What Is Rousseau Theory Of Education?

31.01.2023 Grady A. Lowry 0 Comments

Jean Rousseau Jean Jacques Rousseau

Born: 1712 Died: 1778 Nationality: French Occupation: philosopher, social and political theorist, musician, botanist, writer Philosophical/Educational School of Thought: Existentialism Publications: Discourse on the Arts and Sciences (essay) Discourse on the Origin and Foundations of Inequality La Nouvelle Heloise Lettre sur les spectacles The Social Contract Emile Confessions Rousseau, juge de Jean Jacques Reveries Les Muses galantes (opera)

Educational Viewpoint: Rousseau’s theory of education emphasized the importance of expression to produce a well-balanced, freethinking child. He believed that if children are allowed to develop naturally without constraints imposed on them by society they will develop towards their fullest potential, both educationally and morally.

This natural development should be child-centered and focused on the needs and experiences of the child at each stage of development. Educational Impact: Rousseau is known as the father of early childhood education. As a result of his educational viewpoint, early childhood education emerged as a child-centered entity rich in unlimited, sensory-driven, practical experiences.

Active participation in drawing, measuring, speaking, and singing also emerged as a result of Rousseau’s educational viewpoint. Today, many elements of Rousseau’s educational principles remain as a dominant force in early childhood education. References: Harrison, P.
View complete answer

Contents

1 What was Rousseau’s main theory?
2 What are the 3 curriculum sources?
- 2.1 Who are the 6 philosophers of education?
3 Who are the five philosophers of education?

What was Rousseau’s main theory?

2. Conjectural history and moral psychology – Rousseau repeatedly claims that a single idea is at the centre of his world view, namely, that human beings are good by nature but are rendered corrupt by society. Unfortunately, despite the alleged centrality of this claim, it is difficult to give it a clear and plausible interpretation.

One obvious problem is present from the start: since society, the alleged agent of corruption, is composed entirely of naturally good human beings, how can evil ever get a foothold? It is also difficult to see what “natural goodness” might be. In various places Rousseau clearly states that morality is not a natural feature of human life, so in whatever sense it is that human beings are good by nature, it is not the moral sense that the casual reader would ordinarily assume.

In order, therefore, to address this puzzling central claim, it is best to look first at the details of Rousseau’s moral psychology, especially as developed in the Discourse on the Origins of Inequality and in Emile, Rousseau attributes to all creatures an instinctual drive towards self-preservation.

Human beings therefore have such a drive, which he terms amour de soi (self love). Amour de soi directs us first to attend to our most basic biological needs for things like food, shelter and warmth. Since, for Rousseau, humans, like other creatures, are part of the design of a benevolent creator, they are individually well-equipped with the means to satisfy their natural needs.

Alongside this basic drive for self-preservation, Rousseau posits another passion which he terms pitié (compassion). Pitié directs us to attend to and relieve the suffering of others (including animals) where we can do so without danger to our own self-preservation.

In some of his writings, such as the Second Discourse, pitié is an original drive that sits alongside amour de soi, whereas in others, such as Emile and the Essay on the Origin of Languages, it is a development of amour de soi considered as the origin of all passions.
In the Discourse on the Origins of Inequality Rousseau imagines a multi-stage evolution of humanity from the most primitive condition to something like a modern complex society.

Rousseau denies that this is a reconstruction of history as it actually was, and Frederick Neuhouser (2014) has argued that the evolutionary story is merely a philosophical device designed to separate the natural and the artificial elements of our psychology.

At each step of this imagined evolution human beings change their material and psychological relations to one another and, correspondingly, their conception of themselves, or what Rousseau calls the “sentiment of their existence.” According to this narrative, humans live basically solitary lives in the original state of the human race, since they do not need one another to provide for their material needs.

The human race barely subsists in this condition, chance meetings between proto-humans are the occasions for copulation and reproduction, child-care is minimal and brief in duration. If humans are naturally good at this stage of human evolution, their goodness is merely a negative and amounts to the absence of evil.

