PHILOSOPHY OF EDUCATION AND TEACHING PRACTICE

INSTRUCTOR:   Dr. Patricia Smith

MY PHILOSOPHY OF EDUCATION

A Reflective Essay

Presented by Brett Penza

 July 9, 2005

 

                The philosophies I have been reading over the past few weeks have provided many ideas and techniques that I can incorporate into my own approach regarding education.   Studying the masters has enabled me to classify and give structure to my own informal philosophy.  As a result, I find my philosophical stance to be totally eclectic, picking and choosing from the ideas that have been born throughout the ages.    I consider this “eclecticism”, while it may appear noncommittal to the reader, to be the only logical approach, as history has been very generous in supplying great thoughts and ideas for use in a wealth of circumstances.     Each has a time and place for providing an effective means of individual discovery and intellectual growth.  By using a flexible philosophical approach as an educator, I can maintain maximum effectiveness, customizing my technique for each particular circumstance.   Nonetheless, there are several ideas which have left greater impressions than others.   These, I present in an attempt to more clearly define the details of my philosophy on education.

            The foundation of my philosophy is based upon and presupposes the existence of faith in a greater power.  The concepts of “a priori” knowledge are strongly linked with God, the omniscient holder of absolute truth.   Plato theorizes “that when we die, our soul departs to some other world where all things become known to it.  When reborn, the new body blinds the soul; in reality, all knowledge is there and all that is required is a stimulus to bring it into focus (Barrow, 1976)” (D. Jacobsen, 2003, p. 76).  The recognition that absolute truth is associated with God provides us with the important concept of faith.    While some would claim that a religious faith clouds one’s logical thinking,  David Jacobsen wrote concerning Immanuel Kant, that  “through sensory experience, we can only come to know the characteristics and properties of a physical object, while the “essence” of the object remains unknown.  Therefore, we cannot attain concrete knowledge of reality because the totality of the universe lies beyond human experience…” (Jacobsen, 2003, p.153).    Thus, we find a connection between Plato and Kant.     These men believed that there was an innate value system, brought about by a higher authority,   concerning commitment to duty and positive moral understanding.   This ideal, provides us everlasting hope when addressing a group of students.  For if we truly believe that the moral fabric, and capacity to understand what is proper and fair, does exist from birth,   then we can count upon the student’s desire to succeed well.   With proper guidance, all students will curb behavior away from negative results.   These expectations, based upon a commonly established moral foundation or conscience, enable us to define the essential discipline that must be asserted prior to any academic endeavor.   The countless students who go forth with hopes and dreams for their future each year are a testament to this belief.  

            Once we accept that faith and conscience within the individual do exist,   we must then proceed to guide the young individual.    The family and support structures must be employed to shape the young student’s essence in accordance with the expectations of society.  John Dewey, the prolific composer of pragmatic educational philosophy “believed that every purposeful human activity has potential for intellectual, emotional, aesthetic, and moral growth” (Ozmon and Craver, 2003, p. 154).  This is a definitive statement that has been echoed in various flavors throughout history.  Dewey agreed that the individual must first be brought to a socially acceptable level of moral and emotional development, before effective aesthetic and intellectual pursuits could be engaged.  Thus, it is crucial that the family and social acquaintances exhibit and enforce the boundaries and expectations of established customs, laws, and responsibilities.   In the early years of development, the individual must be introduced to and instilled with the moral values of the community.  Through family activities and peer playgroups, the child is shown the proper methods of social interaction.  Once entered into an educational setting, the child can begin to exercise this proper behavior in the classroom environment. 

            Further, the student must understand that his behavior will be met with appropriate rewards and punishments to be consistently administered by all social authorities.   Regarding discipline, John Locke wrote:

              “By which way of treating them, children may as much as possible be brought to conceive, that those that are commended and in esteem for doing well, will necessarily be beloved and cherished by every body, and have all other good things as a consequence of it. And, on the other side, when any one by miscarriage falls into disesteem, and cares not to preserve his credit, he will unavoidably fall under neglect and contempt; and in that state, the want of what ever might satisfy or delight him, will follow” (Locke, 1693, p.58).

 

This approach toward developing proper behavior is most necessary.   It is this consistent interaction and reaction between student and society that will strengthen and provide for the individual’s moral and emotional success.

            Once a moral and ethical base has been established, we can pursue intellectual and aesthetic activities.    It is the duty of all responsible individuals, of sound mind and body, to seek out and pursue purposeful activity.   In writing of Immanuel Kant, David Jacobsen writes “We are merely what education makes of us, and the primary goal is to make us good and promote or foster desired dispositions of intellectual skill and moral traits, which in turn would allow us to know and to do our duty (Frankena, 1965)” (Jacobsen, 2003, p.156).  Conclusively, once we are “made good”,   our objective must be to enhance or improve the community of which we are a part.  Thus, the true purpose of education is to enable the individual in order that he can achieve this objective. 

              One of the most effective approaches toward intellectual growth is the use of Plato’s Dialectic.   Since my first introduction to the works of Plato and Socrates, I have enjoyed reading about the ancient Greek masters and the dialectic approach to learning.    The process whereby the instructor proposes leading questions to the eager student, unleashing a flood of self discovery, is for me, a very fulfilling methodology.  Used repeatedly as one of Hollywood’s most consistent clichés,   we can envision the wise old white haired mentor nodding with approval to an apt pupil of great promise.   It is through this process that the exciting pursuit of learning can be captured.    And so, perhaps one of the most attractive features of the dialectic method is in its’ ability to stimulate self-discovery.     We lead the student through a series of carefully selected questions, until he has answered his own original query.     “Plato did not think that people create knowledge, but rather that they discover it” (Ozmon and Craver, 2003, p.16).    In essence, by mastering the art of the dialectic, the educator can spark the student to find his own way toward truth and knowledge. 

