International Seminar on Philosophy of Education 2014

Abstracts

Plenary session – Social Justice and Education

Two Conceptions of Education: Gandhi and Ambedkar

Gopal Guru Professor, Centre for Political Studies, Jawaharlal Nehru University, New Delhi

Abstract

The present paper is built up around the following claims. First, education has both instrumental as well

as transformative value to it. In instrumental sense, education provides a criterion for achieving positional

good. In another sense, it can also provide criterion for achieving moral good as well. Education introduces

an element of comparison that can be used both to interrogate also to establish new norms as the

foundation for the realization of dignity as moral good. In instrumental sense, higher education as the

resources to achieve competitive good is also the sources of snobbery. There is a paradoxical dimension

to education: it is both the sources of snobbery as well its transcendence at the same time. This paradox

has been detected both by Gandhi and Ambedkar. Both these thinkers critique the instrumental value of

education for the same reason that it is the source of snobbery and alienation; the source that would

destroy solidarity. On the other hand, both Gandhi and Ambedkar invest in education as a vital resource

to connect mind and hand together for producing transformative labour. The philosophical concerns of

these thinkers thus challenge the Cartesian primacy of mind over body. But the presentation also makes

it a point and argues that there is a major difference between Gandhi’s purposive investment in education

and that of Ambedkar’s conception of education. Gandhi would like to look at moral education for

conducting the moral surgery of ailing heart, while Ambedkar’s conception of education is aimed at

interrogating the structure of discrimination.

The Continuing American Struggle to Realize Dewey’s Democratic Ideal through Education

Theodore Lewis Professor, Work and Human Resource Education, University of Minnesota, Twin Cities

Abstract

While the United States prides itself as being a global exemplar of the democratic state , a close look at

the society’s social history will reveal continuing challenges and nagging resistances to the idea of freedom

and equality for all. Much of this has to do with the country’s cosmopolitan make-up. As each constituent

group makes democratic claims, whether minorities, women, or undocumented immigrants, the society

must adjust. Since the end of the Civil war, and the freeing of slaves, the county has had to come to terms

with the question how to guarantee the basic right of all citizens to be treated equally before the law, and

how to assure that each citizen find unimpeded pathways to the “American Dream”. Education has been

an important way in which the country has sought to make freedom and equality the experience of all.

This has not been an easy task, and in many ways, it is a task that remains unfinished. In his book

Democracy and Education, John Dewey explained that to attain the democratic ideal requires

identification of what constituent groups in the society hold in common. The ferment that attends this

quest sets the stage for education. This article reflects upon aspects of the long and bumpy road that the

country continues to travel, especially where social justice claims of Afro-Americans are concerned, as it

tries to live up to Dewey’s ideal.

Parallel session: Social Justice and Education

Social Justice, Obligation and Toleration in Plural Societies

Neera Chandhoke Professor, Department of Political Science, University of Delhi, Delhi

Abstract

Social Justice is a relational concept that focuses on what ‘we’ owe ‘others’ who are proximate as well as

distant. Central to social justice is therefore a theory of obligation. But even if we appreciate that we owe

others, the question why we owe others remains un-negotiated. I draw upon Gandhi’s philosophy to

figure out the answer to this question. Gandhi also helps us to discover what toleration means, or why we

should tolerate other ways of being and belief in plural societies. Both arguments made by Gandhi shows

us how to negotiate the problems of Indian society, which is plural but also deeply divided.

Educational Inequalities and Educational Justice

Krassimir Stojanov Professor and Chair of Philosophy of Education and Educational Theory Catholic University of Eichstatt-Ingolstadt, Germany

Abstract

My leading goal in this paper is to identify and justify a normative principle that could allow us to

differentiate between just and unjust inequalities in formal education. In order to reach that goal I discuss

three alternative versions of egalitarianism – “luck egalitarianism”, “threshold (minimalist)

egalitarianism”, and “respect egalitarianism”. “Respect egalitarianism” could be closely linked to the

model of “epistemic justice” – a model that recently is subject of very intensive and far-reaching

discussions in the field of philosophy of education.

I argue that the approaches of both “luck egalitarianism” and “threshold egalitarianism” are shortcoming

with regard to the aim of the paper. “Luck egalitarianism” entails the “bottomless pit problem” that seems

to be conceptually and politically unsolvable. Besides, luck egalitarians tend to interpret education

basically as positional, distributive good with primarily extrinsic worth, thus ignoring the fact that

education is in first place growing of knowledge, which is a non-positional good whose worth is primarily

intrinsic. On the other hand, “threshold egalitarians” do not offer any conceptual means to discriminate

between just and unjust educational inequalities which lie above the threshold of capabilities that every

person needs in order to participate in the political life of his society and/ or to live a life in dignity.

The approach of “respect egalitarianism” avoids these shortcomings. According to this approach the most

crucial form of educational injustice is the treating of some groups of students with disrespect, that is, the

disregarding of their beliefs, experiences, ideals, achievements as well as of their knowledge abilities.

Educational injustice appears here basically as a kind of “respect discrimination”. In order to overcome

thus understood educational injustice, educational institutions should design and implement forms of

teaching that include equally the experiences and beliefs of all students, and teachers should use these

beliefs and experiences as point of departure for discussing the academic contents of various school

disciplines. Provided the fully implementation of thus described principle of equal educational respect,

inequalities between the levels of knowledge and the social and economic opportunities between the

students at the end of their schooling would not be an issue of educational injustice anymore, for these

inequalities depend also on factors that are beyond the scope and beyond the control of educational

institutions.

Unpacking Intersectionality: Conceptual Explorations of Convergences and Divergences of Class, Caste and Gender in Education in the 66th NSS Survey Amman Madan Professor, Azim Premji University, Bangalore

Abstract

A review of class, caste and gender patterns in higher education from the 66th NSS survey shows clearly

that while they are not identical they interact in complex ways. These systems of inequality have been

conceptualized variously and this paper draws out some of those approaches into a direction away from

thinking of inequality as unilinear or as an attribute which varies on a single axis. Instead a (small) step is

taken towards developing a multidimensional and intersectional theory of inequality by highlighting three

themes central across a variety of conceptual approaches: occupational, cultural and kinship dimensions,

which are shared and at the same time differently expressed across class, caste and gender. It is suggested

through examples from the sphere of education that examining the convergences and divergences

between the respective systems of inequality around these three shared dimensions helps us to

understand inequality in a relatively more comprehensive manner.

Bound to Fail: Epistemic Injustice and Educational Opportunities

Manohar Kumar and Daniel Santoro LUISS Guido Carli, Rome

Abstract

Whenever you feel like criticizing any one…

just remember that all the people in this world

haven’t had the advantages that you’ve had

(F. Scott Fitzgerald, The Great Gatsby)

Inequality is not exclusively a matter of unequal distribution of resources or opportunities. It also affects

people’s awareness of the social standing they occupy with regard to their fellow citizens. When social

relationships are set on an unequal footing, the worst off person is not only confined to a position of

economic disadvantage, but she is also regarded as disadvantaged by the community or group she belongs

to. Considerations of disadvantage span over a large spectrum of moral sentiments, from sincere

compassion to commiseration, even blame. When one is aware that one’s condition of economic

disadvantage is also the ground for judgments of these sorts, sentiments of shame arise in the worst off

person more often than a sense of self-vindication, in response to common-sense opinions. Should a

theory of justice be concerned with these aspects of people’s standing in society?