In this story, human beings are distinguished from the other creatures with which they share the primeval world only by two characteristics: freedom, and perfectibility.
Freedom, in this context, is simply the ability not to be governed solely by appetite; perfectibility is the capacity to learn and thereby to find new and better means to satisfy needs.

Together, these characteristics give humans the potential to achieve self-consciousness, rationality, and morality. Nevertheless, it will turn out that such characteristics are more likely to condemn them to a social world of deception, dissimulation, dependence, oppression, and domination.

As human populations grow, simple but unstable forms of co-operation evolve around activities like hunting.
According to Rousseau, the central transitional moment in human history occurs at a stage of society marked by small settled communities.
At this point a change, or rather a split, takes place in the natural drive humans have to care for themselves: competition among humans to attract sexual partners leads them to consider their own attractiveness to others and how that attractiveness compares to that of potential rivals.

In Emile, where Rousseau is concerned with the psychological development of an individual in a modern society, he also associates the genesis of amour propre with sexual competition and the moment, puberty, when the male adolescent starts to think of himself as a sexual being with rivals for the favours of girls and women.

Rousseau’s term for this new type of self-interested drive, concerned with comparative success or failure as a social being, is amour propre (love of self, often rendered as pride or vanity in English translations). Amour propre makes a central interest of each human being the need to be recognized by others as having value and to be treated with respect.

The presentation of amour propre in the Second Discourse —and especially in his note XV to that work—often suggests that Rousseau sees it as a wholly negative passion and the source of all evil. Interpretations of amour propre centered on the Second Discourse (which, historically, are the most common ones (for example Charvet 1974)), often focus on the fact that the need for recognition always has a comparative aspect, so that individuals are not content merely that others acknowledge their value, but also seek to be esteemed as superior to them.

This aspect of our nature then creates conflict as people try to exact this recognition from others or react with anger and resentment when it is denied to them. More recent readings of both the Second Discourse, and especially of Emile, have indicated that a more nuanced view is possible (Den 1988, Neuhouser 2008).

According to these interpretations, amour propre is both the cause of humanity’s fall as well as the promise of its redemption because of the way in which it develops humans’ rational capacities and their sense of themselves as social creatures among others.

You might be interested: Which Countries Give Free Education To Indian Students?

Although Rousseau held that the overwhelming tendency, socially and historically, is for amour propre to take on toxic and self-defeating (‘inflamed’) forms, he also held that there are, at least in principle, ways of organizing social life and individual education that allow it to take on a benign character.

This project of containing and harnessing amour propre finds expression in both The Social Contract and Emile, In some works, such as the Second Discourse, Rousseau presents amour propre as a passion that is quite distinct from amour de soi, In others, including Emile, he presents it as a form that amour de soi takes in a social environment.

The latter is consistent with his view in Emile that all the passions are outgrowths or developments of amour de soi,
Although amour propre has its origins in sexual competition and comparison within small societies, it does not achieve its full toxicity until it is combined with a growth in material interdependence among human beings.

In the Discourse on Inequality, Rousseau traces the growth of agriculture and metallurgy and the first establishment of private property, together with the emergence of inequality between those who own land and those who do not. In an unequal society, human beings who need both the social good of recognition and such material goods as food, warmth, etc.

Become enmeshed in social relations that are inimical both to their freedom and to their sense of self worth. Subordinates need superiors in order to have access to the means of life; superiors need subordinates to work for them and also to give them the recognition they crave. In such a structure there is a clear incentive for people to misrepresent their true beliefs and desires in order to attain their ends.

Thus, even those who receive the apparent love and adulation of their inferiors cannot thereby find satisfaction for their amour propre, This trope of misrepresentation and frustration receives its clearest treatment in Rousseau’s account of the figure of the European minister, towards the end of the Discourse on Inequality, a figure whose need to flatter others in order to secure his own wants leads to his alienation from his own self.
View complete answer

What is Rousseau known for?

