My Contributions to the Art of Teaching Pedagogy

INTRODUCTION:

Lee Shulman said that “If pedagogy is thought of as an art, then the job of teachers is

not to master pedagogical content knowledge, which includes how and what is taught and

understanding who it is being taught to, but rather to go on developing it.” I fully appreciate the

significance of Shulman’s thoughts: it’s not just about the knowledge and practice, but how a

teacher can use and contribute to that knowledge and practice. There are many moving parts

within a classroom, and in many ways each person can bring their own perspectives and

personal instincts to tried-and-tested pedagogical and content-driven concepts. In like fashion,

my teaching over the course of this year has seen many improvements based on (at first basic)

experimental pedagogical practices, that became progressively complex in the wake of clear

successes and (more importantly) frustrating failures. As the year continues, areas for my future

development become increasingly clear through both the study of the literature produced by

various expert educators, and the experiences I have gained while trying to implement my own

understanding of some basic pedagogical principles. These points are to be illuminated.

I propose to examine in depth three examples of pedagogical principles I have incorporated into

my everyday practice that have helped me deal with clear, indicated problems that previously

plagued my practice. In doing so, I hope to illuminate the ways these principles have improved

student learning in my class and so demonstrate the need for my constant growth as an

educator, in line with the thoughts expressed by Schulman. There are, I like to think, more areas

in which I have improved, but I believe these will be sufficient to demonstrate a clear linear

progression and improvement.

PEDAGOGICAL IMPROVEMENT 1: TIME MANAGEMENT/PLANNING

Coe, Aloisi, Higgins and Major (Coe, Aloisi, Higgins & Major, 2014, Page 3) place time

management as one of the key underpinning features of effective teaching. The management of

my class time was the first significant issue I began to address this year. Initially, my class

planning comprised a series of complex processes that would seek to balance an endless

number of semi-related activities. My classes would invariably run significantly overtime, and I

would miss huge swathes of content that I had planned to cover. Although my activities were

not necessarily bad, their usefulness was diluted to the point where students would get nothing

from my classes. I began to recognise my fault through a series of rather stern corrections from

my supervisor, as well as through my studying of various texts that dealt with teaching

pedagogy.

Barbara Gross Davis, for example, describes ways to rationally organizing content to ensure that

all students are challenged to not only learn the given material, but constructively apply the

information in a real setting (Davis, 1993, Page 12). I found her arguments concerning lesson

planning particularly helpful for my time management. Gross Davis specifies that effort,

techniques, time, and a big picture vision are required to create a quality lesson plan that can

produce a successful class (Davis, 1993, Page 100). She further states that a learning objective

should be worded in a constructive manner using adjectives to help student understanding, and

(importantly) to be realistically achievable (Davis, 1993, Page 100, 103). A good lesson plan

should also be constructed in three parts: ‘Introduction,’ ‘Development,’ and ‘Conclusion’ (Davis,

1993, Page 105). These lesson plans must be designed in a constructive and challenging format

on behalf of the student.

I find the work of Gross Davis particularly relevant to my practice as my lesson planning – which I

have stated, and also according to the reflections of my supervisors – lacks time management

and systematic progression (TLF, PDP, Week 11). I have interpreted and applied the principles

described by Gross Davis so that the ‘Introduction’ part of my lesson plans have become

routines for the students to get them on task the instant the class is set to begin – and this also

gives me time for getting activities set up or writing information on the board (TLF, PDP, Week

15). My routines to start the class frequently incorporate an opening prayer, activities for

activating prior knowledge, starter activities for the new material given in the day’s class, and an

introduction of the learning objective for the class (these routines are variously integrated to

minimize time and activity transition) (TLF, PDP, Week 16). From there my lesson planning

thought typically moves into the ‘Development’ section, and I have found that this is the

moment in which to include activities that incorporate Tomlinson’s theories of differentiation

(to be discussed further below). At times, I include technology for review videos and discussion

in this section, but only according to time and applicability to the learning objective (TLF, Self

Evaluation, Week 16). Finally, I have interpreted the ‘Conclusion’ as a time for reviewing the

students’ learning, to see if they each individually met the day’s learning objective, and I strive

to apply Lampranou and Athanasou’s theories (discussed further below). Time is also given for

students to gather their homework assignments. My lesson plans have evolved over the course

of the school year and have grown in a very constructive manner to be sure each student learns

and is challenged according to their specific capabilities, and stemming from principles such as

Gross Davis’.

