EDFD201: Psycho-Philosophical Foundations of Education Final Paper

By Maria Ediliza “Edel” Margarita C. Ramilo (Sem1. 2010-2011)

THE PLACE OF ANALYTIC PHILOSOPHY

OF EDUCATION IN THE EDUCATION
AND TRAINING OF SCHOOL TEACHERS
SUMMARY (All quotations were taken from the article.)
Evelina Orteza, the author of the article, attempted to present
the importance of analytic philosophy of education in the education
and training of school teachers by first “commenting on Philosophy
of Education as it was practiced by philosophers of education.” She
defined Philosophy of Education and labeled it as Traditional
Philosophy of Education and presented its limitations in the practice
of education. Secondly, she “tried to clarify the meaning of her
article’s title” and “proceeded to argue for the place of analytic
philosophy of education in teacher preparation programs.”

The author defined Philosophy of Education as “one’s

comprehensive view of the world and all that is in it.” From one’s
Philosophy of Education, it was said that “one could draw
implications for education, teaching, learning, curriculum, and other
significant matters of education.”

The author, however, found some limitations in the use of the

Traditional Philosophy of Education. Some of the limitations
mentioned in the article were “that it raises questions that are
difficult to answer,” “that only speculative statements can be said
about it,” and “that they are only indirectly connected with
educational problems.” It was said that the Traditional Philosophy of
Education “does not make any recommendation as to what ought to
be done or should be done in educational practice” as it “does not
clarify or tease out the logical features of concepts central to the
educational enterprise…such that valid rules about their correct use
on corresponding objects or states of affairs can be developed and
argued for.” It was further mentioned that “philosophizing in the
traditional manner may enhance one’s understanding of the basic
categories of philosophy,” such as the nature of reality, “but not
necessarily concepts central to the educational enterprise…”

On the other hand, with the use of the Analytic Philosophy of

Education, it was said that “recent analyses on ‘teaching,’ ‘learning,’
‘caring,’ and on many other terms,” which are concepts central to the
educational enterprise, “have rendered their central uses/meanings

Page 1 of 13
 EDFD201: Psycho-Philosophical Foundations of Education Final Paper
By Maria Ediliza “Edel” Margarita C. Ramilo (Sem1. 2010-2011)

clear without appealing to assumptions of a philosophy of education

for validation.”

The author started her discussion on the Analytic Philosophy

of Education by first defining the word “place” as used in the title of
the article. The word “place” was defined as “the role or part that it
plays and of function, how it operates when dealing with certain
problems.” The manner of questioning the author used in arriving at
the definition of the word “place” showed how the “meaning/use of
terms is a central philosophic concern,” particularly in Analytic
Philosophy, as it “concentrates on meaning of words or expressions,
hence, it is also known as conceptual or linguistic analysis and
characterized as a second-order activity.” It is called a second-order
activity because “it is parasitic on the actual activity that is
conducted by someone.” Further, Analytic Philosophy is said to be
“motivated by such questions as: ‘What do you mean?’ ‘How do you
know?’ and ‘What may we presuppose?’”

The question “What do you mean?” is said to require “a

development or establishment of a set of conditions or rules which
could be argued to be necessary conditions that are discovered or
developed to govern a valid employment of a given term. Observance
of these rules demarcates the range of clearly acceptable uses of a
term, its unacceptable uses, and doubtful uses.” As an example, the
author distinguished the concept of “teaching” from the concepts of
“training” and “conditioning.” The author exemplified “clarity and
precision of talk” in defining what teaching is. The author further
argues that “to allow ‘teaching’ to be used in any way one wants to
use it is to say that there is nothing distinctive about teaching.” With
this, the author showed how important it is to apply conceptual or
linguistic analysis with concepts related to the educational
enterprise.

The author then discussed the next question used in Analytic

Philosophy after “having established rules for valid employment of
terms.” She then explains “the grounds of knowledge and conduct by
raising the question: ‘How do we know?’” It was said that “one is
obligated to show … one’s grounds for claiming that one knows that
something is true, that one knows that something exists and that
there are external criteria that may be employed to verify one’s
claim” such as the “epistemological conditions of truth, evidence, and
beliefs.” A claim that meets the mentioned conditions was called a
“strong case.” A claim that fails to meet the conditions “cannot be
rejected outright” but is accepted as a “weak case.”

