Encyclopedia of Educational Philosophy and Theory

2017 Edition
| Editors: Michael A. Peters

Frankena’s Model for Analyzing Philosophies of Education

  • Khosrow Bagheri Noaparast
Reference work entry
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-287-588-4_148



William Frankena (1966) has suggested a model for analyzing philosophies of education based on practical syllogism which goes back to Aristotle. Even though the deductive method in philosophy of education was the subject of attacks, Frankena’s model has been influential as it has been appealed to in religious education studies (e.g., Cohen 2010), applied branches of education (e.g., Martin 2011), as well as philosophical reflection on education (e.g., Covaleski 2007). Frankena’s model helps students to analyze philosophies of education and acquire a proper understanding of values education (Litke 1976), teacher education (Ainsworth and Johnson 2005), and workplace education (Hager 1999).

Frankena’s Model

According to Frankena (1956/1969), there have been three types of philosophizing called speculative, normative, and analytical. In...

This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.


  1. Ainsworth, S., & Johnson, A. (2005). The TTA consultation document on ITT: What, no values? In R. Gardner, J. Cairns, & D. Lawton (Eds.), Education for values: Morals, ethics, and citizenship in contemporary teaching (pp. 159–186). London: Kogan Page Limited.Google Scholar
  2. Anscombe, G. (2005). Practical inference. In M. Geach & L. Gormally (Eds.), Human life, action, and ethics: Essays (pp. 109–158). Exter and Charlottesville: Imprint Academic.Google Scholar
  3. Aristotle. (1925). Nichomachean Ethics (trans: Ross W. D.). Oxford: The Clerendon Press.Google Scholar
  4. Cohen, J. (2010). Enacting the eclectic: The case of Jewish philosophy. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 30(2), 207–231.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Covaleski, John (2007) Knowledge, Skills, and Dispositions: Do I need a philosophy of education, too? Philosophy of Education, pp. 209–211.Google Scholar
  6. Dahl, N. (1984). Practical reason, Aristotle, and weakness of the will. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.Google Scholar
  7. Frankena, W. (1966). A model for analyzing a philosophy of education. The High School Journal, 50(1), 8–13.Google Scholar
  8. Frankena, W. (1956/1969). Toward a philosophy of philosophy of education. In C. Lucan (Ed.), What is philosophy of education? (pp. 286–291). Toronto: The McMillan.Google Scholar
  9. Hager, P. (1999). Finding a good theory of workplace learning. In D. Boud & J. Garrick (Eds.), Understanding learning at work. London/New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  10. Litke, R. (1976). Who is to say what be taught? In J. Meyer, B. Burnham and J. Cholvat (Ed.), Reflections on values education (pp. 89–111). Waterloo: Wilfred Laurier University Press.Google Scholar
  11. Martin, R. J. (2011). Education reconfigured: Culture, encounter and change. London/New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  12. Schipp, P. A., & Hahn, L. D. (Eds.). (1989). The philosophy of Georg Henrik von Wright. Illinois: Open Court.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Singapore 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Faculty of Psychology and EducationUniversity of TehranTehranIslamic Republic of Iran