Misconception and Right Concept of Peace Education: Theory and Praxis

EDUCATION, 19 May 2025

Dr. Surya Nath Prasad – TRANSCEND Media Service

This paper is based on the article published in Peace Education: An International Journal, Vol. 15, 2007-2008 in its Special Issue on the theme: Foundations of Peace Education, and the Editorial for this issue on the theme was written  by Rodrigo Carazo Odio as the Guest Editor for this issue. Dr. Rodrigo Carazo was the President of Costa Rica and Founder of United Nations University for Peace, and he was also the Member of Editorial Board of Peace Education Journal

Misconception about Peace Education: Wrong Diagnosis

Peace education presently in theory and practice, as the author of these lines views, is in encounter of war education (Prasad, 1976); education of a few privileged oppressed class (Freire, 1974); economics of exploitation (Sykes, 1992); education of inequality and structural violence (Gandhi, 1942; Galtung 1976); slavery (Curle197; Richardson, 1986); structural violence and organized peacelessness (Wulf,1986); injustice and structural violence (Reardon, 1986); passive bystanders in peaceful situation, tension between indigenous and immigrants people in Western Europe, and intractable conflict-real conflict Solomon, 2004); existing components of the educational problematic, viz. form, content and structure (Haavelsrud, 1986).

Peace education has also gained importance as solution for the existing practice of Miseducation in the school systems for the children of well-to-do and non-education of (even this Miseducation) for the children of rest poor masses everywhere (Goodman, 1973; Holt, 1973; Illich, 1973; Freire, 1974; Reimer, 1974; Buckman, 1975).

Some of the definitions of peace education given by the great peace educators also show the ways to solve the problems of conflict, violence, aggression, war, exploitation, poverty, ecological imbalance, and to meet the societal need of peace education and educational need for peace education (Laing, 2001); Schmidt & Friedman, 2001; Duczek, 1984; Aspeslagh, 1999).

However, after the observation of the ideas of the modern peace thinkers, today’s peace education in theory and practice is not in any way peace education in true sense. It may be something else. It may be any other type of education, but it is not peace education. Stokes (2002) reports, “In public schools, peace education can at best be found tucked in under international education or in conflict resolution programs designed to prevent or diffuse school violence. Searching 15 Websites of Departments of Education in the United States and 7 internationally (see appendix), using the keywords “peace education”, “global/international education”, “conflict resolution”, “violence prevention”, and “multi-cultural education” gave no direct mention of peace education as learning goal with the exception of China and India.”

Wintersteiner, Werner (2007) writes, “It would be interesting to discuss the related field of peace education, such as human rights education, disarmament education, global education, education for non-violent conflict transformation, inter-cultural education, gender education, civil education, and so on…” Johnson (1998) also informs, “Peace education curricula generally include instruction in conflict resolution, cooperation, and interdependence, cooperation and interdependence, global awareness and social and ecological responsibility.”

Thus we may draw the conclusion that there will be no end of perpetually emerging problems or issues to be part parcel of the subject matter of the discipline of peace education. And in future, these thinkers will have to start a course on Anti-terrorism to include in peace education courses

Use of Pedagogy in Peace Education: False Remedy

Another mistake committed by the thinkers of peace education is that they have adopted pedagogy in peace education. Though they give more importance to the methods of teaching than curriculum of peace education, it is their firm belief that peace is teaching concept. And this conviction of peace as teaching concept has support of Pope Paul VI (19779), who preached, “To reach peace, teach peace.” Hence peace education thinkers have developed the science of teaching pedagogy to make the teaching effective using dialogue in teaching peace. Aspeslagh (1994) advised, “In teacher-training, let the student-teachers first learn what has been said by the pedagogues about peace education. Let them listen to the peace talks of Maria Montessori and Freire, for example. What we have to develop first is what could be called pedagogy of peace, showing how pedagogues have contributed through the centuries to peace-related education, non-violent education, education different from “die Schwarz Pädagogik”. Hurst (1999) says, “Though there is substantial movement toward consensus on the general intellectual framework of peace studies programs, there has been for less discussion of what might be an optimum pedagogy.” However, citing several examples, he further says, “These examples and along rich tradition in the literature about education enable us to declare a set of conditions and principles for an appropriate pedagogy for a university program in peace studies.” Galtung (2003) also writes, “At the heart of peace pedagogy lies the interpretation of our live experiences: The first point is what everybody would assume will be included in peace education program; analysis of our present real world, describing its basic facts to the extent they are relevant for peace problems.” Peace Education Center, Teachers College Columbia University, NEW York, USA (2004) has given among other things, the place of Critical Pedagogy and pedagogies of envisioning as approaches and methodologies in the programs of peace education. University for Peace, San José, Costa Rica (2004) has given also the place of pedagogy in its M.A. Course in Peace Education. It is written in the program outline that “As in Peace Education: Theory and Practice I, students will also be exposed to a range of creative and participatory teaching-learning strategies that role model of the pedagogical principles of peace education.”