Page 2 of 13
 EDFD201: Psycho-Philosophical Foundations of Education Final Paper
By Maria Ediliza “Edel” Margarita C. Ramilo (Sem1. 2010-2011)

In addition, the author advices that “a distinction between

‘someone knows that something is true (or right)’ and ‘that
something is true (or right)’” be made. The phrase “one who knows”
or the state of knowing was also defined as “a desirable case in
teaching,” “when a claim is that something is true is verified to be
true and it is true that the learner making the claim also knows that
it is true.” However, the author recognizes that “not all problems in
life can be comprehended and solved by empirical warrants alone.”
The examples given by the author where empiricism may not be
applicable are moral judgments and religious claims but the author
said that as “matters of belief figure centrally in our language is
reason enough to inquire into its logic, meaning, and relationship
with other domains.”

Recognizing that problems are unique, the author said that

“depending upon the kind of problem one is faced with, one engages
in appropriate ways of reasoning about them and providing facts
relevant to them, observing logical distinctions and differentiations
in the different kinds of talk.” As an example, the author said that
“the language of science is not superior over the other” and that
“each language has its distinct domain and function.”

To further describe the role of Analytic Philosophy of

Education, the author said that “analytic philosophy of education
concentrates on the language or medium in which a teaching activity
is conducted and that it is not what is taught that is its concern but
the language employed by a teacher when he or she teaches.”

The author clarified that the role of philosophy of education

is “not to make school teachers philosophers but to enable them to
become good teachers” by making them “capable of engaging in
analytical and conceptual activities and at the same time capable of
arriving at conclusions which they judge are logically and morally
sound judgments on which they can act because they are true to
educational aims.” As an example, the author used analytical
philosophy in checking the validity or soundness of the statement “to
teach is to cause someone to learn” where she argued that it is
conceptually false and that since “teaching” is a “try verb,”
“sometimes they succeed, sometimes they fail even when all
intentions to succeed are evident.” She further argued that to “expect
and demand that teachers be effective/efficient 100% of the time is
to misunderstand the nature of teaching, of learning, and of the
teaching-learning relationship.” She also used analytic philosophy in
clarifying the term “learning” and the expressions “an authority of a

Page 3 of 13
 EDFD201: Psycho-Philosophical Foundations of Education Final Paper
By Maria Ediliza “Edel” Margarita C. Ramilo (Sem1. 2010-2011)

subject matter” and “in the position of authority” and related these
concepts to issues in education. These served as examples of how
useful Analytic Philosophy can be for teacher training and education.

Another basic role of analytic philosophy of education in the

education and training of school teachers is the resolution of
practical problems. First, the author compares practical problems
with theoretical problems. Theoretical problems were said to be
“matters of knowing why something is the case, if it is a case or why
it came about.” Practical problems, on the other hand, were said to
be “gaps, discrepancies, hindrances that prevent one from doing
what one knows one ought to do.” Practical problems ask “what
ought to be done in order to reconcile what is, or will be, with what
ought to be?”

The author gave an example on how analytic philosophy of

education helps teachers in solving practical problems by discussing
the issue of “punishment” where she advised “not to ask whether or
not to punish a child but to locate punishment in its appropriate
discourse.” She further advised that “practical problems are not
solved by common sense but by breaking them down into their
logically distinct components and providing them with suggested
solutions or recommendations for actions which are formed by types
of knowledge which have a logical bearing on them.”

