ED6013 Advanced Foundations of Education:

Philosophical Issues of Learning and Teaching

Instructor: Ted Newell, Ed. D. (linkd.in/lnbfti)
Contact info: ted.newell@crandallu.ca Phone: 506-863-6432 x204. The
system forwards any voice message to my email. On Saturdays and
evenings, call me at 853-5853 (730am - 830pm).
Office hours: Phone me to set up a visit at CU (Stultz Hall Office 228), or
Skype me (newell61).

Description
How a teacher understands learning indicates ways of teaching. This
course is to help teachers see what they accomplish when they set out to
teach. Participants will see education as processes toward meaning-
making (including Christian ways) and a conception of the best life.

Learning Objectives
1) Explain the significance of influential learning theories and the
differences among them. Demonstrate a capacity to analyze,
discern, reflect, and be personally engaged with alternative
approaches to education.
2) Demonstrate appreciation of the coaching work of teachers of
the shared life of human beings who make themselves available
to learn together in community.
3) Engage in dialogue with other educators to reflect communally
on matters of mutual concern.

Required Texts
D. C. Phillips and Jonas F. Soltis, Perspectives on Learning, 5th ed.
(New York: Teachers College Press, 2009). (Red Book)
Meek, Esther L. Longing to Know: The Philosophy of Knowledge for
Ordinary People. Grand Rapids: Brazos Press, 2003.

Assessments
Theorist Review, 30%: 8-12 pg. paper, due fourteen days after last class
by 1159pm on Moodle. Review the theory of any learning or curriculum
theorist -- including those that appear in this syllabus, but not your P#
theorist. How does s/he/deal with the subject/object split? Cite at least

1
three chapters of the Red Book with at least five citations per chapter.
Support your assessments with examples, illustrations, quotations,
analogies, personal anecdotes, etc. Writing the paper is an opportunity to
synthesize the course for yourself.
Upload your paper as a .pdf file if possible (see Print drop-down options),
or, as .doc, .docx, or .rtf. I have no way to read Apple files. I will not be
able to accept hard copies.
Teach a P# 30% (see below) in a session for which there is an available
time. Times are one hour. P#s are based on a specific reading plus
supplements. They expand a topic introduced in a previous session.
Present on the ways your writer could influence practices of education.
Bring your reading to life with a practical application or extension. You
may work with a partner of your choice if you take responsibility together
for two P#s.
Feel free to present and lead discussion in ways that suit your teaching
style. Your pedagogical approach is welcome.
To avoid duplication and to balance presentations, I will provide a link to
a signup sheet in the first session. Individuals accept times by signup
(semi-lottery). If two times are available in your preferred session, please
be sure you are not doing the same P# as someone else. I will ask
whoever who has a later time-stamp to choose a different P#.
Do some of the following in your presentation:
1. Summarize your theorists contribution to education, or his-her
power to explain how learning works, or to ways of being in
teaching.
2. Map your author in relation to others, both similar and different.
3. Situate your writer in place, time, and politics.
4. Identify, explain, extend, and/or contest some of her-his
theoretical contributions.
5. Involve the class in an activity to explore possibilities and
applications for the classroom.
Assessment is by four criteria:
1. Did you accurately represent your article to us? Be sure you
identify its central ideas.
2. Were you knowledgeable around your article/chapter? Was
additional research evident that was related to your readings
topic? Since no one reading is likely to be the last word on your
topic, are you familiar with the larger context of arguments and
debate? Could you answer questions comfortably and fully?
3. Did you show how the article/chapter expands (or, at minimum,
relates to) material from previous Sessions? Did you locate your
presentation in the larger context to where we are in the course
story?

