Meaning of Education and Purpose in Teaching and Learning

**3**

**Chapter 1**

**Abstract**

twenty-first century.

**1. Introduction**

curriculum.

*Kirsi Tirri and Auli Toom*

The Moral Role of Pedagogy as the

The purpose of this chapter is to present the key concepts and actors in pedagogy and didactics in the context of institutional teaching. We present a holistic approach to education and view human beings as lifelong learners who need to be educated comprehensively to actualize their full potential. In this chapter we discuss how pedagogy, the science and art of teaching, can promote the educational goals identified in the curriculum. In this chapter we adhere to the Didaktik curriculum tradition in which values and morals are emphasized in guiding the teaching-studying-learning process. This means that pedagogy is moral in nature, and the teacher's main task is to reflect the values underlying her teaching and the purposes she wants to advance in her teaching. We also discuss the current pedagogical challenges in both basic and higher education in educating students for the

The purpose of this chapter is to present the key concepts and actors in pedagogy

and in pedagogical relationships in the context of educational institutions. The goals of education are established in a national curriculum and in more detailed institutional curricula. In many countries, for example, in Finland, the goal of education is to support the development of the whole personality, rather than merely the cognitive domain [1]. In this kind of holistic approach, human beings are lifelong learners who need to be educated in all educational domains to actualize their full potential. These domains include three domains in learning as identified by Benjamin Bloom: cognitive, affective and psychomotor [2]. Many learning tasks, for example, the skills related to morality, require teaching and learning in both cognitive and affective domains [3]. In this chapter we discuss how pedagogy, the science and art of teaching, can promote the educational goals identified in the

We can identify two different curriculum tradition influencing national curriculums in different countries. The Bildung tradition aims at educating individuals to become competent citizens who actualize their individual talents and also benefit the society with their competences [4]. Bildung advocates the importance of individual and society transformation through education. In Europe and Nordic countries, *Didaktik* is a curriculum tradition guided by the philosophy of Bildung and the idea of educating instruction, *erziehende Unterricht*, *in educational institutions*. In that tradition, the pedagogical relation between the teacher and students,

Science and Art of Teaching

**Keywords:** pedagogy, Didaktik, teaching, learning, values, moral

#### **Chapter 1**

## The Moral Role of Pedagogy as the Science and Art of Teaching

*Kirsi Tirri and Auli Toom*

#### **Abstract**

The purpose of this chapter is to present the key concepts and actors in pedagogy and didactics in the context of institutional teaching. We present a holistic approach to education and view human beings as lifelong learners who need to be educated comprehensively to actualize their full potential. In this chapter we discuss how pedagogy, the science and art of teaching, can promote the educational goals identified in the curriculum. In this chapter we adhere to the Didaktik curriculum tradition in which values and morals are emphasized in guiding the teaching-studying-learning process. This means that pedagogy is moral in nature, and the teacher's main task is to reflect the values underlying her teaching and the purposes she wants to advance in her teaching. We also discuss the current pedagogical challenges in both basic and higher education in educating students for the twenty-first century.

**Keywords:** pedagogy, Didaktik, teaching, learning, values, moral

#### **1. Introduction**

The purpose of this chapter is to present the key concepts and actors in pedagogy and in pedagogical relationships in the context of educational institutions. The goals of education are established in a national curriculum and in more detailed institutional curricula. In many countries, for example, in Finland, the goal of education is to support the development of the whole personality, rather than merely the cognitive domain [1]. In this kind of holistic approach, human beings are lifelong learners who need to be educated in all educational domains to actualize their full potential. These domains include three domains in learning as identified by Benjamin Bloom: cognitive, affective and psychomotor [2]. Many learning tasks, for example, the skills related to morality, require teaching and learning in both cognitive and affective domains [3]. In this chapter we discuss how pedagogy, the science and art of teaching, can promote the educational goals identified in the curriculum.

We can identify two different curriculum tradition influencing national curriculums in different countries. The Bildung tradition aims at educating individuals to become competent citizens who actualize their individual talents and also benefit the society with their competences [4]. Bildung advocates the importance of individual and society transformation through education. In Europe and Nordic countries, *Didaktik* is a curriculum tradition guided by the philosophy of Bildung and the idea of educating instruction, *erziehende Unterricht*, *in educational institutions*. In that tradition, the pedagogical relation between the teacher and students,

**Figure 1.** *The basic elements and relations in the didactical triangle [16, 17, 19, 22].*

the content relation of a teacher to the subject matter and the didactic relation of a teacher to students' learning are seen as core elements in teaching-studyinglearning process (see **Figure 1**).

In this *Didaktik* curriculum tradition both the teacher and the students have autonomy in teaching-studying-learning process that cannot be restricted by any legislation or evaluation [5]. The teaching is guided by a "Lehrplan" that can only be implemented by a competent teacher who has total freedom to choose her teaching contents and methods [4, 5]. The goals of curriculum and teacher's skills to actualize those goals in her teaching are the ways to evaluate the success of a teacher.

The Anglo-American curriculum tradition is based on psychological theories on learning, and the emphasis is on accountability and learning outcomes [6]. The curriculum and the teaching plans are well-articulated and detailed with the goals to achieve the learning objectives with clearly defined contents. The teachers are trained to teach certain contents with the goal to produce good learning results that can be measured objectively with standardized tests. Teachers are certified after their training, and they are evaluated regularly on the basis of their students' learning outcomes [4, 6]. Teachers' task is to implement the given national curriculum and achieve the learning objectives listed in them.

#### **2. The moral core of pedagogy**

In this chapter, we adhere to the *Didaktik* curriculum tradition in which values and morals are emphasized in guiding the teaching-studying-learning process and in educating pupils as whole. This means that pedagogy is moral in nature, and the teacher's main task is to reflect the values underlying her teaching and the purposes she wants to advance in her teaching. In addition to the values established in the national curriculum, the teacher needs to be aware of the ethical codes guiding the teaching profession. The professional status of teachers differs from country to country. In Finland, for example, teachers are considered ethical professionals who can be trusted and who share similar basic values about their work. These values are established in the ethical codes for teachers, which were first published in Finland in 1998. The values are dignity, truthfulness, fairness, responsibility and freedom [7]. In 2017 the Teachers' Union in Finland continued to strengthen the professional status of its members and established the Comenius' Oath for teachers [8]. The purpose of this oath was to support teachers and provide a concrete reminder of the ethical foundation of their profession. The freedom given to teachers challenges them constantly to develop their ethical skills with regard to their students, colleagues, themselves and the networks with which they cooperate. In this pedagogical challenge, teachers need ethical sensitivity to identify and solve context-specific moral dilemmas in teaching [3].

**5**

*The Moral Role of Pedagogy as the Science and Art of Teaching*

Shulman [9] argues that teacher's knowledge of ends, purposes and values of education is perhaps the most important part of teachers' professional knowledge. This kind of knowledge includes the following issues: the visions on what is possible in pedagogy, how a pedagogically well-functioning school might look like, what the students should become and how good education can be defined [9]. In Finland, for example, the holistic growth of students is emphasized in the national curriculum with the aim to educate them to be good citizens who contribute to the society with their talents [1]. This goal of education assumes that the teacher has internalized the values and purposes in education and can actualize them in her teaching. In addition to these general pedagogical values, the teacher needs to be aware of the subject-specific values of each subject taught [10]. A current pedagogical challenge

According to Niemelä and Tirri the need for an integrated curriculum emerges from current ethical and social issues in the world. Curriculum integration can be applied, for example, to teaching what climate change means and what can be done to stall, if not reverse it. Curriculum integration can also advance democratic education in schools with a pedagogical purpose of meeting the needs of diverse

To be able to act as an ethical professional with a long-term commitment, a teacher needs a personal purpose for her work [12]. William Damon and his colleagues have defined the term "purpose" as "a stable and generalized intention to accomplish something that is both meaningful to the self and of intended consequence to the world beyond the self" [13]. Tirri argues that to meet the criteria of a purposeful teacher, three criteria needs to be met. They include intention, engagement and prosocial reasoning [12]. Purposeful teachers are those professionals who have internalized the moral core of pedagogy and the long-term goals in education. Those goals need to be both personally meaningful for a teacher and at the same

In the Anglo-American contexts, the concept of pedagogy is usually used as a synonym to the German concept of didactics (die Didaktik). The *Didaktik* is an invention of nineteenth-century teacher education in Germany and in Nordic countries [5, 14]. In Anglo-American literature, the concept of didactics is used differently than in the European tradition. The term might have a negative connotation with the idea of direct instruction where a teacher is imposing her right doctrine to the student [15]. In this chapter we use the term pedagogy to avoid this kind of misunderstanding. This Anglo-American term might be the closest meaning to the European concept of didactics. With the term pedagogy, we address the whole "teaching-studying-learning process" in educational institutions that is actualized

An important aspect of German Didaktik tradition and pedagogy is that it has both descriptive and normative aspects, science and art of teaching. In descriptive sense, *Didaktik* means science of teaching. It is research on the instructional process in its wholeness: the key actors—teachers and pupils—in institutional educational contexts as well as the relationships between the key actors and processes related to learning, studying and teaching. The descriptive *Didaktik* also informs the instructional practice and normative aspects of it. Pedagogy emphasizes values in teaching-studying-learning process, and they are also important issues in teacher's

for Finnish teachers includes the task of curriculum integration [11].

time go beyond herself to serve her students holistic growth.

**3. Main concepts in the research on teaching**

**3.1 Pedagogy, Didaktik and didactics**

as "the science and art of teaching".

*DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.90502*

students [11].

*Pedagogy in Basic and Higher Education - Current Developments and Challenges*

the content relation of a teacher to the subject matter and the didactic relation of a teacher to students' learning are seen as core elements in teaching-studying-

*The basic elements and relations in the didactical triangle [16, 17, 19, 22].*

In this *Didaktik* curriculum tradition both the teacher and the students have autonomy in teaching-studying-learning process that cannot be restricted by any legislation or evaluation [5]. The teaching is guided by a "Lehrplan" that can only be implemented by a competent teacher who has total freedom to choose her teaching contents and methods [4, 5]. The goals of curriculum and teacher's skills to actualize those goals in her teaching are the ways to evaluate the success of a

The Anglo-American curriculum tradition is based on psychological theories on learning, and the emphasis is on accountability and learning outcomes [6]. The curriculum and the teaching plans are well-articulated and detailed with the goals to achieve the learning objectives with clearly defined contents. The teachers are trained to teach certain contents with the goal to produce good learning results that can be measured objectively with standardized tests. Teachers are certified after their training, and they are evaluated regularly on the basis of their students' learning outcomes [4, 6]. Teachers' task is to implement the given national curriculum

In this chapter, we adhere to the *Didaktik* curriculum tradition in which values and morals are emphasized in guiding the teaching-studying-learning process and in educating pupils as whole. This means that pedagogy is moral in nature, and the teacher's main task is to reflect the values underlying her teaching and the purposes she wants to advance in her teaching. In addition to the values established in the national curriculum, the teacher needs to be aware of the ethical codes guiding the teaching profession. The professional status of teachers differs from country to country. In Finland, for example, teachers are considered ethical professionals who can be trusted and who share similar basic values about their work. These values are established in the ethical codes for teachers, which were first published in Finland in 1998. The values are dignity, truthfulness, fairness, responsibility and freedom [7]. In 2017 the Teachers' Union in Finland continued to strengthen the professional status of its members and established the Comenius' Oath for teachers [8]. The purpose of this oath was to support teachers and provide a concrete reminder of the ethical foundation of their profession. The freedom given to teachers challenges them constantly to develop their ethical skills with regard to their students, colleagues, themselves and the networks with which they cooperate. In this pedagogical challenge, teachers need ethical sensitivity to identify and solve context-specific

learning process (see **Figure 1**).

and achieve the learning objectives listed in them.

**2. The moral core of pedagogy**

moral dilemmas in teaching [3].

teacher.

**Figure 1.**

**4**

Shulman [9] argues that teacher's knowledge of ends, purposes and values of education is perhaps the most important part of teachers' professional knowledge. This kind of knowledge includes the following issues: the visions on what is possible in pedagogy, how a pedagogically well-functioning school might look like, what the students should become and how good education can be defined [9]. In Finland, for example, the holistic growth of students is emphasized in the national curriculum with the aim to educate them to be good citizens who contribute to the society with their talents [1]. This goal of education assumes that the teacher has internalized the values and purposes in education and can actualize them in her teaching. In addition to these general pedagogical values, the teacher needs to be aware of the subject-specific values of each subject taught [10]. A current pedagogical challenge for Finnish teachers includes the task of curriculum integration [11].

According to Niemelä and Tirri the need for an integrated curriculum emerges from current ethical and social issues in the world. Curriculum integration can be applied, for example, to teaching what climate change means and what can be done to stall, if not reverse it. Curriculum integration can also advance democratic education in schools with a pedagogical purpose of meeting the needs of diverse students [11].

To be able to act as an ethical professional with a long-term commitment, a teacher needs a personal purpose for her work [12]. William Damon and his colleagues have defined the term "purpose" as "a stable and generalized intention to accomplish something that is both meaningful to the self and of intended consequence to the world beyond the self" [13]. Tirri argues that to meet the criteria of a purposeful teacher, three criteria needs to be met. They include intention, engagement and prosocial reasoning [12]. Purposeful teachers are those professionals who have internalized the moral core of pedagogy and the long-term goals in education. Those goals need to be both personally meaningful for a teacher and at the same time go beyond herself to serve her students holistic growth.

#### **3. Main concepts in the research on teaching**

#### **3.1 Pedagogy, Didaktik and didactics**

In the Anglo-American contexts, the concept of pedagogy is usually used as a synonym to the German concept of didactics (die Didaktik). The *Didaktik* is an invention of nineteenth-century teacher education in Germany and in Nordic countries [5, 14]. In Anglo-American literature, the concept of didactics is used differently than in the European tradition. The term might have a negative connotation with the idea of direct instruction where a teacher is imposing her right doctrine to the student [15]. In this chapter we use the term pedagogy to avoid this kind of misunderstanding. This Anglo-American term might be the closest meaning to the European concept of didactics. With the term pedagogy, we address the whole "teaching-studying-learning process" in educational institutions that is actualized as "the science and art of teaching".

An important aspect of German Didaktik tradition and pedagogy is that it has both descriptive and normative aspects, science and art of teaching. In descriptive sense, *Didaktik* means science of teaching. It is research on the instructional process in its wholeness: the key actors—teachers and pupils—in institutional educational contexts as well as the relationships between the key actors and processes related to learning, studying and teaching. The descriptive *Didaktik* also informs the instructional practice and normative aspects of it. Pedagogy emphasizes values in teaching-studying-learning process, and they are also important issues in teacher's

planning, action and reflection. This means that education is normative in nature and teachers have important role as moral educators. Regardless of the subject matter or grade level taught, teachers are moral educators. Pedagogy also differs from educational psychology in its context dependency. This has implications to the teaching-studying-learning process which is intentional in nature, and teachers' actions are based on values and purposes, and the whole process is located in educational institution. Moreover, the teachers are educated in established educational programmes, and the studying and learning are guided with curriculum that defines the goals in learning [14, 15].

#### **3.2 Educating instruction and the relationships between teacher and students**

Teacher and students, content of instruction as well as the relationships between them mainly contribute on the quality of classroom interaction [16]. Several researchers [17–19] after Herbart have considers the basic elements—teacher, student and content—and relations in the didactical triangle (see **Figure 1**).

In this pedagogical core and context, the *teacher's main role* is to promote student learning. The teacher needs to be capable in terms of the content and student learning, be able to organize lessons, facilitate the interaction and solve challenges in classroom. The teacher also has to be capable in terms of educational aspects. The teacher needs to act intentionally and responsibly in relation to students, their learning and growth, and also as a role model and direction for them [20]. These actions are anchored on the teacher's moral and professional ethics, trust and respect between teacher and students [21], not on exercise of power or authoritarian behaviors. The *student's role* in pedagogical and institutional educational context is defined in relation to the teacher's role. Students are responsible of their own learning and behaviour in the instructional process. In its best, students regulate their own and other's learning by setting goals, striving toward them and evaluating their completion. *Contents* of learning and teaching are in a central position in the instructional process. They concretely encompass the matters included and written in the curricula of educational institutions that students are intended to learn.