COMMENTS
In the author’s attempt to prove the statement “to teach is to
cause something to learn” to be false, she said that both “teaching”
and “learning” are “try verbs.” By saying this, it is suggested that the
act of learning (from the student’s end) is not automatic when one is
teaching. According to her, sometimes the teacher is successful in
her attempt but there are times when the teacher fails, even if the
teacher puts all her best in the act of teaching. A lot of educators may
agree with the author in this but I find her claim very risky. For one,
by saying that “teaching” is a try verb, the act of teaching becomes
prone to abuse, as teachers might use it to justify their inability to
cause their students to learn. It can make teachers think that since
success is not a necessary result of their efforts, as one is simply
trying, it is more acceptable for teachers to have students who are
not learning. The teacher’s accountability to the student’s learning is
then diminished. Second, by saying that “teaching” is a try verb
makes goal/objective setting less valuable because to expect

Page 4 of 13
 EDFD201: Psycho-Philosophical Foundations of Education Final Paper
By Maria Ediliza “Edel” Margarita C. Ramilo (Sem1. 2010-2011)

teaching goals/objectives to be met would be too much to ask for, as

teaching success cannot be expected all the time, even when given
the best of one’s efforts.

It was also mentioned in the article that “teaching’s end is the

development of the learner’s autonomy.” I should agree with this
statement as I also believe that the teacher’s goal is to develop a
student who is able to think for oneself. Some even say that the
ultimate test of knowing how well a teacher taught his student is
when the student can “survive” even without the presence/guidance
of the teacher. However, before the student reaches that point of
being self-sufficient or independent, it can be possible that even a
good teacher will have to use forcing or conditioning to make his
student learn. With this, I disagree with the author when she said
that teachers who use forcing or conditioning could be judged as
immoral and ignorant. For example, when a pre-school says that
he/she does not want to brush his/her teeth, should the teacher
refrain himself/herself from forcing the child to do so? I do not think
so. Another example is when a teacher is improving class
participation. Should the teacher refrain himself/herself from giving
star points as positive reinforcement to keep his/her students
motivated to participate in class? I do not think so. I cannot even say
that by doing either one of those things the teacher can be labeled
immoral or ignorant.

Another claim mentioned in the article was that “in teaching

and educating, some learn, some don’t, some learn much later, and
some never learn at all.” I believe that this statement can be really
faulty and can even be insulting to us humans. Well, yes, we can say
that some learn right away, while some learn much later, but to say
that some never learn at all is way over board. Are they saying that
the learning rats and parrots are even better than those humans
“who never get to learn at all?” I do not think it is at all possible that
a regular human being would not learn at all, in its most extreme
sense. Even special children get to learn and do amazing things such
as read books, play music, and do house chores. Why put the blame
on the ability of the student to learn when we can, as teachers, adapt
to our student’s learning style to maximize their learning
experience? Could there be a possibility that those teachers are
merely making an excuse for their inability to make their students
learn? I find it really unfair to say that there are students who never
learn at all. What if the student never manifested any form of
learning in the span of 5 years but did show learning after 10 years
from the time of the teaching activity? At that instance, can the

Page 5 of 13
 EDFD201: Psycho-Philosophical Foundations of Education Final Paper
By Maria Ediliza “Edel” Margarita C. Ramilo (Sem1. 2010-2011)

student still be labeled as someone who never learns at all? Not

likely.

With regards to the responsibility of educators, I again agree with

the author when she said that before an educator accepts a body of
philosophic knowledge about education, “grounds must be shown
for judging certain claims to be worthy of the names knowledge and
education.” This I believe is the ideal case, if the teacher recognizes
the weight of her responsibility in educating the young. I came to
realize this when I got enrolled in the course named Foundations in
Teaching in the Early Grades where I got introduced with the various
philosophies of education around the world when it comes to
educating the young. Being a non-education major back in my
undergraduate years, I was not aware of all the effects of the
different philosophies on the actual teaching and learning activities
in the classroom, until I learned them in class. I then realized how
irresponsible it is if I would let other people push me to set-up my
preschool right away, even without the right information to help me
make informed decisions. I could have just said “yes” to all the
suggestions of other people that feel good to be included in my
preschool, making my preschool mediocre. For example, should I
believe my adviser if he tells me that it is better to make English as
my preschool’s first language so that our preschool would be labeled
“classy?” Should I agree with my adviser if he tells me that one
teacher can handle a group of 20 preschool children? Should I say
yes to my adviser if he asks me to do away with the playground as it
might be a waste of space and instead build another room in the
same spot? Again, I do not think so, but I never knew these
suggestions were “wrong” until I took the effort of making myself
aware of what education really is about, especially for those in the
early grades. Because of this, I further agree with the author when
she said that “The place of philosophy of education is not to make
school teachers philosophers but to enable them to become good
school teachers capable of engaging in analytical and conceptual
activities and at the same time capable of arriving at conclusions
which they judge are logically and morally sound judgments on
which they can act because they are true to educational terms.
Philosophy of education enables teachers to go about their tasks
informed and clear headed.” Other parts of the article that relates to
the above mentioned idea is that “the epistemological task is to know
when to accept or reject somebody’s claim about some things
because there are good grounds or appropriate reasons for doing so”
and that “teachers also need to know how to justify what it is that
they are doing.” As a future preschool owner, I ought to have the