Failure of Existing Peace Education: The Worst Result

Though the present peace education has been considered since its inception after World War II or from the beginning of the 19^th century or from early in the human history, as remedial means to solve the problems of violence and war, it has been utterly failed due to wrong diagnosis of peace education as concept of removing the symptoms or solving the problems of war and violence, and related problems and use of pedagogy as their remedy (solutions).

It has been a challenge to peace education that at least 20 million people died in World War I, and 40 million more were killed in World War II, and there have been over a hundred wars since the United Nations was founded in 1945 and another 20 million have been killed nearly till 1995.(Ferencz, 1993-95). It is also said that 110 million people died in different wars in 20^th century. Besides these, common people everywhere are still victims of economic, social, cultural, communal and political exploitation and oppression. At some places, people suffered a lot by ‘genocide’, and ‘ethnic cleansing’; and now they have been suffering by terrorism.

Perhaps peace education thinkers think peace can be taught. But reality is that neither war nor peace can be taught because both war and peace are the learning concepts. Violence and war are products of mis-education of minority privileged and non-education of majority poor. Peace is also the product, but of real peace education of five elements, viz. body, vitality, mind, intellect and spirit, which constitute every man and woman everywhere without any discrimination. Though even the present peace education is not in practice in the educational institutions of the un-democratic nation-states, and where there are democracies, their numbers are not satisfactory as justified with the complaint of Galtung (1974), observation of Wulf (1974), findings of the study of Bjerstedt (1992) and the report of the Robin’s Directory (2002) in this regard; it is good sign that peace education thinkers may correct, amend or set right the true nature of peace education as concept, and adopt right methodology of learning for peace education ceasing the use of pedagogy in peace education before true peace education may flourish in every part of the world.

Much Higher Fees: Peace Education Courses Not to the Reach of All

Peace education courses wherever are being run charge very high fees to be paid. Hence all have no access to receive these courses. University for Peace, San José, Costa Rica (2004) charges US $ 18, 000 towards tuition fee for Master Degree Program in Peace Education, and Columbia Teachers College, New York, USA charges $ 975 per point (credit) for the 2006-07 academic sessions. In addition, all students are required to pay a college fee of $ 320 per term. Other peace education institutions also charge more fees for the peace education courses. Thus peace education course has become very lucrative education for the jobseekers after taking this course like medical, management, engineering, technology courses. And commercial builders of educational institutions are being attracted to establish more centers for peace education courses to earn more benefits from the course. Thus peace education though it benefits a few privileged well-to-do has also become a source of exploitation.

But with the exception of others, there is only one institution of peace studies in the world which does not charge any tuition fee, and it provides free lodging, boarding and books also to all students admitted to the course. The name of this institution is The Graduate Institute of Peace Studies, Kyung Hee University, and Republic of Korea. This institution was founded by late Professor Young Seek Choue, Ph.D., who was the Chancellor of the University.

Right Concept of Peace Education

Modern thinkers in peace education accept the concept, meaning and ideas of great educationists of the past like Comenius, Rousseau, Pestalozzi, Froebel, Dewey, Montessori and the alike thinkers and they consider them as initiators of peace education. Aspeslagh (1999) has provided a long list of these initiators of peace education designating them as classical educators and the educators of new education movements. And among them, Comenius has been regarded and recognized as pioneer of peace education in the whole world. Though peace education centers have their ideas in their peace education courses, but they teach the students mechanically without framing curriculum on their concepts and aims of man and education which concern teacher and taught both.