The relations between the basic elements in the didactical triangle play an important part in the whole. Naturally, *teachers have relation to curricular contents* they teach. This aspect means especially teachers' mastery of the discipline-specific knowledge and skills explicated in the curricula. Also, *students have relation to curricular contents* they are about to learn. This covers students' attitudes, motivation, conceptions and experiences of curricular themes. This relation is realized in students' content learning [16]. The special qualities of *pedagogical relation between the teacher and student* stem from teacher's and student's roles in the didactical context. Functioning interaction between the teacher and students is necessary for the teaching-studying-learning process and for the best of student learning. The pedagogical relation is asymmetrical by nature in a sense that the teacher being more experienced aims to support students to learn certain capabilities. Pedagogical relationship is always interactive and dialogical, not one-way influencing or forcing a student on learning. The teacher acts altruistically through caring and encouraging students. Pedagogical relationship is always impermanent, and this characterizes the relationship since the beginning. The relationship changes and becomes gradually unnecessary, while students learn, develop and become independent and mature. Related to this aspect, pedagogical relationship is always future oriented. The aim is to support student learning toward the future possibilities and challenges by trusting on student's capabilities and success.

The *didactical relation meaning teacher's relationship to student's relation to content* is the core of the teaching-studying-learning process in the pedagogical core context

**7**

*The Moral Role of Pedagogy as the Science and Art of Teaching*

(see **Figure 1**). It combines teacher's relation to content and to students and basically describes the teacher's main task in institutional educational context. This relation covers all the actions that the teacher does to promote student learning.

In Anglo-American tradition, Shulman's [9] framework of the teacher's practical knowledge and especially pedagogical content knowledge has informed and guided research practice related to teachers and teacher education. He suggests that teacher education programmes should combine two knowledge bases to more effectively prepare teachers. These two knowledge bases are content and pedagogy. A crucial aspect of the teachers' knowledge development of how to teach their subject is subject matter knowledge. A second aspect of teacher knowledge is pedagogical knowledge, which goes beyond knowledge of the subject matter per se to the dimension of subject matter for teaching. Pedagogical content knowledge can be called as an amalgam between content knowledge and pedagogical knowledge; it allows teachers to support pupil learning, organize teaching in a pedagogically meaningful way and choose relevant teaching and assessment methods when teaching subject matter. Pedagogical content knowledge is unique to teachers and separates, for example, a science teacher from a scientist. With this knowledge, a teacher can teach a certain context to different learners effectively and with special attributes that help her/him guide a student to understand content in a manner that

According to Shulman [9], pedagogical content knowledge is an aspect of broader general pedagogical knowledge. General pedagogical knowledge comes close to the German notion of Didaktik, and pedagogical content knowledge comes close to the subject pedagogy or *Fachdidaktik* in German terms. The German researchers of Didaktik have started to use the term "school pedagogy" with which they refer to a broader institutional context of teaching in the school context. Kansanen [23] suggests a possibility of combining the promising aspects of pedagogical content knowledge and *Fachdidaktik* that might lead to new insights in

The activities that invite students' knowledge construction in school include teachers' teaching and students' studying. Uljens [24] argues that both teaching and studying are intentional activities that are directed to promote students' learning. These activities are, however, not necessary prerequisites for learning; students can learn new things without intentional studying or teaching. In addition, teaching and studying cannot guarantee learning. According to Uljens: "Teaching and studying may thus be called activities supporting individual growth through the process of learning. Learning in itself is therefore a process, among others, through which individual growth is achieved. Competence and changes in one's personality may

Interaction between teacher and students, and among students, is fundamental in teaching. According to Husu [25], interaction seems to be important for at least two reasons: first, a certain amount of interaction is necessary so that teachers and students can understand each other and perform their teaching and studying activities. Without this basic interactive understanding, it would be difficult to know whether teaching and studying activities respectively are focusing in the shared aims that both teachers and students intend. Second, teaching and studying methods are interactive to varying degrees. They can be interactive in themselves

*DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.90502*

**3.3 Pedagogical content knowledge**

is personally meaningful [9].

**3.4 Teaching-studying-learning process**

then be called the results of individual growth [24]".

future research.

(see **Figure 1**). It combines teacher's relation to content and to students and basically describes the teacher's main task in institutional educational context. This relation covers all the actions that the teacher does to promote student learning.

#### **3.3 Pedagogical content knowledge**

*Pedagogy in Basic and Higher Education - Current Developments and Challenges*

defines the goals in learning [14, 15].

planning, action and reflection. This means that education is normative in nature and teachers have important role as moral educators. Regardless of the subject matter or grade level taught, teachers are moral educators. Pedagogy also differs from educational psychology in its context dependency. This has implications to the teaching-studying-learning process which is intentional in nature, and teachers' actions are based on values and purposes, and the whole process is located in educational institution. Moreover, the teachers are educated in established educational programmes, and the studying and learning are guided with curriculum that

**3.2 Educating instruction and the relationships between teacher and students**

In this pedagogical core and context, the *teacher's main role* is to promote student learning. The teacher needs to be capable in terms of the content and student learning, be able to organize lessons, facilitate the interaction and solve challenges in classroom. The teacher also has to be capable in terms of educational aspects. The teacher needs to act intentionally and responsibly in relation to students, their learning and growth, and also as a role model and direction for them [20]. These actions are anchored on the teacher's moral and professional ethics, trust and respect between teacher and students [21], not on exercise of power or authoritarian behaviors. The *student's role* in pedagogical and institutional educational context is defined in relation to the teacher's role. Students are responsible of their own learning and behaviour in the instructional process. In its best, students regulate their own and other's learning by setting goals, striving toward them and evaluating their completion. *Contents* of learning and teaching are in a central position in the instructional process. They concretely encompass the matters included and written in the curricula of educational institutions that students are intended to learn. The relations between the basic elements in the didactical triangle play an important part in the whole. Naturally, *teachers have relation to curricular contents* they teach. This aspect means especially teachers' mastery of the discipline-specific knowledge and skills explicated in the curricula. Also, *students have relation to curricular contents* they are about to learn. This covers students' attitudes, motivation, conceptions and experiences of curricular themes. This relation is realized in students' content learning [16]. The special qualities of *pedagogical relation between the teacher and student* stem from teacher's and student's roles in the didactical context. Functioning interaction between the teacher and students is necessary for the teaching-studying-learning process and for the best of student learning. The pedagogical relation is asymmetrical by nature in a sense that the teacher being more experienced aims to support students to learn certain capabilities. Pedagogical relationship is always interactive and dialogical, not one-way influencing or forcing a student on learning. The teacher acts altruistically through caring and encouraging students. Pedagogical relationship is always impermanent, and this characterizes the relationship since the beginning. The relationship changes and becomes gradually unnecessary, while students learn, develop and become independent and mature. Related to this aspect, pedagogical relationship is always future oriented. The aim is to support student learning toward the future possibilities and challenges

them mainly contribute on the quality of classroom interaction [16]. Several researchers [17–19] after Herbart have considers the basic elements—teacher, student and content—and relations in the didactical triangle (see **Figure 1**).

Teacher and students, content of instruction as well as the relationships between

**6**

by trusting on student's capabilities and success.

The *didactical relation meaning teacher's relationship to student's relation to content* is the core of the teaching-studying-learning process in the pedagogical core context

In Anglo-American tradition, Shulman's [9] framework of the teacher's practical knowledge and especially pedagogical content knowledge has informed and guided research practice related to teachers and teacher education. He suggests that teacher education programmes should combine two knowledge bases to more effectively prepare teachers. These two knowledge bases are content and pedagogy. A crucial aspect of the teachers' knowledge development of how to teach their subject is subject matter knowledge. A second aspect of teacher knowledge is pedagogical knowledge, which goes beyond knowledge of the subject matter per se to the dimension of subject matter for teaching. Pedagogical content knowledge can be called as an amalgam between content knowledge and pedagogical knowledge; it allows teachers to support pupil learning, organize teaching in a pedagogically meaningful way and choose relevant teaching and assessment methods when teaching subject matter. Pedagogical content knowledge is unique to teachers and separates, for example, a science teacher from a scientist. With this knowledge, a teacher can teach a certain context to different learners effectively and with special attributes that help her/him guide a student to understand content in a manner that is personally meaningful [9].

According to Shulman [9], pedagogical content knowledge is an aspect of broader general pedagogical knowledge. General pedagogical knowledge comes close to the German notion of Didaktik, and pedagogical content knowledge comes close to the subject pedagogy or *Fachdidaktik* in German terms. The German researchers of Didaktik have started to use the term "school pedagogy" with which they refer to a broader institutional context of teaching in the school context. Kansanen [23] suggests a possibility of combining the promising aspects of pedagogical content knowledge and *Fachdidaktik* that might lead to new insights in future research.

#### **3.4 Teaching-studying-learning process**

The activities that invite students' knowledge construction in school include teachers' teaching and students' studying. Uljens [24] argues that both teaching and studying are intentional activities that are directed to promote students' learning. These activities are, however, not necessary prerequisites for learning; students can learn new things without intentional studying or teaching. In addition, teaching and studying cannot guarantee learning. According to Uljens: "Teaching and studying may thus be called activities supporting individual growth through the process of learning. Learning in itself is therefore a process, among others, through which individual growth is achieved. Competence and changes in one's personality may then be called the results of individual growth [24]".

Interaction between teacher and students, and among students, is fundamental in teaching. According to Husu [25], interaction seems to be important for at least two reasons: first, a certain amount of interaction is necessary so that teachers and students can understand each other and perform their teaching and studying activities. Without this basic interactive understanding, it would be difficult to know whether teaching and studying activities respectively are focusing in the shared aims that both teachers and students intend. Second, teaching and studying methods are interactive to varying degrees. They can be interactive in themselves

(discussion method), or they can allow interaction to a lesser degree (methods of student's individual studying) [25].

Kansanen [26] talks about indirect interaction that includes the pre-interactive and post-interactive phases that both teachers and students need in order to be prepared for the next instructional situation. When the teacher prepares for his/her lessons she/he must consider the previous study history and personal characteristics of the students. Furthermore, she/he must create an appropriate learning environment for heterogeneous group of students. The students, on the other side, must organize their own study schedules and do their homework.

We can conclude that the science and art of teaching can be found in purposeful, holistic, normative and context-dependent nature of teaching. Teaching requires strong subject matter knowledge, knowledge on students and the totality of the teaching-studying-learning process.

#### **3.5 Current pedagogical challenges in basic and higher education**

The professional task of the teacher is to create effective, supportive and challenging learning environments in which pupils can learn skills to direct their lives successfully. In this chapter we take a stance that education extends beyond acquiring knowledge or increasing cognitive capacities toward developing the whole person, including emotion, motivation, volition, spirituality and sociality [27, 28]. A current challenge in school pedagogy is to increase the intercultural and ethical sensitivities of students both in basic and higher education to be able to function as global citizens in the world of diverse values and cultures. Students need a clear purpose and goals in their own lives and in their studies to be able to plan their futures with goal direction and moral reflection on their choices beyond themselves. The teacher's task is to provide them encouragement, guidance and opportunities to find their own interests and become engaged both socially in dialog with peers and academically in terms of the learning contents in pedagogically supportive ways [29]. Teaching both in schools and in higher education institutions needs to adapt to the needs of twenty-first century learners and society.

Related to students' academic engagement, there exists a broadening discussion and also concerns about students' well-being both in basic and in higher education [30] that is constructed between students and the various learning contexts and interactions in them [31]. Several studies have identified factors that are related to students' decreased well-being both in basic and in higher education contexts, for example, learning difficulties, study-related burnout [32, 33], experiences of bullying [34–36] and loneliness in peer relations [37, 38]. These concerns encourage to think actively about the factors contributing to students' well-being and especially the structures and pedagogical practices in educational institutions. In the field of positive psychology, a variety of models based on empirical evidence have been constructed to structure the individual and contextual factors related to student well-being. Typically, self-acceptance, positive perceptions about one's own growth and development, conceptions of purpose of one's own life, positive relationships with others, environmental mastery and autonomy have been identified as key factors related to well-being [39–41].

The variety of digital technologies and social media can be used to support learning and stimulate the discussion on different cultures and the values underlying them. Students need to learn the skills in information and communication technology to be able to function as citizens in the twenty-first century. Many countries, for example, Finland has taken an active role in implementing information and communication technology (ICT) in schools and teacher education [42]. In the future vision, Finland is investing in digital teaching and learning and education of

**9**

**Author details**

\* and Auli Toom2

provided the original work is properly cited.

1 Faculty of Educational Sciences, University of Helsinki, Finland

\*Address all correspondence to: kirsi.tirri@helsinki.fi

2 Centre for University Teaching and Learning, University of Helsinki, Finland

© 2019 The Author(s). Licensee IntechOpen. This chapter is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/ by/3.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium,

Kirsi Tirri1

*The Moral Role of Pedagogy as the Science and Art of Teaching*

teachers in their pedagogical use. This educational approach is a challenge for many teachers and students. Teachers might lack knowledge and skills to use relevant digital tools and pedagogies related to them to support student learning [43]. Teachers need to be educated for purposeful use of digital tools that includes paying attention to her students' abilities, gender, prior knowledge, motives and expectations to make learning meaningful for them. Students' skills in information and communication technology differ a lot, and teachers need the skills to differentiate

Teachers are facing more diversity than before in their student populations. This will demand high-level ethical and pedagogical skills to cope with these new challenges. With the research-based education and professional ethics, teachers have the potential to meet the challenges of the future. In teacher education we can also identify the need for more education in the moral domain and particularly in moral sensitivities [3]. Teachers are facing more and more challenges due to the rising number of immigrant students and children who have learning difficulties. For example, in Finland, we have had serious problems concerning child welfare and school shooting tragedies that require new educational strategies and help from other professionals [45]. We can conclude that in addition to didactic aspect which is needed to help students improve their learning, teaching has a strong moral dimension, and teachers therefore need the moral competence to identify and solve

*DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.90502*

teaching in inclusive classrooms [44].

moral dilemmas in their learning communities.

#### *The Moral Role of Pedagogy as the Science and Art of Teaching DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.90502*

*Pedagogy in Basic and Higher Education - Current Developments and Challenges*

organize their own study schedules and do their homework.

**3.5 Current pedagogical challenges in basic and higher education**

adapt to the needs of twenty-first century learners and society.

student's individual studying) [25].

teaching-studying-learning process.

factors related to well-being [39–41].

(discussion method), or they can allow interaction to a lesser degree (methods of

Kansanen [26] talks about indirect interaction that includes the pre-interactive and post-interactive phases that both teachers and students need in order to be prepared for the next instructional situation. When the teacher prepares for his/her lessons she/he must consider the previous study history and personal characteristics of the students. Furthermore, she/he must create an appropriate learning environment for heterogeneous group of students. The students, on the other side, must

We can conclude that the science and art of teaching can be found in purposeful, holistic, normative and context-dependent nature of teaching. Teaching requires strong subject matter knowledge, knowledge on students and the totality of the

The professional task of the teacher is to create effective, supportive and challenging learning environments in which pupils can learn skills to direct their lives successfully. In this chapter we take a stance that education extends beyond acquiring knowledge or increasing cognitive capacities toward developing the whole person, including emotion, motivation, volition, spirituality and sociality [27, 28]. A current challenge in school pedagogy is to increase the intercultural and ethical sensitivities of students both in basic and higher education to be able to function as global citizens in the world of diverse values and cultures. Students need a clear purpose and goals in their own lives and in their studies to be able to plan their futures with goal direction and moral reflection on their choices beyond themselves. The teacher's task is to provide them encouragement, guidance and opportunities to find their own interests and become engaged both socially in dialog with peers and academically in terms of the learning contents in pedagogically supportive ways [29]. Teaching both in schools and in higher education institutions needs to

Related to students' academic engagement, there exists a broadening discussion and also concerns about students' well-being both in basic and in higher education [30] that is constructed between students and the various learning contexts and interactions in them [31]. Several studies have identified factors that are related to students' decreased well-being both in basic and in higher education contexts, for example, learning difficulties, study-related burnout [32, 33], experiences of bullying [34–36] and loneliness in peer relations [37, 38]. These concerns encourage to think actively about the factors contributing to students' well-being and especially the structures and pedagogical practices in educational institutions. In the field of positive psychology, a variety of models based on empirical evidence have been constructed to structure the individual and contextual factors related to student well-being. Typically, self-acceptance, positive perceptions about one's own growth and development, conceptions of purpose of one's own life, positive relationships with others, environmental mastery and autonomy have been identified as key

The variety of digital technologies and social media can be used to support learning and stimulate the discussion on different cultures and the values underlying them. Students need to learn the skills in information and communication technology to be able to function as citizens in the twenty-first century. Many countries, for example, Finland has taken an active role in implementing information and communication technology (ICT) in schools and teacher education [42]. In the future vision, Finland is investing in digital teaching and learning and education of

**8**

teachers in their pedagogical use. This educational approach is a challenge for many teachers and students. Teachers might lack knowledge and skills to use relevant digital tools and pedagogies related to them to support student learning [43]. Teachers need to be educated for purposeful use of digital tools that includes paying attention to her students' abilities, gender, prior knowledge, motives and expectations to make learning meaningful for them. Students' skills in information and communication technology differ a lot, and teachers need the skills to differentiate teaching in inclusive classrooms [44].

