipline.

1.1 The open nature of philosophy and philosophy of education

1.2 the different bodies of work traditionally included in the field, 1.3 paradigm wars the diversity of, and clashes between, philosophical approaches, 2.1 the early work: c.d. hardie, 2.2 the dominant years: language, and clarification of key concepts, 2.3 countervailing forces, 2.4 a new guise contemporary social, political and moral philosophy, 3.1 philosophical disputes concerning empirical education research, 3.2 the content of the curriculum, and the aims and functions of schooling, 3.3 rousseau, dewey, and the progressive movement, 4. concluding remarks, bibliography, other internet resources, related entries, 1. problems in delineating the field.

There is a large—and ever expanding—number of works designed to give guidance to the novice setting out to explore the domain of philosophy of education; most if not all of the academic publishing houses have at least one representative of this genre on their list, and the titles are mostly variants of the following archetypes: The History and Philosophy of Education , The Philosophical Foundations of Education , Philosophers on Education , Three Thousand Years of Educational Wisdom , A Guide to the Philosophy of Education , and Readings in Philosophy of Education . The overall picture that emerges from even a sampling of this collective is not pretty; the field lacks intellectual cohesion, and (from the perspective taken in this essay) there is a widespread problem concerning the rigor of the work and the depth of scholarship—although undoubtedly there are islands, but not continents, of competent philosophical discussion of difficult and socially-important issues of the kind listed earlier. On the positive side—the obverse of the lack of cohesion—there is, in the field as a whole, a degree of adventurousness in the form of openness to ideas and radical approaches, a trait that is sometimes lacking in other academic fields. This is not to claim, of course, that taken individually philosophers of education are more open-minded than their philosophical cousins!

Part of the explanation for this diffuse state-of-affairs is that, quite reasonably, most philosophers of education have the goal (reinforced by their institutional affiliation with Schools of Education and their involvement in the initial training of teachers) of contributing not to philosophy but to educational policy and practice. This shapes not only their selection of topics, but also the manner in which the discussion is pursued; and this orientation also explains why philosophers of education—to a far greater degree, it is to be suspected, than their “pure” cousins—publish not in philosophy journals but in a wide range of professionally-oriented journals (such as Educational Researcher , Harvard Educational Review , Teachers College Record , Cambridge Journal of Education, Journal of Curriculum Studies , and the like). Some individuals work directly on issues of classroom practice, others identify as much with fields such as educational policy analysis, curriculum theory, teacher education, or some particular subject-matter domain such as math or science education, as they do with philosophy of education. It is still fashionable in some quarters to decry having one's intellectual agenda shaped so strongly as this by concerns emanating from a field of practice; but as Stokes (1997) has made clear, many of the great, theoretically-fruitful research programs in natural science had their beginnings in such practical concerns—as Pasteur's grounbreaking work illustrates. It is dangerous to take the theory versus practice dichotomy too seriously.

However, there is another consequence of this institutional housing of the vast majority of philosphers of education that is worth noting—one that is not found in a comparable way in philosophers of science, for example, who almost always are located in departments of philosophy—namely, that experience as a teacher, or in some other education-related role, is a qualification to become a philosopher of education that in many cases is valued at least as much as depth of philosophical training. (The issue is not that educational experience is irrelevant—clearly it can be highly pertinent—but it is that in the tradeoff with philosophical training, philosophy often loses.) But there are still other factors at work that contribute to the field's diffuseness, that all relate in some way to the nature of the discipline of philosophy itself.

In describing the field of philosophy, and in particular the sub-field that has come to be identified as philosophy of education, one quickly runs into a difficulty not found to anything like the same degree in other disciplines. For example, although there are some internal differences in opinion, nevertheless there seems to be quite a high degree of consensus within the domain of quantum physics about which researchers are competent members of the field and which ones are not, and what work is a strong contribution (or potential contribution). The very nature of philosophy, on the other hand, is “essentially contested”; what counts as a sound philosophical work within one school of thought, or socio-cultural or academic setting, may not be so-regarded (and may even be the focus of derision) in a different one. Coupled with this is the fact that the borders of the field are not policed, so that the philosophically-untrained can cross into it freely—indeed, over the past century or more a great many individuals from across the spectrum of real and pseudo disciplines have for whatever reason exercised their right to self-identify as members of this broad and loosely defined category of “philosophers” (as a few minutes spent browsing in the relevant section of a bookstore will verify).

In essence, then, there are two senses of the term “philosopher” and its cognates: a loose but common sense in which any individual who cogitates in any manner about such issues as the meaning of life, the nature of social justice, the essence of sportsmanship, the aims of education, the foundations of the school curriculum, or relationship with the Divine, is thereby a philosopher; and there is a more technical sense referring to those who have been formally trained or have acquired competence in one or more areas such as epistemology, metaphysics, moral philosophy, logic, philosophy of science, and the like. If this bifurcation presents a problem for adequately delineating the field of philosophy, the difficulties grow tenfold or more with respect to philosophy of education.

This essay offers a description and assessment of the field as seen by a scholar rooted firmly in the formal branch of “philosophy of education”, and moreover this branch as it has developed in the English-speaking world (some of which, of course, has been inspired by Continental philosophy); but first it is necessary to say a little more about the difficulties that confront the individual who sets out, without presuppositions, to understand the topography of “philosophy of education”.

It will not take long for a person who consults several of the introductory texts alluded to earlier to encounter a number of different bodies of work (loosely bounded to be sure) that have by one source or another been regarded as part of the domain of philosophy of education; the inclusion of some of these as part of the field is largely responsible for the diffuse topography described earlier. What follows is an informal and incomplete accounting.

First, there are works of advocacy produced by those non-technical, self-identified “philosophers” described above, who often have an axe to grind; they may wish to destroy (or to save) common schooling, support or attack some innovation or reform, shore-up or destroy the capitalist mode of production, see their own religion (or none at all) gain a foothold in the public schools, strengthen the place of “the basics” in the school curriculum, and so forth. While these topics certainly can be, and have been, discussed with due care, often they have been pursued in loose but impressive language where exhortation substitutes for argumentation—and hence sometimes they are mistaken for works of philosophy of education! In the following discussion this genre shall be passed over in silence.

Second, there is a corpus of work somewhat resembling the first, but where the arguments are tighter, and where the authors usually are individuals of some distinction whose insights are thought-provoking—possibly because they have a degree of familiarity with some branch of educational activity, having been teachers (or former teachers), school principals, religious leaders, politicians, journalists, and the like. While these works frequently touch on philosophical issues, they are not pursued to any philosophical depth and can hardly be considered as contributions to the scholarship of the discipline. However, some works in this genre are among the classics of “educational thought”—a more felicitous label than “philosophy of education”; cases in point would be the essays, pamphlets and letters of Thomas Arnold (headmaster of Rugby school), John Wesley (the founder of Methodism), J.H. (Cardinal) Newman, T.H. Huxley, and the writings on progressive schooling by A.S. Neill (of Summerhill school). Some textbooks even include extracts from the writings or recorded sayings of such figures as Thomas Jefferson, Ben Franklin, and Jesus of Nazareth (for the latter three, in works spanning more than half a century, see Ulich, 1950, and Murphy, 2006). Books and extracts in this genre—which elsewhere I have called “cultured reflection on education”—are often used in teacher-training courses that march under the banner of “educational foundations”, “introduction to educational thought”, or “introduction to philosophy of education”.

Third, there are a number of educational theorists and researchers, whose field of activity is not philosophy but—for example—might be human development or learning theory, who in their technical work and sometimes in their non-technical books and reflective essays explicitly raise philosophical issues or adopt philosophical modes of argumentation—and do so in ways worthy of careful study. If philosophy (including philosophy of education) is defined so as to include analysis and reflection at an abstract or “meta-level”, which undoubtedly is a domain where many philosophers labor, then these individuals should have a place in the annals of philosophy or philosophy of education; but too often, although not always, accounts of the field ignore them. Their work might be subjected to scrutiny for being educationally important, but their conceptual or philosophical contributions are rarely focused upon. (Philosophers of the physical and biological sciences are far less prone to make this mistake about the meta-level work of reflective scientists in these domains.)

The educational theorists and researchers I have in mind as exemplars here are the behaviorist psychologist B.F. Skinner (who among other things wrote about the fate of the notions of human freedom and dignity in the light of the development of a “science of behavior”, and who developed a model of human action and also of learning that eschewed the influence of mental entities such as motives, interests, and ideas and placed the emphasis instead upon “schedules of reinforcement”); the foundational figure in modern developmental psychology with its near-fixation on stage theories, Jean Piaget (who developed in an abstract and detailed manner a “genetic epistemology” that was related to his developmental research); and the social psychologist Lev Vygotsky (who argued that the development of the human youngster was indelibly shaped by social forces, so much so that approaches which focused on the lone individual and that were biologically-oriented—he had Piaget in mind here—were quite inadequate).

Fourth, and in contrast to the group above, there is a type of work that is traditionally but undeservedly given a prominent place in the annals of philosophy of education, and which thereby generates a great deal of confusion and misunderstanding about the field. These are the books and reflective essays on educational topics that were written by mainstream philosophers, a number of whom are counted among the greatest in the history of the discipline. The catch is this: Even great philosophers do not always write philosophy! The reflections being referred-to contain little if any philosophical argumentation, and usually they were not intended to be contributions to the literature on any of the great philosophical questions. Rather, they expressed the author's views (or even prejudices) on educational rather than philosophical problems, and sometimes—as in the case of Bertrand Russell's rollicking pieces defending progressive educational practices—they explicitly were “potboilers” written to make money. (In Russell's case the royalties were used to support a progressive school he was running with his current wife.) Locke, Kant, and Hegel also are among those who produced work of this genre.

John Locke is an interesting case in point. He had been requested by a cousin and her husband—possibly in part because of his medical training—to give advice on the upbringing of their son and heir; the youngster seems to have troubled his parents, most likely because he had learning difficulties. Locke, then in exile in Europe, wrote the parents a series of letters in which alongside sensible advice about such matters as the priorities in the education of a landed gentleman, and about making learning fun for the boy, there were a few strange items such as the advice that the boy should wear leaky shoes in winter so that he would be toughened-up! The letters eventually were printed in book form under the title Some Thoughts Concerning Education (1693), and seem to have had enormous influence down the ages upon educational practice; after two centuries the book had run through some 35 English editions and well over thirty foreign editions, and it is still in print and is frequently excerpted in books of readings in philosophy of education. In stark contrast, several of Locke's major philosophical writings—the Essay Concerning Human Understanding , and the Letter on Toleration —have been overlooked by most educational theorists over the centuries, even though they have enormous relevance for educational philosophy, theory, policy, and practice. It is especially noteworthy that the former of these books was the foundation for an approach to psychology—associationism—that thrived during the nineteenth century. In addition it stimulated interest in the processes of child development and human learning; Locke's model of the way in which the “blank tablet” of the human mind became “furnished” with simple ideas that were eventually combined or abstracted in various ways to form complex ideas, suggested to some that it might be fruitful to study this process in the course of development of a young child (Cleverley and Phillips, 1986).

Fifth, and finally, there is a large body of work that clearly falls within the more technically-defined domain of philosophy of education. Three historical giants of the field are Plato, Rousseau, and Dewey, and there are a dozen or more who would be in competition for inclusion along with them; the short-list of leading authors from the second-half of the 20 th century would include Richard Peters, Paul Hirst, and Israel Scheffler, with many jostling for the next places—but the choices become cloudy as we approach the present-day, for schisms between philosophical schools have to be negotiated.

It is important to note, too, that there is a sub-category within this domain of literature that is made-up of work by philosophers who are not primarily identified as philosophers of education, and who might or might not have had much to say directly about education, but whose philosophical work has been drawn upon by others and applied very fruitfully to educational issues. (A volume edited by Amelie Rorty contains essays on the education-related thought, or relevance, of many historically-important philosophers; significantly the essays are almost entirely written by philosophers rather than by members of the philosophy of education community. This is both their strength and weakness. See Rorty, 1998.)

The discussion will turn briefly to the difficulty in picturing the topography of the field that is presented by the influence of these philosophers.

As sketched earlier, the domain of education is vast, the issues it raises are almost overwhelmingly numerous and are of great complexity, and the social significance of the field is second to none. These features make the phenomena and problems of education of great interest to a wide range of socially-concerned intellectuals, who bring with them their own favored conceptual frameworks—concepts, theories and ideologies, methods of analysis and argumentation, metaphysical and other assumptions, criteria for selecting evidence that has relevance for the problems that they consider central, and the like. No wonder educational discourse has occasionally been likened to Babel, for the differences in backgrounds and assumptions means that there is much mutual incomprehension. In the midst of the melee sit the philosophers of education.

It is no surprise, then, to find that the significant intellectual and social trends of the past few centuries, together with the significant developments in philosophy, all have had an impact on the content and methods of argument in philosophy of education—Marxism, psycho-analysis, existentialism, phenomenology, positivism, post-modernism, pragmatism, neo-liberalism, the several waves of feminism, analytic philosophy in both its ordinary language and more formal guises, are merely the tip of the iceberg. It is revealing to note some of the names that were heavily-cited in a pair of recent authoritative handbooks in the field (according to the indices of the two volumes, and in alphabetical order): Adorno, Aristotle, Derrida, Descartes, Dewey, Habermas, Hegel, Horkheimer, Kant, Locke, Lyotard, Marx, Mill, Nietzsche, Plato, Rawls, Richard Rorty, Rousseau, and Wittgenstein (Curren 2003; Blake, Smeyers, Smith, and Standish 2003). Although this list conveys something of the diversity of the field, it fails to do it complete justice, for the influence of feminist philosophers is not adequately represented.