Page 6 of 13
 EDFD201: Psycho-Philosophical Foundations of Education Final Paper
By Maria Ediliza “Edel” Margarita C. Ramilo (Sem1. 2010-2011)

right answer as to why I am choosing to do things “this way” and not

“that way.”

Before I put-up my preschool, I would need to deal with the

practical problems I have mentioned above. According to the author,
“One must do something, act on them [practical problems], and
remove them so one’s activities can go on.” It is the teacher’s
responsibility to make sure that the classroom situation is what it
ought to be. Yes, that would be too easy to say, perhaps, but where
do I actually begin if I really intend to do away with these practical
problems? The author suggests that I should first “understand
concepts central to the educational discourse and their uses.” This
would then require me to understand the concepts “cultural
identity,” “ideal teacher-student ratio,” and “gross motor
development” to solve the practical problems I mentioned above. It
was said that one’s understanding of the concepts central to the
educational discourse “could also lead to one’s knowing what to do
in some activities or with some problems and which actions are
legitimate to them.” To say that one’s understanding of the concepts
“could also lead to knowing what to do…” suggests that it does not
lead to getting practical problems solved all the time. Similarly, the
existence of teachers who, despite of their understanding of the
many concepts central to the educational discourse, still do not
exhibit competence in solving practical problems proves that
understanding concepts may not be enough. Yes, analytic philosophy
can help teachers understand, but their understanding does not
guarantee that they would act the way one should. But then again,
the use of analytic philosophy still “could” lead to the resolution of
practical problems and the failures may not even be attributed to
analytic philosophy, specifically in my example, but to the person
using it, for the person’s inability to do what ought to be done.
However, it can be very unfair if I expect an educator to be always
right, again, as the author said in the article, “To expect and demand
that teachers be effective/efficient 100% of the time is to
misunderstand the nature of teaching, of learning, and of the
teaching-learning relationship.” I could not deny the possibility that
there could be valid reasons behind the inability of teachers to make
all things right.

In solving practical problems, one should not be dependent on just

one body of knowledge. The author says that “depending upon the
kind of problem one is faced with, one engages in appropriate ways
of reasoning about them and providing facts relevant to them,
observing logical distinctions and differentiations in the different

Page 7 of 13
 EDFD201: Psycho-Philosophical Foundations of Education Final Paper
By Maria Ediliza “Edel” Margarita C. Ramilo (Sem1. 2010-2011)