Jean-Jacques Rousseau was a Genevan born political and moral philosopher of the Enlightenment Era. He is well known for his work On the Social Contract, which questioned the purpose and place of government and its responsibility for its citizens.
View complete answer

Why Rousseau is called the father of modern education?

Jean Rousseau Jean Jacques Rousseau

This natural development should be child-centered and focused on the needs and experiences of the child at each stage of development. Educational Impact: Rousseau is known as the father of early childhood education. As a result of his educational viewpoint, early childhood education emerged as a child-centered entity rich in unlimited, sensory-driven, practical experiences.

What are the 3 major philosophies of education?

5 Things That Educators Should Know About the Philosophy of Education The word philosophy is derived from two Greek words. The first word, philo, means “love.” The second, sophy, means “wisdom.” Literally, then, philosophy means “love of wisdom” (Power, 1982).

Each individual has an attitude toward life, children, politics, learning, and previous personal experiences that informs and shapes their set of beliefs. Although you may not be conscious of it, this set of beliefs, or personal philosophy, informs how you live, work, and interact with others. What you believe is directly reflected in both your teaching and learning processes.

This article explores the various philosophical views influence the teaching profession. It is important to understand how philosophy and education are interrelated. In order to become the most effective teacher you can be, you must understand your own beliefs, while at the same time empathizing with others.

In this chapter we will examine the study of philosophy, the major branches of philosophy, and the major philosophical schools of thought in education. You will have a chance to examine how these schools of thought can help you define your personal educational philosophy. Developing your own educational philosophy is a key part of your journey to becoming a teacher.

In this article, we will discuss the 5 things that educators should know about the philosophy of education. What are the major branches of philosophy? The four main branches of philosophy are metaphysics, epistemology, axiology, and logic. Metaphysics considers questions about the physical universe and the nature of ultimate reality.

Epistemology examines how people come to learn what they know. Axiology is the study of fundamental principles or values. Logic pursues the organization of the reasoning process. Logic can be divided into two main components: deductive reasoning, which takes general principles and relates them to a specific case; and inductive reasoning, which builds up an argument based on specific examples.

What are the major schools of thought in philosophy? Idealism can be divided into three categories: classical, religious, and modern. Classical idealism, the philosophy of the Greeks Socrates and Plato, searches for an absolute truth. Religious idealism tries to reconcile God and humanity.

Modern idealism, stemming from the ideas of Descartes, links perception and existence.
Realism, the school of thought founded by Aristotle, believes that the world of matter is separate from human perceptions.
Modern realist thought has led to the “blank slate” notion of human capabilities.
Pragmatism believes that we should select the ideas, actions, and consequences with the most desirable outcome, as well as learning from previous experiences to achieve desirable consequences.

John Dewey’s Experimentalism brought the scientific method of inductive reasoning to the educational sphere. Postmodernism and existentialism focus on intricate readings of texts and social and political conventions, examining existing structures for flaws.

Essentially, they focus heavily on the present, and on understanding life as we know it. Jacques Derrida’s deconstruction methods of reading texts suggests that universal rationality is not found in objective reality, but in the text. Michel Foucault, another postmodern philosopher, examined the relationship between truth and power.

What are the major philosophies of education? The major philosophies of education can be broken down into three main types: teacher-centered philosophies, student-centered philosophies, and society-centered philosophies. These include Essentialism, Perennialism, Progressivism, Social Reconstructionism, Existentialism, Behaviorism, Constructivism, Conservatism, and Humanism.

Essentialism and Perennialism are the two types of teacher-centered philosophies of education.
Essentialism is currently the leading style of public education in the United States.
It is the teaching of basic skills that have been proven over time to be needed in society.
Perennialism focuses on the teaching of great works.

You might be interested: What Is The Relationship Between Education And Culture?