No one individual can have mastered work done by such a range of figures, representing as they do a number of quite different frameworks or approaches; and relatedly no one person stands as emblematic of the entire field of philosophy of education, and no one type of philosophical writing serves as the norm, either. At professional meetings, peace often reigns because the adherents of the different schools go their separate ways; but occasionally there are (intellectually) violent clashes, rivaling the tumult that greeted Derrida's nomination for an honorary degree at Cambridge in 1992. It is sobering to reflect that only a few decades have passed since practitioners of analytic philosophy of education had to meet in individual hotel rooms, late at night, at annual meetings of the Philosophy of Education Society in the USA, because phenomenologists and others barred their access to the conference programs; their path to liberation was marked by discord until, eventually, the compromise of “live and let live” was worked out (Kaminsky, 1996). Of course, the situation has hardly been better in the home discipline; an essay in Time magazine in 1966 on the state of the discipline of philosophy reported that adherents of the major philosophical schools “don't even understand one another”, and added that as a result “philosophy today is bitterly segregated. Most of the major philosophy departments and scholarly journals are the exclusive property of one sect or another” ( Time , reprinted in Lucas, 1969, 32). Traditionally there has been a time-lag for developments in philosophy to migrate over into philosophy of education, but in this respect at least the two fields have been on a par.

Inevitably, however, traces of discord remain, and some groups still feel disenfranchised, but they are not quite the same groups as a few decades ago—for new intellectual paradigms have come into existence, and their adherents are struggling to have their voices heard; and clearly it is the case that—reflecting the situation in 1966—many analytically-trained philosophers of education find postmodern writings incomprehensible while scholars in the latter tradition are frequently dismissive if not contemptuous of work done by the former group. In effect, then, the passage of time has made the field more—and not less—diffuse. All this is evident in a volume published in 1995 in which the editor attempted to break-down borders by initiating dialogue between scholars with different approaches to philosophy of education; her introductory remarks are revealing:

Philosophers of education reflecting on the parameters of our field are faced not only with such perplexing and disruptive questions as: What counts as Philosophy of Education and why?; but also Who counts as a philosopher of education and why?; and What need is there for Philosophy of Education in a postmodern context? Embedded in these queries we find no less provocative ones: What knowledge, if any, can or should be privileged and why?; and Who is in a position to privilege particular discursive practices over others and why? Although such questions are disruptive, they offer the opportunity to take a fresh look at the nature and purposes of our work and, as we do, to expand the number and kinds of voices participating in the conversation. (Kohli, 1995, xiv).

There is an inward-looking tone to the questions posed here: Philosophy of education should focus upon itself, upon its own contents, methods, and practitioners. And of course there is nothing new about this; for one thing, almost forty years ago a collection of readings—with several score of entries—was published under the title What is Philosophy of Education? (Lucas, 1969). It is worth noting, too, that the same attitude is not unknown in philosophy; Simmel is reputed to have said a century or so ago that philosophy is its own first problem.

Having described the general topography of the field of philosophy of education, the focus can change to pockets of activity where from the perspective of this author interesting philosophical work is being, or has been, done—and sometimes this work has been influential in the worlds of educational policy or practice. It is appropriate to start with a discussion of the rise and partial decline—but lasting influence of—analytic philosophy of education This approach (often called “APE” by both admirers and detractors) dominated the field in the English-speaking world for several decades after the second world war, and its eventual fate throws light on the current intellectual climate.

2. Analytic philosophy of education, and its influence

Conceptual analysis, careful assessment of arguments, the rooting out of ambiguity, the drawing of clarifying distinctions—which make up part at least of the philosophical analysis package—have been respected activities within philosophy from the dawn of the field. But traditionally they stood alongside other philosophical activities; in the Republic , for example, Plato was sometimes analytic, at other times normative, and on occasion speculative/metaphysical. No doubt it somewhat over-simplifies the complex path of intellectual history to suggest that what happened in the twentieth century—early on, in the home discipline itself, and with a lag of a decade or more in philosophy of education—is that philosophical analysis came to be viewed by some scholars as being the major philosophical activity (or set of activities), or even as being the only viable or reputable activity (for metaphysics was judged to be literally vacuous, and normative philosophy was viewed as being unable to provide compelling warrants for whatever moral and ethical positions were being advocated).

So, although analytic elements in philosophy of education can be located throughout intellectual history back to the ancient world, the pioneering work in the modern period entirely in an analytic mode was the short monograph by C.D. Hardie, Truth and Fallacy in Educational Theory (1941; reissued in 1962). In his Introduction, Hardie (who had studied with C.D. Broad and I.A. Richards) made it clear that he was putting all his eggs into the ordinary-language-analysis basket:

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

The first object of his analytic scrutiny in the book was the view that “a child should be educated according to Nature”; he teased apart and critiqued various things that writers through the ages could possibly have meant by this, and very little remained standing by the end of the chapter. Then some basic ideas of Herbart and Dewey were subjected to similar treatment. Hardie's hard-nosed approach can be illustrated by the following: One thing that educationists mean by “education according to Nature” (later he turns to other things they might mean) is that “the teacher should thus act like a gardener” who fosters natural growth of his plants and avoids doing anything “unnatural”(Hardie, 1962, 3). He continues:

The crucial question for such a view of education is how far does this analogy hold? There is no doubt that there is some analogy between the laws governing the physical development of the child and the laws governing the development of a plant, and hence there is some justification for the view if applied to physical education. But the educationists who hold this view are not generally very much concerned with physical education, and the view is certainly false if applied to mental education. For some of the laws that govern the mental changes which take place in a child are the laws of learning …. [which] have no analogy at all with the laws which govern the interaction between a seed and its environment. (Hardie, 1962, 4)

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

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

The concept of indoctrination was also of great interest to analytic philosophers of education, for—it was argued—getting clear about precisely what constitutes indoctrination also would serve to clarify the border that demarcates it from acceptable educational processes. Unfortunately, ordinary language analysis did not lead to unanimity of opinion about where this border was located, and rival analyses of the concept were put forward (Snook, 1972). Thus, whether or not an instructional episode was a case of indoctrination was determined by: the content that had been taught; or by the intention of the instructor; or by the methods of instruction that had been used; or by the outcomes of the instruction; or, of course, by some combination of these. Adherents of the different analyses used the same general type of argument to make their case, namely, appeal to normal and aberrant usage. Two examples will be sufficient to make the point: (i) The first criterion mentioned above—the nature of the content being imparted—was supported by an argument that ran roughly as follows: “If some students have learned, as factual, some material that is patently incorrect (like ‘The capital city of Canada is Washington D.C.’), then they must have been indoctrinated. This conclusion is reinforced by the consideration that we would never say students must have been indoctrinated if they believe an item that is correct!” However, both portions of this argument have been challenged. (ii) The method criterion—how the knowledge was imparted to the students—usually was supported by an argument that, while different, clearly paralleled the previous one in its logic. It ran roughly like this: “We never would say that students had been indoctrinated by their teacher if he or she had fostered open inquiry and discussion, encouraged exploration in the library and on the net, allowed students to work in collaborative groups, and so on. However, if the teacher did not allow independent inquiry, quashed classroom questions, suppressed dissenting opinions, relied heavily on rewards and punishments, used repetition and fostered rote memorization, and so on, then it is likely we would say the students were being indoctrinated”. (The deeper issue in this second example is that the first method of teaching allows room for the operation of the learners' rationality, while the second method does not. Siegel, 1988, stresses this in his discussion of indoctrination.)

After a period of dominance, for a number of important reasons the influence of APE went into decline. First, there were growing criticisms that the work of analytic philosophers of education had become focused upon minutiae and in the main was bereft of practical import; I can offer as illustration a presidential address at a US Philosophy of Education Society annual meeting that was an hour-long discourse on the various meanings of the expression “I have a toothache”. (It is worth noting that the 1966 article in Time , cited earlier, had put forward the same criticism of mainstream philosophy.) Second, in the early 1970's radical students in Britain accused the brand of linguistic analysis practiced by R.S. Peters of conservatism, and of tacitly giving support to “traditional values”—they raised the issue of whose English usage was being analyzed?

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

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

Fourth, during the decade of the seventies when these various critiques of analytic philosophy were in the process of eroding its luster, a spate of translations from the Continent stimulated some philosophers of education in Britain and North America to set out in new directions, and to adopt a new style of writing and argumentation. Key works by Gadamer, Foucault, and Derrida appeared in English, and these were followed in 1984 by Lyotard's foundational work on The Postmodern Condition . The classic works of Heidegger and Husserl also found new admirers; and feminist philosophers of education were finding their voices—Maxine Greene published a number of pieces in the 1970s; the influential book by Nel Noddings, Caring: A Feminine Approach to Ethics and Moral Education , appeared the same year as the work by Lyotard, followed a year later by Jane Roland Martin's Reclaiming a Conversation . APE was no longer the center of interest.

By the 1980s, the rather simple if not simplistic ordinary language analysis practiced in philosophy of education, was reeling under the attack from the combination of forces sketched above, but the analytic spirit lived on in the form of rigorous work done in other specialist areas of philosophy—work that trickled out and took philosophy of education in rich new directions. Technically-oriented epistemology, philosophy of science, and even metaphysics, flourished; as did the interrelated fields of social, political and moral philosophy. John Rawls published A Theory of Justice in 1971; a decade later MacIntyre's After Virtue appeared; and in another decade or so there was a flood of work on individualism, communitarianism, democratic citizenship, inclusion, exclusion, rights of children versus rights of parents, rights of groups (such as the Amish) versus rights of the larger polity. From the early 1990s philosophers of education have contributed significantly to the debates on these and related topics—indeed, this corpus of work illustrates that good philosophy of education flows seamlessly into work being done in mainstream areas of philosophy. Illustrative examples are Creating Citizens: Political Education and Liberal Democracy , Callan (1997); The Demands of Liberal Education , Levinson (1999); Social Justice and School Choice , Brighouse (2000); and Bridging Liberalism and Multiculturalism in American Education , Reich (2002). These works stand shoulder-to-shoulder with semi-classics on the same range of topics by Gutmann, Kymlicka, Macedo, and others. An excerpt from the book by Callan nicely illustrates that the analytic spirit lives on in this body of work; the broader topic being pursued is the status of the aims of education in a pluralistic society where there can be deep fundamental disagreements:

… the distinction must be underlined between the ends that properly inform political education and the extent to which we should tolerate deviations from those ends in a world where reasonable and unreasonable pluralism are entangled and the moral costs of coercion against the unreasonable variety are often prohibitive. Our theoretical as well as our commonsense discourse do not always respect the distinction…. If some of the teachings of the Roman Catholic Church conflict with our best theory of the ends of civic education, it does not follow that we have any reason to revise our theory; but neither does it mean we have any reason to impose these ends on Catholic schools and the families that they serve. (Callan, 1997, 44)

Callan and White (2003) have given an analysis of why the topics described above have become such a focus of attention. “What has been happening in philosophy of education in recent years”, they argue, mirrors “a wider self-examination in liberal societies themselves”. World events, from the fall of communism to the spread of ethnic conflicts “have all heightened consciousness of the contingency of liberal politics”. A body of work in philosophy, from the early Rawls on, has systematically examined (and critiqued) the foundations of liberalism, and philosophy of education has been drawn into the debates. Callan and White mention communitarianism as offering perhaps “the most influential challenge” to liberalism, and they write:

The debate between liberals and communitarians is far more than a theoretical diversion for philosophers and political scientists. At stake are rival understandings of what makes human lives and the societies in which they unfold both good and just, and derivatively, competing conceptions of the education needed for individual and social betterment. (Callan and White, 2003, 95-96)

It should be appended here that it is not only “external” world events that have stimulated this body of work; events internal to a number of democratic societies also have been significant. To cite one example that is prominent in the literature in North America at least, the US Supreme Court issued a ruling ( Wisconsin v. Yoder ) in which members of the Amish sect were allowed to withdraw their children from public schools before they had reached the age of sixteen—for, it had been argued, any deeper education would endanger the existence of the group and its culture. In assessing this decision—as of course philosophers have frequently done (see, for example, Kymlicka, 1995)—a balance has to be achieved between (i) the interest of civic society in having an informed, well-educated, participatory citizenry; (ii) the interest of the Amish as a group in preserving their own culture; and (iii) the interests of the Amish children, who have a right to develop into autonomous individuals who can make reflective decisions for themselves about the nature of the life they wish to lead. These are issues that fall squarely in the domain covered by the works mentioned above.

So much work is being produced on the complex and interrelated issues just outlined, that in a different context it seemed fair for me to remark (descriptively, and not judgmentally) that a veritable cottage industry had sprung up in post-Rawlsian philosophy of education. There are, of course, other areas of activity, where interesting contributions are being made, and the discusion will next turn to a sampling of these.

3. Other areas of contemporary activity

As was stressed at the outset, and illustrated with a cursory listing of examples, the field of education is huge and contains within it a virtually inexhaustible number of issues that are of philosophical interest. To attempt comprehensive coverage of how philosophers of education have been working within this thicket would be a quixotic task for a large single volume, and is out of the question for a solitary encyclopedia entry. Nevertheless, a valiant attempt to give an overview was made in the recent A Companion to the Philosophy of Education (Curren, 2003), which contained more than six-hundred pages divided into fourty-five chapters each of which surveyed a subfield of work. The following random selection of chapter topics gives a sense of the enormous scope of the field: Sex education, special education, science education, aesthetic education, theories of teaching and learning, religious education, knowledge and truth in learning, cultivating reason, the measurement of learning, multicultural education, education and the politics of identity, education and standards of living, motivation and classroom management, feminism, critical theory, postmodernism, romanticism, purposes of universities in a fluid age, affirmative action in higher education, and professional education.

There is no non-arbitrary way to select a small number of topics for further discussion, nor can the topics that are chosen be pursued in great depth. The choice of those below has been made with an eye to filling out—and deepening—the topographical account of the field that was presented in the preceding sections. The discussion will open with a topic that was not included in the Companion , despite it being one that is of great concern across the academic educational community, and despite it being one where adherents of some of the rival schools of philosophy (and philosophy of education) have had lively exchanges.

