Evolution of English Language Assessment: A Critical Account

1. Introduction

Educational curricula across the ‘secular territories’ of the world often claim to be promoting neutral and secular knowledge through textbooks and teaching in formal instructional settings. But looking into these documents and the practices critically may help us unveil the concept of ‘legitimate knowledge’; the political motivation for such construction; and the game of power, domination and marginalization they involve. Language learning being one of the most important parts of education has been exploited as an agency through which recursive and coercive practices like ‘selection’ and ‘judgment’ are carried out effectively. And thus, language policy of a nation is often found favouring the knowledge domain(s) of the power-holding section(s) of the nation. It does not democratically represent all sections of the society in terms of the languages, cultures, beliefs, political adherence, economic and social status, etc. This kind of practice may not be blatantly intentional. But one may wonder why and how such practices find their way into language policies sometimes in the name of ‘secularization’ or what Weber calls ‘rationalization’. This is actually a very clever way of constructing and moulding the consciousness of the dominated class(es) without being overtly resorting to mechanisms of social control. (Apple, 1979)

Historically proven to be a powerful social tool, language testing is used by language policy makers to promote a desired and favoured section of society as winners and accepted ones, and the rest as losers, failures and rejected ones. Though voices have been raised against the door-keeping nature of tests and attempts have been made to make testing student- and learning-friendly, we still continue to be acknowledged by our performance in high stake standardized tests like TOEFL and IELTS. However, a better picture of such undemocratic practices can be obtained if one looks into the history of English Language Assessment.  

2. Stages in Evolution

English language assessment has a history that runs parallel to that of English language teaching, and thus, it seems to have evolved in line with changes in approach to language teaching. First Spolsky (1975), and then Brown (1996), Bachman (2000), etc have tried to look at the developments in the field of language assessment through stages though all of them agreed that the divisions should not be interpreted as watertight compartments with exclusive features. Apart from using the major trends described by the above mentioned authors, I have also added a section on the recent advances in language assessment that includes the rise in awareness about social dimensions and exploration of alternative forms of assessment. 

2.1 The Beginning: English Language Testing and the British Stronghold

English language testing began in the 15^th century, the time when English Language Teaching was in its infancy. Henry V started an English Language policy according to which French was to be replaced by English as the language of royal correspondence. There arose the need of teaching English to people. But the decisions related to teaching and testing methods were taken by tutors. That did not lead to growth in teaching and testing since it was not allowed to spread among the mass. But after 16^th century when attempts were made to define and conceptualize language, serious attention was paid to developing methods of teaching English. With Johann Christian Fick’s ‘Practical English Course’ (1793) and John Miller’s ‘The Tutor’ (1797), ELT was on the track of productive research, theorization and experimentation. However, English language testing had to wait until 1913 to take the shape of modern standardized tests. The University of Cambridge sent papers to British colonies to examine 10 candidates in 1863 and continued to do so till the end of the century. The number of candidates kept growing and reached 1220 in 36 centres in different colonies by 1898. It is only in 1913, Certificate of Proficiency in English examination was started to give foreign-qualifiers a status of proficient user of the language. The hegemony of English and simultaneously, standardized tests has been continuing since then. During all these years, examinations focused on test items, and the manner of testing took a back-seat.

If the British started the linguistic imperialism through English Language Education, Americans were not far behind. Spolsky (1993) talks about how the US immigration department used English language test as a tool of control to rationalize the inflow of immigrant students to the country in the early 1920s. The ‘prognosis tests’ were seriously segregating and elitist in nature. The whole world does not seem to have broken free of the organized filtering practiced through language tests developed by the US and the UK. 