2
 4. Did your teaching activities lead us to grasp the relevance of the
most important issue(s)? Did you plan carefully so most of us
would get the reading without reading it? You may choose to
give us short extracts, or have us do a jigsaw or other group
activity.
Respond to one P# 15% Responders will read assigned readings for the
P# in advance, as listed in this syllabus. In the time slot, Responders will
assist in leading the seminar by asking questions and raising issues.
Assignments are by a separate lottery. Half the weight of the Responder
assessment is on your interaction in the session. Be transparent as you
deal with your peers work! Please raise issues so we all learn.
By the start of the next session, Responders will provide the professor
with an assessment of the P# for consideration. Submit on text boxes by
a link available on Moodle. Use the four criteria above. Your Moodle
written assessment of your peers P# is half weight.
Reflection 15% Discussion will be on questions posted by Monday 3pm
due by the following Friday 759pm;
Questions are on starred *readings. Post total 200 words per week. Do
these three things:
1. Locate a statement (or more) that surprises you, is new in some
way, challenges you, makes a link with other knowledge.
Consider this a ! post.
2. Locate a statement that challenges you, raises a question for
you, puts some other knowledge you have in doubt. Consider
this a ? post.
3. Respond to someone elses ? post. Try to give insight or help
solve the puzzle. Great job, helpful, I agree, etc., are
minimal responses.
Note that assessment of Reflections will not be detailed; you can receive
100% credit by getting the essence of the article (your ! will reveal
depth of reading), not misreading, lowballing, or minimizing the article
(you raise a good ?), plus helping someone else.
Case Prep 10% (half-weight) & Verbal Contribution (half-weight). Submit
on Moodle before the Session, that is, by Saturday 759am. Case prep
cannot be credited after the Session or for a Session you did not attend.

Outline of Seven Sessions

Starred *readings are REQUIRED for everyone.

P# readings required for P# Presenter and Responder only.

Professor may substitute readings of comparable length or difficulty.

3
Professors Session 1 (Apr 29)
The ritual of launching a course. Presentation on metaphor: How teacher
speech reveals underlying thought/practice patterns. Tracking speech in
the staff room.

Toward Session 2
*Red book Ch1 Ch2 Ch3. These chapters profile 20th-century established
ways.
*Palmer, Parker J. To Know as We Are Known: A Spirituality of
Education. San Francisco: Harper & Row, 1983, pp. 1-32
*CASE Relation of learning theory to teaching p103
P#1 The Bobbitt-Tyler curriculum planning model as interpreted by
Herbert Kliebard, The Rise of the Scientific Curriculum and Its
Aftermath, in The Curriculum Studies Reader, ed. David J. Flinders and
Stephen J. Thornton (New York: Routledge, 2004), 5261. Was
assembly line a dominant metaphor -- really? Refer to Kieran Egan,
Metaphors in Collision: Objectives, Assembly Lines, and Stories,
Curriculum Inquiry, 1988, 6386.
P#2 How metaphor analysis opens up to framing and problem solving in
Donald A. Schn, Generative Metaphor: A Perspective on Problem-
Setting in Social Policy, in Metaphor and Thought, ed. Anthony Ortony,
2nd ed. (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1993), 13763.

Professors Session 2 (May 13)

Constructivism: enriched introductory video presentation.
Thomas Kuhns conception of scientific revolutions.
Kuhn and Immanuel Kants constructivism.

Toward Session 3
*Red Book Ch4 Ch5
*Jerome S. Bruner, Folk Pedagogy, in The Culture of Education
(Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1996), 4465.
*CASE Starting Place, p104
P#3 David William Jardine, Piaget and Education Primer (New York:
Peter Lang, 2006) or comparable source. Lead us to understand Piagets
observation that children misconstruct knowledge in predictable ways.
Piaget realized the significance of repeated wrong answers to the Binet
intelligence tests. Lead us from there into his stage theory of learning.
Responder, read at least two online encyclopedia articles about Piaget of
peer-reviewed scholarly quality.

4
P#4 93Why is Von Glasersfelds constructivism radical? Base your
presentation on Ernst Von Glasersfeld, An Exposition of Constructivism:
Why Some Like It Radical, in Constructivist Views on the Teaching and
Learning of Mathematics, ed. Nel Noddings and Others (Springer, 1991).
Refer to Clarence W. Joldersma, Ernst Von Glasersfelds Radical
Constructivism and Truth as Disclosure, Educational Theory 61, no. 3
(June 2011): 275293, especially the first half (skip Joldersmas
embodied alternative).
P#5 Does brain research have all the educational potential that some
claim for it? Based on Robert Jensons Teaching with the Brain in Mind;
also refer to neurologist reactions such as Usha Goswami,
Neuroscience and Education: From Research to Practice?, Nature
Reviews Neuroscience 7, no. 5 (May 2006): 40613,
doi:10.1038/nrn1907; Michael W. OBoyle and Harwant S. Gill, On the
Relevance of Research Findings in Cognitive Neuroscience to
Educational Practice, Educational Psychology Review 10, no. 4
(December 1998): 397409; Daniel Ansari, Donna Coch, and Bert De
Smedt, Connecting Education and Cognitive Neuroscience: Where Will
the Journey Take Us?, Educational Philosophy & Theory 43, no. 1
(February 2011): 3742, doi:10.1111/j.1469-5812.2010.00705.x; Alan
Torrance, Developments in Neuroscience and Human Freedom: Some
Theological and Philosophical Questions, Science and Christian Belief
16, no. 2 (2004): 12338. Responders, choose main reading and any
supplement indicated by the word also.