The educational research enterprise has been criticized for a century or more by politicians, policymakers, administrators, curriculum developers, teachers, philosophers of education, and by researchers themselves—but the criticisms have been contradictory. Charges of being “too ivory tower and theory-oriented” are found alongside “too focused on practice and too atheoretical”; but particularly since publication of the book by Stokes mentioned earlier, and also in light of the views of John Dewey and William James that the function of theory is to guide intelligent practice and problem-solving, it is becoming more fashionable to hold that the “theory v. practice” dichotomy is a false one.

A similar trend can be discerned with respect to the long warfare between two rival groups of research methods—on one hand quantitative/statistical approaches to research, and on the other hand the qualitative/ethnographic family. (The choice of labels here is its not entirely risk-free, for they have been contested; furthermore the first approach is quite often associated with “experimental” studies, and the latter with “case studies”, but this is an over-simplification.) For several decades these two rival methodological camps were treated by researchers and a few philosophers of education as being rival paradigms (Kuhn's ideas, albeit in a very loose form, have been influential in the field of educational research), and the dispute between them was commonly referred-to as “the paradigm wars”. In essence the issue at stake was epistemolgical: members of the quantitative/experimental camp believed that only their methods could lead to well-warranted knowledge claims, especially about the causal factors at play in educational phenomena, and on the whole they regarded qualitative methods as lacking in rigor; on the other hand the adherents of qualitative/ethnographic approaches held that the other camp was too “positivistic” and was operating with an inadequate view of causation in human affairs—one that ignored the role of motives and reasons, possession of relevant background knowledge, awareness of cultural norms, and the like. Few if any commentators in the “paradigm wars” suggested that there was anything prohibiting the use of both approaches in the one research program—provided that if both were used, they only were used sequentially or in parallel, for they were underwritten by different epistemologies and hence could not be blended together. But recently the trend has been towards rapprochement, towards the view that the two methodological families are, in fact, compatible and are not at all like paradigms in the Kuhnian sense(s) of the term; the melding of the two approaches is often called “mixed methods research”, and it is growing in popularity. (For more detailed discussion of these “wars” see Howe, 2003, and Phillips, 2008.)

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

The National Research Council (NRC)—an arm of the U.S. National Academies of Science—issued a report, influenced by postpostivistic philosophy of science (NRC, 2002), that argued this criterion was far too narrow. Numerous essays have appeared subsequently that point out how the “gold standard” account of scientific rigor distorts the history of science, how the complex nature of the relation between evidence and policy-making has been distorted and made to appear overly simple (for instance the role of value-judgments in linking empirical findings to policy directives is often overlooked), and qualitative researchers have insisted upon the scientific nature of their work.

Nevertheless, and possibly because it tried to be balanced and supported the use of RFTs in some research contexts, the NRC report has been the subject of symposia in four journals, where it has been supported by a few and attacked from a variety of philosophical fronts: Its authors were positivists, they erroneously believed that educational inquiry could be value-neutral and that it could ignore the ways in which exercise of power constrains the research process, they misunderstood the nature of educational phenomena, they were guilty of advocating “your father's paradigm”(clearly this was not intended as a compliment). One critic with postmodernist leanings asserted that educational research should move “toward a Nietzschean sort of ‘unnatural science’ that leads to greater health by fostering ways of knowing that escape normativity”—a suggestion that evokes the reaction discussed in Section 1.3 above, namely, one of incomprehension on the part of most researchers and those philosophers of education who work within a different tradition where a “way of knowing”, in order to be a “way”, must inevitably be normative.

The final complexity in the debates over the nature of educational research is that there are some respected members of the philosophy of education community who claim, along with Carr, that “the forms of human association characteristic of educational engagement are not really apt for scientific or empirical study at all” (Carr, 2003, 54-5). His reasoning is that educational processes cannot be studied empirically because they are processes of “normative initiation”—a position that as it stands begs the question by not making clear why such processes cannot be studied empirically.

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

In developing a curriculum (whether in a specific subject area, or more broadly as the whole range of offerings in an educational institution or in a system), a number of difficult decisions need to be made. Issues such as the proper ordering or sequencing of topics in the chosen subject, the time to be allocated to each topic, the lab work or excursions or projects that are appropriate for particular topics, can all be regarded as technical issues best resolved either by educationists who have a depth of experience with the target age group or by experts in the psychology of learning and the like. But there are deeper issues, ones concerning the validity of the justifications that have been given for including particular subjects or topics in the offerings of formal educational institutions. (Why is evolution included, or excluded, as a topic within the standard high school subject Biology? Why is Driver Education part of the high school curriculum, and methods of birth control usually not—even though sex has an impact on the life of teenagers that at least is comparable to the impact of car-driving? Is the justification that is given for teaching Economics in some schools coherent and convincing? Does the justification for not including the Holocaust or the phenomenon of wartime atrocities in the curriculum in some countries stand up to critical scrutiny?)

The different justifications for particular items of curriculum content that have been put forward by philosophers and others since Plato's brilliant pioneering efforts all draw upon, explicitly or implicitly, the positions that the respective theorists hold about at least three sets of issues. First, what are the aims and/or functions of education (aims and functions are not necessarily the same), or alternatively, what constitutes the good life and human flourishing. These two formulations are related, for presumably our educational institutions should aim to equip individuals to pursue this good life. Thus, for example, if our view of human flourishing includes the capacity to act rationally and/or autonomously, then the case can be made that educational institutions—and their curricula—should aim to prepare, or help to prepare, autonomous individuals. How this is to be done, of course, is not immediately obvious, and much philosophical ink has been spilled on the matter. One influential line of argument was developed by Paul Hirst, who argued that knowledge is essential for developing a conception of the good life, and then for pursuing it; and because logical analysis shows—he argued—that there are seven basic forms of knowledge, the case can be made that the function of the curriculum is to introduce students to each of these forms. Luckily for Hirst, the typical British high school day was made up of seven instructional periods. (Hirst, 1965; for a critique see Phillips, 1987, ch.11.)

Second, is it justifiable to treat the curriculum of an educational institution as vehicle for furthering the socio-political interests and goals of a ruler or ruling class; and relatedly, is it justifiable to design the curriculum so that it serves as a medium of control or of social engineering? In the closing decades of the twentieth century there were numerous discussions of curriculum theory, particularly from Marxist and postmodern perspectives, that offered the sobering analysis that in many educational systems, including those in Western democracies, the curriculum did indeed reflect, and serve, the interests of the ruling class. Michael Apple is typical:

… the knowledge that now gets into schools is already a choice from a much larger universe of possible social knowledge and principles. It is a form of cultural capital that comes from somewhere, that often reflects the perspectives and beliefs of powerful segments of our social collectivity. In its very production and dissemination as a public and economic commodity—as books, films, materials, and so forth—it is repeatedly filtered through ideological and economic commitments. Social and economic values, hence, are already embedded in the design of the institutions we work in, in the ‘formal corpus of school knowledge’ we preserve in our curricula….(Apple, 1990, 8-9)

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

The thinking here can be explicated in terms of the analogy of an out-of-control virulent disease, for which there is only one type of medicine available; taking a large dose of this medicine is extremely beneficial, and the hope is that taking only a little—while less effective—is better than taking none at all! Medically, this probably is dubious, while the educational version—forcing students to work, until they exit the system, on topics that do not interest them and for which they have no facility or motivation—has even less merit. (For a critique of Adler and his Paideia Proposal , see Noddings, 2007.) It is interesting to compare the modern “one curriculum track for all” position with Plato's system outlined in the Republic , according to which all students—and importantly this included girls—set out on the same course of study. Over time, as they moved up the educational ladder it would become obvious that some had reached the limit imposed upon them by nature, and they would be directed off into appropriate social roles in which they would find fulfillment, for their abilities would match the demands of these roles. Those who continued on with their education would eventually be able to contemplate the metaphysical realm of the “forms”, thanks to their advanced training in mathematics and philosophy. Having seen the form of the Good, they would be eligible after a period of practical experience to become members of the ruling class of Guardians.

Plato's educational scheme was guided, presumably, by the understanding he thought he had achieved of the transcendental realm of fixed “forms”. John Dewey, ever a strong critic of positions that were not naturalistic, or that incorporated a priori premises, commented as follows:

Plato's starting point is that the organization of society depends ultimately upon knowledge of the end of existence. If we do not know its end, we shall be at the mercy of accident and caprice…. And only those who have rightly trained minds will be able to recognize the end, and ordering principle of things. (Dewey, 1916, 102-3)

Furthermore, as Dewey again put it, Plato “had no perception of the uniqueness of individuals…. they fall by nature into classes”, which masks the “infinite diversity of active tendencies” which individuals harbor (104). In addition, Plato tended to talk of learning using the passive language of seeing, which has shaped our discourse down to the present (witness “Now I see it!” when a difficult point has become clear).

In contrast, for Dewey each individual was an organism situated in a biological and social environment in which problems were constantly emerging, forcing the individual to reflect and act, and learn. Dewey, following William James, held that knowledge arises from reflection upon our actions; and the worth of a putative item of knowledge is directly correlated with the problem-solving success of the actions performed under its guidance. Thus Dewey, sharply disagreeing with Plato, regarded knowing as an active rather than a passive affair—a strong theme in his writings is his opposition to what is sometimes called “the spectator theory of knowledge”. All this is made clear enough in a passage containing only a thinly-veiled allusion to Plato's famous analogy of the prisoners in the cave whose eyes are turned to the light by education:

In schools, those under instruction are too customarily looked upon as acquiring knowledge as theoretical spectators, minds which appropriate knowledge by direct energy of intellect. The very word pupil has almost come to mean one who is engaged not in having fruitful experiences but in absorbing knowledge directly. Something which is called mind or consciousness is severed from the physical organs of activity. (164)

This passage also illuminates a passage that many have found puzzling: “philosophy is the theory of education” (387). For in the sentences above it is easy to see the tight link between Dewey's epistemology and his views on education—his anti-spectator epistemology morphs directly into advocacy for anti-spectator learning by students in school—students learn by being active inquirers. Over the past few decades this view of learning has inspired a major tradition of research by educational psychologists, and related theory-development (the “situated cognition” framework); and these bodies of work have in turn led to innovative efforts in curriculum development. (For a discussion of these, see Phillips, 2003.)

The final important difference with Plato is that, for Dewey, each student is an individual who blazes his or her unique trail of growth; the teacher has the task of guiding and facilitating this growth, without imposing a fixed end upon the process. Dewey sometimes uses the term “curriculum” to mean “the funded wisdom of the human race”, the point being that over the course of human history an enormous stock of knowledge and skills has accumulated and the teacher has the task of helping the student to make contact with this repertoire—but helping by facilitating rather than by imposing. (All this, of course, has been the subject of intense discussion among philosophers of education: Does growth imply a direction? Is growth always good—can't a plant end up misshapen, and can't a child develop to become bad? Is Dewey some type of perfectionist? Is his philosophy too vague to offer worthwhile educational guidance? Isn't it possible for a “Deweyan” student to end up without enough relevant knowledge and skills to be able to make a living in the modern world?)

Dewey's work was of central importance for the American progressive education movement in its formative years, although there was a fair degree of misunderstanding of his ideas as progressives interpreted his often extremely dense prose to be saying what they personally happened to believe. Nevertheless, Dewey became the “poster child” or the “house philosopher” of progressive education, and if he didn't make it onto many actual posters he certainly made it onto a postage stamp.

His popularity, however, sharply declined after the Soviets launched Sputnik, for Dewey and progressive education were blamed for the USA losing the race into space (illustrating the point about scapegoating made at the start of this essay). But he did not remain in disgrace for long; and for some time has been the focus of renewed interest—although it is still noticeable that commentators interpret Dewey to be holding views that mirror their own positions or interests. And interestingly, there now is slightly more interest in Dewey on the part of philosophers of education in the UK than there was in earlier years, and there is growing interest by philosophers from the Continent (see, for example, Biesta and Burbules, 2003).

To be a poster child for progressivism, however, is not to be the parent. Rather than to Dewey, that honor must go to Jean-Jacques Rousseau, and to his educational novel written in soaring prose, Emile (1762). Starting with the premise that “God makes all things good; man meddles with them and they become evil” (Rousseau, 1955, 5), Rousseau held that contemporary man has been misshapen by his education; the “crushing force” of social conventions has stifled the “Nature within him”. The remedy adopted in the novel is for the young Emile to be taken to his family estate in the country where, away from the corrupting influence of society, and under the watchful eye of his tutor, “everything should … be brought into harmony with these natural tendencies”. (This idea of education according to nature, it will be recalled, was the object of Hardie's analytic attention almost two centuries later.)

Out in the countryside, rather than having a set curriculum that he is forced to follow, Emile learns when some natural stimulus or innate interest motivates him—and under these conditions learning comes easily. He is allowed to suffer the natural consequences of his actions (if he breaks a window, he gets cold; if he takes the gardener's property, the gardener will no longer do him favors), and experiences such as these lead to the development of his moral system. Although Rousseau never intended these educational details to be taken literally as a blueprint (he saw himself as developing and illustrating the basic principles), over the ages there have been attempts to implement them, one being the famous British “free school”, A.S. Neill's Summerhill. (It is worth noting that Neill claimed not to have read Rousseau; but he was working in a milieu in which Rousseau's ideas were well-known—intellectual influence can follow a less than direct path.) Furthermore, over the ages these principles also have proven to be fertile soil for philosophers of education to till.

Even more fertile ground for comment, in recent years, has been Rousseau's proposal for the education of girls, developed in a section of the novel (Book V) that bears the name of the young woman who is destined to be Emile's soul-mate, Sophy. The puzzle has been why Rousseau—who had been so far-sighted in his discussion of Emile's education—was so hide-bound if not retrograde in his thinking about her education. One short quotation is sufficient to illustrate the problem: “If woman is made to please and to be in subjection to man, she ought to make herself pleasing in his eyes and not provoke him …her strength is in her charms” (324).

