On the Educational Value of Philosophical Ethics for Teacher Education: The Practice of Ethical Inquiry as Liberal Education
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This article explores the extent to which and ways in which philosophical ethics can make an educational contribution to teachers’ understanding of their practice as a distinct moral domain. Philosophical ethics is argued to facilitate two necessary features of teachers’ moral understanding of their practice. First, it promotes awareness of the plurality of normative considerations that must be made when reflecting ethically on one’s own practice. Second, it promotes an ability to make deliberative judgements among these normative considerations. These contributions are fundamental for making links between teaching practice and an understating of that practice as a moral tradition. The article characterizes the educational value of these contributions as an on‐going learning process of moral inquiry and practice that is best implemented through a form of liberal education. This characterization serves to distinguish it from approaches that would aim to initiate teachers into particular ethical frameworks, on the one hand, or a subjective or relativistic moral pluralism, on the other.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.015 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it