










































ANALYTIC TEACHING AND PHILOSOPHICAL PRAXIS VOLUME 45, ISSUE 1 (2025) 

  
 

1 
 

 

Improving Teaching and Learning in Philosophy Through 

Process-Oriented Feedback 

 
 

Rogelio Miranda-Vilchis 
 
 

Abstract: In this article, I argue that process-oriented feedback is one of the most critical factors 
for effective teaching and learning in philosophy. Given that extensive research on pedagogical 
practices demonstrates that feedback is the single most powerful predictor of learning across 
subjects and tasks, we can justifiably infer that this also holds true in philosophy. Admittedly, 
teachers and students of philosophy routinely engage in certain types of feedback practices. The 
problem is that process-oriented feedback is usually absent or understood and applied through 
the lens of pedagogical strategies that weaken its effectiveness. One reason is that many 
philosophy teachers possess an insufficient understanding of feedback, its types, and its impact. 
By better understanding and incorporating feedback, especially process-oriented feedback, into 
philosophy, philosophy teachers and learners can improve the effectiveness of their learning and 
teaching practices. 
 
Keywords: teaching philosophy, learning philosophy, feedback, learning strategies, scaffolding 

 
Introduction 

 
ne leading assumption in contemporary educational practices is that lecturing is not a 
highly effective method for teaching and learning. Advocates of this view argue that 
lecturing promotes passive learning that may serve to acquire theoretical knowledge 

but is insufficient for developing complex skills (Finkel, 2000; Handelman et al.,, 2004; Mazur, 2009). 
In response, many instructors advocate for replacing lectures with active learning strategies, which place 
students at the center of the educational process (Hake, 1998; Pearlman, 2019; Stokes, 2012; Wieman, 
2014). However, a substantial amount of research in cognitive psychology, the learning sciences, and 
related fields suggests that active learning does not fare much better than old-fashioned lecturing. 
Numerous studies show that active learning approaches like discovery learning, problem-based learning, 
and experiential learning are hardly more effective than lecturing and other conventional approaches 
(Kirschner et al., 2006; Moreno, 2004; Sweller et al., 1982). This suggests that, despite the current 
enthusiasm for active learning pedagogy, the dichotomy between passive and active learning is not a 
decisive factor in determining student learning success.  
 

I am not suggesting that all active student-centered interventions are ineffective, though 
Approaches such as assigning short writing tasks (Weltman, 2024), Socratic questioning (Biondi, 2008), 
and fostering metacognition (Concepción, 2004) have demonstrated considerable success. Thus, some 
questions naturally emerge: why do some student-centered methods succeed while others fall short? Is 
lecturing truly less effective than active learning? The response I advocate for is the empirically-based 
view that the effectiveness of both active learning strategies and traditional lecturing often hinges on 

O 



ANALYTIC TEACHING AND PHILOSOPHICAL PRAXIS VOLUME 45, ISSUE 1 (2025) 

  
 

2 
 

more fundamental factors like receiving feedback, embracing challenges, and developing accurate 
models of the domain of learning. Among these factors, feedback stands out as a decisive predictor of 
successful learning. Regardless of whether the method is student-centered or teacher-centered, the type 
and quality of feedback provided to students play a pivotal role in determining learning outcomes. 
 

The analysis of thousands of studies and many millions of students across disciplines reveals 
that feedback is the most critical factor in determining the success or failure of teaching and learning 
methods (Hattie, 2008). Moreover, process-oriented feedback is particularly effective—in contrast to, for 
instance, motivational feedback (Hattie & Timperley, 2007). It has consistently proved to be the most 
important type of feedback across disciplines (Balzer et al., 1989; Butler, 1987; Earley et al., 1990). 
Philosophy is unlikely to be an exception—particularly analytic philosophy, which emphasizes 
conceptual precision, rigorous argumentation, and serves as the focus of this discussion. Despite this, 
philosophy teachers often do not select pedagogical strategies based on their proven impact on learning. 
They typically develop their teaching skills through two primary sources: emulating their own teachers 
and learning through trial and error (Welch, 2024).1 

 
Given that feedback, especially process-oriented feedback, has consistently proven to be the most 

effective tool for advancing learning and teaching across disciplines (Hattie, 2008; Hattie & Timperley, 
2007), incorporating it into the philosophy classroom has the potential to significantly enhance both 
students’ learning outcomes and teachers’ pedagogical practices. Another implication is that process-
oriented feedback is not only compatible with lecturing and active learning but also is a key driver of 
successful lectures and active learning activities. Feedback is not one more pedagogical strategy we can 
select from a set of numerous learning and teaching methods but a way to make those methods work. 

 
In this article, I proceed as follows: In the first section, I define process-oriented feedback, its 

chief characteristics, and explain why it is more effective than other types of feedback. In the second 
section, I explain why we lack process-oriented feedback strategies in philosophy and how we can 
implement them in teaching and learning philosophy. After responding to some objections, I emphasize 
its role in the process of learning philosophy, starting from understanding concepts to constructing 
philosophical arguments, with a focus on the core activities of philosophy, such as reading, writing, 
discussing, and lecturing.  
 

Process-Oriented Feedback is the Most Important Kind of Feedback 
 

In this section, I argue that feedback is a critical factor for teaching and learning, no matter what 
the subject is, and that process-oriented feedback is the most crucial kind of feedback. Although other 
types of feedback are important, providing feedback on the process is fundamental for deeper learning 
and enhancing pedagogical effectiveness. I also examine the core attributes of process feedback: being 
specific, targeting challenging activities, being timely and sufficient. This discussion sets the stage for 
arguing later that process-oriented feedback is indispensable for improving teaching and learning 
practices in philosophy. 

 
1 As Welch (2024) observes, philosophers tend to “rely on hallway chats with […] friends and colleagues. Few supplement 
their teaching practices by applying research-based techniques that include process-oriented feedback such as scaffolding (but 
see Coe, 2011; Colter, 2015, 2017; Marcus, 2019; Mulnix & Mulnix, 2010). 



ANALYTIC TEACHING AND PHILOSOPHICAL PRAXIS VOLUME 45, ISSUE 1 (2025) 

  
 

3 
 

 
The Importance of Process-Oriented Feedback 

 

But what is feedback? Over the last decades, scholars from various fields, including education, 
sociology, philosophy, and psychology, have offered numerous definitions. Despite the diversity of 
perspectives, most agree that feedback serves to clarify students’ current level of knowledge and skill, 
identify the desired knowledge and skill goals, and bridge the gap between the two. Psychologists Nicol 
and Macfarlane-Dick (2007) define feedback as “information about how the students' present state (of 
learning and performance) relates to goals and standards” (p. 200). Hattie and Clarke (2018) describe 
it as “information about the task that fills a gap between what is understood and what is aimed to be 
understood” (p. 10). 
 

