Home Articles Reader Opinion Editorial Book Reviews Discussion Writers Guide About TCRecord
transparent 13
Topics
Discussion
Announcements
 

Reimagining Research and Practice at the Crossroads of Philosophy, Teaching, and Teacher Education


by David T. Hansen, Megan J. Laverty & Rory Varrato - 2020

Background/Context: This article introduces the special issue on reimagining research and practice at the crossroads of philosophy, teaching, and teacher education. The authors provide an overview of previous research at this “crossroads” and describe how the special issue collaborators have sought to chart fresh ground in light of current practical and policy challenges that teachers and teacher educators face.

Purpose/Focus of Study: The project that gave rise to the special issue emerged from a self-study, conducted by the first two authors, of the Program in Philosophy and Education at Teachers College, Columbia University. They have been rethinking the place of philosophy in teaching and teacher education, while also re-examining the place of teaching and teacher education in philosophy. They see opportunities for creative work at the “crossroads” of these fields of practice and inquiry, while also appreciating the numerous pressures in our era on educators to adopt an unnecessarily narrow, economics-driven agenda. To pursue this interest, they organized a conference whose participants are the authors of what follows in this issue.

Setting/participants: The organizers invited six graduates of their program, who focus on teaching and teacher education, to participate in an intensive, two-day conference that would address prospects for re-envisioning generative work at the “crossroads.” They asked each graduate (now a tenure-track or tenured professor) to invite a colleague rooted in other disciplinary configurations—but also invested in teaching and teacher education—to collaborate with them. The conference featured six presentations by these teams of colleagues, who are, in turn, the co-authors of the six core articles included in this special issue of the journal. The faculty organizers also invited two senior scholars steeped in teaching and teacher education to work with them as commentators before, during, and after the conference.

Project Design: In preparation for the conference, held at Teachers College on November 9–11, 2017, the 17 participants devoted approximately eight months to extensive collaborate work, including the construction of a conference bibliography that would inform their work. During this time, each team of future co-presenters/ co-authors (a) conceived a topic they would examine together, (b) prepared an initial outline of their planned inquiry, and (c) composed a draft of their forthcoming co-presentation at the conference. At each of these stages, the two senior faculty in Philosophy and Education at Teachers College, and the two invited senior faculty, provided critical commentary. After the conference, the co-presenters transformed their work into articles. This process included several pre-established rounds of critical commentary on drafts by the senior faculty. The upshot of this collaborative endeavor are the studies presented in this issue: (1) a philosophical perspective on what are called “core practices” in teaching, (2) the philosophical underpinnings of an approach in teacher education entitled “Interruptions,” (3) what it means to think of teachers as “handlers” of student and community memory, (4) reimagining childhood, and what it means to work with children, through the fused lens of philosophy and practice, (5) teaching and teacher education understood as racialized pedagogies, and (6) how educators can expand conceptions of what it means to succeed in society.

Conclusions/Recommendations: The authors elucidate ramifications for research and practice of our collaborative work at the crossroads of philosophy, teaching, and teacher education. They address why ethical insight is as vital an outcome of research at this crossroads as is newly minted knowledge. They spotlight philosophy’s dynamic place in the practices of teaching and teacher education, including how it can help us reconceive the very idea of “good” practice. The authors suggest that philosophy need not be “applied” to education, as if philosophy and action inhabit different worlds, because educational work is always already saturated with philosophical questions and considerations, whether practitioners identify them in such terms or not. Put another way, the authors show how educational practice can transform philosophers’ understanding of the purposes and scope of their field. They argue that philosophers, scholars of teaching, teacher educators, and teachers all have an indispensable custodial or stewardship role to play in education. They are the people best positioned to care for both the practice of teaching and its practitioners. As such, it is important for them to sustain a meaningful, collaborative conversation, especially in the present context of worrisome political trends and continued pressure on educators to narrow their remit in the face of economic and other non-educational considerations.




INTRODUCTION: WHY THE CROSSROADS MATTERS


Whither goes our fast-changing world? Nobody knows, and there is no Cassandra who can predict with confidence. This truism holds for the practices of teaching and teacher education. The very identity (or soul, some might say) of these long-standing human endeavors remains in question. Educators the world over feel pressure to bend their work to the requirements of today’s globalized economy, with its ever-intensified modes of acquisitiveness and competition that loom over policy-making. The current political challenges to democracy, truth, and social justice also ramify into the school and classroom. In the face of this societal weight, many educators continue to enact authentic forms of teaching that are not reducible to a narrow means-ends calculus but are, instead, holistic and empowering for students. Their efforts take place on the ground and largely out of sight of the relentless media glare that marks our era. But though out of sight, their work is not out of mind of politicians, business leaders, parents, and other stake-holders, whose interests and anxieties flood the educational scene, adding that much more complexity to the already complicated practice of teaching.


This special issue of Teachers College Record brings together philosophers of education and colleagues from other fields, all of whom focus in their work on teaching and teacher education. We hope to show how invaluable it remains to fuse the normative and conceptual inquiry characteristic of philosophy with the ongoing study of what makes good educational practice “good,” including in teacher education. In our view, this linkage provides grounds for creative, substantive responses both to contemporary societal pressures and to the ever-present challenges immanent in teaching. The relation constitutes something other than “connecting” theory with practice. In our view, philosophy and practice comprise an epistemic and ethical ecology that resides in the conjunction “and.”


The organic relation between philosophy and education emerged millennia ago, when human beings first began to examine how their communities’ customs form people, and whether the aims and methods of such formation merit support. They deployed what we now call philosophical criticism and conceptual analysis to distinguish education from socialization. They conjured the idea that education picks up where the latter leaves off—or where it falls short, as the case may be. For example, Plato’s dialogue Meno, composed in the 4th century B.C.E., opens with the title character Meno posing a startling set of questions: “Can you tell me, Socrates—is virtue something that can be taught? Or does it come by practice? Or is it neither teaching nor practice that gives it to a man [or woman] but natural aptitude or something else?” (Plato n.d./1972, p. 115/70a). The questions are startling because of their distance from customary mores in Greece at that time (which were, in fact, undergoing unprecedented questioning regarding their wisdom and warrant, Jaeger, 1967). They are also striking because of how familiar they are today. The answers to them remain as elusive and contested as they were when Plato articulated them 2,400 years ago. We think also of inaugurating questioners such as Confucius in his Analects, composed in the 5th century B.C.E, and the authors of the South Asian Upanishads, composed over the course of centuries in the first millennium B.C.E. Like the authors of these pioneering works, contemporary scholars continue to study and debate how human beings “become” the persons they are: how they take on particular moral, aesthetic, epistemic, and other dispositions and outlooks.


Consider also the fact that Meno wants a lecture. He wants Socrates to “tell” him the answers to his questions. Socrates elides his request and, without further ado, launches into the dialogical inquiry so familiar to educators the world over. Thus, alongside the simultaneous emergence of philosophy and education millennia ago surfaces the sudden and ever-challenging question of teaching method—sudden because it had only recently surfaced philosophically in Greek culture and elsewhere, and sudden, today, because every serious-minded teacher feels its force from time to time when in the very midst of working with a class.


In what follows, the contributors to this symposium will illustrate why we referred above to the relation between philosophy and education as “organic.” As readers will see, their inquiries are simultaneously normative, conceptual, and practice-centered. They bring to bear considerable experience as schoolteachers, administrators, and/ or as teacher educators, as well as full-blown research programs in philosophy of education or other fields. The co-authors address questions, on the one hand, about teaching method, curriculum, educational policy, and assessment. On the other hand, they spotlight questions of justice, ethics, epistemology, and aesthetics as these walk hand in hand with issues of practice. Ultimately, they demonstrate why all these terms—from “method” to “ethics”—constitute heuristics for capturing aspects of the extraordinarily complicated, many-sided nature of teaching. Put another way, the terms do not point to isolated elements in pedagogy that operate independently of one another. Rather, each shines a light on a particular dimension of what constitutes an irreducible experience on the part of teachers and their students, including teacher educators and their teacher candidates.