In this paper we answer in the affirmative, focussing on the role epistemic injustice plays in shaping the

attitudes towards educational opportunities. Our hypothesis is that epistemic injustice is associated with

“bound to fail” attitudes toward educational outcomes for the worst-offs. These are those attitudes which

lead to life-prospects expectations which are either doomed to fail due to the lack of cultural capital

resources, or as a consequence of the internalized expectation that choices don’t count for whatever life-

prospect one may have.

In this paper, we move from Miranda Fricker’s analysis of “hermeneutical injustice” in explaining the moral

psychology of ‘bound to fail’ attitudes (Section 1). We link the argument of hermeneutical injustice as

applying to educational opportunities and show that the current democratic reform in education has not

accounted for internalised attitudes of failure that lead to dropout from schools (Section 2). We conclude

arguing that hermeneutical injustice is a concern of justice because the cause of those attitudes cannot

be primarily ascribed to a non deceptive and autonomous choice of self-exclusion (Section 3).

Transformative Education for a Just Society

Rudolf C Heredia Fellow, Indian Social Institute, New Delhi

Abstract

The inadequacy of education at all levels is putting our future at enormous risk in the rapid and radical

change Indian society is undergoing. Earlier attempts at a more comprehensive understanding and holist

agenda has in practice given way to a pragmatic instrumentalisation for upward social mobility.

Conscientised adult literacy, universal primary education, good secondary education in multiple streams

available to all, accessible tertiary education for everyone qualified, and at least some world class

institutions at the upper end of this spectrum,… all these are crucial social capital for governments and

society to investment in.

Our education does not adequately confront social inequalities to bring the marginalised into an

egalitarian and participative society, nor does it promote the multicultural, pluri-religious diversities of

our people, which is being undermined by a cultural nationalism.

The imperative today is education for a just society, to create the social capital for a critical citizenry that

will make our democracy work for the common good of all. Liberty, equality, fraternity are three necessary

dimensions that must guide our understanding and pursuit of an integral justice lest we settle for a

notional freedom, a legalistic equality, a formal fellowship. An integral justice must protect and promote

liberty; it is best measured and authenticated by equality, it can only be sustained and extended with

fraternity.

A new model for the future, one that will seek to change, rather than just to interpret the world for our

students; one that will inspire them to change the world they find for the better rather than just adjust

to, and succeed in it. Alternative transformative pedagogies can have a crucial and cumulative impact on

some of the critical dimensions of the system, eventually contributing to changing it: teaching as an art

implying a personalised and creative relationship between teacher and taught; the development of

human potential for more authentic and fulfilling living; a value formation and commitment that will build

a counter-culture and make for the goal of a contrast-community. The liberative potential of education in

such a community will depend on some fundamental pedagogic options: against pedagogies of violence

and silence; and for those of subaltern affirmation, of relevant contextualisation and creative critique.

Viable expansive possibilities have not been imaginatively adapted to our changing contemporary

situations and creatively mainstreamed into it. And yet in the interstices of all the contradictions and

anomalies of our society there are spaces of freedom still available, which must be seized and creatively

used.

Is there a Disjunction between Philosophy of Education and the Access Discourse?

Sadhna Saxena Professor, Central Institute of Education, University of Delhi, Delhi

Abstract

Equality has been an important and recurrent issue in the contemporary as well as historical debates on

education. At the international levels concerns related to equality of access, opportunities and quality

dominated the sociology of education discourses ever since it emerged as a discipline of inquiry in the

sixties. Empirical evidence, primarily from the developed world, enriched the debates by distinctly

showing that equal opportunities, as expected, really don’t take care of the economic, social and cultural

inequities and by and large education reproduces these inequalities. That doesn’t however mean that

education endlessly perpetuates the iniquitous system. History of education and social movements clearly

show that it has played a critical role in challenging the status quo and strengthening the struggles for

change.

In India despite the concerns voiced by various actors even access to basic levels of education that is,

elementary education, remains a distant dream. Even if there is quantitative data to show that access to

elementary levels has gone up in the last few years the questions of quality and more importantly, what

exactly is meant by access needs deeper probing. There is evidence to show that one, the access has been

at the cost of dilution of the agenda of equal opportunities and two, this has trivialized the basic

philosophical aims of education and focus has shifted to the achievement tests and results.

Some argue that there cannot be an expansion of education without compromising on the philosophical

issues and the method will have to be behaviouristic. While others argue that it is a consequence of the

philosophical shift in polices due to economic restructuring. In the light of above issues the paper

examines the recent shifts in policies on school education and demonstrate that despite the rhetoric of

access, quality etc. new policies and the various schemes under these, are actually accentuating

inequalities and compromising on the social justice agenda of education.

Parallel session: Teachers and Teaching

Studying Education, Practicing Education: Contesting and Reimagining

Poonam Batra

Professor, Central Institute of Education, Delhi University New Delhi

Abstract

This paper engages with contestations related to the practice of education, the pursuit of educational

studies and connections between the two. It is based on the premise that there is an intimate relationship

between how teachers are prepared and how they teach. Reflecting on the dualities that characterise

current educational discourse it examines the epistemological frames employed to educate teachers;

arguing how this is proving to be a major impediment in reimagining educational practice. For instance,

the use of binary oppositions to explain educational phenomena has had the serious consequence of

marginalising knowledge; certain forms of thinking and in rendering perceived gaps – such as between

theory and practice – as beyond the realm of human control. As a further consequence, school knowledge

remains unproblematised and pedagogy continues to be viewed as mere technique.

One of the more significant shifts in the curricular discourse has been the recognition that knowledge is

central to school curriculum and that it resides in textbooks as well as in the quotidian of teaching-

learning. Even as policy enforcement of large scale assessments, teacher efficiency and accountability

measures turn the trajectory of educational practice, the curricula discourse establishes the need to re-

contextualise knowledge in curriculum. In forging the intimate link between textbook knowledge and

social experiences ‘culture’ becomes a significant practice of meaning and not the dominant precept of

thinking. To translate this vision of school curriculum requires the use of complimentary pedagogical

processes in the preparation of teachers.

The challenge therefore is to re-position knowledge at the centre of teacher preparation. It is argued that

the curricula and pedagogic approaches for the education of teachers need to be anchored in a discourse

of critical epistemology and not merely in the practice of teaching as is widely believed. The paper engages

with conditions that can provide for re-contextualisation. It makes the contention that underlying such

education is a conception of knowledge, characterised by dialectic between external (social constructions)

and internal (reflective) forces, giving expression to processes of engagement that promise to be

emancipatory and transformative.