The two attributes of feedback that stand out in these definitions are that feedback informs about 
students’ current learning state and helps them improve their performance:  

 

Feedback: information about students’ current learning state —relative to certain epistemic 
goals— and guidance on how to improve and thus achieve a more advanced epistemic state: better 
knowledge and skills in a given domain. 

 
After analyzing data from over 50,000 studies involving millions of students on the most 

effective teaching methods, Hattie (2008) found that feedback accounts for over 80% of learning 
success. This effect is independent of the diverse pedagogical approaches that incorporate feedback, like 
lecturing and active learning. Assuming that other evident variables beyond teachers’ and learners’ 
immediate control, such as students' prior knowledge and allocated learning time, remain constant, 
feedback stands out as one of the most powerful—and potentially the most influential—factors in 
determining learning success. 
 

The importance of feedback is indisputable. However, not all types of feedback are equally 
effective. Hattie and Timperley (2007) classified feedback relative to its target: the task or product, the 
process of completing the task, cognitive self-regulation, or motivation. Each type of feedback serves a 
distinct purpose in enhancing learning outcomes. 
 

The first type of feedback, task or product feedback (hereafter, I will refer to it as “product 
feedback” to avoid confusion with feedback on the task process), is “about how well a task is being 
accomplished or performed, such as distinguishing correct from incorrect answers, acquiring more or 
different information, and building more surface knowledge” (Hattie & Timperley 2007, p. 91). It is 
useful at each stage of the learning process, but its effectiveness diminishes in later stages. It is less 
effective for deep learning, that is, for making connections and inferences between pieces of information 
(Hattie & Timperley 2007, 93). Teachers usually provide product feedback with assertions like “that is 
right” and “that is wrong” or through grades. Unfortunately, as the research shows (Butler, 1987; 
Kirschner et al., 2006), this offers minimal information to students on how to correct their mistakes 
and, more importantly, on what their mistakes were in the first place. Moreover, feedback that focuses 
solely on the product fails to offer learners guidance on how to avoid errors or reinforce successful 



ANALYTIC TEACHING AND PHILOSOPHICAL PRAXIS VOLUME 45, ISSUE 1 (2025) 

  
 

4 
 

strategies. As a result, crucial information is lost, hindering students' ability to improve and develop 
deeper understanding. 
 

Another relevant type of feedback is metacognitive feedback, which focuses on self-regulation 
and helps learners refine their strategies, recognize when expected outcomes fail, and develop internal 
feedback mechanisms. This is unquestionably a kind of feedback of the highest importance. It is 
essential to create ultimately independent learners. Its effectiveness is generally more pronounced in the 
later stages of the learning process. One limitation of focusing too much on providing metacognitive 
feedback is that it risks making students better at applying metacognitive strategies in the abstract. 
Metacognitive feedback is useful only when learned in conjunction with specific tasks. Philosophy 
students, for example, will not get much of a lecture on the best practices for writing philosophical texts 
if they do not involve writing philosophical texts on specific subjects. 
 

The third kind of feedback is motivational or emotional feedback. Although it is valuable for 
learning, it is less effective compared to the other types. Its benefits tend to diminish when used in 
conjunction with different types of feedback, as it primarily serves motivational purposes. Although 
motivation is an essential component of teaching and learning any discipline, it cannot replace product, 
metacognitive, and process feedback. Empirical research demonstrates that learners tend to perform 
worse when teachers prioritize motivational feedback over product feedback (Hattie & Timperley, 2007; 
Wisniewski, B. et al., 2020). One reason is that, given our limited human working-memory capacity 
(Miller, 1956), motivational feedback interferes with students’ focus on feedback on the product and 
the process.  
 

The last kind of feedback is process-oriented feedback (hereafter, I use “PF” for process-oriented 
feedback). As its name indicates, PF provides information about students’ current learning state and 
information on how to proceed to attain the desired learning state. By its very nature, it is more specific, 
targets challenging activities, and fosters successful learning. We can define PF as: 

 

Process Feedback (PF): information about students’ current learning state—relative to 
certain epistemic goals—and guidance on how to proceed to improve and thus achieve a 
more advanced epistemic state: better knowledge and skills in a given domain. 

 

Hattie and Timperley’s (2007) review of teaching and learning strategies shows that “the highest 
effect sizes involved students receiving information feedback about a task and how to do it more effectively” 
(p. 84, emphasis added).2 Moreover, the usefulness of any pedagogical strategy largely depends on the 
quality of PF. As Hattie and Donoghue (2016) observe, “while it is possible to nominate the top 10 
learning strategies, the more critical conclusion is that the optimal strategies depend on where in the 
learning cycle the student is located” (p. 9). Of course, “there can be a powerful interactive effect 
between feedback aimed at improving the strategies and processes and feedback aimed at the more 
surface task information” (Hattie & Timperley 2007, 93), but PF still plays the pivotal role for deeply 
mastering a subject and continues to be the most effective type of feedback (Balzer et al., 1998; Butler, 
1987; Earley et al., 1990). 

 
2 See Marzano (2010, Appendix B) for an explanation of the meaning of “effect size” in the context of education. 



ANALYTIC TEACHING AND PHILOSOPHICAL PRAXIS VOLUME 45, ISSUE 1 (2025) 

  
 

5 
 

PF consists of providing information about, for example, how a learner must proceed to acquire 
and refine the skills for successful swimming in competitions. It offers crucial information about the 
correct placement of hands and legs, the optimal timing for kicking and moving elbows, and specific 
information about the body’s interactions with water during different stages of learning. In addition, it 
includes information about the quantity and quality of the training regime, the schedule, and timely 
information about endurance, strength, and technique.  

 
Paying special attention to the process is even more important than employing specific learning 

and teaching strategies. The swimming training regime differs at early and later stages. The limb 
dynamics required for a novice are not the same as those for a competent swimmer. The same holds 
true across fields like biology, physics, and art. In physics, for example, PF helps students develop expert 
mental representations to solve problems effectively. Students’ progress from categorizing physics 
problems by object categories like “spring problems,” “falling bodies,” and “inclined plane” to abstract 
fundamental physical principles like the law of conservation of energy, and F = MA, and considering 
initial and final conditions (Chi, Feltovich, & Glaser, 1981).  