Teachers are facing more diversity than before in their student populations. This will demand high-level ethical and pedagogical skills to cope with these new challenges. With the research-based education and professional ethics, teachers have the potential to meet the challenges of the future. In teacher education we can also identify the need for more education in the moral domain and particularly in moral sensitivities [3]. Teachers are facing more and more challenges due to the rising number of immigrant students and children who have learning difficulties. For example, in Finland, we have had serious problems concerning child welfare and school shooting tragedies that require new educational strategies and help from other professionals [45]. We can conclude that in addition to didactic aspect which is needed to help students improve their learning, teaching has a strong moral dimension, and teachers therefore need the moral competence to identify and solve moral dilemmas in their learning communities.

#### **Author details**

Kirsi Tirri1 \* and Auli Toom2

1 Faculty of Educational Sciences, University of Helsinki, Finland

2 Centre for University Teaching and Learning, University of Helsinki, Finland

\*Address all correspondence to: kirsi.tirri@helsinki.fi

© 2019 The Author(s). Licensee IntechOpen. This chapter is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/ by/3.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

### **References**

[1] Finnish National Board of Education. The National Core Curriculum for Basic Education. Helsinki: Finnish National Board of Education; 2016. Available from: http://www.oph.fi/ops2016

[2] Bloom B. Taxonomy of Educational Objectives Handbook 1. The Cognitive Domain. New York: David McKay Co Inc; 1956. p. 1

[3] Tirri K. Ethical sensitivity in teaching and teacher education. In: Peters MA, editor. Encyclopedia of Teacher Education. Singapore: Springer Nature. Springer Science+Business Media; 2019. DOI: 10.1007/978-981-13-1179-6

[4] Autio T. The internationalization of curriculum research. In: Pinar WF, editor. International Handbook of Curriculum Research. New York: Routledge; 2014

[5] Hopmann S. Restrained teaching: The common core of Didaktik. European Educational Research Journal. 2007;**6**(2):109-124. DOI: 10.2304/ eerj.2007.6.2.109

[6] Westbury I. Teaching as reflective practice: What might Didaktik teach curriculum? In: Hopmann S, Riquarts K, Westbury I, editors. Teaching as a Reflective Practice: The German Didaktik Tradition. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates; 2000

[7] Code of Ethics for Finnish Teachers. Helsinki: Trade Union of Education in Finland; 2010

[8] Comenius' Oath. 2017. Available from: https://www.oaj.fi/contentasset s/31548b52f43348c69e1c6ef4f7ece0ab/ comeniuksen\_vala\_eng.pdf [Accessed: 22-04-2019]

[9] Shulman LS. Knowledge and teaching: Foundations of the new reform. Harvard Educational Review. 1987;**57**(1):1-22

[10] Tirri K, Ubani M. Education of Finnish student teachers for purposeful teaching. Journal of Education for Teaching. 2013;**39**(1):21-29. DOI: 10.1080/02607476.2012.733188

[11] Niemelä MA, Tirri K. Teachers' knowledge of curriculum integration: A current challenge for Finnish subject teachers. In: Weinberger Y, Libman Z, editors. Contemporary Pedagogies in Teacher Education and Development. London: IntechOpen; 2018. pp. 119-132. DOI: 10.5772/ intechopen.75870

[12] Tirri K. The purposeful teacher. London: IntechOpen. p. 2019

[13] Damon W, Menon J, Bronk KC. The development of purpose during adolescence. Applied Developmental Science. 2003;**7**:110-128

[14] Kansanen P. Didactics and its relation to educational psychology: Problems in translating a key concept across research communities. International Review of Education. 2002;**48**(6):427-441

[15] Tirri K. The core of school pedagogy: Finnish teachers' views on the educational purposefulness of their teaching. In: Niemi H, Toom A, Kallioniemi A, editors. Miracle of Education: The Principles and Practices of Teaching and Learning in Finnish Schools. Rotterdam: Sense publishers; 2016. pp. 57-68

[16] Herbart J, Wendt H. Umriß pädagogischer Vorlesungen von Johan Friedrich Herbart. Verausgegeben und mit erläuternden Anmerkungen versehen von Hermann Wendt. Leipzig: Verlag von Philipp Reclam jun; 1835/1841

**11**

*The Moral Role of Pedagogy as the Science and Art of Teaching*

classrooms by video conferencing. Journal of Open, Flexible, and Distance

[26] Kansanen P. Teaching as teachingstudying-learning interaction. Scandinavian Journal of Educational

[27] Tirri K. Holistic school pedagogy and values: Finnish teachers' and students' perspectives. International Journal of Educational Research. 2011;**50**:159-165. DOI: 10.1016/j.

Learning. 1996;**2**:34-44

Research. 1999;**43**:81-89

[28] Tirri K, Moran S, Menon

[29] Poutanen K, Toom A,

– Opiskelijoiden kokemuksia yliopistoyhteisöön kiinnittymisen haasteista [is the academic threshold too high? – The students' experiences of the challenges of integration to the scholarly community], Osallistava korkeakoulutus

Korhonen V, Inkinen M Kasvaako akateeminen kynnys liian korkeaksi?

[Participative higher education]. In Mäkinen M, Annala J, Korhonen V, Vehviläinen S, Norrgrann A, Kalli P, Svärd P, Tampere; Tampere University

[30] Korhonen V, Toom A. Opintoihin kiinnittymisen ja hyvinvoinnin yhteyksien tunnistaminen sekä pedagogisen hyvinvoinnin tukeminen korkeakoulun opetusyhteisössä [Mapping the connections between student engagement and wellbeing and supporting pedagogical well-being in higher education]. In: Korhonen V, Annala J, Kulju P, editors. Kehittämisen palat, yhteisöjen salat – Näkökulmia koulutukseen ja kasvatukseen [Developments and communities – Perspectives on

Mariano J. Introduction to education for purposeful teaching around the world. Journal of Education for Teaching. 2016;**42**. DOI: 10.1080/02607476.2016.1226551

ijer.2011.07.010

Press. p. 17-46

*DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.90502*

[17] Kansanen P, Meri M. The didactic relation in the teaching-studyinglearning process. In: Hudson B, Buchberger F, Kansanen P, Seel H, editors. Didaktik/Fachdidaktik as Science(−s) of the Teaching Profession? TNTEE Publications; 1999. pp. 107-116

[18] Harjunen E. Miten Opettaja Rakentaa Pedagogisen Auktoriteetin? Otteita Opettajan Arjesta. [how Does a Teacher Construct Pedagogical Authority? Extracts from a teacher's Everyday Life], Research in Educational Sciences 12. Finnish Educational Research Association: Turku; 2002

[19] Toom A, Tacit pedagogical knowing: At the core of teacher's professionality.

Research reports 276. Doctoral dissertation. University of Helsinki: Department of Applied Sciences of

[20] van Manen M. The Tact of

Teaching. The Meaning of Pedagogical Thoughtfulness. Ontario: The Althouse

[21] Burbules NC. Authority and the tragic dimension of teaching. In: Garrison JW, Rud AG Jr, editors. The Educational Conversation: Closing the Gap. New York: State University of New York Press; 1995. pp. 29-40

[22] Tirri K, Kuusisto E. How can purpose be taught? Journal of Religious Education. 2016;**64**:101-112. DOI: 10.1007/s40839-017-0035-7

[23] Kansanen P. Subject-matter didactics as a central knowledge base for teachers, or should it be called pedagogical content knowledge? Pedagogy, Culture and Society.

[24] Uljens M. School Didactics and Learning. Hove: Psychology Press; 1997

[25] Husu J. Distance education in the school environment: Integrating remote

2009b;**17**:29-39

Education; 2006

Press; 1991b/2002

*The Moral Role of Pedagogy as the Science and Art of Teaching DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.90502*

[17] Kansanen P, Meri M. The didactic relation in the teaching-studyinglearning process. In: Hudson B, Buchberger F, Kansanen P, Seel H, editors. Didaktik/Fachdidaktik as Science(−s) of the Teaching Profession? TNTEE Publications; 1999. pp. 107-116

[18] Harjunen E. Miten Opettaja Rakentaa Pedagogisen Auktoriteetin? Otteita Opettajan Arjesta. [how Does a Teacher Construct Pedagogical Authority? Extracts from a teacher's Everyday Life], Research in Educational Sciences 12. Finnish Educational Research Association: Turku; 2002

[19] Toom A, Tacit pedagogical knowing: At the core of teacher's professionality. Research reports 276. Doctoral dissertation. University of Helsinki: Department of Applied Sciences of Education; 2006

[20] van Manen M. The Tact of Teaching. The Meaning of Pedagogical Thoughtfulness. Ontario: The Althouse Press; 1991b/2002

[21] Burbules NC. Authority and the tragic dimension of teaching. In: Garrison JW, Rud AG Jr, editors. The Educational Conversation: Closing the Gap. New York: State University of New York Press; 1995. pp. 29-40

[22] Tirri K, Kuusisto E. How can purpose be taught? Journal of Religious Education. 2016;**64**:101-112. DOI: 10.1007/s40839-017-0035-7

[23] Kansanen P. Subject-matter didactics as a central knowledge base for teachers, or should it be called pedagogical content knowledge? Pedagogy, Culture and Society. 2009b;**17**:29-39

[24] Uljens M. School Didactics and Learning. Hove: Psychology Press; 1997

[25] Husu J. Distance education in the school environment: Integrating remote classrooms by video conferencing. Journal of Open, Flexible, and Distance Learning. 1996;**2**:34-44

[26] Kansanen P. Teaching as teachingstudying-learning interaction. Scandinavian Journal of Educational Research. 1999;**43**:81-89

[27] Tirri K. Holistic school pedagogy and values: Finnish teachers' and students' perspectives. International Journal of Educational Research. 2011;**50**:159-165. DOI: 10.1016/j. ijer.2011.07.010

[28] Tirri K, Moran S, Menon Mariano J. Introduction to education for purposeful teaching around the world. Journal of Education for Teaching. 2016;**42**. DOI: 10.1080/02607476.2016.1226551

[29] Poutanen K, Toom A, Korhonen V, Inkinen M Kasvaako akateeminen kynnys liian korkeaksi? – Opiskelijoiden kokemuksia yliopistoyhteisöön kiinnittymisen haasteista [is the academic threshold too high? – The students' experiences of the challenges of integration to the scholarly community], Osallistava korkeakoulutus [Participative higher education]. In Mäkinen M, Annala J, Korhonen V, Vehviläinen S, Norrgrann A, Kalli P, Svärd P, Tampere; Tampere University Press. p. 17-46

[30] Korhonen V, Toom A. Opintoihin kiinnittymisen ja hyvinvoinnin yhteyksien tunnistaminen sekä pedagogisen hyvinvoinnin tukeminen korkeakoulun opetusyhteisössä [Mapping the connections between student engagement and wellbeing and supporting pedagogical well-being in higher education]. In: Korhonen V, Annala J, Kulju P, editors. Kehittämisen palat, yhteisöjen salat – Näkökulmia koulutukseen ja kasvatukseen [Developments and communities – Perspectives on

**10**

*Pedagogy in Basic and Higher Education - Current Developments and Challenges*

reform. Harvard Educational Review.

[10] Tirri K, Ubani M. Education of Finnish student teachers for purposeful teaching. Journal of Education for Teaching. 2013;**39**(1):21-29. DOI: 10.1080/02607476.2012.733188

[11] Niemelä MA, Tirri K. Teachers' knowledge of curriculum integration: A current challenge for Finnish subject teachers. In: Weinberger Y, Libman Z, editors. Contemporary Pedagogies in Teacher Education and Development. London: IntechOpen; 2018. pp. 119-132. DOI: 10.5772/

[12] Tirri K. The purposeful teacher. London: IntechOpen. p. 2019

development of purpose during adolescence. Applied Developmental

[14] Kansanen P. Didactics and its relation to educational psychology: Problems in translating a key concept

across research communities. International Review of Education.

[15] Tirri K. The core of school pedagogy: Finnish teachers' views on the educational purposefulness of their teaching. In: Niemi H,

publishers; 2016. pp. 57-68

1835/1841

[16] Herbart J, Wendt H. Umriß pädagogischer Vorlesungen von Johan Friedrich Herbart. Verausgegeben und mit erläuternden Anmerkungen versehen von Hermann Wendt.

Toom A, Kallioniemi A, editors. Miracle of Education: The Principles and Practices of Teaching and Learning in Finnish Schools. Rotterdam: Sense

Leipzig: Verlag von Philipp Reclam jun;

Science. 2003;**7**:110-128

2002;**48**(6):427-441

[13] Damon W, Menon J, Bronk KC. The

1987;**57**(1):1-22

intechopen.75870

[1] Finnish National Board of Education. The National Core Curriculum for Basic Education. Helsinki: Finnish National Board of Education; 2016. Available from: http://www.oph.fi/ops2016

[2] Bloom B. Taxonomy of Educational Objectives Handbook 1. The Cognitive Domain. New York: David McKay Co

[3] Tirri K. Ethical sensitivity in teaching and teacher education. In: Peters MA, editor. Encyclopedia of Teacher

Education. Singapore: Springer Nature. Springer Science+Business Media; 2019.

DOI: 10.1007/978-981-13-1179-6

[4] Autio T. The internationalization of curriculum research. In: Pinar WF, editor. International Handbook of Curriculum Research. New York:

[5] Hopmann S. Restrained teaching: The common core of Didaktik.

