PLEASE NOTE this is a sample reading list for the 2015-16 academic year
– precise seminar content may change from year to year.
(i) democracy and education
*Kitcher, P. (2010) ‘Education, Democracy and Capitalism’ in Siegel ed. Oxford
Handbook in Philosophy of Education
For discussion of Kitcher and the relation between philosophy of education and
philosophy see:
*White, J. (2013) ‘Philosophy, philosophy of education, and economic realities’
Theory and Research in Education, 11 294-303
*Siegel, H. (2014) ‘John White on philosophy of education and philosophy’ Theory
and Research in Education, 12 120-7
Carr, D. (2003) Making Sense of Education, Chs. 11, 12
For seminar: Kitcher provides a stark and tightly argued case to the effect that
Deweyan liberal education will always lose out to a Smithian vision under the
conditions of contemporary capitalism. Task: provide an outline & evaluation of
Kitcher’s argument.
For a different issue about the broader social and cultural context of education, you
could explore issues around curriculum content and the wishes of parents, e.g.
religious education, intelligent design, etc. where there are constituencies (parents,
sometimes cultural groups, religious groups, etc) who have clear views about what
should/should not be in the curriculum and that raises debates about what account of
such views the state should take in planning the curriculum of a public education
system, let alone what account teachers should take....etc. For a start of these
issues see:
Audi, R. (2009) ‘Science Education, Religious Education, and Liberal Neutrality
Towards the Good’ in Siegel ed. Oxford Handbook in Philosophy of Education
Levinson, M (2009) ‘Mapping Multicultural Education’ in Siegel ed. Oxford Handbook
in Philosophy of Education
Siegel, H. (2007) ‘Multiculturalism and rationality’, Theory and Research in Education
vol. 5 no. 2 pp.203-223
(ii) Aims of education – free will, authenticity and learning how to be the originator
of your own life.
*Nussbaum, M. (2010) ‘Tagore, Dewey and the Imminent Demise of Liberal
Education’ in Siegel, ed. Oxford Handbook in Philosophy of Education
*Cuypers, S. (2010) ‘Educating for Authenticity’ in Siegel, ed. Oxford Handbook in
Philosophy of Education
Callan E. & Arena D. (2010) ‘Indoctrination’ in Siegel ed. Oxford Handbook
in Philosophy of Education
Standish, P.2003) ‘The Aims of Education’ In R. Curren ed. A Companion to
the Philosophy of Education Oxford: Blackwell, pp.305-19
Brighouse, H. (2010) ‘Moral and Political Aims of Education’ in Siegel, ed. Oxford
Handbook in Philosophy of Education
For seminar on topic (ii). Readings are Nussbaum and Cuypers. Nussbaum
argues that ‘liberal education is under threat’, a key element of her broadly
Deweyan conception of liberal education is the idea of autonomy, the idea that
education should aim to equip pupils to be autonomous learners. Cuypers
focusses on the idea of educational authenticity – the idea of the pupil becoming
the ‘originator of her own walk of life’ and provides a detailed discussion of what
R.S. Peters called the ‘paradox of moral education’ For seminar, read Nussbaum
as background and then concentrate on Cuypers for the detail of: what is the
paradox? What’s wrong, according to Cuypers, with Noggles’ solution? What’s
Cuyper’s solution? Is it better?
(iii) Cultivating reason: What’s goes in the curriculum? If it is process focussed,
what’s the process? Siegel argues for the cultivation of reason. If the curriculum is
to be defined in part by content, is it the content of knowing-that or knowing-how?
And how good is that distinction`?
*Robertson, E. (2010) ‘The Epistemic Aims of Education’ in Siegel ed. Oxford
Handbook in Philosophy of Education
*Siegel, H (2003) ‘Cultivating Reason’ in R. Curren ed. A Companion to
the Philosophy of Education Oxford: Blackwell,
Carr, D. (2003) Making Sense of Education, Chs. 9, 10
Elgin, C (2010) ‘Art and
Education’ in in Siegel ed. Oxford Handbook in Philosophy
of Education
Rorty, A. (2010) ‘Educating the Practical Imagination’ in Siegel ed. Oxford Handbook
in Philosophy of Education
On the issue about the independence of truth see Wiggins’ account of the marks of
truth:
D. Wiggins, (1987) ‘Truth as predicated of moral judgements’ in his Needs, Values,
Truth, Oxford: Clarendon Press, essay IV in that volume.
For seminar on topic (iii): Robertson gives a broad overview of the epistemic
constraints that shape the curriculum. Read Robertson for background. Siegel
promotes an account of the curriculum focussed more on cultivating reason
rather than specific content. There is now a lively debate about the distinction
between knowing-that and knowing-how. This goes back to Ryle The Concept of
Mind. Wiggins’ recent essay is long and repays careful reading.
*Wiggins, D. (2012) (2012) ‘Practical Knowledge: knowing how to and knowing
that’ Mind, 121, 97-130.