There are three types of student-centered philosophies of education. Progressivism focuses on developing the student’s moral compass. Humanism is about fostering each student to his or her fullest potential. Constructivism focuses on using education to shape a student’s world view.

There are two types of socially-centered philosophies of education.
Reconstructionism is the perspective that education is the means to solve social problems.
Behaviorism focuses on cultivating behaviors that are beneficial to society.
What additional ideologies of educational philosophy exist? Other notable ideologies of educational philosophy include Nationalism, American Exceptionalism, Ethno-nationalism, Liberalism, Conservatism, and Marxism.

Nationalism is a national spirit, or love of country, that ties the interests of a nation to the symbols that represent it. American Exceptionalism is a form of Nationalism that implies that the United States is a special country that is privileged to have a manifest destiny.

Ethno-nationalism is similar to nationalism, but rather than the loyalty lying with one’s nation, it lies with one’s ethnic or racial group.
Liberalism is the ideology that people should enjoy the greatest possible individual freedoms and that it should be guaranteed by due process of law.
The opposite of liberalism is conservatism.

Conservatism is the belief that institutions should function according to their intended original purpose and any concepts that have not been maintained should be restored. Finally, Marxism is an ideological and political movement that focuses on the class system as a form of conflict within the social, political, and educational realms.

How is an educator’s educational philosophy determined? It is important to identify your own philosophy of education in order to understand your own system of values and beliefs so that you are easily able to describe your teaching style to potential employers. While writing your own personal philosophy of education statement, it is vital to address several key components: How do I think? What is the purpose of education? What is the role of the teacher? How should the teacher teach? What is the role of the student? What should be taught? Additionally, make sure that you be yourself and are clear and concise.

Do some research about the school you are applying for and address their missions and goals in your statement. Remember that education is about the students and also remember to focus on your discipline. Think of the great teachers you have had in your life.
View complete answer

What are the 3 curriculum sources?

Tyler suggested when developing curriculum, objectives data should be gathered from three sources, namely; the learner, society, and subject matter.
View complete answer

Who are the 6 philosophers of education?

In life it is important to understand who you are as a person, what you believe in and what you hold to be real Dan Reed EDU 200-D Phi. Of Edu.10/20/05 My Philosophy of Education In life it is important to understand who you are as a person, what you believe in and what you hold to be real.

These values are important because they dictate what you do in your life as well as how you act and react to situations that you may face.
This concept holds no less importance or value in the profession of teaching.
Who you are as a person and what you believe in controls what you will be like as a teacher.

Your philosophy as a teacher is important because it leads to, among other aspects, exactly how you present yourself, your material and how you develop you students. Figuring out what precisely your personal philosophy is helps you to understand what kind of teacher you want to be.

For the most part there are six main areas of educational philosophy that teachers can fall into. Sometimes a teacher can have one main philosophy that he or she feels suits them perfectly. It is also possible that a teacher may combine two philosophies that they may feel contour better to their beliefs.

These six main areas of educational philosophy are perennialism, essentialism, behaviorism, progressivism, reconstructionism, and existentialism. These philosophical areas evolved and broadened from the four classical views of philosophy to shape to the different styles of teachers in today’s schools.

Those classical views were idealism, realism, pragmatism and existentialism. These classical philosophies evolved as a result of the changing landscapes of teaching. They had adapted to form the six areas we have come to understand today. When trying to understand what type of philosophy it is you as a teacher want to categorize and substantially implicate into your teaching, it is important to first find out who you are as a person.

What is important to you in life, how you learn best, how you think others learn best and what is real to you are all important questions to ask yourself. For me, I feel I fall into two main philosophies, progressivism and existentialism. Progressivism being the philosophy that says ideas should be tested to find their truths.

This philosophy also says the value of questions from students are very important because it leads to learning.
Progressivism involves both cross discipline learning and problem solving in its instruction.
It states that learning occurs best when students are involved and experiencing ideas for themselves.