The origins of our endeavor reside in a self-study of the Program in Philosophy and Education at Teachers College, Columbia University, conducted by the first two authors of this introductory article with the able assistance of the third author. As teachers and mentors, Hansen and Laverty have been dedicated to preparing doctoral students for faculty careers at the nexus of philosophy of education and educational practice and policy. Time and again, they have witnessed the benefits to programs in teacher education of having one or more colleagues steeped in the distinctive curricular resources, intellectual skills, and inquiry dispositions characteristic of philosophy. At the same time, they have seen repeatedly how the work of teacher educators and of researchers on teaching can enrich the field of philosophy of education. The emergence of new frameworks and practices invariably raises compelling epistemic, ethical, and political questions. In so doing, this work keeps philosophy of education tethered to “the problems of human beings,” to echo a phrase from John Dewey, rather than to the problems of philosophers alone.


However, our abiding sense that there exists an intimate, organic relation between philosophy and education is not universally shared—and nor was it among the ancient Greeks, some of whom mocked Socrates publicly for his philosophical commitments. They considered him “impractical.” He “wasted” time on seemingly unanswerable questions. Contemporary policy-makers in education have all too often dismissed the idea of engaging teacher candidates in philosophical inquiry. Some teachers, teacher educators and school administrators also shake their heads at the idea. These postures faithfully reflect the anti-intellectualism that has long been a self-inflicted blight in American culture, if not elsewhere in the world as well. The mindset finds expression in mechanistic notions of what is practical which snuff out rather than fuel curiosity and, more importantly, wonder. Wonder is a powerful source of art, of love, and of wisdom, as well as of philosophy. Wonder fused with ethical concern generates compassionate human conduct. The humanities have traditionally been a source for cultivating both wonder and concern. Their steady diminishment in higher education, under the weight of dominating economic interests among other forces, mirrors the diminishment of formal opportunities for teachers and candidates to engage in serious philosophical inquiry into the terms, norms, and values in their work. In light of such developments, we have become increasingly interested in fresh ways of building and sustaining robust relations between philosophy, teaching, and teacher education.


One upshot of these reflections was launching a conference to which we invited six graduates of our program who are infusing philosophical inquiry into their work as teacher educators and scholars of teaching. They are: Stephanie Burdick-Shepherd (Lawrence University), Cristina Camarano (Salisbury University), John Fantuzzo (Valparaiso University), Jeff Frank (St. Lawrence University), Cara Furman (University of Maine Farmington), and Shilpi Sinha (Adelphi University). As colleagues “on the ground” in schools of education, we believed their perspectives would be valuable for addressing our over-arching worries and hopes. At the same time, we invited each of them to recruit a co-presenter steeped in disciplines other than philosophy but who is also invested in teacher education and teaching. We felt these colleagues’ professional perspectives would be equally valuable for rethinking the relation between teaching, teacher education, and philosophy. They are: Mark Dixon (Middle School principal at Montgomery School, Chester Springs, Pennsylvania), Maria Paula Ghiso (Teachers College, Columbia University), Shannon Larsen (University of Maine Farmington), Joe McDonough (principal of F. S. Banford Elementary School, Canton, New York), Shaireen Rasheed (Adelphi University), and Erin Stutelberg (Salisbury University). Shaireen Rasheed is also a graduate of our doctoral program, and agreed to join the venture when another colleague had to withdraw because of unanticipated duties.


We invited the co-presenters to conceive a topic for the conference—and for this special issue—that would be, at once, both familiar and unfamiliar to them: familiar in the sense of having given it considered thought before, and unfamiliar in never having had occasion to reconstruct their understanding of it through a close collaboration with a colleague from another field or level of the educational system. Our hope was that these collaborations would generate newborn thinking about long-standing questions, tensions, and possibilities regarding the place of philosophy in educational research and practice. After extensive communication beforehand, we convened an intensive two-day conference in November, 2017, where the co-presenters gave formal papers which, through multiple rounds of revision, have been transformed into the articles that follow. We also invited two experienced teacher educators from outside (in formal disciplinary terms) the field of philosophy of education but who resonate, sympathetically and critically, with the values in philosophical inquiry. They are Margaret Crocco (Michigan State University) and Carol Rodgers (State University of New York Albany). They have served as commentators and critics throughout the process leading up to this special issue, and each has composed an Afterword for it.


We begin in the next section by elucidating the context that brought us together. We survey the current research zeitgeist that forms the backdrop to our endeavor. Following that review, we describe in further detail the collaborative process which has resulted in this special issue. Then, we turn to an overview of the co-authored articles, illuminating central questions and themes the contributors address at the crossroads of philosophy, teaching, and teacher education. Finally, we conclude with reflections about how important it is, in light of the pressures and possibilities in our era, to sustain lasting, organic relations between philosophers of education, colleagues in other fields who focus on teaching and teacher education, and school-based practitioners.


THE BACKDROP OF CURRENT RESEARCH


Our endeavor draws upon several strands of educational research which, when brought together, form a crossroads of teaching, teacher education, and philosophy. The strands include (a) philosophical research, sometimes combined with fieldwork, on the nature, methods, and aims of teaching and of teacher education; (b) influential research on teaching and teacher education by scholars rooted in diverse disciplines whose work raises, if not in so many words, significant normative and conceptual questions about the terms of practice; this body of work includes research on the demoralizing effects of contemporary educational policy on teachers and teacher educators; and (c) work in which philosophers and scholars of teaching and teacher education have published together. We will comment briefly on each of these trajectories of inquiry, and then turn to our scholarly connection with them (for specific citations in each group, please see References, Part II, at the end of this article).


RESEARCH IN PHILOSOPHY OF EDUCATION


Our venture takes one of its points of departure from an extensive literature by philosophers of education who have focused on teaching and teacher education. These scholars are often directly involved in the practice of teacher education, encompassing everything from admissions, to teaching university-based courses, to establishing school-university partnerships, and to working with student teachers. Their research involves systematic conceptual analysis of the fundamental terms of the work. They examine differences, for example, between educating and indoctrinating, teaching and socializing, teaching and parenting, teacher education and teacher training, just and unjust conditions for teachers’ work, and the like. Conceptual analysis in philosophy of education also encompasses conceptual ‘”disclosure”—that is, paying close heed to the concepts that teachers, school administrators, counselors, parents, and others deploy to represent their views, actions, and concerns. Their concepts are not abstract specimens of logic. These persons live them. And because they embody and enact them, the concepts can acquire rich, deep, and nuanced meaning. Moreover, that meaning continuously transforms through the crucible of experience, which is why philosophers and teachers alike return again and again to their fundamental concepts. At first glance, their doing so may seem peculiar: Don’t we educators already know what teaching is? The now millennia-old answer to this question takes different forms: yes and no; sometimes and sometimes not; always and never. Teaching is not mere mechanics, which self-generate once put in place. Teaching is a continuous metamorphosis of aims and methods, of persons and roles.


Philosophers have sought to draw out the meaning and significance of educational concepts deployed by practitioners, scholars, teacher educators, and policy-makers. In a broad sense, philosophers of education have elucidated epistemic, ethical, aesthetic, cultural, and political dimensions of the long-standing practices of teaching and teacher education. In some cases, these scholars combine philosophical inquiry with fieldwork in schools or other settings. Their aim in so doing is not to mimic social scientists. Instead, their purpose is to generate fresh, context-based normative inquiry through “lived” proximity to students, teachers, administrators, parents, community members, and others involved in education, understood here as a process larger than schooling considered alone (again, for these and ensuing paragraphs, please see References, Part II).