Reality is that true education is peace education. To give more importance and emphasis to the concept of peace, the word ‘peace’ has been added before the word ‘education’ considering peace is the end product of education. Let us start with pioneer of peace education Comenius what he thought about education, which is still relevant today. He said in The Great Didactic:

“The education I propose includes all that is proper for a man, and is one in which all men who are born into the world should share…

Our first wish is that all men should be educated fully to full humanity; not anyone individual, nor a few nor even many, but all men together and singly, young and old, rich and poor, of high and lowly birth, men and women – in a word all whose fate is to be born human beings; so that at last the whole of the human race may become educated, men of all ages, all conditions, both sexes and all nations.

Our second wish is that every man should be wholly educated, rightly formed not only in one single matter or in a few or even in many, but in all things which perfect human nature… .”   

Commenting on the definition of Comenius, Hutchins (1982) said, “In the light of this definition, all educational systems of the past and present are seen to be to some extent inhuman, non-human and anti-human,” because education for all (leaving none) and in all (which constitute every man and ever woman) is not available anywhere. Now let us proceed to look into and look upon the definition of education given by other great thinkers of education.

Swami Vivekananda (1943) considers education as manifestation of perfection already in man; Pestalozzi (1951) understands education as natural, harmonious and progressive development of man’s innate powers; Dewey (1959) defines education as the development all those capacities in the individual which enables him or her to control his or her environment   and fulfill his and her possibilities; and according to Mahatma Gandhi (1955), education is drawing out of the best in man and child – body, mind and spirit.

One may draw the inference from the above cited definitions of education is the definition of man, means what a man stands for or what a man is made of to be harmoniously evolved and unfolded. We find the definition of man in an Indian ancient book: Tattiriyopanishad (1965). It is written in it that man (male or female) is made of five sheaths (elements), viz. body, vitality, mind, intellect and spirit. An Indian Saint Tulsidasa (1963) defining man said, “The five elements, viz. earth, air, water, fire and space constitute the man.”  

The following details provide the corresponding meaning of five elements of man described by Taittiriopanishad and Tulsidas:

Earth                                        Body                                        Physical

Air                                          Vitality                                       Vital

Water                                      Mind                                         Mental

Fire                                          Intellect                                    Intellectual

Space                                       Spirit                                        Spiritual

 

Maslow (1978) thinks about man in terms of hierarchy of his five needs, viz.1. Physiological,

2. Safety, 3. Love and Belongingness, 4.Esteem, and 5. Self-Actualization.

 

Galtung and Wirak (1986) talk about man’s 12 human needs plus ecology, viz. 1. Food and Water, 2. Clothing, 3. Housing, 4. Health, 5. Education, 6. Social Contact, 7. Work, 8. Liberty, 9. Politics, 10. New Experience, 11. Self-realization and 12. Meaningful Life. Galtung and Wirak consider these things essential for life of everyman. They say if first 6 needs are threatened, there will be violence of poverty, and if fulfilled, there will be security of well-being. If 7 to 9 needs are threatened, there will be violence suppression; if fulfilled, there will be security of freedom; and if 18 and 12 needs are threatened, there will be violence of alienation; if fulfilled, there will be security of identity. Las one is ecological need for life. If it is threatened, there will be violence of ecological imbalance; if it is fulfilled, there will be security of ecological balance

 

In all the definitions of education, man is the center point. This is also common in all that perfection (Vivekanand, 1971), innate powers (Pestalozzi (1951); capacities (Dewey, 1959); body, mind and spirit (Gandhi, 1955); body, vitality, mind, intellect, and spirit (Taittiriopanishad, 1965) are in everyman to be evolved and unfolded integrally which must continue, completing each other till the end of life through the help of knowledge and practice of science of learning to be resultant in peace; and failure of these leading to violence and war. In the definition of man also there are many things are similar and common in the sense of elements in man and his basic needs to be properly fulfilled to be non-violent and peaceful man.

 

Thus unfoldment and fulfillment of fundamental elements and basic needs of every man is true peace education. This man-making education is real peace education. The definition of peace education can be universally accepted definition, because in the definition of man, there is no hurdle of race, caste, clan sect, language, religion and nation.