2.2 Grammar-Translation Approach and Testing

The pre-Lado period, i.e., the period before 1960s in testing bears a strong influence of Grammar-Translation Approach to language teaching. It is surprising that the newly emerging linguistic awareness in language pedagogy did not seem to have affected language testing in the first half of the twentieth century. The emphasis on detailed analysis of grammar rules and using this knowledge for translating sentences from L1 to English (as an L2 or a foreign language) and vice-versa confined language learning to memorization of rules and vocabulary. Consequently, language testing focused on the accurate and error-free reading, writing and translating ability of learners and also their ability to remember vocabulary in the target language. Testing oral proficiency and ability to use language for communicative purposes were never in the agenda of test-designers. But the tests were easy to design, and assigning marks was quite time-saving. A very good example of such tests could be The Charter's Diagnostic Language Test and the Pressey English Test which tested Grammar, Punctuation, Capitalization, and Sentence Structure. Lack of objectivity and statistical analysis marred the efficiency of these tests. Hence, this period is called ‘pre-scientific’ by Spolsky (1978).

If we look at the tests of this period a little more closely, we can realize that they indirectly favoured students from elite backgrounds. The overemphasis on the use and learning of classical texts; the amount of time needed to learn the structures; the affinity between the languages of the elites and the textbooks; the role of the teacher (mostly from upper classes) as the unquestionable authority in the classroom; etc are indications that students from socioculturally and economically disadvantaged background were never considered in sympathetic light by the policy makers. Moreover, these tests were used as means to declare students from such classes as mentally underdeveloped and thus, unfit for learning in formal settings.

2.3 The Structuralist Approach to Testing

The Grammar-Translation approach to testing was found inappropriate and ineffective and replaced by what Spolsky (1978) calls a ‘psychometric-structuralist’ trend in the 1960s. This trend bore the influence of behaviourists like Skinner and structural linguists like Fries and Bloomfield. Language learning was perceived as a process of habit formation, and language testing was a process of measuring language skills and elements of language at discrete levels. Once again, individual student and context were neglected in the name of science, objectivity, validity, reliability and precision.

During this period, students were encouraged to compete with each other as test scores got ultimate importance.  Individual abilities took the backseat. A fixed standard was created through discrete-point testing to test language ability of students. Passing and failing were prioritized over learning. All these led to what Foucault (1971) calls “appearance of a new modality of power in which each individual receives as his status his own individuality”, and in this framework individuals were confined to being ‘cases’ (Foucault, 1971). The students were the worst sufferers in this case because they were forced to confirm to a set of predicted behaviour. This, in turn, resulted in the suppression and loss of natural learning abilities of students.

2.4 Integrative Approach to Testing

The opposition to discrete-point testing gave rise to an integrative approach to language testing, i.e., a combination of psycholinguistic and sociolinguistic approaches. Influenced by cognitive psychology and learning theories, the psycholinguistic view of learning challenged the theories proposed by Saussure and Bloomfield. Chomsky’s theories about language and learning acted as a driving force. Language testing, under the influence of this theory, shifted its emphasis from linguistic accuracy to functional ability. Language tests adhered to problem-solving approaches and were expected to reveal what underlying rules the learners had internalized. The sociolinguistic views of language, on the other hand, were guided by Hymes (1972) who emphasized that the social context of a message is as important as its linguistic context. Accordingly, a language test was expected to measure one’s ability to use linguistic elements and skills communicatively and appropriately in a given social situation.

Even the inclusion of contextual tests could not solve the problems of language testing. The social and cultural dimensions of the tests were overlooked. The linguistic, cultural and social minorities were victimized by the contexts in which language items were tested. The only excuse for their alienation was the impossibility of accommodating a variety of contexts in any single test. This could be interpreted as a hidden agenda that promoted a ‘unilateral intellectual authoritarianism’. There is no need to mention who or which section of the society benefitted the most from it.    

2.5 Communicative Approach to Testing

Hymes’ model of “communicative competence” continued to guide the field of language testing in Europe and America till the 1980s. In 1980s and the early 1990s, the language testing models proposed by Morrow (1979), Canale and Swain (1980) and Bachman (1990) who emphasized on testing both, competence and performance of the learner gained in popularity and importance. Bachman (1990) defined language ability as a combination of two components: “language competence”, i.e., a variety of language knowledge and “strategic competence”, i.e., a set of metacognitive strategies. Bachman and Palmer (1996) took up from where Hymes had left. They argued that the construct and context of tests must be defined clearly; the materials and test tasks must be as authentic as possible; and real life situation must form the background of all test items. In addition, they asserted that a test must take into account and measure linguistic, sociolinguistic, discourse, and strategic competences.