RESEARCH ON TEACHING AND TEACHER EDUCATION


The research literature on teaching and teacher education is broad and diffuse. For the purposes of our undertaking, we have benefitted from research that either includes attention to philosophical issues and debates or that embodies underlying philosophical ideas that can be rendered explicit and action-guiding from both an inquiry and practice perspective. We perceive numerous ramifications of this research for reconceptualizing contemporary philosophical inquiry and its relation to research on teaching and teacher education.


There is a rich literature developed in recent decades, deriving from diverse methods of inquiry, that illuminates the complex, value-laden nature of teaching. The research helps us understand the fundamental academic, cultural, moral, and social elements of the role of teacher in school and society, and how teachers can realize, or enact, these elements in their work. Scholars have examined empirically the impact and place in teaching of considerations of race, class, gender, sexual orientation, religious outlook, civic status, and more. They have investigated issues of equity in educational provision as these bear on teachers and students in the school and classroom. The research has informed in countless ways contemporary theory and practice in teacher education.


A recent, largely interview- and survey-based research program has emerged in which scholars are illuminating the effects on teachers’ morale—encompassing a sense of efficacy and well-being—in the wake of widely reported constraints and pressures generated by today’s “accountability” regime with its emphasis on extensive standardized testing. This body of work brings ethical concerns, intertwined with epistemic questions, to the very forefront regarding teachers’ work conditions as well as teacher recruitment and assessment, and all this with the ever-present consciousness that these issues bear directly on the experience and well-being of students.


COLLABORATIVE RESEARCH BETWEEN PHILOSOPHERS AND SCHOLARS OF TEACHING AND TEACHER EDUCATION


Some philosophers of education and scholars of teaching and teacher education have not only collaborated but have co-authored significant work. Among other themes, they have fused philosophy and school-based fieldwork (observations and interviews) to show the importance of what they call the teacher’s “manner” of working. This term denotes how the teacher’s very character saturates his or her everyday work, to either the well-being or the detriment of students. Other colleagues have described teacher education programs in which faculty across fields engage candidates and cooperating teachers alike in systematic inquiry into the epistemic and moral dimensions of teaching. Still other collaborators have deployed case studies of schools to document organizational features that can render school a supportive academic and moral environment for both students and teachers. There have also been noteworthy collaborations between philosophers of education who attend in the same breadth to teaching and teacher education. They have studied, among other topics, the irreducible complexity of teaching as well as what it means to be a teacher.


A NOTE ON ETHICAL AND EPISTEMIC INSIGHT


These many-sided lines of inquiry address, if not in so many words, the normative and value-laden nature of all teaching and teacher education. We believe they merit being brought into closer scholarly proximity, while also being infused with newly framed perspectives responsive to contemporary circumstances. Our entire endeavor, in general, and the articles that follow, in particular, have sought to enact this aim in ways both explicit and implicit. As readers will note, the articles do not build directly, in a laser-like manner, upon current research trajectories. The latter have constituted, instead, a scholarly ethos that has made possible our collaborative venture in the first place. The co-authored articles incorporate insights, or lessons, from this ethos, and in this respect aspire to add to what we know about teaching and teacher education.


At the same time, however, the explicit charge given to the contributors was to point us to fresh ways of working at the crossroads of philosophy, teaching, and teacher education. In this respect, their work moves beyond solely adding to a knowledge base, as such. Rather, it transforms our understanding of what sorts of knowledge we need and, indeed, whether it is knowledge alone or ethical insight that should be the aim of inquiry. As many philosophers have argued, knowledge—including knowledge derived from research on teaching and teacher education—is never self-explanatory or self-justifying. It can be downright harmful if applied in the absence of a mature, experienced sense of judgment. We make no claims to possessing such judgment, but we do perceive its centrality in educational research and practice. The articles that follow invite us to reimagine our understanding of the research, collaborations, and practices that we most need today—and perhaps tomorrow, too. They ask whether new forms of community amongst scholars and practitioners at the crossroads of philosophy, teaching, and teacher education may be as important, if not more so, as the pursuit of new knowledge as conventionally understood.


A RESEARCH CONFERENCE: TESTING IDEAS AT THE CROSSROADS OF PHILOSOPHY, TEACHING, AND TEACHER EDUCATION


Conference Bibliography


The remarks above about our dynamic relation with contemporary research contextualize the first task we presented to the conference participants (including ourselves): namely, for each participant to nominate three readings for what became a conference bibliography all of us could consult. We posed the criteria of selection as follows. The readings, each no longer than article-length, should (a) have been helpful in the person’s work either directly or indirectly, (b) been inspirational, and/ or (c) perceived to be of value to others in rethinking the relations between teaching, teacher education, and philosophy. Having posted the three readings on our conference google site, each participant then identified one of them which would become part of a core reference list for purposes of the upcoming conference (for this list, please see References, Part III). Our hope was that the core bibliography would help build a sense of scholarly community. It would constitute both a ‘materialization’ of the crossroads of philosophy, teaching, and teacher education, and an opportunity to begin to get to know how our other colleagues think, since what persons elect to read can speak volumes about their sensibilities and outlooks.


At the same time, we hoped the conference bibliography would spur participants, that much more, to step into the uncharted terrain we believed this endeavor could generate. Accordingly, we encouraged participants to read widely in the core list, especially those texts outside their familiar areas of expertise. We echoed our guiding charge to them, that their eventual co-presentations should not refer solely to research they had already done—in other words, from understandings already settled in mind. Rather, we encouraged each pair to take an intellectual risk: to push beyond the modes of inquiry and writing to which they had already become adept (cf. Hansen, 2011). We emphasized that the collaborative dimension of the undertaking did not imply that the co-presentations should be, in crude terms, 50% representative of one participant’s previous work and 50% representative of the other’s, as if the matter were a mere quantitative expression of what they already know. Instead, we envisioned the philosopher in each pair, alongside the colleague rooted in another disciplinary configuration (or professional role, as in the case of our two participating school principals), finding a scholarly “space” neither had occupied before. We believed it vital that participants create newly crafted platforms for reflection at the crossroads of philosophy, teaching, and teacher education, especially if we were to succeed in encouraging colleagues near and far to do the same. Put another way, by taking a bit of a risk ourselves, we might encourage others to do so as well, all in the name of establishing deeper and richer scholarly and pedagogical relations. A crucial meaning of “deeper” and “richer,” in this context, has to do with imaginative responsiveness to current educational pressures and prospects.


Identifying Themes and Questions


In this spirit, after asking participants to nominate readings, we then invited them to post on our conference google site (so that all could view them) the following, in order of completion: (a) a statement of their proposed theme for their co-presentation, (b) an outline fleshing out their theme, and (c) a draft of their co-presentation. Each of these steps presented the contributors with distinctive challenges. In some cases, the co-presenters knew and had worked previously with one another. In other cases, they either had not met their partner before (as was the case with Stephanie Burdick-Shepherd and Maria Paula Ghiso, whom we recommended collaborate) or had not worked in formal circumstances together. In all cases, the arts of communication came swiftly into play. Each pair had to create the “space” touched on above where philosophy, teaching, and teacher education could meet. As organizers, we had intentionally avoided dictating to them what the contours and substance of this shape should be. We were embarked on our own attempts, alongside those of everyone else, to reimagine grounds for inquiry and practice in our time. The advice we gave the collaborators, at the start of their deliberations, was to consider steps such as these: discussing together why they had agreed to participate in this unusual endeavor in the first place; sharing with one another one or more of their previous publications or related writings; discussing why each had nominated their three particular readings; sharing their deepest questions and concerns as scholars and practitioners; and thinking “out loud” together about the relations between teaching, teacher education, and philosophy.


