Israel Scheffler ve Paul H. Hirst’te Eleştirel Düşünme ve Özerklik Kavramlarının Rolü ve Önemi

Öz

Analitik felsefe 19. yy sonları ve 20. yy başlarında geleneksel felsefe anlayışına bir tepki olarak ortaya çıkan bir akımdır. Analitik eğitim felsefesi ise kısmen geleneksel eğitim felsefesine reaksiyon olarak ve kısmen ise felsefenin diğer alanlarına baskın olan analitik yaklaşımın eğitim alanına uygulama arzusu ile ortaya çıkmıştır. Amerikalı Israel SCHEFFLER ve İngiliz Paul HEYWOOD HIRST 1960’lardan itibaren bu alanda birçok eser üretmiştir ve bu felsefe anlayışının önde gelen düşünürleri arasında kabul edilmektedir. Bu çalışmada bu iki düşünürün eserlerindeki ve genel eğitim teorilerindeki eleştirel/rasyonel düşünce ve özerklik kavramları incelenmiştir. Analitik bir yaklaşım benimsenerek önce farklı eğitim konularındaki görüşleri tasnif ve analiz edilmiştir. Sonrasında ise bu kavramları nasıl yorumladıkları, kendi eğitim modeli önerilerinde nasıl bir önem atfettikleri ve bu kavramların eğitimde nasıl kullanılabileceği ile ilgili görüşleri incelenmiştir. Çalışma sonucunda özellikle Israel Scheffler’de daha baskın olmak üzere eleştirel düşünce eğitimin hem en nihai amacı hem de bu amaca götürecek olan en önemli yöntem olarak ortaya çıkmaktadır. Özerklik kavramı açısından ele alındığında ise her iki düşünür de bireyin doğuştan değerli ve itibar sahibi varlık olduğunu ve rasyonel düşünme yolu özgür seçimler yapabilme hakkına sahip olmasını savunmaktadır.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Israel Scheffler
• Paul H. Hirst
• Eleştirel Düşünme
• Rasyonel Düşünme
• Özerklik

Destekleyen Kurum

YOK

Etik Beyan

YOK

Teşekkür

YOK

The Role and Importance of the Concepts of Critical Thinking and Autonomy in Israel Scheffler and Paul H. Hirst

Öz

Analytic philosophy is a movement which emerged as a reaction to traditional philosophy around the end of the 19th century and the beginning of the 20th century. Analytic Philosophy of Education emerged partly as a reaction to traditional philosophy of education and partly with the desire to apply the general principles of analytic tradition in education. American Israel Scheffler and English Paul H. Hirst have produced many works since 1960s and so they are considered among the eminent philosophers of this field. In this study, the concepts of “critica/rational thinking” and “autonomy” have been studied and analyzed in the works of these two important figures. By adopting an analytic approach, firstly their arguments and propositions as regards the different educational topics have been classified and analyzed. Then their opinions as regards how they interpret these concepts, how importance they attribute to them and how these concepts can be used in education have been analyzed extensively. It has been found that critical/rational thinking can be seen as both the ultimate aim of education and the best means to reach this target for both philosophers, particularly for Scheffler. When it comes to the concept of autonomy, both philosophers think that every individual has an innate value and human dignity and so every person must have the right of free choice through rational thinking.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Israel Scheffler
• Paul H. Hirst
• Critical Thinking
• Rational Thinking
• Autonomy

Kaynakça

1. Yayımlanmış Eserler
2. Arnstine, D., & Arnstine, B. (1993). Rationality and democracy: A critical appreciation of Israel Scheffler's philosophy of education. Synthese, 94, 25-41. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01064570
3. Aviram, A., & Assor, A. (2010). In defence of personal autonomy as a fundamental educational aim in Liberal Democracies: A response to hand. Oxford Review of Education, 36(1), 111-126. https://doi.org/10.1080/03054981003593480
4. Beaney, M. (2017). Analytic philosophy, a very short introduction. Oxford University Press.
5. Byrnes, J. P., & Dunbar, K. N. (2014). The nature and development of critical-analytic thinking. Educational Psychology Review, 26, 477-493. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-014-9284-0
6. Coombs, J. R. (1997). In defense of Israel Scheffler’s conception of moral education. Philosophy and Education, 16, 174-186. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1004963424364
7. Ennis, R. H. (1981). Eight fallacies in Bloom's taxonomy. İçinde C. J. B. Macmillan (Ed.), Philosophy of education 1980 (ss. 269-273). Philosophy of Education Society.
8. Ennis, R. H. (1993). Critical thinking assessment. Theory Into Practice, 32(3), 179-186. https://doi.org/10.1080/00405849309543594

