Approaches to Integrating Philosophy Into Teacher Education: Critiques and Report of a Learning Experience
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The central claim of my essay is that certain ways of thinking and feeling associated with Romanticism, and widely disseminated in North American culture, have a broadly negative influence on the capacity of students to learn.Much has been written about the link between Romanticism and progressivism in education.For example, the historian William Reese has argued that child-centered pedagogies were popularized in America by reformers who drew heavily on thinkers such as Pestalozzi and Froebel, who were themselves deeply indebted to the Romantic tradition.1 The philosophers Richard Peters and Paul Hirst have characterized progressive education as a romantic revolt against traditional education, one that emphasized method over content. 2 More recently, David Diehl has pointed to the ongoing influence of Romanticism on the structure of contemporary schooling, which is infused with goals such as diversity and creativity.3 Far less attention, however, has been given to the influence of Romanticism on the ways in which students themselves approach learning.The Romantic tendencies I will analyze in this essay are (1) the tendency to look 'inward,' (2) the attachment to freedom and spontaneity, and (3) the focus on authentic feeling.4 Drawing primarily on Iris Murdoch's work, I will argue that these individualistic tendencies can prevent students from paying close attention to objects of understanding, therefore hampering the process of learning.That being said, each tendency also has a certain 'rationale' motivating it; in some cases, in fact, we can salvage important insights about learning by pointing out this rationale.In this sense, my critique of Romanticism can also be understood as a retrieval of sorts-bringing out insights that these naïve tendencies obscure.That each tendency has a rationale also makes it somewhat understandable why they have become widespread among students.However, we are mistaken if we assume that these tendencies represent essential characteristics of young people or a necessary stage in their development.The upshot of my
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.019 | 0.067 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.031 | 0.049 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.029 | 0.011 |
| Open science | 0.005 | 0.020 |
| Research integrity | 0.009 | 0.018 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".