 

If this peace education is available to all leaving none, and in all (the elements which constitute every man and woman) in view of Comenius, and other peace thinkers of this opinion, this discipline will be very powerful and effective means for sustainable for all everywhere.

 

Curriculum for True Peace Education

 

Play, exercise, games, sports, proper diet etc. should be facilitated for unfolding of biological energies. For the unfoldment of vital energies, regular physical and mental relaxation and other skills of Yoga should be practiced. Art, painting, drawing, music, and literature should be encouraged to learn for unfoldment of mental energies. Facilities for learning Science, religion, philosophy, sociology, political science, economics, and history should be provided, and talks, lectures, seminars, symposium and conferences should be organized for unfoldment of intellectual energies. Community work, group excursion, world youth camps should be arranged; making pen-friends and feeling of oneness in all should be encouraged for spiritual unfoldment. For manifestation of all the energies integrally, the integral course should be provided. Besides these, in framing the curriculum for peace education, Comenius views on education of man, Maslow’s hierarchy of man’s needs, and concept of human needs of man of Galtung and Wirack should also be kept in mind in framing the curriculum for true peace education.

 

Mathetics for Peace Education

 

Non-Use of Mathetics in Peace Education: If we want to see peace education effective in the sense of making people of different races, faiths, nations, languages and of other differences – man everywhere to be mutually just, non-violent and peaceful; thinkers, researchers and teachers in the peace education adopt mathetics in learning peace, and help learners (teacher and taught; younger and elder) learn peace otherwise peace education would not succeed to make different people man (human), and it would also be a dogma like other educations would be a dogma like other education would be a licence for  better jobs in governmental and non-governmental organizations for exploitation. And it would be most profitable business or trade to the builders of peace education institutions, who run peace education courses for commercial purposes.

 

          Pedagogy Harms All Groups: The great hurdle in peace education today is practice of pedagogy. It has done great harm in the past due to its use in all educations, and still it is doing damage because its use is continued in practice everywhere in schools, colleges and universities including in peace education institutions and out-of-campus courses. Its effect reflects in behavior of man with man, which leads to dominance in every walk of life and to exploitation of men by men, of women by men, of weak by strong, of age and sex groups by each others, of men by systems, and of systems by men. Thus pedagogy has led to undemocratic political systems in different states for unfair governance, which helps its continuity in practice and where there are democracies, there also not true democracy due to perpetuation of pedagogy in educational systems.

 

         History and Concept of Pedagogy: The history of pedagogy is that in Middle Ages pedagogical model of instruction was originally developed in the monastic schools of Europe. Young children in monasteries were taught by monks through a system of instruction that helped to make them obedient, faithful and efficient student of the Church (Knowles, 1984). From this origin develop the tradition of pedagogy, which later spread to the secular school of Europe and America and became and remains the dominant form of instruction (Hiemstra & Sisco, 1990) . And now, pedagogy is in use of all levels and all types of educational institutions of all over the world.

 

However , pedagogy is derived from Greek word ‘paid’, meaning ‘child’ plus ‘agogos’ meaning ‘learning’. This pedagogy has been defined as the art and science of teaching children (Hiemstra & Sisco, 1990); or pedagogy is the discipline in which attention is focused on the school master’s behaviour while teaching.

 

Pedagogy is against the true concept of man. It is not conducive to unfold powers in man. Even though, it has been adopted in school systems everywhere in the world, but it is pity that thinkers in peace education have also accepted in peace education courses though they know it kills creativity of man, and obstructs the individual to be a man (human). Though Paulo Freire (1974) describes in his Pedagogy of the Oppressed, about discussion, dialogue and problem-posing as methods of learning for teacher and taught both considering them nobody teaches anybody but all learn from each other. He could not remove the word ‘Pedagogy’ from his very popular book as mentioned above. Perhaps it may be due to ignorance about the concept of any science which deals with learning; hence he used pedagogy as learning concept.

 

Vinoba Bhave (1996) has also strong faith in learning. He tells us about our inability to teach, he says, “We can learn, we can help others to learn, but we cannot teach.”

 

Young Nigel (1994) has also firm belief that we cannot teachers to teach peace, and he says, “I don’t think you can teach teachers to teach peace education.” But he doubts about availability of any replacement for teaching,” and he says, “I don’t think any substitute for that.”