Despite the inclusiveness and convincing nature of the communicative framework of testing, it has not become a part of the mass practice across the globe. This suggests that there is an obvious gap between theory and practice. The student-centredness which is often preached and unanimously agreed upon in any discussion related to language pedagogy has not really acquired practical propositions. We need to bridge this gap.

2.6 Critical Language Assessment and Alternatives in/ to Assessment

Language testing has been growingly recognized at as a political and ideological phenomenon deeply rooted in society and culture. Simultaneously, attempts have been made to explore these dimensions of language testing. The process of looking critically at testing started long time ago when Henry Latham (1877) criticized ‘encroaching power’ of examinations which he thought had a biasing effect on education. Almost a century later, similar kind of complaint was heard from Foacault (1977):

“…the examination is at the centre of the procedures that constitute the individual as effect and object of power, as effect and object of knowledge. It is the examination which, by combining hierarchical surveillance and normalizing judgement, assures the great disciplinary functions of distribution and classification, maximum extraction of forces and time, continuous genetic accumulation, optimum combination of aptitudes and, thereby, the fabrication of cellular, organic, genetic and combinatory individuality.”

Foucault might have been inspired by Paulo Freire’s (1970) masterpiece ‘Pedagogy of the Oppressed’. But both of them surely had some impact on the discipline of Applied Linguistics which was taking shape during the last part of 1970s. However, language education, especially language testing took a lot of time to accommodate critical perspectives in its discourse. The concepts of anxiety, bias, hegemony, democracy, marginalization, dominance, ideology, etc started to be taken seriously only in the 1980s, i.e., the time when Norman Fairclough (1989) published his monumental text ‘Language and Power’. This again shows that educational changes can be felt more strongly in the form of political visions than practical options.

During the 1990s, experts in language testing like Spolsky, Tim McNamara, Elana Shohamy, etc tried to go beyond the linguistic boundaries and look at language testing as a powerful educational tool that is used for social, political, cultural, and above all, ideological control. These advocates of fairness and ethics in language testing got solid support from the evolving discipline of Critical Applied Linguistics. The result is evident in concepts like critical language testing, democratic assessment (Shohamy, 2001), alternative assessments (Huerta-Macías, 1995), fairness (Kunnan, 2000), bias (Shepard, 1981), etc.

Looking critically at language testing has led to search for alternatives ‘in’ and ‘to’ assessment. Brown and Hudson (1998) list checklists, journals, logs, videotapes, audiotapes, self-evaluation, teacher observations, portfolios, conferences, diaries, self-assessments, and peer assessments as alternatives in assessments. These alternatives may be used as substitutes to what we call ‘testing’. They provide options that may help us move beyond technicalities of language testing and endear testing as a useful tool that can promote learning in formal educational centres. Moreover, they have paved way for a broad framework that can accommodate a variety of individual learning styles and preferences while acknowledging the identity and abilities of every single learner.  

3. Conclusion

This paper is an attempt at revisiting the history of English language testing in critical light. The aim is not to deny the necessity of tests. From the ancient example of the Shibboleth test in the Bible to the modern day tests like the Australian Dictation Test (1901), the Golden Rule Settlement (1940), Fruit Machine (1950), the Occupational English Test (1983), TOEFL, etc, language testing has proved to be more inhuman than human; more autocratic than democratic; and more a device of control than one promoting freedom. It is high time we mould it in such a way that it accommodates our multilingual and multicultural diversities; and individual preferences, personality traits, ideologies and beliefs.

References

Apple, M. W. (1979). Ideology and Curriculum. London: Routledge.

Bachman, L. F. (1990). Fundamental considerations in language testing. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Bachman, L. F. (2000). Modern language testing at the turn of the century:  Assuring that what we count counts. Language Testing, 17, 1-42.