kinds of talk.” This then suggests that educators should be

appreciative of the many different bodies of knowledge that exists
and not consider a single body of knowledge as superior to all else.
Let us take the case of religion, for example. The country is torn in
the issue of the use of contraception as our President supports it
while the Catholic Church abhors it. Given this issue, should all
Catholic teachers pronounce allegiance to their church leaders?
Should they explain to their students how “wrong” the President’s
decision is? Should they ask their students to rally with them and
protest against contraception? Or if they were asked to rally against
contraception, should the teachers follow? Considering only a body
of knowledge, religion for example, one may easily answer the
question above with “Yes, why not?” but if we consider the
Philippine Constitution where the separation of church and state
was made clear, there would be a possibility that one would think
twice. According to the author, “Solutions to practical problems,
which have an interdisciplinary character, are integrated or unified
by teachers’ common concerns into a talk or discourse which is
relevant to classroom context and experience, hence,
understandable to school teachers.” With that, I agree that using an
interdisciplinary approach is best in solving practical problems as it
would increase the possibility of arriving at comprehensive
solutions. It is then up to the teacher to “figure out which of the
different disciplines/bodies of knowledge have a logical bearing on
them [practical problems].” Just a disclaimer, I do not wish to
demean the Catholic Church in any way by giving this as an example.
In fact, I am a Catholic too.

Another statement I would like to comment on is: “A

language of teaching renders teaching distinct from other activities.”
I believe that this statement is indeed true; in the same way that a
language of engineering renders engineering distinct from other
activities and that a language of medicine renders medicine distinct
from other activities. I realized this when I started doing reports in
my other education classes. Given the same amount of text to reflect
on, my classmates, who are education majors, would interpret the
material differently, as compared to me who is a non-education
major. Their reflections were far deeper and richer than my
thoughts, as they do not only have the understanding of concepts
central in the educational discourse, but they also had a lot of
experiences that support their understanding of those concepts. The
amount of their inputs in class was enough proof to differentiate
who the “real” teachers and who the “future” teachers are. This then
makes Analytic Philosophy all the more important because it serves

Page 8 of 13
 EDFD201: Psycho-Philosophical Foundations of Education Final Paper
By Maria Ediliza “Edel” Margarita C. Ramilo (Sem1. 2010-2011)

as a tool to clarify and demarcate which word means what. To say

that I understand creativity, I would have to state the criteria that
make something fall under the category of creativity. I would have to
explain the levels of creativity, if levels of creativity exist. I would
have to identify which is creative and which is not. According to the
author, “Philosophy of education studies terms employed by school
teachers/educators in their actual teaching and to figure out
whether or not their conception of them is clear; that is, they have a
clear idea of what it is that they are talking about.” However, this
may not always be the case in real life, but definitely, it would still be
of great help to teachers if they are able to maximize the benefits of
analytic philosophy such as clarity and understanding. The author
believes that “teachers’ concerns are reduced if they know
conceptual and empirical truths about terms central to teaching and
if they can discern some of their logical characteristics.” I would also
have to agree with the author in this statement, as it would be
impossible for me to put-up and manage a progressive preschool if I
am not even aware of what progressivism is all about: ideals,
activities, and language. It would be entirely difficult to even be a
teacher, if I do not know what makes one a teacher and when a
teacher is called as such.

The last statement that I wish to comment on is “if philosophy of

education is a theoretical activity, then by itself it cannot or does not
make any recommendation as to what ought to be done or should be
done in educational practice.” Well, it may be true that the ability of
the philosophy of education to provide specific answers for practical
problems may be limited but we cannot discount its importance in
giving direction towards which one may move to answer one’s
practical problems. For example, if I were to put up a school bearing
Maria Montessori’s philosophy of education, everything that I do has
to be anchored in Montessori’s philosophy. In the same light, the
manner by which I will be using analytic philosophy, which was
mentioned in the article as a second-activity, would have to fall
under the principles which Montessori considers to be true and
correct. One cannot move into engaging in analytic philosophy if one
does not have a philosophy of education on which to base one’s
analysis. For me, they are equally important and that they
complement each other, as one’s existence makes the other’s
existence all the more valuable. In the same light, I also believe that
both theoretical problems and practical problems are equally
important. I actually find it impossible to answer practical problems
without having enough theoretical background.

Page 9 of 13
 EDFD201: Psycho-Philosophical Foundations of Education Final Paper
By Maria Ediliza “Edel” Margarita C. Ramilo (Sem1. 2010-2011)

Compare and contrast the articles

PSYCHOLOGY IS ALIVE AND WELL and
THE PSYCHOLOGIST AND THE TEACHER
(All quotations were taken from the two articles.)