 

Andragogy and Its Role in Teaching: Certainly ‘andragogy’ in contrast pedagogy developed by Malcolm Knowles (1970, 1973, 1975, and 1986) helped to improve the teaching of adults. Prior to this concept, pedagogy was used in teaching adult also. But Knowles emphasizes that adults are self-directed and expect to take responsibility for decisions, and think that there should be different methods of teaching for adults, and he developed the term ‘andragogy’ as opposed to ‘pedagogy’. Though Malcolm was a pioneer in the field of andragogy, the term ‘andragogy’ was originally formulated by German teacher Alexander Kapp in 1983  (Nottingham Andragogy Group, 19830) ‘andr’ meaning ‘man’, ‘agogos’ meaning ‘leading’. Thus andragogy is the art and science of teaching adults (Knowles, 1980). According to Knowles (1984), andragogy is based on four crucial assumptions about learners, viz. (i) self-concept, (ii) experience, (iii) ready to learn, (iv) orientation to learning, and (v) motivation to learn – it was added later by him.

 

Mathetics in Peace Education: Why? As peace education is integral unfoldment of five sheaths/elements/seeds/needs (Taittiriyopanishad, 1965) or fulfillment of twelve human needs (Galtung and Wirack, 1986) or achievement of five hierarchies of needs (Maslow, 1978) through the skills of learning, and all these seeds or needs in every individual would continue to be manifested or fulfilled or achieved completing each other till the end of life; hence mathetics is very essential for peace education. It is very much in tune with the man’s potentialities or needs to be unfolded, fulfilled or achieved.

 

In fact, peace education is learning concept. Teaching is violence, learning is peace. Teaching makes a few minorities, the possessors of knowledge, and majority in number dispossessed of it. Teaching does not help students and the teacher to make them aware. It serves the purpose of oppressors. The teacher and the students both are conditioned with their respective environment.

 

But learning makes teacher and taught aware, and liberates them including oppressors and oppressed both. Teaching kills creativity of man and woman, and learning helps to unfold the treasure within each individual. UNESCO has rightly put the titles of its books – Learning to Be (1976) and Learning: The Treasure Within (1996). Hence, mathetics, not pedagogy nor andragogy, is needed for peace education to learning peace in the process of becoming man (human).

 

          Pioneers of Mathetics: Mathetics is the science of learning, which was first written down by John Amos Comenius (1592-1670). Comenius is acclaimed as the pioneer of peace education in the world. He understood ‘Mathetica’ as the opposite of ‘Didactics’, the science of teaching (Mathetica Websites, 2003). Besides this, certain researchers in the United States (Gilbert) and Soviet Union – now known as Russia (Lev Landa) are now using it and so is the European Education Centre in Frascati, Italy, where a first, small-scale ‘mathetics laboratory’ was set up. The mathetic processes and their study are assuming increasing importance (UNESCO’s Learning to Be (1973)).

 

          Contributors in the Field of Learning: The new development in the field of learning has primarily contributed by Carl Rogers (1951) by emphasizing the importance of nurturing self-direction and fulfillment; Bruner (1966) by stressing the importance of autonomy and self-reward and discovery as the main way of learning; and Paulo Freire (19774)by his emphasis on conscientization as the main goal of education. The shift in emphasis can be seen from coping behavior to expressive behavior (using the terminology by Bruner); or from prescriptive behavior to librating behavior (using the terminology by Paulo Freire, 1974) or from direct influence to indirect influence using the concept developed by Flanders. And Learning to know, Learning to do, Learning to live together, and learning to be as four pillars of education as enunciated in the report of Jacques Delores submitted to the UNESCO (1996). Learning to be enterprising as one pillar added by Federico Mayor, 1998), then Director-General of UNESCO; and Learning to share and Learning to be just two more pillars of education added by Prasad (2004) have helped to advance in the process of learning of the learners.

 

Peace Education: Free for All

 

Peace education must be considered as highly public good. And being public good, it should not be priced. It should be free of cost to all because peace education being man-making education:

• will make all people beneficiaries of peace education without any discrimination;
• will benefit the society – national as well as global through the recipients of peace education; and
• absence of peace education will harm all groups including individuals.