Time management is essential in the minutest transitions in the lesson plan, and I have realized

that it is effective to include props such as electronic timers, which have the additional benefit

of keeping students accountable and encouraging them to monitor their own progress

according to class expectations (Lemov, 2015, Page 45). A lack of proper time management in

planning and execution limits students in what they can learn (Lemov, 2015, Page 220).

Time management and not over planning my classes have contributed to my students learning

in a variety of ways. I have learned that students need quality time and space to produce quality

work and to have effective learning. Students have even made comments that they felt rushed

to get work done and in my opinion this had a negative effect on their learning. By improving

the structure of the class and by simplifying my expectations I have allowed students to

understand the time needed to do their work well, and this has demonstrated an

extraordinary positive effect on student learning.

PEDAGOGICAL IMPROVEMENT 2: BEHAVIOUR-MANAGEMENT

The next pedagogical principle that has contributed to my practice this school year is my

behavior-management tactics. Before this year, my behavior management really did not have

much technique or routine. I relied on reasoning with the student, relating to them through my

personality, and handing out harsh penalties. These methods did not work, and in fact they

caused a lack of respect among the students to me as their teacher and they were not effective

enough to keep students focused to learn (Lemov, 2015, Page 221). This was a problem, not

only for my relationships with students, but for the school administrators who were having to

deal with a large amount of paper sanctions and complaints from students and parents. I

received a number of corrections, suggestions, and counselings in order to change this practice,

and I believe that the outcome has been quite satisfactory.

Amazingly, after improving my time management, I realized that it was possible to implement

techniques and class routines that sought to engage students with the class, and so in some

sense to distract them from their misbehavior (Lemov, 2015, Page 395). I try not to call out a

student in front of the class, but instead provide the class with a basic activity and then discuss

a problem one on one in the moment with the offending student while other students are

working. I realized that this form of intervention occurred less and less anyway as my planning

became more streamlined. Cowley (Cowley, 2010, Page 15) discusses the theory behind this,

and speculates that providing students with high expectations, an environment of academic

rigor, and a focus on positivity all significantly decrease the chances that students will

misbehave.

Routines that I have added to my practice are having a reward point system where a student

can gain points for good behavior, participation, and strong work. This system is known to my

current students as ‘Tiger Points.’ I also provide myself with occasions throughout the class for

resetting my behavior and focus expectations in a positive way. Simply calling the class to

attention and waiting for them to respond is a way to hit the reset button at moments when I

know it is likely that the lesson plan and student's behavior will have gone slightly awry (such as

after group activities and class discussions) (Lemov, 2015, Page 393). Clearly these opportunities

would not present themselves without the initial class planning.

Tomlinson expands the concept of behavioural management through content by thoroughly

exploring the pedagogical principle of differentiation. She argues that differentiation is a core

component for effective learning on behalf of the student, and that there is a purpose and

methodology that should contribute to how you integrate differentiated activities into your

lesson planning (Tomlinson, 1999, Page 11). She summarizes the mind-frame with which

teachers should approach student learning as simply helping struggling learners by accelerating

their understanding whilst ensuring “genuine understanding and meaningful application of

skills” (Tomlinson, 1999, Page 13). It was clear to me that this tailored learning would be the key

to controlling student misbehaviour.

Each student has various needs and academic abilities, so Tomlinson demonstrates that a lesson

plan must be oriented in differentiated group assignments and various tasks that will challenge

each individual student (Tomlinson, 1999, Pages 9-10). Tomlinson is not to be misunderstood

when she talks about each student having specific needs and she emphasizes the importance of

being flexible towards these needs to provide the greatest opportunity for each student to learn

(Tomlinson, 1999, Page 31).

My understanding of how best to incorporate Tomlinson’s theories of differentiation has been a

core concern for my behavioural management routines. I use differentiation in three areas

during the ‘Development’ stage of my lessons: group assignments; challenging students

according to their own needs and capabilities; and giving tasks to students that vary according

to each student, but that still meet the day's learning objective. I like to think I have experienced

what Lee Shulman talks about: I have taken the pedagogical principle of differentiation and have

incorporated it into my lesson planning each day in a way that makes it

relevant for my own practice but grows increasingly as I learn and experiment with the

principle. Furthermore, as students are led to engage more specifically and individually with the

content, they exhibit significantly less behavioural problems.

