Uppeldi og menntun - 01.01.2005, Blaðsíða 27

Noel, J. (1999). On the varieties of phronesis. Educational Philosophy and Theory, 31,
273–289.
Orton, R. E. (1998). How can teacher reasoning be practical? Educational Theory, 48,
175–192.
Oser, F. K. (1992). Morality in professional action: A discourse approach for teaching.
Í F. K. Oser, A. Dick og J.-L. Patry (Ritstj.), Effective and responsible teaching: The new
synthesis (bls. 109–125). San Fransisco: Jossey-Bass Publ.
Saugstad, T. (2002). Educational theory and practice in an Aristotelian perspective.
Scandinavian Journal of Educational Research, 46, 373–390.
Schnädelbach, H. (1987/1988). What is neo-Aristotelianism? Praxis International, 7,
225–237.
Slote, M. (1992). From morality to virtue. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Squires, G. (1999). Teaching as a professional discipline. London: Falmer.
Squires, G. (2003). Praxis: A dissenting note. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 35, 1–7.
Vilhjálmur Árnason (2003). Er heimska í siðvitinu? Um eþos, logos og frónesis í nú-
tímasiðfræði. Í Kristján Kristjánsson og Logi Gunnarsson (Ritstj.), Heimspekimessa:
Ritgerðir handa Mikael M. Karlssyni prófessor sextugum (bls. 229–245). Reykjavík:
Háskólaútgáfan.
Waring, D. (2000). Why the practice of medicine is not a phronetic activity. Theoretical
Medicine and Bioethics, 21, 139–151.
ABSTRACT
A kind of ‘neo-Aristotelianism’ that connects educational reasoning and reflection to
phronesis, and education itself to praxis, has gained considerable following in recent
educational discourse. The author identifies four cardinal claims of this phronesis-
praxis perspective: that a) Aristotle’s epistemology and methodology imply a stance
that is essentially, with regard to practical philosophy, anti-method and anti-theory;
b) ‘producing’ under the rubric of techné, as opposed to ‘acting’ under the rubric of
phronesis, is an unproblematically codifiable process; c) phronesis must be given a
particularist interpretation; and d) teaching is best understood as praxis in the Aris-
totelian sense, guided by phronesis. The author argues that these claims have insuffici-
ent grounding in Aristotle’s own writings, and that none of them stand up to
scrutiny. Viewing teaching as praxis does not aid teachers in understanding their pro-
fession.
Kristján Kristjánsson er prófessor
í heimspeki við Háskólann á Akureyri
K R I S T J Á N K R I S T J Á N S S O N
27