Neoliberal Ontology of Teaching: A Critique

Ajay Sharma Assistant Professor, Department of Elementary and Social Studies Education, University of Georgia, USA

Abstract

Over time, a redoubtable corpus of research has emerged that is focused on understanding the influence

of neoliberalism in education. However, much of this research has focused on understanding the influence

of neoliberalism at a policy level. Because policy focused research tends to take a topdown view of ground

level educational contexts, extant research in education has little to say about the ways in which the work

of teachers is being transformed at the ground level on a day-to-day basis on account of powerful global

discourses such as neoliberalism.

In this paper I make a small beginning to address this lacuna by examining the neoliberal ontology of

teaching. I show that neoliberalism favors a substantivist and strong ontology of teaching in schools.

Implications of this ontology can be seen in increasing marketization of teaching, teaching evangelism,

use of performance pay and impoverished notions of learning and teaching. I argue that we should shift

the focus from teacher quality to quality of teaching. Such theoretical explorations, I believe, can be very

helpful in theoretically equipping researchers to conduct empirical investigations of teaching on this issue,

and helping teacher educators to introduce pre-service and in-service teachers to alternative conceptions

of teaching.

Teaching as a Learning Profession

Milbrey McLaughlin Emeritus Professor, Graduate School of Education, Stanford University, USA

Abstract

Teaching has long been portrayed as lacking both organizational and professional controls, conventionally

conceived. Neither professional socialization nor organizational policy provides clear definition of

teachers’ roles and classroom practices, and neither schools nor collegial associations have much effective

capacity to evaluate and sanction teachers. The technical and moral bases for professional authority in

modern society are the subject of a long line of sociological research, and academics have debated

whether teaching is a profession or a semi-profession. I argue that teaching can meet the primary

conditions which distinguish a ‘profession’ from other occupations—a specialized knowledge base, shared

standards of practice or technical culture, a strong service ethic—but that its status as a profession is

socially-constructed not bureaucratically derived. Sustained and meaningful teacher professionalism, in

these terms, is a product of an active teacher community, or high levels of collaboration, mutual support

and shared responsibility. I then consider the contexts, tools, skills and knowledge teachers require to

construct and maintain professionalism in their practice—professional learning communities, strategic

inquiry into students’ learning, evidence-based assessment of practice—and how to provide them.

Teacher’s Work and Identity: A Case for Strengthening Knowledge Relations

Meera Gopichandran Research Centre, Azim Premji University, Bangalore

Abstract

The National Curriculum Framework for Teacher Education (NCFTE), 2010 calls for preparing humane and

professional teachers who can respond to the ‘new concerns of the school curriculum’. Tensions arise

when the need to rise to this massive challenge is faced with the reality of rising trends of managerilalism

in education, as evidenced by an increasing body of literature, that has led to ‘trivialisation of teachers’

work and identity’ wherein teachers are treated as resources to be developed and not as intellectual

beings with agency and capacity to learn from experience. These trends have been justified as a part of

the restructuring process. Issues of teacher identity and agency have deep implications for democratic

principles in education and yet there is very little understanding in the Indian context of this aspect of the

professional lives of teachers who are attempting to cope with their roles in this climate.

The restructuring and education reform process consist of two parallel discourses; one, an overt focus on

competency and outcome based interventions in pedagogic processes driven largely by government

policies and two, a demand for recasting teachers as professionals and humane individuals. In both these

discourses the notion of centrality of the teacher appears to be the single point of convergence even if

this may not be entirely intentional. Paradoxically though, it is the same teachers’ voice that is also missing

from the discourse at least in the Indian context. The fact that teachers continue to make meaning and

shape their identities despite the inconsistencies and contrasting demands of their contexts is thereby

also being discounted. This should not come as a surprise considering the historical evidence that exists

of a reductivist approach towards teachers’ knowledge and teaching particularly in this country.

This paper begins by taking a critical look at the current body of literature on teacher identity during the

restructuring processes that is sweeping across countries around the world. The paper argues for

adequate exploration of the notion of identity especially along the lines of the social and professional

aspects that could be acting as conflicting forces, compelling teachers to constantly negotiate and make

choices that may be contrary to the overall educational goals. Following Basil Bernstein, the paper argues

that the inadequate development of teachers’ knowledge relations in the ‘singulars’ can lead to them

being rendered incapable of resisting the changes that occur in knowledge structures as a result of market

forces.

Teacher Accountability Conceptions in the Indian Educational Context

Devaki L Professor, University Research Centre, Azim Premji University, Bangalore

Abstract

The paper discusses different conceptions of teacher accountability in the Indian context of education

against the background of neoliberalism. It first tries to understand the rationale for singling out teachers

for bearing the yolk of accountability and then tries to understand the meaning of teacher accountability

using the technical – professional lens. It is emphasized that these two broad conceptions of teacher

accountability are not homogeneous within themselves, although there is a common thought thread that

runs through them. In the technical meaning, the paper discusses eight conceptions, namely (a) Test-

based Accountability, (b) Educational Policy, (c) Teacher Recruitment Policy, (d) Redesigning Teacher

compensation system, (e) Community Monitoring, (f) Bureaucratic Supervision, and (g) Curricular

Initiative : The Activity Based/ Multigrade and Multilevel Learning. The aims of education, nature of

human reflected in these conceptions are surfaced. The professional meaning of accountability is then

discussed and the difference in what constitutes teaching and what is teacher knowledge is brought out.

The complexity and richness of what the professional meaning entails is contrasted with the scenario of

teacher professional development in the country. The paper ends with a plea for seeing accountability as

the collective responsibility of multiple stakeholders and not that of teachers alone.

Philosophical Examination of Teacher-Pupil Relationship in Contemporary Education

Aruna Bajantri

Research Scholar, Jawaharlal Nehru University, New Delhi

Abstract

Any human relationship is defined by the role that each of the involved individual plays in it. To say so

attributes every human interaction a mechanical nature, and hence to understand a teacher

pupil relationship in terms of roles played by each is to reduce all that is educational to mere supplying of

information and meek acceptance of it by the learners. It is more than evident that the process of teaching

and learning is much more dynamic and complex than so described. Hence one needs to know the deeper

attributes of a teacher-pupil relationship, in the sense that what are the defining roles played by each,

what are the aspects of humaneness involved, when can it be said that a relationship between the

educator and the learner is indeed well established educationally and finally is there a need for this

relationship to transcend all other human relations that exist? While researching the available resources

on educational philosophy pertaining to the Teacher Student Relationship, it was found that few thinkers

have indeed opened up avenues to explore the aspect and have done a fair deal of philosophizing over it.

The paper derives its motivation from the works of renowned thinkers namely Martin Buber’s concept of

‘I and Thou’, Merleau Ponty’s Phenomenology, and Nel Nodding’s Ethics of Caring.

It is quite certain that the teacher pupil relationship has to be sought in an educational event and in

an educational institution which implicates the processes involved and the dynamics of a shared

relationship between an educator and the learner.