In the article Psychology is Alive and Well, Sigmund Freud,

the psychologist, was viewed in a negative light, specifically, as his
methodologies in conducting psychological research, which are case
studies and introspection, were said to be “completely
unrepresentative of how modern psychologists conduct their
inquiries.” Stanovitch even quoted Howard Gardner saying that
Freud’s style of work is a “significant impediment to the
development of the discipline“ since Freud’s work does not make use
of controlled experimentation which is said to be “the most potent
weapon in the modern psychologist’s arsenal of methods.”
Contrastingly, in the article The Psychologist and The Teacher, R.S.
Peters was explaining how genius Freud’s work was, as it “provided
a subsidiary theory for a number of phenomena such as hysteria,
dreams, visions, and fantasy” that others then had not been able to
explain. The author shows great appreciation of Freud’s work that he
even said that Freud provides a paradigm for the progress of
psychology. Given this, could it be possible that R.S. Peters would
have a problem with Stanovitch’s statement that one of the criteria
for one’s work to be considered scientific is public verifiability? And
if psychology were a branch of science, then Freud’s work would
then be in question for he used a lot of introspection in his studies.
This then reflects how Stanovitch’s thoughts on psychology as a
scientific study may be different from Peters’. By looking at their two
contradicting thoughts on Freud, an educator can better reflect on
his position when it comes to which methodologies would best give
reliable results in the study of human behavior in relation to human
learning and education. It serves as a call to make appropriate
deliberation of which theories to put more value on and which
technique to consequently consider applying in one’s teaching
activities.

In the article The Psychologist and The Teacher, the author

mentioned a feature of academic institutions which he called the
“tyranny of fashions.” In his attempt to explain what it meant, he
talked about how people thought of psychology in the old times. He

Page 10 of 13
 EDFD201: Psycho-Philosophical Foundations of Education Final Paper
By Maria Ediliza “Edel” Margarita C. Ramilo (Sem1. 2010-2011)

said that ten years ago, “if one suggested in certain places that
psychology might after all be about the mind of man rather than
about his bodily movements, there should be a muttering that one
needed one’s brain tested.” This shows how differently people
thought about psychology before. Similarly, in the article Psychology
is Alive and Well, the author mentioned that not too long ago, people
refused to look into Galileo’s telescope as people used to believe that
“the way to know about the world was through pure thought and
argument or appeal to authority.” Furthermore, both articles talked
about points in history when resistance happens upon introduction
of new ways of thinking. In the article Psychology is Alive and Well, it
was mentioned that “understanding of human anatomy progressed
only haltingly because of lay and ecclesiastical prohibitions against
the dissection of human cadavers.” Believing that it would defile
humanity, they refused to let scientists study human cadavers.
Fortunately, through time, it was proven how beneficial it is to know
more about the details of the human body. Similarly, in the article
The Psychologist and The Teacher, it was mentioned that the belief
“men are subject to impulse, incontinence and fits of brutishness”
was faced with resistance by people who believe that man is a
“rational creature who had free-will and whose behavior was not
subject to laws at all.” This shows how people’s perception of things
change as new knowledge is unearthed through time. This then is
another call to educators to be open to possible changes in the
current set of beliefs held by the society as these beliefs may
eventually have to be changed as new knowledge is discovered.
Having opposing views on the issues may be natural as it is human
nature to defend one’s belief when tested, but one’s openness to
future changes and advancement of knowledge is inevitable as it also
improves or upgrades what we teach our students.

In the article Psychology is Alive and Well, psychology was

defined as a “study of the full range of human and nonhuman
behavior with the techniques of science and that applications that
derive from this knowledge are scientifically based.” R.S. Peters,
however, advises that “one has to be very careful” in studying human
behavior as each human behavior should be seen in its proper social
context because “human goings-on are not all of a piece.” He says
that “there cannot be any one type of explanation” for all human
behavior. A particular practice in psychology that Peters is mostly in
doubt of its contribution to education is in the area of classical
learning theory where psychologists study nonhuman behavior. The
author is convinced that “educationalists have little to learn from the
learning theory, which is associated with the use of animals as