              Recently, while preparing for a Final Exam,   I gave the class an exercise in Microsoft Excel.     A simple invoice, created on a spreadsheet with list prices and quantities, was given.    To complete the task, the students had to create mathematic formulas to calculate sale prices, percentage of savings, and totals.    As usual, one of my students asked a question that I would have expected was intellectually far beneath them. “How do I figure out the new sale price and savings?  I don’t know how to do that? “.     While masking an internal grimace, after all this was a senior in high school, soon to be unleashed on the world, I grabbed the opportunity to throw on my Grecian toga, figuratively of course.     I told the student that she did indeed know how to do the math. 

             “Do you ever go shopping for clothes?” I asked her.

            “Yeah,” she sighed.

            “Well, let’s say you see this beautiful summer dress for $100.00 list price.”    She seemed interested.   “Now, you need this dress, and you’re in luck, it’s on sale for 20 % off!   (...effective instructor pause…) Now, how much will you pay for that dress?”   

            She considers the problem.   “I don’t know $80.00?” 

             “Yes… Now how much are you going to save? “

             “$20.00!” she confidently offers.

             “Exactly, now how did you know that?” I question. 

             “I just figured ten percent is ten dollars and then double it for the 20 %…”

              “Sounds good,   Now that you have broken down the steps to figure the problem, you can write the equation into the cell.”

            While, perhaps not a classic example comparable to Plato’s “Allegory of the Cave”, it does help to illustrate the use of the dialectic.   In the example, we have a student who, upon realizing that mathematics is required, immediately builds a mental wall.  However, when she is shown that the landscape is not so foreign to her, she is able to use her own personal experience, and solve the problem.   For the instructor, the greatest reward of the dialectic is watching the student’s mind engage and work out the issue.    The student hashes out the problem before her and builds confidence through self-discovery.   This is a very good way to activate the student mind,   and a technique that any educator can find valuable, regardless of his philosophical orientation.

            Another important aspect of intellectual training is in the application of constructivism.   It has become a very effective method of education.    The teacher empowers the student to use his own curiosity and interest to pursue an active learning process.    Through vocational applications, the student becomes adept at searching and creating new directions, instead of simply learning what has already been done.  While there are many outstanding opportunities for this type of learning,   the student must be properly prepared through a sturdy “natural education”.   In reading Immanuel Kant,

   “He proposed two kinds of education, natural education and practical education.  The former   primarily involved the acquisition of information, while the latter focuses on decision making with       specific regard to moral behavior. …Education needs to provide discipline … Discipline in the classroom promotes obedience and respect for others … and lays the foundation for the           acquisition of knowledge and cultivation of skills” (Jacobsen, 2003, p.156). 

 

             In the same manner,  John Locke, in his essay “ SOME THOUGHTS CONCERNING EDUCATION (1693) “,  writes copiously on the establishment of a strong moral character,  prior to describing his recommended academic goals.    Together, these philosophers agree that this moral code is founded upon a belief in God and nurtured by both parents and community.    It is a fundamental necessity if the student is going to pursue further academic achievement.

             Unfortunately, the breakdown of the family unit and lack of community commitment have resulted in an incomplete “natural education”.    Thus, an additional burden has been placed upon the classroom teacher.   Instead of a full commitment toward the development of academic disciplines, the educator is spending more time as a disciplinarian, enforcing values that should have been ingrained into the student years earlier.  Academic training cannot truly progress until the student values honor, discipline and the pursuit of knowledge.   Unfortunately, it is very disheartening to learn that some students do not possess these values nor do they value their education.    As teachers,   we face a continuing challenge to develop the natural element of their education while also introducing them to additional academic challenges.

             In reflecting on this point,   I admit that I have difficulty employing modern concepts of constructionism, though I do persevere.   “First and Foremost, student ownership of a learning task is a basic principle of constructivist pedagogy (Greening, 1998) …elements of autonomy and empowerment are critical components of a constructivist learning environment” (Jacobsen, 2003, p.300).    While I do believe in the principle that the student must be able to perform the task to truly understand, it is disheartening to find that many high school students are not properly prepared for responsibility or self-motivation.  These qualities are essential for the successful implementation of this style.  Sadly, I find that many students are interested only in obtaining a good grade, memorizing some facts and regurgitating them to paper on the exam.    On days like this, I become an existentialist, “hence, Kierkegaard’s belief that all was doomed” (Jacobsen, 2003, p.260).   However, there is no question that in today’s classroom, the individual must take an active part in learning.  The students have to be conditioned to realize that they will have to perform well to be successful, contributing members of society.   The world has become a much smaller place.   Today’s youth must compete on the Global stage.  As it has been said in many ways, education is and will be the key to the future of the individual and society.

Back to Main Page

 


 

 

REFERENCES:

 

Barrow, R. (1976). Plato and education.  London: Routledge and Kegan Paul.

 

Frankena, W. (1965).  Three historical philosophies of education.  Glenview, IL: Scott, Foresman.

 

Greening, T. (1998). Building the constructivist toolbox:  An exploration of cognitive technologies.  Education Technology,             38,25.

 

Jacobsen, D. (2003). Philosophy in Classroom Teaching. Merrill Prentice Hall.

 

Locke, J. (1693).  Some thoughts concerning education ,

            http://www.socsci.kun.nl/ped/whp/histeduc/locke/locke001.html

 

Ozmon , H. and  Craver, S. (2003).  Philosophical Foundations of Education.  Merrill Prentice Hall.