European Educational Research Journal. 2007;**6**(2):109-124. DOI: 10.2304/

Inc; 1956. p. 1

**References**

Routledge; 2014

eerj.2007.6.2.109

Associates; 2000

Finland; 2010

22-04-2019]

[6] Westbury I. Teaching as reflective practice: What might Didaktik teach curriculum? In: Hopmann S, Riquarts K, Westbury I, editors. Teaching as a Reflective Practice:

The German Didaktik Tradition. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum

[7] Code of Ethics for Finnish Teachers. Helsinki: Trade Union of Education in

[8] Comenius' Oath. 2017. Available from: https://www.oaj.fi/contentasset s/31548b52f43348c69e1c6ef4f7ece0ab/ comeniuksen\_vala\_eng.pdf [Accessed:

[9] Shulman LS. Knowledge and teaching: Foundations of the new instruction and education]. Tampere: Tampere University Press; 2017. pp. 131-153

[31] Pyhältö K, Soini T, Pietarinen J. Pupils' pedagogical well-being in comprehensive school - significant positive and negative school experiences of Finnish ninth graders. European Journal of Psychology of Education. 2010;**24**:447-463

[32] Laaksonen E. Yliopistoopiskelijoiden psyykkinen oireilu ja siihen yhteydessä olevat tekijät [University students psychical symptoms and factors related to it]. Ylioppilaiden terveydenhoitosäätiön tutkimuksia 38. Ylioppilaiden terveydenhoitosäätiö: Helsinki; 2005

[33] Kunttu K, Pesonen T. Korkeakouluopiskelijoiden terveystutkimus 2012 [research on higher education students' health 2012]. Ylioppilaiden terveydenhoitosäätiön tutkimuksia 47. Ylioppilaiden terveydenhoitosäätiö: Helsinki; 2012

[34] Hamarus P. Koulukiusaaminen ilmiönä: yläkoulun oppilaiden kokemuksia kiusaamisesta [School bullying as a phenomenon: pupils' experiences of bullying]. Jyväskylä studies in education, psychology and social research. Jyväskylä: University of Jyväskylä; 2006

[35] Pörhölä M. Kiusaaminen opiskeluyhteisössä [Bullying in studying community]. In: Kunttu K, Komulainen A, Makkonen K, Pynnönen P, editors. Opiskeluterveys [Study Health]. Helsinki: Duodecim; 2011. pp. 166-168

[36] Menesini E, Salmivalli C. Bullying in schools: The state of knowledge and effective interventions. Psychology, Health & Medicine. 2017;**22**. DOI: 10.1080/13548506.2017.1279740

[37] Kunttu K, Pesonen T, Saari J. Korkeakouluopiskelijoiden terveystutkimus 2016 [research on higher education students' health 2016]. In: Ylioppilaiden terveydenhoitosäätiön tutkimuksia 48. Ylioppilaiden terveydenhoitosäätiö: Helsinki; 2016

[38] Lempinen L, Junttila N, Sourander A. Loneliness and friendships among eight-year-old children: Timetrends over a 24-year period. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, and Allied Disciplines. 2018;**59**. DOI: 10.1111/jcpp.12807

[39] Ryff CD. Happiness in everything, or is it? Explorations on the meaning of psychological well-being. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 1989;**57**:1069-1081

[40] Ryff CD, Keyes CLM. The structure of psychological well-being revisited. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 1995;**69**:719-727

[41] Dweck CS. Mindset: The New Psychology of Success. New York: Ballantine Books; 2016

[42] Lavonen J. Educating professional teachers in Finland through the continuous improvement of teacher education programmes. In: Yehudith W, Zipora L, editors. IntechOpen: Contemporary Pedagogies in Teacher Education and Development; 2018. DOI: 10.5772/ intechopen.77979

[43] Lakkala M, Toom A, Ilomäki L, Muukkonen H. Re-designing university courses to support collaborative knowledge creation practices. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology. 2015;**31**:521-536

[44] Tirri K, Laine S. Teacher education in inclusive education. In: Clandinin J, Husu J, editors. The SAGE Handbook of

**13**

*The Moral Role of Pedagogy as the Science and Art of Teaching*

*DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.90502*

Research on Teacher Education. Vol. 2. Los Angeles: SAGE Publishers; 2017.

[45] Tirri K. The last 40 years in Finnish teacher education. Journal of Education for Teaching. 2014;**40**:600-609. DOI: 10.1080/02607476.2014.956545

pp. 761-776

*The Moral Role of Pedagogy as the Science and Art of Teaching DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.90502*

Research on Teacher Education. Vol. 2. Los Angeles: SAGE Publishers; 2017. pp. 761-776

*Pedagogy in Basic and Higher Education - Current Developments and Challenges*

[37] Kunttu K, Pesonen T, Saari J. Korkeakouluopiskelijoiden

terveystutkimus 2016 [research on higher education students' health 2016]. In: Ylioppilaiden terveydenhoitosäätiön

Sourander A. Loneliness and friendships among eight-year-old children: Timetrends over a 24-year period. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, and Allied Disciplines. 2018;**59**. DOI:

[39] Ryff CD. Happiness in everything, or is it? Explorations on the meaning of psychological well-being. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology.

[40] Ryff CD, Keyes CLM. The structure of psychological well-being revisited. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 1995;**69**:719-727

[41] Dweck CS. Mindset: The New Psychology of Success. New York:

[42] Lavonen J. Educating professional teachers in Finland through the continuous improvement of teacher education programmes. In: Yehudith W, Zipora L, editors. IntechOpen: Contemporary

Pedagogies in Teacher Education and Development; 2018. DOI: 10.5772/

[43] Lakkala M, Toom A, Ilomäki L, Muukkonen H. Re-designing university

[44] Tirri K, Laine S. Teacher education in inclusive education. In: Clandinin J, Husu J, editors. The SAGE Handbook of

courses to support collaborative knowledge creation practices. Australasian Journal of Educational

Technology. 2015;**31**:521-536

Ballantine Books; 2016

intechopen.77979

tutkimuksia 48. Ylioppilaiden terveydenhoitosäätiö: Helsinki; 2016

[38] Lempinen L, Junttila N,

10.1111/jcpp.12807

1989;**57**:1069-1081

instruction and education]. Tampere: Tampere University Press; 2017.

[31] Pyhältö K, Soini T, Pietarinen J. Pupils' pedagogical well-being in comprehensive school - significant positive and negative school experiences of Finnish ninth graders. European Journal of Psychology of Education.

pp. 131-153

2010;**24**:447-463

[32] Laaksonen E. Yliopistoopiskelijoiden psyykkinen oireilu ja siihen yhteydessä olevat tekijät [University students psychical symptoms and factors related to it]. Ylioppilaiden terveydenhoitosäätiön tutkimuksia 38. Ylioppilaiden terveydenhoitosäätiö: Helsinki; 2005

[33] Kunttu K, Pesonen T. Korkeakouluopiskelijoiden terveystutkimus 2012 [research on higher education students' health 2012]. Ylioppilaiden

Helsinki; 2012

Jyväskylä; 2006

2011. pp. 166-168

[35] Pörhölä M. Kiusaaminen opiskeluyhteisössä [Bullying in studying community]. In:

Kunttu K, Komulainen A, Makkonen K, Pynnönen P, editors. Opiskeluterveys [Study Health]. Helsinki: Duodecim;

[36] Menesini E, Salmivalli C. Bullying in schools: The state of knowledge and effective interventions. Psychology, Health & Medicine. 2017;**22**. DOI: 10.1080/13548506.2017.1279740

terveydenhoitosäätiön tutkimuksia 47. Ylioppilaiden terveydenhoitosäätiö:

[34] Hamarus P. Koulukiusaaminen ilmiönä: yläkoulun oppilaiden kokemuksia kiusaamisesta [School bullying as a phenomenon: pupils' experiences of bullying]. Jyväskylä studies in education, psychology and social research. Jyväskylä: University of

**12**

[45] Tirri K. The last 40 years in Finnish teacher education. Journal of Education for Teaching. 2014;**40**:600-609. DOI: 10.1080/02607476.2014.956545

**15**

**Chapter 2**

*Terence Lovat*

**1. Introduction**

**Abstract**

Values as the Pedagogy:

ence to data from the Australian Values Education Program.

pedagogical leadership, holistic education, Australian education

Countering Instrumentalism

The chapter sets out to identify ways in which the dominant pedagogy in the west has been shaped and influenced by instrumentalist imperatives emanating from the high age of logical positivism. It will furthermore expose the harm that has been done to education as a result, limitations on learning that are most apparent with the insights of updated sciences. The chapter will propose a values approach to pedagogy as a way of countering the narrow bounds of instrumentalism with an approach that possesses greater potential to address the whole person and the full range of human development measures, including personal, social, emotional, moral, spiritual and academic learning. The chapter will utilize international research that supports the beneficial claims of values pedagogy, with special refer-

**Keywords:** values, values education, pedagogical approaches, curricular approaches,

Ayer's [1] logical positivism had tried to ground all authentic knowing in the rational or empirically observable and/or measurable. Other than the "truths" contained in mathematics and logic, all other truth or assured knowledge claims were to be restricted to what could be empirically verified according to the so-called "Verification Principle" emanating from an eminent group of European philosophers known as the Vienna Circle [2]. The Verification Principle and its spawning in logical positivism were effectively outgrowths of nineteenth-century thinking resulting largely from conceptions of scientific method and supposedly assured scientific knowing held at the time. During the nineteenth century and persisting well into the twentieth and even twenty-first centuries, scientific knowledge was believed to rest entirely on empirical methodology and so all human pursuits interested in knowledge were to follow suit. Among the human science disciplines, psychology and sociology developed in this way and, especially granted their influence on education, it was predictable that it would reflect these beliefs as well. Hence, as a highly influential influence, we find Tyler [3] generating a virtual empirical science around assessment regimes which, in the spirit of "teaching to the test," inevitably determined the direction of pedagogy. Bloom and associates [4, 5] built further on such thinking in the form of the taxonomies of educational objectives and their appropriate assessment regimes; these taxonomies drove generations of educational thinking, in turn also influencing the ways in which the principles and practice of pedagogy were enacted in schools. Thus, the foundations for instrumentalism in education were being well

#### **Chapter 2**

## Values as the Pedagogy: Countering Instrumentalism

*Terence Lovat*

#### **Abstract**

The chapter sets out to identify ways in which the dominant pedagogy in the west has been shaped and influenced by instrumentalist imperatives emanating from the high age of logical positivism. It will furthermore expose the harm that has been done to education as a result, limitations on learning that are most apparent with the insights of updated sciences. The chapter will propose a values approach to pedagogy as a way of countering the narrow bounds of instrumentalism with an approach that possesses greater potential to address the whole person and the full range of human development measures, including personal, social, emotional, moral, spiritual and academic learning. The chapter will utilize international research that supports the beneficial claims of values pedagogy, with special reference to data from the Australian Values Education Program.

**Keywords:** values, values education, pedagogical approaches, curricular approaches, pedagogical leadership, holistic education, Australian education

#### **1. Introduction**

Ayer's [1] logical positivism had tried to ground all authentic knowing in the rational or empirically observable and/or measurable. Other than the "truths" contained in mathematics and logic, all other truth or assured knowledge claims were to be restricted to what could be empirically verified according to the so-called "Verification Principle" emanating from an eminent group of European philosophers known as the Vienna Circle [2]. The Verification Principle and its spawning in logical positivism were effectively outgrowths of nineteenth-century thinking resulting largely from conceptions of scientific method and supposedly assured scientific knowing held at the time.

During the nineteenth century and persisting well into the twentieth and even twenty-first centuries, scientific knowledge was believed to rest entirely on empirical methodology and so all human pursuits interested in knowledge were to follow suit. Among the human science disciplines, psychology and sociology developed in this way and, especially granted their influence on education, it was predictable that it would reflect these beliefs as well. Hence, as a highly influential influence, we find Tyler [3] generating a virtual empirical science around assessment regimes which, in the spirit of "teaching to the test," inevitably determined the direction of pedagogy. Bloom and associates [4, 5] built further on such thinking in the form of the taxonomies of educational objectives and their appropriate assessment regimes; these taxonomies drove generations of educational thinking, in turn also influencing the ways in which the principles and practice of pedagogy were enacted in schools. Thus, the foundations for instrumentalism in education were being well

set in place, with associated pedagogical assumptions and practice unrelenting regardless of masses of evidence of the damage that can be done by them to efficacious learning, not to mention that their own foundations in scientific thinking have come under increasing scrutiny. These claims will be substantiated in what follows and the terms of a values pedagogical alternative will be outlined and justified by reference to international research, especially in the data and findings of the Australian Values Education Program.

#### **2. Countering positivism**

Wittgenstein [6], in his famous work, *Philosophical Investigations*, refers to "reality" and the "facts" thereof as part of what he calls "language games." The gist is that the locus of human knowing is contained in language rather than empirically verifiable data. It was a subtle yet fundamental under-cutting of the basis of logical positivism and nineteenth century thinking about empiricism as the basis of all knowing. Ferre [7], in this regard, bespeaks a clear Wittgensteinian perspective in declaring that "facts are never given in isolation from the minds that receive them" (p. 761). Ferre implied that the things we call "facts" or verifiable data are really theories in the minds of the subjects who perceive them, and hence are less observable or least of all measurable than in the ways that logical positivists held to be determinative.

Such rejoinders were further reinforced by Lakatos [8] and Kuhn [9] who coined the notions of "touchstone" and "paradigm" respectively to connote the true basis of claims to "know." According to their theories, knowing is not merely a linear conforming of perception and reality, as the logical positivist would have it. It is not objective in the simple observable or measurable sense because it is infused with the subjectivity of the person doing the knowing. Quine [10] went on to show just how subjective were the assertions of those empiricists claiming to be objective: indeed, the Verification Principle itself defied the very rules which formed it in that it belonged to neither category of mathematics and logic nor of the empirically verifiable. Feyerabend [11] launched highly critical attacks on the ways in which education systems had applied logical positivist and/or simple empirical assumptions to curriculum and pedagogy, especially in the ways they had prioritized certain forms of knowledge over others, on the purported basis that they offered surer knowing (read the empirically verifiable knowing of science and technology mainly), while other forms of knowledge were relegated to the margins if not right out of education. See also Apple [12] on "high status knowledge" and the damage that such conceptions have done to the balanced curriculum and holistic learning.

The "certain forms of knowledge" to which Feyerabend refers is further enlightened in Habermas's [13, 14] "ways of knowing" theory. Habermas's explanation for apparently different forms of knowledge derives from his belief that knowing is impelled by a series of "cognitive interests," three interests which are effectively part of the way the human mind works. First, there is an interest in technical control which impels an "empirical-analytic" way of knowing. This is useful knowledge for performing fairly basic tasks of being able to put something together, find a place on a map, operate a machine, or for competence in the fundamentals of literacy and numeracy. Second, the interest in understanding meanings gives rise to an "historical-hermeneutic" way of knowing, the knowing that results largely from engagement, interrelationship and dialogue with others. This is a knowing that wants to get behind basic knowing to interpret what it might mean, for example, to understand the importance of what is being put together, the significance of the place on the map, the ramifications and potential impact of the machine's operations, and the full effects of literacy and numeracy, including their cultural significance and

**17**

*Values as the Pedagogy: Countering Instrumentalism DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.86823*

knowing to the exclusion of holistic knowing.

**3. Changing understandings of science**

differences. While empirical-analytic knowing does not require human interaction nor much in the way of imagination, historical-hermeneutic knowing requires both. Third, there is an interest in being emancipated, a free agent as it were, which issues in a "critical" or "self-reflectivity" way of knowing, the knowledge that comes ultimately from knowing oneself. This is the knowing that causes us to reflect critically on our subject matter, our sources and ultimately ourselves as agents of knowing. Such agency impels us to go to any lengths to be assured that what we know is, as far as is possible, the unfettered truth, free of cultural bias and partial interpretation, including as those might function in ourselves. For Habermas, this way of knowing provides for the only truly assured, totally comprehensive and authentic human knowing. It is a deeply moral knowing in that it drives fearlessly beyond the politically correct or skewed, the safe, and the partisan interested, including as these blind spots play out in oneself. It requires profound forms of human encounter and ultimately of self-knowledge. It also requires much in the way of imagination. Habermasian literature, primary and secondary, is replete with the notion of imagination as a prerequisite for knowing of the fullest kind. Indeed, against both modernism's and especially post-modernism's unimaginative conceptions of the Enlightenment project, he proffers that what they have robbed us of is "… the spontaneous powers of imagination, of self-experience and of emotionality." ([15], p. 13) For Habermas, this is an aberration of what the Enlightenment project was intended to do [16, 17].

In this work, Habermas illustrates well, among other things, the limitations of logical positivism's conception of knowing and all it has led to, the limitations being set essentially around a knowing of basics, a knowing he describes as empiricalanalytic, useful for certain basic knowledge and skills but a long way from the full reaches of knowing. It is an especially long way from the more sophisticated knowing related to interpretations and meanings, and the more moral knowing that entails deep human encounters and, finally, a ruthless self-knowing, all of which require deep levels of imagination and emotionality. Seeing it this way helps to understand why Feyerabend was so critical of education that prioritized more basic

Even as the terms of nineteenth century positivism were being laid, such as bespoken in the Verification Principle, so the critique was underway, a critique that, from Habermas's point of view, has not been taken seriously and from Feyerabend's view, has impacted negatively on education. For Habermas, knowing required a fortified hermeneutic dimension which ultimately could lead to the more sophisticated knowing connoted in being an agent of knowing, in his sense. Habermas [15] is quite explicit that, for him, his thinking here owes much to Husserlian philosophy. Husserl [18] was a nineteenth century empiricist who saw even then the limitations of the narrower assumptions and functioning of a simple understanding of empiricism, ones that emanated from the Verification Principle and became the basis of logical positivism. He described this kind of empiricism as "descriptive science," fundamentally the same conception as to be found in Habermas's empirical-analytic knowing, the knowing of basic facts and figures, purely descriptive knowing.