Plenary session: Indian philosophical thought/thinkers and education

Classical Indian Philosophy’s Knowledge Sources (pramāṇa) as Educational Methods

Stephen H. Phillips Professor of Philosophy, University of Texas at Austin, USA

Abstract

All the schools of classical Indian philosophy took positions on pramāṇa, defined as knowledge-

generators, the ways we learn about the world. These pramāṇa are principally perception, inference, and

testimony insofar as our concern is factual or descriptive knowledge as opposed to knowledge of the

meaning of words or skills honed through training. On the heels of an overview of, especially, the

Nyāya pramāṇa theory, this paper focuses on certification conditions governing identification of the

several sources. Although perception and company generate knowledge without our consciously

attending to the processes as knowledge sources, pramāṇa become methods of inquiry, of finding out the

truth in face of doubt or controversy, when we certify a claim by identification of its source, checking to

make sure that the generator is working properly and is no pseudo-pramāṇa. Whether operative

unreflectively in the course of our daily lives or employed self-consciously, pramāṇa are at both levels

educational methods. However in the classical Indian systems, which are concerned mainly with broad

truths about ourselves and the universe, specific methods of learning are rarely laid out—with the

exception of the acquisition of new vocabulary through the pramāṇa called “analogy,” upamāna, whose

analysis is presented in the paper in some detail. Constraints on rational discourse across field or subject

matter are provided by the pramāṇa configurations, but classical philosophers did not pretend to dictate

educational techniques or principles belonging to individual śāstra. Thus it is to the traditions of medicine,

arts, and so on that we should turn to find specific educational techniques employed in ancient and

classical times, not to philosophic treatises. The exception is in literary criticism and broadly linguistic

communication in general where in analyzing knowledge acquired from testimony classical philosophers

show us some important points.

The Relationship between Learning and Language: Some Perspectives from Indian Philosophical

Traditions

Sundar Sarukkai Professor, Manipal Centre for Philosophy and Humanities Manipal University, Manipal

Abstract

A dominant theme about learning revolves around the question of language. However, there is no one

right view about language, particularly in relation to its role in teaching. In contemporary school

education, the role of language is central to the issues concerning the teaching of languages as well as

that of all other subjects, including mathematics. Thinking is seen as an important part of learning; the

intrinsic relationship between thinking and language has serious consequences for the learnability of

children whose mother tongue is different from the medium of instruction. In this background, what can

theories of language tell us about this relationship to teaching and learning? Given that one of the great

strengths of Indian philosophy has been in philosophy of language, it is useful to look at these traditions

for pointers that could be relevant for contemporary discussion on learning and education. This talk will

introduce some of these potential connections and also consider the way Indian mathematics used

language. The latter is a practice that may have useful lessons for teaching mathematics today. Finally,

this approach also allows us to consider the limits of language in learning and opens up a space for

incorporating other modes of bodily and non-linguistic ways of teaching and learning.

Parallel session: Classical Indian philosophy and Philosophy of Education

Philosophy, Pedagogy and Truth in Late Indian Buddhism

Parimal G. Patil Professor, Harvard Divinity School, Harvard University

Abstract

Philosophy of Education is rarely discussed explicitly in classical Sanskrit texts. And yet, it was of interest

to Sanskrit philosophers. This paper uncovers the implicit pedagogical vision in the practice of Buddhist

philosophy in India, through a detailed treatment of a topic in the philosophy of perception. Through this

discussion, I hope to connect pre-modern understandings of the value of philosophy with more

contemporary concerns in the Philosophy of Education.

Learning is Liberation: The Indian View of Education

Nandkishore Acharya Professor of Eminence, International Institute of Information Technology, Hyderabad

Abstract

Any philosophy of education is actually an educational manifestation of a philosophy of life a society

believes in and of the values it aspires to. The Indian view of life defines Man not only as an individual

entity who is non-separate from not only society but the whole cosmic order as well. With this perspective

the paper first discusses the concept of Vidya in Indian tradition. Vidya means knowledge or realization

of the innate or essential nature – Dharma – of any phenomenon, which leads to freedom from any kind

of illusion or Avidya – the real cause of any kind of bondage. Freedom or liberation from all forms of

bondage is called Moksha or Mukti.

The paper then deals with the socio-cultural dimensions of this concept of Mukti. Any human being in the

Indian tradition is considered an indebted being and he is expected to pay off this debt. There are five

kinds of Rina or debt ranging from the divine to the material ones and therefore the same number

of Mahayagnas – ways of paying off the debt – are prescribed. This is actually realizing and performing

one’s real role in the cosmic order. Learning or education is a process through which one gets prepared

to perform one’s duties towards human and non-human beings both.

But every individual has also some personal, material, psychological and spiritual needs and aspirations.

The Indian view discusses these as Purushartha or values an individual aspires to. The idea of education is

closely related to this Purushartha theory. It aims to prepare one attain one’s aspirations through

righteous means. The knowledge of this concept of righteousness, or Dharma, and training for its

application, occupy a central place in the philosophy and process of the traditional Indian view of

education.

The process of learning, role of teacher and his relations with the student, the student’s life in

the Gurukula, or the teacher’s home, autonomy of educational institutions, etc. are discussed extensively

in the scriptures and literary texts. And all this leads the student to realize certain values like dignity of

physical labour, equality, free enquiry, a sense of the oneness of life, and respect for other human and

non-human beings and nature as well. Indian education puts first emphasis on the evolution of the mind

with the cultivation of the values of life and all other things like knowledge of some subject or training of

skills follow next.

Authoring textbooks : Ancient Indian Methodology – A review

Shrinivasa Varakhedi Professor and Dean Karnataka Sanskrit University Bangalore

Abstract

In modern education, writing textbooks, authoring reading materials, and creating learning aids and tools,

is considered as a challenging task. The current state of art explored and adapted in developing quality

textbooks can not be compared with any of ancient methods as the new digital era has provided with an

added power of Information Technology. However, in the interest of content development for textbooks,

the methodologies adopted by ancient Indian philosophers are found thoughtful and useful in many

aspects.

Indian method of learning has been probably based in oral tradition. Oral transmission method has been

found inevitable in some disciplines like Vedic recitation, Music etc. In the disciplines like Dance, Medicine

etc., oral tradition makes difference. It is quite evident in other areas like Grammar, Literary criticism,

Mathematics etc., the similar method is adapted for various good reasons. Hence, the entire enterprise

of writing books finds a coherence with this kind of learning and teaching tradition. If we look at the

writing methodology starting from Sutra to the lowest lever of commentaries and independent

compendium or monograph, we find a number of interesting ideas that could be subject matter of or

study. The extensive use of meter in presenting the content or writing the gist in Sutra style or in Karika

(summary stanza) style is one prominent identity of the Indian tradition.

In the beginning of any shastric work, we can find a unique discussion about the Anubandha-chatushtaya

four-fold-factor which shapes the content to be presented in the proposed work. The author has to

identity the eligible reader of the book before he undertakes the collection of the topics. He shall also

keep the purpose of the book and then the specific subject matter that has to be taken up in the book. In

other words, the eligible reader, subject matter and the purpose connected with each other form a book.

These important factors would play a vital role in writing a text book.

Another important plan employed in writing is deciding the presentation in four stages : uddesha –

enlisting the topics, lakshana – definition i.e, defining the objects, vibhaga – classification and pareeksha

– evaluation. Every topic will be dealt with this kind of presentation approach.

In this paper, the first part deals with the general aspects of writing methods employed in ancient Indian

textbooks, and the latter deals with one specific problem – problem of definition of definition. I would

also try to give a brief account of the nature of different styles of powerful writing giving one or two

illustrative paragraphs with full of content just like a pregnant woman.

