Ordinary Language Analysis in Teaching the Philosophy of Education

Acontinuing issue in the teaching of philosophy to undergraduates is making a case for its relevance. I have discovered that it is not simply enough to stipulate that philosophical thinking is a helpful adjunct to critical thinking, but that such a claim needs to be demonstrated in rather concrete ways. Such student-centered demands are not at all unreasonable, given the twin factors of a stagnant employment outlook and rising tuition. In a conventional sense of “pragmatism”, then, students are now much more interested in the possible “payoff” value of philosophical inquiry. This situation is especially true in the “case study ” to be analyzed below. To contextualize, I have been responsible for teaching an undergraduate course in the philosophy of education. While the course is open to philosophy majors, most of the clientele are teacher education majors who are required to take the course by State mandate as a part of the certification process. This situation becomes especially challenging since even though they have all had one or two philosophy courses as part of their “core ” requirement, they see little if any practical value for this type of course in terms of their future work. To counter (as much as possible) this attitude, I try to structure the course as one in critical thinking and writing skills, arguing that possessing such skills will (partially) assist them in becoming more effective teachers. Adapting this point of view is, at times, not popular with either education or philosophy colleagues who believe that a “systems ” approach (Ozman & Cramer, 1981) is the proper direction for teaching such a course. That is, th