Talk:Philosophy of education

message: I found this online:
Social reconstructionism & Education Social Reconstruction by Jeffrey D. Zacko-Smith. Retrieved 14 February 2014 from http://www.academia.edu/1957998/Social_Reconstruction 
[copyright content from  removed]
I am not familiar with this perspective so if someone (who knows how to defend the information) can complete the redline article that would help to give clarity to philosophy of education.Stmullin (talk) 15:27, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: At the end of the sentence as usual...... Sjgknight (talk) 19:16, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
replies: text:  . . . so all that you are looking for is a citation or quote, not a summary?Stmullin (talk) 23:00, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Completing a Redline topic(s) 

message: Philosophical and sociological perspectives on social change, influence, equality, etc. are of course related, although whether that means sociology deserves direct reference (for indirect relationship) I'm not sure. In any case, philosophy should obviously be there, psychology has a reference, I think the addition of sociology should include a good reference (a review maybe?) which indicates the relationship between soc & phil of education.
. . . so where do we include a good reference,a review, which indicates the relationship between soc & phil of education . . . Stmullin (talk) 18:46, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: At the end of the sentence as usual...... Sjgknight (talk) 19:16, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
replies: text:  . . . so all that you are looking for is a citation or quote, not a summary?Stmullin (talk) 23:00, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: Sociological Perspective

message: This article has been revised as part of a large-scale clean-up project of multiple article copyright infringement. (See the investigation subpage) Earlier text must not be restored, unless it can be verified to be free of infringement. For legal reasons, Wikipedia cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material; such additions must be deleted. Contributors may use sources as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences or phrases. Accordingly, the material may be rewritten, but only if it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 21:51, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: The material removed contained copyright text from  and probably from other sources also. I regret that valid good-faith edits made by other editors may need to be redone. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 21:51, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Possible copyright problem 

message: Researching "Spiral Curriculum" I've been diverted here and yet this is covered by just one sentence.  Was the original article so sparse?  The "main article" cited is to a biography!  Noting that "theorists" had all been moved to "Educational theory" I went to look before realizing the blindingly obvious: what is the difference between "educational theory" and "educational philosophy"?!  Rehetorical question I think as in practical terms I can see none.  Consider the intro to the former:  "Education theory seeks to know, understand and prescribe educational practices. Education theory includes many topics, such as pedagogy, andragogy, curriculum, learning, and education policy, organization and leadership. Educational thought is informed by many disciplines, such as history, philosophy, sociology, and psychology." and it's hard to slip even a ciggie paper between the two.  Reading this http://edfn632f10ely.pbworks.com/w/page/28483439/Spiral%20Curriculum the "theory" is expressed in the language of beliefs i.e of philosophy.
Bottom line: What is the point of redirecting a reader to nothingness?  What is the point in hiding an existing resource behind one which has nothing to say on the matter?  LookingGlass (talk) 13:45, 10 October 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Redirect and general confusion 

message: Dear Editors
I am looking at adding citations to this section.
Thank you
LOBOSKYJOJO (talk) 02:18, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Add Citations 

message: The purpose of this talk-page entry is to list what changes happened in this edit since the maximal length of the edit summary is limited. These changes also address some of the problems mentioned at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Philosophy#Large_number_of_empty_and_stub_sections_in_Philosophy_of_education_article.
* The contents of the sections "Philosophy of education" & "Normative educational philosophies" were rearranged into the new sections "Philosophical movements" & "History". The subsections on individual philosophers were moved to the section "History" while the more general sections on philosophical movements were moved to the section "Philosophical movements". This avoids the problem of having a section with the same name as the article itself. This section also contained various normative theories intended for the other section.
* The 2 sections on Dewey were merged into one section.
* The section "John Milton" was removed: does not talk about John Milton
* The section "Michel Foucault" was removed: little content and no sources
* The section "Allan Bloom" was removed: little content and no sources
* The introductory paragraph of the section "Normative educational philosophies" was removed: unreliable source, the topic is discussed with reliable sources in the first paragraph of the section "Subdivisions"
* Birth and death dates were removed: not needed anymore since the history section sorts the philosophers according to their historic phase. The detailed dates belong to the articles of the corresponding theorist but not here. 
Further things to do would be to reduce the size of the history section, for example, by limiting each subsection to one paragraph per philosopher, in special cases maybe two. Phlsph7 (talk) 17:08, 7 April 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rearrangement of the contents of the sections "Philosophy of education" & "Normative educational philosophies" 

message: In the “Philosophical Movements” section under “Essentialism.”
This is odd: “This is based on the view that there are essentials that men should know for being educated and are expected to learn the academic areas of…”
||1. Broadly, “know for being educated” is peculiar phrasing to the extent of perhaps being meaningless.
||2. Certainly, “men” rather than “people” is archaic, but it’s also inaccurate here, since we’re talking about about the education of children (so I’m not just being pedantic, it could lead to confusion).
||3. “Men” is potentially misleading in a subsection titled “Essentialism.” Given views on “gender essentialism,” a reader may be lead to believe that this theoretical approach is committed to separate topics in k-12 ed for boys and girls appropriate to the traditional, conservative gender roles of men and women in society—which I do not believe to be the case.
||4. Honestly, this whole sentence is largely redundant. It should probably be cut and replaced with a simple clarification of the “traditional basic subjects” mentioned in the previous sentence (i.e. “reading, writing, mathematics, science, geography, and technology”). Though it could use some clarity on what makes STEM and the 3R’s essential (beyond an appeal to tradition, as I assume the view is deeper and more nuanced).
||5. While I’m looking at it, the next sentence is a non-sequitur. It says “this movement, thus, stresses the role played by the teacher as the authority…” Nothing in this section leads logically to what is presented here as a conclusion.
—
Is anyone willing to follow the link to the main article page and write up a better summary of this philosophical movement? P0$t(m0dem)15t (talk) 15:40, 27 May 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for pointing this out. I rewrote this subsection, I hope it addresses the main points. If someone knows more about what, according to essentialism, makes the traditionally established subjects "essential" apart from the fact that they are traditionally established, this information could be added. I'm not sure that there is an easy answer to that question. Phlsph7 (talk) 07:50, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Essentialism Subsection (phrasing in body)