Context and Text: Commentary and Dialogue as Education in Ancient India

Heeraman Tiwari Centre for Historical Studies Jawaharlal Nehru University, New Delhi

Abstract

Texts come into being and go, but context remains, tradition remains; context enables tradition which

contains memory of texts and their contents. Texts and context thus complement each other, enrich each

other, and together construct a formidable structure of tradition. Texts preserve and represent context

and tradition; tradition in turn reflects upon the texts which have been and point to those which are yet

to be produced. Tradition also mediates and meditates between two sets of texts, i.e. context sensitive

narrative of what we had – texts from the past and those of the present. Sometimes, contexts are also

perceived to be inventing and reinventing texts which may or may not have direct connection with the

texts of the past. In early India, like elsewhere in the world, production of literary, philosophical and

religious texts was woven into the pattern of texts, commentaries and meta-texts which supported by

their context produced tradition of learning, yearning to know. It is in this sense that the sūtra-mode of

advancing, enhancing of and imparting knowledge became a powerful medium of education and

preservation of our past. For example, the ancient Indian seers, writers and philosophers all represented

their traditions in their writings; they also reflected upon the tradition they were representing in a way

that furthered, renewed and strengthened their particular tradition. In ancient Indian literature and

philosophy the concept of underlining affiliation to the tradition is strong. A scholar who may have

produced – in many cases they often do produce – absolutely new ideas, may still wish to maintain that

what he is doing, or has done, is not more than collating, scrutinizing and repeating what has already been

said by his elders in the tradition. Therefore, in the Indian textual tradition, as Norman Cutler (1991) has

suggested, ‘a literary composition is rarely if ever appreciated as self contained “text-in-itself.”…texts are

almost always embedded in context – for instance as an oral performance before an audience, as a

component of a hereditary body of knowledge, an accompaniment to ritual – that either explicitly or

implicitly contain elements of commentary.’ And that is how a text’s affiliation to a tradition becomes

necessary both for its production and for its survival and transmission in the society. This paper discusses

ancient Indian system of dialogic knowledge which is built on the foundation of Upaniṣadic mode of

communication ideas, debating issues and intensifying the mode of contemplation, and will suggest how

being alive to specific context this dialogic system adopted new techniques of acquiring and nurturing

knowledge. The paper will also seek to highlight how this method of preaching and teaching got reified

over the centuries during the dialogic amplification of knowledge through a rich tradition of commentaries

of philosophical and grammatical treatises.

Conversing about Conversation, for Truth against Power: Sulabhā’s Pedagogy of Parrhesia

Arindam Chakrabarti Professor, Department of Philosophy, University of Hawaii, Manoa

Abstract

Teaching was conducted through question and answer, “paripraśna” in Ancient India. Historic Q&A

sessions, e.g. between Yajnyavalkya and Gargi, between King Milinda and the Buddhist monk Nagasena,

are recorded as paradigms of pedagogy for posterity. The conversation –“samvāda”—which the preceptor

would have with the pupil would sometimes reverse roles. This paper explores a unique conversation

about how to converse that we find in the Mahabharata, in search of a methodology of dialogic teaching.

The interlocutor is the famous king Janaka of Mithila, who asks a series of questions of Sulabhā a young

mendicant woman, somewhat arrogantly, wielding both royal authority and the power of superior

knowledge. In response, before answering his aggressive queries and charges, Sulabhā teaches him how

to have a conversation and exemplifies what in ancient Greece would be called “parrhesia”—telling truth

against power without fear or malice. The paper searches for a contemporary pedagogy of socially and

politically responsible truth-speaking from this unique meta-conversation about just discourse.

Vidyā and Avidyā: Underlying Harmony in the Fundamental Opposites

Huma Ansari Research Scholar, University of Delhi, Delhi

Abstract

The Veda can be divided into two parts: the karma- kānda, which includes Mantras or hymns and

sacrificial portion and another Jnāna- kānda, the wisdom and knowledge portion embraced by the

Upanishads. As one of the important theological and philosophical treatises, Upanishads have contributed

greatly to the Indian philosophical tradition. Unlike popular scriptures, understanding upanishadic verses

are extremely difficult and a lot of additional commentaries are needed to construe the latent meaning.

The present paper essentially deals with three verses from the Vājasaneyi Upanishad, popularly known as

Īśā Upanishad. The verses are peculiar owning to presence of the expressions vidyā and avidyā in them.

Nowhere in the Upanishads have the two terms vidyā and avidyā come together in the given manner, and

in successive verses. Modern attempts to understand the origin of the expression vidyā, often takes one

back to these three verses of the Īśā Upanishad. In addition, the way avidyā has been interpreted as not

only contradictory to vidyā, but as an essential and indispensable element of the human life, is an

interesting feature of the verses. The way these two expressions, vidyā and avidyā, have been knitted

around the central idea of the Upanishad, which is reconciliation and harmony of fundamental opposites1,

presents an appealing case for inquiry.

The paper highlights various translations to these expressions done by different scholars and also presents

the extended commentary they offer in order to understand the verses. The interpretations done by

different scholars so as to explain and overcome the confusion or dilemma the verses per se presents, will

also be the focus of the paper.

Parallel session: Contemporary Indian philosophy and Philosophy of Education

Power and Aesthetics: Rabindranath Tagore’s Decolonizing Pedagogy

Stephen DeGiulio Professor of English, Dona Ana Community College, New Mexico State University, USA

Abstract

Rabindranath’s importance for philosophy of education is not primarily found in his philosophical writing

but in his educational praxis, his artistic representations, and his political writing and activity, all of which

were situated in resistance to colonial rule. His relevance for education today is precisely the light he

shone upon this resistance, as well as the trust and intimacy he fostered between teachers and learners.

Contemporary social injustice is a direct descendant of colonial oppression, made more powerful by

technological developments in communications media, near universal compulsory schooling for subaltern

roles, and modernist individualism at the expense of family and community.

Rabindranath struggled to shelter learners from colonizing oppression so they could freely exercise their

innate cognitive powers of learning, not on set curricula or through set instructional methods, but on

three main areas:

1. on the natural world in the form of their unmediated experiences and perceptions

2. on deconditioning themselves from harmful beliefs and subservient attitudes internalized through

social conditioning

3. on constructing understandings of the arts and sciences through actively practicing them.

In this paper I attempt to show that Rabindranath is a valuable guide to the kind of productive educational

praxis courageous and creative youth need to successfully turn the tide against social injustice.

