Philosophy of Teaching
Introduction
The American Educational System has been in a constant state of development and adjustment since its inception in the early 1830s. Subsequently, the inauguration of the common school was wrought with controversy from the public, and unfortunately, this is still very much the dilemma of educators and legislators today. People everywhere have fluctuating opinions and philosophies on what they believe is the ‘correct way’ to educate the youth. With so many philosophies vying for dominance, it is not easy to placate them all and reach a consensus. I will be discussing four major philosophies that have driven the American Educational System and diving into how they came to be. Along with this, I will examine how they approach educational curricula and discuss my opinions on each.
Intellectual Traditionalism
Founded on antiquities' greatest works, intellectual traditionalists believe that the “focus on individual differences neglects what all human beings have in common—in fact, it omits what makes them essentially human, namely, the great ideas.” Schubert continues to explain that “the best insight into the great ideas is found….in the best expressions that human beings have produced…[including] great works of literature, art, music, philosophy, social and psychological theory, mathematics, history, and the natural sciences.” (Schubert, pg.170) Intellectual traditionalists’ endorsement of Western European ideology epitomizes the white Eurocentric pedagogy that has reigned supreme in our educational system. Having its roots in ancient Greece and Rome, intellectual traditionalists rely on Socratic teaching methods as well as the utilization of textbooks and standardized testing. Harkened by a need to ‘return to the past,’ intellectual traditionalists advocate for the ‘universal’ truths of faith and reason. (Webb, pg. 93)
Their curriculum, as I alluded to before, relies heavily on textbooks and the great works of antiquity. They believe that “the desire to know what the great works have to offer is deeply embedded in the psyche” (Schubert, pg.171). Intellectual traditionalists promote moral development within the classroom alongside proficiency in reading, writing, the natural sciences, and speech. Didactic instruction and coaching are also extremely important in their curriculum.
The classroom management that they promote is strict and orderly. Instructors who choose to follow intellectual traditionalism run a tight ship and believe that disciplining students is necessary to maintain order and encourage precision of tasks
While the Socratic method and didactic instruction have their place in academia, my support for intellectual traditionalism falters regarding standardized testing and its teacher-as-authoritarian mindset. I do not believe that to be an effective teacher you must be harsh and strict. In my experience in the classroom students as young as pre-kindergarten will recognize and respect you more for allowing them to have some freedom and agency of their own, instead of ruling with an iron fist.
Social Behaviorism
Social behaviorism is categorized as “an educational theory that is predicated on the belief that human behavior can be explained in terms of responses to external stimuli.” (Webb, pg. 102) Popularized by scientists like Pavlov and B. F. Skinner, Social behaviorists believe that although the great works have stood the test of time, it does not mean that it is relevant to today's youth and what they need to thrive. Social Behaviorists critic the knowledge of antiquity and assert that textbooks of new are just regurgitated white-washed facts that have been cherry-picked from history to preserve the “integrity” of the big American Lie. They assert that just because something has been taught for thousands of years does not mean that it is the height of knowledge, nor is it the only thing worth knowing. (Schubert, pg. 173)
Stemming from years of research, this school of thought focuses on the ‘what’ of the curriculum by asking what ‘successful’ people do, but more importantly what they need to know to become successful. Further advocating for the reevaluation of what ‘success’ is for each generation at the local, state, and national levels so that students can be prepared regardless of whether they move across state lines. (Schubert, pg. 172) **
Teachers who follow this philosophy prize critical thinking and project-based inquiry techniques. Choosing to exemplify democratic community-based classroom management, these instructors work diligently to ensure that all students collaborate and make group decisions for the betterment of the collective.
Social behaviorism is such an interesting philosophy. I acquiesce that human behavior has been studied for centuries and there are distinctive patterns to the way that we react to stimuli. Utilizing behaviorism inside the classroom can be incredibly positive, for students and staff alike and I do not see a downside to its implementation.