The educational principles developed by Rousseau and Dewey, and numerous educational theorists and philosophers in the interregnum, are alive and well in the twenty-first century. Of particular contemporary interest is the evolution that has occurred of the progressive idea that each student is an active learner who is pursuing his or her own individual educational path. By incorporating elements of the classical empiricist epistemology of John Locke, this progressive principle has become transformed into the extremely popular position known as constructivism, according to which each student in a classroom constructs his or her own individual body of understandings even when all in the group are given what appears to be the same stimulus or educational experience. (A consequence of this is that a classroom of thirty students will have thirty individually-constructed, and possibly different, bodies of “knowledge”, in addition to that of the teacher!) There is also a solipsistic element here, for constructivists also believe that none of us—teachers included—can directly access the bodies of understandings of anyone else; each of us is imprisoned in a world of our own making. It is an understatement to say that this poses great difficulties for the teacher. The education journals of the past two decades contain many thousands of references to discussions of this position, which elsewhere I claimed has become a type of educational “secular religion”; for reasons that are hard to discern it is particularly influential in mathematics and science education. (For a discussion of the underlying philosophical ideas in constructivism, and for an account of some of its varieties, see the essays in Phillips, ed., 2000.)

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

Fortunately, in the last twenty years or so resources have become available that significantly alleviate these problems. There has been a flood of encyclopedia entries, commenting on the field as a whole or on many specific topics not well-covered in the present essay (see, as a sample, Burbules, 1994; Chambliss, 1996; Phillips, 1985; Siegel, 2007; Smeyers, 1994); two large volumes—a “Guide” (Blake, Smeyers, Smith and Standish, 2003) and a “Companion” (Curren, 2003)—have been produced by Blackwell in their well-known philosophy series; and the same publisher recently released an anthology, with 60 papers considered to be important in the field, and which also are representative of the range of work that is being done (Curren, 2007). Several encyclopedias of philosophy of education have been published or are in the works (for example, Chambliss, 1996; Siegel, 2008); there is a dictionary of key concepts in the field (Winch and Gingell, 1999), and a good textbook or two (see Noddings, 2007); in addition there are numerous volumes both of reprinted selections and of specially commissioned essays on specific topics, some of which were given short shrift in the present work (for another sampling see A. Rorty, 1998; Smeyers and Marshall, 1995; Stone, 1994); and several international journals appear to be flourishing— Educational Philosophy and Theory , Educational Theory , Journal of Philosophy of Education , Studies in Philosophy and Education , Theory and Research in Education . Thus there is enough material available to keep the interested reader busy, and to provide alternative assessments to the ones presented in this present essay.

• Apple, M., 1990, Ideology and Curriculum , New York: Routledge, 2 nd . Editon.
• Archambault, R., (ed.), 1965, Philosophical Analysis and Education , London: Routledge.
• Biesta, G., and Burbules, N., 2003, Pragmatism and Educational Research , Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield.
• Blake, N., Smeyers, P., Smith, R., and Standish, P., (eds.), 2003, The Blackwell Guide to the Philosophy of Education , Oxford: Blackwell.
• Brighouse, H., 2000, Social Justice and School Choice , Oxford: Oxford University Press.
• Burbules, N., 1994, “Marxism and Educational Thought”, in The International Encyclopedia of Education , (Volume 6), T. Husen and N. Postlethwaite (eds.), Oxford: Pergamon, 2 nd . Edition, pp. 3617-22.
• Callan, E., 1997, Creating Citizens: Political Education and Liberal Democracy , Oxford: Clarendon Press, Oxford.
• Callan, E., and White, J., 2003, “Liberalism and Communitarianism”, in The Blackwell Guide to the Philosophy of Education , N. Blake, P. Smeyers, R. Smith and P. Standish (eds.), Oxford: Blackwell, pp.95-109.
• Carr, D., 2003, Making Sense of Education: An Introduction to the Philosophy and Theory of Education and Teaching , London: RoutledgeFalmer.
• Chambliss, J., 1996, “History of Philosophy of Education”, in Philosophy of Education: An Encyclopedia , J. Chambliss (ed.), New York: Garland, pp.461-72.
• Cleverley, J., and Phillips, D.C., 1986, Visions of Childhood , New York: Teachers College Press.
• Curren, R., (ed.), 2003, A Companion to the Philosophy of Education , Oxford: Blackwell.
• Curren, R., (ed.), 2007, Philosophy of Education: An Anthology , Oxford: Blackwell.
• Dewey, J., 1916, Democracy and Education: An Introduction to the Philosophy of Education , New York: Macmillan.
• Gellner, E., 1959, Words and Things , London: Gollancz.
• Hardie, C., 1962, Truth and Fallacy in Educational Theory , New York: Teachers College Bureau of Publications.
• Hirst, P., 1965, “Liberal Education and the Nature of Knowledge”, in Philosophical Analysis and Education , R. Archambault, (ed.), London: Routledge, pp. 113-138.
• Hirst, P., and Peters, R., 1970, The Logic of Education , London: Routledge.
• Howe, K., 2003, Closing Methodological Divides: Toward Democratic Educational Research . Dordrecht: Kluwer.
• Kaminsky, J., 1996, “Philosophy of Education: Professional Organizations In”, in Philosophy of Education: An Encyclopedia , J. Chambliss, (ed.), New York: Garland, pp. 475-79.
• Kohli, W., (ed.), 1995, Critical Conversations in Philosophy of Education , New York: Routledge.
• Kymlicka, W., 1995, Multicultural Citizenship , Oxford: Clarendon Press, Oxford.
• Levinson, M., 1999, The Demands of Liberal Education , Oxford: Oxford University Press.
• Lucas, C., (ed.), 1969, What is Philosophy of Education? London: Macmillan.
• Martin, J., 1985, Reclaiming a Conversation , New Haven, Conn.: Yale University Press.
• Mehta, V., 1963, Fly and the Fly-Bottle : London: Weidenfeld and Nicolson.
• Murphy, M., (ed.), 2006, The History and Philosophy of Education: Voices of Educational Pioneers , New Jersey: Pearson.
• Noddings, N., 1984, Caring: A Feminine Approach to Ethics and Moral Education , Berkeley: University of California Press.
• –––, 2007, Philosophy of Education , Boulder, CO: Westview, 2 nd . Edition.
• National Research Council (NRC), 2002, Scientific Research in Education , Washington, DC: National Academies Press.
• O'Connor, D., 1957, An Introduction to Philosophy of Education , London: Routledge.
• Peters, R., (ed.), 1973, The Philosophy of Education , Oxford: Oxford University Press.
• Phillips, D.C., 1985, “Philosophy of Education”, in International Encyclopedia of Education, T. Husen and N. Postletwaite, (eds.), pp.3859-3877.
• –––, 1987, Philosophy, Science, and Social Inquiry , Oxford: Pergamon.
• –––, (ed.), 2000, Constructivism in Education: Opinions and Second Opinions on Controversial Issues , (Series: 99 th . Yearbook of the National Society for the Study of Education), Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
• –––, 2003, “Theories of Teaching and Learning”, in A Companion to the Philosophy of Education , R. Curren, (ed.), Oxford: Blackwell, pp. 232-245.
• –––, 2008, “Empirical Educational Research: Charting Philosophical Disagreements in an Undisciplined Field”, in The Oxford Handbook of Philosophy of Education , H. Siegel (ed.), Oxford: Oxford University Press, in press.
• Reich, R., 2002, Bridging Liberalism and Multiculturalism in American Education , Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
• Rorty, A., (ed.), 1998, Philosophers on Education: New Historical Perspectives , New York: Routledge.
• Rousseau, J-J., 1955, Emile , B. Foxley, (tr.), London: Dent/Everyman.
• Scheffler, I., 1960, The Language of Education , Illinois: Thomas.
• Siegel, H., 1988, Educating Reason: rationality, Critical Thinking, and Education , New York: Routledge.
• –––, 2007, “Philosophy of Education”, in Britannica Online Encyclopedia , [ Available online ].
• –––, (ed.), 2008, The Oxford Handbook of Philosophy of Education , Oxford: Oxford University Press, in press.
• Smeyers, P., 1994, “Philosophy of Education: Western European Perspectives”, in The International Encyclopedia of Education , (Volume 8), T. Husen and N. Postlethwaite, (eds.), Oxford: Pergamon, 2 nd . Edition, pp. 4456-61.
• Smeyers, P., and Marshall, J., (eds.), 1995, Philosophy and Education: Accepting Wittgenstein's Challenge , Dordrecht: Kluwer.
• Smith, B., and Ennis, R., (eds.), 1961, Language and Concepts in Education , Chicago: Rand McNally.
• Snook, I., 1972, Indoctrination and Education , London: Routledge.
• Stokes, D., 1997, Pasteur's Quadrant: Basic Science and Technological Innovation , Washington, DC: Brookings.
• Stone, L., (ed.), 1994, The Education Feminism Reader , New York: Routledge.
• Ulich, R., 1954, Three Thousand Years of Educational Wisdom , Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, Revised Ed.
• Winch, C., and Gingell, J., 1999, Key Concepts in the Philosophy of Education , London: Routledge.
• PES (Philosophy of Education Society, North America)
• PESA (Philosophy of Education Society of Australasia)
• PESGB (Philosophy of Education Society of Great Britain)
• INPE (International Network of Philosophers of Education)
• UNESCO/International Bureau of Education: Thinkers on Education

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

• Undergraduate
• High School
• Architecture
• American History
• Asian History
• Antique Literature
• American Literature
• Asian Literature
• Classic English Literature
• World Literature
• Creative Writing
• Linguistics
• Criminal Justice
• Legal Issues
• Anthropology
• Archaeology
• Political Science
• World Affairs
• African-American Studies
• East European Studies
• Latin-American Studies
• Native-American Studies
• West European Studies
• Family and Consumer Science
• Social Issues
• Women and Gender Studies
• Social Work
• Natural Sciences
• Pharmacology
• Earth science
• Agriculture
• Agricultural Studies
• Computer Science
• IT Management
• Mathematics
• Investments
• Engineering and Technology
• Engineering
• Aeronautics
• Medicine and Health
• Alternative Medicine
• Communications and Media
• Advertising
• Communication Strategies
• Public Relations
• Educational Theories
• Teacher's Career
• Chicago/Turabian
• Company Analysis
• Education Theories
• Shakespeare
• Canadian Studies
• Food Safety
• Relation of Global Warming and Extreme Weather Condition
• Movie Review
• Admission Essay
• Annotated Bibliography
• Application Essay
• Article Critique
• Article Review
• Article Writing
• Book Review
• Business Plan
• Business Proposal
• Capstone Project
• Cover Letter
• Creative Essay
• Dissertation
• Dissertation - Abstract
• Dissertation - Conclusion
• Dissertation - Discussion
• Dissertation - Hypothesis
• Dissertation - Introduction
• Dissertation - Literature
• Dissertation - Methodology
• Dissertation - Results
• GCSE Coursework
• Grant Proposal
• Marketing Plan
• Multiple Choice Quiz
• Personal Statement
• Power Point Presentation
• Power Point Presentation With Speaker Notes
• Questionnaire

Reaction Paper

Research Paper

• Research Proposal
• SWOT analysis
• Thesis Paper
• Online Quiz
• Literature Review
• Movie Analysis
• Statistics problem
• Math Problem
• All papers examples
• How It Works
• Money Back Policy
• Terms of Use
• Privacy Policy
• We Are Hiring

Teaching as a Profession, Essay Example

Pages: 1

Words: 353

Hire a Writer for Custom Essay

Use 10% Off Discount: "custom10" in 1 Click 👇

You are free to use it as an inspiration or a source for your own work.

A teacher is an influential person in the society because he or she contributes to imparting of knowledge to all members of the society who go to school. Therefore, teaching is a professional career that needs many skills and expertise for the process to be effective. Various factors define teaching as a professional career.

Teachings as a profession need adaptability. This is because teachers deal with a variety of abilities that students have. Teachers are required to have innovative lessons in order for their students to master their standards (McKenzie & Santiago, 2005). For example, teachers use various innovative techniques to make their lessons to be understood well by students. They employ the use of technology, music, art, physical activities and hands on activities to help students to have more understanding according to their unique learning styles. Teachers also modify their discipline plans because there are students who require extra behaviors support. Teachers also adapt to changes in teaching programs because the curriculum switches in different years. Therefore, teachers are always required to understand how to do things in new ways.

Teachers need to be motivated in order for them to be able to encounter negativity, not from students alone but, also from parents, frustrated colleagues or administration that is not supportive (Lunenburg & Ornstein, 2007). Teachers demonstrate motivation by giving encouragement to students, giving students meaningful feedback, personalized attention to help them succeed. Teachers renew their commitments daily in order to act as positive role model to the students and the larger school community.

Teachers need to be good monitors and evaluators. Teachers need to be able to make an assessment on the progress of the students (McKenzie & Santiago, 2005)Teachers in their day to day duty assess their students in order to find out if they understand the concepts taught. If the students show misunderstanding of the concepts, then teachers employs alternative teaching strategy that makes students understand the concepts taught.

Lunenburg, F. & Ornstein, A. (2007). Educational administration: concepts and practices, 2 nd edition. Belmont: Cengage Learning.

McKenzie, P. & Santiago, P. (2005). Teachers matter: attracting, developing and retaining effective teachers, 1 st edition. Paris: OECD Publishing.

Stuck with your Essay?

Get in touch with one of our experts for instant help!

Ford Motor Company and Honda Motors, Research Paper Example

Gregg vs. Georgia, Reaction Paper Example

Time is precious

don’t waste it!

Plagiarism-free guarantee

Privacy guarantee

Secure checkout

Money back guarantee

Related Essay Samples & Examples

Voting as a civic responsibility, essay example.