During the six-month period in which participants undertook these steps, Crocco, Hansen, Laverty, and Rodgers provided detailed feedback at each phase. In so doing, the four of us, in effect, pooled our respective backgrounds in philosophy, teaching, and teacher education. Our purpose, as conceived at the outset of the endeavor, was to create a dynamic, supportive learning environment for participants (including ourselves), since none of our work took the form of preset or completed thinking, such that all we would need do was share reports. Instead, from the start participants’ undertakings had the form of “live” inquiries, incorporating the associated elements of possibility, uncertainty, excitement, anxiety, and intellectual suspense.


The result of this somewhat messy process was that by the time our conference convened at Teachers College on November 9-11, 2017, everyone involved had had multiple opportunities to familiarize themselves with what other participants were thinking and writing. The conference itself took the combined form of a seminar and workshop. There was no audience other than the seventeen of us. In the introductory session, Hansen and Laverty reviewed the rationale for the endeavor and the steps undertaken thus far. They touched on their views of the values in philosophy as well as of the challenges to keeping them alive in educational research and practice. Crocco and Rodgers provided overviews of their sense of the contemporary fields of teacher education and of research on teaching, as well as of what we had accomplished thus far as a group in preparing for the conference. The ensuing day and half encompassed co-presentations by the participants. Each pair devoted 45 minutes to their co-presentation, followed by a like amount of time for discussion with other conferees. The sessions were lively and saturated with imaginative questions, point-counterpoint, and the general give-and-take which makes scholarly exchange so invigorating and memorable.


The conference also featured several review sessions, each 90 minutes in duration, with one led by Crocco and Rodgers at the half-way point, and the other by Hansen and Laverty at the conclusion. We interspersed this intensive work with opportunities to break bread, including an evening banquet on the second day where each participant described a work of art that illuminated the spirit, substance, ethos, and/ or significance, of what they were learning from our shared, unscripted movement into the crossroads of teaching, teacher education, and philosophy. We closed the conference by outlining next steps for the preparation of this special issue as well as for other forms of dissemination.


OVERVIEW OF THE SPECIAL ISSUE


The articles that follow have gone through several full-blown iterations: the first as a conference co-presentation, the second as an initial draft manuscript of an article, the third as a blow-by-blow revision in the wake of criticism from the four commentators, and the fourth as a final revision in light of a concluding round of editorial commentary. In each article, the co-authors draw on their previous research and teaching as well as on several other sources of insight: the broad lines of research reviewed previously, the conference bibliography, research that informs their particular theme, and additional works that have influenced their overarching ways of thinking about education. Readers will note that the authors address educational issues at the forefront of debates in the United States. However, we will suggest that their core themes ramify into educational work the world over, especially in light of today’s globalized communications.


The multiple drafts and extensive feedback attest to the experimental aspect of our endeavor. The articles that follow, and all the collaborative work that has led up to them, are not just ‘about’ education. Rather, each article, and each word of feedback on them, has also sought to enact the practice of education—that is to say, the actual experience of learning in the richest sense of that all-too-familiar term. We have operated from the start on the assumption that even the most experienced of researchers, teachers, and teacher educators can learn in significant ways from colleagues who share similar concerns, yet address them in distinctive fashion.


In the first article, entitled “Core Practices and Philosophy of Education: Balancing Effectiveness with Goodness,” Jeff Frank and Joe McDonough illustrate the roles philosophical inquiry can play in teaching and teacher education by examining what are called ‘core practices’. These are practices that researchers in teaching and teacher education have argued are central to the work. Frank and McDonough ask whether their effectiveness in achieving scholastic aims is matched by their goodness, that is, by their benefit to students’ overall intellectual, ethical, and social learning. The authors suggest that core practices can fuse effectiveness and goodness, but only if teacher educators and teachers are mindful of the profound educational values in this fusion. To attain that understanding, they will need to engage the fact that the terms and purposes constitutive of core practices are neither self-explanatory nor self-justifying. This awareness, in effect, can position them to transform core practices into holistic practices. At the same time, Frank and McDonough argue that philosophers of education have much to learn from examining core practices since they reveal, or express, underlying assumptions about the nature and purposes of education. Such inquiry can enrich the ethos of the field itself. The authors conclude that the teacher education community, in which many philosophers of education participate, will be well-served by rethinking how philosophical inquiry can be embedded across the range of experiences that comprise a teacher education program.


Cara Furman and Shannon Larsen, in their article “Interruptions: Thinking-in-Action in Teacher Education” examine an activity they have developed in their undergraduate teacher education practice that they call “interruptions.” These are pre-planned as well as spontaneous moments in the university classroom in which a teacher educator interrupts a colleague to question a pedagogical move he or she has just made. The purpose is to raise teacher candidates’ awareness of the forms of “thinking-in-action” that Furman and Larsen argue constitute an ongoing aspect of working with students. The interruptions enable teacher educators to spotlight both instructional technique and underlying educational values. In so doing, they can help candidates realize, in “living color,” so to speak, that educational aims are always at stake regardless of whether teachers are aware of that fact. Furman and Larsen show how invaluable it is for teachers to be philosophically aware of the intertwined dynamics of technique and larger educational values. This awareness can help them be that much more purposive and effective in their work. The authors illuminate in fine-grained detail how teacher educators can collaborate to make interruptions, and activities like them, a distinctive educational experience for candidates, while also fueling teacher educators’ own ongoing ethical and intellectual education at the crossroads of teaching, teacher education, and philosophy.


In “‘Seeing through Serpent and Eagle Eyes’: Teachers as Handlers of Memories,” Cristina Cammarano and Erin Stutelberg reimagine the relation between teachers and curriculum. They address the values in treating curriculum as dynamic, rather than as an inert or “dead” body of knowledge that teachers simply hand over to students as if passing material over a transom. The authors show that curriculum can become personally meaningful and thus “alive” for students if teachers conceive themselves as, among other things, handlers of memory. This term points to how all curriculum has its origins, deep in the past, in human efforts to understand and to be at home in the world. Teachers can work to reanimate curriculum’s natal origins, in human wonder and concern, by taking seriously students’ life experience and their singular, sometimes inchoate efforts to render life meaningful and purposive. Teachers can engage young people not in the manner of a school psychologist or counselor, important as those roles are, but in the manner of an educator for whom curriculum is always alive rather than a stale body of overly rehearsed “stuff.” For the teacher, the curriculum is as alive as students, and vice versa—or, at least, the curriculum can be if the teacher perceives it as embodied memory, alongside perceiving students as persons with ever-dynamic memories in which curriculum can come to play an empowering role. Cammarano and Stutelberg challenge the reader, as they have challenged themselves, to come to grips philosophically with the deepest promise embedded in that thing called curriculum.


Maria Paula Ghiso and Stephanie Burdick-Shepherd re-open fundamental themes in early childhood education in their contribution, “Inquiring into Notions of Educational Improvement by Teaching Where We Think: Philosophical Meditations as a Practice of Teacher Education.” The authors question presuppositions about what programmatic “improvement” might mean at this level of formal education, alongside questioning contemporary assumptions about childhood itself. They argue that unexamined normative views of the child have, at one and the same time, harmed the educational experience of historically disenfranchised children of color, and undermined the possibilities for all children by categorizing them a priori into various developmental ideologies. Ghiso and Burdick-Shepherd fashion a distinctive perspective on these issues by engaging in what they call “philosophical meditations” as teacher educators. They illuminate how their communications, undertaken over the course of the endeavor described in this introductory article, propelled them into creative, self-critical meditation on their guiding values and aims. They learned to see beyond the contours of their particular research fields. They describe ways in which philosophy came alive for them, even as they discerned the importance of ‘thinking where you are’, that is, being mindful of one’s particular social position and overall orientation toward human experience. Ghiso and Burdick-Shepherd conjure the limitations in any given mode of inquiry when wheeled up against the lived experience of children in a pluralistic society still marked by forms of social and educational injustice. They show how philosophy can become a powerful dimension in a teacher educator’s work, even as the teacher educator calls upon philosophy, in a manner of speaking, to rise to the needs of living communities.