While a useful foundation for scientific knowing, for Husserl, it lacked the more important and essential human knowing that was the product of what he referred to as "eidetic science," the knowing and understanding of meanings, of different perceptions that can only be unraveled by human beings interacting and by deep forms of reflective learning. Eidetic science was heavily subjective and that was the very thing that was being in a sense forbidden by the obsession with descriptive science,

#### *Values as the Pedagogy: Countering Instrumentalism DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.86823*

*Pedagogy in Basic and Higher Education - Current Developments and Challenges*

Australian Values Education Program.

**2. Countering positivism**

set in place, with associated pedagogical assumptions and practice unrelenting regardless of masses of evidence of the damage that can be done by them to efficacious learning, not to mention that their own foundations in scientific thinking have come under increasing scrutiny. These claims will be substantiated in what follows and the terms of a values pedagogical alternative will be outlined and justified by reference to international research, especially in the data and findings of the

Wittgenstein [6], in his famous work, *Philosophical Investigations*, refers to "reality" and the "facts" thereof as part of what he calls "language games." The gist is that the locus of human knowing is contained in language rather than empirically verifiable data. It was a subtle yet fundamental under-cutting of the basis of logical positivism and nineteenth century thinking about empiricism as the basis of all knowing. Ferre [7], in this regard, bespeaks a clear Wittgensteinian perspective in declaring that "facts are never given in isolation from the minds that receive them" (p. 761). Ferre implied that the things we call "facts" or verifiable data are really theories in the minds of the subjects who perceive them, and hence are less observable or least of all

Such rejoinders were further reinforced by Lakatos [8] and Kuhn [9] who coined the notions of "touchstone" and "paradigm" respectively to connote the true basis of claims to "know." According to their theories, knowing is not merely a linear conforming of perception and reality, as the logical positivist would have it. It is not objective in the simple observable or measurable sense because it is infused with the subjectivity of the person doing the knowing. Quine [10] went on to show just how subjective were the assertions of those empiricists claiming to be objective: indeed, the Verification Principle itself defied the very rules which formed it in that it belonged to neither category of mathematics and logic nor of the empirically verifiable. Feyerabend [11] launched highly critical attacks on the ways in which education systems had applied logical positivist and/or simple empirical assumptions to curriculum and pedagogy, especially in the ways they had prioritized certain forms of knowledge over others, on the purported basis that they offered surer knowing (read the empirically verifiable knowing of science and technology mainly), while other forms of knowledge were relegated to the margins if not right out of education. See also Apple [12] on "high status knowledge" and the damage that such conceptions have done to the balanced curriculum and holistic learning.

The "certain forms of knowledge" to which Feyerabend refers is further enlightened in Habermas's [13, 14] "ways of knowing" theory. Habermas's explanation for apparently different forms of knowledge derives from his belief that knowing is impelled by a series of "cognitive interests," three interests which are effectively part of the way the human mind works. First, there is an interest in technical control which impels an "empirical-analytic" way of knowing. This is useful knowledge for performing fairly basic tasks of being able to put something together, find a place on a map, operate a machine, or for competence in the fundamentals of literacy and numeracy. Second, the interest in understanding meanings gives rise to an "historical-hermeneutic" way of knowing, the knowing that results largely from engagement, interrelationship and dialogue with others. This is a knowing that wants to get behind basic knowing to interpret what it might mean, for example, to understand the importance of what is being put together, the significance of the place on the map, the ramifications and potential impact of the machine's operations, and the full effects of literacy and numeracy, including their cultural significance and

measurable than in the ways that logical positivists held to be determinative.

**16**

differences. While empirical-analytic knowing does not require human interaction nor much in the way of imagination, historical-hermeneutic knowing requires both.

Third, there is an interest in being emancipated, a free agent as it were, which issues in a "critical" or "self-reflectivity" way of knowing, the knowledge that comes ultimately from knowing oneself. This is the knowing that causes us to reflect critically on our subject matter, our sources and ultimately ourselves as agents of knowing. Such agency impels us to go to any lengths to be assured that what we know is, as far as is possible, the unfettered truth, free of cultural bias and partial interpretation, including as those might function in ourselves. For Habermas, this way of knowing provides for the only truly assured, totally comprehensive and authentic human knowing. It is a deeply moral knowing in that it drives fearlessly beyond the politically correct or skewed, the safe, and the partisan interested, including as these blind spots play out in oneself. It requires profound forms of human encounter and ultimately of self-knowledge. It also requires much in the way of imagination. Habermasian literature, primary and secondary, is replete with the notion of imagination as a prerequisite for knowing of the fullest kind. Indeed, against both modernism's and especially post-modernism's unimaginative conceptions of the Enlightenment project, he proffers that what they have robbed us of is "… the spontaneous powers of imagination, of self-experience and of emotionality." ([15], p. 13) For Habermas, this is an aberration of what the Enlightenment project was intended to do [16, 17].

In this work, Habermas illustrates well, among other things, the limitations of logical positivism's conception of knowing and all it has led to, the limitations being set essentially around a knowing of basics, a knowing he describes as empiricalanalytic, useful for certain basic knowledge and skills but a long way from the full reaches of knowing. It is an especially long way from the more sophisticated knowing related to interpretations and meanings, and the more moral knowing that entails deep human encounters and, finally, a ruthless self-knowing, all of which require deep levels of imagination and emotionality. Seeing it this way helps to understand why Feyerabend was so critical of education that prioritized more basic knowing to the exclusion of holistic knowing.

#### **3. Changing understandings of science**

Even as the terms of nineteenth century positivism were being laid, such as bespoken in the Verification Principle, so the critique was underway, a critique that, from Habermas's point of view, has not been taken seriously and from Feyerabend's view, has impacted negatively on education. For Habermas, knowing required a fortified hermeneutic dimension which ultimately could lead to the more sophisticated knowing connoted in being an agent of knowing, in his sense. Habermas [15] is quite explicit that, for him, his thinking here owes much to Husserlian philosophy. Husserl [18] was a nineteenth century empiricist who saw even then the limitations of the narrower assumptions and functioning of a simple understanding of empiricism, ones that emanated from the Verification Principle and became the basis of logical positivism. He described this kind of empiricism as "descriptive science," fundamentally the same conception as to be found in Habermas's empirical-analytic knowing, the knowing of basic facts and figures, purely descriptive knowing.

While a useful foundation for scientific knowing, for Husserl, it lacked the more important and essential human knowing that was the product of what he referred to as "eidetic science," the knowing and understanding of meanings, of different perceptions that can only be unraveled by human beings interacting and by deep forms of reflective learning. Eidetic science was heavily subjective and that was the very thing that was being in a sense forbidden by the obsession with descriptive science,

creating in turn an inherent obstacle to deeper forms of learning. For Husserl, human sciences had to include a human element and yet that was being denied to them by the scientific assumptions of the day. The irony herein was that knowledge of the deeper kind was being blocked in the name of a science purporting to be the means of all knowing. The same irony is reflected in both Habermasian epistemology and Feyerabend's and Apple's reflections on what was ensuing in education. In the name of sound education, sound education was being denied. So what are the assumptions that led to this anomaly and how can they be broken down and re-formed in the interests of truly sound education? Well, the path and history of science itself, the very discipline that is purported to lie at the foundations of the assumptions, are instructive in this regard. The two exemplars by which I choose to make that point are the sciences of astrophysics and neuroscience.

#### **3.1 Astrophysics**

For Husserl, truth was best understood as ever elusive, rather than easily grasped in the way of simple empiricism, and so the truth seeker had to proceed with caution. Good science was a humble rather than arrogant methodology around alleged "certainties" that the tenets of descriptive science had led to. Good science was replete with imagination. Husserl's caution about science is interestingly prophetic when one considers the far greater caution detected in much modern science, such as astrophysics, for instance. Against all the alleged certainties premised by earlier empirically bound method, we find find de Grasse Tyson [19] referring to dark energy and dark matter as a "mysterious presence," constituting 96% or so of the known universe, responsible for maintaining it the way it is, yet about which we are "clueless." He describes dark matter as our "frenemy," part friend, part enemy: "We have no clue what it is. It is kind of annoying. But we desperately need it in our calculations to arrive at an accurate description of the universe." (p. 62).

De Grasse Tyson speaks frequently about the need for high levels of cognitive imagination for modern astrophysics to proceed. He underlines this point by reference to Albert Einstein, fairly unarguably the greatest scientist to ever live, yet one not given at all to simple empiricism or to being limited by Husserl's notion of descriptive science. He says of Einstein that he "… hardly ever set foot in the laboratory; he did not test phenomena or use elaborate equipment. He was a theorist who perfected the "thought experiment," in which you engage nature through your imagination" (p. 62). De Grasse Tyson refers to the book, titled, *100 scientists against Einstein* [20] showing how these mainly simple empiricists (Husserl's descriptive scientists) were wrong and Einstein's imaginative methods (Husserl's archetypal eidetic scientist) were ultimately proved correct. As examples of the limitations of their simple empiricism, some of Einstein's critics described as "fantasy" the notion of the so-called "cosmic constant," the central tenet in his theory of relativity. In fact, the "cosmic constant" was finally ratified with a measure of empirical evidence in 1998 [21], something further demonstrated by the famous 2016 gravitational wave detected by the Hadron Collider [22] and to an extent ratified even further by the famous and ground-breaking picture of the black hole in 2019 [23].

Einstein's knowing was finally endorsed by highly sophisticated forms of empiricism but the basis and impulsion of his knowing came not from empirical method but from what I refer to as imaginative method. On the other hand, the reliance on a simple empiricism on the part of the 100 adversarial scientists blinded them, while Einstein's on imagination released him to speculate on realities that were quite beyond empirical verification of the kind most scientists of the day were relying on. In Husserlian terms, it illustrates the reliance for holistic knowing purposes on descriptive and eidetic sciences intersecting and interacting. In Habermasian terms, the 100

**19**

*Values as the Pedagogy: Countering Instrumentalism DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.86823*

**3.2 Neuroscience**

*and the body. (p. 3)*

**4. Instrumentalist pedagogy alive and well**

scientists' cognitive interest was in control, where Einstein's was in imaginative exploration of the kind that characterizes the true agent of knowing. He wanted to know the truth and to get there he had to go beyond the bounds of controlled knowing. There is a lesson here for all learning ventures, including school-based pedagogy. Overcontrolling of the knowledge process in the form of endless measuring of outcomes, accountability and assorted forms of instrumentalism can actually create blind spots and retard knowing of the most important kinds. On the other hand, releasing and nurturing the imagination might well be the most useful thing that schools can do.

Updated neuroscience is another science that, in many ways, takes us to the same place. Damasio [24] and Immordino-Yang [25] refer to the enriched cognitive functioning, especially around imagination that ensues when discourse of any kind takes account of emotionality and sociality. In reference specifically to school-based

*Modern biology reveals humans to be fundamentally emotional and social creatures. And yet those of us in the field of education often fail to consider that the high-level cognitive skills taught in schools, including reasoning, decision making, and processes related to language, reading, and mathematics, do not function as rational, disembodied systems, somehow influenced by but detached from emotion* 

Narvaez [27–30] builds on these ideas, both as a neuropsychologist and educator, in the ways she positions imagination as the confidence-builder and architect of the mindset essential to what she refers to as "efficacious learning." She ties imagination, emotion and cognition together in suggesting that it is imagination that unlocks the emotions that are needed for sound reasoning. In a word, reasoning is both rational and emotional. The mind thinks both logically and emotionally. Narvaez focusses much on the ways in which human knowing has worked over the millennia of human existence, a process that in a sense is repeated each time a new life comes into the world. Among her specialities is early childhood education where imagination is the key or, if not stimulated, it is the death of efficacious learning. Yet, in the face of any amount of evidence, including in the different ways in which the scientific base of instrumentalist pedagogy is changing, instrumentalism in pedagogy and education generally seems to be the standard modus operandi of educational systems. The desire for accountability, invariably motivated by political agendas, including of control, rather than inspired by educational theory, drives systems towards the most easily measurable, invariably the basics, Habermas's empirical-analytic knowing, Husserl's descriptive science, Damasio's and Immordino-Yang's disembodied systems. When this drive becomes an obsession, affecting individual schools' reputations, the key performance indicators of school administrators, the political slogans of governments and oppositions, the "be all and end all" of ranking in international testing, then the casualty is imaginative pedagogy and its associated efficacious learning. Let me offer one example of this, an example from Australia.

NAPLAN (National Assessment Program Literacy and Numeracy) was established by the Australian Government in 2008. It is a national literacy and numeracy testing mechanism administered at four levels across primary and secondary

discourse, Damasio and Immordino-Yang [26] have this to say:

*Values as the Pedagogy: Countering Instrumentalism DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.86823*

scientists' cognitive interest was in control, where Einstein's was in imaginative exploration of the kind that characterizes the true agent of knowing. He wanted to know the truth and to get there he had to go beyond the bounds of controlled knowing. There is a lesson here for all learning ventures, including school-based pedagogy. Overcontrolling of the knowledge process in the form of endless measuring of outcomes, accountability and assorted forms of instrumentalism can actually create blind spots and retard knowing of the most important kinds. On the other hand, releasing and nurturing the imagination might well be the most useful thing that schools can do.

#### **3.2 Neuroscience**

*Pedagogy in Basic and Higher Education - Current Developments and Challenges*

make that point are the sciences of astrophysics and neuroscience.

calculations to arrive at an accurate description of the universe." (p. 62).

the famous and ground-breaking picture of the black hole in 2019 [23].

Einstein's knowing was finally endorsed by highly sophisticated forms of empiricism but the basis and impulsion of his knowing came not from empirical method but from what I refer to as imaginative method. On the other hand, the reliance on a simple empiricism on the part of the 100 adversarial scientists blinded them, while Einstein's on imagination released him to speculate on realities that were quite beyond empirical verification of the kind most scientists of the day were relying on. In Husserlian terms, it illustrates the reliance for holistic knowing purposes on descriptive and eidetic sciences intersecting and interacting. In Habermasian terms, the 100

De Grasse Tyson speaks frequently about the need for high levels of cognitive imagination for modern astrophysics to proceed. He underlines this point by reference to Albert Einstein, fairly unarguably the greatest scientist to ever live, yet one not given at all to simple empiricism or to being limited by Husserl's notion of descriptive science. He says of Einstein that he "… hardly ever set foot in the laboratory; he did not test phenomena or use elaborate equipment. He was a theorist who perfected the "thought experiment," in which you engage nature through your imagination" (p. 62). De Grasse Tyson refers to the book, titled, *100 scientists against Einstein* [20] showing how these mainly simple empiricists (Husserl's descriptive scientists) were wrong and Einstein's imaginative methods (Husserl's archetypal eidetic scientist) were ultimately proved correct. As examples of the limitations of their simple empiricism, some of Einstein's critics described as "fantasy" the notion of the so-called "cosmic constant," the central tenet in his theory of relativity. In fact, the "cosmic constant" was finally ratified with a measure of empirical evidence in 1998 [21], something further demonstrated by the famous 2016 gravitational wave detected by the Hadron Collider [22] and to an extent ratified even further by

For Husserl, truth was best understood as ever elusive, rather than easily grasped in the way of simple empiricism, and so the truth seeker had to proceed with caution. Good science was a humble rather than arrogant methodology around alleged "certainties" that the tenets of descriptive science had led to. Good science was replete with imagination. Husserl's caution about science is interestingly prophetic when one considers the far greater caution detected in much modern science, such as astrophysics, for instance. Against all the alleged certainties premised by earlier empirically bound method, we find find de Grasse Tyson [19] referring to dark energy and dark matter as a "mysterious presence," constituting 96% or so of the known universe, responsible for maintaining it the way it is, yet about which we are "clueless." He describes dark matter as our "frenemy," part friend, part enemy: "We have no clue what it is. It is kind of annoying. But we desperately need it in our

**3.1 Astrophysics**

creating in turn an inherent obstacle to deeper forms of learning. For Husserl, human sciences had to include a human element and yet that was being denied to them by the scientific assumptions of the day. The irony herein was that knowledge of the deeper kind was being blocked in the name of a science purporting to be the means of all knowing. The same irony is reflected in both Habermasian epistemology and Feyerabend's and Apple's reflections on what was ensuing in education. In the name of sound education, sound education was being denied. So what are the assumptions that led to this anomaly and how can they be broken down and re-formed in the interests of truly sound education? Well, the path and history of science itself, the very discipline that is purported to lie at the foundations of the assumptions, are instructive in this regard. The two exemplars by which I choose to

**18**

Updated neuroscience is another science that, in many ways, takes us to the same place. Damasio [24] and Immordino-Yang [25] refer to the enriched cognitive functioning, especially around imagination that ensues when discourse of any kind takes account of emotionality and sociality. In reference specifically to school-based discourse, Damasio and Immordino-Yang [26] have this to say:

*Modern biology reveals humans to be fundamentally emotional and social creatures. And yet those of us in the field of education often fail to consider that the high-level cognitive skills taught in schools, including reasoning, decision making, and processes related to language, reading, and mathematics, do not function as rational, disembodied systems, somehow influenced by but detached from emotion and the body. (p. 3)*

Narvaez [27–30] builds on these ideas, both as a neuropsychologist and educator, in the ways she positions imagination as the confidence-builder and architect of the mindset essential to what she refers to as "efficacious learning." She ties imagination, emotion and cognition together in suggesting that it is imagination that unlocks the emotions that are needed for sound reasoning. In a word, reasoning is both rational and emotional. The mind thinks both logically and emotionally.

