From Plato to Piaget, many philosophers have debated the importance of philosophy in education. Dewey states that educational philosophy is the most important branch of philosophy of all (Noddings, 1995: 23). This essay will discuss some of the philosophers who have greatly influenced educational policy today as well as whether their theory is still relevant in education. In addition, it will relate this theory to a learner-centered approach to teaching the Curriculum and Assessment Policy Statement (CAPS) in South Africa.
As one of the first philosophers, Socrates is fundamental to any discussion of educational philosophy. His method was to question in a way that guides his listeners to challenge their viewpoints (Noddings, 1995: 11), with the ultimate goal being learning and knowledge rather than rote learning. Rather than teaching, the teacher is seen as a “facilitator, guide, advisor or fellow traveller” (Brennan, 1999: 14), and both learner and teacher contribute to the shared dialogue through questioning. Indeed, both teacher and learner are engaged in a process of learning that will continue over their lifetimes in a variety of circumstances and contexts (Knight, 1989: 11).
Save your time!
We can take care of your essay
- Proper editing and formatting
- Free revision, title page, and bibliography
- Flexible prices and money-back guarantee
This method remains relevant in education today because it encourages the learner to investigate, to question and to be critical thinkers that embrace different perspectives from their own (Delić & Bećirović, 2016: 516). For the learner-centered teacher, it allows learners to improve their cognitive ability (Lam, 2001 in Delić & Bećirović, 2016: 516) rather than insisting on a performance-based approach in response to assessment pressure. Therefore, the Socratic method can complement the CAPS curriculum if correctly, and gently, applied.
While commonly used in law schools, the Socratic method has disadvantages in the intermediate phase. Garner (2000) in Christie (2010: 346) describes some of these: that it can be boring to witness an interaction between teacher and learner where non-participating students learn little, that it is not an efficient way to teach large quantities of information and that it allows a teacher to refuse to answer direct questions. This could be frustrating for learners, and could even be counterproductive, keeping teachers away from the very real responsibility of teaching the CAPS curriculum as mandated by the Department of Education. Research has even shown that it can be psychologically harmful to students (Overholser, 1992 in Christie, 2010: 352), as learners may feel intimidated or anxious when called out in front of class to answer a barrage of questions. Additionally, Pekarsky (1994, in Christie, 2010: 353) points out that the teacher’s ability to understand the “belief system and the character of learners involved in the dialogue” can also influence the effectiveness of this approach.
However, Letts (1994, in Christie, 2010: 351) contends that using the Socratic method or dialogue allows children to understand how to deal with conflict, and “disagree without violence”. A student can learn to appreciate all sides of an argument or issue, which can also make this method useful for debates or written assignments, where learners must practice to argue both sides. In short, this allows students to develop deeper curiosity and passion for knowledge and learning (Delić & Bećirović, 2016). Instead of merely readying students for academic success, teachers can gently encourage their intellectual growth by continuously challenging them to re-examine their beliefs.
Plato, a student of Socrates, was considered the father of idealism. Plato believed the purpose of education was to discover and develop each learner’s individual abilities and morality in order to serve society (Leonara & Gelbrich, 1999). Plato emphasized that education should be tailored towards ability, thus a ruler would learn to rule, a worker, his trade, and a guardian, to be a better soldier. Thus, education would meet the needs of the state (Noddings, 1995: 13). While common in modern educational policy, this approach assumes that children will show their relative efficiencies and capabilities from a young age, that all have equal opportunity to learn, and denies educational differences among children (Noddings, 1995: 14). What’s more, it can be seen as entrenching societal inequalities, as children born into a specific set of circumstances will remain in such circumstances unless they can otherwise distinguish themselves through their own merit. Indeed, Brennen (1999: 8) feels that Plato’s philosophy of education denies the right of individuals to be educated to their full potential.
However, Plato’s approach cannot be dismissed as it remains relevant in education today. In this approach, teaching is focused on developing ideas through lecture, discussion and Socratic dialogue, where learners are encouraged to use questioning to discover and clarify knowledge (Leonora year etc). According to Delić & Bećirović, 2016: 513, this method, which originates in the Plato dialogues, is known as the modern Socratic method, leading the learner through the process step-by-step, and allowing knowledge to be gained through the asking of deeper questions. This allows learners to question their own ideas and develop critical thinking techniques that will benefit them in future learning and study. According to Knox (1998 in Delić & Bećirović, 2016: 513), this draws the learner and teacher into an active, participatory process where neither is delineated into teacher or learner roles, achieving greater intimacy than would otherwise be possible. Rather than finding set or prescribed answers, the emphasis is on asking well-formed questions to investigate and discover the truth.
