Search results

In this paper, which was presented at the second Inter‐American Congress on Educational Administration, held July 29‐August 2, 1984 in Brasilia, DF, Brazil, the author sketches criteria for a philosophy that could contribute to advancement in educational administration. He then examines some positions and issues in the light of the criteria.

To see how educational philosophies that underlie lecture and case methods of teaching are related to how faculty perform their teaching, research, and service.

This paper is based on the premise that foundational philosophies, worldviews or paradigms underlie educational philosophies, and each educational philosophy favors a certain instructional methodology, which in turn implies a certain way or method of instruction.

The findings of this paper are that each educational philosophy favors a certain instructional methodology, which in turn determines not only the way that the instruction is performed but also how faculty perform their teaching, research, and service.

This paper implies that differences between the underlying world views of lecture and case methods of teaching similarly lead to differences in many other aspects of the teaching and learning process.

This paper implies that, in practice, faculty would perform their teaching, research, and service in a more consistent manner if they become consciously aware of the underlying philosophy of their teaching method.

The original contribution of this paper is that it shows how in a systematic manner the differences in teaching philosophy lead to differences in what faculty do in all areas of their activities: teaching, research, and service.

Sound administrative theory and research may ultimately provide the knowledge whereby administrative leaders in education can function most effectively. Such knowledge will never tell us, however, whether it is desirable to take a particular administrative action in any society at any time. Thus, an administrator should understand his personal philosophical foundations and value system, and do his best to construct a philosophical position that is as consistent and logical as possible. Five such positions, reconstructionism, experimentalism, idealism, realism, and existentialism, can serve as guidelines. Each position, whether it is basically progressivistic or essentialistic, has a reasonably distinct approach to the nature of reality, educational aims and objectives, and the educative process. The development of language analysis as philosophy's most important contribution to man is discussed briefly. A self‐evaluation check list has been developed, which may be employed by an administrator to assess his present philosophy of educational administration.

The purpose of this paper is to see how educational philosophies that underlie lecture and case methods of teaching are related to setting course goals, objectives, and contents.

This paper is based on the premise that foundational philosophies, worldviews, or paradigms underlie educational philosophies, and each educational philosophy favors a certain instructional methodology, which in turn implies a certain way or method of instruction.

The findings of this paper are that each educational philosophy favors a certain instructional methodology, which in turn determines not only the way that the instruction is performed but also how course goals, objectives, and contents are set.

This paper implies that differences between the underlying world views of lecture and case methods of teaching similarly lead to differences in many other aspects of the teaching and learning process.

This paper implies that in practice, faculty would set their course goals, objectives, and contents in a more consistent manner if they become consciously aware of the underlying philosophy of their teaching method.

The original contribution of this paper is that it shows how in a systematic manner the differences in teaching philosophy lead to differences in what faculty would do in all areas of their course activities: goals, objectives, and contents.

The purpose of this paper is to use entrepreneurship to bridge the traditional-progressive education rift.

The rift between traditional and progressive education is first deconstructed into five dualisms. Conceptual question-based analysis is then applied to determine if and how three entrepreneurial tools could contribute to bridging this rift; effectuation, customer development and appreciative inquiry. Finally, pattern-based generalizations are drawn from this analysis.

Patterns in the analysis motivate the articulation of an overarching educational philosophy – learning-through-creating-value-for-others – grounded in entrepreneurship and capable of bridging the educational rift.

Only three entrepreneurial tools are included in the conceptual analysis, signifying a need to explore whether other tools could also help teachers bridge the traditional-progressive education rift. Entrepreneurial tools and the new educational philosophy manifesting entrepreneurship could also need to be further contextualized in order to be useful in education.

The tentatively new educational philosophy has been shown to be capable of bridging five dualisms in education which are currently problematic for teachers in their daily practice, and to remedy teacher challenges such as complexity, lack of resources, assessment difficulties and student disengagement.