In relation existentialism says that Self-actualization, or knowing who you are before you can learn, is very important. Free will, free choice and the expression of ones own feelings are also all important aspects of existentialism. I feel like I fall into these two categories for a number of reasons.

I have always thought of myself as a free thinker and someone who likes to incorporate a lot of different aspects and experiences into what I do.
I enjoy studying those things that I find interesting and engaging.
In my classroom I would encourage my students to speak out on their interests, concerns, ideas and comments.

As a teacher I would try and find out what it is my students enjoy and feel is important. I would in turn use that information to balance my lessons and curriculum. I would also try to incorporate different subjects into my teaching as well, i.e. history into a philosophy class and visa versa.

I would do this to illustrate how a diverse education is important.
I feel this way because when you understand different aspects of learning or disciplines it is much easier to relate to and compare certain subjects.
This side of my personality I feel is suited well by both existentialism and progressivism.

Both categories have aspects of my feelings and beliefs on the abovementioned topics. Another aspect I feel that has driven me to my philosophical beliefs is my own experience in the classroom. I have always felt I have learned much better when I was given the chance to experience and question for myself the material I was being taught.

When I am lectured to I certainly retain the material but it is not always easily retrieved when I need it. On the other hand when I experiment, experience, or am involved in someway to what is being taught, I seem to retain the information much better. As a teacher I would like to present my students with a variety of activities that would stimulate them to learn in a different manner than they might be used to.

I would want them to be active participants in the classroom and in the work I would be doing with them. I would encourage them to question both what they were being taught, and myself as well as to have the desire to find out more. I think this would create a stimulus that may help them to retain the subject matter in a way they could relate to.

These are the reasons I believe I feel so strongly about progressivism as a philosophy of education.
I have found that I also believe that the involvement of my philosophies will encourage my students to be more engaged in what they are learning.
I feel as if the two philosophies together create excited students who are willing to accept learning and teaching alike.

You might be interested: What Is The Impact Of Education In Your Life?

I think that engagement would definitely direct them to participate actively in classroom activities and discussions. I feel that if students have this type of engagement it would make schools and learning both fun and enjoyable for both students and teachers.

Of course aside from my desired two philosophies there are areas of the others I also find appealing.
Just because I fall into two main categories does not mean there are aspects of the others I do not find appealing or applicable.
Some of these aspects I find useful are that perennialists believe there are everlasting truths in education.

Those are the underlying themes that are always constant in learning. I think this is true. Another aspect I can relate to is the concept that behaviorists stress organization. I feel an organized person has a much more clear view of what he or she has to accomplish, whether that be a teacher or student.

If you can see what needs to be done it is much easier to complete. A final example of my margins of philosophy is how reconstructionalists preach engagement of change. Change can sometimes be a very good thing. Whether it be changing the landscape of society or changing how something is presented in class.

Sometimes switching things up can benefit everyone. But just because I feel these concepts are admirable does not change my true philosophies. As a person and a teacher it is important to make the distinction between what you just agree with and what you truly feel is vital to your life and teaching.

It is important to know what you are passionate about. I agree with the fore-mentioned aspects of educational philosophy but I truly feel that progressivism and existentialism suite me much better as a perspective teacher. As a someday-teacher I feel that if I practice the beliefs of progressivism and existentialism I will be successful.

The results of the two philosophies combined, I feel, will create the ideal learning environment for both the instructor and the student. I feel as if my personality, beliefs and overall attitude reflect on the philosophies I have chosen. I also think that my demeanor and attitude will work congruently with those philosophies to make for the best learning situations.
View complete answer

Who are the five philosophers of education?

Principal historical figures – The history of philosophy of education is an important source of concerns and issues—as is the history of education itself—for setting the intellectual agenda of contemporary philosophers of education. Equally relevant is the range of contemporary approaches to the subject.