Narvaez focusses much on the ways in which human knowing has worked over the millennia of human existence, a process that in a sense is repeated each time a new life comes into the world. Among her specialities is early childhood education where imagination is the key or, if not stimulated, it is the death of efficacious learning. Yet, in the face of any amount of evidence, including in the different ways in which the scientific base of instrumentalist pedagogy is changing, instrumentalism in pedagogy and education generally seems to be the standard modus operandi of educational systems. The desire for accountability, invariably motivated by political agendas, including of control, rather than inspired by educational theory, drives systems towards the most easily measurable, invariably the basics, Habermas's empirical-analytic knowing, Husserl's descriptive science, Damasio's and Immordino-Yang's disembodied systems. When this drive becomes an obsession, affecting individual schools' reputations, the key performance indicators of school administrators, the political slogans of governments and oppositions, the "be all and end all" of ranking in international testing, then the casualty is imaginative pedagogy and its associated efficacious learning. Let me offer one example of this, an example from Australia.

#### **4. Instrumentalist pedagogy alive and well**

NAPLAN (National Assessment Program Literacy and Numeracy) was established by the Australian Government in 2008. It is a national literacy and numeracy testing mechanism administered at four levels across primary and secondary

education. It is mandatory for any school wishing to maintain government registration. Its results are inserted into a software program called "My School" (comprising a large data set about each school's numbers, demographics and, once imported, NAPLAN test results). This import was designed to show which schools were doing well in literacy and numeracy and which were not. It quickly became a ready-reference for parents in their school selection, a serious reputational issue for schools and a crucial KPI (key performance indicator) for school administrators.

NAPLAN had two main stated purposes: first, it was to strengthen literacy and numeracy levels of Australia's young people; second, it was to improve Australia's standing in the OECD international testing mechanism, PISA (Program for International Student Assessment). Evidence suggested, after 10 years, that there was no indication that either objective had been achieved in any substantial way. According to one study that typified the national result, literacy and numeracy levels had not improved, at least according to the limited NAPLAN device itself [31]. Additionally, Australia's standing in PISA was demonstrably worse than before NAPLAN began [32].

At the time of writing, there is a strong push coming from powerful education entities, bureaucracies, teacher unions and teachers themselves that NAPLAN has so skewed the imperatives of education that it constitutes a menace to efficacious learning. Furthermore, research evaluations of the mechanism testify that it has "… a narrow focus on a limited set of skills rather than developing capacity…" The same research identified the following problems:


Meanwhile, an international testing expert declared NAPLAN to be "bizarre" in its inappropriateness. It is directed at all the wrong kind of learning and actually encourages bad writing [34]. Most recently, the federal government's own national policy and practice entity, the Gonski Institute for Education, called for its "ditching" [35]. In a word, NAPLAN has become synonymous with bad teaching and incompetent, negligent and damaging education. It is not simply that NAPLAN has achieved nothing worthwhile. The more damaging finding from evaluation is that it has become a threat to the business of sound education and has malevolently influenced school-based pedagogy.

NAPLAN created a stressful, needlessly competitive and, in that sense, unsafe environment for learning. Furthermore, it failed to impact positively on the very academic learning that was its principal target. It is a prime example of a pedagogical approach driven by the linear assumptions of logical positivism and ignoring the wisdom to be found in the philosophical and scientific perspectives outlined above. I now wish to summarize briefly the very different effects of a values pedagogy, drawing on evidence principally from the Australian Values Education Program. In

**21**

*Values as the Pedagogy: Countering Instrumentalism DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.86823*

**5. Findings from the values pedagogy projects**

environment and the explicit being the values-focused pedagogy.

most effective forms of learning.

*becoming the* pedagogy.

contrast with instrumentalist pedagogy, it emanated in what I describe as imaginative pedagogy, a pedagogy that elicited the imaginative capacities essential to the

Narvaez [27–29] makes the point that imaginative pedagogy is not always the result of spontaneous impulses. It requires both the safe environment and the guiding hand of craftily planned pedagogy. It is another way of talking about the twosided coin of values pedagogy, the implicit side being the safe, values-filled learning

By implicit is meant that the learning environment must be values-filled, characterized by care, trust, respect and encouragement. There is any amount of research that has demonstrated the importance of the values-filled "ambience," as Newmann [36] described it. Newmann's work was in the area of "authentic pedagogy," the pedagogy most associated with teaching that works best. Findings from his research were factor analyzed into five "pedagogical dynamics," five features or characteristics that seemed to sum up the things most obviously associated with teaching that was working, achieving its goals, including academic achievement. The last and most important was the "ambience of care and trust." The ambience of care and trust is the starting point, or *sine qua non*, of values pedagogy. The learning environment must be characterized by care and trust, positive relationships and safety and security [37–39]. The explicit side of the coin is seen in the orientation of the learning discourse being around values, the values inherent in curriculum content, rather than merely the "facts and figures" or most easily measurable features of the content. One of the many misconceptions about values pedagogy is that it means doing something additional to the standard curriculum. In fact, it does not require separation from the curriculum; rather, it determines the direction of the curriculum through

The content of any curriculum area tends to focus on the facts and figures (what Habermas calls the "empirical/analytic") relevant to the area in question. Why? Because that is the most easily measured. When employed judiciously and seen as first step or means to a greater end, this can assist in the foundations of sound pedagogy. On the other hand, when it is seen as the entire step or end in itself, it becomes a malevolent force against sound pedagogy, instead settling for what I am describing as instrumentalist pedagogy. As most teachers know well, the more education that follows this kind of instrumentalism, the more boring it risks becoming, the more skewed in favor of those with retentive memories and the more unfair and potentially damaging it becomes to those many people who learn better in other ways. Additionally, the case being made above by the likes of Habermas and Narvaez is that, important as the facts and figures might be, the less we stimulate the interpretive, critical and imaginative ways of knowing, the more we stifle efficacious learning, and indeed the more we risk atrophying cognitive powers generally. In that sense, instrumentalist forms of pedagogy risk "de-educating" and stifling

So, in the values pedagogy work as it functioned in the Australian program, all extant content was derived from the set syllabuses but instead of settling for the standard objectives, largely the easily measurable ones, the values inherent in the content became the focus, thereby stretching rather than limiting the cognitive powers being called on. In other words, instead of simply rolling out the content because it was there in the syllabus and because a measurable outcome for reporting was demanded by the system, lessons were begun with questions like "what value is

learning potential, rather than the opposite that is intended.

*Pedagogy in Basic and Higher Education - Current Developments and Challenges*

and a crucial KPI (key performance indicator) for school administrators.

research identified the following problems:

*opportunities*;

school-based pedagogy.

*professional autonomy [33]*.

*wellbeing*;

• *the assessment was a poor measure of student achievement*;

education. It is mandatory for any school wishing to maintain government registration. Its results are inserted into a software program called "My School" (comprising a large data set about each school's numbers, demographics and, once imported, NAPLAN test results). This import was designed to show which schools were doing well in literacy and numeracy and which were not. It quickly became a ready-reference for parents in their school selection, a serious reputational issue for schools

NAPLAN had two main stated purposes: first, it was to strengthen literacy and numeracy levels of Australia's young people; second, it was to improve Australia's standing in the OECD international testing mechanism, PISA (Program for

International Student Assessment). Evidence suggested, after 10 years, that there was no indication that either objective had been achieved in any substantial way. According to one study that typified the national result, literacy and numeracy levels had not improved, at least according to the limited NAPLAN device itself [31]. Additionally, Australia's standing in PISA was demonstrably worse than before NAPLAN began [32]. At the time of writing, there is a strong push coming from powerful education entities, bureaucracies, teacher unions and teachers themselves that NAPLAN has so skewed the imperatives of education that it constitutes a menace to efficacious learning. Furthermore, research evaluations of the mechanism testify that it has "… a narrow focus on a limited set of skills rather than developing capacity…" The same

• *the NAPLAN tests added little to teachers' understanding of students' literacy levels*;

• *stress around the inflated importance of the test negatively impacted some students'* 

• *pressure to "teach to the test" frustrated many teachers, reducing their sense of* 

Meanwhile, an international testing expert declared NAPLAN to be "bizarre" in its inappropriateness. It is directed at all the wrong kind of learning and actually encourages bad writing [34]. Most recently, the federal government's own national policy and practice entity, the Gonski Institute for Education, called for its "ditching" [35]. In a word, NAPLAN has become synonymous with bad teaching and incompetent, negligent and damaging education. It is not simply that NAPLAN has achieved nothing worthwhile. The more damaging finding from evaluation is that it has become a threat to the business of sound education and has malevolently influenced

NAPLAN created a stressful, needlessly competitive and, in that sense, unsafe environment for learning. Furthermore, it failed to impact positively on the very academic learning that was its principal target. It is a prime example of a pedagogical approach driven by the linear assumptions of logical positivism and ignoring the wisdom to be found in the philosophical and scientific perspectives outlined above. I now wish to summarize briefly the very different effects of a values pedagogy, drawing on evidence principally from the Australian Values Education Program. In

• *the tests had little relation to students' lives, or to their future job prospects*;

• *pressure to prepare students for NAPLAN detracted from other learning* 

**20**

contrast with instrumentalist pedagogy, it emanated in what I describe as imaginative pedagogy, a pedagogy that elicited the imaginative capacities essential to the most effective forms of learning.

#### **5. Findings from the values pedagogy projects**

Narvaez [27–29] makes the point that imaginative pedagogy is not always the result of spontaneous impulses. It requires both the safe environment and the guiding hand of craftily planned pedagogy. It is another way of talking about the twosided coin of values pedagogy, the implicit side being the safe, values-filled learning environment and the explicit being the values-focused pedagogy.

By implicit is meant that the learning environment must be values-filled, characterized by care, trust, respect and encouragement. There is any amount of research that has demonstrated the importance of the values-filled "ambience," as Newmann [36] described it. Newmann's work was in the area of "authentic pedagogy," the pedagogy most associated with teaching that works best. Findings from his research were factor analyzed into five "pedagogical dynamics," five features or characteristics that seemed to sum up the things most obviously associated with teaching that was working, achieving its goals, including academic achievement. The last and most important was the "ambience of care and trust." The ambience of care and trust is the starting point, or *sine qua non*, of values pedagogy. The learning environment must be characterized by care and trust, positive relationships and safety and security [37–39].

The explicit side of the coin is seen in the orientation of the learning discourse being around values, the values inherent in curriculum content, rather than merely the "facts and figures" or most easily measurable features of the content. One of the many misconceptions about values pedagogy is that it means doing something additional to the standard curriculum. In fact, it does not require separation from the curriculum; rather, it determines the direction of the curriculum through *becoming the* pedagogy.

The content of any curriculum area tends to focus on the facts and figures (what Habermas calls the "empirical/analytic") relevant to the area in question. Why? Because that is the most easily measured. When employed judiciously and seen as first step or means to a greater end, this can assist in the foundations of sound pedagogy. On the other hand, when it is seen as the entire step or end in itself, it becomes a malevolent force against sound pedagogy, instead settling for what I am describing as instrumentalist pedagogy. As most teachers know well, the more education that follows this kind of instrumentalism, the more boring it risks becoming, the more skewed in favor of those with retentive memories and the more unfair and potentially damaging it becomes to those many people who learn better in other ways. Additionally, the case being made above by the likes of Habermas and Narvaez is that, important as the facts and figures might be, the less we stimulate the interpretive, critical and imaginative ways of knowing, the more we stifle efficacious learning, and indeed the more we risk atrophying cognitive powers generally. In that sense, instrumentalist forms of pedagogy risk "de-educating" and stifling learning potential, rather than the opposite that is intended.

So, in the values pedagogy work as it functioned in the Australian program, all extant content was derived from the set syllabuses but instead of settling for the standard objectives, largely the easily measurable ones, the values inherent in the content became the focus, thereby stretching rather than limiting the cognitive powers being called on. In other words, instead of simply rolling out the content because it was there in the syllabus and because a measurable outcome for reporting was demanded by the system, lessons were begun with questions like "what value is

in this content? What value for students' important knowledge, vital understanding of the world into which they are moving, crucial skills and competencies for future work, important insights for their wellbeing and the wellbeing of those with whom they will form relationships? What value is it to their future personal and social development? What value is it for the world in general? What vital lessons about humanity and the Cosmos, if any, might be contained in this content?"

Evidence suggests that when these kinds of values questions were stimulating and determining the pedagogical direction, then the easily measurable content knowledge fell out anyway and, in all irony, students were actually more likely to remember the facts and figures at the center of such content knowledge, far beyond the measuring device, because of the contextual stimulation that was being applied. In Habermasian terms, interpretive, critical, self-reflective and imaginative knowing was being impelled. Data from the projects testifying to these claims include the following:

*The pedagogies engage students in real-life learning, offer opportunity for real practice, provide safe structures for taking risks, and encourage personal reflection and action ([40], p. 9).*

*(Values pedagogy) …requires students to scrutinise questions that are difficult to resolve or answer, and focus on listening, thinking, challenging and changing viewpoints within a guided and safe environment ([40], p. 28).*

*The structured discussion and agreed values that govern the engagement provide safety and support for students as well as an expectation that correction and revision are part of the debating process. It promotes critical thinking and encourages an obligation to respect one's fellow inquirers. It attempts to produce better thinkers and more caring members of society, who accept differences and, at the same time, submit conflicts to reasonable scrutiny ([40], p. 28).*

The justification of such findings against Habermasian theory was summarized in the following way:

*The frame of reference emanates from Habermas's 'Ways of Knowing' and 'Communicative Action' theories. In a word, it is the one who knows not only empirically analytically and historically hermeneutically, but self-reflectively who is capable of the just and empowering relationships implied in the notion of communicative action. In a sense, one finally comes truly to know when one knows oneself, and authentic knowing of self can only come through action for others, the practical action for change and betterment implied by praxis. Habermas provides the conceptual foundation for a values education that transforms educational practice, its actors in students and teachers, and the role of the school towards holistic social agency, the school that is not merely a disjoined receptacle for isolated academic activity, but one whose purpose is to serve and enrich the lives not only of its immediate inhabitants but of its community. ([39], p. 220)*

In the projects that ran as part of the program, there were what were described as predictable, less predictable and quite unpredictable results. The predictable results were that students' accrual of important *personal and social values* was strengthened and affirmed. These were predictable in the sense that any curriculum intervention inputs a particular discourse, words, phrases, terms and concepts even in the setting up phase. One then will find that discourse coming through in the implementation and assessment phases; it would be a fundamental sign of failure if that were not the case. Hence, the inspirational document, the so-called *National* 

**23**

*Values as the Pedagogy: Countering Instrumentalism DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.86823*

participants, parents or the students themselves:

commonly to be found at the evaluation phase:

that we so easily forget such fundamentals.