Awareness as Meditative Inquiry: Broadening and Deepening the Concept of “Awareness” in

Educational Theory

Ashwani Kumar Assistant Professor, Faculty of Education, Mount Saint Vincent University, Canada

Abstract

There are three important perspectives from which the notion of “awareness” has come to be viewed in

educational theory: information transmission, social criticism, and self-reflection. While these three

conceptualizations of the notion of awareness are very important, they lack a deeper consideration of the

nature and complexity of human consciousness and the possibilities of its profound transformation. In

order to broaden and enrich the concept of awareness, I propose a fourth perspective—meditative

inquiry—based on my study of the works of internationally renowned Indian philosopher and educator,

Jiddu Krishnamurti. In this paper I will attempt to accomplish three tasks: First, I will explain the meaning

of awareness from the three above noted points of view in educational theory, namely, information

transmission, social criticism, and self-reflection. Second, I will discuss the meaning of awareness from the

perspective of meditative inquiry and the ways in which it is different from the existing perspectives of

considering the notion of awareness. Finally, I will underscore the educational significance of the notion

of meditative inquiry. I conclude that the meditative inquiry view of awareness (comprising the arts of

listening, seeing, dialogue, and learning), which emphasizes developing a deeper and existential

understanding of self and its relationships, has tremendous potential to help us broaden the horizon of

educational theory and pedagogy and, thereby, deepen our vision of what it means to educate and be

educated.

Embodiment, Flourishing and Education

Rajesh Kasturirangan Associate Professor, School of Humanities National Institute of Advanced Studies (NIAS), Bangalore

Abstract

A famous philosopher (and cognitive scientist) once said that every idea has two lives; once in philosophy

and then in cognitive science. Wellbeing and flourishing have had a long life in philosophy. In this

presentation, I want to introduce the study of flourishing from a cognitive perspective and to highlight

some important implications for education.

Cognitive analyses work best when they reveal complexity in phenomena that we take for granted. For

example, we take vision for granted but cognitive analysis shows how complex a task it is. I will argue in

this presentation that flourishing is similar; that philosophical analysis of flourishing hides the enormous

– and mostly tacit and unconscious – infrastructure that underlies our capacity to flourish. That capacity

for flourishing is tied to bodily capabilities we are beginning to uncover using the methods of embodied

cognition. I will look at the use of language in particular as a key link between the tacit capacities of the

embodied mind and the rational capacities that education prizes.

I believe that those bodily capabilities can be cultivated systematically and that cultivation offers a new

dimension to education. I will end my paper by drawing the link between embodied cognition as a

theoretical discipline and embodied education as a practical application of those ideas.

Education and Emotional Development

Venu Narayan Professor, Azim Premji University, Bangalore

Abstract

This essay takes it for granted that education is central to the possibility of flourishing. Flourishing is the

condition of fulfilled human lives lived in ways that realise their potential for understanding and action

within the context of the communities or collectives that they are part of. It is clear that flourishing is not

a purely individual accomplishment. It is as much an aspect of the social, in that the dominant ideas and

institutions of the collective influence and even determine the opportunities that individuals have to live

fulfilled lives. Education, by creating the conditions for the expansion of the learner’s capacities and also

by altering the conceptions of the social has a dual role in enhancing wellbeing. Educational thought is the

normative project of generating conceptions of what is implied in beneficially expanding the requisite

capacities. Admittedly, this is an iterative and often controversial debate as it is subject to often conflicting

claims including philosophical, scientific, social, religious and the political.

Understanding and action require the gradual development of human social and biological capacities like

language, motor skills, ethical thinking and social cooperation that emerge in infancy and childhood and

are further honed in conducive social contexts. This essay explores the significance of new understandings

of emotions and their development for educational thought through a focus on two sets of questions. The

evidence suggests that emotions contribute to and significantly influence many of the key abilities

mentioned above including reasoning, ethical judgment and sociality.

I. How do emotions influence practical reasoning and action? Can emotional development be understood

in ways that are significant for education?

II. What is the role of education and educational settings in supporting emotional development conducive

to flourishing?

I end the essay with a proposal that argues for four elements that an education that takes account of the

role of emotions and feelings in human agency would have to include to be able to contribute to

flourishing. This proposal is not fully developed and defended in this essay. That would be a much longer

and extended project.

Mathematics Education in Pre-colonial India

Amitabha Mukherjee Department of Physics and Astrophysics University of Delhi, Delhi

Abstract

Mathematics in India has a long tradition, stretching from the Sulba-sutras (c. 500 BCE-200 BCE), through

the Aryabhatiya (c. 500 CE) and Lilavati (1150), to the work of the “Kerala school” (15th and

16th centuries). The importance of Indian contributions in the development of mathematics in the world

is well known. It is natural to ask if the Indian mathematical tradition led to a system of mathematics

education that can be considered as characteristically Indian.

It has been argued that the 12th century work Lilavati, which is usually considered to be a treatise on

arithmetic and some other areas of mathematics, was actually a textbook which enjoyed widespread

popularity. This paper treats Lilavati as the starting point of the inquiry. A reading of the text – which is

written in terse but poetic Sanskrit – reveals a number of features: the emphasis on algorithms, the

provision of multiple methods for doing the same thing, the absence of proof, the incorporation of

exercises, the use of humour etc. Some of these can be seen to persist down to the eighteenth century in

the indigenous system of schooling which prevailed before the colonial incursion.

One may wonder in what way, if at all, the tradition of teaching and learning mathematics in India was

related to the Indian traditions of logic and philosophical inquiry. Some tentative comments are offered

on this aspect.

The Revolution in Physics in the last hundred years

Vijaya Shankar Varma Director, Administration and Planning, Ambedkar University, New Delhi, India

Abstract

The world of Physics has undergone revolutionary changes in the last hundred odd years, particularly as

a result of developments in Relativity Theory, Quantum Mechanics and the study of non-linear

phenomena. However, the popular perception of Physics still lies rooted in the Newtonian paradigm and

its notions of strict determinism. During the course of this presentation, we would like to draw attention

to the implications of some of the ideas like time dilatation, space contraction and the relativity of

simultaneity on the one hand and probabilistic descriptions, wave-particle duality, the uncertainty

principle and spooky action at a distance on the other. We will try and assess not only how our view of

the world of phenomena has changed under the impact of such ideas but also the implications they have

on our understanding of the methods of science.

Plenary session: The nature of Education studies

The ‘Discipline’ of Education: Rescuing the University Project

John Furlong Professor of Educational Studies, University of Oxford, UK

Abstract

This talk is about the ‘discipline’ of Education as it is understood and practised in contemporary

universities. Disciplines are not merely intellectually coherent fields of study; they also have a political life

– they are argued for, supported, challenged and debated. Nowhere is this more true than in the discipline

of Education. The hope of many teacher educators in the 20th Century was that by joining the university

system, they would gain the autonomy to define Education as a discipline for themselves. But this

coincided with major changes in universities. Today universities are very diverse institutions. They no

longer seem to have any ‘essential’ purpose and have largely accepted their loss of autonomy – especially

in Education where government intervention is strong. Education, in many parts of the world, like the

higher education system as a whole, urgently needs to find a voice; it needs to set out a vision for itself

which defines its purpose within a university in the modern world. This lecture describes the current state

of the discipline in British universities and explores the range of national and global changes that have

shaped Education in recent years. A vision is offered for its future as a university based discipline.

