A similar problem plagues the justification of the pursuit of philosophy itself, and this is where the fundamental motivations behind both Paideia and philosophy converge. What is in fact the purpose of philosophy? One basic function of philosophy appears to be a kind of service of clarification and justification. Yet this cannot be philosophy's only purpose, any more than the mere development of skills and professional acumen are the primary goals of a liberal education. Yet similar notions of service to the state are given as primary justifications for becoming educated, beyond simple material gain.
Introduction I sought out to answer a rather intangible, philosophical question, which somehow is almost central to what makes this university successful. In fact, its success is the question! I wanted to understand what it is about UNC that makes it a “good,” and prestigious, school. Toward that end, I needed to investigate the intricacies of this institution, and of this question. Because the terms “good” and “prestigious” are highly subjective, I did not attempt to objectify them, but I instead sought to get a working definition from each interviewee as well as refer to some of the contemporary big names in school rankings for their definitions.
An Introduction to the Topic Knowledge is the basis of everything. Our job as educators is to administer that knowledge; how we go about doing that is also very important. There are three philosophies of education; they are essentialism, progressivism, and critical theory. Associated with these three philosophies there are also four basic questions of each theory: What is the purpose of education? What is the content of the school curriculum?
(1997) note that curricular integration reflects the process of contextualization by bringing authentic work elements to abstract academic subjects. It contributes to the development of students critical thinking and collaborative skills as well as those that prepare them for skilled jobs. Learning in context and constructing knowledge through socially based experiences are two teaching/learning concepts that draw upon principles of curriculum integration.
So this kind of philosophy seems to be a fortiori charged to give a good deal of pedagogical help for its own sake. The respective philosophical educations (paideiai) have to fight against the realist as well as the idealist tendencies of interpretation. Positively it is not enough for them to represent what is essential to transcendentalism as a genus; they must particularly transmit what is specific to Kant's "Criticism", to Descartes' "Metaphysics" or to Fichte's "Doctrine of Science". I. Rene Descartes was the first one to fully realize that reliable orientation could never passively be found in "things" or "institutions".
The logical strength of my argument is delivered after each premise has been explained, and the proof statements of each are proposed as truth claims. In doing so, my philosophy of education is a sound argument challenging the existing education paradigm that makes a distinction between required and elective courses. Currently, the Ministry of Education’s requirements for graduation weakens elective courses as having less academic credit, strengthens required courses as having more educational discipline, and subsequently, unequally distributes creativity into the curriculum. However, as Perkins points out in his article “Creativity by Design”: If all knowledge were presented and discussed from the perspective of design, education would yield a much more creative view of knowledge. (23) In my philosophy of education, I argue that teaching creativity is the most significant skill a student can learn, and is a cross curriculum attribute that has equal weight in every type of discipline.
TASK 5 A. Theories and models of curriculum development Curriculum refers to all the set of activities for learners to achieve their learning objectives. Curriculum development, therefore, is the development of an explicit learning blueprint defined by content and learning standards. Developing a curriculum is critical in effective teaching and learning as it gives a specific plan on lessons, defines the content, objectives and the delivery mode. Most curriculum developments are based on the learning objectives and the organizational goals.
Based on the readings “Schopenhauer as educator” by Nietzsche, Schopenhauer’s “thinking of one self” and personal higher education experience I believe college level education obstruct the pursuit of true education. As humans, we enjoy patterns and repetition. The issue with uniformity is the fact we become experts at fulfilling expectations and not discover the true self. Schopenhauer embraced his uniqueness. Although it let him into a pessimistic mid set he accomplished his true self.
In a variety of public lectures, published essays and books Bok insists that America's leading colleges and universities ought to recommit themselves to moral education as one of their central tasks. I argue that recommitment to this task on the part of these elite universities is far more difficult than Bok admits. Indeed, I contend that as long as America's elite educational institutions retain the intellectual and structural commitments that displaced paideia, Bok's vision for moral education has little chance of success. At a time when both higher education and philosophy are self-conscious about their limitations, The Twentieth World Congress of Philosophy chose as its theme, Paideia: Philosophy Educating Humanity. Does this title reflect hubris, irony or a pragmatic optimism?
On the contrary, logic emphasizes arguments as sets of propositions (claims/proclamations) which contain premises that are intended for support and provide evidence for the conclusion. Premises interpret the accuracy of the conclusion so if the premises are valid then the conclusion must be valid as well. The conclusion is used as the central point of the argument, it is essentially the claim that is argued for. To easily find the conclusion of the argument you would have to ask yourself what the author wants you to take away from this particular argument. Or what is trying to be proved?