Words: 287

Utilitarianism and Its Applications, Essay Example

Words: 356

The Age-Related Changes of the Older Person, Essay Example

Pages: 2

Words: 448

The Problems ESOL Teachers Face, Essay Example

Pages: 8

Words: 2293

Should English Be the Primary Language? Essay Example

Pages: 4

Words: 999

The Term “Social Construction of Reality”, Essay Example

Words: 371

A Reflection on the Nature of Teaching and Learning in the Context of Study Abroad

• Mark D. Olson Illinois State University

As educators are increasingly called upon to integrate international content into curricula to reflect the world’s growing interconnectedness, study abroad programs have become an integral part of higher education across disciplines. Education abroad provides an invaluable method of offering experiential learning to enhance students’ awareness and understanding of multicultural issues. However, the degree of intercultural learning obtained has been questioned, particularly within today’s corporatized model of higher education and its emphasis on student recruitment and retention. Critics have likened today’s study abroad students to privileged tourists, having limited opportunities for engagement and understanding of diverse people and cultures. This paper uses an autoethnographic approach to explore a six-week summer semester in Japan. I, the author, examine the nature of teaching and learning within the context of study abroad.

How to Cite

• Endnote/Zotero/Mendeley (RIS)

REFLECTIONS: NARRATIVES OF PROFESSIONAL HELPING SALEM STATE UNIVERSITY, PUBLISHER  PUBLICATION AGREEMENT

1. COPYRIGHT: If the manuscript you submit to this site (the “Manuscript”) is selected for publication in Reflections, the author(s) of the Manuscript hereby agree to transfer copyright of the Manuscript to Salem State University, including full and exclusive rights to reproduce the Manuscript in all media now known or later developed, including but not limited to electronic databases and microfilm, and in anthologies of any kind.

2. AUTHOR RE-USES OF MANUSCRIPT: As a professional courtesy, the author(s) retains the right to reprint the Manuscript again after publication in Reflections, in any work the author(s) is sole author, or in any edited work for which the author(s) is senior editor, though the author(s) is required to cite the Manuscript as a prior publication in “Reflections: Narratives of Professional Helping.” No further permission is necessary in writing from SSU, nor will SSU require fees of any kind for this reprinting. This statement is intended to provide a copyright release for the purposes set forth in this Section 2, and a photocopy of this Publication Agreement may be used when another publisher requires a written release.

3. READER RE-USES OF MANUSCRIPT: The author(s) acknowledge that registered readers of Reflections and others with access to the Manuscript may use the Manuscript consistent with applicable law including, but not limited to Fair Use under 17 U.S.C. § 107.

4. AUTHOR WARRANTIES: The author(s) represent(s) and warrant(s):

a.) that the Manuscript is the author's (authors') own work; b.) that the Manuscript has been submitted only to this journal and that it has not been previously published; c.) that the Manuscript contains no libelous or unlawful statements and does not infringe upon the civil rights of others; d.) that the author(s) are not infringing upon anyone else’s copyright. e.) that the author(s) are responsible for any individual or organizational names that are mentioned in the Manuscript, as SSU disclaims responsibility for references to individuals, organizations, facts, and opinions presented by the published author(s) in the Manuscript. f.) That the author(s) have taken care to ensure that the Manuscript does not contain any identifiable information about clients or patients except as pursuant to appropriate permissions and forms of informed consent as provided for in all relevant laws and codes of ethics. g.) That the Manuscript in no way violates any individual’s privacy rights.

The author(s) agree that if there is a breach of any of the above representations and warranties that the author(s) will indemnify SSU, including the publisher and editor of Reflections, and hold them harmless.

5. AUTHOR RETENTION OF PATENTS: The author(s) may have, within the Manuscript, descriptions of the author's (authors') own proprietary patents. Nothing herein shall be construed as a transfer of any proprietary right in such patents. Accordingly, the author(s) retains all proprietary rights in any such patents described in the Manuscript, but such reservation in rights does not include ownership of the Manuscript, and SSU shall retain full and exclusive rights to the Manuscript as set forth herein.

6. NOTE FOR U.S. GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES: Any Manuscript authored by a U.S. government employee(s) as part of the employee's official duties, must be noted with your submission.

7. JOINT WORKS: Any Manuscript written by two or more authors with the intention that the Manuscript will be merged into one inseparable or interdependent parts of a unitary whole are considered a “Joint Work” under § 101 of the U.S. Copyright Act. This Agreement must be signed by all contributing authors to any Joint Work.

8. “WORK FOR HIRE” AUTHORS: If the Manuscript was written by an author(s) who was hired by another person or company to do so, the manuscript is considered a “Work Made for Hire” under § 101 of the U.S. Copyright Act. This Agreement must be signed by the “employer” who hired the author(s), as well as the author(s).

9. NO AMENDMENTS: This form is not valid if the author(s) add(s) any additional constraints and amendments. Please submit the article elsewhere for publication if the author(s) do not sign the form without alteration.

Advertisement

Improving Teachers’ and Students’ Views on Nature of Science Through Active Instructional Approaches: a Review of the Literature

• Published: 24 September 2022
• Volume 33 , pages 29–71, ( 2024 )

Cite this article

• Jean Bosco Bugingo   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0003-0832-140X 1 ,
• Lakhan Lal Yadav 1 , 2 ,
• Innocent Sebasaza Mugisha 3 &
• K. K. Mashood 4  

1442 Accesses

5 Citations

5 Altmetric

Explore all metrics

The paper aims to provide a review of literature that emphasizes students’ and teachers’ views on the nature of science (NOS) and associated instructional approaches to develop adequate understanding of the NOS that have been employed in different contexts. One hundred and seventy-two (172) studies were selected from ResearchGate, Academia, Google Scholar, and ERIC database from the year 2000 to 2022 and few important documents published before 2000. The paper presents an exploration of NOS aspects and identifies the gaps in the previous researches. The reviewed studies inform us that students have strong misconceptions on some NOS aspects such as relationship between theories and laws, observations, and scientific method, while teachers have strong misconception on relationship between theories and laws. The NOS instructional approaches discussed in reviewed papers have a positive effect in improving the NOS understanding. Reviewed literature suggests that some instructional approaches have positive effect to teach most of targeted NOS aspects such as explicit and reflective approach. In addition, the findings indicate that explicit and reflective instruction has been more documented and tried out into different contexts in which a considerable effect on students’ views on NOS was noted. Despite all efforts put in place, there is still a need for a lot to be done on active instructional approaches and interventions in this regard, particularly in developing countries with emphasis to the Sub-Saharan Africa education context.

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

Access this article

Price includes VAT (Russian Federation)

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Rent this article via DeepDyve

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Using Explicit Teaching of Philosophy to Promote Understanding of the Nature of Science

Spanish Science Teacher Educators’ Preparation, Experiences, and Views About Nature of Science in Science Education

Improving Students’ Conceptions of Nature of Science: A Review of the Literature

Abd-El-Khalick, F. (2013). Teaching with and about nature of science, and science teacher knowledge domains. Science & Education, 2 (2), 2087–2107.

Article   Google Scholar  

Abd-El-Khalick, F., & Akerson, V. L. (2004). Learning as conceptual change: Factors mediating the development of preservice elementary teachers’ views of nature of science. Science Education, 88 (5), 785–810.

Abd-El-Khalick, F., & Lederman, N. G. (2000). The influence of history of science courses on students’ views of nature of science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 37 (10), 1057–1095.

Abd-El-Khalick, F., Waters, M., & Le, A. (2008). Representations of nature of science in high school chemistry textbooks over the past four decades. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 45 (7), 835–855.

Abd-El-Khalick, F., Myers, J. Y., Summers, R., Brunner, J., Waight, N., Wahbel, N., Zeineddin, A. A., & Belarmino, J. (2017). A longitudinal analysis of the extent and manner of representations of nature of science in US high school biology and physics textbooks. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 54 (1), 82–120.

Adedoyin, A. O., & Bello, G. (2017). Conceptions of the nature of science held by undergraduate pre-service biology teachers in south-west Nigeria. Malaysian Online Journal of Educational Sciences, 5 (1), 1–9.

Google Scholar  

Adibelli-Sahin, E., & Deniz, H. (2017). Elementary teachers’ perceptions about the effective features of explicit-reflective nature of science instruction. International Journal of Science Education, 39 (6), 761–790. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2017.1308035

Ağlarcl, et al. (2016). Nature of science instruction to Turkish prospective chemistry teachers: The effect of explicit-reflective approach. Cogent Education, 3 , 1–19. https://doi.org/10.1080/2331186x.2016.1213350

Akerson, V. L., & Abd-El-Khalick, F. S. (2003). Teaching elements of nature of science: A year long case study of a fourth grade teacher. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 40 , 1025–1049.

Akerson, V. L., Abd-El-Khalick, F., & Lederman, N. G. (2000). Influence of a reflective explicit activity-based approach on elementary teachers’ conceptions of nature of science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 37 (4), 295–317.

Akerson, V. L., Hanson, D. L., & Cullen, T. A. (2007). The influence of guided and explicit instruction on K–6 teachers’ views of the nature of science. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 1 (8), 751–772.

Akerson, V.L., Pongsanon, K., Park-Rogers, M.A., Carter, L., & Galindo, E. (2015). Exploring the Use of lesson study to develop elementary preservice teachers’ pedagogical content knowledge for teaching nature of science. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education , First Online: 29 October 2015. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10763-015-9690-x .

Allchin, D. (2004). Pseudohistory and pseudoscience. Science & Education, 13 , 179–195.

Allchin, D. (2011). Evaluating knowledge of the nature of (whole) science. Science Education, 95 (3), 518542. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.20432

American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS). (1993). Benchmarks for science literacy . AAAS Publication.

Ayvacl, H. S., & Özbek, D. (2019). The effect of documentary films on preservice science teachers’ views of the nature. Journal of Science Learning, 2 (3), 97–107.

Bell, R. L., Blair, L. M., Crawford, B. A., Lederman, N. G., Hall, R., & Street, E. (2003). Just do it? Impact of a Science Apprenticeship Program on High School Students’ Understandings of the Nature of Science and Scientific Inquiry. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 40 (5), 487–509.

Bell, R. L., Matkins, J. J., & Gansneder, B. M. (2011). Impacts of contextual and explicit instruction on preservice elementary teachers’ understandings of the nature of science. Journal on Research in Science Teaching, 48 (4), 414–436.

Boe, M., Hendriksen, E., Lyons, T., & Schreiner, C. (2011). Participation in science and technology: Young people’s achievement-related choices in late-modern societies. Studies in Science Education, 47 (1), 37–71.

Brandon, R. N. (1997). Does biology have laws? The Experimental Evidence. Philosophy of Science, 64 (S4), S444–S457.

Briell, J. E., Elen, J., & Clarebout, G. (2013). Seeking convergent evidence of epistemological beliefs: A novel survey. Electronic Journal of Research in Educational Psychology, 11 (2), 473–500.

Burroughs, E. A., & Luebeck, J. L. (2010). Pre-service teachers in mathematics lesson study. The Mathematics Enthusiast, 7 (2), 391–400.

Byusa, E., Kampire, E., & Mwesigye, A. R. (2020). Analysis of teaching techniques and scheme of work in teaching chemistry in Rwandan secondary schools. Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science and Technology Education, 16 (6), 1–9. https://doi.org/10.29333/emjste/7833

Cajas, F. (2001). The science/technology interaction: Implications for science literacy. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 38 (7), 715–729.

Cartwright, N. (2002). In favor of laws that are not ceteris paribus after all. In  Ceterus paribus laws  (pp. 149–163).

Celik, S., & Bayrakceken, S. (2012). The influence of an activity-based explicit approach on the Turkish prospective science teachers’ conceptions of the nature of science. Australian Journal of Teacher Education, 37 (4), 75–95. https://doi.org/10.14221/ajte.2012v37n4.3

Çetin, A., & Kahyaoğlu, M. (2022). Investigation of teacher candidates’ nature of science beliefs in terms of gender, program, and class level. Dinamika Ilmu, 22 (1), 53–72.

Chen, F. D. T., Tsai, C. C., & Chai, C. C. S. (2011). Students’ views of the nature of science: A critical review of research. Science Education, 9 (5), 961–999.

Clough, M. P. (2006). Learners’ responses to the demands of conceptual change: Considerations for effective nature of science instruction. Science & Education, 15 (5), 463–494. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11191-005-4846-7

Clough, M. P. (2018). Teaching and learning about the nature of science. Science and Education, 27 , 1–5. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11191-018-9964-0

Cofré, H., Núñez, P., Santibáñez, D., Pavez, J. M., Valencia, M., & Vergara, C. (2019). A critical review of students’ and teachers’ understandings of nature of science. Science & Education, 28 , 205–248. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11191-019-00051-3

Dagher, Z. R., & Erduran, S. (2017). Abandoning Patchwork Approaches to Nature of Science in Science Education. Canadian Journal of Science, Mathematics, and Technology, 17 (1), 46–52. https://doi.org/10.1080/14926156.2016.1271923

Das, P. M., Faikhamta, C., & Punsuvon, V. (2017). Bhutanese students’ views of nature of science: A case study of culturally rich country. Research in Science Education, 49 , 391–412. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-017-9611-9

Deniz, H., & Adibelli-Sahin, E. (2015). Exploring how second grade elementary teachers translate their nature of science views into classroom practice after a graduate level nature of science course. Research in Science Education., 45 (6), 867–888. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-014-9445-4

Dhar, P. K., & Giuliani, A. (2010). Laws of biology: Why so few? Systems and Synthetic Biology, 4 (1), 7–13. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11693-009-9049-0

Dogan, N., & Abd-El-Khalick, F. (2008). Turkish Grade 10 students’ and science teachers’ conceptions of nature of science: A national study. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 45 (10), 1083–1112.

Dorji K, Jatsho S, Choden P, Tshering P (2022). Bhutanese science teachers’ perceptions of the nature of science: A cross-sectional study. Disciplinary and Interdisciplinary Science Education Research, 4(4). https://doi.org/10.1186/s43031-021-00044-9

Duit, R., & Treagust, D. F. (2003). Conceptual change: A powerful framework for improving science teaching and learning. International Journal of Science Education, 25 (6), 671–688.