In “Journeying Toward Transformative Teaching in the Age of Alternative Facts,” Shilpi Sinha and Shaireen Rasheed deploy a case study of their own teaching to spotlight the question of how teacher educators can help prepare white candidates, in a teaching force that remains largely white, for what can be called authentic work with culturally diverse students. “Authentic” in this context entails recognizing the direct and indirect ways in which white privilege, juxtaposed with the existential and material realities of a racialized and unjust society, can play out in classroom practice. Sinha and Rasheed describe a university class, comprised of teacher candidates of whom the majority are white, that generated considerable tension and confusion. Rasheed, who was a visitor to Sinha’s class that particular day, sought to encourage students to acknowledge, care about, and question their own relation to societal injustices such as racism. Many students responded with resentment and either subtle or overt withdrawal, with one candidate stomping angrily out of the classroom. Based on this unsettling experience, as well as on numerous other encounters with predominantly white populations of teacher candidates, Sinha and Rasheed raise questions about how to best prepare the educational “ground” for what they regard as ethically transformative experience. They argue that a largely cognitive approach may be ineffectual, given the limitations scholars have identified in trying to educate the human mind apart from engaging emotions and indeed bodies themselves. The authors illuminate the values they see in critical phenomenology, a research orientation that suggests that racism, like other deep-seated presumptions, is embodied in pre-cognitive responses and actions in the world. One consequence of their inquiry, they argue, is that teacher educators will need to juxtapose cognitive foci with pedagogical practices that help teacher candidates perceive how their bodies perceive, i.e., how they may be responding in racialized terms before reflection has even gotten underway. Without grasping their pre-cognitive responses to the world, Sinha and Rasheed suggest, teacher candidates’ reflections on practice may be ethically hamstrung from the start.


The final co-authored contribution to the special issue is by John Fantuzzo and Mark Dixon. Entitled “Nudging the Opportunity Structure: A Modest and Grand Aim for Teacher Education,” the authors criticize the dominant model of “success” in schooling, namely getting into college. They show how this model generates relentless, often problematic pressure on school administrators, teachers, students, and parents. They emphasize how college can sometimes be an alienating experience for some youth, even while saddling many with staggering debt. Moreover, the college imperative not so gently hints that students who do not make the cut are failures and perhaps undeserving of respect. The authors contrast this problem with what they characterize as a non-reductive approach to success centered upon a reimagining of the opportunity structure in society. Instead of privileging competition for a scarce resource that may not actually benefit all students, Fantuzzo and Dixon illuminate why teachers can well serve students and families by making plain the manifold forms of opportunity available in society, this in conjunction with explicit consideration of the sources and societal impact of dominant models of “making it.” The authors offer a sympathetic critique of the ideology of equality of opportunity, suggesting that this otherwise laudable value can inadvertently intensify higher education’s monopoly over what counts as success for high school graduates. By broadening our conceptions of opportunity and success, the authors argue, we position teachers and school administrators to humanize their relations with students and families, rather than being forced, in effect, to cajole them into a single career channel. The authors commend examining these topics in educational foundations courses for teacher candidates, and in teacher and school administrator workshops.


In their respective Afterwords, Margaret Crocco and Carol Rodgers provide perspectives on the overall project that has given rise to this special issue of the journal. They illuminate questions they see running across the articles, which they argue merit continued study by researchers, teacher educators, teachers, and all those involved in educational policy and administration.


CONCLUSION: A CALL FOR COMMUNITY AMONG PHILOSOPHERS OF EDUCATION, COLLEAGUES RESEARCHING TEACHING AND TEACHER EDUCATION, AND PRACTITIONERS


Like Crocco and Rodgers, we perceive several common themes threading their way through the six articles in this special issue. These themes, in turn, point to how philosophers of education, scholars of teaching and teacher education, and practitioners might work together to enhance the educational well-being of students and educators alike. As touched on previously, these themes have global implications given the current worldwide exchange of ideas and practices, and given the fundamental terms of education broadly construed. For example, teachers everywhere face the question whether they are solely state functionaries socializing children and youth into the status quo, or whether they are responsible for helping the young cultivate a reflective, questioning orientation in the name of social change, including with regards to peaceful global interaction. This cultural, existential, and ethical question ramifies into conceptions of teaching, curriculum, childhood, identity, and success. In the nature of things, all such matters are addressed locally, in light of particular circumstances that can vary widely from place to place. Nonetheless, teachers the world over have much to learn from one another with respect to how and why they educate.


PHILOSOPHY AND THE MEANING OF GOOD TEACHING


When viewed as a whole, or as a gestalt, the articles show that the question of what constitutes good teaching can only be adequately addressed through a comprehensive epistemic, ethical, aesthetic, and cultural lens—precisely the sort of lens that can materialize at the crossroads of philosophy, teaching, and teacher education. However, to embrace such a view simultaneously entails accepting the fact that the full meaning of “good teaching” will never be finally resolved, a point that mirrors the familiar fact that no teacher can expect to reach perfection in all facets of the work. Dedicated teachers and scholars of teaching eventually become impatient with any given definition, since it so easily takes on a wooden, inert form, one which can also seem exclusionary despite the efforts by the definer to be broad-minded. What the authors suggest here is that all who care about teaching can contribute to characterizing it, in the sense of describing its character as a long-standing, dynamic human practice. This task has no end, and its importance cannot be gainsaid. The concrete experience of teachers and their students depends, in part, on how people think and talk about the work, including teachers and students themselves. Some descriptions are critical in a supportive and generative spirit; others are merely disheartening and undermining. Philosophers of education, scholars of teaching and teacher education, teachers, and candidates: all have a stake in ensuring that the richest, most fruitful, and most true-to-life descriptions—or characterizations —guide both policy and practice.


Talk of goodness in teaching, with its powerful normative overtones, also reveals the manifold values of philosophy of education and of philosophical inquiry. On the one hand, the articles show how work in the field of philosophy of education can be helpful to the fields of research and practice in teaching and teacher education. On the other hand, the contributors make plain the value of philosophical inquiry in teaching and teacher education. They demonstrate the benefits of philosophical analysis of concepts, ideas, policies, and practices. At the same time, they illuminate why philosophy is not merely a theoretical exercise. Philosophy has its own forms of embodiment, revealed, for example, in the ways in which several articles touch on philosophy as ‘the art of living.’ This millennia-old strand of philosophy has given rise, among other things, to what Pierre Hadot, Michel Foucault, and other scholars summarize as the ethical care or cultivation of the self. The aim here is not enhancing one’s strategic, self-promoting capacities (along the lines of numerous “self-help” books on the market today). Instead, ethical exercises of the self support teachers in fashioning themselves into the finest teachers, and persons, they can be, on the premise that it is the person in the role, rather than the role as such, who educates (or fails to do so, as the case may be).


This perspective does not elide the necessity of creating structural conditions that support good teaching. Work on structure—on the part of policy-makers, researchers, teacher educators, and practitioners—walks hand-in-hand with individual work on the self. In the absence of structural support, the latter may lead to further instances of teacher burn-out and demoralization. The contributors help us appreciate why the current system sometimes seems designed to wear out teachers, so that less expensive, less reflective, and more interchangeable functionaries can be put in place. This polemical turn of phrase should be read not as a diatribe but as a plea, embodied in this special issue of the journal, to recognize and act upon the dignity of teachers and the students with whom they work.


