Tone Saugstad

Educational Theory and Practice in an Aristotelian Perspective

Despite a historical distance, Aristotles discussion of different forms of knowledge, in particular in the Nicomachean Ethics, offers a novel perspective on the modern understanding of the relationship between educational theory and practice. In the world of education today, it is a convention that theory and practice should enter into a fruitful exchange process with each other. However, a retrospective look at Aristotles discussion of knowledge and his three categories of knowledge, which concern a theoretical, a productive and a socio-ethical domain, can serve to illuminate that educational theory and practice belong to qualitatively different categories and therefore do not immediately enter into a fruitful relation. A look back will show that scientific propositional knowledge does not have a knowledge monopoly and relevance in all of lifes conditions and also that theoretical, general knowledge is not in itself applicable to action. Finally, in tune with more recent learning theories, as for instance situated learning theory based on apprenticeship, Aristotle points out that different forms of knowledge are learnt in different ways.

Aristotle's Contribution to Scholastic and Non-Scholastic Learning Theories.

Abstract This article treats Aristotles broad conception of knowledge as a key to understanding practical knowledge, as well as the differences between learning in practice and learning in schools today. Aristotles three main categories of knowledge – the theoretical, the productive and the social-ethical – can serve to differentiate and expand modern comprehensions of knowledge, learning and practice. His division of knowledge not only enables us to differentiate between theoretical and practical knowledge, but also to discriminate between different forms of knowledge within the practical field. Furthermore, Aristotles understanding of knowledge enables us to discuss the limits and possibilities of the scholastic and non-scholastic paradigms of learning, of which the proponents of the two paradigms often seem unaware.

From Identity to Facility—The New Buildings for the Faculty of Humanities at the University of Copenhagen

This analysis seeks to unite both an architectural and an educational perspective on the transformation of the university into a postmodern institution. Our point of departure is an analysis of the new buildings for the Faculty of Humanities University of Copenhagen which are located on the island area of Amager, to the south of Copenhagens centre. To put the transformation into perspective we will also consider the respective older buildings that house the universities of Copenhagen and Oslo. The analysis will illustrate how the university as an institution has changed in terms of characteristics, position in society and its understanding of itself. Previously, the university was a clearly defined institution, which had both the process of Bildung (liberal education) and the production of objective knowledge as its goal. Todays university has become a institution, which seeks to develop competence rather than Bildung and to facilitate knowledge in the Network Society. These changes can be explicated by the French philosopher Lyotards analysis of the position of knowledge within the postmodern sphere.