 
One implication of taking PF seriously is that teachers across disciplines can design more 

effective teaching and learning strategies if they examine more closely and structure the process students 
must undergo to learn, as well as stay informed about students’ learning process. The most effective 
teachers, Rosenshine (2012) observed, “ask students to explain the process they used to answer the 
question, to explain how the answer was found. Less successful teachers ask fewer questions and almost 
no process questions” (p. 14). Unfortunately, despite its proven effectiveness, PF is not a recurrent 
element in educational practices.3 
 
Effective Process-Oriented Feedback Attributes 

 
Although PF is always effective, its impact is maximized when it possesses four key attributes. PF 

must be specific, target challenging activities, timely, and sufficient.4 
 
First, PF must be specific. Offering targeted, corrective advice to students is significantly more 

effective than simply pointing out general procedural strengths and weaknesses (Nicol & Macfarlane-
Dick, 2007). Delivering vague information is detrimental to learning because it fails to guide the learner 
on what to avoid, retain, and improve. Usual guidelines like “you are doing it right” or “you are making 
a mistake” offer little guidance because they neither specify what they are doing correctly or incorrectly 
nor offer guidance on how to address their errors. 

 

 
3 Across almost any discipline, students tend to rely on ineffective learning strategies, like rereading, highlighting, underling, 
cramming, and rote memorization (Dunlosky et al., 2013). This is where teachers should encourage students to adopt better 
strategies that incorporate PF strategies like retrieving, elaboration, testing, and self-explanation (Chew & Cerbin, 2020). 
4 If teachers are going to provide feedback, especially PF, they need first to check for students’ understanding. Knowing 
students’ prior knowledge and their learning state is fundamental to offering any recommendation. Unreflective feedback 
delivery is not sufficient because it can consolidate errors. “Practice, we are told, makes perfect, but practice can be a disaster 
if students are practicing errors!” observes Rosenshine (2012, 17). 



ANALYTIC TEACHING AND PHILOSOPHICAL PRAXIS VOLUME 45, ISSUE 1 (2025) 

  
 

6 
 

The key lies in the specificity of the information provided about the necessary steps to achieve a 
specific goal. For example, teachers can present the steps to perform a task or solve a problem as “worked 
examples.” One case is solving a math problem “for which the teacher not only has provided the solution 
but has clearly laid out each step” (Rosenshine 2012, p. 15). Worked examples work because, among 
other things, they “allow students to focus on the specific steps to solve problems and thus reduce the 
cognitive load on their working memory” (2012, p. 15). 

 
Another key characteristic of PF is that it must be delivered timely to students. Feedback can be 

immediate or delayed. Delayed feedback helps students consolidate knowledge and skills into long-term 
memory (Agarwal & Bain, 2019). It also helps students know the outcome of their efforts, identify the 
causes, and understand how those causes contributed to the final product. It is useful when the student 
needs to see the whole, instead of the parts.  

 
However, given the limited capacity of working memory, delayed feedback is of little value at the 

early stages of learning. If feedback is not immediately available, the chances of integrating the correct 
information into long-term memory diminish considerably. Therefore, teachers should deliver PF when 
students still hold in the working memory (usually minutes or seconds) the necessary information to 
become aware of their procedural errors and successes. For example, a swimming coach provides timely 
PF to an aspiring professional swimmer immediately after noticing a mistake in elbow positioning or 
the alignment of the body. Similarly, a physicist provides timely PF by correcting students who focus on 
superficial features of a physics problem rather than applying physics fundamental principles like the 
law of conservation of energy (Chi & Feltovich, 1981).5 

 
Besides providing immediate and delayed PF at the right time, teachers must also make sure 

students receive feedback at regular intervals, say weeks and months. Receiving feedback only once or 
twice is insufficient. Even if teachers get learners to attend and understand the immediate feedback they 
receive, they also tend to forget it quickly unless it is revisited in future opportunities. 

 
Sufficiency is also necessary for effective PF. PF should be neither excessive nor insufficient. But 

how can one determine the right amount? Teachers can find the answer in students’ current learning 
state. The nature of PF must fit students’ stage of learning. Feedback is ineffective if it is too advanced 
for beginners or too basic for advanced learners. The beginner will be overwhelmed by too much 
information, while advanced learners may receive redundant feedback. 

 
Given that excessive PF is a common pitfall that overwhelms students’ working memory, 

teachers can, as Chew & Cerbin (2020) recommend, segment and provide an outline of their lectures 
to students. Teachers can build on students’ prior knowledge, use dual coding tactics (combining visual 
and auditory information), and make the most of “teachable moments”—moments when students are 
most receptive to learning. On their part, learners can avoid multitasking and make diagrams (Chew & 
Cerbin, 2020). 
 

 
5 Delayed PF then serves as a means to consolidate the information previously acquired by immediate PF. 



ANALYTIC TEACHING AND PHILOSOPHICAL PRAXIS VOLUME 45, ISSUE 1 (2025) 

  
 

7 
 

The final component of effective PF is that it must target activities that are challenging but not 
overwhelming to students. Providing PF on already mastered or too-easy skills is of little help. Instead, 
meaningful PF should address areas where students are still struggling to understand or perform and, 
therefore, require help. Teachers must calibrate the right quantity of PF to challenge students. Too little 
PF can be too challenging for students. Excessive PF can make the learning process too easy, reducing 
the necessary level of productive struggle required for students to effectively embed knowledge into their 
long-term memory. 

 
Having established a general understanding of process-oriented feedback (PF) and its 

fundamental characteristics, we can now proceed to examine its relevance to philosophy. I argue in the 
next section that this kind of feedback is essential for teaching and learning practices in philosophy.  
 

The Importance of Integrating Process Feedback into the Philosophy Classroom 

 
In this section, I argue that feedback, especially PF, is uncommon in philosophy classrooms. On 

the contrary, most philosophy teachers are unfamiliar with PF and its importance for effective learning. 
However, we can justifiably infer that the empirical evidence suggests that improvement of current 
teaching and learning practices of philosophy requires PF, especially to master the distinctive tasks of 
philosophy like writing, reading, dialoguing, and, of course, lecturing. 
 