For seminar, outline Wiggins’ use of the Leander example and his remarks about
the know-how of the head of a small family firm. What does Wiggins mean by ‘ethos’
in the latter case? Does Wiggins provide a rebuttal to the Stanley & Williamson
argument for intellectualism.
Further literature on this topic would include:
Stanley, J. (2011) Know How Oxford: Oxford University Press
Stanley, J. (2005) Knowledge and Practical Interests Oxford: Oxford University
Press Stanley, J. & Williamson, T. (2001) ‘Knowing how’, Journal of Philosophy, 98,
411-44 Winch, C. (2015) Teachers’ Knowledge and Know-How: a philosophical
investigation, Oxford: Wiley
Winch, C. (2011) Knowledge, Skills and Competence in the European Labour
Market, Abingdon: Routledge, With Linda Clarke, Michaela Brockmann, Georg Hanf,
Philippe Méhaut and Anneke Westerhuis.
Winch, C. (2010) Dimensions of Expertise, London: Continuum pp.ix, 212
(iv) Fodor’s paradox of learning
*Fodor, J (1975) The Language of Thought (Hassocks: Harvester Press), Chapter 2
– available on modue website
Fodor, J (1998) Where Cognitive Science Went Wrong (Oxford: OUP)
Fodor, J. (2008) LOT2: the language of thought revisited (Oxford: OUP)
*Carey, S (2009) The Origin of Concepts Oxford: Oxford University Press, see Ch.13
and esp. 508-523 – available on module website
Margolis, E & Lawrence, S. (2011) ‘Learning matters: the role of learning in concept
acquisition’, Mind and Language 26, 507-39
Bereitier, C. (1985) ‘Towards a solution of the learning paradox’, Review of
Educational Research 55, 201-226
For Seminar in week 8: Fodor, Chapter 2 from The Language of Thought. This is
available on the module website. It is a long chapter, concentrate on pages 79-97,
although the whole thing is very readable and well worth reading. Pay particular
attention to why Fodor insists that learning should be modelled in terms of
hypothesis formation and testing? Is the analogy at p.93 re learning 1st order
quantificational logic using the abilities required for propositional logic a fair
challenge? Explain the remark, also p.93, that trauma or maturation might explain
developments in abilities, but learning cannot.
(v) Vygotsky and the role of others
One response to Fodor’s paradox is to ‘out-source’ the cognitive work of
development to others. Vygotsky is usually taken as endorsing this approach. Read
the Vygotsky passages marked ‘*’ and try the Hedegard. Prepare an outline of what
you think Vygotsky’s answer to Fodor would be.
Bakhurst, D. (2007) ‘Vygotsky’s Demons’ in The Cambridge Companion to
Vygotsky eds., Daniels, H., Cole, M., Wertsch, J.V., Cambridge: C.U.P., pp.5076 Bakhurst, D. (2011) The Formation of Reason, Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell
Hedegard, M. (2007) ‘The Development of Children’s Conceptual Relation to the
World, with Focus on Concept Formation in Preschool Children’s Activity’
in The Cambridge Companion to Vygotsky eds. Daniels, Cole & Wertsch,
Cambridge: CUP, pp.246-75
John-Steiner, V. & Mahn, H. (1996) ‘Sociocultural approaches to learning and
develoment: A Vygotskian framework’, Educational Psychologist 31:3-4,
191206
Wertsch. J.V. & Tulviste, P. (2005) ‘L.S. Vygotsky and contemporary developmental
psychology’, in Daniel, H. ed. An Introduction to Vygotsky. NY &
Hove: Routledge, pp.59-80
(vi) Initiation, Peters, Siegel and Williams
We met the idea of initiation in Peters when looking at Cuypers’ response to
Peters. Now consider the Wittgensteinian treatment of the idea as developed by
Meredith Williams
7
*Peters, R. S. (1978) ‘Education as Initiation’ in Authority, Responsibility and
Education, 3rd edition London: George Allen & Unwin, pp.81-107
*Siegel, H. (2012) ‘Education as initiation into the space of reasons’ Theory
and Research in Education 10 (2) 191-202
Bakhurst, D (2011) The Formation of Reason Oxford: Blackwell
*Williams, M. ‘The significance of learning in Wittgenstein’s later philosophy’,
Canadian Journal of Philosophy 24 1994, 173-204, available on module
website Williams, M. (2011) ‘Master and Novice in the later Wittgenstein’,
American Philosophical Quarterly 48, 198-211.
Luntley, M. (2009) ‘On Education and Initiation’, Journal for Philosophy of
Education, supplemenatary issue - Reading Peters Today, Vol 43, pp.41-56
Luntley, M. (2012) ‘Training, training, training: the making of second nature and
theroots of Wittgenstein’s pragmatism’ European Journal of Pragmatism and
American Philosophy. Symposia: Wittgenstein and Pragmatism a Reassessment, IV,
No.2, 88-104.
(vii) Learners– how do they do it?
Carey, selection from (Carey 2009). Consider Carey’s account of the
boostrapping stratgey found in Margolis and Lawrence, does this provide the
outlines of a response to Fodor?
(viii) Back to Dewey & Inquiry