Only in the last few weeks have I finally realized the benefits of compelling students to set their

standards higher regarding each lesson’s given learning objective, and how these higher

standards can truly lead to extraordinary student accomplishments (TLF, PDP, Week 17). My

teaching practice has evolved in designing and executing my lesson plans that cater to each

specific student according to their own needs (TLF, PDP, Week 19). Techniques to achieve this

are accomplished through differentiation of tasks, student seating arrangements, team

assignments, constructive learning objectives, and challenging the students. My practice has

evolved from lesson plans that just relied on one topic or focus, to really designing each aspect

of the class and mapping out the direction it goes catering to each student’s various needs, and

this has helped every aspect of my teaching experience.

Better planning incorporating differentiated activities has led to better behavioral management,

and has contributed to my students learning and understanding what my expectations are for

their focus inside the classroom. This has helped student learning in their not losing focus in

their work, understanding instructions clearly, and having higher personal standards in their

own self-control (TLF, Self-Evaluation, Week 18). Differentiation has furthered student learning

in the classroom by improving engagement in the class and having the space, focus, and

responsibility needed to help students work towards meeting each day’s learning objective. A

focus that will improve my practice from here is researching a way to de emphasize Tiger Points,

and emphasize personal effort so that students can focus more on their learning as opposed to

simply working for a reward. Still further experimentation is required here in order to make sure

students find classes relevant to their interests and abilities.

PEDAGOGICAL IMPROVEMENT 3: LEARNING OBJECTIVES

The final pedagogical concept that has advanced my practice and is still evolving in my

teaching is my setting daily learning objectives. I have improved my learning objectives by

incorporating aspects of Bloom's Taxonomy and various constructive adjectives to accurately

describe what I want students to achieve each class (Lemov, 2015, Page 132). By being explicit

and specific with the learning objective, it has given me more of a perspective of what I want

each student to have learned by the end of each class (Lemov, 2015, Page 132). This idea of a

daily learning objective has evolved gradually along with my increasing recognition of its

importance. At the start of the year if I stipulated a learning objective I certainly did not share it

with the students, and this made the learning process more confusing for them and less linear.

Students became increasingly disengaged with the content as they could not make a rational

attachment for each component, or see their inter-relativity. When I was informally observing

another teacher, however, I was astonished by the way he used the learning objective as a

reflective tool for students to gauge what they knew already and to look for what they learnt at

the end of the class. When a teacher uses a learning objective in this way, students are made

partners in their own education, and it opens the teaching process to them so that they may

take more responsibility in their own learning. It is something very basic, but it has had an

enormous impact on the quality of education that I am able to provide, as well as the deep

learning that students take away from each class (Lemov, 2015, Page 138). Obviously this basic

yet fundamental pedagogical tactic would not have been possible without the initial planning,

and would have been totally undermined by a lack of behavioral management.

Lampranou and Athanasou, who have outlined the principles regarding the evaluation of

students, can be used to compliment this pedagogical objective of incorporating explicit

learning objectives. Lamparanou and Athanasou argue that at the end of any program, week, or

individual lesson, a teacher must be sure that the student is learning, and they therefore discuss

the ways to assess this learning through effective evaluation (Lamprianou & Athanasou, 2009,

Pages 10-11). Validation and assurance of competence is key, according to Lampranou and

Athanasou, in allowing a student the reflective time and space to draw on prior knowledge

and to have the tools to further that knowledge (Lamprianou & Athanasou, 2009, Pages 7-9). In

the end, these authors assemble a number of impressive and insightful methods for

constructively building on student knowledge, while establishing the progress students have

made by the end (Lamprianou & Athanasou, 2009, Pages 7-9).

I have interpreted the arguments of Lampranou and Athanasou, and incorporated them into my

explicit learning objective in two ways: the first is that of a ‘plenary,’ and the second is the basic

evaluation tactic of peer-to-peer or student-to-teacher rapid-response evaluation (Lamprianou

& Athanasou, 2009, Pages 32-33). The plenary is an opportunity (two or three minutes only) for

a student to reflect and demonstrate what they learned in the lesson relative to the day’s

learning objective. This takes the form of class discussions, peer-to-peer discussions, exit tickets

with two to three concrete questions, and a ‘twitter board.’ The twitter board simply

demonstrates the most relevant student reflection, recorded each class and evaluated and

reviewed each week. This helps other students track the direction of the program in terms of

progressive learning objectives and also recognizes students that model the correct forms of

engagement, so incentivizes involvement. Overall, the plenary (whenever time allows it) has

evolved to be a core component in evaluating the learning status of each student.