Page 11 of 13
 EDFD201: Psycho-Philosophical Foundations of Education Final Paper
By Maria Ediliza “Edel” Margarita C. Ramilo (Sem1. 2010-2011)

subjects, for humans are way too different from animals like rats
which “do not have language, history, and institutions” that would
affect one’s behavior. An example given in the article regarding this
is the difference between blinking and winking, which are both eye
movements. Blinking and winking may both be eye movements but
their meanings differ depending on the social context they were
done. This social context and its effects in human behavior are what
psychologists will be missing out in the study of nonhuman behavior.
Therefore, the author argues that the results of studies made on
nonhuman behavior may not be applicable to men at all.

In addition, Peters says that “psychology is necessary to

supplement the social sciences – to explain the deviations from,
breakdowns in, and individual differences in adaptation to the
particular rules and terms” in the social world. He argues that “one
of the most obvious explanations of human differences in adaptation,
and of breakdowns and deviations in performance is that the
conditions under which the rules are passed on are different.” The
statement above deliberately points to the need for education to be
studied by psychologists as its effect is tremendous in shaping
human behavior. This is what R.S. Peters was advocating in his
article. He is arguing that there is so much to be learned from the
study of education and that should keep psychologists busy for a
long time, instead of studying nonhuman behavior such as the rats,
where very little human attributes can be expected to be observed.
As a proof to this, the author mentioned how “Pavlov, in his later
years, proclaimed explicitly that his laws were relevant only to
animal learning.”

Also, in the article Psychology is Alive and Well, it was said

that “the diversity of psychology guarantees that the task of
theoretical unification will be immensely difficult” as there are
countless areas of study under its umbrella. Similarly, in the
discussion made by R.S. Peters, several areas of science outside
psychology were mentioned, as those are said to be used in
explaining human behavior. Examples of which were metaphysics,
mechanics, social anthropology, and biology. This then supports the
idea of the diversity of psychology as a field of study. This diversity
can once again be related to the claim that there cannot be any one
type of explanation to all human behavior. This suggests how
different problems encountered in the area of education may also be
addressed in many different ways, as many different bodies of
knowledge would have different ways of understanding and solving
them. This serves as a call for educators to be open in using an

Page 12 of 13
 EDFD201: Psycho-Philosophical Foundations of Education Final Paper
By Maria Ediliza “Edel” Margarita C. Ramilo (Sem1. 2010-2011)

interdisciplinary approach in solving problems in education as it can

lead to comprehensive solutions.

Lastly, another similarity found in both articles was the

argument on issues of “common sense.” In the article Psychology is
Alive and Well, there was a considerable list of folk wisdom that
were believed to be true but after having gone scientific testing were
proven to be false. In the same light, in the article The Psychologist
and the Teacher, it was mentioned that some people think that “most
educational psychology is systematic common sense and that there
is little in psychology that good teachers do not already know” but in
reality this may turn out to be false as R.S. Peters explains that
“teachers have a lot of hunches but if asked to produce good
evidence for them, they would be rather at a loss.” Both articles
showed that matters of knowledge tagged as “common sense” issues
can still benefit from the scientific investigation. In the same light,
Stanovitch mentions a study made by the psychologist Baruch
Fischoff called the “hindsight effect.” Fischoff found out that “people
do not realize how much of their ability to ‘explain’ the behavior of
others is due to hindsight; namely, their knowledge that the behavior
has already happened. We fail to realize that we could not have been
able to predict behavior in advance.” Given this situation, R.S. Peters
suggests that “one of the main talks of psychology is to systematize
and test the hunches of practical people like teachers.” Peters
mentioned Jean Piaget as an example of a psychologist who did a
great job in studying children’s language and concept formation. This
then not only calls for psychologists, but also for teachers to conduct
scientific study on the educational enterprise. Topics suggested by
R.S. Peters include: “Which teaching techniques are most effective
given different ages of students? Do such techniques incapacitate the
child for rational rule-following later on? Or are they a preliminary
without which later instruction will not be effective?”

Page 13 of 13