Abstract not available.

Abstract not available.

Abstract not available.

Abstract not available.

What are and what should be the leading principles of method of philosophy of education? Traditionally, it has been claimed that the leading principle consists of the deduction of statements about education from statements in "regular" philosophy. It has further been claimed that differing statements about education differ because they have been deduced from different positions in regular philosophy. These claims are analyzed by applying some tools of modern philosophical analysis to the works of four selected reputable philosophers of education who are assumed to "represent" three of the chief modern "schools" of philosophy of education. This analysis reveals that the traditional characterization of the leading principles of method is at best very misleading. It reveals in fact that the leading principles of the Idealists and Realists are more accurately described as "pseudo-science" in which explanatory systems are devised by selecting statements about empirical facts or states-of-affairs and encrusting the system with terms which are metaphysical, synonymous and without empirical meaning. It further reveals that the writings of philosophers of education are also encrusted with ethical terms which have dominantly emotive meanings. The leading principles of the Instrumentalists are shown to be somewhat closer to those of the modern analytical philosophers and closer to the best of traditional regular philosophy. In conclusion, it is asserted that philosophy of education should in future have two leading principles: 1. The academic exercise of analyzing the writings of traditional philosophers of education using the tools of philosophical analysis. 2. The application of some or all of the techniques of philosophical analysis to empirical theories about education, such as learning theories. / Arts, Faculty of / Philosophy, Department of / Graduate

The role of religion in modern education is a discussion that vexed scholars from the Western world as well as Muslim scholars. There are different approaches to the problem. Some scholars argue that religion does not have space in public education while there are others who promote the existence of religion in modern education systems. Ersoy positions himself among the second group. He offers an education system which promotes both religious knowledge and science in schools. His main concern to design an education promoting religious and scientific knowledge is to raise a generation to save the Muslim world from ignorance, poverty, and clashes. By doing so, he intends to serve Islam as he believes it is under threat of misinformed or ignorant Muslim society. Ersoy calls this generation Asım Generation which functions to save the Muslim world and builds bridges between the Western world and Muslims. / A Dissertation submitted to the Department of Educational Leadership and Policy Studies in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy. / 2019 / November 12, 2019. / Asim Generation, Education, Mehmet Akif Ersoy, Religion, Turkish Philosophy of Education / Includes bibliographical references. / Jeffrey Ayala Milligan, Professor Directing Dissertation; William Hanley, University Representative; Robert Schwartz, Committee Member; Carolyn Herrington, Committee Member.

The teacher-student relationship is one of the most important relationships in any educational experience. In this inquiry I explore the ethics of the teacher-student relationship, namely as a relationship between the self and the other. Drawing on both personal and general educational experiences, I note felt difficulties in the current traditional and modern contexts of the student-teacher relationship and I aim to explore their philosophical roots. In the history of philosophy of education there are two main theses on such relationship: the rationalistic thesis as presented by Plato and the naturalistic thesis as presented by Rousseau. I proceed by analyzing the teacher-student relationship in Plato’s Meno and The Republic where teaching as midwifing and as leading is advanced. Using a Deweyan and a Levinasian account of violence, I argued that both modes of teaching allow for violence against the other’s otherness. Student’s alterity is sacrificed when the conformity with the ideals in both modes is not achieved. On the other hand, Rousseau argues for a different account where the student-teacher relationship should remain natural, which means to foster a self-sufficient student. In this approach the teacher’s role is reduced to a natural force where her/his otherness is sacrificed. I argue that this mode of relating alienates both the teacher and the student. In the process of pursuing self-sufficiency the self is alienated from its others. This examination should help us deepen our understanding of current problems in education, such as violence, alienation, and lack of communication. As an invitation to view the self-other relationship in the context of the student-teacher relationship differently, I propose dialogic hospitality. Dialogic hospitality provides us with three critical aspects of the ethics of the student-teacher relationship: First, it gives the other priority over the self, which decreases the chances of reducing the other to the self. Second, hospitality works contra violence against others. The safety of the guest and the safety of its otherness is a main purpose of hospitality. Furthermore, the reduction of the other/guest to the self is considered antihospitality. Third, dialogic hospitality works against alienation since it goes beyond instrumentality and shows the essential role of the other in the creation of the self. Seeing education in the lenses of dialogic hospitality requires tackling a set of questions such as: how does hospitality work in public spheres such as schools? What effect does that have on the unconditionality of hospitality? What kind of relationship to space in education does hospitality require? How can hospitality as a short-term relation satisfy longer-term relationships such as educational relationships? Is hospitality teachable? I tackle these questions to show that first, hospitality disturbs the private/public dichotomy and helps us think of schools as homes. Further, dialogic hospitality advances our understanding of how important the sense of belonging to schools for students and teachers to be hospitable. Second, I advance an account of hospitality where its short nature is appropriate for procuring longer ethical relationships. Finally, I argue for a hospitable occupational mode of schooling where the self practices its being-for-the-other nature. Dialogic hospitality should advance our discussions about current educational issues such as diversity in classrooms, global education, and student-teacher relationships. / A Dissertation submitted to the Department of Educational Leadership and Policy Studies in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy. / Summer Semester 2016. / May 5, 2016. / Buber, Dialogue, Ethics, Hospitality, Lavinas, Self-sufficiency / Includes bibliographical references. / Jeffrey Ayala Milligan, Professor Directing Dissertation; David McNaughton, University Representative; Patrice Iatarola, Committee Member; Robert Schwartz, Committee Member.

No description available.

No description available.

No description available.