However, it should be mentioned that Plato’s focus on the ‘good life’ which exemplified one of higher income and prestige, is not necessarily good for all. Siegel et al. (2018), question whether what constitutes ‘the good life’ should be determined in advance or by the students themselves, and whether this impacts determination of curriculum content. While Dewey also wrote movingly on the good life, he differed from other philosophers who saw education as an enterprise with a specific goal (such as forming an ideal person or leading to a desired way of life). Dewey saw education as synonymous with growth, so the aim of education is more education (Noddings, 1995: 23-24). Students, according to Dewey (Noddings, 1995: 24), should be interested or capable of engaging in their own educational growth and set goals for their own learning. Indeed, an active and critical approach to learning, rather than rote learning, is one of the principles outlined in CAPS (DoE, 2011).
Perhaps one of the strongest advantages of the CAPS document is that it lays out the subject matter, not the teaching approach (Grussendorff et al., 2014: 39). While Dewey stresses the importance of continuity of experience, it can be argued that CAPS allows the learner to progress stage by stage through their educational journey. However, in reality, each learner is at a different stage of understanding, and teacher’s must take into account students’ prior and present experience in order to understand their future needs and guide them to a better grasp of the subject (Noddings, 1995: 26). Rather than absorbing vast quantities of material that they are not engaged with and losing interest, Dewey believed students should be engaged and actively participate. Thus, Dewey is associated with child-centered education.
For Dewey, the curriculum should teach subjects as a way of explaining human activity, solving social ills or creating connections. Rather than learning a strictly delineated subject by rote, each subject should be seen as a connected to a learner’s own experience (Noddings, 1995: 31). Schools, according to Dewey (Noddings, 1995: 32) should develop a community where thoughtful experimentation is encouraged, where learners work together, evaluating and sorting through possibilities to achieve a democratic outcome. In a country like South Africa, teaching democracy in the classroom would certainly be a way to address the political injustices of the past in order to create a more democratic future.
Noddings (1995: 81) relates constructivism in education to mathematics and science, where the premise is that all knowledge is constructed and cannot be passively received. Piaget was one of the strongest proponents of the constructivist, child-centered approach, appealing to educators who believed children must be active in own learning. He distinguished developmental learning (active learning that makes a lasting difference in how students approach problems and situations) from rote learning (passive, temporary and inadequate for future learning). While the child-centered approach emphasizes concepts such as multi-sensory and discovery learning, methods of inquiry and whole language learning as well as authentic learning environments, among others (Baker, 2011), few of these can be developed in the subject specific and fixed CAPS approach (Du Plessis 2013, in Du Plessis & Mbunyuza, 2014: 214). Similarly, Grussendorff et al. (2014: 17) finds that while CAPS allows for the development of cognitive ability through active learning, curriculum implementation seldom gives opportunities for development and practice of creative, analytic and synthesizing skills that would prepare the learner for the workplace and further education. Thus, the challenge lies not in the quality of the curriculum, but in its relevance and translation to the classroom.
A teacher can implement constructivist methods without being a constructivist. A teacher should actively encourage the engagement of students in establishing and pursuing their own learning objectives. Noddings (1995: 82) suggests using methods adapted from Piaget's clinical approach, asking students to relate what they think, then follow up with prompts, challenges, variations and questions on the usefulness of the methods chosen. However, the teacher should not neglect the social aspects of learning, cautions Noddings (1995, 82). A child learns both individually and collaboratively, and through education, a child must develop healthier attitudes towards self, peers and their own learning (McNeil, 1985 in Brennan, 1999: 14).
Brennan (1999: 14) encourages teachers to see the classroom as a laboratory, where learners can test and verify ideas, solve problems and learn in an integrative way that emphasizes cooperative learning, active involvement, and freedom of thought and movement (Brennan, 1999: 14). Instead of focusing on content, the emphasis should be on the process. Much like Dewey posited, schools can become democratic and cooperative communities (Brennan, 1999: 14) that encourage learners to collaborate.
While the child-centered approach recognizes the value of the individual and ideally should meet the needs, experiences and interest of the child, the reality is that CAPS, like most international curriculums, must benefit the needs of many over one. Although Brennan (1999: 14) suggests that the curriculum should change along with the needs of learners, reflecting a fluid, dynamic and open-ended educational policy, the reality is that the curriculum policy in South Africa has to meet specific requirements – such as defining 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 (Siegel et al., 2018) and this results in a certain rigidity of content.
In short, Grussendorff et al. (2014: 58) contends that under CAPS, learners are not in fact negotiators of meaning, but become the recipients of a body of pre-determined knowledge. With prescriptive learning activities, the teacher’s role is diminished and becomes more that of an implementer. This limits flexibility of design and implementation to the varying needs of learners (Umalasi (2014: 58). For the teacher in the South African classroom, vigilance and time are requirements that would allow a critical and active, learner-centered approach.
Since educational policy and curriculums are a challenge faced by countries all over the world, and teaching approaches can differ dramatically, educational philosophy is a valuable discussion, particularly when applied to the South African classroom. While all of the methods indicated by the four philosophers discussed can have some application in the classroom, it can be concluded that the rigidity and structure of teacher-centered CAPS can hamper the teacher's creativity and in effect, limit the applicability of the learner-centered approach, particularly where the teacher is relatively inexperienced.
Stuck on your essay?