The development of my student learning objectives, complimented by the theories and tactics

of Lamprianou & Athanasou, have contributed to student learning in that the students have a

tangible goal each day, and a way to see if they reached it. They can therefore have a reflective

approach as to if they used their time effectively during the class in obtaining the learning

objective. This internalizes the motivation to learn and improve. My objective now is to focus

more on student-centered learning and considering how each student will be able to reach the

objective by employing aspects of all the academics I have considered here: Gross Davis will

inform how the lessons are constructed; Tomlinson will inform the ways the classes are made

relevant to the students; and Lampranou and Athanasou will provide the framework for

establishing what is working and what needs to be improved.

CONCLUSION:

My pedagogy has improved dramatically throughout this school year, and I can track

that development in a linear, logical way starting with better planning leading to better

behavioral management, and culminating in an increased ability to implement and evaluate

learning objectives. The different strategies I have used throughout this school year have

produced better results in my students through directing them to truly learn the concepts at

hand in a constructive and evaluative format. I can see the evidence of my improvement

through the new routines of behavioral management, differentiation, learning objectives, lesson

planning, and my focus on student-centered learning in each class. Students have shown clear

growth in my classes recently, and the TLF demonstrates this. I am confident that I can continue

to grow in my pedagogical practice, contributing my experience to the vast well of tried and

tested approaches, and form myself into the teacher I want to be.

Bibliography

Coe, Aloisi, Higgins & Major, RC, CA, SH, & LEM, 2014. Review of the underpinning research.

What makes great teaching? , [Online]. 3. Available at:

http://www.suttontrust.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/10/What-Makes-Great

Teaching-REPORT.pdf [Accessed 5 May 2017].

Cowley, SC, 2010. Getting The Buggers To Behave. 4th ed. London, United Kingdom: Continuum

International Publishing Group.

Davis, BGD, 1993. Tools for Teaching. 1st ed. San Francisco, California: Jossey-Bass Inc..

Dubrow & Wilkinson, HD & HW, 1984. The Art and Craft of Teaching. 1st ed. Cambridge,

Massachusetts: President and Fellows of Harvard College.

Lamprianou & Athanasou, IL & JAA, 2009. A Teacher's Guide to Educational Assessment. 2nd ed.

Rotterdam, The Netherlands: Sense Publishers.

Lemov, DL, 2015. Teach Like A Champion 2.0. 1st ed. San Francisco, California: Jossey-Bass.

Tomlinson, CAT, 1999. The Differentiated Classroom. 1st ed. Alexandria, Virginia: Association for

Supervision and Curriculum Development.

The Virtue of Prudence in Constructing a Just Society

Among the myriad virtues that have shaped philosophical discourse, prudence distinctly emerges

as the cardinal quality guiding rational beings towards morally righteous actions. Deeply rooted

in the teachings of Aquinas and Aristotle, prudence transcends mere caution; it embodies a

symphony of moral discernment, judicious decision-making, and timely execution. This essay

embarks on an in-depth exploration of both Aquinas’s and Aristotle’s treatises, revealing the

multifaceted character of prudence, contrasting its classical essence with contemporary utilitarian

interpretations, and highlighting its pivotal role in nurturing a society grounded in mutual respect

and justice.

Aquinas on the Foundations of Prudence:

According to Aquinas, prudence pertains to both practical and speculative reason. Practical

reason is discernible in its foundational elements that operate within reality. Reality manifests in

relation to topics pertinent to one's life, extending beyond daily scheduling and task

prioritization. As Aquinas elucidates, practical reason is the "right reason" applied to action.

Moreover, practical reason can be cultivated through seeking counsel. Aquinas notes, “a prudent

man is one who is capable of taking good counsel.” (Pt. II-II, Q. 47 Second Article). He further

posits that counsel is tied to an end, akin to scheduling and prioritizing activities. Aquinas's

portrayal of speculative reason is akin to an art form. Daily life defies rigid formulas; through

syllogisms and propositions, while adhering to foundational tenets of validity and truth,

speculative reason allows practical reason to adapt to context without straying from the righteous

path.