Although it is not possible here to review systematically either that history or those contemporary approaches, brief sketches of several key figures are offered next.
The Western philosophical tradition began in ancient Greece, and philosophy of education began with it.
The major historical figures developed philosophical views of education that were embedded in their broader metaphysical, epistemological, ethical, and political theories.

The introduction by Socrates of the “Socratic method” of questioning ( see dialectic ) began a tradition in which reasoning and the search for reasons that might justify beliefs, judgments, and actions was (and remains) fundamental; such questioning in turn eventually gave rise to the view that education should encourage in all students and persons, to the greatest extent possible, the pursuit of the life of reason.

This view of the central place of reason in education has been shared by most of the major figures in the history of philosophy of education, despite the otherwise substantial differences in their other philosophical views.
Socrates’ student Plato endorsed that view and held that a fundamental task of education is that of helping students to value reason and to be reasonable, which for him involved valuing wisdom above pleasure, honour, and other less-worthy pursuits.

In his dialogue Republic he set out a vision of education in which different groups of students would receive different sorts of education, depending on their abilities, interests, and stations in life. His utopian vision has been seen by many to be a precursor of what has come to be called educational “sorting.” Millennia later, the American pragmatist philosopher John Dewey (1859–1952) argued that education should be tailored to the individual child, though he rejected Plato’s hierarchical sorting of students into categories.

Plato’s student Aristotle also took the highest aim of education to be the fostering of good judgment or wisdom, but he was more optimistic than Plato about the ability of the typical student to achieve it. He also emphasized the fostering of moral virtue and the development of character; his emphasis on virtue and his insistence that virtues develop in the context of community-guided practice—and that the rights and interests of individual citizens do not always outweigh those of the community—are reflected in contemporary interest in “virtue theory” in ethics and “communitarianism” in political philosophy.

Jean-Jacques Rousseau (1712–78) famously insisted that formal education, like society itself, is inevitably corrupting; he argued that education should enable the “natural” and “free” development of children, a view that eventually led to the modern movement known as “open education.” These ideas are in some ways reflected in 20th-century “progressivism,” a movement often (but not always accurately) associated with Dewey.

Unlike Plato, Rousseau also prescribed fundamentally distinct educations for boys and girls, and in doing so he raised issues concerning gender and its place in education that are of central concern today.
Dewey emphasized the educational centrality of experience and held that experience is genuinely educational only when it leads to “growth.” But the idea that the aim of education is growth has proved to be a problematic and controversial one, and even the meaning of the slogan is unclear.

Dewey also emphasized the importance of the student’s own interests in determining appropriate educational activities and ends-in-view; in this respect he is usually seen as a proponent of “child-centred” education, though he also stressed the importance of students’ understanding of traditional subject matter.

While these Deweyan themes are strongly reminiscent of Rousseau, Dewey placed them in a far more sophisticated—albeit philosophically contentious—context.
He emphasized the central importance of education for the health of democratic social and political institutions, and he developed his educational and political views from a foundation of systematic metaphysics and epistemology.

Get a Britannica Premium subscription and gain access to exclusive content. Subscribe Now Of course, the history of philosophy of education includes many more figures than Socrates, Plato, Aristotle, Rousseau, and Dewey. Other major philosophers, including Thomas Aquinas, Augustine, Thomas Hobbes, René Descartes, John Locke, David Hume, Immanuel Kant, John Stuart Mill, Karl Marx, Bertrand Russell, and, more recently, R.S.

Peters in Britain and Israel Scheffler in the United States, have also made substantial contributions to educational thought. It is worth noting again that virtually all these figures, despite their many philosophical differences and with various qualifications and differences of emphasis, take the fundamental aim of education to be the fostering of rationality ( see reason ).

No other proposed aim of education has enjoyed the positive endorsement of so many historically important philosophers—although, as will be seen below, this aim has come under increasing scrutiny in recent decades.
View complete answer

Grady A. Lowry