The Insufficiency of Process Feedback in Teaching and Learning Philosophy 

 
Although philosophy teachers know, at least implicitly, that feedback is critical for learning 

philosophy, they often do not sufficiently appreciate its importance. One consequence is that, as 
D’Amour (1977) observed:  
 

Neither the anthology nor the lecture allow for practice, let alone supervised practice in 
which the student is prompted, encouraged, given individualized feedback and 
reinforced. Is it then surprising that the typical midterm paper is often an example of 
totally undisciplined and unskilled philosophical writing, especially given that it is one 
of the few times the student actually has a chance to practice doing philosophy and that 
this practice is unsupervised? (p. 80) 

 
One explanation is that, as in other disciplines, most philosophers tend to learn how to teach 

and provide feedback by imitating their own teachers and through trial and error (Lortie, 1975; 
Concepción et al., 2016). Some philosophers have also explored the educational and psychological 
literature on the best teaching and learning practices (take a look at, e.g., the Teaching Philosophy Journal). 
Drawing mainly from these two sources, they apply and offer a wide range of pedagogical 
recommendations. Some philosophers recommend having students study in pairs (Zager, 2021), do 
puzzles (O’Brien, 2024), engage in peer feedback (Walsh et al., 2014), and, most notably, participate in 
active learning activities (Adkins, 2024; Koolage, 2024; Pearlman, 2019; Stokes, 2012), among many 
others. 
 



ANALYTIC TEACHING AND PHILOSOPHICAL PRAXIS VOLUME 45, ISSUE 1 (2025) 

  
 

8 
 

There are countless pedagogical strategies to choose from. One may wonder whether any of 
them is better than the others. Teachers of philosophy may well think that pedagogical efficacy is just a 
contextual matter or a question of popularity. After all, research on instructional effectiveness indicates 
that almost all kinds of pedagogical intervention work! (Hattie et al., 2015, p. 82). However, we must 
bear in mind that “every method seems to work, relative to not implementing that method. This leads 
many to concluding that their particular method of teaching does enhance learning” (Hattie et al., 2015, 
p. 82). Although all methods improve learning, the empirical evidence suggests that methods are most 
effective as long as they incorporate PF. Undoubtedly, the other types of feedback are also highly 
effective, but we must bear in mind that PF has consistently proved to be the more effective type. 

 
But why should we believe that PF is pedagogically effective? How can we be sure it is not just 

another pedagogical trend? Moreover, is not PF already part of philosophy’s pedagogical practices?  
 
The answer to the first question is twofold. On the one hand, feedback principles have been 

part of widely recognized teaching and learning practices of philosophy from antiquity. Consider the 
Socratic method and the characteristics of PF that his pedagogy embodied. As Colter and Ulatowski 
(2015) highlight in their analysis of Plato’s Meno, Socrates used a form of “scaffolded approach.” First, 
Socrates ensured that Meno’s slave boy understood the basic concepts such as length, addition, and 
division.6 Next, he clarified the problem he wanted the boy to solve: finding the length of the side of 
the square that would have twice the area of the initial square. As in any learning process, the boy fell 
into procedural errors, like believing that doubling the length of each side of the square would yield a 
square with an area that doubles the area of the original square. Socrates addressed those mistakes 
immediately by asking specific questions that demonstrated that doubling the length of each side of the 
square yields a square with an area four times as big. Socrates provided several sufficient rounds of PF 
that challenged the boy’s preconceptions and gradually led him to the correct answer.  

 
On the other hand, as we have discussed above, thousands of studies strongly support the 

effectiveness of PF. Contrary to other pedagogical practices and theories like discovery learning, 
problem-based learning, and the existence of learning styles (Bruyckere, Kirschner & Hulshof, 2015; 
Gardner, 2017), the effectiveness of PF is empirically well-supported (Metcalfe, 2017; Nicol & 
Macfarlane-Dick, 2006; Nietfeld et al., 2006; Ryan et al., 2021). PF is hardly a passing trend but one of 
the fundamental principles underpinning every effective educational practice across disciplines (Hattie 
& Timperley, 2007). 

 
Responding to the first question, we must acknowledge that there is no doubt that some 

pedagogical strategies in philosophy instantiate PF—especially in analytic philosophy. For example, 
recently, many philosophers (Coe, 2011; Marcus, 2019; Mulnix & Mulnix, 2010) apply and recommend 
scaffolded learning, a strategy in which, 
 

The instructor guides the novice through a series of steps wherein the student, though 
at the first a mere novice with regard to the tasks and problems set by the instructor or 

 
6 In other words, Socrates considered the boy’s prior knowledge of the matter before proceeding –an approach widely 
recommended in contemporary pedagogy. 



ANALYTIC TEACHING AND PHILOSOPHICAL PRAXIS VOLUME 45, ISSUE 1 (2025) 

  
 

9 
 

expert, eventually comes to a fuller understanding and comprehension of the material, 
such that the student has command of it by the end of the process (Colter & Ulatowski, 
2015).  
 
Scaffolding strategies often instantiate PF. However, only a reduced number of philosophy 

teachers employ them. But more significantly, scaffolding does not always involve providing PF on 
performance. A teacher might merely provide students with a series of prompts and graphic organizers 
explaining the writing process of an essay but may not directly give PF on the quality of the student’s 
ideas or writing at the different stages of the learning process. Scaffolding can support students’ learning 
with tools, resources, and strategies without PF.  

 
These are some of the reasons explaining why PF is not just another pedagogical trend and why 

it is not already part of philosophy’s pedagogical practices. 
 
One implication is that it would be considerably beneficial to redesign philosophy’s key tasks, 

like writing, reading, discussing, and lecturing, to incorporate PF. While there are many courses, 
congresses, and excellent books on how to do philosophy (Seech & Kania, 2024; Martinich, 2024; 
Saunders et al., 2008), they are no substitute for philosophy teachers who can provide more valuable 
PF that is specific, timely, challenging, and sufficient. 

 
For example, in the case of learning how to read and write philosophical texts, teachers typically 

assign readings and assume that students would automatically and progressively develop the necessary 
and sufficient skills to read and write highly abstract and complex philosophical papers without PF. This 
strategy certainly works to some extent. Otherwise, we would not see around philosophers who excel at 
reading and writing philosophy. However, it does not mean that this strategy works better in isolation 
than in conjunction with PF. Lecturing in philosophy faces similar challenges. Like probably most 
academics, philosophers often assume that emulating their own teachers and engaging in personal trial 
and error is sufficient for learning to teach. However, again, although these ways to acquire teaching 
skills work, we have no reason to suppose that they work better in isolation than in combination with 
PF or than PF alone.  
 

Some may argue that philosophy is a discipline with unique characteristics that cannot benefit 
from PF practices. Perhaps philosophy is a highly open-ended activity searching for deep original ideas 
rather than correct and incorrect solutions and procedures. The response to this problematic suggestion 
is that, even if philosophy is an open-ended inquiry, it requires mastering knowledge and skills that 
require PF in turn, like argumentation, writing in a clear and organized way, mastering the content of 
classical philosophical theories, and engaging in productive discussion. Mastering philosophical skills is 
a prerequisite for creativity in philosophy, as it is in other domains (Ericsson, 1999; Simonton, 2017). 