Bachman, L. F., & Palmer, A. S. (1996). Language testing in practice: Designing and developing useful language tests. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Brown, J. D. (1996). Testing in language programs. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall Regents.

Brown, J. D., & Hudson, T. (1998). Alternatives in language assessment. TESOL Quarterly, 32(4), 653-675.

Canale, M., & Swain, M. (1980). Theoretical bases of communicative approaches to second language teaching and testing. Applied Linguistics, 1, 1-47.

Fairclough, N. (1989). Language and Power. London: Longman.

Foucault, M. (1977). Discipline and Punish: The Birth of the Prison. London: Penguin Books.

Freire, P. (1970). Pedagogy of the oppressed. New York, NY: Herder & Herder.

Huerta-Macias, A. (1995). Alternative assessment: Responses to commonly asked questions. TESOL Journal 5, 8–11

Hymes, D. (1972). On Communicative Competence. In J.B. Pride & J.Holmes (Eds.). Sociolinguistics. Harmondsworth, England:Penguin Books.

Kunnan, A. J. (Ed.). (2000). Fairness and validation in language assessment:  Selected papers from the 19th language testing research colloquium, Orlando. New York: Cambridge University Press.

Latham, H. (1877). On the Action of Examinations Considered as a Means of Selection Cambridge: Deighton, Bell.

Morrow, K. (1979). Communicative language testing: revolution or evolution? In Brumfit, C. J. and Johnson, K., (Eds.), The communicative approach to language teaching. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 143–57.

Shepard, L.A. (1981). Identifying bias in test items. In B.F. Green (Ed.), New directions in testing and measurement: Issues in testing-Coaching, disclosure, and test bias. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 79-104

Shohamy, E. (2001). Democratic assessment as an alternative. Language Testing 18, 4, 373 –392.

Spolsky, B. (1978). Introduction: Linguistics and language testers. In B. Spolsky (Ed.), Advances in language testing series: 2. Arlington, VA: Center for Applied Linguistics

Spolsky, B. (1978). (Ed.). Approached to Language Testing. Papers in Applied Linguistics. ERIC ED 16548

Spolsky, B. (1993). Testing of English of Foreign Students in 1930. ERIC 2002.

Spolsky, B. (1975). Language testing – the problem of validation. In L. Palmer & B. Spolsky (Eds.). Papers on Language Testing 1967-1974. Washington, D.FC.: TESOL. 147-53.

Applied Philosophy of Education: A Need for Today’s Teachers

Abstract

At the outset of the 21^st century when the practical and utilitarian dimensions of education are considered very important and strengthened, teachers are required to broaden their knowledge-base so as to be able to make productive pedagogic decisions in this direction. Here arises the need for providing professional help to the teacher during teacher education programmes. Educating teachers about different kinds of knowledge (Schulman, 1986) can be of help in this regard. But the whole process of teaching and learning can serve its purpose effectively if teachers develop and construct a sound conceptual base in philosophy of education and apply that in addressing various education-related problems in their respective contexts. The current paper aims at establishing this belief and tries to prove that an application-oriented version of philosophy of education can surely guide teachers in choosing appropriate approaches and methods; shaping their attitudes and belief systems; and working towards achieving the highest goals of education.  

   

1. Changing Educational Goals and Demands on the Teacher

Changes in the social, cultural, political, economic, etc spheres of human life have been inextricably present in every age and stage of history. These changes are often the product of human thinking as much as human thinking shapes them. But these changes are not equally contributed by every citizen in the society. Often, there is a politically dominant group that decides the course of change though it is also true that no single group remains as the dominant force forever. There has been resistance and there have been power struggles. This is in fact a continuous process. Amidst these societal changes across history, ‘education’ has been playing a powerful role. It has helped diverse sections of the society in very dissimilar ways. Some have used it for maintaining domination; a few have learnt to resist domination; some have found reconciliation; and some others have confirmed to the dominant social ways. But all these groups of people are guided by different philosophies and ideologies. Thus, there are many philosophers and philosophies of education. The educational goals of a particular society on a point in history may not be the same for the people living in the same place after a century. With the change in educational goals, a lot of other things like approaches to teaching, demands on the teacher, prescribed curricular knowledge and skills, etc also change.