Professors Session 3 (May 27)

Denis C. Phillips, The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly: The Many Faces of
Constructivism, Educational Researcher 24, no. 7 (1995): 512. On
problems with constructivism. A difficult reading that we absorb in pieces.

Toward Session 4
*Red Book Ch6 (Social constructivism)
*Case One p56 Artful Dodger
*K. Egan and N. Gajdamaschko, Some Cognitive Tools of Literacy, in
Vygotskys Educational Theory in Cultural Context, ed. Alex Kozulin et al.
(Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2003), 8396.
P#6 Jeanne Chall and Marilyn Adams, The Academic Achievement
Challenge: What Really Works in the Classroom? (New York: Guilford
Press, 2002). Does her research challenge constructivist approaches to
learning?
P#7 How Vygotskys ZPD is a practice within his theory of education.

5
Professors Session 4 (June 3)
L. Vygotsky. He sees that external capacities which have been
internalized function as cognitive tools.

Toward Session 5
*Esther L. Meek, Longing to Know: The Philosophy of Knowledge for
Ordinary People (Grand Rapids: Brazos Press, 2003). -entire
P#8 How does a workplace, a family, or a social setting make for
learning? Based on Jean Lave, A Comparative Approach to Educational
Forms and Learning Processes, Anthropology & Education Quarterly 13,
no. 2 (1982): 18187; also refer to Lave and Etienne Wenger, Situated
Learning: Legitimate Peripheral Participation (Cambridge and New York:
Cambridge University Press, 1991) (intro and a key chapter of your
choice) or Wenger, Communities of Practice: Learning, Meaning, and
Identity (Cambridge, U.K.: Cambridge University Press, 1999) (intro and
a key chapter of your choice). See introduction at
http://infed.org/mobi/jean-lave-etienne-wenger-and-communities-of-
practice/
P#9 How do children make sense of themselves and the world? Use
Kieran Egan, Primary Understanding: Education in Early Childhood. New
edition. London and New York: Routledge, 1991.

Professors Session 5 (June 10)

Michael Polanyis critical realist epistemology.

Toward Session 6
*Red book Ch7 Ch8
*Case TBA
*Jerome S. Bruner, Acts of Meaning (Cambridge: Harvard University
Press, 1990), Ch. 1 (Proper Study). A bridge from cognitive to narrative
learning.
*Palmer, Courage to Teach: Exploring the Inner Landscape of a
Teachers Life (San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 2007), chapter on
epistemology. Palmer talks about sitting around the subject.
P#10 Egan, Teaching as Storytelling (whole). How can math or science
be planned as a story?
P#11 Based on learning from this course, why does Dorothy Heathcotes
drama-based theory of learning work? Show us and make us see. Start
research at http://www.mantleoftheexpert.com/community/about-
us/dorothy-heathcote/.

6
P#12 How does imagination make education work? Based on D I Smith
Teaching and Christian Imagination, Intro and any chapter. Also refer to
Badley and Nelson (ch2) in Kenneth Badley and Harro Van Brummelen,
Metaphors We Teach by: How Metaphors Shape What We Do in
Classrooms (Eugene, OR: Wipf & Stock, 2012).

Professors Session 6 (June 17)

Parker J. Palmer, Toward a Spirituality of Higher Education, in Faithful
Learning and the Christian Scholarly Vocation, ed. Douglas V. Henry and
Bob R. Agee (Grand Rapid, Mich.: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing, 2003),
7584.

Toward Session 7
*Red Book Ch9
*Case: McKenzie-Fettes Case Study of Change discussion of obstacles
to doing classroom teaching differently
*Dwayne Huebner, Curriculum as Concern for Mans Temporality,
Theory into Practice 26, no. S1 (1986): 32431. Huebner shows that
objectives language comes from a theoretical box.
P#13 Teacher self-conception and preferred teaching style; refer to
Teachers' Pedagogical Stories and the Shaping of Classroom
Participation: "The Dancer" and "Graveyard Shift at the 7-11"; also refer
to T. Patchen and T. Crawford, From Gardeners to Tour Guides: The
Epistemological Struggle Revealed in Teacher-Generated Metaphors of
Teaching, Journal of Teacher Education 62, no. 3 (May 1, 2011): 286
98, doi:10.1177/0022487110396716.
P#14 Van Manen, Pedagogy, Virtue, and Narrative Identity in Teaching,
Curriculum Inquiry 24, no. 2 (1994): 13570.