Prudence, as a unique virtue, validates this definition through its practical and speculative

applications. Aquinas observes that "virtue is that which makes its possessor good, and his work

good likewise.” (Pt. II-II, Q. 47 Fourth Article). He proceeds to assert that "good" is integral to

the appetitive power. This "good" is functional; thus, the alignment of appetite should navigate

through this prism of prudential reason. For love towards an object to be valid, it must first

adhere to fundamental, including moral, principles. Prudence is distinct because it is the right

reason applied to a harmonized appetite.

Prudence's function in steering moral virtues is instrumental, not terminal. It defines the rationale

behind actions and behaviors. Aquinas states, “the proper end of each moral virtue consists

precisely in conformity with right reason.”(Pt. II-II, Q. 47 Seventh Article). While natural reason

lays down a foundational course, prudence provides virtues like temperance and fortitude with a

framework for expression. Thus, prudence determines the means within this structure to guide

one towards the desired end by actualizing a specific moral virtue.

Integral to prudence are elements such as memory, understanding, and docility. Memory serves

as a repository of personal experiences, informing one's perception of reality. These experiences,

in turn, enable genuine docility to natural reason and foundational principles, such as objective

righteousness. Aquinas contends that “intellectual virtue is engendered and fostered by

experience and time.” (Pt. II-II, Q. 49 First Article). Marrying good counsel with memories of

the past can foster true prudential docility.

In opposition to prudence stands shrewdness. Aquinas describes shrewdness as “a habit whereby

congruities are discovered rapidly.” (Pt. II-II, Q. 49 Fourth Article). For instance, one who

manipulatively employs syllogisms for self-validation or some detrimental end is essentially

gaming the system, thereby misaligning prudence. Shrewdness manifests when one continually

seeks to expose others' perceived hypocrisy. This demeanor represents a variant of false

prudence.

Aquinas's Extension of Prudence:

Turning to societal considerations, prudence manifests in regnative and subjective forms.

Regnative prudence pertains to the wisdom and judgment required by those in leadership roles,

distinct from personal prudence in that it centers on the broader community's welfare. In

contrast, subjective prudence hinges on an individual's ability to make sound decisions based on

their experiences and prevailing circumstances. Aquinas asserts, “prudence is the virtue which is

proper to a prince. Therefore, a special kind of prudence is regnative.” (Pt. II-II, Q. 50 First

Article). While the essence of prudence remains unchanged, its application varies, particularly

concerning leadership and societal governance. In democracies, this regnative form of prudence

parallels executive functions. However, a cautionary note arises when leadership's prudent

decisions become self-serving, termed as false prudence. Such decisions, tainted by self-interest

and potentially influenced by original sin, can be seen within both personal and regnative

contexts.

Domestic prudence isn't inherently negative; its value is determined by its application. If

prudence becomes narrowly focused on materialistic ends, it risks being self-defeating. Aquinas

points out that “prudence is directed to a good life in general, whereas domestic prudence is

aimed at specific objectives, like wealth.” (Pt. II-II, Q. 50 Third Article). Although an individual

within a household can exhibit prudence, misplaced priorities disrupt the intended order,

rendering prudence ineffective.

The Imprudence Quandary:

The nexus between imprudence and sin is intriguing. Often, individuals may lack the

amalgamation of experiences and knowledge to exercise pure prudence. Moreover, certain

experiences or information sources might be misguided. The degree of one's experience and

knowledge can dictate the likelihood of sin's intrusion. Aquinas observes, “imprudence is a sin in

relation to its inherent nature, for it's impossible to act against prudence without breaching its

foundational principles.” (Pt. II-II, Q. 53 First Article). He continues, suggesting that unless

there's a defiance of Divine law or impulsive actions without contempt, such deviations may not

constitute grave sins. Thus, one's journey to genuine prudence can be long and fraught with

potential pitfalls, especially if there's a risk of transgressions.

Both passivity and negligence are counterproductive. While passivity signifies a deliberate lack

of initiative, negligence reflects a breach of the care or attention that a reasonably cautious

individual would exercise under similar conditions. These behaviors can distort prudence,

leading to an inversion of means and ends. Aquinas notes, “a negligent individual struggles with

decision-making, a realm where prudence typically operates. Hence, negligence is intertwined

with imprudence.” (Pt. II-II, Q. 54 Second Article). Such behaviors can pave the way for

transgressions. Given prudence's inherently proactive nature, its incompatibility with passivity

and negligence becomes evident.