1.1 Education in India: Goals and Teacher Roles at Different Stages

The Vedic education system advocated ‘liberation’ as the ultimate goal (Altekar, 1948; Scharfe, 2002; Singh, 2008). In this connection, Scharfe (2002) points out that ancient Indian education emphasized on “grammar, religious literature and logic, whereas physics, chemistry, biology and geography were largely neglected - except in the teachings of the Jainas”. The educational values were highly religious and favoured a certain class of people. Since the curriculum designers and policy makers were Brahmans, a curriculum solely concentrating on the components pointed out by Scharfe was found relevant and useful. Moreover, the teacher was one of the most revered persons in the society and had equal status as gods (Altekar, 1948). He was compulsorily required to be a Brahman, proficient in Sanskrit and Vedas and of very high moral character (Sharma and Sharma, 1996). 

In contrast, Buddhist education system which had the ultimate aim of “alleviation of all suffering” (Nithiyanandam, 2004: p. 12) was for the mass. It was a rival to the Brahmanic system of education in many ways in the sense that the medium of instruction was not Sanskrit, the language of the upper classes; and it was less rigorous and more convenient than that of the Vedic system. However, it was totally managed and controlled by monks. A monk could only become a teacher. The teacher was expected to have high moral character and be free from all worldly attachments. It was also very important for the teacher to be well-versed in disciplinary knowledge. It was believed that the teacher was the one who could lead his students to realization of nirvana.

When compared to the Vedic and Buddhist philosophies of education and the teacher roles in the respective systems, the modern education system in India does not overtly support values of any particular religion and promote the education of people of one caste or class over others. At least, the policy documents try to maintain a democratic tone. The teacher needs to have a B. Ed. or M. Ed. degree and meet some other standards set by the National Council of Teacher Education (NCTE). Moral character of teachers is not an essential qualification, and asceticism is not a requirement. A teacher in today’s education system is like any other citizen of the country. A teacher can be a male or a female.

1.2 Western Education System: Plato’s Days and Modern Times

The above discussion suggests that teacher roles have changed with change in the basic philosophy of education, and thus, teachers have played dissimilar roles at different stages in the history of humanity. The case is not very different when it comes to Western systems of education. The aim of education according to Plato was to prepare ideal citizens for an ideal society like the one described in The Republic. He advocated extreme ways of educating children to get them ready for an idealistic and futuristic society. A teacher, according to Plato, must have the power to teach his pupils; and make them use their potential to the extent that they could explore knowledge on their own. Following Socrates as the ideal teacher, Plato believed that teachers are not mere “instructors who instill knowledge but rather as “midwives” whose job is simply to help give birth to those ideas that are already within us” (New World Encyclopedia).

By today’s standards, Plato’s philosophy of education could be termed as undemocratic, impractical, elitist, divisive, etc though his views about the roles of teacher could still be identified with the modern view of teachers as facilitators. But it should be remembered that Plato’s views could have been suitable for the society he lived in and the modern view is appropriate for today’s society.

2. Dilemmas and Paradoxes for the Teacher

In this age of aggressive marketization and globalization, the teacher is faced with a number of dilemmas in relation to the ultimate aim/s of education, the legitimate and acceptable version of knowledge, the prescribed approaches to teaching, etc. Like any other human being, a teacher is socially situated and has a set of beliefs about education, pedagogy, knowledge, etc. But when one acquires the role of a teacher, he/she also has to think about the societal educational goals, the beliefs of socio-politically dominant group about education, and the moral and ethical duties of a teacher in preparing students so that they can become responsible members of a democratic society and maintain its sanctity through their social practices. So the teacher lands in a situation in which he/she may have to choose between options; accept or reject certain ideas; and compromise with or confirm to certain other ways. It is a paradoxical crossroad where there may be a clash among what the teacher “wants to do”, what he/she “should do” and what he/she “does”. The control exercised by political parties in power, hidden agenda, etc on educational curriculum further adds to their difficulties.