Professors Session 7 (June 24)

Jesus as Mentor

Final Paper Rubric (Holistic/Analytical)

A+ Exceptional work for a Masters student
Work at this level does not get much better.
Creativity and originality: exceptionally creative and original, student very
clearly and convincingly articulates how his or her work makes a
contribution to knowledge, practice or theory at some level, uses primary
sources and does not overuse quotations
Argument: exceptionally thorough, very well-reasoned, very well-argued,
insightful, clear.

7
Writing: very well-written (uses proper English grammar and always
adheres to APA style guidelines), writing is exceptionally clear, fluid and
cohesive, there is outstanding sophistication in writing style.
Methodology and analysis: methodologically sound (if appropriate) and
shows a highly incisive understanding and exceptional evaluation and
analysis of salient issues; an exceptional ability to draw relevant
comparisons / examples.
Knowledge: exceptional mastery/understanding of relevant
content/concepts/issues.
A Excellent work for a Masters student
Creativity and originality: creative and original, uses mostly primary
sources and does not overuse quotations, student articulates how his or
her work makes a contribution to knowledge, practice or theory at some
level
Argument: thorough, well-reasoned, well-argued, insightful, clear.
Writing: well-written (almost always uses proper English grammar and
generally adheres to APA style guidelines), writing is generally fluid and
cohesive, there is good sophistication in writing style.
Methodology and analysis: methodologically sound (if appropriate) and
shows a highly incisive understanding and excellent evaluation and
analysis of salient issues; an excellent ability to draw relevant
comparisons / examples.
Knowledge: solid mastery/understanding of relevant
content/concepts/issues.
A- Strong work for a Masters student (work is very good but could be
improved)
Creativity and originality: mostly creative and original, uses many primary
sources but includes some secondary sources and generally uses
quotations appropriately, student articulates how his or her work makes a
contribution to knowledge, practice or theory at some level but this
articulation could be stronger and more convincing
Argument: thorough, well-reasoned, well-argued, insightful, clear.
Writing: well-written (generally uses proper English grammar and
generally adheres to APA style guidelines, with a few inconsistencies),
writing is generally fluid and cohesive, there is generally good
sophistication in writing style.
Methodology and analysis: methodologically sound (if appropriate) and
shows a good understanding and evaluation and analysis of salient
issues; a strong and consistent ability to draw relevant comparisons /
examples.
Knowledge: mastery/understanding of relevant content/concepts/issues.

8
B+ Competent work for a Masters student
Work at this level is competent, but neither exceptionally strong nor
exceptionally weak. A few errors, inconsistencies, or other problems may
be present.
Creativity and originality: often creative and original, uses some primary
sources but includes some secondary sources and generally uses
quotations appropriately, student articulates how his or her work makes a
contribution to knowledge, practice or theory at some level but this
articulation could be a lot stronger and much more convincing
Argument: thorough, well-reasoned, well-argued, insightful, clear.
Writing: well-written (generally uses proper English grammar, but there
are a few errors; generally adheres to APA style guidelines, with a few
errors and inconsistencies), writing is more or less fluid and cohesive,
writing style is good.
Methodology and analysis: methodologically sound (if appropriate) and
shows mostly adequate understanding and evaluation and analysis of
salient issues; adequate ability to draw relevant comparisons / examples.
Knowledge: competence with relevant content/concepts/issues.
B Acceptable work for a Masters student
Work at this level is competent but shows some flaws or difficulties.
Creativity and originality: generally creative and original but may depend
too much on others viewpoints (may use too many secondary courses
and may tend to use too many quotations), student has difficulty
articulating how his or her work makes a contribution to knowledge,
practice or theory at some level
Argument: generally thorough, well-reasoned, well-argued, somewhat
insightful, generally clear.
Writing: generally well-written (generally uses proper English grammar,
but there are some errors and awkwardness; generally adheres to APA
style guidelines, with some errors and inconsistencies), writing is more or
less fluid and cohesive, writing style is acceptable.
Methodology and analysis: methodologically acceptable (if appropriate)
and shows acceptable understanding and evaluation and analysis of
salient issues; acceptable ability to draw some relevant comparisons /
examples.
Knowledge: competence with relevant content/concepts/issues.
B- Minimally passing work for a Masters student
This is minimum acceptable grade for a graduate course in the Faculty of
Education.