 

Therefore, ‘expenditure’ on peace education is not expenditure, but it is ‘investment’ in human resource development or to grow man.  And in long run, not only the particular; but all societies of the world will get heavy returns for centuries, but the cost of ignorance about peace education can be very high for every society. Hence peace education is essential for non-exploitative, non-violent and peaceful society, and it should be free to all. And also peace education will reduce the cost of managing problematic and costly affairs like defense, judiciary (courts), intelligence departments, jails, and other retributive measures, metal hospitals, orphanage and the like institutions.

World resources must be distributed and used properly and used in the planning and execution of true peace education courses to all peoples of all nations.

The World Bank, , rich nations, rich people of the world and within the nations, private educational  charitable trusts and distance mode of  peace education courses may share the burden of the governments in financing peace education courses, and to meet its costs, and to make it free to all.

References:

Aspeslagh, R. (1994). Quoted in Ake Bjerstedt, Teacher Training and Peace Education (Maalmö-

                  Sweden: School of Education – Lund University), Peace Education Miniprints, 55 (Jan.), p.15

 

———— (1999). Peace Education. In Young Seek Choue, (Ed), World Encyclopedia of Peace (p.182).

New York: Oceana Publications, Inc.

 

 ———— (1999). Peace Education. In Young Seek Choue, (Ed), World Encyclopedia of Peace (p.182-

192). New York: Oceana Publications, Inc.

 

Bhave, V. (1996). Thoughts on Education. Varanasi: Sarva Seva Sangh Prakashn

 

Bjerstedt, J. (1992). Peace Education around the World at the Beginning of the1990s. Peace Education  

                   Miniprints, 32 (August), 1-24

 

Bruner, J. (1966). Toward a Theory of Instruction. Cambridge, MA: Belknap Press of Harvard University

Press

 

Buckman, P. (Ed.). (1975). Education without Schools. New Delhi: Rupa and Company

 

Comenius, A. (1968). The Great Didactic. Quoted in R.M. Hutchins, The Learning Society (p. 10).

Middlesex (England): Penguin Books Ltd.

 

Curle, Adams (1986).Theoretical Aspects of Education for Peace. International Peace Research

              Newsletter, XIII (4), 3-7

 

Dewey, J. (1959). Quoted in Saryu Prasad Chaubey, Pashchatya Shiksha Ka Itihas (History of Western

Education)  (p. 424). Agra: Lakshminarayan Agrawal  

 

Duczek, S. (1984). Quoted by David Hicks in his Talk “A Global Perspective” reprinted in National

    Council of Women of Great Britain Educating people for Peace: Report of a One Day  

                Conference in Peace Education (p. 10) London: National Council of Women of Great Britain              

 

Ferencz, B.B. (1993-95). Making Unite National Effective for Peace. Peace Progress, (1, 2, 3) 56

 

Flanders, N.A. (1965). Teacher influences pupil attitudes and achievement. Cooperative Research 

               Monograph. Washington, D.C.: US Government Printing Office

 

Freire, P. (1974). Pedagogy of the Oppressed. Middlesex (England): Penguin Books Ltd.

 

Galtung, J. (1974). On Peace Education. In C. Wulf (Ed.) Handbook on Peace education (pp.153-171).

Frankfurt/Main. International Peace Research Association

 

———-(1976). Peace-keeping, Peace-making and Peace-building. In J. Galtung (Ed.), Peace, War and 

           Defense (pp.282-305). Copenhagen: Christian Ejlers

 

———-& Wirak A. (1986). The Concept of Peace Education. In Sissel Volan, Teachers’ Kit on Peace

Education. Peace Education: An International Journal, Vol. X, 1986, pp. 60-61.

 

———-(2003). Quoted in Ian Harris and Mary L. Morrison, Peace Education (p. 223). London:

McFarland & Company, Inc., Publishers     

 

Gandhi, M.K. (1942). Nonviolence in Peace and War. Vol. I. Ahmedabad: Navajivan Publishing House  

 

———–(1955). Sarvodaya. Ahmedabad: Navajivan Prakashn Mandir

 

Goodman, P. (1973). Compulsory Miseducation. Middlesex (England): Penguin Books Ltd.

