Philosophy Statement:
A Liberal Approach to a Conservative Curriculum
Copyright © Adam Waxler
www.teaching-teacher.com
“If you’re not sure where you’re
going, you’re liable to end up somewhere else”
Fable of the seahorse
As I watch my two
nephews grow, I can not help but take an interest in their
education. I find it exciting to watch theses two young boys as
they learn and discover. However, Nick who is nine, and Chris, who
is seven, seem to be on two different paths already at this early
stage in life. Nick simply loves school, learning is fun and seems
to come easy for him, while for Chris school is a chore, a constant
struggle to understand and make sense of the information he is being
taught. Many friends and family of these two boys assume that Nick
simply applies himself while Chris does not. However, when taking a
closer look at their education, it becomes apparent, that while they
are attending the same school, they are not receiving the same
education. On the one hand, Nick’s education is exciting. He is
constantly immersed in various projects including dioramas that
involve the whole family, creative story writing, and letter
writing. Chris, on the other hand, brings home difficult worksheets
for homework that are unimaginative and in no way connect his real
life experiences to his schoolwork. Is one of these boys “smarter”
than the other? I have the fortunate opportunity to see both of
them outside of the classroom, in their natural environments, and
therefore I know the answer is undoubtedly “no”.
Rather than
suggesting that one boy is smarter than the other, or that one of
them is applying himself while the other is not, I would look at the
differences in how they are educated and suggest that there are
divergent patterns of philosophy among the teachers of each
student. My own philosophy of education would probably be similar
to that of Nick’s teachers, not because Nick is doing better in
school, but rather because they are addressing not only what
children should learn, but also how they should learn it. In
developing a philosophy of education these are the concepts that
need to be addressed first, how learning occurs, and what
should be taught.
First, we must
understand how children learn. Without understanding how
children learn, what they learn is largely irrelevant. By
blending the ideas proposed by pragmatism with those of
constructivism it is easier to understanding how children learn. A
pragmatic theory of education contends that learning occurs best
when students are actively engaged in an experience that will have
real consequences rather than simply hearing or reading about the
experiences of others (Stevens & Richards, 1992). Constructivists
believe that learning occurs when students construct new
understandings by interacting with what they already know and that
this is done best by problem solving and collaborating with others
(Ismat, 1998). Similar to the pragmatist, the constructivist
believes that the key to learning is through active involvement
rather than imitation and repetition. By combining these two
theories we see that learning occurs when an individual is engaged
in experiences that cause a change in that individual's knowledge or
behavior by interacting with what he or she already knows.
According to John
Dewey, the father of pragmatism, children are socially active people
who are naturally eager to explore their environment and gain
experiences (Rosenthal, 1993). In doing so children confront both
social and personal problems and it is through solving these
problems that children learn. It would be irresponsible for
educators to deny this; therefore education must take into
consideration the experiences of the child and make a conscious
effort to relate what is being taught in school to those real life
experiences. Children do not learn, as many conservative education
philosophies would contend, through book-based instruction,
authoritarian teaching, or through passive memorization of
fragmented bits of information. As Alfie Kohn (1997) explains,
this traditional method of teaching sees children as, “objects to be
manipulated rather than as learners to be engaged” (p. 434). The
mastery of a subject involves much more than having learning
“hammered” in (Kohn, 1997). It involves learning through experience
and solving complex problems that model learning outside of school.
This is a combination of the pragmatic view in education that
emphasizes learning through experience and the constructivist view
in education that emphasizes learning through solving complex
problems (Woolfolk, 1998). Let’s face it, in the real world, what
we experience are complex problems.
Students learn best
when they actively construct meaning around their interests and
experiences. In this way students gain a deeper understanding of
material. The use of worksheets, textbooks, and lectures designed
only to fill students with information leads to passive learning and
rote memorization and places too much emphasis on short-term recall
ability. Our goal as educators should be to create lifelong
learners who understand and appreciate that learning does not stop
once the test is taken or even after their schooling has finished.
We can better understand how this applies to the classroom by taking
a closer look at some educational policies concerning
interdisciplinary curriculum, student collaboration, the role of the
teacher, and finally, to decide if this applies to all
students.