Education Studies: Exploring the Possibility of an Adequate and Coherent Conception

Rohit Dhankar Professor, Azim Premji University, Bangalore

Abstract

Education as a field of study is conceptualised in a variety of ways. Arguments are made out to show it as

a discipline like, say, sociology or history; it is also conceptualised as multi-disciplinary field of study, like

medicine and engineering, where the term discipline is applied in a very different sense, if it is applied at

all. It is generally recognised that both, disciplines as well as fields of study, develop under various socio-

historical influences. But it would be strange, if not foolhardy, to deny that they might also have internal

epistemic considerations which may resist or augment socio-historical influences in shaping the

disciplines/fields of studies, as the case may be.

This paper will enquire into an adequate and coherent conception of education studies from the point of

view of educational aims and their epistemological implications. The paper will not take upon itself to

describe how education studies is conceptualised today or how it has been conceptualised historically; it

will rather explore if there are any epistemic considerations that have to be necessarily taken into account

given the nature and aims of educational endeavour in any society. From this perspective it will try to

outline an adequate and internally coherent conception of education studies.

Parallel session: Education studies

Liberalism and Religion: On Separation and Anticlericalism

Sebastian Rudas Nyara Research Scholar, LUISS Guido Carli, Rome

Abstract

Enthusiasm on the liberal pluralist model is widely spread among liberal political theorists. Latin America

is not excluded from such trend, especially given Latin American episodes of anticlericalism during the

nineteenth and early twentieth century. However, such enthusiasm overlooks an important feature of

liberal pluralism, namely, that its development is conditioned by contexts of pluralism.

In this paper I argue that the adoption of liberal pluralism in Latin America jeopardizes the effective

protection of core liberal principles (e.g. freedom of conscience and equal respect), for it disregards the

fact that the Catholic Church has been an important political actor that uses the institutions of the state

to impose its moral view of the world. As an alternative, I propose to adopt a model of secularism

grounded on an anticlerical interpretation of the principle of laicidad that takes from republican laïcité the

principle of strict church-state separation. It is an anticlerical interpretation of laicidad that is not

identified with liberal pluralism but does not have the illiberal consequences of French laïcité.

In the first part I expose some key aspects of French laïcité, emphasizing its principle of separation and

the process of laicization of public education. In the second part I move on to the main criticism

that laïcité has received in the twentieth century, particularly in the way laïcité has been used in relation

with the challenges raised by the Muslim minority. In sent thealist model as a more tolerant institutional

arrangement towards religious and moral diversity. In the fifth section I argue that liberal pluralism has

been adopted in Colombia and that its pluralist-grounded motivation hinders freedom of conscience,

given the current situation of the Catholic Church. I finally present a non-pluralist-based interpretation

of laicidad that is not vulnerable to the criticisms raised to French laïcité but that keeps an anticlerical-

liberal spirit.

The Assessment of Professional Knowledge: How Do We Know that Someone Knows How?

Christopher Winch Professor of Educational Philosophy and Policy, King’s College, London

Abstract

This paper considers how professional knowledge should be assessed. The intellectualist arguments of

Bengson and Moffett, which suggest that someone’s giving an account of how to F should suffice for

attributing to them knowledge of how to F are set out. The arguments fail to show that there is no

necessary distinction between two kinds of know-how, namely the ability to F and knowing that w is a

way to F, such that the latter is more fundamental. The consequences of this failure for our understanding

of professional assessment are then considered. The issue of the assessment of tacit knowledge is then

addressed. It is concluded that there is no context-dependent codifiable or articulable propositional

knowledge of how to F which could be substituted for being able to F and that therefore tacit knowledge

can only be assessed in performance. The parallel with Gettier cases is reviewed and it is concluded that

the provenance of accounts of and justifications for the attribution of know-how are not matters of

indifference to its assessment. Finally, the question of evaluability or what Ryle would have called the

applicability of intelligence epithets is discussed in relation to its relevance to our procedures for assessing

practical knowledge. Once again, it was concluded that excellent performance is necessary to attribute

excellence in know-how.

Parallel session: Issues in assessment

The Space of Reasons: The Role of Academic Judgment in Assessment

Geoffrey Hinchliffe Honorary Lecturer, School of Education and Lifelong Learning, University of East Anglia, UK

Abstract

The Cave in Plato’s Republic gives a powerful, even uncompromising metaphor of life without education,

without knowledge. It portrays what I call ‘epistemic dependency’, in which the mental horizons are

limited, cramped and worthless. The contrast with the cave in Plato lies in the sunlit uplands of knowledge

and philosophy. But how are we to conceive this if we are reluctant to embrace the Platonic forms? Paul

Hirst, in his Liberal Education and the Nature of Knowledge gives us one celebrated version of how to

conceive knowledge. But in this talk I also want to explore the idea of the ‘space of reasons’, elaborated

by John McDowell in his Mind and World. If we situate knowledge in the space of reasons it becomes

something that is contestable and dynamic. Moreover, our knowledge is demonstrated not only by

understanding but also through judgement. I want to suggest that is what we wish to encourage our

students to do: to make judgements and to provide backing for those judgements. Thus the student learns

that judgements are rarely completely ‘futureproof’ and they are rarely definitive. When it comes to

assessment we also have to learn to judge ideas and evaluate our students’ judgements. This is all part of

working and living in the ‘space of reasons’ so that our students become partners as they learn to throw

off epistemic dependency.

The Limits of Measurement: The Use and Misuse of Educational Assessments

Heinz-Dieter Meyer Associate Professor, School of Education, State University of New York, Albany

Abstract

In this talk I take a cue from Aristotle’s idea that “it is the mark of an educated man to look for precision

in each class of things just so far as the nature of the subject admits.” I shall argue that the large-scale,

high-stakes educational assessments which increasingly dominate national and international education

policy and practice systematically violates this precept. My paper inquires into the kind of teaching

practice that is best suited to facilitate the learner’s progress. I will argue that such practice requires that

the teacher engages in acts of interpretation and judgment, as opposed to acts of measurement and

ranking. I’ll discuss key differences between these two acts and explore the consequences of the

ubiquitous reduction of acts of judgment to acts of measurement. As ideas from psychometrics and

managerialism (“everything can be measured and what can be measured can be managed”) come to

dominate educational practice, authentic acts of learning are reduced to coercive recitation and drill.

Plenary session: Policy issues in Education

Autonomy, Paternalism and Perfectionism: Challenges to The Right to Education Act, 2009

Sudhir Krishnaswamy Professor, Azim Premji University

Abstract

The Right to Education Act, 2009 was enacted to make good on the constitutional promise to provide free

and compulsory education to children between the ages of six and fourteen. Two aspects of this legislation

deserve special attention: the obligation of the parents and children to attend school and the obligation

of private unaided schools to accommodate children from disadvantaged backgrounds. The latter

obligations have already been challenged twice before the Supreme Court on the grounds that they go

beyond the boundaries of legitimate state intervention. While the former obligations have not yet been

challenged, the initial legal skirmishes on the legal authority of teachers to administer corporal

punishment suggest that parental authority will be under scrutiny soon.

The philosophical engagement with the role of the State to ensure compulsory education is considerably

vast and diverse. In this paper, we develop a version of these more generic arguments that engages with

and responds to the legal and constitutional arguments in the Indian context. In particular we ask whether

children, parents and private schools have autonomy interests (or rights) that should be immune from

state interference in the field of education. Is the state legitimately entitled to interfere in these domains

as it advances a more robust conception of the good and because it knows better than these parties? We

conclude by assessing the salience of perfectionist and paternalist arguments that support state

intervention in India under the RTE Act.