 
Others may object that philosophy teachers are often constrained by time and large class sizes, 

making it difficult to implement PF. This difficulty is real, but some PF is better than none. They do 
not have to abandon lectures for a full PF-oriented methodology. Incorporating even a few minutes of 
PF would greatly benefit the effectiveness of their usual teaching and learning methods (see Rice, 2023, 
for practical suggestions). Moreover, philosophy teachers can design the class so that students get 



ANALYTIC TEACHING AND PHILOSOPHICAL PRAXIS VOLUME 45, ISSUE 1 (2025) 

  
 

10 
 

valuable PF from peers, Walsch et al. (2014). I am not advocating for abolishing lectures but for making 
them more effective.  
  

Another critique may be that different educational levels, cultural backgrounds, and individual 
learning approaches affect the effectiveness of PF. I do not claim that these factors do not affect the 
effectiveness of PF. PF, however, remains one of the most effective factors for learning across educational 
levels, cultural backgrounds and even learning approaches, as Hattie’s (2008) review demonstrates. 

 
Some may object that I overemphasize teachers’ PF over peer feedback or self-feedback. Yes, any 

type of feedback is effective, but teachers’ PF is most important at the early stages and is often more 
specific, timely, and sufficient than peer PF. Novices in any domain need guidance from experts, at least 
in the early stages (Ericsson & Lehman, 1996). 

 
Lastly, even if we currently lack the specific evidence supporting the use of PF in philosophy, 

the empirical evidence suggests that philosophy teachers and students would greatly benefit from 
incorporating at least some PF into their daily pedagogical practices for writing, reading, lecturing, and 
discussing philosophical topics. In the following subsection, I present some illustrations of how 
philosophy teachers and students can integrate PF into their teaching and learning practices. 
 

Incorporating Process Feedback into Teaching and Learning Practices in Philosophy 

 

In this final subsection, I offer some indications for incorporating PF into teaching and learning 
philosophy. I present some illustrations of how philosophy teachers and students can integrate PF into 
the process of learning philosophy. I do not intend to offer a well-structured and detailed exposition of 
the general or a particular process of learning philosophy. Rather, my discussion is mainly illustrative 
of how philosophy teachers and students can integrate PF into philosophy tasks like writing, reading, 
lecturing, and discussing. 

 
Mastering Philosophical Concepts and Claims 

 

To begin, building on our earlier definition of PF, we can define PF in philosophy as follows: 
 

Process Feedback in Philosophy: information about philosophy students’ current 
learning state—relative to certain epistemic goals—and guidance on how to proceed to 
improve and thus achieve a more advanced epistemic state: better knowledge and skills 
in a philosophical domain. 

 
The process of learning philosophy usually begins with mastering philosophical concepts and claims to 
the most complex tasks of constructing philosophical arguments and theories. And, given that 
philosophy students typically begin their learning journey through the usual philosophical tasks of 
reading, attending lectures, discussing, and writing philosophy, I illustrate PF incorporation through 
activities involving reading, lecturing, discussing, and writing philosophy. 
 



ANALYTIC TEACHING AND PHILOSOPHICAL PRAXIS VOLUME 45, ISSUE 1 (2025) 

  
 

11 
 

Let us start with concepts and claims. Before students can form their philosophical opinions or 
develop arguments and counterarguments on a topic, they must first grasp the fundamental concepts 
and principles of philosophers’ earlier views. Typically, their first encounter with these views occurs 
through reading.  
 

Some general PF suggestions on the process of reading, but equally applicable to philosophy 
reading, include the following activities. Students must survey the text to gain an overall understanding 
of the structure (scan for titles and subtitles) and connect the content of the text by relating it to what 
they already know: their personal experiences, other philosophical courses, and disciplines. They also 
must engage critically by identifying the purpose of the reading, forming their opinions, and raising 
objections. 
 

Now, perhaps the first piece of PF specific to reading philosophy is that students should read, 
bearing in mind that philosophical ideas and concepts are inherently general and abstract. Students, 
especially those new to philosophy, should receive PF that encourages them to separate examples and 
thought experiments’ superficial features from the underlying philosophical concepts (Saunders et al., 
2008).7 A specific strategy in which students can improve their understanding of key concepts consists 
of searching for what clearly, or almost clearly, falls into philosophical categories and what does not 
clearly fall into it. This gets students to think hard about examples and counterexamples. Teachers can 
offer students guidance on the process of finding concrete examples that fall into complex abstract 
concepts like Aristotle’s categories of substance: quantity, quality, relation, and position (Russell, 2019).8 

 
Concerning philosophical claims, teachers can offer guidance on exercises in which students 

work to differentiate between normative from descriptive claims, a priori from a posteriori, and 
consistent from inconsistent. Finn and colleagues (2012, Chapter 13), for instance, suggest having 
students read specific short philosophical passages like this one from Macchiavello: 

 
Many have dreamed up republics and principalities which have never in truth been 
known to exist; the gulf between how one should live and how one does live is so wide 
that a man who neglects what is actually done for what should be done learns the way 
to self-destruction rather than self-preservation. The fact is that a man who wants to act 
virtuously in every way necessarily comes to grief among so many who are not virtuous.  
 

Then, teachers can have students answer questions that help them differentiate between clear, 
compelling claims from inconsistent and contradictory ones: 
 

1. Are the main philosophical claims of the passage clearly expressed? If not, what claims are not 
clear? 

2. Are these main claims compelling? That is, do the claims seem true or probable? If not, which 
claims are not compelling? 

 
7 To aid this process, it is also helpful to encourage them to search for the meaning of difficult concepts and philosophical 
jargon in encyclopedias of philosophy and dictionaries. 
8 Hultberg et al. encourage teachers of any discipline to “alternate concrete examples and abstract representations to help 
students recognize the underlying structure of the problems” (2018, 36). 



ANALYTIC TEACHING AND PHILOSOPHICAL PRAXIS VOLUME 45, ISSUE 1 (2025) 

  
 

12 
 

3. Does the author make any claims that are inconsistent or contradictory with other claims in the 
passage? If so, which claims are they?  

 

After students answer these questions, teachers can offer immediate and sufficient PF on students’ most 
common specific questions, confusions, and mistakes. At more advanced stages, teachers can challenge 
students and offer PF on the evaluation and construction of paragraphs that include clear, compelling, 
probable, and consistent claims.  
 

Although writing is not crucial at this stage, teachers can incorporate PF in exercises where 
students write brief definitions of key philosophical concepts and short critiques and defenses of 
significant claims. These exercises can be as concise as a few lines, assessing the consistency and clarity 
of the concepts and claims under consideration. 

 
During lectures, teachers can provide clear and concrete definitions of fundamental 

philosophical concepts and principles. They can then encourage students to engage deeply by asking 
questions, presenting counterarguments, and participating in classroom discussions, followed by 
offering PF to support and refine their understanding. 

 
Mastering Philosophical Arguments 

 
After having mastered the fundamental philosophical concepts and principles, the learning 

process continues with the simplest task of identifying and evaluating arguments to the most complex 
task of constructing original arguments. 

 
In the early stages of learning philosophical argumentation, teachers can provide PF on how to 

identify and evaluate arguments by designing exercises that explicitly encourage students to reconstruct 
arguments in the standard form of premises and conclusions (Cahill & Bloch-Schulman, 2012; 
Concepción, 2004). One step further is to accompany students’ learning journey with PF for activities 
that get students to search for consistency, validity, soundness, and cogency (PF on identifying common 
fallacies is also valuable). For instance, teachers can offer PF on exercises that get students to supply the 
missing premises or conclusions from enthymemes and determine whether the arguments in specific 
passages are deductive or inductive. 

 
As for argument evaluation, teachers can provide PF by having students exercise in 

distinguishing between deductive, inductive, and abductive argument forms. Teachers can also provide 
guidance on the process of classifying the quality of arguments based on typical dimensions like clarity, 
consistency, validity, soundness, and cogency. It would be helpful to incorporate PF, ensuring that 
students check for argumentative regress, apply the “is-ought” distinction, employ the principle of 
charity, tell when arguments are self-defeating, and differentiate between necessary and sufficient 
reasons (Fosl & Baggini, 2020). 

 



ANALYTIC TEACHING AND PHILOSOPHICAL PRAXIS VOLUME 45, ISSUE 1 (2025) 

  
 

13 
 

Additionally, philosophy teachers can provide PF on students’ understanding of fundamental 
distinctions like metaphysical versus epistemic, normative versus descriptive, and a priori versus a 
posteriori (Fosl & Baggini, 2020). 

 
When learning to argue in philosophy, providing PF on writing is essential. Philosophy teachers 

guide students in allocating specific time for topic selection, reading, drafting, editing, and other stages 
of the writing process. Additionally, philosophy teachers can help students by explaining and asking for 
distinct kinds of philosophical writings of philosophy for different learning stages: basic summary papers 
in the early stages, evaluative papers in the middle stages, and thesis-defense papers in later stages. 

 
In the process of writing traditional thesis-defense papers, for example, students must present 

both their own arguments and those of others as clearly and charitably as possible. Teachers can offer 
PF to avoid overly broad or narrow theses and encourage students to develop original ideas—even if they 
are only new to them (Seech & Kania, 2024). Teachers can explicitly ask for and provide specific PF on 
outlining the text, introducing the topic, and outlining the plan in the introduction, as well as crafting 
a strong conclusion. When constructing the body of the paper, teachers can assist students in identifying 
premises and conclusions, employing sufficient examples and analogies, and strengthening their 
arguments by posing objections and responding to them. 

 
Latecka (2020), for instance, employs a strategy she calls “the six-line argument,” an update of 

Earl’s (2015) original four-sentence paper. Students write following this six-line argument template: 
 

1. Introduction__________ 
2. They say__________ 
3. I say__________ because__________ 
4. They object__________ 
5. I reply__________ 
6. Conclusion__________ 

 
This simple template offers students the opportunity to practice the fundamentals of structuring 
philosophical arguments and essays. With teacher guidance, students learn to clearly outline the 
structure of their argument, present opposing views, defend their positions, and develop a well-rounded 
conclusion (lines 1-3). Lines 4 and 5 help students appreciate the importance of responding to actual or 
potential objections as a way to strengthen and deepen their arguments. 
 

Another example of PF in learning to write philosophy comes from Walsh and colleagues’ 
scaffolded approach to writing a traditional term paper on a philosophical topic. They structured the 
learning process as a progressive sequence from simple to complex skills. The process begins with 
students proposing topics, selecting one, and narrowing it down to a focused area of inquiry. Second, 
they have students write a text of 5 to 6 pages analyzing and explaining a specific philosophical debate. 
Third, students write another 5-6 page text evaluating the positions and developing an original argument 
in response. The final stage asks students to respond to objections, provide sufficient examples, and 



ANALYTIC TEACHING AND PHILOSOPHICAL PRAXIS VOLUME 45, ISSUE 1 (2025) 

  
 

14 
 

assess the implications of their arguments. At each stage, Walsh and colleagues offer several rounds of 
immediate specific PF in the form of written comments and peer review.9 

 
Walsh and colleagues (2014) found that this scaffolded approach, along with the several rounds 

of PF, significantly improved students’ understanding of philosophical concepts, claims, and arguments. 
Students made fewer mistakes, such as a paper lacking a thesis and presenting poor organization. 
 

Besides approaches such as Walsh and colleagues, philosophy teachers can offer valuable PF at 
lectures. Besides organizing their lectures in a schematic form, clearly outlining the fundamental 
concepts and claims about the topic, teachers can offer specific and immediate assistance to students' 
objections, questions, and opinions.10 
 

These are just a few illustrative, practical, flexible, and non-exhaustive ways that philosophy 
teachers and students can incorporate PF into their teaching and learning practices. A likely outcome 
of adopting this feedback approach is that students will learn more effectively, and teachers will enhance 
their instructional methods, regardless of their personal teaching and learning strategies. 
 

Conclusion 

 
Process feedback is one of the most critical factors for learners’ improvement, as demonstrated 

across every domain of knowledge. Philosophy is no exception. Integrating it into the teaching and 
learning of philosophy is not merely advantageous but imperative. 
 

Integrating process feedback into philosophy will help to improve both teaching and learning 
practices in this discipline. Students will develop a deeper understanding of philosophical concepts, 
refine their ability to construct claims and arguments, and improve their critical thinking skills. At the 
same time, teachers will become more effective in guiding and supporting students' learning process. 
 

There is no doubt that, although process feedback is critical, it is important to acknowledge that 
other related factors also play a crucial role in improving teaching and learning, such as setting clear 
goals and implementing strategies and tactics designed for specific contexts. However, by integrating 
process feedback into philosophical pedagogy, we are taking a significant step toward fostering more 
engaging, effective, and impactful teaching and learning practices. 
 

 

 

 

 
9 In addition to the term paper, students participate in exercises “that give students additional opportunities to practice the 
relevant skills” (Walsh et al., 2014, 484), including interpreting and explaining a passage, applying a concept or claim to an 
example, evaluating philosophical claims, and developing arguments. 
10 Additionally, teachers can guide philosophical discussion in such a way that students engage in a dynamic and immersive 
exchange of arguments, allowing them to explore different perspectives in a creative way. 



ANALYTIC TEACHING AND PHILOSOPHICAL PRAXIS VOLUME 45, ISSUE 1 (2025) 

  
 

15 
 

References 

 
Adkins, K. (2024). De-centering the professor (not by design). In B.F. Welch (ed.), The Art of Teaching 

Philosophy: Reflective Values and Concrete Practices (pp. 13-21). 
Agarwal, P. K., & Bain, P. M. (2019). Powerful teaching: Unleash the science of learning. Jossey-Bass. 
Balzer, W. K., Doherty, M. E., & O’Connor, R., Jr. (1989). Effects of cognitive feedback on 

performance. Psychological Bulletin, 106(3), 410–433. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-
2909.106.3.410 

Biondi, C. A. (2008). Socratic teaching: Beyond the paper chase. Teaching Philosophy, 31(2), 119-134. 
https://doi.org/10.5840/teachphil200831217 

Butler, R. (1987). Task-involving and ego-involving properties of evaluation: Effects on performance. 
Journal of Educational Psychology, 79(4), 474-482. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.79.4.474 

Chew, S. L., & Cerbin, W. J. (2021). The cognitive challenges of effective teaching. The Journal of 
Economic Education, 52(1), 17-40. https://doi.org/10.1080/00220485.2020.1810139 

Chi, M. T., Feltovich, P. J., & Glaser, R. (1981). Categorization and representation of physics 
problems by experts and novices. Cognitive Science, 5(2), 121-152. 
https://doi.org/10.1207/s15516709cog0502_2 

Coe, C. D. (2011). Scaffolded writing as a tool for critical thinking: Teaching beginning students how 
to write arguments. Teaching Philosophy, 34(1), 33-50. 
https://doi.org/10.5840/teachphil20113414 

Colter, R., & Ulatowski, J. (2015). Freeing Meno’s slave boy: Scaffolded learning in the philosophy 
classroom. Teaching Philosophy, 38(1), 21-47. https://doi.org/10.5840/teachphil20153816 

Concepción, D. W. (2004). Reading philosophy with background knowledge and metacognition. 
Teaching Philosophy, 27(4), 351-368. https://doi.org/10.5840/teachphil200427439 

Concepción, D. W., Messineo, M., Wieten, S., & Homan, C. (2016). The state of teacher training in 
philosophy. Teaching Philosophy, 39(1), 1-24. https://doi.org/10.5840/teachphil20163912 

D'Amour, G. (1977). Teaching Philosophy by the Guided Design Method. Metaphilosophy, 8(1), 78-86. 
De Bruyckere, P., Kirschner, P. A., & Hulshof, C. D. (2015). Urban myths about learning and education. 

Academic Press. 
Dunlosky, J., Rawson, K. A., Marsh, E. J., Nathan, M. J., & Willingham, D. T. (2013). Improving 

students’ learning with effective learning techniques: Promising directions from cognitive and 
educational psychology. Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 14(1), 4-58.  

Earl, D. (2015). The four-sentence paper: A template for considering objections and replies. Teaching 
Philosophy, 38(1), 49–76.  

Earley, P. C., Northcraft, G. B., Lee, C., & Lituchy, T. R. (1990). Impact of process and outcome 
feedback on the relation of goal setting to task performance. Academy of Management Journal, 
33(1), 87–105. 

Ericsson, K. A. (1999). Creative expertise as superior reproducible performance: Innovative and flexible 
aspects of expert performance. Psychological Inquiry, 10(4), 329–333. 

Ericsson, K. A., & Lehmann, A. C. (1996). Expert and exceptional performance: Evidence of maximal 
adaptation to task constraints. Annual Review of Psychology, 47(1), 273–305.  

Finkel, D. L. (2000). Teaching with your mouth shut. Boynton/Cook. 

https://doi.org/10.1080/00220485.2020.1810139


ANALYTIC TEACHING AND PHILOSOPHICAL PRAXIS VOLUME 45, ISSUE 1 (2025) 

  
 

16 
 

Finn, S. J., Case, C., Underwood, B., & Zuck, J. (2012). The Philosophy Skills Book: Exercises in Philosophical 
Thinking, Reading, and Writing. Bloomsbury Publishing. 

Fosl, P. S., & Baggini, J. (2020). The philosopher's toolkit: A compendium of philosophical concepts and methods. 
Wiley-Blackwell. 

Gardner, H. (2017). The theory of multiple intelligences: A conversation with Howard Gardner. 
Education Week. Retrieved from https://www.edweek.org 

Hake, R. R. (1998). Interactive-engagement versus traditional methods: A six-thousand-student survey 
of mechanics test data for introductory physics courses. American Journal of Physics, 66, 64-74. 
https://doi.org/10.1119/1.18809 

Handelsman, J., Ebert-May, D., Beichner, R., Bruns, P., Chang, A., DeHaan, R., ... & Wood, W. B. 
(2004). Scientific teaching. Science, 304(5670), 521-522. 
https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1096022 

Hattie, J. (2003). Teachers make a difference: What is the research evidence? In Australian Council for 
Educational Research Annual Conference on Building Teacher Quality (pp. 1-17). University of 
Auckland. 

Hattie, J. (2008). Visible learning: A synthesis of over 800 meta-analyses relating to achievement. Routledge. 
Hattie, J. (2015). The applicability of visible learning to higher education. Scholarship of Teaching and 

Learning in Psychology, 1(1), 79. https://doi.org/10.1037/stl0000021 
Hattie, J., & Clarke, S. (2018). Visible learning: Feedback. Routledge. 
Hattie, J. A., & Donoghue, G. M. (2016). Learning strategies: A synthesis and conceptual model. npj 

Science of Learning, 1(1), 1-13. https://doi.org/10.1038/npjscilearn.2016.13 
Hattie, J., & Timperley, H. (2007). The power of feedback. Review of Educational Research, 77(1), 81-112. 

https://doi.org/10.3102/003465430298487 
Hultberg, P., Calonge, D. S., & Lee, A. E. S. (2018). Promoting long-lasting learning through 

instructional design. Journal of the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning, 18(3). 
https://doi.org/10.14434/josotl.v18i3.22438 

Kirschner, P., Sweller, J., & Clark, R. E. (2006). Why unguided learning does not work: An analysis of 
the failure of discovery learning, problem-based learning, experiential learning, and inquiry-
based learning. Educational Psychologist, 41(2), 75-86. 
https://doi.org/10.1207/s15326985ep4102_1 

Koolage, W. J. (2024). Flatten that hierarchy: Everyone wins when we all teach (and learn) together. In 
B.F. Welch (Ed.), The Art of Teaching Philosophy: Reflective Values and Concrete Practices (pp 101-
110). 

