Abstract
This discussion concentrates on the distinctive conception of teaching which Scheffler develops, one in which teachers recognize an obligation both to offer reasons for their beliefs and to accept questions and objections raised by their students; and it shows how this conception is rooted in ethical and epistemological considerations. It emerges that Scheffler has anticipated, and answered, various arguments currently being raised against an approach to teaching which values critical reflection by students, and that he has also succeeded in avoiding the excesses of neutralism and relativism. It is argued too that his work exemplifies his own belief in maintaining a linkage between philosophy and practical concerns.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Preview
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
Notes
See my comments in “Philosophy of education in Canada”, reprinted in my Attitudes in Teaching and Education, Calgary: Detselig, 1993: 9-26. Also my “Continuity and controversy in philosophy of education”, in John P. Portelli and Sharon Bailin (eds.), Reason and Values: New Essays in Philosophy of Education, Calgary: Detselig, 1993: 1-7.
The best general introduction is Brian Hendley, Dewey, Russell, Whitehead: Philosophers as Educators, Carbondale: Southern Illinois University Press, 1985. See also my “Russell’s contribution to Philosophy of Education”, in Attitudes in Teaching and Education op. cit.: 27-43.
See Max Black, “Education as art and discipline”, Ethics 54,4, 1944: 290–294.
It was published in Educational Theory 4,1, 1954: 1–3, and is reprinted in Christopher J. Lucas (ed.), What is Philosophy of Education? London: Collier-Macmillan, 1969: 111-113.
Israel Scheffler, “Introduction”, Philosophy and Education: Modern Readings, Boston: Allyn and Bacon, 1958: 2. This and subsequent page references are to the introduction as reprinted in the now more readily accessible 2nd ed., published in 1966.
op. cit.: 2.
op. cit.:4.
Scheffler, “Philosophy and the curriculum”, in Reason and Teaching, Indianapolis: Bobbs-Merrill, 1973: 32.
Scheffler, Philosophy and Education op. cit: 11. This is not to say that substantive philosophical doctrine will not emerge, such as Scheffler’s own theory of rationality.
Scheffler, “Philosophy and the new activism”, in Reason and Teaching op. cit.: 21.
Scheffler, Philosophy and the curriculum”, op. cit.: 34.
op. cit.: 36.
Ibid.
For some insights into the changing face of teacher preparation in Britain, see David Carr, “The philosophy of education”, Philosophical Books 35,1, 1994: 1–9.
Andrew Nikiforuk, School’s Out: The Catastrophe in Public Education and What We Can Do About It, Toronto: Macfarlane Walter & Ross, 1993: 113.
Richard Rorty, “Education without dogma”, Dissent 36,2, 1989: 198–204.
Op. cit.: 204.
John Dewey, “What can psychology do for the teacher?”, in R.D. Archambault (ed.), John Dewey on Education, New York: Random House, 1964: 201. (Selection comes from John Dewey and James A. McLellan, The Psychology of Number, 1895.)
Scheffler, “Reflection on educational relevance”, in Reason and Teaching, op. cit.: 135.
Scheffler states explicitly that he is not offering a stipulative definition of teaching. His explicit concern is to provide an account of the accepted meaning of the term in the manner of a descriptive definition. (See The Language of Education, op. cit.: 60.) Perhaps the force of “standard” in his reference to the standard use of “teaching” is to allow that there are certain uses of the word teaching which fall outside the account, but that an account in terms of the appeal to reasons to satisfy the student’s own judgment captures the central features of the concept which serve to distinguish teaching from other methods of controlling behaviour or inducing belief.
Scheffler, The Language of Education, Springfield, Ill.: Charles C. Thomas, 1960: 57.
Scheffler, “Concepts of education: Reflections on the current scene”, Reason and Teaching op. cit.: 59.
Scheffler, “In praise of the cognitive emotions”, in his In Praise of the Cognitive Emotions, New York: Routledge, 1991: 12–15.
Inspired by Scheffler, I have explored these and other virtues in my book What Makes A Good Teacher, London, Ont.: Althouse Press, 1993.
See Anthony O’Hear, Education and Democracy, London: Claridge Press, 1991: 35.
