# Philosophy of Education

Introduction
An educational philosophy cannot be static. Rather it is an ever evolving process. It is important that one’s philosophy is linked to educological research related to what we learn about learning. Moreover, ones direct experience as an instructor puts theories to the test, allowing the educator to experiment with what works best given the circumstances. In every case, teaching and learning, in a classroom, requires a well designed curriculum steeped in evidenced-based, teaching methods. A theoretically sound curriculum design includes components that a) employ one or more learning systems such as behavioralism, constructivism and cognitivism, b) assists students in gaining self-understanding regarding their individual predisposition for learning in a classroom environment c) clarifies instructor and student roles and expectations of one another, d) effectively uses instructional technology when appropriate and e) utilizes formative and summative assessments for accurately evaluating the degree to which students meet course objectives and personal learning goals.
Learner-centered teaching is the broad foundation upon which my instructional designs are built. Liu & Liu (1997) describes learner-centered educators as “responsive, collaborative, problem-centered, and democratic” As I engage in the teaching process, I honor the reality that each student arrives to the classroom with important insights and resources. My role as the educator is to assist in organizing material so it fits with ones past experience and vision for their future. In contrast to a traditional view of teaching, sometimes referred to as the “sage on stage,” the term“ course facilitator” better characterizes the learner-centered educator.
A facilitator, indeed, does more than mediate conversations or guide students to resources. The facilitator creates an environment where students feel free to explore new thoughts and ideas, connecting them with past, present and future experiences through active engagement of activities that imbue the new information with personal meaning. My facilitation style is learner-centered. It is “a style of instruction that is responsive, collaborative, problem-centered, and democratic in which both students and the instructor decide how, what, and when learning occurs” (Liu & Liu, 2006, p.1). Furthermore, a facilitative teaching style extracts real-world examples from students and fosters the exchange of information. This exchange process scaffolds new ideas, generated by the course material, to common themes within the classroom.
While a facilitative teaching process that validates opinions and feelings are part of a facilitated learning process one may still incorporate lecture and present facts and hard data.
Learning Systems
Course design is a rigorous process that requires educators employ state-of-the –art teaching approaches and a disciplined assessment and evaluation process. Adopting an instructional design model best ensures a course takes advantage of best-practices. It also acts as a communication tool for describing the innovations one brings to their discipline. Instructional design is a systematic and creative process that splices together teaching principles, theories and techniques, to form a cohesive presentation. Just as a film editor will use an editing device to cut and paste together only the very best of an abundance of footage, so too can faculty use instructional design models to conjoin best-practices of and create an impressive presentation. The ideal instructional design model incorporates the use of hard data, combined with ideas and thoughtful, flexible systems for assessing student needs and evaluating individual and group outcomes.
Behaviorism, Cognitivism and Constructivism are three learning systems. Each system, in and of itself, provides a methodology for designing a curriculum. Integrating components of each system allows one the opportunity to fashion an eclectic but effective curriculum. A curriculum based on behaviorism is performance based, using incentives to motivate students. Dabbagh (2002/2006) writes, behaviorism is an outcropping of classical and operant conditioning. Classical and operant conditioning can be summarized by the “law of effect” which states that a given behavior is learned by trial-and-error and is more likely to occur if its consequences are satisfying” (Dabbagh, 2002/2006, p. 1). Cognitivism considers the mental processes of learning. The cognitivist paradigm assists educators in specifically, methodically and predictably influencing each student’s ability to “acquire, recall, and use new knowledge and skills” (Keller, 2007. P. 1). Unlike cognitivism, which focuses on internal, mental organization of knowledge, Constructivism looks at the relationship between the student, the information being presented and the student’s environment. It places value on the student’s interpretation of material, within the context of each students life and so creating knowledge that has personal meaning each student.
Self-Understanding
As an informed educator, one must proactively cultivate the ability to present material so it is intellectually accessible to students with intelligences and learning styles that differ from my own. To assist students in grasping and transforming information Kolb (2005) and Gardner (2003) contend that Educators must present material in ways that engage students presenting with the various learning styles and multiple intelligences. As far back as 450 BC, Asian philosopher Confucius identified his own dominant, personal learning style. Greenway (2007) writes, “Tell me, and I will forget. Show me, and I may remember. Involve me, and I will understand” One’s predisposition for learning shapes the way and perhaps the degree to which one grasps and transforms the information being presented. In a classroom, an educator can expect to face a group of students with a wide variety of learning styles. Therefore, the educator is challenged to present information aurally, through writing assignments and in an experiential fashion. This effort provides the opportunity for information to be reinforced in a way that accommodates students with varying learning style. In addition to considering learning styles, Gardner (2003) proposes Multiple Intelligence theory as another type of predisposition to learning. Multiple Intelligence theory asserts “people have a unique blend of intelligences” (Gardner, 2003.) that can be engaged in the classroom. Multiple intelligence theory suggests there are a number of distinct forms of intelligence that each individual possesses in varying degrees” (Multiple, n. d.)