Eastwood, J. L., Sadler, T. D., Zeidler, D. L., Lewis, A., Amiri, L., & Applebaum, S. (2012). Contextualizing nature of science instruction in socio scientific issues. International Journal of Science Education, 34 (15), 2289–2315.

Efthimiou, C. J., & Llewellyn, R. A. (2007). Cinema, Fermi problems and general education. Physics Education, 42 (3), 253.

Einstein, A., & Infeld, L. (1938). The evolution of physics . Cambridge University Press.

Erduran, S. (2022). Too philosophical, therefore useless for science education? Science & Education, 31 , 563–567. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11191-022-00340-4

Erduran, S., & Dagher, Z. R. (2014). Reconceptualizing nature of science for science education In Reconceptualizing the Nature of Science for Science Education. Contemporary Trends and Issues in Science Education, 43 , 1–18. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-017-9057-4_1

Erumit, B. A., & Akerson, V. L. (2022). Using children’s literature in the middle school science class to teach nature of science. Science & Education, 31 , 713–737. https://doi.org/10.1080/1046560X.2020.1808757

Fellows, E. W. (1961). Social and Cultural Influences in the development of science. JSTOR, 13 (2), 154–172.

Ferreira, S., & Morais, A. M. (2013). The Nature of Science in science curricula: Methods and concepts of analysis. International Journal of Science Education, 35 (16), 2670–2691. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2011.621982

Feynman, R.P., Leighton, R.B., & Sands, M. (2011). The Feynman Lectures on Physics, Vol. II: The New Millennium Edition: Mainly Electromagnetism and Matter . Basic Books. 

Feynman, R. (1967). The Character of Physical. Law. The M. I. T. Press. 1–37.

Forawi, S. (2014). Impact of explicit teaching of the nature of science on young children. The International Journal of Science, Mathematics and Technology Learning, 20 (1), 41–49. https://doi.org/10.18848/2327-7971/CGP/v20i01/59002

García-Carmona, A., Vázquez, A., & Manassero, M. A. (2011). Estado actual y perspectivas de la enseñanza de la naturaleza de la ciencia: Una revisión de las creencias y obstáculos del profesorado [Current status and prospects about teaching the nature of science: A review of teachers’ beliefs and obstacles]. Enseñanza De Las Ciencias, 29 (3), 403–412.

Gödek, Y. (2004). The Development of Science Education in Developing Countries GÜ. Kirşehir Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 5 (1), 1–9.

Golabek, C., & Amrane-Cooper, L. (2011). Trainee teachers’ perceptions of the nature of science and implications for pre-service teacher training in England. Research in Secondary Teacher Education, 1 (2), 9–13.

Halai, N., & McNicholl, J. (2004). Teachers’ conceptions of the nature of science: A comparative study from Pakistan and UK. School Science Review, 86 (314), 93–100.

Hammerness, K., & Darling-Hammond, L. (2005). The design of teacher education programs. In L. Darling-Hammond & J. Bransford (Eds.), Preparing teachers for a changing world (pp. 390–441). Jossey-Bass.

Handelsman, J., Miller, S., & Pfund, C. (2007). Scientific teaching . Freeman.

Hanson, R. (2015). Identifying students’ alternative concepts in basic chemical bonding: A case study of teacher trainees in the University of Education, Winneba. International Journal of Innovative Research and Development, 4 (1), 115–122.

Hernandez, L.J.S. (2010). Exploring students’ views of the nature of science, PhD Thesis, the University of York.

Howe, E. M. (2007). Addressing nature of science core tenets with the history of science: An example with sickle–cell anemia & malaria. The American Biology Teacher, 69 (8), 467–472.

Huber, R. A., & Moore, C. J. (2001). A model for extending hands-on science to be inquiry based. School Science and Mathematics, 101 (1), 32–41.

Ibrahim, B., Buffler, A., & Lubben, F. (2009). ‘Profiles of freshman physics’ views on the nature of science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching., 46 (3), 248–264. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.20219

Irez, S. (2009). Nature of Science as depicted in Turkish biology textbooks. Science Education, 93 (3), 422–447.

Irzik, G., & Nola, R. (2011). A family resemblance approach to the nature of science for science education. Science & Education, 20 (7), 591–607.

Kagumba, R. E. M. (2015). Uganda science teacher educators: A concurrent mixed methods investigation of perspectives on nature of science, pedagogy, and classroom learning environment. ProQuest Dissertations and Theses , 378. https://search.proquest.com/docview/1692059473?accountid=8144%0Ahttp://sfx.aub.aau.dk/sfxaub?url_ver=Z39.882004&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:dissertation&genre=dissertations+%26+theses&sid=ProQ:ProQuest+Dissertations+%26+Theses+Global&atitle=&title=U .

Karampelas, K. (2018). Identifying potential to promote the NOS in elementary science teaching packages. International Journal of Learning, Teaching and Educational Research, 17 (6), 1–18.

Kartal, E. E., Cobern, W. W., Dogan, N., Irez, S., Cakmakci, G., & Yalaki, Y. (2018). Improving science teachers’ nature of science views through innovative continuing professional development program. International Journal of STEM Education, 5 (1), 1–10. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40594-018-0125-4

Kasser, J. (2006). Philosophy of science . The Teaching Company.

Kaya, E., & Erduran, S. (2016). From FRA to RFN, or how the family resemblance approach can be transformed for curriculum analysis on nature of science. Science & Education, 25 , 1115–1133. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11191-016-9861-3

Kaya, E., Erduran, S., Aksoz, B., & Akgun, S. (2019). Reconceptualised family resemblance approach to nature of science in pre-service science teacher education. International Journal of Science Education, 41 (1), 21–47. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2018.1529447

Khishfe, R. (2013). Explicit nature of science and argumentation instruction in the context of socioscientific issues: An effect on student learning and transfer. International Journal of Science Education, 36 (6), 974–1016.

Khishfe, R., & Abd-El-Khalick, F. (2002). Influence of explicit and reflective versus implicit inquiry-oriented instruction on sixth graders’ views of nature of science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 39 (7), 551–578. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.10036

Khishfe, R., & Lederman, N. (2006). Teaching nature of science within a controversial topic: Integrated versus nonintegrated. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 43 (4), 395–418. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea

Khishfe, R., Alshaya, F. S., BouJaoude, S., Mansour, N., & Alrudiyan, K. I. (2017). Students’ understandings of nature of science and their arguments in the context of four socio – scientific issues. International Journal of Science Education . https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2017.1280741

Kim, S., & Irving, K. (2010). History of science as an instructional context: Student learning in genetics and nature of science. Science & Education, 19 (2), 187–215. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11191-009-9191-9

Kinyota, M. (2020). The status of and challenges facing secondary science teaching in Tanzania: A focus on inquiry-based science teaching and the nature of science. International Journal of Science Education, 42 (4), 1–19. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2020.1813348

Kinyota, M., & Rwimo, B. S. (2022). Developing student teachers’ conceptions of the nature of science: An assessment of a pre-service science teacher programme in Tanzania. African Journal of Research in Mathematics, Science and Technology Education, 25 (3), 269–279. https://doi.org/10.1080/18117295.2022.2041788

Kite, V., Park, S., McCance, K., & Seung, E. (2020): Secondary science teachers’ understandings of the epistemic nature of science practices, Journal of Science Teacher Education , 32 (3). https://doi.org/10.1080/1046560X.2020.1808757 .

Koksal, M. S., Cakiroglu, J., & Geban, O. (2013). The effect of explicit embedded reflective instruction on nature of science understandings in advanced science students. Journal of Biological Education . https://doi.org/10.1080/00219266.2013.799080

Kuhn, T.S. (1996). The structure of scientific revolutions . (3rd edition). The University of Chicago Press.

Lederman, N. G. (1992). Students’ and teachers’ conceptions of the nature of science: A review of the research. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 29 (4), 331–359.

Lederman, N. G. (2007). Nature of Science: Past, Present, and Future. In S. K. Abell & N. G. Lederman (Eds.), Handbook of research on science education (pp. 831–879). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Lederman, N. G., & Lederman, J. S. (2014). Research on teaching and learning of nature of science. In N. G. Lederman & S. K. Abell (Eds.), Handbook of Research on Science Education (Vol. II, pp. 600–620). Routledge.

Lederman, N. G., Abd-El-Khalick, F., Bell, R. L., & Schwartz, R. (2002). Views of nature of science questionnaire: Toward valid and meaningful assessment of learners’ conceptions of nature of science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 39 (6), 497–521.

Lederman, N. G., Lederman, J. S., & Antink, A. (2013). Nature of science and scientific inquiry as contexts for the learning of science and achievement of scientific literacy. International Journal of Education in Mathematics, Science and Technology, 1 (3), 138–147.

Lederman, N. G., Antink, A., & Bartos, S. (2014). Nature of science, scientific inquiry and socio-scientific issues arising from genetics. A pathway to developing a scientifically literate citizenry. Science and Education., 23 , 285–302.

Lemke, J. L. (2001). Articulating communities: Sociocultural perspectives on science education. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 38 (3), 296–316.

Lewis, C., Perry, R., & Murata, A. (2006). How should research contribute to instructional improvement? The case of lesson study. Educational Researcher, 35 (3), 3–14. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X035003003

Liang, L. L., Chen, S., Chen, X., Kaya, O. N., Adams, A. D., Macklin, M., & Ebenezer, J. (2009). Preservice teachers’ views about nature of scientific knowledge development: An international collaborative study. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 7 (5), 987–1012.

Lin, H., & Chen, C. (2002). Promoting preservice chemistry teachers‟ understanding about the nature of science through history. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 39 (9), 773–792.

Linneman, S. R., Lynch, P., Kurup, R., Webb, P., & Bantwini, B. (2003). South African science teachers’ perceptions of the nature of science. African Journal of Research in Mathematics, Science and Technology Education, 7 (1), 35–50. https://doi.org/10.1080/10288457.2003.1074054

Ma, H. (2009). Chinese secondary school science teachers’ understanding of the nature of science-emerging from their views of nature. Research in Science Education, 39 (5), 701–724.

Markic, S., & Eilks, I. (2012). A comparison of student teachers’ beliefs from four different science teaching domains using a mixed methods design. International Journal of Science Education, 34 (4), 589–608.

Matthews, M. (1997). Introductory comments on philosophy and constructivism in science education. Science & Education, 6 , 5–14. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1008650823980

Matthews, M. R. (2012). Changing the focus: From nature of science (NOS) to features of science (FOS). In Advances in nature of science research (pp. 3–26).

McComas, W. F. (2017). Understanding how science works: The nature of science as the foundation for science teaching and learning. SSR, 98 (365), 71–76.

McComas, W. F., & Nouri, N. (2016). The nature of science and the next generation science standards: Analysis and critique. Journal of Science Teaching Education, 7 , 555–576. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10972-016-9474-3

McComas, W.F (2002). The nature of science in science education: Rationales and Strategies. 5 th Ed. Kluwer Academic Publishers.

McKinney, R. (2013, October 7). Moving beyond the textbook. In closing the book on textbook dependent classroom . Wholechildeducation. http://www.wholechildeducation.org/blog/movingbeyond-the-textbook .

Meichtry, Y. (1992). Influencing Students Understanding of the Nature of Science: Data from a Case of Curriculum Development. Journal of Research in Science Teaching., 29 (4), 389–407.

Meyer, X., & Crawford, B. A. (2011). Teaching science as cultural way of knowing: Merging authentic inquiry, nature of science, and multicultural strategies. Cultural Studies of Science Education., 6 , 525–547. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11422-011-9318-6

Millar, R. (2006). Twenty first century science: Insights from the design and implementation of a scientific literacy approach in school science. International Journal of Science Education, 28 (13), 1499–1521.

Ministère de l’ Education, de l’ enseignement supérieur et de la Recherche Scientifique. (2017). Guide d’ Enseignant: Deuxième Année Post-Fondamentale/Section Sciences/Option Maths-Physique/Physique, République du Burundi.

Ministry of Education, Science and Technology (MoEST). (2017). National Basic Education Statistics in Tanzania (BEST). Government Press.

Morales, J., Bax, A., & Firestone, C. (2020). Sustained representation of perspectival shape. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 117 (26), 14873–14882.

Moss, D. M., Abrams, E. D., & Robb, J. (2001). Examining student conceptions of the nature of science. International Journal of Science Education, 23 (8), 771–790.

Mudavanhu, Y., & Zezerwa, N. (2017). The views of nature of science expressed by in-service teachers who were learning history and philosophy of science. Journal of Educational and Social Research, 7 (3), 39–48.

Mulvey, B. K., & Bell, R. L. (2017). Making learning last: Teachers’ long-term retention of improved nature of science conceptions and instructional rationales. International Journal of Science Education, 39 (1), 62–85. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2016.1267879

Nasimiyu, G. (2017). Challenges of administering teacher education programme in Kenyan universties. Journal of Education and Practice, 8 (14), 30–33.

National Curriculum Development Centre (NCDC). (2013). Uganda Advanced Certificate of Education: Teaching Syllabi for Physics and Mathematics . Volume 2. Republic of Uganda.

National Research Council (2000). Inquiry and the national science education standards. National Academy Press.

National Research Council. (2012). A framework for K-12 science education: Practices, crosscutting concepts and core ideas. National Academy Press.

National Science Teachers Association (NSTA). (2000). NSTA Position Statement: Safety and School Science Instruction .

Ndeke, G. C. W., & Keraro, F. N. (2017). Secondary school biology teachers’ perceptions of the nature of science. American International Journal of Social Science, 6 (3), 13–136.