The scenario described above may sound bleak and hopeless to an extent but the possibility that teachers can overcome these hindrances is always there. However, they need professional support to defeat these odds and impart effective education. In this connection, the importance of pre- and in-service teacher education programmes is enormous. In these programmes teachers can be trained in philosophy of education for some valid reasons. The very fact that education is fast becoming a serious public matter that remains under constant scrutiny of stakeholders is strong enough a reason to equip teachers with skills and knowledge that can help them handle the demands of parents and experts about how to guide children and handle their education-related problems. The knowledge-base may include what Peters (1977) calls “the rudiments of disciplined philosophical thought and with those parts of psychology and the social sciences which are of particular relevance to his complex task” (p. 87). Teachers can make use of this knowledge to reflect philosophically on what they do in their respective classrooms; convince the stakeholders involved in the process of education about their decisions; and promote critical yet liberal and democratic education.    

3. Philosophy of Education in Teacher Education Programmes

The dilemmas and paradoxes for the teacher as discussed in the previous section are related equally to both theory and practice. It has also been argued that teachers need to have good understanding of what education is; the theoretical foundations on which it has been based; its aims; and the role of a teacher. Teacher education being a vital part of any modern formal education system should therefore help teachers acquire and internalize the aforesaid necessary components.

There are arguments that teaching is a craft and requires very little or no theoretical knowledge about education. But even such a view cannot deny the interplay of factors like personal experience, observation, reflection, self-realization, etc in a teaching-learning context. It is also true that these factors are on an individual plane and may get operated in idiosyncratic ways. It implies that education as a field is incomplete without theoretical knowledge which is philosophical in nature. However, philosophical foundations are always subject to constant debate and their place and importance in the educational curriculum are decided by the decision making bodies of the government. For example in India, philosophy of education, as Sheshadri (2008) puts it, refers at times to the “undifferentiated discourse (sometimes empirical, sometimes historical and generally hortatory) about aims, curriculum, methodology and other aspects of education” and at other times to the “application of the speculative thesis (metaphysical, epistemological, axiological) of general philosophy”. This kind of mindset has affected Indian education system and as a result, philosophy of education gets unjustly inadequate attention in the teacher education programmes in the country. Therefore, there should be more research and discussion on to establish that philosophy of education is an obligatory “conceptual toolbox for thinking about educational problems” (Winch, 2012).

3.1 Eclectic and Applied Philosophy of Education

Education involves acquisition of knowledge, skills, values, etc. It is the duty of the teacher to ensure that students learn these components and apply the same in their real life situations. But one of the highest goals of education, i.e. preparing learners to be independent in their thinking and be able to apply their thinking skills to questioning and analyzing social practices cannot be achieved if the teacher makes students follow a certain pattern of thinking. If trained in only a certain way of thinking believed and practiced by the teacher, the student may not make use of his/her critical faculty and true potential. The teacher, however, cannot be blamed for his/her actions in such situations because the way a teacher thinks and acts is dependent on his/her socio-cultural background and the formal pre- and in-service education or training. Though the sociocultural background cannot be changed, a teacher can be educated to think critically and independently and be eclectic in his/her approach and promote the same in his/her in his/her students during teacher education programmes. Even if it is agreed that philosophy of education is an indispensable component for teachers and therefore should be a part of the foundation courses in teacher education programmes, there will be still questions like “what kind of philosophy of education”, “how to make teachers realize about its utilities and applications”, etc to be answered. These questions should be dealt with carefully and wisely as there are no simple answers to these.