9
Work at this level shows many weaknesses or difficulties. Numerous
errors, inconsistencies, or other problems are present.
Creativity and originality: occasionally creative and original but depends
too much on others viewpoints (uses many secondary sources and
tends to overuse quotations with little integration into the text), student
has a lot of difficulty articulating how his or her work makes a contribution
to knowledge, practice or theory at some level
Argument: generally thorough, adequately reasoned and argued,
somewhat insightful, generally clear.
Writing: generally well-written (generally uses proper English grammar,
but there are some errors and awkwardness; generally adheres to APA
style guidelines, with some errors and inconsistencies), writing is more or
less fluid and cohesive, writing style is acceptable.
Methodology and analysis: methodologically acceptable but shows some
significant flaws (if appropriate) and shows some signs of understanding
and evaluation and analysis of salient issues; acceptable ability to draw
some relevant comparisons / examples.
Knowledge: overall competence with relevant content/concepts/issues
but there are errors and gaps in the knowledge.
C+ or lower - Inadequate work for a Masters student
Work at this level does not meet the minimal expectations for Masters
level work. Inadequate demonstration of basic skills. Assigned task is
often misunderstood.
Creativity and originality: Little creativity or originality. Depends almost
exclusively on others viewpoints (almost exclusively secondary sources).
Quotations are overused with little to no integration of these quotations,
student does not articulate how his or her work makes a contribution to
knowledge, practice or theory at some level.
Argument: Inadequately developed, reasoning and argument are weak,
few signs of insightfulness, lack of clarity.
Writing: Many errors and inconsistencies (grammar, APA style
guidelines, clarity, writing is not fluid or cohesive). Writing style is not at a
graduate level.
Methodology and analysis: methodologically unacceptable and shows
significant flaws (if appropriate); shows few signs of understanding and
evaluation and analysis of salient issues; unacceptable ability to draw
some relevant comparisons / examples.
Knowledge: inadequate competence with relevant
content/concepts/issues; many errors and gaps in the knowledge.

10
Presentation Peer Evaluation Form
Strongly Agree (SA, 5), Agree (A, 4), Not Sure (NS, 3), Disagree, (D, 2),
Strongly Disagree (SD, 1)
The presenter has clearly read the material and speaks to its content with
insight.
The presenter has identified the key or big ideas in the conceptual
framework and/or the theorists body of work.
The presenter engages the audience in discussion that extends theory to
practice, or practice to theory, or new theories to old ones, such that the
class has a better understanding of the worldview commitments within
the presenters chosen theoretical/metaphorical framework.
The presenter has left you with a few interesting questions and/or
speculations such that your discernment and personal engagement with
matters of mutual and communal concern is enhanced.
The presenter has researched additional related works and is able to
show how her/his chosen theoretical/metaphorical framework has
shaped learning theories and/or is significant to education generally.
The presenter was prepared.

11
Grade Reflective Contributions Critical Thinking Engagement
A+
Demonstrates an exemplary ability to subjectively assess
worldview commitments of various theoretical foundations of education
Exemplary evidence of critical thinking through all aspects of the
course. Exceptional capacity to analyze, discern, reflect, and evaluate
concepts. Exceeds the requirements in timeliness, quality, and
quantity such that they prompt innovative and ongoing discussions;
learning is transformational.
A / A-
Systematically and comprehensively makes personal and critical
connections to the philosophical, historical and socio-cultural contexts of
education. Creatively extends understanding of concepts; Considers
multiple perspectives and their underlying assumptions Contributes
greatly to the flow of the discussions, and demonstrates visible
appreciation for the values of learning together in community.
B+ / B-
Identifies the tenets of a personal worldview and connects it to
theories of education; shows competence in publically positioning
personal belief against other theories and ideas. Some evidence of
critical thinking; enlarges understanding of concepts to some degree
Contributes to the flow of the discussions. Engagement is
personal but lacks community orientation.
C+
Takes partial ownership of ideas. Little evidence of critical
thinking; confirms, but does not extend understanding of concepts
Responses and/or engagement are not always timely, thorough,
or thoughtful.

C/C-

Marginally evidence of reflection. Marginal evidence of critical

thinking; does not extend understanding of concepts. Has difficulty
engaging with the ideas of others.

12