Phylo Analysis

Assignment Description

Based on your research during this current course, select an educational thinker as a model that you believe is worthy of emulation and whose ideas hold important implications for the current field of education. You will present the cultural context of the individual, analyze the various aspects of the educational thinker’s beliefs and actions, present critiques in opposition to the individual, persuasively convey why this individual’s ideas and actions are relevant, and relate implications that may be applicable to today’s field of education.

Without plagiarizing, you may draw ideas from the Annotated Bibliography assignment and textbook readings. However, this is a new and different assignment. You may not submit a previously written personal philosophy of education statement that has been submitted for another course. Doing so would be self-plagiarism.

As a philosophical analysis, ideas should be presented in a persuasive manner. Avoid first-person pronouns (e.g., I, me, we, us) and second-person pronouns (i.e., you) because they tend to soften and weaken the strength of the writing. You will discuss what the individual believed to be the purpose and outcome of education. What long-range impact did the individual hope to make on individuals and on society? Though your primary focus will be on beliefs, you may briefly discuss the practices and methods he or she implemented.

Specific Guidelines

LENGTH: This paper is to be 9 pages in length from the introduction to the conclusion, which does not count the title page, abstract, or reference pages.

CITATIONS AND REFERENCES: Cite at least six sources throughout the paper and list them on the reference page. Two of your sources are required to be the Gutek (2011) textbook and one of the worldview articles (links attach). The others may be professional articles from academic journals. You are to incorporate articles from your Annotated Bibliography and other course assignments as appropriate. After ensuring that current course materials are cited, you are encouraged to cite other sources, such as textbooks or articles.

STRUCTURE: The required headings are to appear in the order below.

1. Abstract: The heading of the abstract should be centered and in non-bold font.

· The abstract is a brief, comprehensive summary of the contents of the paper. It should present the main idea, main supporting ideas, and main conclusion/implication.

2. Introduction: In this section, introduce your thesis statement that will be developed throughout the paper. It is the main idea you are presenting. All other ideas will serve to support the thesis statement.

3. Background and Cultural Context: Enter the first Level 1 heading of your paper. (Level 2 headings are unnecessary for this short of a paper.)

· This brief section situates the individual you have chosen so the author understands the setting in which the ideas developed. Length of this section should be no more than 10% to 20% of the total paper.

4. Philosophy of Education: This section is also a Level 1 heading.

· This is the core part of the paper where you expound more specifically on the thesis statement.

· Consider what this educational thinker perceived as the main purpose or outcome of education. Focus on the individual’s long-range impact he or she believe schools and learning should make on individuals and on society.

· Depending on the beliefs of your selected individual, you may address various aspects of philosophy. The questions below are simply suggestions for you to consider:

· How did he or she view the needs of individuals and of society?

· What was his or her view of the nature of the learner and how did that play into other beliefs?

· Was the individual motivated by concerns that in nature were metaphysical, supernatural, pragmatic, political, etc.?

· What knowledge, skills, or dispositions were of most value to be included in the curriculum?

· Save the individual’s actions, practices, and process (i.e., the “how”) of education for the next section. In this section, state what the person believed.

· If a philosophical label clearly applies to this individual, address it and describe it (e.g., idealism, realism, scholasticism, perennialism, essentialism, pragmatism, progressivism, existentialism, postmodernism, critical pedagogy, socialism, Marxism, etc. See the example list below for more information on this.). If not, you may attempt to situate the individual’s ideas among similar philosophies; be careful, however, not to speculate if you are unsure. Some thinkers are difficult to label.

5. Theory to Practice: This Level 1 heading should be centered in bold.

· Some educational thinkers were such philosophers that it is difficult to describe what actions they took other than to write or to philosophize. If this is the case, address the actions others took as they were influenced by the educational thinker. For instance, Rousseau’s ideas influenced the actions of Pestalozzi, Froebel, Piaget, and others.

· The questions below are simply suggestions for you to consider:

· How did the individual believe learners come to know truth? What causes learning to occur? What was the thinker’s epistemological beliefs?