PHILOSOPHY IN TEACHER EDUCATION, TEACHER EDUCATION IN PHILOSOPHY


The articles address ways in which philosophical inquiry can be revitalized in educational foundations courses, as well as infused across the diverse elements of a teacher education program. In a large sense, one might say, philosophy can be “applied” to teacher education. But the contributors show how limited and constraining is this familiar conception of the relation between philosophy and practice. Practice is always already saturated with actions and thoughts that virtually cry out for philosophical consideration, pertaining to their warrant or justification, to their meaning and holistic human importance, to what they disclose about the values always at play in educating, and much more. Seminars with student teachers, for example, are ripe for fusing pedagogical and philosophical inquiry, in which talk of methods conjoins with talk of fundamental educational purposes to help candidates take hold of the full significance of the historic practice they have elected to enter. Our reference at the start of this article to Plato’s Meno shows that the very emergence of what we can identify as “education,” as contrasted with processes of socialization and enculturation, went hand in hand with the emergence of ethical inquiry, which is to say philosophical inquiry into what it means to be good and to be just—and how to become so—with respect to individuals and societies alike.


Put another way, the contributors disclose how philosophy of education can be enriched when it takes its point of departure from the practices of teacher education, rather than presuming its office is merely to inform, from the outside so to speak, those practices. What it means to teach, to prepare another human being to teach, to work in a school, to collaborate with colleagues, to assess a new or veteran teacher, and so much more, are fertile questions for the philosopher who seeks to understand educational work and to contribute to it. Moreover, as the articles make plain, to converse systematically with teacher educators, with scholars of teaching rooted in diverse fields, and with practitioners in schools, opens the philosopher up to the world of concrete rather than abstract human values, hopes, and aspirations as these constitute educational life today. In our view, the philosopher—like any scholar of teaching and teacher education—needs to feel this reality, not just think “about” it, if her or his work is to ascend to a platform where it can be integral to educational work.


Once more, our claim is not reducible to notions of “applying” philosophy to practice, though we have no quarrel with colleagues who advocate this time-honored approach. As a guiding principle, any and all resources that philosophy can contribute to teaching and teacher education are welcome. Our point is that philosophy of education, as a field, and philosophical inquiry, as a practice, are many-sided and can include—productively, as the articles here show—work derived from attending, first and last, to educational practice.

 

These remarks instantiate the collective experience of the participants in this special issue. Our extensive work together, both online and face-to-face, brought to mind not only the fact that education and philosophy are organically associated, but that education is bound up with fundamental questions regarding who and what human beings take themselves to be in a world that is ever-changing and unpredictable. These questions are not the preserve of experts but belong to everyone and are faced by everyone. In bringing our endeavor to fruition, our further, unfinished task as teachers and scholars is to bring them to life in our own classrooms and meetings with students and colleagues, and to test and criticize how our collective conversation has influenced what we do.


TEACHING, TEACHERS, AND SOCIETAL GROWTH


Teachers do not dwell in a social or political vacuum, even though shutting the proverbial classroom door may imply otherwise. That familiar image, in fact, contains a permanent truth: good teaching cannot happen without conserving a substantive, professional measure of teacher autonomy and authority. But teachers work with other people’s children, and in public (i.e., state-run) schools they are explicitly public servants—that is, persons charged with a civic responsibility to help prepare young people to participate in and eventually lead society. This dynamic, always delicate intertwining of public obligation and personal agency puts teachers on the frontline of prospects for societal growth. On the one hand, they often encounter strong pressure to work within, and to sustain, the status quo. This pressure compresses their role into that of socializers rather than of educators, to deploy the distinction rendered previously. “Civic responsibility” ends up translating into a socially reproductive rather than creative task, with “creative” understood here as enhancing conditions for democratic life (cf. Dewey, 1988). On the other hand, teachers enjoy considerable degrees of freedom, even under today’s policy and institutional constraints, to engage in educational work rather than blindly follow external dictates. The articles in this issue conjure an image of the teacher as a socially conscious and aware individual, bringing a sense of ethical concern and of wonder to the work alongside knowledge of the curriculum and pedagogical ability.


To educate and support such teachers, the contributors point to how timely it would be to redirect today’s massive resources spent on standardized testing into serious, systematic, long-term teacher education. This transformation, as implied in several of the articles, would mean reconceiving our very notions of educational “improvement” and “success.” It would allow teachers to take the lead, as they are literally well-positioned to do, in assessing students’ educational growth in meaningful rather than narrow, by-the-numbers ways. This strong, systemic support could help all teachers take on the profound educational responsibility embedded in the practice, something that the very best practitioners have always embraced, sometimes at great individual cost in terms of time, resources, and energy. If all teachers received the proper support, no teacher would be forced, at least in principle, into socially unfair “heroic” postures that all too often simply exhaust them.


This call to redirect educational resources sounds utopian, if not fantastical given the present top-down, control-oriented ethos of policy, itself a symptom of the hold that individualistic, competitive economic interests have on so much public life today. But utopian ideas can help shine a bright light on the human consequences of misguided policy and practice. Moreover, like ideals that derive from a sense of the real, rather than in mere contrast with it, they can indicate directions worth taking. The articles in this special issue, alongside other research documented in the reference section below, attest to why educators do not need to wait around for permission to undertake genuine educational work. They are enacting it everywhere, fueled by ground-up collaborations, mechanisms for mutual support, creative input from students, parents, and communities, and much more. We believe that integrating in explicit ways philosophy, teaching, and teacher education can deepen and enrich this ongoing, invaluable work, including through its effects on policy-making.


CONVERSATION AND COMMUNITY AT THE CROSSROADS OF PHILOSOPHY, TEACHING, AND TEACHER EDUCATION


We mentioned previously that we regard ethical insight to be as valuable an outcome of educational inquiry as newly minted knowledge. For one thing, it is a truism that new knowledge derived from research is never self-explanatory or self-justifying. It requires a philosophical argument to defend its actual implementation in schools or elsewhere; otherwise the move is simply arbitrary. For another thing, it is also a truism—as the articles here make plain—that good teaching is a matter of good judgment, not solely a matter of technique. Good judgment in teaching takes time to develop, practice, and nurture. But these truths are often forgotten, or elbowed aside, as quick fix mentalities fuse with the presumption that whatever “works” must be worthwhile (cf. Biesta 2007, 2010; Labaree, 2014).


Our experience in the endeavor represented here suggests that such truths can be kept front and center, and can be continuously refined, through an ongoing conversation between philosophers of education, researchers on teaching and teacher education, and practitioners across all levels of the system. The conversation can take forms such as our undertaking, which we believe can and should be pursued in diverse ways in all kinds of settings where teacher education takes place. We have found it fruitful to think about the very term “undertaking,” because we have also found ourselves referring to our work as an “endeavor,” a “project,” a “workshop,” a “conference,” a “seminar,” a “dialogue,” an “encounter,” and more. We have wondered, in keeping with our experimental orientation, if our work is inter-, trans-, or cross-disciplinary, or whether it moves beyond such familiar characterizations of discipline-rooted communication. All of this points to why, in our view, a core aim of such endeavors (or whatever name we give them) would be ethical insight as much as novel ideas for practice. The premise underlying this aim is that philosophers, scholars of teaching, teacher educators, and teachers all have an indispensable custodial or stewardship role to play in education. They are the people best positioned to care for both the practice of teaching and its practitioners. For another truism of education, and of life writ large, is that nothing good will survive unless it is cared for. We have experienced what it can mean to care for, and to conserve, a meaningful conversation about teaching and teacher education. It is an environmental sense of conservation: to conserve and enhance an ethos that supports teachers and the best work of which they are capable.


We hope readers will enjoy the articles that follow and will themselves consider participating at the crossroads of philosophy, teaching, and teacher education.



Acknowledgements


We are grateful to Provost Thomas James of Teachers College, Columbia University, for making support possible for our endeavor through the Provost’s Investment Grant program. We also thank Joe Danna, secretary for the Program in Philosophy and Education at the College, for his assistance in organizing the conference that gave rise to this special issue.