Experientialist
This philosophy is identifiable by its theory that, “embraces the notion that the child is an experiencing organism who is capable of >learning by doing< " (Webb, pg. 98). This school of thought advocates that a learning environment driven by personal interest is best for children. Passionately believing that “how to learn is more important than what to learn,” social behaviorists are also concerned by ‘the vicissitudes of daily concerns that rumble about in the child’s psyche... [that interpret] ... any content or learning experience the school authorities try to provide.” Experientialists focus on meeting the child where they are and working with them to further their individual education.
Within the curriculum of the Experientialist, you can find relevant, reflective, and experience-based projects that aim to engage the student in the natural world. Lerner, an experientialist stated, “The curriculum of [the Experientialist] would integrate several subjects but would not reflect universal truths, a particular body of knowledge, or a set of prescribed core courses. Rather, it would be responsive to the needs and experiences of the individual, which would vary from situation to situation” (Webb, pg. 98) This means that the curriculum is always evolving, and teachers must be the students' guide. “The metaphor of the "teacher as facilitator" or "director of learning" might best describe the progressivist teacher.” Webb, pg. 100) Because of this facilitative approach to instruction, Experientialism lends itself to removing standardized testing in lieu of monitoring and appraising children individually.
Personally, the main principles of experientialism coincide with my core beliefs that all humans deserve agency and freedom to choose their own path. My conviction is that monitoring and assessing students on an individual level makes the most sense with the research that has been gathered. Similarly, I, too, believe that things outside of the classroom also impact students’ abilities to learn and that it is imperative that we, as educators, meet students where they are.
Critical Reconstructionist
Throughout history, there have been countless reconstructionists. “Plato, who advocated a design for a future state in the Republic, could be considered a social reconstructionist, as could the Christian philosopher Augustine, who sought to create an ideal Christian state. Likewise, Karl Marx... who envisioned a reconstructed
world based on international communism, is considered a social reconstructionist” (Webb, pg. 116) But what do all these historical figures have in common? They all wanted to radically change the systems of education and transform the social structure from within. Valuing “analysis, scrutiny, and the critique of all ideologies” reconstructionists believe in feminism, liberation, and racial equality (Webb pg. 116). They are also acutely aware of injustices and differential treatment of students based on privileges, such as socioeconomic status, gender, ethnicity, ableness, appearance, marital status, health, age, and so on (Schubert, pg. 174).
The curriculum of the reconstructionist focuses on critical literacy that involves smashing the Eurocentric model of cultural literacy and challenging unequal power dynamics that have run rampant within the American Educational System. Students of reconstructionist are challenged to think critically and analyze the prompts and projects in a comprehensive way.
Classroom management for the reconstructionist is firmly grounded in democratic ideology. They encourage students to focus on the community and seek to be active agents within it by speaking up for injustice and differential treatment of others. Not only would they read and study injustice, but they would also actively venture out into the community to witness it firsthand. In addition to field trips Reconstructionists utilize, “teaching strategies of computer simulation, role-playing, cooperative learning, internships, and work-study experiences.” (Webb, pg. 118)
I find myself resonating heavily with the critical reconstructionists. I believe that there is far too much injustice and detrimental privilege within our society. Until we start to see the world through the eyes of others and embrace differences rather than demonizing them, we will continue to stagnate as a society and will be doomed to the massive cultural divides we see today.
Conclusion
There are many pros and cons to each of these philosophies and there will never be a perfect answer to the question ‘What is worth knowing.’ I find that I align myself between most notably the social behaviorists and the critical reconstructionists. I believe that there is a place for some aspects of intellectual traditionalism as well, namely Socratic inquiry, and the occasional lecture. In addition, while I concede that testing does have its uses, I believe personalized evaluation and mentoring to be more useful in evaluating a student’s intelligence and retention of knowledge.
Palmer, P. J. (1998). The courage to teach: Exploring the inner landscape of a teacher’s life. San
Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Schubert, W. H. (1996). Perspectives on four curriculum traditions. Educational Horizons, 74(4), 169-
176.
Webb, L. D., Metha, A. & Joran, K. F. (2000) Foundations of American education (3rd ed.). Columbus,
OH: Merrill.