These intelligences include;
o Linguistic intelligence (“word smart”)
o Logical-mathematical intelligence (“number/reasoning smart”)
o Spatial intelligence (“picture smart”)
o Bodily-Kinesthetic intelligence (“body smart”)
o Musical intelligence (“music smart”)
o Interpersonal intelligence (“people smart”)
o Intrapersonal intelligence (“self smart”)
o Naturalist intelligence (“nature smart”)
Multiple intelligence theory suggests each student has a dominant intelligence and any number of subordinate intelligences. Developing a curriculum that presents material in ways that incorporates various intelligences affords teachers the best chance of engaging each students dominant intellectual prowess. For example, consider a lesson that explores the use of Role-Play as a treatment for Bi-Polar Disorder. One may read about it (linguistic), study statistics regarding effectiveness (logical-mathematical), examine a graphic chart that illustrates the principles (spatial), consider the nature of the original trauma (naturalist), address the impact the disorder is having on the client’s life (interpersonal) and analyze the bio-physiological components of treatment (bodily-kinesthetic and intrapersonal). One may even listen to music or a song that describes the symptoms of the disorder. Consider the 1967 song “Manic Depression,” by Jimi Hendrix. The title of the song itself is historically relevant as the disorder, at one time, was known as manic depression. Today, the disorder is known as bi-polar disorder. The ¾ time signature makes tapping ones foot to the song difficult and the lyrics express wishful optimism about achieving an impossible goal. Arguably, these song traits would work to expand ones insight into the disorder beyond that which one might get from reading the diagnostic criteria.
Gardner proposes “instructional activities should appeal to different forms of intelligence” (Multiple, n. d.). Presenting the material in ways that engage students from a variety of perspectives best ensures the information is well processed despite which dominant intelligence each student has. This approach also works to reinforce the process of assimilating information. Multiple Intelligence theory is compatible with learner-centered principles. By incorporating Learning Styles and Multiple Intelligence theory, in the curriculum design process, students may be best afforded opportunities to most meaningfully “discuss, reflect, develop and try out their ideas” (Cheng, 2007. P. 4) and so improve the likelihood that information will reach students in a personal way, making for a richer learning experience.
Roles and Expectations
In any classroom setting, the relationship between student and educator is important to consider. An instructor’s persona, subject knowledge and intellect are certainly important resources for the learner. Certainly the educator’s role is one that includes being a source of knowledge. Instructors bring factual expertise to the classroom, relevant resources and, often, professional experiences directly related to subject matter. These assets are important tools for facilitating the transformation of theory into the realty of practice. There is an inherent power imbued within the educator’s role. This is not so different than the type of influence a therapist has over patients or an accountant or even a mechanic has over their clients. Teachers must also be aware of how students may forfeit critical thinking due to the fear of upsetting a teacher and so risking a negative evaluation or grade. Learning how to manage the perception of students and one’s own ego; finding a balance between that of a facilitator, in contrast to a “fill the empty vessel” model, requires self-awareness and ongoing vigilance. The instructors personal narrative is but one among those in attendance. A teacher must assess, consider and integrate student understanding, biases and insights regarding the subject matter as well. The learner-centered educator recognizes students bring, to the classroom, a great deal of information and practical expertise. Indeed, it is a reasonable expectation that students not only learn from me and from each other, but that the educator learn from them as well.
Instructional Technology
Technology in education is ubiquitous. Yet, there still remains the challenge of using it effectively. “Without clear connections to theoretical frameworks teacher beliefs, teacher practices, and subsequent student learning outcomes” (Schrum et al., 2005. p. 205). the introduction of technology in classrooms has illuminated the need for more research as to developing best practices. Bransford et al., (2000) suggest technology must be integrated with educational principles that will both enhance learner, knowledge, assessment and community centered learning environments, work as formative assessments and link students to one another, to their teacher and to professionals in the field. In short, incorporating educational technology requires an understanding of how the tool will enhance student-centered learning. At its worst, a technological application may be a costly process that distracts from course objectives and goals. At its best, technology can be an effective tool for presenting material in a way that engages learners’ multiple intelligences and senses.
Formative and Summative Assessment
In order to ensure a course remains vital, the educator must tie assessments to goals. Formative assessments collect data that assists with ensuring student learning is on track, by providing the information needed to adjust teaching and learning from week to week or module to module. The summative assessment process evaluates learning outcomes and program effectiveness overall. Both quantitative and qualitative methodologies have limits and benefits respectively. “Critics of quantitative studies concluded that these studies restrict our views of human beings because they concentrate on repetitive and predictable aspects of human behavior while “on the other hand, qualitative research may appear to be fraught with subjectivism” (Schulze, 2003. pp. 2-20).