References


Part I. References for this Introduction


Biesta, G. J. J. (2007). Why ‘what works’ won’t work: Evidence-based practice and the democratic deficit in educational research. Educational Theory, 57(1), 1–22.


Biesta, G. J. J. (2010). Why ‘what works’ still won’t work: From evidence-based education to value-based education. Studies in Philosophy and Education, 29(5), 491–503.


Dewey, J.  (1988). Creative democracy—The task before us. John Dewey, the later works 1925–1953, Vol. 14: 1939–1941, ed. J. A. Boydston (224–230). Carbondale: Southern Illinois University Press.


Hansen, D. T. (2011). Introduction: Rethinking globalization, education, and citizenship. Teachers College Record, 113(6), 1135–153.


Jaeger, W. (1967). Paideia: The Ideals of Greek Culture, in Three Volumes. Oxford: Oxford University Press.


Labaree, D. (2014). Let’s measure what no one teaches: PISA, NCLB, and the shrinking aims of education. Teachers College Record, 116(9), 1–14.


Plato (n.d./ 1972). Protagoras and Meno, trans. W. K. C. Guthrie. London: Penguin.


Part II. References to Research in Philosophy of Education, Teaching, and Teacher Education


A. Philosophical Research on Teaching and Teacher Education


Biesta, G. J. J., & Stengel, B. S. (2016). Thinking philosophically about teaching. In Handbook of Research on Teaching, 5th ed., Ed. D. H. Gitomer & C. A. Bell. Washington DC: American Educational Research Association.


Bingham, C., & Sidorkin, A. M. (2004). No education without relation [Special issue]. Counterpoints 259, vii–190.


Fenstermacher, G. D., & Soltis, J. F. (2009). Approaches to teaching, 5th ed. New York: Teachers College Press.


Floden, R. E., & Buchmann, M. (2001). Philosophical inquiry in teacher education. In Handbook of Research on Teacher Education, 4th ed., Ed. V. Richardson. Washington DC: American Educational Research Association.


Garcia, Justin A., & Tyson E. Lewis. (2014). Getting a grip on the classroom: From psychological to phenomenological curriculum development in teacher education programs. Curriculum Inquiry, 44(2), 141–168.


Hansen, D. T. (1995). The call to teach. New York: Teachers College Press.


Hansen, D. T. (2001). Exploring the moral heart of teaching: Toward a teacher’s creed. New York: Teachers College Press.


Hansen, D. T. (2011). The teacher and the world: A study of cosmopolitanism as education. New York: Routledge.


Heilbronn, R. (2008). Teacher education and the development of practical judgment. London: Continuum.


Heilbronn, R., & Foreman-Peck, L. (Eds.). (2015). Philosophical perspectives on the future of teacher education. Oxford, UK: Wiley-Blackwell.


Higgins, C. R. (2011). The good life of teaching: An ethics of professional practice. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.


Hostetler, K. D. (Ed.) (1997). Ethical judgment in teaching. Boston: Allyn & Bacon.


Hostetler, K. D. (2011). Seducing souls: Education and the experience of human well-being. New York: Continuum.


Hogan, P., & Smith, R. (2003). The activity of philosophy and the practice of education. In: N. Blake, P. Smeyers, R. Smith, & P. Standish (Eds.), The Blackwell guide to the philosophy of education. London: Blackwell.


Kerdeman, D. (2003). Pulled up short: Challenging self-understanding as a focus for teaching and learning. Journal of Philosophy of Education, 37(2), 293–308.


Laverty, M. J. (2014). Conceiving education: The creative task before us. Theory and Research in Education, 12(1), 99–109.


Laverty, M. J. (2014). The world of instruction: Undertaking the impossible. Ethics and Education, 9(1), 42–53.


Levinson, M., & Newman, A. (Eds.). (2015). Symposium on philosophy of education, empirical research, and policy analysis. Theory and Research in Education, 13(1), 3–136.


Proefriedt, W. (1994). How teachers learn: Toward a more liberal teacher education. New York: Teachers College Press.


Santoro, D. A., & Wilson, T. S. (Eds). (2015). Philosophy pursued through empirical research: Introduction to the Special Issue. Studies in Philosophy and Education, 34(2), 115-124.


Sherman, S. (2013). Teacher preparation as an inspirational practice: Building capacities for responsiveness. New York: Routledge.


Sockett, H. (2012). Knowledge and virtue in teaching and learning: The primacy of dispositions. New York: Routledge.


Sockett, H. (2019). Moral thought in educational practice: The primacy of moral matters for teaching and learning. New York: Routledge.


Strike, K. A., & Soltis, J. F. (1992). The ethics of teaching (2nd ed.). New York: Teachers College Press.



B. Research on Teaching and Teacher Education Rooted in Diverse Disciplines


B1. Research on teaching and teacher education as value-laden, normative professions


Ben-Peretz, M. (1995). Learning from experience: Memory and the teacher’s account of

teaching. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press.


Britzman, D. P. (2003). Practice makes practice: A critical study of learning to teach. Albany: State University of New York Press.


Burbules, N. C., & Hansen, D.T. (Eds.). (1997). Teaching and its predicaments. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.


Campano, G. (2007). Immigrant students and literacy: Reading, writing and remembering. New York: Teachers College Press.


Carini, P. (2001). Starting strong: A different look at children, schools, and standards. New York: Teachers College Press.


Cochran-Smith, M., & Lytle, S. L. (2009). Inquiry as stance: Practitioner research in the next generation. New York: Teachers College Press.


Cohen, D. (2011). Teaching and its predicaments. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.


Duckworth, E. (1997). Teacher to teacher: Learning from each other. New York: Teachers College Press.


Feiman-Nemser, S. (2012). Teachers as learners. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Education Press.


Foster, M. (1998). Black teachers on teaching. New York: The New Press.


Freire, P. (2017/2000). Pedagogy of the oppressed. New York: Bloomsbury.


Gay, G. (2010). Culturally responsive teaching: Theory, research and practice. New York: Teachers College Press.


Horn, I. S., & Little, J. (2010). Attending to problems of practice: Routines and resources for professional learning in teachers’ workplace interactions. American Educational Research Journal, 47(1), 181–217.


Irvine, J. J. (2003). Educating teachers for diversity: Seeing with a cultural eye. New York: Teachers College Press.


Jackson, P. W. (1990/1968). Life in classrooms. New York: Teachers College Press.


Johnson, S. M. (1990). Teachers at work: Achieving success in our schools. New York: Basic Books.


Ladson-Billings, G. (2009). The dreamkeepers: Successful teachers of African-American children, 2nd ed. San Francisco: John Wiley and Sons.


Lampert, M. (2011). Learning teaching in, from, and for practice: What do we mean? Journal of Teacher Education, 61(1-2), 21–34.


Lortie, D. C. (1995). Schoolteacher: A sociological Study. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.


Loughran, J. J., Hamilton, M. L., LaBoskey, V. K., & Russell, T. L. (Eds). (2004). International handbook of self-study of teaching and teacher education practices. New York: Springer.


Nieto, S. (2005). Why we teach. New York: Teachers College Press.


Rodgers, C. R., & Raider-Roth, M. B. (2006). Presence in teaching. Teachers and Teaching: Theory and Practice, 12(3), 265–287.


Russ, R. S., Sherin, B. L. & Sherin, M. G. (2016). What constitutes teacher learning? In Handbook of Research on Teaching, 5th ed., D. H. Gitomer and C. A. Bell. Washington DC: American Educational Research Association.


Sanger, M. N., & Osguthorpe, R. D. (2013). The moral work of teaching and teacher education: Preparing and supporting practitioners. New York: Teachers College Press.


Shulman, L. (1987). Knowledge and teaching: Foundations of the new reform. Harvard Educational Review, 87(1), 1–21.


