ABSTRACT
Despite their eminence, the educational thinkers discussed in this section demonstrated, for the most part, both strengths and weaknesses in their output. Although we highlight all their contributions to education and human development, we also draw clear attention to the flaws in each thinker’s philosophical, theoretical, or practitioner-based framework. For example, despite limited primary sources, we have some knowledge of Aristotle’s views on education; he strongly believed that the pursuit of education is a sine qua non activity in order for one to achieve the good life-that is, to flourish and engage in skills that strengthen the mind, body, and soul. At the same time, Aristotle did not believe that girls and women should receive formal education (Everson 1996). As another example, for decades, William Kilpatrick’s work on the Project Method served as a foundational model in schools. However, critics of Kilpatrick’s method argued that he overwhelmingly emphasized trait and character at the expense of cognitive development and general content knowledge (Beyer 1997).
