Is philosophy really bent?
- Heather Enzie
- Feb 13, 2018
- 3 min read
What is the philosophical context/argument being explored?

Today’s landscape in education has shifted, or tends to be skewed, towards an increased interest in science- based measurement education that is grounded in statistical quantification. The author sees this as a movement, away from deep thinking to routine measurement, as a move in the wrong direction. The author contends that thinking deeply (through the lens of philosophy) allows us to sustain our democracies and respect diversity and difference. (Mayo, C. 2011). The questions that are examined include the extent to which philosophy is still relevant in this field, and the extent to which problematizing education may push our field forward. There is an inherent danger in simplifying the thinking in the education by pushing philosophy to the fringes.
The problem- solving approach that is suggested by the author indicates that; “students can think through the dangers caused by certainty but also maintain a curiosity about how to approach these problems.” (Mayo, C. 2001, pg. 3). In fact, the author contends that educational philosophy may give students that incentive to think about “openness to innovation and challenge” and a firm sense of why it’s important to think about everything that we do.
The new accountabilities and realities have made it very difficult to get people to go towards philosophy as a means of discourse, with too much accentuation on “acting” then “thinking”. In discourse, this is where we are more likely to engage with new ideas.
This time out for thinking is a concept that has validity. Since Philosophy is thinking and acting in a way that is not interested in certain outcomes, Mayo suggests that it allows us to think about the future without worrying about pragmatic concerns of routine measurement, that may ruin the potential of education. I like this idea of disruption of normal time to give way to thinking time. Mayo captures this succinctly with this statement: “There are imaginative possibilities that arise in the process of learning together and that shift people, challenging who they were and moving them into places and ideas they hadn’t anticipated.” (Mayo, C. 2011, pg. 6).
How do the ideas/arguments relate to the working definitions you have developed in the Glossary?
I think the relevancy of this article is very tied to all four of our working definitions. Teaching and learning should exist in a questioning environment that is described in Mayo’s work. Without the thinking space and discourse, we are not likely to move students past superficial rote learning. “Learning allows people to build and adjust schema to form new understandings every time they engage with situations or content.” (Enzie, H. 811 post). Teaching requires that we adjust our thinking and that may be more likely to happen if we put ourselves into conversations that require us to think beyond what we already know.
In terms of innovation and creativity, this article contains many routes to both. Philosophical thinking allows us the space to think about possibilities and futures without being stuck in present accountability. “Innovation will require us to ignite a more interdisciplinary mindset, to borrow the best ideas from multiple disciplines, to design and build solutions to our wicked problems.” (Enzie, H. 811 post). Creativity means that we can recognize that things can be done differently and challenge the status quo to push ideas beyond our comfort zones- this can be done using the philosophical thinking as described in the article.
What questions do you have of the author(s) after having read the article?
How will we get students to value discussion and thinking that is not “measured”?
How do we get an appropriate balance in our practices between pragmatic action and innovative thinking and discourse?
Enzie, H. (2018). 811 Posts located at: https://onq.queensu.ca/d2l/le/172931/discussions/topics/292376/View
Mayo, C. (2011). Philosophy of education is bent. Studies in Philosophy and Education, 30(5), 471–476. doi: 10.1007/s11217-011-9248-5
Comments