Assessments may be quantitative; using numeric scores or letter grades to assess learner achievement” (Formative vs. Summative Evaluation, 2008. para. 9). Notably, Jahn and Dunne (1997) go on to suggest excessive objectivity could limit scientific and cultural relevance. “Credibility in quantitative research depends on instrument construction. Qualitative data identifies the prevalence of student attitudinal changes and specific, skills acquisition. In order to collect and measure insubstantial phenomenon such as concepts, ideas, opinions and feelings, tools such as peer and instructor observations, inventories, journals and/or portfolios may be used. As with any self-inventory, discussion regarding the results is critical to learning. Structured reflection, in an assessment-centered learning, environment will provide opportunities for peers and instructors to "receive feedback, clarify ideas and correct misconceptions" (Bransford et al., 2000, p. 196). In qualitative research the researcher is the instrument" (Golafshani, 2003. pp. 597-607). Leedy & Ormond (2000) admit it is impossible to be totally objective when analyzing data. They emphasize a diligent endeavor towards meeting a standard of "rigorous subjectivity" (Leedy & Ormond, 2000. p 138) is critical when evaluating qualitative data. To best ensure the reliability of data collected over time, the educator must be sure to use the same collection and organization techniques each time the course is taught. Such effort requires educators to have well established protocols for collecting and organizing data.
Summary
There are many different philosophies of teaching. In developing one’s own philosophy, it is reasonable to incorporate elements from two or more accepted theories in a cross-disciplinary fashion. For instance, ones educational philosophy may be supported by a foundational understanding of psychology, counseling and educology. These disciplines well complement one another. From psychology, one draws upon research regarding the mental processes of learning. The field of counseling illuminates the principles of effective intra-psychic and interpersonal understanding, as well as group dynamics and facilitation. Of course, educological researched speaks to best-practices in teaching. The very nature of learner-centered teaching involves the interaction between the learner, the teacher and resources other than the teacher. Ideally, a learner-centered community share a common goal; the pursuit of scholarship. Boyer, (1990) purports, the role of scholarship, historically, has been defined as accomplishing “original research.” However, the definition of scholarship has expanded to validate a broader vision. Boyer (1990) points to scholarship of discovery, integration and application as being foundational to educators and students alike. Teaching the learner to ask for what they need and igniting curiosity and enthusiasm for discovery are integral to assisting learners to integrate and apply course information into the context of daily life. These scholarly pursuits, educational systems and core values, to which I am committed, are imbued within my character. They drive my daily pursuits and provide context for my teaching philosophy.
References
Boyer, E. (1990). Scholarship Reconsidered (1st ed.). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Bransford, J. et al. (2000). How People Learn (Expanded ed.). Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
Cheng, I. (2007). Empowering Teachers to Experience Transformative and Generative Learning through Authentic Collaboration During Summer School Inter-Session. In Paper presented at the American Educational Research Association Annual Meeting Chicago: California State University Northridge.
Dabbagh, N. (2006). The Instructional Design Knowledge Base. (Original work published 2002) Retrieved December 7, 2007, from Instructional Design Knowledge Base Web site: http://classweb.gmu.edu/ndabbagh/Resources/IDKB/models_theories.htm
Formative vs. Summative Evaluation. (2008). Retrieved February 2, 2007, from Northern Arizona University's College of Education Web site: http://jan.ucc.nau.edu/edtech/etc667/proposal/evaluation/summative_vs._formative.htm
Gardner, H. (2003). American Educational Research Association. In Multiple Intelligences After Twenty Years (p. 7). Chicago: Harvard Graduate School of Education.
Golafshani, N. (2003). Understanding Reliability and Validity in Qualitative Research. The
Qualitative Report, 8(4), 597-607.
Greenway, R. (2007). Experiential Learning articles and critiques of David Kolb's theory. Retrieved December 5, 2007, from The active reviewing guide to dynamic experiential learning Web site: http://www.reviewing.co.uk/research/experiential.learning.htm#1
Jahn and Dunne. 1997. Science of the Subjective. Journal of Scientific Exploration, Vol. 11, No. 2, pp. 201–224 Keller, J. M. (1983). Motivational design of instruction. In C. M. Reigeluth (Ed.), Instructional- design theories and models: An overview of their current status. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Liu, & Liu. (2004). A Paradigm Shift of Learner-Centered Teaching Style: Reality or Illusion? (Vol. 13) Retrieved September 21, 2008, from University of Arizona Web site: http://w3.coh.arizona.edu/AWP/2006%20PDFs/Liu.pdf Leedy, P. D., & Ormrod, E. J. (2005). Practical Research, Planning and Design (8th ed.) . Columbus, OH: Pearson - Merrill, Prentice Hall.
Multiple Intelligences (H. Gardner). (n. d.). Retrieved December 5, 2007, from Explorations in Learning & Instruction: The Theory Into Practice Database Web site: http://tip.psychology.org/gardner.html
Schrum, L., Thompson, A., Sprague, D., Maddux, C., McAnear, A., Bell, L., & Bull, G. (2005).
Schulze, S. (2003). Views on the combination of quantitative and qualitative research approaches. Progression, 25(2), 8-20. --Dr. Rutberg (discuss • contribs) 02:38, 31 March 2014 (UTC)