· What movements, organizations, or schools did the individual initiate?

· What pedagogical practices did the individual implement or encourage others to use?

· What do he or she hope to accomplish by using these strategies?

6. Perspectives on Diversity: This Level 1 heading should be centered in bold.

· Reflect the most significant aspect of educational thinker’s thoughts and approaches to diversity in society and/or individuals. If the thinker’s ideas do not address diversity, discuss that in this section.

7. Critical Analysis: This Level 1 heading. In this section, indicate who the thinker’s opponents and supporters were and distinguish elements of opposing ideas and/or actions. Also, analyze the educational thinker’s ideas and actions through a biblical worldview lens using worldview articles and other sources.

· This section is to focus on situating the individual’s ideas and actions among those of others. These “others” may be contemporaries who lived during or near the time of your educational thinker. They may also be historians, philosophers, or cultural analysts who came after him or her.

· Part of the critical analysis may address the thinker’s views (or the lack thereof) on societal and individual diversity as discussed in the previous section.

· To critique means to convey both opposition and support with rationale for both. Therefore, your analysis should include those who opposed and also those who supported this individual and should provide an explanation of why they did so. Save your own opinions for the next and final section.

8. Implications and Conclusions: Use Level 1 formatting. Although your conclusion should include concepts from the thesis statement in the introduction and should have some alignment with the title of the paper, you should not simply restate the thesis. Wrap up the paper by emphasizing your main idea and draw a clear conclusion. Because you will be addressing both implications and conclusions in this section, you may extend the conclusion as appropriate. The questions below are simply suggestions for you to consider:

· What might current educators, policy makers, or other stakeholders glean from this person?

· What do you observe in the field of education that motivated you to propose this person as a model to emulate?

· What aspect of this individual’s thoughts and actions resonate with you most and why? Remember, you can do this persuasively without using first person pronouns (e.g., “Perhaps the most relevant idea of Comenius was . . .”; “Most significantly, today’s educational system would benefit from Booker T. Washington’s notion that . . .”; “If applied by today’s classroom teachers, Calvin’s idea that . . .”

· At what point do you disagree or conflict with the educational thinker. Consider how you can confidently convey this by avoiding first-person pronouns (e.g., “Dewey was perhaps misguided in his approach to . . .”; “An inconsistency in Freire’s theory is that . . .”; “Du Bois’ may have been incorrect in that . . .”

Examples of Philosophic Categories

It is often difficult to apply philosophical labels to individuals. Labels, however, assist in understanding, comparing, and analyzing the ideas people hold. The list below is only a partial list of thinkers in this course.

Educational Thinkers	Philosophical Label Some of these are approximations.
Addams, Jane	Progressivism
Aquinas	Scholasticism; Realism
Aristotle	Realism
Bagley, William Chandler	Essentialism; Traditionalism
Comenius, Johann Amos	Pansophism; Realism
Dewey, John	Pragmatism; Progressivism
Du Bois, W.E.B.	Social Reconstructionism
Erasmus, Desiderius	Idealism; Humanism
Freire, Paulo	Critical Pedagogy; Liberation Education
Gandhi, Mohandas	Social Reconstructionism; Critical Pedagogy; Liberation Education
Mill, John Stuart	Utilitarianism
Owen, Robert	Utopianism; Socialism
Plato	Idealism
Rousseau, Jean-Jacques	Naturalism; Romanticism
Spencer, Herbert	Social Darwinism

Cite both the Gutek textbook and 1 worldview article.

Worldview Articles Links:

· "Developing a Biblical Worldview" (Ethan Hope, Foundations for Living)

· "Importance of a Christian Worldview" (Matt Capps, The Gospel Project)

· "On Education" (Francis Schaeffer)

· "What Is a Christian Worldview?" (Focus on the Family)

· "What Is a Christian Worldview?" (Israel Wayne)

· "Writings in Christian Education" (Calvin College)

Gutek, G. L. (2011). Historical and philosophical foundations of education: A biographical introduction (5th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson.