1. the ways of thinking they adopt as a basis for their scientific practice;
2. assumptions (presuppositions) they show in their scientific practice (also in their form of research);
3. a research tradition that serves as an evaluative criterion for the ways research is undertaken; and
4. commitment to a particular theory or methodology.

These changes can assume two forms:

1. Change within the paradigm itself so that it is possible for the thinking (scientific practice) to remain the same. For example, here one thinks of sharpened defining and operationalizing ways of thinking, presuppositions, traditions and also addressing misinterpretations and faulty interpretations. These activities form the basis of and insight into the already existing scientific practice, i.e., the daily practice of science.
2. a breaking away and moving away from an existing state of affairs. The immediate question is break away and move away to where? Which criteria are there to determine if the activity of breaking and moving away will be meaningful? Possible criteria are:
   1. the new paradigm will lead to a more adequate understanding of the complex reality (reality of educating);
   2. the new paradigm will lead to a more adequate accounting of the demands that contemporary society places on science (education);
   3. the new paradigm will lead to a grater unity of scientists (educationists), i.e., the particular paradigm will be so generally acceptable that it will collect the greatest number of educationists under its banner.

2.1  Introduction

The following statement deserves consideration: “Not one of the contemporary scientific paradigms and the knowledge ideals grounding them have so far provided a theory that makes educating rationally understandable in its complexity, comprehensiveness and contextual situatedness and that makes pronouncements for improving practice that satisfy the majority of fundamental educational conversational partners or are chosen by them as a common theoretical base” (Smal, 1992: 325-328).

2.2  Comments

2.2.1  The complexity of educating

It is precisely this complexity that makes it impossible for an all-clarifying paradigm to be able to make its appearance. The complexity of the reality of educating requires multiple perspectives on it. The educationist(s) must study all relevant perspectives and then consider the possibility of compiling by eclectic (not eclecticism) thinking a body of educational knowledge that to a meaningful degree can claim to be generally acceptable.

What is meant by eclectic thinking and how does it differ from eclecticism? (See Landman, Eclectic thinking and eclecticism.)

2.2.2  The majority as criterion

When there is mention of “majority” as criterion for determining the validity, relevance and acceptability of a paradigm, there must be a guard against the false reasoning that an argument (paradigm) is valid because a large number of persons support and hold it. Often there is sarcastic and derogatory reference to the few antagonists. There is no guarantee that the “interpretation” of the majority is adequate or will even be meaningful (Fearnside & Holter, 1959: 93).

It can happen that the majority reasons that the validity of a paradigm can be affirmed on the basis that it is the middle ground between two extremes. Then the safety of the middle ground is chosen (Michalos, 1970: 87).

The "majority” as selection criterion for judging a paradigm, i.e., the criterion of consensus, will not survive the test of critical thinking.

2.2.3  The demand of contextualizing

To contextualize means to put in an appropriate context, i.e., to take into account the circumstances necessary for realizing a particular matter. In this connection Smith (1990: 24) states that currently there is an urge for a shift to the social-democratic paradigm in a South African context. This means the social, economic and political problematic will be placed under the scientific spotlight. Smith (1990: 325-328) talks of a contemporary context and says this specific post-modern social structure requires a post-modern paradigm shift. This statement implies that educationists must acquire clarity about the significance that the post-modern paradigm has for them.

Before being able to proceed to this, two matters deserve attention, namely:

1. Practical application of the Fundamental Pedagogic and
2. Overstepping boundaries by Fundamental Pedagogics.

A particular axiom is: A science (also Fundamental Pedagogics) has the right and responsibility to determine what of it can be used in practice (Landman, 1978: 78-83). This means it can make pronouncements about the ways in which it is applied in practice (also for improving practice). This should mean that Fundamental Pedagogics must be able to give an indication (and explanation) of its significance for understanding and realizing the (a) post-modern paradigm in the South African context.

4.1  Mission

The activities in each scientific area are limited by its mission. The mission of Fundamental Pedagogics is to be a particular philosophy, i.e., a particular philosophy of educating, philosophy of Education, Educational Philosophy, etc.

An analysis of the following definitions (Van Rensburg & Landman, 1986: 449, 449-450, 356) can be clarifying:

4.2  Philosophy

G. philein – love + sophia – wisdom. As philosophy is not based on physical laws (natural sciences) or indisputable historical facts, it is difficult to define. Philosophers continuously contradict one other so that one can rightfully speak of philosophical schools (philosophers living at the same time and supporting similar philosophical views.) Even within such schools differences occur because philosophical activities are not founded on a dogmatic attitude.

4.3  Philosophy of educating (Education)

Another name for Fundamental Pedagogics. Especially well known in Anglo-American pedagogical thinking. This particular pedagogical perspective does in fact deal with a philosophical interpretation (penetration) of the pedagogic as a specific human concern. This term, however, easily gives rise to a philosophy on or even a philosophy for education, which then forms the basis of a particular education practice and prescribes as a particular theory on education to education practice. Such a philosophy for educating is in fact an education doctrine precipitation of a particular philosophy of life. There is nothing wrong with such an education doctrine, provided that it does not become elevated to the level of educational science -a general science of educating.

4.4  Fundamental

L. fundamentum – ground, basis, foundation; fundare – to base: to indicate based or founded matters; to probe (into) the basic, the essential, the perennial as the continually recurring and the ever-repeating; thus bringing to light what is constantly and universally present in the pedagogic; in pedagogics the seeking of the fundamentals of education by penetrating the essentials (essences) in order to bring the innermost nature (ever constant foundation) of education to light.

4.5  Fundamental Pedagogics/Education

Origin of fundamental and pedagogics: this origin makes fundamental pedagogics a foundation pedagogics because its special function is the ounding or grounding of pedagogics in the universal reality of life. In addition, fundamental pedagogicians undertake a fundamental analysis of the phenomenon of education as pedagogic phenomenon. Specific themes of fundamental pedagogics are, for example: the education relation; the education situation; the scientific distinction, description and elucidation; and the methodological/epistemological reflection on the pedagogic and pedagogics.

4.6  Philosophy of Education: Different paradigms (Mentz, 1986: 68-75)

Here paradigm is used in part in the sense that it is a broader concept than only a theory. It is a more comprehensive theoretical frame of reference that includes assumptions, norms, values, theories and other components. It cannot be asserted with certainty that a group, scientific community or curriculum experts all share the views of such a paradigm. For the sake of convenience some of these theoretical groupings or paradigms are classified.

It also is necessary to indicate that Philosophy of Education has equivalent terms in the literature among which are the following: Educational Philosophy; Theoretical Pedagogics; Systematic Pedagogics; Fundamental Pedagogics.

However Philosophy of Education does not necessarily refer to a complete part discipline as is known in South Africa.

4.6.1  First paradigm: the necessity for fundamental grounding

In the following discussion of Philosophy of Education there is a need for a theoretical grounding for a whole series of aspects such as principles, suppositions, aims and goals. In the discussion one is aware of the lack of a fundamental theory and that it does not only have to do with school teaching that leads to acquiring proficiencies. Viewed comprehensively, it can be said that a teaching practice has a need for the support of the science of education. The following pronouncements are selections mainly from Anglo-American sources:

1. Squire and Morris refer to a study done by Engeland and Wallis where it came to light that only six of two hundred and eight instances of training teachers was Philosophy of Education offered as a separate course. The other instances offered courses under the headings “policy”, “theory” of “idea” of Education within which there was only reference to “philosophy”. The researchers advocate an approach where problems concerning Education are viewed from a philosophical point of view with the aim of illuminating and formulating principles. This does not involve merely analyzing educational problems but the ability at the disposal of the philosophic to be able to fruitfully use epistemology, ethics and politics in education (Squire & Morris, 1964).

2. Gribbie (1969) calls R.S. Peters the most important person responsible for the revolution in the Philosophy of Education. This revolution is concerned with the conceptual analysis of educational discussion as well as with the logic of pronouncements made in educational arguments. The “philosophical analysis” is mainly done as preparation for practical decisions that must be made concerning teaching and educating.

3. Dixon believes that the primary aim of Philosophy of Education is analyzing and a specific focus on answering questions that arise in the situations of educating and teaching. In addition, the influence of a person’s life- and world-view, his moral values and his view of human beings in general on his way of teaching must be studied. Philosophizing leads to additional questions about the nature of contents and justifying their inclusion in the curriculum (Dixon, 1972).

4. For Hirst, philosophy is an activity of analytic thinking with the aim of clarifying concepts, explaining ideas and indicating the significance of terms and expressions as well as indicating the logical connections embraced by the terms and expressions. A rational, accountable approach to curriculum development is made possible by this (Hirst in Kerr, 1976).

5. Israel Scheffler (1980) says that philosophy is not an art or technique but a search for wisdom. The function of philosophy is to evaluate policy in terms of traditional questions about values, virtue, reliability and validity.

6. Philosophy of Education includes the philosophical thinking about all fundamental matters regarding teaching and educating – the means, the aims and everything inherent to them (Beard & Morrow, 1981).

7. Philosophy of Education as a science can be viewed as the dialogue among thinkers regarding teaching and educating in an attempt to make understandable the complex whole of teaching and educating in their totality (Beyers Nel, C.F. in Beard & Morrow, 1981).

8. Barrow (1981) sees Philosophy of Education as the philosophical thinking about all pronouncements and concepts regarding educating and teaching. He stresses the study of logic and meaningful relations in philosophy.

9. According to Power, Philosophy of Education is a plan according to which subsequent generations can be made ready for a place and task in an increasingly complex world (Power, 1982: 4).

10. Wilfred Carr (1984) believes that ‘philosophy’ cannot merely be completed by practicing teachers if the academic theory does not have relevance for practice. A philosophy is implicitly interwoven with the suppositions, values and beliefs of what is acted on in practice every day by the teacher. However, it is not only philosophy that is realized in the practice but also influences of contemporary society. “… the problem of adopting an educational philosophy is more the province of political and social philosophy than any philosopher’s Philosophy of Education.”

11. In this discussion there is evidence of a desire to establish an autonomous part-discipline of Philosophy of Education. These authors have not yet entirely disengaged themselves from the Education is an applied psychology along with the other disciplines such as philosophy and sociology. Professor B.F. Nel would have said that they still have in mind a teaching practice with a naturalistic flavor. The British view of a ‘school based curriculum development’ deters them from arriving at formulating a theory of curriculum studies.

In summary, from the above discussion it is deduced that Philosophy of Education can embrace the following:

• philosophical thinking about the logic and significance of educational pronouncements, concepts, aims and means;
• a preparatory analysis of matters about Education (Pedagogics) with the aim of making practical decisions;
• dialogue among thinkers in Education (Pedagogics;
• analyzing and answering questions about educational problems;
• evaluating aims, policies, forms, contents and methods in educative situations in terms of criteria such as values, norms and validity;
• identifying societal demands (e.g., economic, religious, moral value-judgments, legal aspects and esthetic values);
• a theorizing directed to practice.

4.6.2  Second paradigm: Philosophical-ideological presuppositions

Ozmon and Carver (1990) discuss idealism, realism, pragmatism, reconstructionism, behaviorism, existentialism, analytic philosophy and Marxism. A possible addition is post-modernism (Van der Walt, 1989: 188-195; Grebe, 1991: 132).

4.7  Philosophy of Education (Soltis, 1988: 10)

“When philosophers perform as professionals, there is less proposing and more analyzing, reflecting, evaluating, and seeking of a clearer understanding of educational matters. There is more emphasis on ascertaining the logical soundness of arguments, explicating the meaning of ideas, justifying value claims, constructing reasonable arguments and providing ways to think about educational tasks and problems rather than ways to do or solve them. When engaged in this sort of philosophizing, a philosopher of education is more intent on providing illumination, understanding, and perspective for educators to think with than on providing programs and policies for educators to act on.”

Understanding the educative reality through analysis, reflection and evaluation has as its aim:

• explaining meanings and ideas;
• justifying value-judgments;
• determining the logical correctness of arguments;
• constructing reasonable arguments;
• providing ways of thinking about educative reality.

The educational philosopher provides illumination (disclosure), understanding and perspective for educators so that they can think (reflect) rather than programs and policies to design in light of which they can act.

5.1  Overview

Fundamental Pedagogics as philosophical education (educational philosophy) in the first place must remain true to its essence otherwise there is degeneration into an opportunism that easily can be pulled by party-politicizing, and all kinds of –isms.

The essence of Fundamental Pedagogics (or whatever the name might be) appears in the previous definitions in which essences such as the following come to light:

1. analyzing, i.e., essence-manifesting as form of philosophical examining (penetrating) as a thinking through to the foundations, to the essentials;
2. describing the fundamental ways of thinking in the form of providing modes of thinking about the educative reality, explaining logical arguments and logic;
3. explaining and interpreting the meaning of the scientific character of educatively accountable and already proceeding dialogue among educationists;
4. practically directed theorizing in order to have the right to ask about the quality of the unique realization (of educating) in practice;
5. threats to fundamental pedagogics by –isms, including postmodernism.

5.2  Taking a stand

With regard to the essentially philosophic, Fundamental Pedagogics at the University of South Africa (UNISA) no paradigm-shift is needed. What is needed is:

1. Continuous refinement such as proposed in Landman, W.A.: The appearance of UNISA aims and their particularization in B.Ed. study guides and study letters (Manuscript);
2. Expanding the current number of philosophical-ideological points of departure, at least those dealt with by Ozmon and Craver (1990);
3. Attending to the social-democratic paradigm. The Fundamental Pedagogic (Education) can (dare, must) not pretend to not hear the contemporary call for complying with the social-democratic paradigm.

6.1  Introduction

It can be enlightening (regarding the social-democratic paradigm) to look at the appearance of the concepts “social” and “political” in defining and describing the Fundamental Pedagogic (and variations of it).

6.2  Ozmon H. & Craver, S. (1990: 355-366)

Contemporary philosophers want to participate in practical matters. It is difficult to relate the results of philosophical reflection to those aspects of practical life that education conspicuously is (or has been). The problem is to make philosophical insights (ideas) more relevant for life.

Today the emphasis is on “understanding and dealing with problems and issues in a contextual sense” (p. 362). A system of knowledge (e.g., as built up by fundamental pedagogics) will not automatically lead to clarifying a problem and understanding events (matters, questions) but they must be implemented in terms of “actual contexts of activities and events” (p. 362). The emphasis must fall on human problems and predicaments in specific contexts. The question is what to emphasize so that educational philosophy can remain true to its authentic nature and essence? A following question is how can a particular emphasis be operationalized? What is emphasized is what has come to light as essential for educational philosophy through an analysis of relevant definitions (see the section above) and the way of operationalizing them is an activity that Fundamental Educationists know as an “awakening of life” (Landman, van Zyl & Roos) with contemporary problems in a South African context as a life awakening power. This means that fundamental pedagogical essences and structures must be interpreted in terms of relevant problems as they appear in the South African context. Precisely what this problematic must be brought to light jointly by a Fundamental Pedagogic and Socio-pedagogic roundtable hermeneutic discussions.

Fundamental Pedagogics has finished with “inventing the wheel”. Now it must, in working with Sociopedagogics, allow that wheel to function within the South African context. This can (must) occur in accordance with Fundamental Pedagogic’s hermeneutic interpretation of the system of knowledge that has already been constructed (and is still being refined) in terms of social problems.

Broudy (as cited in Ozmon & Craver, p. 365) lists the following matters that teachers of educational philosophy can expect to attend to:

• educative problems in general
• school problems in particular
• clarifying basic educational concepts and essences
• critically analyzing pronouncements about policies of teaching and educating
• encouraging “rational discourse” and freedom of pursuing science
• attending to systematic and related argumentation and research regarding the total teaching undertaking (the teaching scene)
• establishing valid and reliable pronouncements about educating.

“In the final analysis, the search for wisdom may simply be an intensive search for better ways of thinking about human predicaments”. Fundamental Pedagogics already has made a substantial contribution to establishing categories and methodology for this thinking.

6.3  Kron, F.W. Mainz (in Van Rensburg & Landman, 1986: 386)

Philosophy of Education also must involve itself with the “ontological causes of the social circumstances of education, of values and norms as well as their social and individual history, genesis and legitimization”. Kron also speaks of critical phenomenology that must unlock (understand) the socio-ecological, socio-economical and socio-cultural circumstances.

The above can be interpreted such that educational philosophy has as a task the ontological understanding of being socially situated. For contemporary Fundamental Pedagogics this means that already disclosed fundamental essences and structures’s socio-ecological, socio-economical and socio-cultural significance (in the South African context) must be indicated. This can be done by continually asking the hermeneutic question (what is served?) and then to find answers by means of hermeneutic discussions with sociopedagogues and if need be with Comparative Pedagogues.

6.4  Choola, B. (1992) Zambia

Choola responds to the following request: Your views on the significance of Education as a science for development in Africa. “Education is not only significant as a science but is inseparable from science as we all know that Education lays the basis or foundation for logical and scientific ways of thinking about social, economic and political problems. It provides a specialized highest order of cognition that in turn lays the foundation for ability to:

1. comprehend a given problem;
2. analyse and evaluate;
3. synthesis;
4. apply it.”

As a foundational science Fundamental Pedagogics gives an explication of the significance of logical and scientific thinking and indicates how this thinking can be applied for stating a problem, analyzing, evaluating, synthesizing and applying with respect to social, economical and political problems. In working with Sociopedagogics (and possibly Comparative Pedagogics) the relevant problems can be identified and the scientific acitivity with them become clarified. This can amount to a categorical application of fundamental-pedagogic essences (and structures) with respect to the identified problems.

6.5  Higgs, P. (1991: 194-197) UNISA

The essence and task of fundamental Pedagogics is subject to misrepresentation when the politicizing of teaching (education) leads to a conflating of scientific character and dogma-propagating. This misrepresentation distorts the essential nature and task of Fundamental Pedagogics.

The future task of Fundamental Pedagogics (Philosophy of Education, Educational Philosophy) ought to be:

1. Fundamental Pedagogics must describe universal (human) values in the context of educating (Higgs) in the Republic of South Africa. Particular universal values already have been described by Fundamental Pedagogics in the form of fundamental pedagogical essences (as particular values). The South African context can be more clearly illuminated.
2. In the future there must be a sharper distinction between founding theory and application possibilities for persons holding particular beliefs (Smal, 1992: 325-328 & Yonge, 1990: 530-535).

6.5  Recommendations

With respect to the “political” and “social-democratic” paradigm Fundamental Pedagogics cannot proceed further until the significance of the manifestation of political and economic essences (Roos, 1983: 96-111) for realizing fundamental pedagogical essences in the South African context is described. Sociopedagogic and Comparative Education can further determine the way of operationalizing (See Heese & Badenhorst, 1992).

The practitioner of science begins by choosing, explaining and justifying a point of departure. The point of departure for practicing a science depends on the view of science. A change in point of departure will lead to a change in the view of science. Thus, also a change in the view of science will lead to a change in point of departure. A change in the view of science in reality is a change in basic ways of thinking that are accepted for practicing science, thus a change of paradigms. If the paradigm shifts (changes) the point of departure also shifts.

A science is entitled to resist attempts to shift its point of departure as long as that science still is in a position to justify its point of departure. Consequently, it is entirely unrealistic to expect (or demand) from Fundamental Pedagogics that its point of departure be modified. This is so because the following explication (Oberholzer, 1968: 17-18, 1972: 26; Landman, 1977: 10-15, 1969: 4, 6, 7) still is viewed as valid:

Status of the reality of education as a source of knowledge about education

The status of the everyday reality of education can be described as having the status it does because of the particular position that it takes, namely, the position of the first point of departure. What does this mean?

In answering this question it is especially the explication of C.K. Oberholzer that is illuminating. In this connection the following statements are particularly meaningful:

1. “… must emphatically be indicated that such a scientific practice (namely Pedagogical thinking), just as any other, must have its point of departure in the lifeworld, otherwise there is no foundation on which to stand and be able to depart and proceed from”. The scientific character of the pedagogical is co-dependent on taking the everyday reality of educating as point of departure, obviously by observing certain reductions that must be carried out and employing scientifically necessary and philosophy of life permissible steps of thinking. The everyday reality of educating then has the status of a scientifically defined and is fundamental. In this light it can be expected that the everyday of the reality of educating will differentiate itself regarding the quantity and quality of pedagogical essences that can be illuminated (and this in spite of the vagueness the everyday enveloping reality of educating can show).
2. “… that the pedagogical reality occurrence as a moment or series of moments within a greater human reality in and from out of the lifeworld that seemingly thrusts itself on the curious as of real interest. It is the common standpoint and point of departure for anyone who shows an interest in that: there is something such as educating; it actualizes itself among human beings and only human beings; a human being is a being who educates, is educated, is dependent on educating and lends himself to it.” The fact that the everyday reality of educating is taken as the first point of departure for pedagogical thinking already leads to disclosing essences about it. To take this reality as the point of departure already opens the pedagogue’s eyes to the possibility of disclosing essences of it. The everyday reality of educating is and remains the primary (original) source of the appearance of pedagogically meaningful ways of living that are secondary and dependent on literature, philosophical anthropologies, life philosophies, etc. for supplementation and verification.
3. “The best point of departure for any branch of scientific practice always is that which experiencing offers because then the investigator obtains evidence from the facts themselves …. The genuine scientist, and this includes the pedagogician, always walks with this question on his lips: what is the evidence of the facts?”

To take the everyday reality of educating as point of departure leads to going to work in scientifically accountable ways and indeed in the sense that there is a beginning where the evident facts are found regarding the reality of educating in its original ways of appearing.

M.J. Langeveld in reference to the pedagogic situation remarks: “There we find activities, there we find the origin and point of direction of thinking …. And no theory is worthy to us and in these situations is unworthy …. It is not something that we think it through at our desk or infer I from one or another beautiful theory; it is life itself …. Children develop so and so one says. But I ask you: how do you know that? By a glass retort or by means of human educating? Aha, so why don’t you begin there? …. And you should not be afraid to investigate empirically there where its origin is” (Langeveld, 1968: 4, 6, 7).

Faithfulness to reality which is given particular scientific value requires that the logically obvious first point of departure should be taken, namely that where the educative event is found and thus where there are pedagogically meaningful ways of living. The reality of educating forces itself on the pedagogue as the most meaningful point of departure for his reflecting on the pedagogical.

8.1  That Fundamental Pedagogics remains true to its nature, essence and point of departure.
8.2  That Fundamental Pedagogics apply political and economical essences as particular perspectives on the corpus of fundamental knowledge that it already has constructed and is still involved in refining.
8.3  The Fundamental Pedagogics enter into discussion with Sociopedagogics and Comparative Education with the aim of:

1. Defining boundaries
2. Assistance Fundamental Pedagogics can give to the two disciplines with respect to operationalizing in the RSA design.

8.4  That Fundamental Pedagogics draw a clear boundary between its theorizing and its philosophy of life interpretations.
8.5  That Fundamental Pedagogics inform its students about other perspectives on the reality of educating than the existential phenomenological but give them the right to evaluate these perspectives existential phenomenologically.
8.6  That Fundamental Pedagogics give its students (BEd) an explanation of the South African philosophy of education visions (Working paper in progress).
8.7  Since UNISA in its mission and aims has not bound itself to promoting a particular philosophy of life, and

Since FUNDAMENTAL PEDAGOGICS knows that in practice educating is realized in regard to a philosophy of life, the following are proposed:

1. Fundamental Pedagogics should state its scientific view (paradigm) clearly and with justification (motivation).
2. Fundamental Pedagogics should give an explanation of a philosophy of life as a universal phenomenon and provide a structural analysis of it.
3. Fundamental Pedagogics should explicate the connection between educating and a particular philosophy of life.
4. The student (especially BEd) should receive a work assignment in relation to (iii). In this way he/she experiences an avowal of his/her particular philosophy of life.
5. Fundamental Pedagogics should compile a very comprehensive reading list (books and articles) with the following assignment:

1. Select from the list the reading material that treats your philosophy of life and study it for the work assignment.
2. Look at the other reading material and decide what commentary in it provided about your philosophy of life. Evaluate this commentary critically.

In this way Fundamental Pedagogics promotes its scientific character as he sees it and the onus is largely placed on the student to serve his/her own philosophy of life.

REFERENCES

Fearnside, W.W. & Holther, W.B. 1959. The counterfeit of arguments. Englewood Cliffs. Prentice-Hall.
Heese, C.A. & Badenhorst, D. 1992. South Africa. The education equation. Problems, perceptions and prospects. Pretoria. J.L. van Schaik.
Higgs, P. 1991. Fundamental Pedagogics and human values. South African Journal of Education, 11(14).
Landman, W.A. 1977. Fundamentele Pedagogiek en Onderwyspraktyk. Durban. Butterworths.
Langeveld, M.J. 1968. Onderzoek en theorievorming in de Pedagogiek. S’ Hertogenbosch. LCG Malmberg.
Michalos, A.C. 1970. Improving your reasoning. New Jersey. Prentice-Hall.
Oberholzer, C.K. 1968. Prolegomena van ‘n prinsipiele pedagogiek. Pretoria. HAUM.
Oberholzer, C.K. 1972. Die plek en taak van die fundamentele pedagogiek in die sistemiek van die Pedagogiek. Educare, 1(1).
Ozmon, H. & Craver, S. 1990. Philosophical foundations of education. 4th Ed.. Ohio. Merrill.
Roos, S.G. 1983. “Onderwys-, politieke en ekonomiese doelwitte: politieke essensies”, Pedagogiekjoernaal, 4(1).
Smal, P.J.H. 1992. “Metodologiese verwarring en paradigmatiese stagnering”, Suid-Afrikaanse Tydskrif vir Opvoedkunde, 12(3).
Soltis, J.F. 1988. No citation given.
Yonge, G.D. 1990. “Fundamental Pedagogics is a philosophy of education in the service of the foundations of education: a response to T. Reagan. South African Journal of Education, 10(5/6).