Scheffler, “Concepts of education: Reflections on the current scene”, op. cit.: 6.
Op. cit.: 64. Fallibilism is a familiar theme in Scheffler’s work. See, for example, Conditions of Knowledge, Glenview, Ill.: Scott, Foresman, 1965: 53. And “Pragmatism as a philosophy”, In Praise of the Cognitive Emotions op. cit., where he writes: “The answer to the sceptical yearning for certainty at the outset thus lies in the continuity of fallible inquiries tending toward the fixation of beliefs in the future” (p. 167).
Scheffler, Conditions of Knowledge op. cit.: 12.
Scheffler, “Philosophical models of teaching”, in Reason and Teaching op. cit.: 73.
O’Hear, op. cit.: 29.
I have reviewed these arguments in “Content and criticism: The aims of schooling”, Journal of Philosophy of Education, 29,1, 1995: 47–60.
Scheffler, “Moral education beyond moral reasoning”, In Praise of the Cognitive Emotions op. cit.: 99.
Scheffler, “Philosophical models of teaching”, op. cit.: 80.
Scheffler, The Language of Education op. cit.: 59.
Scheffler, “Philosophical models of teaching”, op. cit.: 77. In connection with the adequacy of the student’s evidence, he also speaks of “the progressive incorporation, and increasingly autonomous use, of these standards.” See Conditions of Knowledge op. cit.: 58.
Scheffler reminds us that “there is considerable leeway in the application of a given set of standards in different contexts.” See Conditions of Knowledge op. cit.: 57.
Scheffler, “Educational liberalism and Dewey’s philosophy”, in Reason and Teaching op. cit.: 153.
Scheffler, The Language of Education op. cit.: 58.
Op. cit.: 68.
Scheffler, “University scholarship and the education of teachers”, in Reason and Teaching op. cit.: 92.
Scheffler’s emphasis on honesty in teaching is reminiscent of Russell’s emphasis on truthfulness, though Scheffler himself does not draw the parallel. See, for example, Bertrand Russell, “Freedom versus authority in education,” in his Sceptical Essays London: Unwin, 1985: 149. (Originally published, 1928).
Scheffler, “Four languages of education”, in his In Praise of the Cognitive Emotions op. cit.: 123.
Scheffler, “University scholarship and the education of teachers,” op. cit.: 87.
See Standards for Evaluation of Instructional Materials with Respect to Social Content Sacramento, California State Department of Education, 1986: 3.
Scheffler, “Moral education and the democratic ideal”, in Reason and Teaching op. cit.: 142.
Scheffler, “Introduction to the first edition”, in Philosophy and Education op. cit.: 8, 10.
Op. cit.: 7-8.
Scheffler, “Vice into virtue, or Seven deadly sins of education redeemed”, In Praise of the Cognitive Emotions op. cit.: 126–139.
Scheffler, The Language of Education op. cit.: 103.
Scheffler, “Computers at school?”, In Praise of the Cognitive Emotions op. cit.: 80–96.
Op. cit.: 90.
Scheffler, “Reflections on educational relevance”, op. cit.: 131.
Op. cit.: 133.
Scheffler, “University scholarship and the education of teachers”, op. cit.: 91.
Scheffler, “In praise of the cognitive emotions”, op. cit.: 15.
Scheffler, “University scholarship and the education of teachers”, op. cit.: 84.
Scheffler, “Justifying curriculum decisions”, Reason and Teaching op. cit.: 119.
G.J. Warnock, English Philosophy Since 1900, New York: Oxford University Press, 1966: 112.
Harvey Siegel provides a useful introduction to Scheffler’s ideas on philosophy of education in his talk on the tape Twentieth Century Philosophy of Education ed. William Hare, available from Dalhousie University School of Education.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 1997 Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Hare, W. (1997). Reason in Teaching: Scheffler’s Philosophy of Education “A Maximum of Vision and a Minimum of Mystery”. In: Siegel, H. (eds) Reason and Education. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-011-5714-8_7
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-011-5714-8_7
Publisher Name: Springer, Dordrecht
Print ISBN: 978-0-7923-4362-2
Online ISBN: 978-94-011-5714-8
eBook Packages: Springer Book Archive