An educational philosophy grounded in entrepreneurship has arguably not been proposed previously. Contrasting existent educational philosophies, this new philosophy goes beyond learning-through to also emphasize creating-value-for-others. This could facilitate bridging between traditional and progressive education, one of the most important challenges in education. It could also be used to facilitate the infusion of entrepreneurship into general education.

The approach used here to the study of philsophical influences on educational administration is an examination of case studies of administrative decisions in educational organizations where the decisions are considered as dependent variables, and the value and/or fact bases of the decisions are considered as independent variables. Nine such case studies are summarized. Decision‐making which deals with educational purpose is viewed as one significant area in educational administration where philosophical consideration can be studied. The study of correlations between administrative decisions and the value and factual bases should make contributions toward the prediction of administrative decisions. Additional significance of this study should focus on the development of strategies to influence or change administrative decisions.

The purpose of this paper is to draw on the philosophy of information, specifically the work of Luciano Floridi, to argue that digital civics must fully comprehend the implications of the digital environment, and consequently an informational ontology, to deliver to students an education that will prepare them for full participation as citizens in the infosphere.

Introducing this philosophy for use in education, the research discusses the ethical implications of ontological change in the digital age; informational organisms and their interconnectivity; and concepts of agency, both organic and artificial in digitally mediated civic interactions and civic education.

With the provision of a structural framework rooted in the philosophy of information, robust mechanisms for civics initiatives can be enacted.

The paper allows policy makers and practitioners to formulate healthy responses to digital age challenges in civics and civics education.

An increasingly popular argument proposes that the problems in public schooling may be solved through stronger, more morally imaginative leadership. School administrators ought to set forth a vision growing out of this moral responsibility, and may be trained to utilise moral imagination in directing teachers and students towards certain moral visions. A critique of the argument is presented and alternative (and conflicting) meanings of “moral imagination” surveyed. Four models of moral imagination are located: as discovery; as moral authority; as faculty of mind, and as super science. It is argued that each of these conceptions has inherent difficulties. The logical relationship of these views is explored. The notion of “school leadership” is traced in the literature as it has been attached to “moral imagination”. The work of W. Greenfield is examined and a philosophy of school administration, with certain assumptions, regarding values and authority, that reveal key difficulties for the unfettered use of “moral imagination” in school administration, is found. It is concluded that “moral imagination” ought to be replaced with “critical imagination”, coupled with “democratic value deliberation” and by so doing a richer leadership will result, leading to the empowerment of teachers and a fuller serving of the public good.

Perhaps it is academically improper to base a conceptual model upon personal conviction. This article develops a conceptual terminology for the interaction between educational administration and the dynamics of culture‐change in the Third World, Melanesian context of the 1970's. It is also the product of a growing conviction that educational administration sees itself, far too often, as an area of knowledge, western‐based, but yet capable of application to non‐western and Third World countries. Some western educational administrators, both scholars and practitioners, seem guilty of a latter‐day cultural imposition reminiscent of the middle‐class. Christian imposition of earlier colonial education systems. The alternative philosophy is that educational administration should be promoted and evaluated not according to “absolute” criteria but according to its appropriateness or inappropriateness for a particular, different and dynamic cultural context. In what follows this philosophy of cultural relativism is tested by arguing the hypothesis that traditionalist educational policy is inappropriate for Melanesian schools whereas local educational policy is appropriate.

Examines the claim that materialist pragmatism is more coherent than alternative accounts of educational administration. Argues that the criteria of coherence provided by materialist pragmatists lack overall coherence and that there are no means for choosing between theories in the way they suggest. Arguments against the separation of factual and evaluative realms are unconvincing, and the materialist pragmatists′ claims that they have avoided foundationalism while providing a non‐positivist theory of science are questionable. Suggests that the administration of education requires a concrete rather than an abstract approach such as materialist pragmatism provides. Concludes with the thought that it is through the relentless criticism of all conceptualization that philosophy provides its service to educational administration.