Starting from educational planning and policy making to research and teaching, everything is based on a broad perspective of education which is philosophical in nature and represents interests and beliefs of most of the stakeholders. The national educational documents in India like National Curriculum Framework, National Curriculum Framework for Teacher Education, National Knowledge Commission, etc are based on concepts like “social deliberation”, “knowledge construction”, “fertile and robust education”, “pluralism”, “equity”, “equality”, “reduction of disparity”, etc. So at all levels, it is expected that education should serve the purpose of the democratic polity of the country, improve the living standard both qualitatively and materially, empower children to think critically and act responsibly in their respective future personal and professional endeavors, and so on. Though these aims are not exactly concrete in nature and do not have an immediate material dimension to their bearings, still they are very essential for improving lifestyles of citizens of the country and preserving their democratic rights. So to ensure that children are trained in the aforesaid areas and directions, teachers need to be prepared accordingly. They need to understand the educational ideologies proposed by famous philosophers so that they have a variety of tools of thinking and reflection in their armory. They may not have to rigidly follow any one philosophy and impose the same on their students. An eclectic approach in which the teacher can select from a variety of philosophies of education and develop a philosophical base for handling challenges and problems in the classroom and the educational institute can be a reliable option. It is the responsibility of teacher educators to train and sensitize teachers about this.

The next question is how to convince and sensitize teachers about the use of philosophy of education. As there is already evidence that teachers who have a strong foundation in philosophical vision for teaching during pre-service teacher education find it easy to cope with challenges of teaching in the initial years than others who do not have (Kosnik and Beck, 2009), the focus should be on what should go into their training in philosophy of education. A Deweyan approach with a constructivist dimension to training in which teachers are provided real life classroom problems related to methodology, teaching materials, learner and learning, organizational difficulties, policy issues, fairness and bias in curricular decisions, etc and asked to come up with solutions using ideas from different philosophies of education. This could prove to be an excellent exercise through which teachers can be made to realize the importance and utility of philosophy of education. They will also be in a position to analyze their own beliefs about teaching and learning, societal educational needs, operation of ideology and agenda in education and formation of identity against their philosophical knowledge-base.

4. Possibilities and Hopes

Though ‘Philosophy’ as a discipline has been quite popular, it has been kept at a distance from educational issues. This has also been reflected in educational research which has been dominated by measurable and observation empirical research. The problem is, however, not about heading on empirical directions. It is about forgetting and neglecting the very foundation of education. Philosophy of education holds the identity of the field and has been accepted by many great philosophers in the history as the basis of educational thinking, planning and execution. It should be given its deserving place in the teacher education curriculum so that teachers can prepare critical, responsible and knowledgeable future citizens who will help in building a truly democratic society. However, these lofty goals can be achieved if philosophy of education is presented as an application-oriented subject in teacher education programmes and a problem-solving approach is followed to train teachers in the same.       

References

Altekar, A. S. (1948). Education in Ancient India. Banares: Nand Kishore & Bros.

Kosnik, C. and Beck, C. (2009). Priorities in teacher education: The 7 key elements of preservice preparation. New York: Routledge.

National Council of Educational Research and Training. (2005). National curriculum framework 2005. New Delhi: NCERT.

National Council of Teacher Education, (2010). National Curriculum Framework for Teacher Education, 2010. New Delhi: NCTE

National Knowledge Commission (2007). National Knowledge Commission: Recommendations  on School Education. New Delhi: NKC.

Nithiyanandam, V. (2004). Buddhist System of Education. Delhi: Global Vision Publishing House.

Peters, R. S. (1977). Education and the Education of Teachers. London; Henley; Boston: Routledge

Plato. New World Encyclopedia. Retrieved from http://www.newworldencyclopedia.org/entry/plato.

Scharfe, H. (2002). Education in Ancient India. Leiden; Boston; Koln : Brill

Schulman, L. (1986).  Those who understand: Knowledge growth in teaching. Educational Researcher, 15 (2), 4-14.

Sharma, R. N. and Sharma, R. K. (1996). History of Education in India. New Delhi: Atlantic Publishers & Distributors.

Sheshadri, C. (2008). Philosophy of Education as a Knowledge Field. NEUPA. Retrieved from www.nuepa.org/Download/Eminent_Seshadri_22042008_Report.pdf.

Singh, Y. K. (2008). Philosophical Foundation of Education. New Delhi: A. P. H. Publishing Corporation.

Winch, C. (2012). For philosophy of education in teacher education. Oxford Review of Education, 38:3, 305-322.