A critique of methods in the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning in Philosophy
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.20343/teachlearninqu.4.1.10Keywords:
Philosophy Pedagogy, Methods, Think Alouds, Armchair Philosophy, CritiqueAbstract
The goal in this article is to offer a vision for a scholarship of philosophical learning both that philosophers find plausible and helpful and that utilizes our disciplinary skills and knowledge to produce useful insights into how students learn philosophy. Doing so is a challenge because philosophers typically and historically conceive of our work as being properly done in the proverbial armchair, that is, done without being tied to empirical data. To begin, I look at how working from the armchair has typically led to three types of philosophy pedagogy research and I show ways that each can be done well and the limitations of each. Ultimately, I argue that, while useful and revealing in some ways, the techniques typically fail to illuminate where students are in their learning, habits, dispositions and skills. I then briefly explore the use of think alouds, arguing that they offer one viable path to a scholarship of learning in philosophy that allow philosophers to use our own disciplinary skills to make the thinking of our students visible in ways that will help us be clearer about where they are and where we are, so we can better determine how to help them improve.
EDITORS' NOTE
This article included embedded videos. To view the videos linked from within the PDF, download the PDF and click the links. If you stay within the preview page, you'll have to right-click the links and open them in a new window.
Metrics
References
Arendt, H. (1978). The life of the mind. New York: New York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich.
Armbruster, B. (1986). Schema theory and the design of content-area textbooks. Educational Psychologist, 21(4), 253-267.
Austin, J. L. (1962). How to do things with words. New York: Oxford University Press.
Baron, S., Dougherty, T., & Miller, K. (2015). Why is there female under-representation among philosophy majors? Evidence of pre-university effects. Ergo: An Open Access Journal of Philosophy, 2(14). Retrieved from http://quod.lib.umich.edu/e/ergo/12405314.0002.014/--why-is-there-female-under-representationamong-philosophy?rgn=main;view=fulltext.
Bloch-Schulman, S. (2012). The Socratic method: Teaching and writing about philosophy's signature pedagogy. In N. L. Chick, A. Haynie, & R. A. Gurung (Eds.), Exploring more signature pedagogies (pp. 15-26). Sterling, VA: Stylus.
Bloch-Schulman, S. (forthcoming). Beyond ‘Add teaching and learning and stir’: Epistemologies of ignorance, teaching and learning in philosophy, and the need for resistance. Teaching Philosophy.
Bradner, A. (2008). Teaching Modernity in Appalachia. Teaching Philosophy, 31(3), 229-247.
Brod, H. (2007). Euthyphro, Foucault, and baseball: Teaching the Euthyphro. Teaching Philosophy, 30(3), 249-258.
Close, D. (2009). Fair grades. Teaching Philosophy, 32(4), 361-398.
Concepción, D. W., Messineo, M., Wieten, S., & Homan, C. (forthcoming). The state of teacher training in philosophy. Teaching Philosophy.
Digiovanna, J. (2014). Knowledge, understanding and pedagogy. Teaching Philosophy, 37(2), 321-342.
Gallie, W. B. (1955-1956). Essentially contested concepts. Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society, 56, 167-198.
Goldman, M. (2005). Book review of Teaching philosophy: Theoretical reflections and practical suggestions. Teaching Philosophy, 28(3), 277-279.
Graff, G. (2002). The problem problem and other oddities of academic discourse. Arts and Humanities in Higher Education, 1(1), 27-42.
Hutchings, P. (2000). Introduction: Approaching the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning. In P. Hutchings (Ed.), Opening Lines: Approaches to the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning (pp. 1-10). Menlo Park, CA: The Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching.
Immerwahr, J. (2011). The case for motivational grading. Teaching Philosophy, 34(4), 335-346.
Kamenetz, R. (1998). Untitled. In S. Wiesenthal, The sunflower: On the possibility and limits of forgiveness. New York: Schoken Books.
Plant, E. A., Ericsson, K. A., Hill, L., & Asberg, K. (2005). Why study time does not predict grade point average across college students: Implications of deliberate practice for academic performance. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 30(1), 96-116.
Schouten, G. (2015). The stereotype threat hypothesis: An assessment from the philosopher’s armchair, for the philosophy classroom. Hypatia, 30(2), 450-466.
Widmayer, S. A. (n.d.). Schema theory: An introduction. Retrieved June 1, 2007, from http://www.saber2.net/Archivos/Schema-Theory-Intro.pdf.
Wieman, C., & Perkins, K. (2005). Transforming physics teaching. Physics Today.
Wiesnthal, S. (1998). The sunflower: On the possibilities and limits of forgiveness (Newly Expanded Paperback Edition ed.). New York: Schocken Books.
Williamson, T. (2007). The philosophy of philosophy. Oxford, England: Blackwell.
Wineburg, S. (2001). Historical thinking and other unnatural acts: Charting the future of teaching the past. Philadelphia, PA: Temple University Press.
Young, I. M. (1997). Asymmetrical reciprocity: On moral respect, wonder, and enlarged thought. In I. M. Young, Intersecting voices: Dilemmas of gender, political philosophy, and policy (pp. 38-59). Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