9. Enslin, P. (2010). Philosophy of education: Overview. International Encylopedia of Education.
10. Hare, W. (1997). Reason in teaching: Scheffler’s philosophy of education “A maximum of vision and a minimum of mystery”. İçinde H. Siegel (Ed.), Reason and education (ss. 89-101). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-011-5714-8_7
11. Hirst, P. H. (1963). Philosophy and educational theory. British Journal of Educational Studies, 12(1), 51-64. https://doi.org/10.1080/00071005.1963.9973104
12. Hirst, P. H. (1969). The logic of the curriculum. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 1(2), 142-158. https://doi.org/10.1080/0022027690010205
13. Hirst, P. H. (1970a). The nature of educational theory: Reply to D. J. O’Connor. Journal of Philosophy of Education, 6(1), 110-118. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9752.1972.tb00463.x
14. Hirst, P. H. (1970b). A reply to D. Z. Phillips. British Journal of Educational Studies, 18(2), 213-215. https://doi.org/10.1080/00071005.1970.9973283
15. Hirst, P. H. (1971). What is teaching? Journal of Curriculum Studies, 3(1), 5-18. https://doi.org/10.1080/0022027710030102
16. Hirst, P. H. (1974). Knowledge and the curriculum. Routledge and Kegan Paul Ltd.
17. Hirst, P. H. (1976). The PGCE course: Its objectives and their nature. British Journal of Teacher Education, 2(1), 7-21. https://doi.org/10.1080/0260747760020103
18. Hirst, P. H. (1981). Education, catechesis and the church school. British Journal of Religious Education, 3(3), 85-93. https://doi.org/10.1080/0141620810030303
19. Hirst, P. H., & White, P. (1998). Philosophy of education: Major themes in analytic tradition. Routledge.
20. Hirst, P. H. (2010). Knowledge and curriculum (International library of the philosophy of education volume 12). Routledge.
21. Kamii, C. (1984). Autonomy: The aim of education envisioned by Piaget. The Phi Delta Kappan, 65(6), 410-415.
22. Kant, I. (1999). Groundwork of the metaphysics of morals. Cambridge University Press.
23. Lipman, M. (1991). Thinking in education. Cambridge University Press.
24. May, T. (1994). The concept of autonomy. American Philosophical Quarterly, 31(2), 133-144. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-015-9030-3_3
25. Neiman, A., & Siegel, H. (1993). Objectivity in epistemology and education: Scheffler’s middle road. Synthese, 94, 55-83. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01064572
26. Park, Y. (1997). Rationality and human dignity – confucius, Kant and Scheffler on the ultimate aim of education. Philosophy and Education, 16, 7-18. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1004986602074
27. Passmore, J. (2010). On teaching to be critical. İçinde R. F. Dearden, P. H. Hirst & R. S. Peters (Eds.), Education and development of reason (ss. 309- 322). Routledge Kegan & Paul.
28. Peters, R. S. (1966). The philosophy of education. İçinde J. W. Tibbie (Ed.), The study of education (s. 1-23). Routledge and Kegan Paul.
29. Piaget, J. (1932). The moral judgment of the child. Free Press.
30. Portelli, J. P. (1987). Analytic philosophy of education: Development and misconceptions. The Journal of Educational Thought (JET) / Revue de la Pensée Éducative, 21(1), 20-32. https://doi.org/10.11575/jet.v21i1.44191
31. Rawls, J. (1980). Kantian constructivism in moral theory. The Journal of Philosophy, 77(9), 515- 572. https://doi.org/10.2307/2025790
32. Raz, J. (1986). The morality of freedom. Clarendon Press.
33. Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2000). Self-determination theory and the facilitation of intrinsic motivation, social development, and well-being. American Psychologist, 55, 68-78. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.55.1.68
34. Scheffler, I. (1958). Philosophy and education. Allyn and Bacon Inc.
35. Scheffler, I. (1965). Conditions of knowledge. University of Chicago Press.
36. Scheffler, I. (1973a). Towards an analytic philosophy of education. İçinde I. Scheffler (Ed.), Reason and teaching (ss. 1-10). Routledge & Kegan Paul.
37. Scheffler, I. (1973b). Inquiries: Philosophical studies of language science and learning. Wipf and Stock Publishers.
38. Scheffler, I. (1973c). University scholarship and the education of teachers. Teachers College Record: The Voice of Scholarship in Education, 70(1). https://doi.org/10.1177/016146816807000106
39. Scheffler, I. (1986). Of human potential. Routledge and Kegan Paul.
40. Scheffler, I. (1991). In praise of the cognitive emotions. Routledge.
41. Scheffler, I. (1993). Justifying curriculum decisions. The School Review, 66(4), 461-472.
42. Scheffler, I. (1997). Replies. Philosophy and Education, 16(1-2), 259-272. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1004975727090
43. Scheffler, I. (2009). My love affair with Hebrew. Journal of Jewish Education, 75(4), 380-385. https://doi.org/10.1080/15244110903338433
44. Siegel, H. (1997). Israel Scheffler’s “Moral education and the democratic ideal”. Inquiry: Critical Thinking Across the Disciplines, 16(3), 25-26. https://doi.org/10.5840/inquiryctnews199716316
45. Steutel, J., & Spiecker, B. (1997). Rational passions and intellectual virtues, a conceptual analysis. Philosophy and Education, 16, 60-71. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1004942819821
46. Wagner, P. A. (1997). Total quality management: A plan for optimizing human potential. Philosophy and Education, 16, 241-258. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1004923710252
47. Worsfold, V. L. (1997). Israel Scheffler’s ethics: Theory and practice. Philosophy and Education, 16, 189-200. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1004915508434