Van Manen, M. (1991). The tact of teaching: The meaning of pedagogical thoughtfulness. Albany: State University of New York Press.


Waller, W. (1932). The sociology of teaching. New York: J. Wiley & Sons.



B2. Research on effects on teachers and teacher educators of current policy


Achinstein, B., & Ogawa, R. T. (2006). (In)fidelity: What the resistance of new teachers reveals about professional principles and prescriptive educational policies. Harvard Educational Review, 76(1), 30–63.


Bullough Jr., R. V., & Hall-Kenyon, K. M. (2012). On teacher hope, sense of calling, and commitment to teaching. Teacher Education Quarterly, 39(2), 7–27.


Cochran-Smith, M., et al. (2018). Reclaiming accountability in teacher education. New York: Teachers College Press.


Crocco, M. S., & Costigan, A. T. (2007). The narrowing of curriculum and pedagogy in the age of accountability: Urban educators speak out. Urban Education, 42(6), 512–35.


Day, C., & Gu, Q. (2014). Resilient teachers, resilient schools: Building and sustaining quality in testing times. London: Routledge.


Kuhn, J. (2014). Fear and learning in America: Bad data, good teachers and the attack on public education. New York: Teachers College Press.


Loh, J., & Hu, G. (2014). Subdued by the system: Neoliberalism and the beginning teacher. Teaching and Teacher Education, 41, 13–21.


Margolis, J., & Doring, A. (2013). National assessments for student teachers: Documenting teaching readiness to the tipping point. Action in Teacher Education, 35(4), 272–285.


Mehta, J. (2013). The allure of order: High hopes, dashed expectations, and the troubled quest to remake American schooling. Oxford University Press.


Nichols, S. L., & Berliner, D. C. (2007). Collateral damage: How high-stakes testing corrupts America’s schools. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Education Press.


Olsen, B., & Sexton, D. (2009). Threat rigidity, school reform, and how teachers view their work inside current education policy contexts. American Educational Research Journal, 46(1), 9–44.


Rooney, E. (2015). “I’m just going through the motions”: High-stakes accountability and teachers’ access to intrinsic rewards. American Journal of Education, 121(4), 475–500.


Santoro, D. A. (2018). Demoralized: Why teachers leave the profession they love and how they can stay. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Education Press.


Santoro, D. A., & Cain, L. (Eds.) (2018). Principled resistance. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Education Press.


Taubman, P. (2009). Teaching by numbers: Deconstructing the discourse of standards and accountability in education. New York: Routledge.


Wills, J. S., & Sandholtz, J. H. (2009). Constrained professionalism: Dilemmas of teaching in the face of test-based accountability. Teachers College Record, 111(4), 1065–1114.



C. Collaborative Research Between Philosophers and Scholars of Teaching and Teacher Education


Buchmann, M., & Floden, R. E. (1993). Detachment and concern: Conversations in the philosophy of teaching and teacher education. New York: Teachers College Press.


Fenstermacher, G. D., & Richardson, V. (2005). On making determinations of quality in teaching. Teachers College Record, 107(1), 186–213.


Hostetler, K., Latta, M. A. M., & Sarroub, L. K. (2007). Retrieving meaning in teacher education: The question of being. Journal of Teacher Education, 58(3), 231–244.


Richardson, V., & Fenstermacher, G. D. (2001). Manner in teaching: the study in four parts. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 33(6), 631–637.


Sockett, H. T., DeMulder, E. K, LePage, P. C., & Wood, D. R. (Eds.) (2001). Transforming teacher education: Lessons in professional development. Westport, CT: Bergin & Garvey.


Stengel, B. S., & Tom, A. R. (2006). Moral matters: Five ways to develop the moral life of schools. New York: Teachers College Press.



Part III: Conference Bibliography


Ahmed, S. (2007). The language of diversity. Ethnic and Racial Studies, 30(2), 235–256.


Anzaldua, G. (1987). Borderlands/la frontera: the new mestiza. San Francisco, CA: Aunt Lute.


Blum, L. (2014). Three educational values for a multicultural society: Difference recognition, national cohesion and equality. Journal of Moral Education, 43(3), 332–344.


Dewey, J. (1977/1904). The relation of theory to practice in education. In John Dewey, The Middle Works, 1899-1924, Volume 3: Essays on the new empiricism, ed. J. A. Boydston. Carbondale, IL: Southern Illinois University Press.


DuBois, W. E. B. (1996). The souls of black folk. New York: Penguin Group.


Derrida, J. (2000). Of hospitality. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.


Emmons, R., & McCullough, M. (2003). Counting blessings versus burdens: An experimental investigation of gratitude and subjective well-being in daily life. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 84(2), 377–389.


Fishkin, J. (2014). Bottlenecks: A new theory of equal opportunity. New York: Oxford University Press.


Kennedy, M. (2016). Parsing the practice of teaching. Journal of Teacher Education, 67(1), 6–17.


Meiners, E. (2002). Disengaging from the legacy of lady bountiful in teacher education classrooms. Gender and Education, 14(1), 85–94.


Mignolo, W. (2011). I am where I think: Remapping the order of knowing. In F. Lionnet & S. Shih (Eds.), The creolization of theory. Durham, NC: Duke University Press.


Phelan, A. (2005). A fall from (someone else’s) certainty: Recovering practical wisdom in teacher education. Canadian Journal of Education, 28(3), 339–358.


Sacks, O. (1999, December 20). Brilliant light: A chemical boyhood. The New Yorker, 56–73.


West, L., & Cameron, A. (2013). Agents of change: How content coaching transforms teaching and learning. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.


Zwicky, J. (2013). Alcibiades’ love. In Michael Chase et al. (Eds.), Philosophy as a way of life: Ancients and moderns: Essays in honor of Pierre Hadot. West Sussex




Cite This Article as: Teachers College Record Volume 122 Number 4, 2020, p. 1-28
https://www.tcrecord.org ID Number: 23067, Date Accessed: 10/18/2021 9:07:11 AM

Purchase Reprint Rights for this article or review
 
Article Tools
Related Articles

Related Discussion
 
Post a Comment | Read All

About the Author
  • David Hansen
    Teachers College, Columbia University
    E-mail Author
    DAVID T. HANSEN is the Weinberg Professor in the Historical and Philosophical Foundations of Education at Teachers College, Columbia University, where he directs the program in Philosophy and Education. His research has focused on the philosophy and practice of teaching, on cosmopolitanism and education, and on the thought of figures such as Michel de Montaigne, Sor Juana Inés de la Cruz, John Dewey, and W. G. Sebald. He has written recently on the idea of ‘bearing witness’ to teaching and teachers in Educational Theory (Vol. 67, no. 1) and Journal of Curriculum Studies (Vol. 49, no. 1).
  • Megan Laverty
    Teachers College, Columbia University
    E-mail Author
    MEGAN JANE LAVERTY is an associate professor of Philosophy and Education at Teachers College Columbia University. Her primary research interests are the history of philosophy of education, moral philosophy and its significance for education, and philosophy with children and adolescents in schools. Laverty has written widely on these themes. Together with Maughn Rollins Gregory, she edits the Philosophy for Children Founders Series, which includes In Community of Inquiry with Ann Margaret Sharp: Childhood, Philosophy, and Education (Routledge, 2018) and Gareth B. Matthews, The Child's Philosopher (Routledge, forthcoming).
  • Rory Varrato
    Teachers College, Columbia University
    E-mail Author
    RORY VARRATO is a Ph.D. student in his third year in the Program in Philosophy and Education at Teachers College, Columbia University. A former middle school teacher, his interests cut across moral, social, and political philosophy, and he is particularly interested in how education can respond to the specter of a near-term human extinction event caused by contemporary environmental degradation.
 
Member Center
In Print
This Month's Issue

Submit
EMAIL

Twitter

RSS