*classroom "chores." ([45], p. 6)*

be found in Lovat and Dally [46].

*Framework for Values Education in Australian Schools* [41, 43], contained much explicit values discourse and predictably then there was a lot of similar discourse to be found in the evaluation phase, be it coming from teachers, university researcher

*Everyone in the classroom exchange, teachers and students alike, became more conscious of trying to be respectful, trying to do their best, and trying to give others a fair go. We also found that by creating an environment where these values were constantly shaping classroom activity, student learning was improving, teachers and* 

Moreover, there were less predictable results in the form of a plethora of discourse about improvements in *student behavior and teacher and student wellbeing*. Such discourse was less predictable in the sense that behavior change and wellbeing were not explicit target outcomes for the projects. Nonetheless, this discourse was

*… the documented behaviour of students has improved significantly, evidenced in vastly reduced incidents and discipline reports and suspensions. The school is … a "much better place to be". Children are "well behaved", demonstrate improved self-control, relate better to each other and, most significantly, share with teachers a common language of expectations … Other evidence of this change in the social environment of the school is the significant rise in parental satisfaction. ([42], p. 41)*

Then there was the unpredictable category of discourse around academic attention (what we eventually described as academic diligence). There was no discourse whatever in the set up about academic improvement yet it began appearing very early on in the feedback process and then continued as a persistent feature of evaluation. It was initially referred to as a "surprise effect" [44] and impelled much of the searching out of the literature (Habermas, Narvaez, etc.) noted above in order to try and explain it. As they show, be it from a philosophical or neuroscientific perspective, a pedagogy that provides a caring, positive relational and safe learning environment (the implicit side of the coin), along with an approach to content that challenges interpretive, critical, self-reflective and imaginative pedagogy is likely to result in, as Narvaez would put it, the kinds of emotions that make for sound reasoning. In this sense, the surprise is not such a surprise. The surprise is, rather,

The issue of the unpredictable academic diligence being enhanced was one that required especial attention when the results were being finally evaluated and all claims were subject to their own testing and measuring in the project titled, *Project to Test and Measure the Impact of Values Education on Student Effects and School Ambience* [45]. The Executive Summary of this project summarizes the findings around academic diligence as an improvement factor in the following paragraph:

*Thus, there was substantial quantitative and qualitative evidence suggesting that there were observable and measurable improvements in students' academic diligence, including increased attentiveness, a greater capacity to work independently as well as more cooperatively, greater care and effort being invested in schoolwork and students assuming more responsibility for their own learning as well as* 

Full and complete details of how this project functioned methodologically can

*students were happier, and school was calmer. ([42], p. 120)*

*Pedagogy in Basic and Higher Education - Current Developments and Challenges*

humanity and the Cosmos, if any, might be contained in this content?"

in this content? What value for students' important knowledge, vital understanding of the world into which they are moving, crucial skills and competencies for future work, important insights for their wellbeing and the wellbeing of those with whom they will form relationships? What value is it to their future personal and social development? What value is it for the world in general? What vital lessons about

Evidence suggests that when these kinds of values questions were stimulating and determining the pedagogical direction, then the easily measurable content knowledge fell out anyway and, in all irony, students were actually more likely to remember the facts and figures at the center of such content knowledge, far beyond the measuring device, because of the contextual stimulation that was being applied. In Habermasian terms, interpretive, critical, self-reflective and imaginative knowing was being impelled. Data from the projects testifying to these claims include the following:

*The pedagogies engage students in real-life learning, offer opportunity for real practice, provide safe structures for taking risks, and encourage personal reflection* 

*(Values pedagogy) …requires students to scrutinise questions that are difficult to resolve or answer, and focus on listening, thinking, challenging and changing* 

*The structured discussion and agreed values that govern the engagement provide safety and support for students as well as an expectation that correction and revision are part of the debating process. It promotes critical thinking and encourages an obligation to respect one's fellow inquirers. It attempts to produce better thinkers and more caring members of society, who accept differences and, at the same time,* 

The justification of such findings against Habermasian theory was summarized

In the projects that ran as part of the program, there were what were described as predictable, less predictable and quite unpredictable results. The predictable results were that students' accrual of important *personal and social values* was strengthened and affirmed. These were predictable in the sense that any curriculum intervention inputs a particular discourse, words, phrases, terms and concepts even in the setting up phase. One then will find that discourse coming through in the implementation and assessment phases; it would be a fundamental sign of failure if that were not the case. Hence, the inspirational document, the so-called *National* 

*The frame of reference emanates from Habermas's 'Ways of Knowing' and 'Communicative Action' theories. In a word, it is the one who knows not only empirically analytically and historically hermeneutically, but self-reflectively who is capable of the just and empowering relationships implied in the notion of communicative action. In a sense, one finally comes truly to know when one knows oneself, and authentic knowing of self can only come through action for others, the practical action for change and betterment implied by praxis. Habermas provides the conceptual foundation for a values education that transforms educational practice, its actors in students and teachers, and the role of the school towards holistic social agency, the school that is not merely a disjoined receptacle for isolated academic activity, but one whose purpose is to serve and enrich the lives not only of* 

*its immediate inhabitants but of its community. ([39], p. 220)*

*viewpoints within a guided and safe environment ([40], p. 28).*

*submit conflicts to reasonable scrutiny ([40], p. 28).*

*and action ([40], p. 9).*

in the following way:

**22**

*Framework for Values Education in Australian Schools* [41, 43], contained much explicit values discourse and predictably then there was a lot of similar discourse to be found in the evaluation phase, be it coming from teachers, university researcher participants, parents or the students themselves:

*Everyone in the classroom exchange, teachers and students alike, became more conscious of trying to be respectful, trying to do their best, and trying to give others a fair go. We also found that by creating an environment where these values were constantly shaping classroom activity, student learning was improving, teachers and students were happier, and school was calmer. ([42], p. 120)*

Moreover, there were less predictable results in the form of a plethora of discourse about improvements in *student behavior and teacher and student wellbeing*. Such discourse was less predictable in the sense that behavior change and wellbeing were not explicit target outcomes for the projects. Nonetheless, this discourse was commonly to be found at the evaluation phase:

*… the documented behaviour of students has improved significantly, evidenced in vastly reduced incidents and discipline reports and suspensions. The school is … a "much better place to be". Children are "well behaved", demonstrate improved self-control, relate better to each other and, most significantly, share with teachers a common language of expectations … Other evidence of this change in the social environment of the school is the significant rise in parental satisfaction. ([42], p. 41)*

Then there was the unpredictable category of discourse around academic attention (what we eventually described as academic diligence). There was no discourse whatever in the set up about academic improvement yet it began appearing very early on in the feedback process and then continued as a persistent feature of evaluation. It was initially referred to as a "surprise effect" [44] and impelled much of the searching out of the literature (Habermas, Narvaez, etc.) noted above in order to try and explain it. As they show, be it from a philosophical or neuroscientific perspective, a pedagogy that provides a caring, positive relational and safe learning environment (the implicit side of the coin), along with an approach to content that challenges interpretive, critical, self-reflective and imaginative pedagogy is likely to result in, as Narvaez would put it, the kinds of emotions that make for sound reasoning. In this sense, the surprise is not such a surprise. The surprise is, rather, that we so easily forget such fundamentals.

The issue of the unpredictable academic diligence being enhanced was one that required especial attention when the results were being finally evaluated and all claims were subject to their own testing and measuring in the project titled, *Project to Test and Measure the Impact of Values Education on Student Effects and School Ambience* [45]. The Executive Summary of this project summarizes the findings around academic diligence as an improvement factor in the following paragraph:

*Thus, there was substantial quantitative and qualitative evidence suggesting that there were observable and measurable improvements in students' academic diligence, including increased attentiveness, a greater capacity to work independently as well as more cooperatively, greater care and effort being invested in schoolwork and students assuming more responsibility for their own learning as well as classroom "chores." ([45], p. 6)*

Full and complete details of how this project functioned methodologically can be found in Lovat and Dally [46].

#### **6. Discussion and application**

The great Muslim scholar of the Middle Ages, Abu al-Ghazali had much to say about educational wisdom [47, 48]. Amidst the wisdom are words about the imperative for good learning to be prefaced by the instilling of imagination and the eliciting of wonder. These are the foundations of enduring learning, or what we might refer to as lifelong learning. A pedagogy focused too much on prescriptive teaching and persistent testing will retard progressive learning, while one centered on imagination and wonder can facilitate the desire to continue on the learning path. In many ways, Ghazali was an educational neuroscientist well before his time. His perspective also underlines why it is that values pedagogy contains a potential to lay the foundations for lifelong learning.

Indeed, there is a literature that deals precisely with the connection between values pedagogy and lifelong learning [49], including higher learning. As described, values pedagogy has potential to inflame the cognitive interests that impel those higher forms of learning that are essential to the kinds of critique that an informed populace requires of its citizenry, including the original and innovative thought associated with doctoral learning, as an example drawn from the parameters of higher education [50, 51]. This underlines the importance of such a pedagogy not only for maximizing learning breadth and depth in schools but also for the kind of learning that leads to the highest forms of intellectual achievement such as are crucial to individual wholeness and to a successful, moral and harmonious citizenry.

Ghazali's de facto motto was to ask many questions and allow the answers to come from the learner rather than the teacher. Above all, not to provide answers to questions that had not even been asked by the learner. Yet, of course, much education at all levels does precisely what he advised not to do. This is at the heart of instrumentalist pedagogy and it explains why it can do such damage to learning potential, especially in the long term. It can offer the kind of short term learning required for immediate tasks and satisfying testing requirements but it offers little to lifelong and/or higher learning and, furthermore, can work against it. The effects of such are multiple, ranging from a narrowing of the kinds of critique necessary to overturn age-old prejudices that lead invariably to dysfunctional societies and a fractious world through to a surfeit of doctoral candidates in universities who are less equipped than they should be in independent learning strategies. In this sense, instrumentalist pedagogies are formulas for retarded learning, while values pedagogy has the potential to lay the foundations for progressive learning.

The challenge for educational institutions at all levels is to take heed of the multiplicity of research that underpins the claims being made here. We live in an era that is blessed with the scientific understanding of learning that Ghazali did not possess. Yet, the irony would seem to be that he might well have understood intuitively how efficacious learning should proceed, regardless of the lack of evidence. On the other hand, many modern educational regimes have the evidence before them but ignore it and establish regimes of learning that are actually hostile to efficacious learning. The Australian NAPLAN example above is just one of any number of examples from school and higher education regimes that could be cited of negligent and damaging practice underpinned by an instrumentalist set of assumptions leading to instrumentalist pedagogies and a narrowing of the scope of learning.

Especially as education becomes more of a mass industry and resources become invariably lean, the temptation to establish perfunctory goals at the lowest level of what Habermas calls empirical-analytic knowing becomes particularly coercive. This is especially the case because the output of such knowing is the most easily measured. School and higher education regimes can therefore easily fool themselves, through the record of measurements, into thinking that good outcomes have

**25**

**Author details**

University of Newcastle, Newcastle, Australia

provided the original work is properly cited.

\*Address all correspondence to: terry.lovat@newcastle.edu.au

© 2019 The Author(s). Licensee IntechOpen. This chapter is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/ by/3.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium,

Terence Lovat

*Values as the Pedagogy: Countering Instrumentalism DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.86823*

way forward.

**7. Conclusion**

been achieved and good learning has been facilitated, where in fact the foundations of lifelong and higher learning have been damaged and retarded. This is a challenge indeed for the modern education setting, wherever and at whatever level. Granted these challenges, research around values pedagogy presents as a viable, inexpensive

The chapter has set out to debunk the kinds of instrumentalist pedagogies that abound in educational systems both for their conceptual weaknesses and failure to keep pace with the very scientific understandings on which they rest and for the demonstrable damage they do to young people's learning potential. It furthermore proposes a values pedagogy as an approach with potential for obverse effects, one that ensures the right environment for learning as well as the kind of intellectual stimulation required for the imagination that spurs the emotions that impel sound reasoning. In a word, instrumentalist pedagogy survives as a tool of political agendas and populist media, whereas values pedagogy rests on the firmest evidence from philosophical and neuroscientific research about how the mind works, the

brain functions and how efficacious learning is therefore best effected.

been achieved and good learning has been facilitated, where in fact the foundations of lifelong and higher learning have been damaged and retarded. This is a challenge indeed for the modern education setting, wherever and at whatever level. Granted these challenges, research around values pedagogy presents as a viable, inexpensive way forward.

### **7. Conclusion**

*Pedagogy in Basic and Higher Education - Current Developments and Challenges*

The great Muslim scholar of the Middle Ages, Abu al-Ghazali had much to say about educational wisdom [47, 48]. Amidst the wisdom are words about the imperative for good learning to be prefaced by the instilling of imagination and the eliciting of wonder. These are the foundations of enduring learning, or what we might refer to as lifelong learning. A pedagogy focused too much on prescriptive teaching and persistent testing will retard progressive learning, while one centered on imagination and wonder can facilitate the desire to continue on the learning path. In many ways, Ghazali was an educational neuroscientist well before his time. His perspective also underlines why it is that values pedagogy contains a potential to

Indeed, there is a literature that deals precisely with the connection between values pedagogy and lifelong learning [49], including higher learning. As described, values pedagogy has potential to inflame the cognitive interests that impel those higher forms of learning that are essential to the kinds of critique that an informed populace requires of its citizenry, including the original and innovative thought associated with doctoral learning, as an example drawn from the parameters of higher education [50, 51]. This underlines the importance of such a pedagogy not only for maximizing learning breadth and depth in schools but also for the kind of learning that leads to the highest forms of intellectual achievement such as are crucial to individual wholeness and to a successful, moral and harmonious citizenry. Ghazali's de facto motto was to ask many questions and allow the answers to come from the learner rather than the teacher. Above all, not to provide answers to questions that had not even been asked by the learner. Yet, of course, much education at all levels does precisely what he advised not to do. This is at the heart of instrumentalist pedagogy and it explains why it can do such damage to learning potential, especially in the long term. It can offer the kind of short term learning required for immediate tasks and satisfying testing requirements but it offers little to lifelong and/or higher learning and, furthermore, can work against it. The effects of such are multiple, ranging from a narrowing of the kinds of critique necessary to overturn age-old prejudices that lead invariably to dysfunctional societies and a fractious world through to a surfeit of doctoral candidates in universities who are less equipped than they should be in independent learning strategies. In this sense, instrumentalist pedagogies are formulas for retarded learning, while values peda-

gogy has the potential to lay the foundations for progressive learning.

mentalist pedagogies and a narrowing of the scope of learning.

The challenge for educational institutions at all levels is to take heed of the multiplicity of research that underpins the claims being made here. We live in an era that is blessed with the scientific understanding of learning that Ghazali did not possess. Yet, the irony would seem to be that he might well have understood intuitively how efficacious learning should proceed, regardless of the lack of evidence. On the other hand, many modern educational regimes have the evidence before them but ignore it and establish regimes of learning that are actually hostile to efficacious learning. The Australian NAPLAN example above is just one of any number of examples from school and higher education regimes that could be cited of negligent and damaging practice underpinned by an instrumentalist set of assumptions leading to instru-

Especially as education becomes more of a mass industry and resources become invariably lean, the temptation to establish perfunctory goals at the lowest level of what Habermas calls empirical-analytic knowing becomes particularly coercive. This is especially the case because the output of such knowing is the most easily measured. School and higher education regimes can therefore easily fool themselves, through the record of measurements, into thinking that good outcomes have

**6. Discussion and application**

lay the foundations for lifelong learning.