Why is Teacher Education Difficult to Regulate? Reflections on the Perpetually Changing Character of

Education Studies

Padma Sarangapani Professor, Centre for Human Resource Development, Institute for Social and Economic Change, Bangalore

Abstract

In this paper I will be engaging with issues that concern the development of and purposes of education

studies as a body of knowledge and of practice. I will reflect on the increasingly evidence of the relevance

of a wide range of disciplines and of practices, to thinking about education and hence to education studies.

This compels us to think about the purposes and processes of the discipline of education studies and tells

us something about the nature of education as an activity. I will adopt Pierce’s approach to meaning to

elucidate the meaning of ‘educational studies’. I will problematize a range of current approaches including

‘foundations of education’, ‘education theory’, ‘school based practice’, that inform post graduate

programmes of education in India as well as thinking on teacher education programmes and

considerations regarding who can be teacher educators. I will draw out the implications for and risks

involved in regulating curriculum for teacher preparation and teacher educator preparation and

qualifications.

Parallel session: Knowledge and Praxis

Conceptions of Knowledge Informing Education Theory and Practice

K. Subramaniam Faculty, Homi Bhabha Centre for Science Education, Tata Institute of Fundamental Research, Mumbai

Abstract

One of the central goals of education is learning taken in a broad sense. We want pupils to learn different

sorts of things; we want them to acquire habits, attitudes, values, skills and knowledge. Knowledge is

commonly seen as having to do with cognition. It is usually distinguished from skill, which is seen as

practical, and from value, which is seen as affective. However, educators in the course of their practice

often realize that it is difficult to separate knowledge from practice or from affective aspects. Indeed, such

separation may lead to a conception of knowledge only as facts, concepts or ideas that have to be rote-

learned. In the education discourse, rote-knowledge is different from understanding, and a common test

of understanding is the demonstration of knowledge through its application, through its power to change

practice.

Affective factors not only drive learning but also determine the “meaningfulness” of what is learned.

Hence they shape the knowledge that is acquired by the individual student. Epistemic dispositions are

also important for learning – these include attitudes towards knowledge itself, and practices that support

the construction of knowledge.

Thus questions about knowledge that are of concern to educators include (i) how is understanding

different from knowing and what is its relation to practice (ii) what is the value of knowing and how does

it limit or enable learning (iii) how is knowledge acquired/constructed in the course of activity or in the

course of interaction with others?

In this talk, I’ll explore the connections between debates in epistemology and the concerns of educators

described above. Some of the questions that I’ll try to address are: Is the widely accepted definition of

knowledge as justified true belief adequate in guiding the concerns of educators? What light does

educational practice throw on the distinction between declarative and practical knowledge, between

know-how and know-that? Are there degrees or qualities to knowing?

Pedagogic Authority and Self-Directed Learning: Some Thoughts and Encounters in the Learning-

Unlearning Divide

Mohammad Talib Lecturer, Institute of Social and Cultural Anthropology, University of Oxford, UK.

Abstract

I would like to approach the learning-unlearning complex by bringing in the mutually interlinked domains

of pedagogic authority and the learner. The moment of ‘learning’ in the present consideration belongs to

the first domain. Here, learning represents the stage of learner’s reception of knowledge bearing the

stamp of the pedagogic authority. The moment of ‘unlearning’ is the learner’s reconfiguration of

pedagogically transmitted knowledge. In the instance of reconfiguration, the learner’s relation to

knowledge may involve forgetting, revision and review, ranging from minor revisions to radical rethinking

and novel applications. In ‘unlearning’, the process entails interplay of learner’s curiosities and probing

with the received knowledge and encounters of life’s challenges.

In the domain of pedagogic authority, there are rituals and strategies employed for a smooth transmission

of knowledge. The pedagogic devices ensure delivery of textual knowledge with high fidelity. Or else, the

devices give broad leeway to the course of transmission but curiously turn the received knowledge in

favour of what was originally transmitted. This is most evident in the learner’s onward reproduction of

knowledge and its further replications in various expressions and articulations. A contrasting aspect refers

to the case of transmission of knowledge that also involves a transfer of authority of knowledge-pursuit:

the transfer from the pedagogic authority to the authority of learner.

The learner is not always naturally oriented to the self-directed learning in an educational set-up. Some

thoughts and initiatives from south Asia (India), in the educational experiment in the history of nationalist

struggle, as well as experiments in the learning of sociology and social anthropology, help disentangle the

processes that facilitate or disallow the reconfiguring of received knowledge into repository for learner’s

curiosity and self-engaged learning.

Parallel session: Knowledge, Politics and Indoctrination

Epistemic Knowledge and Democratic Politics

Elizabeth Rata Associate Professor, Faculty of Education, University of Auckland, New Zealand

Abstract

Drawing on ideas currently being developed from the philosophy and sociology of education, I examine

the need for a theory of knowledge for curriculum and pedagogy. In considering the central question:

‘what type of knowledge should be taught and how should it be taught’, I identify the foundational

structural contradiction, the ‘strife of the dialectic’, which characterises democracy and epistemic

knowledge. I argue that this type of knowledge and democratic politics are structured interdependently.

National educational systems that teach epistemic knowledge to all social groups, including the working

class, poor and marginalised, are the means to ensure progressive societies.

The Analytical Tradition and the Distinction between Education and Indoctrination

Manuel Amado & Laura Mesa National University of Columbia

Abstract

In the mid-20th century, thanks to philosophers such as Charles Hardie, Richard Peters and John Wilson,

the movement known as Analytic Philosophy of Education emerged. This movement focused on the

analysis of the word “education” and the usefulness of such analysis for deciding some fundamental

questions in the philosophy of education like how to determine whether a person is well-educated, how

to evaluate the legitimacy of presumed educational practices, and what ought to be learned or taught.

The objectives of this paper are: 1) to characterize one of the most influential approaches to the meaning

of “education” in the analytic tradition: the conception of education as initiation to a form of life, proposed

by Richard Peters; 2) to explain the distinction between education and indoctrination implied by Peters’

conception; and 3) to suggest some solutions to the classic problems this conception faces.

Peters’ analysis has two classic problems: I) the concept of education is dependent on the social context;

thus, any general conception of education will be incorrect or, at least, only applicable to a significantly

narrowed context. In either case, Peters’ analysis will be unable to account for the fundamental questions

in the philosophy of education. II) If Peters’ analysis is true, there is a commitment with the idea that

education involves forms of indoctrination in a pejorative sense. Therefore, the concept of education

cannot be a (normative) positive concept and cannot be opposed to indoctrination, contrary to the

intuitive way in which education is usually conceived.

We think that Peters’ analysis is not susceptible to the problems I)-II). First, we will show that there is no

reason to think that Peters’ analysis is only applicable to a narrow context. Later, we will try to show how

Peters’ conception of education does not involve indoctrination in a pejorative sense.

Back

· © 2014 Philosophy of Education Unit · Designed by Themes & Co ·