Latecka, E. (2020). The “six-line essay” writing intervention for first-year philosophy students: A 
preliminary report. South African Journal of Philosophy, 39(4), 411-422. 
https://doi.org/10.1080/02580136.2020.1792795 

Lortie, D. C. (1975). Schoolteacher: A sociological study. University of Chicago Press. 
Marcus, R. (2019). Scaffolding for fine philosophical skills. American Association of Philosophy Teachers 

Studies in Pedagogy, 5, 34-67. https://doi.org/10.5840/aaptstudies201953 
Martinich, A. P. (2024). Philosophical writing: An introduction. John Wiley & Sons. 
Marzano, R. J. (2010). Designing & teaching learning goals & objectives. Solution Tree Press. 
Mazur, E. (2009). Farewell, lecture? Science, 323(5910), 50-51. 

https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1168625 

https://www.edweek.org/


ANALYTIC TEACHING AND PHILOSOPHICAL PRAXIS VOLUME 45, ISSUE 1 (2025) 

  
 

17 
 

Metcalfe, J. (2017). Learning from errors. Annual Review of Psychology, 68(1), 465-489. 
https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-psych-010416-044022 

Miller, G. A. (1956). The magical number seven, plus or minus two: Some limits on our capacity for 
processing information. Psychological Review, 63(2), 81-97. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0043158 

Moreno, R. (2004). Decreasing cognitive load in novice students: Effects of explanatory versus 
corrective feedback in discovery-based multimedia. Instructional Science, 32, 99-113. 
https://doi.org/10.1023/B:TRUC.0000021816.20704.79 

Mulnix, J. W., & Mulnix, M. (2010). Using a writing portfolio project to teach critical thinking skills. 
Teaching Philosophy, 33(1), 27-54. https://doi.org/10.5840/teachphil20103313 

Nicol, D. J., & Macfarlane-Dick, D. (2006). Formative assessment and self-regulated learning: A model 
and seven principles of good feedback practice. Studies in Higher Education, 31(2), 199-218. 
https://doi.org/10.1080/03075070600572090 

Nietfeld, J. L., Cao, L., & Osborne, J. W. (2006). The effect of distributed monitoring exercises and 
feedback on performance, monitoring accuracy, and self-efficacy. Metacognition and Learning, 1, 
159-179. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11409-006-0002-2 

O’Brien, D. (2024). Teaching with puzzles. The Art of Teaching Philosophy: Reflective Values and Concrete 
Practices, 245. 

Pearlman, S. (2019). Flipping the logic classroom. Teaching Philosophy, 42(4), 355-373. 
https://doi.org/10.5840/teachphil201942418 

Rice, G. T. (2023). Hitting pause: 65 lecture breaks to refresh and reinforce learning. Taylor & Francis. 
Rosenshine, B. (2012). Principles of instruction: Research-based strategies that all teachers should know. 

American Educator, 36(1), 12-39. 
Saunders, C., Lamb, D., Ross, G. M., & Mossley, D. (2008). Doing philosophy: A practical guide for students. 

A&C Black. 
Seech, Z., & Kania, A. (2024). Writing philosophy papers. Taylor & Francis. 
Simonton, D. K. (2017). Creativity and expertise: Creators are not equivalent to domain-specific experts! 

In D. Z. Hambrick, G. Campitelli, & B. Macnamara (Eds.), The science of expertise (pp. 328–346). 
Routledge. 

Stokes, P. (2012). Philosophy has consequences!: Developing metacognition and active learning in the 
ethics classroom. Teaching Philosophy, 35(2), 143-169. 
https://doi.org/10.5840/teachphil201235215 

Sweller, J., Mawer, R. F., & Howe, W. (1982). Consequences of history-cued and means-end strategies 
in problem solving. The American Journal of Psychology, 95(3), 455-483. 
https://doi.org/10.2307/1422455 

Ryan, T., Henderson, M., Ryan, K., & Kennedy, G. (2021). Identifying the components of effective 
learner-centred feedback information. Teaching in Higher Education, 1-18. 
https://doi.org/10.1080/13562517.2021.1966420 

Van Dijk, E. E., van Tartwijk, J., van der Schaaf, M. F., & Kluijtmans, M. (2020). What makes an 
expert university teacher? A systematic review and synthesis of frameworks for teacher expertise 
in higher education. Educational Research Review, 31, 100365. 
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.edurev.2020.100365 

Weltman, D. (2024). Short writing assignments in philosophy. American Association of Philosophy Teachers 
Studies in Pedagogy. 

https://doi.org/10.5840/teachphil20103313


ANALYTIC TEACHING AND PHILOSOPHICAL PRAXIS VOLUME 45, ISSUE 1 (2025) 

  
 

18 
 

Walsh, P. K., Prokos, A., & Bird, S. R. (2014). Building a better term paper. Teaching Philosophy, 37(4), 
481-497. https://doi.org/10.5840/teachphil201437421 

Welch, B.F. (2024). Introduction. In The art of teaching philosophy: Reflective values and concrete practices 
(pp. 1-9). 

Wieman, C. E. (2014). Large-scale comparison of science teaching methods sends clear message. 
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 111(23), 8319-8320. 
https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1407306111 

Wisniewski, B., Zierer, K., & Hattie, J. (2020). The power of feedback revisited: A meta-analysis of 
educational feedback research. Frontiers in Psychology, 10, 487662. 
https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2019.487662 

Zager, S. (2021). Building philosophical partnership: Using Havruta to teach philosophical reading 
skills. The Wabash Center Journal on Teaching, 2(2), 1-22. 

 

 
Address Correspondences to:  
Rogelio Miranda-Vilchis, Post-doctoral Researcher 
Instituto de Investigaciones Filosóficas,  
Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México,  
Circuito Mario de la Cueva s/n,  
Ciudad Universitaria, 04500 Mexico City, Mexico 
rogeliomv0101@gmail.com 