**24**

The chapter has set out to debunk the kinds of instrumentalist pedagogies that abound in educational systems both for their conceptual weaknesses and failure to keep pace with the very scientific understandings on which they rest and for the demonstrable damage they do to young people's learning potential. It furthermore proposes a values pedagogy as an approach with potential for obverse effects, one that ensures the right environment for learning as well as the kind of intellectual stimulation required for the imagination that spurs the emotions that impel sound reasoning. In a word, instrumentalist pedagogy survives as a tool of political agendas and populist media, whereas values pedagogy rests on the firmest evidence from philosophical and neuroscientific research about how the mind works, the brain functions and how efficacious learning is therefore best effected.

### **Author details**

Terence Lovat University of Newcastle, Newcastle, Australia

\*Address all correspondence to: terry.lovat@newcastle.edu.au

© 2019 The Author(s). Licensee IntechOpen. This chapter is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/ by/3.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

### **References**

[1] Ayer AJ. Language, Truth and Logic. London: Victor Gollancz; 1936

[2] Stadler F. The Vienna Circle. Vienna: Springer; 2001

[3] Tyler R. Basic Principles of Curriculum and Instruction. Chicago: University of Chicago Press; 1949

[4] Bloom B. Taxonomy of Educational Objectives: Book 1 Cognitive Domain. London: Longman; 1956

[5] Krathwohl D, Bloom B, Masia B. Taxonomy of Educational Objectives. Handbook II Affective Domain. New York: McKay; 1964

[6] Wittgenstein L. Philosophical Investigations. Oxford: Blackwell; 1958

[7] Ferre F. Language, Logic and God. New York: Harper & Row; 1982

[8] Lakatos I. Falsification and the methodology of scientific research programs. In: Lakatos I, Musgrave A, editors. Criticism and the Growth of Knowledge. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 1974. pp. 91-196

[9] Kuhn T. The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. Chicago: Chicago University Press; 1970

[10] Quine WV. From a Logical Point of View. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 1953

[11] Feyerabend P. Against Method: Outline of an Anarchistic Theory of Knowledge. London: Humanities Press; 1975

[12] Apple M. Ideology and Curriculum. New York: Routledge; 2004

[13] Habermas J. Knowledge and Human Interests. (Tr. J. Shapiro) London: Heinemann. 1972

[14] Habermas, J. (1974). Theory and Practice. (Tr. J. Viertal) London: Heinemann

[15] Habermas J. Modernity versus postmodernity. New German Critique. 1981;**22**:3-14

[16] Fossen T. Judgment and imagination in Habermas' theory of law. Philosophy and Social Criticism. 2015;**41**:1069-1091

[17] Ingram D. Habermas on aesthetics and rationality: Completing the project of enlightenment. New German Critique. 1991;**53**:67-103

[18] Husserl E. The Idea of Phenomenology. (Tr. W. Alston & G. Nakhnikian) The Hague: Nijhoff. 1958

[19] de Grasse Tyson N. Astrophysics for People in a Hurry. New York: W. W. Norton & Company; 2017

[20] Israel K, Ruckhaber E, Weinmann R. 100 Scientists against Einstein. Leipzig: Voigtlander; 1931

[21] Chalmers M. Cosmology: Out of the darkness. Nature. 2012;**490**:S2-S4

[22] O'Raifeartaigh C, O'Keeffe M, Werner N, Mittonc S. One hundred years of the Cosmological Constant: From 'superfluous stunt' to dark energy. 2017. Available at: https://arxiv.org/ftp/ arxiv/papers/1711/1711.06890.pdf

[23] Grossman L. The M87 black hole image showed the best way to measure black hole masses. Science News, April 22. 2019. Available at: https://www. sciencenews.org/article/m87-blackhole-image-best-mass-estimates-starmotion

[24] Damasio AR. Looking for Spinoza: Joy, Sorrow, and the Feeling Brain. New York: Harcourt; 2003

**27**

*Values as the Pedagogy: Countering Instrumentalism DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.86823*

> au/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?referer=&htt psredir=1&article=1000&context=ti

[33] Carter D, Manuel J, Dutton J. How do secondary English school teachers score NAPLAN? A snapshot of English teachers' views. Australian Journal of Language and Literacy.

[34] Perelman L. NAPLAN's writing test is 'bizarre' but here's how kids can get top marks. ABC News, April 9. 2018. Available at: https://www.abc.net.au/ news/2018-04-09/NAPLAN-writingtest-bizarre-heres-how-kids-can-get-

[35] ER. Ditch NAPLAN for sample testing: Gonski Institute. Education Review, March 21. 2019. Available at: https://www.educationreview.com.au/

[36] Newmann F, Associates. Authentic Achievement: Restructuring Schools for Intellectual Quality. San Francisco:

[37] Lovat T. Values education as good practice pedagogy: Evidence from Australian empirical research. Journal of

Moral Education. 2017a;**46**:88-96

[38] Lovat T. The Art and Heart of Good Teaching: Values as the Pedagogy. Singapore: Springer Nature; 2019

[39] Lovat T, Dally K, Clement N,

[40] DEEWR. At the heart of what we do: Values education at the centre of schooling. Report of the Values Education Good Practice Schools Project—Stage 2. Melbourne: Curriculum Corporation.

2008. Available from: http:// www.curriculum.edu.au/values/

Toomey R. Values Pedagogy and Student Achievement: Contemporary Research Evidence. Dordrecht, Netherlands:

mss\_2015

2018;**41**(3):144-154

top-marks/9625852

tag/naplan/

Jossey Bass; 1996

Springer; 2011

[25] Immordino-Yang MH. Implications of affective and social neuroscience for educational theory. Educational Philosophy and Theory. 2011;

[26] Immordino-Yang MH, Damasio AR.

neuroscience to education. Mind, Brain,

[27] Narvaez D. Building a sustaining classroom climate for purposeful ethical citizenship. In: Lovat T, Toomey R, Clement N, editors. International Research Handbook on Values Education and Student Wellbeing. Dordrecht, Netherlands: Springer; 2010.

[28] Narvaez D. Neurobiology and the Development of Human Morality: Evolution, Culture, and Wisdom. New York: W. W. Norton & Company;

[29] Narvaez D. Embodied Morality: Protectionism, Engagement and Imagination. London, UK: Palgrave

[30] Narvaez D, Panksepp J, Schore A, Gleason T. Evolution, Early Experience and Human Development: From Research to Practice and Policy. New York: Oxford University Press;

[31] NESA. Annual Report 2017-2018. Sydney: NSW Education Standards Authority. 2018. Available at: https:// www.parliament.nsw.gov.au/la/ papers/DBAssets/tabledpaper/ webAttachments/74873/NESA%20 Annual%20Report%202017-18.pdf

[32] ACER: Australian Council of Educational Research Report, Thomson S, Wernert N, O'Grady E, Rodrigues S. TIMSS 2015: A First Look at Australia's Results. Melbourne: ACER; 2016. Available at: https://research.acer.edu.

We feel, therefore we learn: The relevance of affect and social

and Education. 2007;**1**:3-10

**43**(1):98-103

pp. 659-674

Macmillan; 2016

2014

2013

*Values as the Pedagogy: Countering Instrumentalism DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.86823*

[25] Immordino-Yang MH. Implications of affective and social neuroscience for educational theory. Educational Philosophy and Theory. 2011; **43**(1):98-103

[26] Immordino-Yang MH, Damasio AR. We feel, therefore we learn: The relevance of affect and social neuroscience to education. Mind, Brain, and Education. 2007;**1**:3-10

[27] Narvaez D. Building a sustaining classroom climate for purposeful ethical citizenship. In: Lovat T, Toomey R, Clement N, editors. International Research Handbook on Values Education and Student Wellbeing. Dordrecht, Netherlands: Springer; 2010. pp. 659-674

[28] Narvaez D. Neurobiology and the Development of Human Morality: Evolution, Culture, and Wisdom. New York: W. W. Norton & Company; 2014

[29] Narvaez D. Embodied Morality: Protectionism, Engagement and Imagination. London, UK: Palgrave Macmillan; 2016

[30] Narvaez D, Panksepp J, Schore A, Gleason T. Evolution, Early Experience and Human Development: From Research to Practice and Policy. New York: Oxford University Press; 2013

[31] NESA. Annual Report 2017-2018. Sydney: NSW Education Standards Authority. 2018. Available at: https:// www.parliament.nsw.gov.au/la/ papers/DBAssets/tabledpaper/ webAttachments/74873/NESA%20 Annual%20Report%202017-18.pdf

[32] ACER: Australian Council of Educational Research Report, Thomson S, Wernert N, O'Grady E, Rodrigues S. TIMSS 2015: A First Look at Australia's Results. Melbourne: ACER; 2016. Available at: https://research.acer.edu.

au/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?referer=&htt psredir=1&article=1000&context=ti mss\_2015

[33] Carter D, Manuel J, Dutton J. How do secondary English school teachers score NAPLAN? A snapshot of English teachers' views. Australian Journal of Language and Literacy. 2018;**41**(3):144-154

[34] Perelman L. NAPLAN's writing test is 'bizarre' but here's how kids can get top marks. ABC News, April 9. 2018. Available at: https://www.abc.net.au/ news/2018-04-09/NAPLAN-writingtest-bizarre-heres-how-kids-can-gettop-marks/9625852

[35] ER. Ditch NAPLAN for sample testing: Gonski Institute. Education Review, March 21. 2019. Available at: https://www.educationreview.com.au/ tag/naplan/

[36] Newmann F, Associates. Authentic Achievement: Restructuring Schools for Intellectual Quality. San Francisco: Jossey Bass; 1996

[37] Lovat T. Values education as good practice pedagogy: Evidence from Australian empirical research. Journal of Moral Education. 2017a;**46**:88-96

[38] Lovat T. The Art and Heart of Good Teaching: Values as the Pedagogy. Singapore: Springer Nature; 2019

[39] Lovat T, Dally K, Clement N, Toomey R. Values Pedagogy and Student Achievement: Contemporary Research Evidence. Dordrecht, Netherlands: Springer; 2011

[40] DEEWR. At the heart of what we do: Values education at the centre of schooling. Report of the Values Education Good Practice Schools Project—Stage 2. Melbourne: Curriculum Corporation. 2008. Available from: http:// www.curriculum.edu.au/values/

**26**

1953

1975

*Pedagogy in Basic and Higher Education - Current Developments and Challenges*

[14] Habermas, J. (1974). Theory and Practice. (Tr. J. Viertal) London:

[15] Habermas J. Modernity versus postmodernity. New German Critique.

imagination in Habermas' theory of law. Philosophy and Social Criticism.

[17] Ingram D. Habermas on aesthetics and rationality: Completing the project of enlightenment. New German

[16] Fossen T. Judgment and

Heinemann

1981;**22**:3-14

2015;**41**:1069-1091

Critique. 1991;**53**:67-103

[18] Husserl E. The Idea of

Norton & Company; 2017

Leipzig: Voigtlander; 1931

Phenomenology. (Tr. W. Alston & G. Nakhnikian) The Hague: Nijhoff. 1958

[19] de Grasse Tyson N. Astrophysics for People in a Hurry. New York: W. W.

[20] Israel K, Ruckhaber E, Weinmann R. 100 Scientists against Einstein.

[21] Chalmers M. Cosmology: Out of the darkness. Nature. 2012;**490**:S2-S4

[22] O'Raifeartaigh C, O'Keeffe M, Werner N, Mittonc S. One hundred years of the Cosmological Constant: From 'superfluous stunt' to dark energy. 2017. Available at: https://arxiv.org/ftp/ arxiv/papers/1711/1711.06890.pdf

[23] Grossman L. The M87 black hole image showed the best way to measure black hole masses. Science News, April 22. 2019. Available at: https://www. sciencenews.org/article/m87-blackhole-image-best-mass-estimates-star-

[24] Damasio AR. Looking for Spinoza: Joy, Sorrow, and the Feeling Brain.

New York: Harcourt; 2003

motion

[1] Ayer AJ. Language, Truth and Logic.

[2] Stadler F. The Vienna Circle. Vienna:

Curriculum and Instruction. Chicago: University of Chicago Press; 1949

[4] Bloom B. Taxonomy of Educational Objectives: Book 1 Cognitive Domain.

[5] Krathwohl D, Bloom B, Masia B. Taxonomy of Educational Objectives. Handbook II Affective Domain.

[6] Wittgenstein L. Philosophical Investigations. Oxford: Blackwell; 1958

[7] Ferre F. Language, Logic and God. New York: Harper & Row; 1982

[9] Kuhn T. The Structure of Scientific

[10] Quine WV. From a Logical Point of View. Oxford: Oxford University Press;

[11] Feyerabend P. Against Method: Outline of an Anarchistic Theory of Knowledge. London: Humanities Press;

[12] Apple M. Ideology and Curriculum.

[13] Habermas J. Knowledge and Human Interests. (Tr. J. Shapiro) London:

New York: Routledge; 2004

Heinemann. 1972

Revolutions. Chicago: Chicago

University Press; 1970

[8] Lakatos I. Falsification and the methodology of scientific research programs. In: Lakatos I, Musgrave A, editors. Criticism and the Growth of Knowledge. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 1974. pp. 91-196

London: Victor Gollancz; 1936

[3] Tyler R. Basic Principles of

London: Longman; 1956

New York: McKay; 1964

Springer; 2001

**References**

val\_vegps2\_final\_report,26142.html [Accessed: 12 September 2008]

[41] DEST. Values education study. (Executive summary final report). Melbourne: Curriculum Corporation. 2003. Available from: http://www. curriculum.edu.au/verve/\_resources/ VES\_Final\_Report14Nov.pdf [Accessed: 12 September 2016]

[42] DEST. Implementing the national framework for values education in Australian schools: Report of the Values Education Good Practice Schools Project—Stage 1: Final report, September 2006. 2006. Melbourne: Curriculum Corporation; Available from: http://www.curriculum.edu.au/ verve/\_resources/VEGPS1\_FINAL\_ REPORT\_081106.pdf [Accessed: 12 September 2016]

[43] DEST. National framework for values education in Australian schools. (Canberra, Australian Government Department of Education, Science and Training). 2005. Available from: http://www.curriculum.edu.au/ verve/\_resources/Framework\_PDF\_ version\_for\_the\_web.pdf [Accessed: 12 September 2016]

[44] Lovat T. No surprise in the 'surprise effect' of values pedagogy: An edusemiotic analysis. In: Semetsky I, editor. Edusemiotics: A Handbook. Dordrecht, Netherlands: Springer; 2017b. pp. 93-106

[45] Lovat T, Toomey R, Dally K, Clement N. Project to test and measure the impact of values education on student effects and school ambience. Report for the Australian Government Department of Education, Employment and Workplace Relations (DEEWR) by The University of Newcastle, Australia. Canberra: DEEWR. 2009. Available at: http://www.curriculum.edu.au/ verve/\_resources/Project\_to\_Test\_ and\_Measure\_the\_Impact\_of\_Values\_ Education.pdf

[46] Lovat T, Dally K. Testing and measuring the impact of character education on the learning environment and its outcomes. Journal of Character Education. 2018;**14**(2):1-22

[47] Attaran M. Great Muslim Mentors' Views about the Upbringing of Children. Tehran: Ministry of Education Press; 1987

[48] Orak J. Education from the perspective of Islamic and western scientists (Case study: Ghazali and Plato). The Turkish Online Journal of Design, Art and Communication. 2016;**6**:127-135

[49] Aspin D, Chapman J. Values Education and Life-Long Learning. New York: Springer; 2007

[50] Lovat T. Jurgen Habermas: Education's reluctant hero. In: Murphy M, editor. Social Theory and Educational Research: Understanding Foucault, Habermas, Derrida and Bourdieu. London: Routledge; 2013. pp. 69-83

[51] Lovat T, Holbrook A, Bourke S, Fairbairn H, Kiley M, Paltridge B, et al. Examining doctoral examination and the question of the viva. Higher Education Review. 2015;**47**(3):5-23

**29**

Section 2

Pedagogical Wellbeing in

Educational Institutions

### Section 2