 

Haavelsrud, M. (1986). The Substance of Peace Education. Peace Education: An International Journal,

Vol. X (December), 16-20

 

Hiemstra, R. & Sisco B. (1990). Individualizing Instruction: San Francisco: Jossey-Bass

 

Holt, J. (1973). Freedom and Beyond. Middlesex (England): Penguin Books Ltd.

 

Hurst J. (1999). Pedagogy for Peace. In Young Seek Choue (Ed.), World Encyclopedia of Peace, Vol. IV

(pp.307-312). New York, Oceana Publications, Inc.

 

Hutchins, M. (1968). The Learning Society. Middlesex (England). Penguin Books Ltd.

 

Illich, I (1973).  Deschooling Society. Middlesex (England). Penguin  Books Ltd.

 

Johnson, M. L. (1998). Trends in Peace Education.  Bloomington: Indiana University.

http://www.indiana.edu-ssdc/pcdig.htm, p.1

 

Knowles, M. (1980). Modern Practice of Adult Education: From Pedagogy to Andragogy (2^nd Edition).

Englewood Cliffs prentice Hall/Cambridge

 

 

———- & et al. (1984) Andragogy in Action: Applying Modern Principles of Adult Education.  San

           Francisco: Jossey Bass

 

Laing, R.D. (2001). Quoted in A.S. Balasooriya, Learning the Way of Peace: A Teachers Guide to Peace

          Education (p.4). New Delhi: UNESCO

 

Maslow, A. (1978). Quoted in S.S. Chauhan. Advanced Educational Psychology (pp. 213-217). New

Delhi: Vikas Publishing House

Mathetica Websites. (2003). ‘Mathetica’ – Mathetics

http://www.chemie.uni-muenchen.de/didaktik/visionen/vis_def.htm.

 

Nottingham Andragogy Group (1983).  Towards a Developmental Theory.  Nottingham University of

Nottingham Department of Adult Education

 

Peace Education Centre (2004). Philosophy  (pp.3-4). New York:  Teachers College Columbia University

 

Pestalozzi, J.H. (1951). Quoted in Sitaram Jayswal, Pashchimi Shiksha Ka Itihas (History of Western

Education (p. 481). Banaras: Nandkishore & Brothers

 

Prasad, S.N. (1976). Peace Education: An Alternative to War Education.  Peace Progress. (Japan), 1(3),

49-55

         

———-(2004) . Man, Education and Peace – Printed Lecture. Seoul, Korea. The Graduate Institute of

Peace Studies, Kyung Hee University

 

Reardon, B. (1986). Disarmament: A Key Concept of Peace Education. Peace Education: An

International Journal, Vol. X, December 1986,  pp. 27-228

 

Reimer, E. (1974). School is dead. Middlesex (England): Penguin Books Ltd.

 

Rogers, C. (1951). Client-Centered Therapy. Boston: Houghton Mifflin Company.

 

UNESCO (1973).  Learning to Be. Pars: UNESCO    

 

———- (1996). Learning: The Treasure Within, Paris: UNESCO

 

Vivekanand, Swami (1943). Education. Coimbatore: Sri Ramkrishna Mission Vidyalaya

 

Wulf C. (Ed.) (1974). Handbook on Peace Education. Frankfurt/Main: International Peace Research

Association

 

Young, Nigel (1994). Quoted in Ake Bjerstedt (Ed.), Teachers Training and Peace Education (p.42).

Peace Education Miniprints. 55 (January)

_______________________________________________

Dr. Surya Nath Prasad, Former President, Executive Vice President & Secretary-General of the International Association of Educators for World Peace (IAEWP); associate professor of education emeritus, the Graduate Institute of Peace Studies, Kyung Hee University, Republic of Korea. Founder and editor-in-chief of Peace Education: An International Journal. dr_suryanathprasad@yahoo.co.in

Tags: Education for Peace, Peace Education

This article originally appeared on Transcend Media Service (TMS) on 19 May 2025.

Anticopyright: Editorials and articles originated on TMS may be freely reprinted, disseminated, translated and used as background material, provided an acknowledgement and link to the source, TMS: Misconception and Right Concept of Peace Education: Theory and Praxis, is included. Thank you.

If you enjoyed this article, please donate to TMS to join the growing list of TMS Supporters.

Share this article: email mastodon facebook 🔗 copy link

This work is licensed under a CC BY-NC 4.0 License.

There are no comments so far.