Ndihokubwayo, K., Uwamahoro, J., & Ndayambaje, I. (2020). Implementation of the competence based–learning in Rwandan physics classrooms: first assessment based on the reformed teaching observation protocol. Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science and Technology Education, 16 (9), 1–8. https://doi.org/10.29333/ejmste/8395

NGSS Lead States. (2013). Next generation science standards: For states, by states . National Academies Press.

Niaz, M. (2001). Understanding nature of science as progressive transitions in heuristic principles. Science Education, 85 , 684–690.

Nilsson, P. (2008). Teaching for understanding: The complex nature of pedagogical content knowledge in preservice education. International Journal of Science Education, 30 (10), 1281–1299.

Nsengimana, T., Rugema Mugabo, L., Hiroaki, O., & Nkundabakura, P. (2020). Reflection on science competence-based curriculum implementation in Sub-Saharan African countries. International Journal of Science Education, Part B , 1–14 https://doi.org/10.1080/21548455.2020.1778210

Nur, E. M., & Fitnat, K. (2015). Explicit-reflective teaching nature of science as embedded within the science topic: Interactive historical vignettes technique. Journal of Education and Training Studies, 3 (6), 40–49.

Olson, J. K. (2018). The inclusion of the nature of science in nine recent international science education standards documents. Science & Education, 27 (7), 637–660.

Onijamowo, O. T. (2010). Senior School Chemistry student misconceptions and alternative conceptions of selected chemistry concepts in Kogi State Nigeria. Unpublished master Dissertation. University of Ilorin, Nigeria.

Osborne, J. (2014). Teaching scientific practices: Meeting the challenges of change. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 25 , 177–196. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10972-014-9384-1

Osborne, J., Simon, S., & Collins, S. (2003). Attitudes towards science: A review of the literature and its implications. International Journal of Science Education, 25 (9), 1049–1079. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.10105

Paraskevopoulou, E., & Kolipoulos, D. (2011). Teaching the nature of science through the Millikan – Ehrenhaft dispute. Science and Education, 20 , 943–960. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11191-010-9308-1

Piliouras, P., Plakitsi, K., Seroglou, F., & Papantonium, G. (2017). Teaching explicitly and reflecting on elements of nature of science: A discourse – focused professional development program with fifth-gade teachers. Research in Science Education, 48 , 1221–1246. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-016-9600-4

Popper, K. R. (2002). The Logic of Scientific Discovery . (2nd edition). Routledge.

Radwan, A. (2018). Science and innovation policies in North African countries: Exploring challenges and opportunities. Entrepreneurship and Sustainability Issues, 6 (1), 268–282. https://doi.org/10.9770/jesi.2018.6.1(17)

Ramnarain, U. D., & Chanestsa, T. (2016). Analysis of South African grade 9 natural sciences textbooks for their representations of nature of science. International Journal of Science Education . https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2016.1167985

Ratcliffe, M., & Grace, M. (2003). Science education for citizenship: Teaching socio-scientific issues. Berkshire, CA: McGraw-Hill Education (UK).

REB. (2015). Advanced level physics syllabus: Advanced level physics competency–based curriculum. Rwanda Education Board.

Roberts, D. A., & Bybee, R. W. (2014). Scientific literacy, science literacy, science education. In N. G. Lederman & S. K. Abell (Eds.), Research on science education (Vol. II, pp. 545–558). Routledge.

Rudge, D. W., & Howe, E. M. (2009). An explicit and reflective approach to the use of history to promote understanding of the nature of science. Science & Education, 18 (5), 561–580. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11191-007-9088-4

Rudge, D. W., Cassidy, D. P., Fulford, J. M., & Howe, E. M. (2014). Changes observed in views of nature of science during a historically based unit. Science & Education, 23 (9), 1879–1909. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11191-012-9572-3

Ryder, & Leach. (1999). University Students’ experiences of investigative project work and their images of science. International Journal of Science Education, 21 (9), 945–956.

Sadler, T. D. (2009). Situated learning in science education: Socio˗scientific issues as contexts for practice. Studies in Science Education, 45 (1), 1–42.

Sadler, T. D., Chambers, F. W., & Zeidler, D. L. (2004). Student conceptualizations of the nature of science in response to a socio-scientific issue. International Journal of Science Education, 26 (4), 387–409.

Schwartz, R. S., & Lederman, N. G. (2002). “It’s the nature of the beast”: The influence of knowledge and intentions on learning and teaching nature of science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 39 (3), 205–236.

Schwartz, R. S., Lederman, N. G., & Crawford, B. A. (2004). Developing views of nature of science in an authentic context: An explicit approach to bridging the gap between nature of science and scientific inquiry. Science Teacher Education, 88 (4), 610–645.

Semali, L., & Mehta, K. (2012). Science education in Tanzania: Challenges and policy responses. International Journal of Educational Research, 53 , 225–239.

Seung, E., Bryan, L. A., & Butler, M. B. (2009). Improving preservice middle grades science teachers’ understanding of the nature of science using three instructional approaches. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 20 , 157–177.

Sevim, S., & Pekbay, C. A. (2012). A study toward teaching the nature of science to pre-service teachers. Journal of Turkish Science Education, 9 (3), 207–227.

Shumba, O. (1993). Nature of science (NOS) in science education: Possibilities and constraints in a developing country. Zimbabwe. Zimbabwe Journal of Educational Research, 5 (2), 154–189.

Siegel, H. (2002). Multiculturalism, Universalism, and science education: In search of common ground. Science Education, 86 (6), 803–820.

Smith, C. L., Maclin, D., Houghton, C., & Hennessey, M. G. (2000). Sixth-grade students’ epistemologies of science: The impact of school science experiences on epistemological development. Cognition and Instruction, 18 (3), 349–422.

Smith, M. U., & Scharmann, L. (2008). A multi-year program developing an explicit reflective pedagogy for teaching pre-service teachers the nature of science by ostention. science & Education , 17 , 219 – 248.

Sorensen, P., Newton, L., & McCarthy, S. (2012). Developing a science teacher education course that supports student teachers’ thinking and teaching about the nature of science. Research in Science & Technological Education, 30 (1), 29–47.

Sormunen, K., & Köksal, M. S. (2014). Advanced science students’ understandings on nature of science in Finland. European Journal of Educational Research, 3 (4), 167–176.

Ssempala, F. (2020). Science teachers’ understanding and practice of inquiry – Based instruction in Uganda. In proceedings.

Stadermann, H. K. E., & Goedhart, M. J. (2020). Secondary school students’ views of nature of science in quantum physics. International Journal of Science Education, 42 (6), 997–1016. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2020.1745926

Stinner, A., McMillan, B. A., Metz, D., Jilek, J. M., & Klassen, S. (2003). The renewal of case studies in science education. Science & Education, 12 (7), 617–643.

Sumranwanich, W., & Yuenyong, C. (2014). Graduate students’ concepts of nature of science (NOS) and attitudes toward teaching NOS. Social and Behavioral Sciences, 116 , 2443–2452. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2014.01.589

Taber, K. S. (2008). Towards a curricular Model of the Nature of Science. Science & Education, 17 , 179–218.

Tabulawa, R. (2013). Teaching and learning in context: Why pedagogical reforms fail in Sub–Saharan Africa . Council for the development pf Social Science Research in Africa (CODESRIA), African Books Collective, Dakar.

Taşar, M. F. (2003). Teaching history and the nature of science in science teacher education programs. Pamukkale University Journal of Education, 1 (13), 30–42.

Tolvanen, S., Jansson, J., Vesterinen, V., & Aksela, M. (2014). How to use historical approach to teach nature of science in chemistry education. Science & Education, 23 (8), 1605–1636.

Torres, J., & Vasconcelos, C. (2015). Nature of science and models: Comparing Portuguese prospective teacher’s views. Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science & Technology Education, 11 (6), 1473–1494.

Torres, J., Moutinho, S., & Vasconcelos, C. (2015). Nature of science, scientific and geoscience models: Examining students and teacher’s views. Journal of Turkish Science Education, 12 (4), 3–21.

Uganda National Examination Board (UNEB) (2014). UCE examination report.

UNESCO. (2016). Science for Sustainable Development . Policy Brief by the Scientific Advisory Board of the UN Secretary-General.

United Nations. (2015). Transforming our world: the 2030 Agenda for sustainable development. 70 th Session. A/RES/70/1. UN-General Assembly. New York.

Upahi, J. E., Ramnarain, U., & Ishola, I. S. (2020). The nature of science as represented in chemistry textbooks used in Nigeria. Research in Science Education, 50 , 1321–1339. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-018-9734-7

Uwizeyimana, D., Yadav, L. L., Musengimana, T., & Uwamahoro, J. (2018). The impact of teaching approaches on effective physics learning: An investigation conducted in five Secondary Schools in Rusizi District, Rwanda. Rwandan Journal of Education, 4(2) , 4–14.

Vázquez-Alonso, Á., García-Carmona, A., Manassero-Mas, M. A., & Bennāssar-Roig, A. (2013). Science teacher’s thinking about the nature of science: A new methodological approach to its assessment. Research in Science Education, 43 , 781–808. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-012-9291-4

Vesterinen, V., Aksela, M., & Sundberg, M. R. (2009). Nature of chemistry in the national frame curricula for upper secondary education in Finland. Norway and Sweden, Nordina, 5 (2), 200–2012.

Vhurumuku, E. (2010). The impact of explicit instruction on undergraduate students’ understanding of the Nature of Science. African Journal of Research in Mathematics, Science and Technology Education, 14 (1), 99–111.

Wardani, T. B., & Winarno, N. (2017). Using inquiry-based laboratory activities in lights and optics topic to improve students’ understanding about nature of science (NOS). Journal of Science Learning, 1 (1), 28–35.

Yadav, L. L. (2005). Physics Teaching Methods, in Education Module 11: Mathematics and Physics Teaching Methods. Kigali Institute of Education.

Yadav, L. L., & Shrivastava, M. (2007). Teaching and learning of the nature of science and technology: A look from a developing country. The International Journal of Learning, 14(2), 119–126.

Yalvac, B., Tekkaya, C., Cakiroglu, J., & Kahyaoglu, E. (2007). Turkish pre-service science teachers’ views on Science–Technology–Society Issues. International Journal of Science Education, 29 (3), 331–348.

Yoldere, H. M., & Adamu, M. (2014). The challenges facing science education in developing countries and the way forward. International Journal of Scientific Engineering and Study, 3 (11), 2347–3878.

Yücel Dağ, M., & Taşar, M. F. (2016). More interactive historical vignettes. Contemporary Educational Researches Journal., 8 (1), 53–60.

Zeidler, D. L., Applebaum, S. M., & Sadler, T. D. (2011). Enacting a socio scientific issues classroom: Transformative transformations. In T. D. Sadler (Ed.), Socio-Scientific Issues in Science Classrooms: Teaching (pp. 277–306). Springer.

Chapter   Google Scholar  

Zhou, G., Xu, J., & Martinovic, D. (2017). Developing pre-service teachers’ capacity in teaching science with technology through microteaching lesson study approach. EURASIA Journal of Mathematics, Science and Technology Education, 13 (1), 85–103. https://doi.org/10.12973/eurasia.2017.00605a

Download references

Acknowledgements

Financial support from the African Centre of Excellence for Innovative Teaching and Learning Mathematics and Science (ACEITLMS) is thankfully acknowledged. The authors also acknowledge the reviewers for the constructive comments and suggestions.

African Centre of Excellence for Innovative Teaching and Learning Mathematics and Science (ACEITLMS).

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

African Centre of Excellence for Innovative Teaching and Learning Mathematics and Science (ACEITLMS), College of Education (UR-CE), University of Rwanda, Rukara Campus, Kayonza, Rwanda

Jean Bosco Bugingo & Lakhan Lal Yadav

Department of Mathematics, Science and Physical Education, UR-CE, Rukara Campus, Kayonza, Rwanda

Lakhan Lal Yadav

Department of Foundation, Management and Curriculum Studies, UR-CE, Rukara Campus, Kayonza, Rwanda

Innocent Sebasaza Mugisha

Homi Bhabha Centre for Science Education, TIFR, Mumbai, India

K. K. Mashood

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Jean Bosco Bugingo .

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest.

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Additional information

Publisher's note.

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Anonymity: The terms “Author” and “Authors” have been used in the citation and references where one of the authors has authored or Co-authored.

• Author. (2005): Yadav, L. L. (2005). Physics Teaching Methods, in Education Module 11: Mathematics and Physics Teaching Methods. Kigali Institute of Education.

• Authors. (2007): Yadav, L. L., & Shrivastava, M. (2007). Teaching and learning of the nature of science and technology: A look from a developing country. The International Journal of Learning, 14(2), 119–126. .

• Authors. (2018): Uwizeyimana, D., Yadav, L. L., Musengimana, T., & Uwamahoro, J. (2018). The impact of teaching approaches on effective physics learning: An investigation conducted in five Secondary Schools in Rusizi District, Rwanda. Rwandan Journal of Education, 4(2), 4–14.

Rights and permissions

Springer Nature or its licensor holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Bugingo, J.B., Yadav, L.L., Mugisha, I.S. et al. Improving Teachers’ and Students’ Views on Nature of Science Through Active Instructional Approaches: a Review of the Literature. Sci & Educ 33 , 29–71 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11191-022-00382-8

Download citation

Accepted : 23 August 2022

Published : 24 September 2022

Issue Date : February 2024

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/s11191-022-00382-8

Share this article

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

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

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• Active instructional approaches
• Nature of science (NOS)
• Views of nature of science (VNOS)
• Find a journal
• Publish with us
• Track your research

The Nature and Values of Physical Education Essay

Physical educators have been recognized as contributors to school curriculum after a long and hard fight. Physical education proponents have claimed alliances with psychology, morality, science and medicine; these are the things that have validated physical education in the educational milieu (Singleton, 2009). These claims have influenced the conception of physical educators about the importance of knowledge in physical education.

Performance pedagogy is an education that is based on experience meaning that it does not related to one’s nature but is connected with what has already been experienced through performing.