The synergy between prudence and justice, as Aquinas postulates, is crucial, particularly

concerning relations beyond oneself. Self-centeredness corrupts genuine prudence, turning it into

a disordered virtue or even a vice. Justice, as defined by Aquinas, concerns interactions with

others, ensuring they receive proper guidance to correct any missteps. It doesn't revolve around

self-interest. Aquinas explains, “justice, unlike other virtues, guides individuals in their

interactions, fostering a sense of equality.” (Pt. II-II, Q. 57 One Article). In today's context,

justice is often misconstrued as self-serving, whereas genuine prudence aligns with Aquinas's

vision of ordered justice. Misguided prudence, on the other hand, can be self-defeating, leading

to what can be termed as false prudence.

Aristotle’s Take on Prudence (from Nicomachean Ethics):

Aristotle often delves into prudence, weaving it through discussions of ethical and intellectual

virtues. He posits, “for deliberating and calculating are synonymous, and one never deliberates

about immutable matters. Therefore, the calculative is a segment of the rational domain.”

(Aristotle, Nicomachean Ethics, Book VI, Ch. 1) Whether concerning ethical virtues or

intellectual facets like wisdom, a component of calculation always underpins prudence, echoing

Aquinas's perspective. Aristotle expands on this, suggesting that each science can be imparted to

learners through its analytical methods, emphasizing the need to assess situations factually to

achieve pure prudence.

Deliberation, choice, and willpower are central to prudential actions. Deliberation involves

amassing necessary data to guide a prudent decision. In the absence of deliberation, ignorance

prevails. Aristotle explains, “actions emanating from ignorance are universally non-voluntary,

yet they become involuntary only when resulting in regret for the doer.” (Aristotle, Nicomachean

Ethics, Book III, Ch. 1) Such ignorance can lead to misguided outcomes, where the actor must

bear the consequences of their imprudence, especially if it negatively impacts others. Aristotle

further elaborates, “while opinions can be categorized as false or true, choices gravitate more

towards the binaries of bad and good.” (Aristotle, Nicomachean Ethics, Book III, Ch. 2) This

implies that while one's opinion has boundaries, akin to Aquinas's views, ignorance often

culminates in detrimental outcomes.

The role of practical wisdom in prudent actions, according to Aristotle (Book VI), is to ground

prudence in reality, connecting theoretical understanding with actionable knowledge. By aligning

our thought processes with the tangible world and its nuances, practical wisdom ensures that

prudence remains responsive and adaptive, not just an abstract ideal.

Prudence in a Contemporary Context:

Modern interpretations of prudence and justice appear somewhat skewed when juxtaposed with

their classical definitions. These age-old explanations elucidate the inner workings of prudence

and justice, outlining a blueprint for societal harmony and genuine happiness. Present-day

interpretations, driven by self-centric ideals, bear a strong resemblance to utilitarianism. Such an

approach, where individual benefit overshadows collective well-being, aligns with what Aquinas

might label as ignorance.

In contemporary society, prudence often assumes a materialistic and subservient role, tailored to

personal whims. This inversion of means and ends fosters a culture of unchecked individualism.

While some champion this as the epitome of freedom and happiness, it's a flawed perspective,

resonating with the shrewdness that Aquinas warned against. To foster genuine contentment, our

understanding of prudence requires realignment. Acknowledging and reverting to its

foundational principles is the first step towards enacting prudence meaningfully in our lives.

Synthesizing Aquinas and Aristotle for Modern Society:

Building resilient communities hinges on fostering prudential actions at both individual and

collective levels. Both Aquinas and Aristotle underscore the importance of prudence in shaping

an individual's choices, which, when magnified, mold the larger societal framework. By

integrating the insights of these great thinkers, we can prioritize collective well-being over

transient individual gains.

Furthermore, each individual plays a pivotal role in cultivating a society rooted in prudence.

Through self-awareness, education, and practice, individuals can harness prudence's

transformative power, ensuring that personal choices consistently serve the greater good. When

individuals embody prudence, society at large stands to benefit, resulting in a harmonious

coexistence that honors both personal autonomy and collective welfare.

Bibliography:

Aristotle. Nicomachean Ethics. Translated by Robert C. Bartlett and Susan D. Collins, University

of Chicago Press, 2011.

Aquinas, Thomas. Summa Theologica: Part II-II, Volume 3. Translated by the Fathers of the

English Dominican Province, Benziger Brothers, originally published in 1911, 1948.