Teaching Philosophy

What effect, if any, can we expect undergraduate ethics courses to have on students’ ethical beliefs, self-concept, and behavior? After a brief discussion of apparent theoretical and practical obstacles to moral education in ethics courses, we explain and discuss our effort to provide preliminary answers to that question via an empirical study of students enrolled in several sections of our university’s Introductory Ethics course. We found modest but statistically significant effects in many areas, which seem to indicate that those who would like to see their ethics courses have a positive impact on students’ moral lives have reason for optimism. We conclude with a discussion of pedagogical implications of our study, along with its limitations and directions for future research.

This article assesses undergraduate teaching students’ assertion that there are no right and wrong answers in teaching philosophy. When asked questions about their experiences of philosophy in the classroom for primary children, their unanimous declaration that teaching philosophy has ‘no right and wrong answers’ is critically examined across the three sub-disciplinary areas to which they were generally referring, namely, pedagogy, ethics, and epistemology. From a pedagogical point of view, it is argued that some teach­ing approaches may indeed be more effective than others, and some pupils’ opinions less defensible, but pedagogically, in terms of managing the power relations in the classroom, it is counter-productive to continually insist on notions of truth and falsity at every point. From an ethical point of view, it is contended that anti-realist approaches to meta-ethics may represent a viable intellectual position, but from the point of view of normative ethics, notions of right and wrong still retain significant currency. From an epistemological point of view, it is argued using Karl Popper’s work that while it may be difficult to determine what constitutes a right answer, determining a wrong one is far more straightforward. In conclusion, it is clear that prospective teachers engaging in philosophy in the classroom, and also future teachers in general, require a far more nuanced philosophical understanding of the notions of right and wrong and truth and falsity. In view of this situation, if we wish to promote the effective teaching of philosophical thinking to children, or produce educators who can understand the conceptual limits of the claims they make and their very real and often serious practical and social consequences, it is recommended that philosophy be reinstated to a fundamental, foundational place within the pre-service teaching curriculum.

The assessment of student learning is widely regarded with suspicion. Philosophers in particular have been reluctant to take this practice seriously. The essay reviews an ongoing effort to assess the development of philosophical dispositions among undergraduate students at a religiously affiliated liberal arts college. The procedure used in this effort as well as the results obtained so far strongly suggest that the deep learning valued most highly by philosophy teachers can be measured without harm to the teaching enterprise. The essay argues that in light of a current cultural climate that fails to recognize the value of our enterprise, philosophers would be well advised to clearly define our particular learning goals, develop our own instruments, and to exercise more initiative in assessing our students learning.

Four books in the area of critical thinking will be reviewed in this article. One of them is not like the others. The first book reviewed is not a critical-thinking text; it is a compilation of papers presented at a conference about critical thinking. The other three are intended as critical-thinking texts best suited for lower-division college courses. Limitations of space do not allow for a detailed review of the conference papers. It is also difficult to capture generally applicable features to review given the divergence of content and perspectives. I have elected to provide a paragraph summary for each conference paper. The pattern followed for reviewing the three critical-thinking texts is consistent: content and layout, audience, and strengths and weaknesses.

The primary purpose of this study is to identify differences in at­tainment of learning outcomes for ethics courses delivered using two distinct teaching approaches. The first approach uses a case based method in the context of applied moral issues within medical practice. The second approach surveys moral theories in the context of applied moral issues. Significant differences are found in the attainment of learner outcomes between the two groups. In particular, attainment of outcomes related to moral decision-making is higher in those students who take the course with a case based method. In contrast, attainment of outcomes related to personal beliefs about applied moral issues is higher in those students who take an introductory ethics course surveying moral theories in the context of applied issues. Neither of these results is especially surprising. What may be surprising, however, is that students in the case-based course do not appear attain learner outcomes with regard to applied moral issues despite studying those issues in detail. Finally, the assessment tool developed and refined through this study may be of use for assessment in a variety of ethics courses.

I describe and articulate the merits of an elegant supplemental exercise that I call “Philosophy in the Wild” (PW), which has students initiating a philosophical dialogue outside the classroom and critically reflecting on the results. The PW exercise is especially effective if used to reinforce philosophic texts which have dialogue as their form or as their subject matter (or both)—for instance, Plato’s Apology and Meno. However, the PW exercise is also an engaging, effective way simply to introduce students to the practice and the value of philosophy.

This paper is a critical examination of Daryl Close’s “Fair Grades” (2009). I dispute his view regarding the implications of accepting the purpose of grades as being fundamentally informational. I draw upon data identifying behaviors conducive to success and Carol Dweck’s work to argue for broadening what can be taken into account for a final grade. I argue that the informational purpose of final grades is preserved if we grade with an eye to encouraging general skills and dispositions conducive to success. Also, grading as Close recommends will discourage learning whereas using grades to reinforce positive behaviors is a fulfillment of our responsibility to enhance learning. I also address Close’s claims that curved grading and grade penalties for academic dishonesty are unfair and argue that neither of these practices necessarily corrupts final grades.

Popular culture is ubiquitous. And referencing popular culture can be an excellent pedagogical tool. Used properly, it provides students with easily accessible examples—in some cases examples they have already been interested in. Given these facts, the creation and expansion of the literature on the intersection of popular culture and philosophy is not surprising. The purpose of these volumes has been controversial since their inception, but they do seem ideally suited as introductory texts. This essay examines four recent volumes in popular culture and philosophy as pedagogical tools. These volumes on Sherlock Holmes, Christmas, Dr. Seuss, and Facebook all offer unique and useful tools for the teacher attempting to introduce students to philosophy.