It is characterized by technocratic rationality because it may be differentiated from discourses of science, psychology, and medicine, and when it is interpreted and translated to study of human development, it gives knowledge that was important to the early physical educators.

Limits of performance pedagogy are that the methods used in its measure are not valid; it is due to the fact that there is no model or theory used in its measure. Also, the selection criterion for the participants is only clear for the researcher.

Learning in constructivist theory is when individuals create understandings in their own new way basing on the interaction between what they know and what they believe, together with the knowledge and ideas they come across.

The theoretical assumptions of constructivist curriculum include the following: a learner actively constructs the meaning of something around a phenomenon, and whatever he or she constructs is idiosyncratic, or rather unique to an individual and these constructions are influenced by his or her prior experiences.

The current curriculum models of physical education that are informed by constructivist theories are sociological and psychological models. The sociological approach focuses on ways in which political, social and economic factors together with power affect the way a crowd of people create their understandings and form knowledge about their surroundings (Richardson, 2003).

On the other hand, psychological model revolves around ways used to create meaning in an individual’s mind and how the meaning that shared is developed in a group process. However, the two models focus on an individual in a social setting and focuses on him or her as a learner.

Richardson warns that constructivism that is psychologically focused shows how shared meaning is developed in a group process; however, there are some curricula which provide a possibility for students to choose activities. Also, there is no document for curriculum, which mentions students’ possibility of generating shared meanings because they are either decided by their instructors or themselves (Richardson, 2003).

He also warns that sociological model constructivism employ students in the production processes of knowledge, and at the same time examines the manner in which power works to give privileges to some people as it marginalizes others.

However, each curriculum of secondary physical education emphasizes the importance of having young people of different background, needs, abilities as well as interests. Marginalization does not encourage equity for girls and ethnic minorities in physical education, which creates an imbalance in both performance and participation.

In the past, physical education was considered to consist of only physical and practical activities, however, the recent research has justified that physical education can be included in the curriculum on the basis of scientific and intellectual merit. According to Laker (2001), justification of scientific and intellectual merit of physical education has eroded the role of physical education in schools.

In the recent years, research has developed theorized curriculum, which has led to a better understanding of the importance of physical education (McNamee, 2005). Constructivist theories have been used widely to develop programs that take students as active players in learning and teachers as facilitators (lee, 2003).

However, despite the progress, physical education is still considered as a component of leisure by some teachers rather than a contribution to the educational process (Kirk & Tinning, 1990).

The constructivist curricula implemented in physical education have enhanced students learning by developing their own understandings, as well as learning processes (Dyson, 2005). The curricula have also provided opportunities for students to challenge existing beliefs and understanding.

Reference List

Dyson, B. (2005). Integrating cooperative learning and tactical games models: Focusing on social interactions and decision making . London: Routledge.

Kirk, D., & Tinning, R. (1990). Introduction: Physical education, curriculum and culture . London: Falmer.

Laker, A. (2001). Developing personal, social and moral education through physical education . London: Routledge.

Lee, A. (2003). Student learning in physical education: Using research to enhance instruction . London: Routledge.

McNamee, M. (2005). The nature and values of physical education . London: Sage.

Richardson, V. (2003). Constructivist Pedagogy. Teach Coll Rec, 105(9), pp.1623-1637.

Singleton, E. (2009). From Command to Constructivism: Canadian Secondary School Physical Education Curriculum and Teaching Games for Understanding . London: University of Western Ontario.

• Chicago (A-D)
• Chicago (N-B)

IvyPanda. (2019, May 17). The Nature and Values of Physical Education. https://ivypanda.com/essays/physical-education-essay/

"The Nature and Values of Physical Education." IvyPanda , 17 May 2019, ivypanda.com/essays/physical-education-essay/.

IvyPanda . (2019) 'The Nature and Values of Physical Education'. 17 May.

IvyPanda . 2019. "The Nature and Values of Physical Education." May 17, 2019. https://ivypanda.com/essays/physical-education-essay/.

1. IvyPanda . "The Nature and Values of Physical Education." May 17, 2019. https://ivypanda.com/essays/physical-education-essay/.

Bibliography

IvyPanda . "The Nature and Values of Physical Education." May 17, 2019. https://ivypanda.com/essays/physical-education-essay/.

• Constructivist Learning Theory
• "How to Integrate the Curricula" by Fogarty R.
• Adult Learning: Cognitivist and Constructivist Theories
• Comparison and contrast of direct instruction with constructivist learning approaches
• The Constructivist View of Learning
• Learning Experience: the Constructivist Theory Lens
• Constructivist Lesson Plan: Learning About the Brain
• Exploring Issues in Curriculum and Pedagogy
• Social Constructivism in Cooperative and Distance Learning
• Constructivism as International Relations Theory
• Collaborating With Families and Community Members
• Effectiveness of Broad, Merit-Based Scholarship Programs
• The Use of Evaluation Tests
• Evaluating the No Child Left behind Act
• School Improvement

Nature of Education and Its Purpose

Introduction, past forms and evolution, current state, shifts in expected outcomes, role of education and possible issues.

Knowledge is one of the most important aspects of any civilized society. Since ancient times, people have been collecting information about things surrounding them. It helped to cognize the world, find solutions to the most important problems, and create the basis for future progress and successors’ survival. However, the generation of knowledge introduced the problem of its transfer as new generations should be able to use accumulated data in new projects. That is why the first attempts to transfer knowledge, save and broaden it can be viewed as the emergence of education and its evolution. It became an integral part of human societies, necessary for their progress, survival, and achievement of new goals. At the same time, today, it is impossible to view education only as data exchange as it implies numerous concerns and has diversified goals. Nowadays, education is a continuous process through which a person acquires knowledge and broadens his/her mentality to be prepared for social integration and communication. As a result, there are numerous issues and problems associated with it.

As stated previously, education emerged in the first civilized societies as an attempt to save and broaden existing knowledge. For this reason, the nature of this process implied the continuous interaction between an experienced and a skilled person and an individual who lacked this information (Tierney & Pearson, 2021). However, the development of science, human thought, and the sophistication of societies stipulated the reconsideration of the attitude to education and its nature. The focus on mainly practical skills necessary for the survival of primal communities was gradually replaced with the necessity to address both theoretical and practical knowledge, combine them, and ensure their interaction to establish the basis for future evolution (Tierney & Pearson, 2021). Today, education is a lifelong, continuous, and systematic process aimed at transferring and generating different types of knowledge. However, it continues to evolve, meaning that new aspects might emerge.

In such a way, education passed a long way to acquire new features and peculiarities. Initially, it implied the interaction between a skilled or experienced person and a pupil (Tierney & Pearson, 2021). It was the simplest way to transfer knowledge and ensure it would be saved. However, the further development of science and society introduced the necessity to work with a bigger number of learners. It resulted in the emergence of a school as a fundamental education institution and teaching aids (Habiger Institute for Catholic Leadership, 2020). The first texts helped to familiarize individuals with available information and promote learning. At the same time, the scholastic methods implying lecturing and discussion appeared (Habiger Institute for Catholic Leadership, 2020). It was a step towards developing critical thinking and ensuring the increased flexibility of knowledge.

Moreover, humanity needed more effective ways to teach students and ensure they can expand existing knowledge. Under these conditions, the evolution of education has always been a continuous process that acquired new features. The technological progress and the emergence of new values in society resulted in reconsidering the nature of education and its purposes. The teaching process became more complex as it relied on a developed infrastructure consisting of basic and higher education establishments responsible for providing different types of information (Department for Education, 2019). The 20th century became a critical step in rethinking old views on education. Its accessibility and effectiveness became the central goal of numerous governments, including the Australian one (Bahr & Mellor, 2016). As a result, the basis of the current system was established.

Today, the methods and approaches used in the education system radically differ from the past ones. For instance, Australia focuses on promoting and integrating innovative teaching methods to increase the effectiveness of data transfer. The country focuses on student research, group projects, visual presentations, interactive classrooms and e-learning (Bahr & Mellor, 2016). These methods are critical for the modern digitalized world as they help learners to acquire different sets of skills and knowledge related to various spheres. Innovative methods also promote critical thinking, moving away from learning and repeating lectures or other materials (Bahr & Mellor, 2016). As a result, the modern teaching methods differ from the past ones. Moreover, they promote the further rise of the sphere and its becoming more technology-driven and student-oriented (Bahr & Mellor, 2016). It helps to meet the current demand for knowledge and education.

The constant evolution of the given social institution resulted in its constantly growing importance. Nowadays, it is viewed as the fundamental aspect of any country’s evolution because of its contribution to the nation’s rise. Australia views it as a way to educate individuals within society and ensure they are ready to work in various spheres of the state’s economy and science (Department for Education, 2019). It also helps to teach pupils values and morals accepted in the Australian society and necessary for individuals’ integration into its functioning (Department for Education, 2019). In this regard, the education system can be viewed as a central nation-building institution employed to support society’s efforts to continue its evolution and enjoy numerous benefits. This role also explains the increased attention to knowledge transfer and attempts to increase its accessibility and affordability for individuals.

The changes in education and methods mentioned above also promoted one significant shift in the expected outcomes. The ability to recall all crucial facts linked to a particular event, issue, or question is not enough today. On the contrary, pure knowledge should serve as the basis for further learning and improvement. Under these conditions, the educational systems of states, including Australia, focus on cultivating the critical thinking and analytic skills of students (Department for Education, n.d.). It is viewed as the most desired result of teaching. The body of knowledge constantly expands today because of numerous research projects, and it is impossible to learn everything linked to a particular concept. For this reason, the evolution of education can be linked to the necessity to promote the critical thinking and self-learning capabilities of students (Allen, 2017). Possessing the background knowledge taught at schools, colleges, and universities, they should be able to continue their education.

Moreover, education is a potent tool to shape people’s mentalities and views. Since the first stages of its evolution, data transfer implied sharing visions and attitudes and understanding of knowledge through the prism of these aspects (Johnston et al., 2019). Teachers have always influenced their learners and cultivated specific worldviews and responses. Today, this process acquires the top priority as a way to unite the nation and guarantee its integrity. For instance, the Australian curriculum devotes much attention to ethics, cultivating values, such as diversity, inclusion and patriotism (Johnston et al., 2019). As a result, education becomes an effective instrument to guarantee individuals realize social intercourse and are ready to become active community members.

From another perspective, education is connected to numerous important issues. It can be used to address inequality, discrimination, harassment, and biased or stereotypic attitudes. For instance, educational institutions of the past were segregated based on racial and social principles (Yaish & Gabay-Egozi, 2019). Today, it is viewed as the remnant of the past; however, disparities remain. In Australia, social segregation between private and public schools accounts for 16% of the total segregation in schools (Department for Education, 2019). It means that the evolution of education is also accompanied by issues representing the current state of society and the problems it faces. However, the available resources and methods can also be employed to address these issues, meaning that education is a perfect tool for addressing the issues in the education sphere. It can be viewed as a result of the sector’s evolution and becoming a fundamental institution in modern society.

In such a way, the changes in the education sphere observed nowadays, its nature and evolution can help to determine its purpose in the modern world. As stated previously, knowledge transfer remains a fundamental goal of modern schools and colleges in Australia. However, the primary objective is broader as it implies the formation of specific mentalities, development of critical thinking skills, and establishment of the basis for future success. In such a way, the purpose of education is to prepare an individual for future social interactions and integrate within the economic system to ensure he/she can make a specific contribution to the nation’s development (Department for Education, n.d.). It explains the increased attention from the government and numerous resources devoted to the further development of the sector and becoming more effective in addressing the challenges society faces.

Altogether, today education is viewed as a continuous process through which a person acquires knowledge and broadens his/her mentality to be prepared for social integration and communication. It emerged at the dawn of civilization as the method to transfer knowledge and ensure it will be expanded. However, the development of science and technologies, along with the change in human values, required more complex and effective teaching methods and approaches. As a result, education evolved and acquired new features. Today, it is a complex segment with a developed infrastructure and numerous issues. It implies a long and structured process to prepare an individual for future interactions and ensure he/she can help society to evolve.

Allen, A. (2017). Roberts P, Happiness, hope and despair: Rethinking the role of education . Policy Futures in Education, 15 (6), 803–804. Web.

Bahr, N., & Mellor, S. (2016). Australian education review: Building quality in teaching and teacher education . ACER . Web.

Department for Education. (n.d.). Towards 2028: Strategic plan . Web.

Department for Education. (2019). 2019 annual report . Web.

Habiger Institute for Catholic Leadership. (2020). The heart of culture: A brief history of Western education. Cluny Media.

Johnston, O., Wildy, H., & Shand, J. (2019). A decade of teacher expectations research 2008–2018: Historical foundations, new developments, and future pathways. Australian Journal of Education, 63 (1), 44–73. Web.

Tierney, R., & Pearson, D. (2021). A history of literacy education: Waves of research and practice. Teachers College Press.

Yaish, M., & Gabay-Egozi, L. (2019). Intracohort trends in ethnic earnings gaps: The role of education . Socius , 5. Web.

Cite this paper

Select style

• Chicago (A-D)
• Chicago (N-B)

ChalkyPapers. (2023, October 23). Nature of Education and Its Purpose. https://chalkypapers.com/nature-of-education-and-its-purpose/

"Nature of Education and Its Purpose." ChalkyPapers , 23 Oct. 2023, chalkypapers.com/nature-of-education-and-its-purpose/.

ChalkyPapers . (2023) 'Nature of Education and Its Purpose'. 23 October.

ChalkyPapers . 2023. "Nature of Education and Its Purpose." October 23, 2023. https://chalkypapers.com/nature-of-education-and-its-purpose/.

1. ChalkyPapers . "Nature of Education and Its Purpose." October 23, 2023. https://chalkypapers.com/nature-of-education-and-its-purpose/.

Bibliography

ChalkyPapers . "Nature of Education and Its Purpose." October 23, 2023. https://chalkypapers.com/nature-of-education-and-its-purpose/.