MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2469902568

Foundations of Education: A Social, Political, and Philosophical Approach

2016· article· en· W2469902568 on OpenAlexvenueaboutno aff
Gary Pluim

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Education / Revue canadienne de l éducation · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicEducation and Critical Thinking Development
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSOCRATESPoliticsHumanitySociologyPresuppositionEpistemologyIdeologySocial sciencePhilosophyLawPolitical scienceTheology
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Foundations of Education: A Social, Political, and Philosophical Approach Toronto, Ontario: Canadian Scholars Press, 2015: 124 pages ISBN: 978-1-55130-720-6 (paperback) An alluring aspect for many students who take foundations of education is its focus on life's big questions. This is clearly a concern for Jason C. Robinson in his new book, Foundations of Education: A Social, Political, and Philosophical Approach, a succinct foray through central philosophies of education that facilitates a deep exploration of key questions in the field. What is the fundamental source of knowledge? What is the basic nature of humanity? Should children be taught according to their nature, or according to an ideally envisioned society? Who should be privy to a quality education? What and how should students be taught? Such questions implicate teachers throughout our careers, and are but a sample of those that Robinson addresses throughout this reader. Foundations of Education takes the reader on a journey through the works of five influential philosophers--Plato (noting the widely accepted belief that he wrote on behalf of Socrates), Aristotle, John Locke, Jean-Jacques Rousseau, and John Dewey--summarizing each philosopher's implications for education. Each theorist offers an archetypal perspective on the basic nature of humanity, on the individual in/and society, and on the subsequent role for education. They all write from within different generations and nations (with the latter exception being Plato and Aristotle), and the chronological presentation underlies the presupposition (which is sometimes made explicit) that each benefited from the work of his precursors. The outcome is that the reader is presented with a breadth of compelling and sometimes controversial cases on what education is, was, and might be. The philosophers' responses to each foundational question are surprisingly varied, ultimately forming a labyrinth of perspectives for what constitutes education. Plato's ethical rationalism, Aristotle's metaphysics, Locke's empiricism, Rousseau's (pre-) romanticism, and Dewey's pragmatism all serve as ideal types upon which corresponding views for education are implicated. Take, for example, perspectives on the source of knowledge: While Plato suggests that knowledge emanates through reason, abstraction, and principles, Aristotle proposes sensing, observation, and description, Locke, through our ideas of the world, Rousseau, through feelings and emotions, and Dewey through problem-solving, social interactions, and experience. These epistemological positions have enormous consequences for other aspects of the foundations of education. On curricular choices: While Dewey emphasizes science (biology in particular), mathematics, arts, and social studies, Locke has little use for art and science, and highlights instead the importance of reading, memory-work, writing and language. (One might also contrast these conclusions with Aristotle's recommendations for reading, writing, gymnastics, drawing, and music.) On who should be educated: Plato's proposition of extracting for schooling only a handful of philosopher kings was broadened by Aristotle's' suggestion to educate all (five years and older, and except for women and slaves), but Dewey's progressive and experiential approaches were targeted towards all students. Locke and Rousseau's ideal that mainstream education should be structured around partnerships between tutors and parents for individual children seems particularly radical in light of mass public education that we know today. Indeed, a great strength of this book is how it forces the reader to consider the binaries that implicate education. Should education be for the individual or for society? Whether we view child development as one connected to nature or nurture? If life outcomes are mostly as a result of individual agency or social structures? Whether we teach with a focus on the mind (ideas) or on matter (reality, body, world)? …

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.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.089
Threshold uncertainty score0.000

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0030.004
Science and technology studies0.0080.049
Scholarly communication0.0160.010
Open science0.0010.005
Research integrity0.0060.009
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0080.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.091
GPT teacher head0.347
Teacher spread0.256 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations1
Published2016
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Education / Revue canadienne de l éducationSame topicEducation and Critical Thinking DevelopmentFrench-language works237,207