In life, problems are
not solved by looking to one source for the answer, therefore, it is
rational that children will learn better with an interdisciplinary
curriculum. There are many ways educators can foster learning with
an interdisciplinary curriculum. Making connections between
subjects is limited only by the creativity of the teachers
involved. However, this concept should not be taken to the extreme
of organizing the entire curriculum around a central theme, as some
would suggest. Forcing integration in a curriculum is worse than
having no integration at all. A forced integration around a common
theme defeats the purpose and will make learning more difficult. In
real life situations, problems are not solved by focusing on a
common theme, but rather from looking at the problem from various
angles. A curriculum should expand the students’ perspective, not
narrow it. The purpose of an interdisciplinary curriculum is not to
revolve learning around a certain topic, but rather to make school
learning comparable to learning outside of school. If teachers
regularly collaborate so they know what each other is teaching, then
they can come up with ways to help each other make connections
between the subjects and show their students how diverse subjects
relate to one another. This will facilitate the learning process
for the students since that is how we learn in life everyday.
Understandably so, children will be better able to solve problems
when they can and are taught to solve those problems from various
perspectives. One academic subject should benefit another, instead
of them being taught in vacuums.
Likewise, if schools
foster learning for the students by giving them situations that more
closely resemble the real world, than certainly, along with making
connections between the academic subjects, the focus within the
individual classrooms should be on collaboration rather than
competition. While this is certainly a competitive society, in
order to succeed in this competitive society one must be able to
work well with others. As mentioned earlier, constructivist
teaching involves complex, real-life learning situations, but it
also involves social interaction (Woolfolk, 1998). This social
interaction can come in the form of student collaboration in
anything from having students pairing up for one minute, to three
week cooperative learning assignments that place the students in
groups for the duration of the assignment. In the latter, students
are often given roles and must work together to solve problems and
create ideas. Cooperative learning provides students with access to
a learning style that is more likely to resemble life outside of
school than does lecturing and competition. Much of the research
seems to indicate that cooperative learning improves students’
ability to see the world from other perspectives, betters relations
among different ethnic groups, increases self-esteem, increases
willingness to help others, and leads to a greater acceptance of
others (Slavin, 1995). These are the skills that will help children
succeed in the real world and should be developed while they are
still in school. What’s more, the research also seems to indicate
that cooperation leads to higher achievement than does competition
(Slavin, 1995).
Clearly, an
interdisciplinary curriculum and cooperative learning foster the
natural way in which children learn by making school learning
resemble real-life learning. However, it is important to note the
role of the teacher. Teachers must work more as aids that
facilitate the learning process, rather than as knowers who attempt
to put their knowledge into the minds of their students (Adler,
1982). We want to free students from relying on their teacher for
answers so they can begin to learn on their own and so they can
continue to learn after school is over. Just like any good
supervisor or manager, the teacher should guide the learning
process. As mentioned earlier, information can not just “hammered”
in, and it should not just be passed down as if it is the last and
all-knowing word. Instead, there needs to be interaction between
the student and the teacher. Students should raise questions and
try to solve problems thereby constructing their own understanding.
The more closely this is done in conjunction with real life
experiences and the interests of the students, the easier learning
will be. A differentiated approach to instruction can do just this.
In the differentiated
classroom tasks are based on interest and learning style and takes
the constructivist approach that students are active participants in
constructing their own knowledge with the teacher working more as a
guide (Tomlinson, 1995). Differentiated instruction uses of a
variety of teaching strategies, so that all students can explore,
understand, and demonstrate what they have learned with an emphasis
on understanding rather than rote memorization (Tomlinson, 1995).
Some of these various teaching strategies include: field trips,
debate teams, the use of technology to create commercials or web
sites, putting on plays, oral presentations, writing in journals,
and writing for publication such as classroom newspapers, class
brochures, or letters to editors (Vacca & Vacca, 1999; Stevens &
Richard, 1992). Teachers must be flexible and approachable by
providing support and adjusting assignments as needed. To put
simply, the role of the teacher is to create an experience that is
significant to the students. As Lucy Calkins states, in Peggy
Walker-Stevens’ (1992) article “Changing Schools Through
Experiential Education”:
If we asked our
students for the highlight of their school careers, most would
choose a
time when they
dedicated themselves to an endeavor of great importance… On
projects such as
these, youngsters will work before school, after school, and during
lunch. Our
youngsters want to work hard on endeavors they deem significant.
(para.
5).
By using an
interest-based approach that addresses a variety of learning styles,
teachers are able to reach more of their students. However, the
question must still be asked if learning is possible for all
of our students. The answer is yes, all children can learn, and can
continue to learn throughout their lives. This is not to suggest
that all children can learn the same thing at the same pace, but
rather, that all children can learn when a teacher uses an
interest-based differentiated approach to teaching. In other words,
all children can learn when the teacher uses a variety of teaching
strategies to meet the various learning styles of the student and,
in doing so, takes into consideration the students’ interests. The
best way to increase student interest is to show connections to
real-life. For example, using popular music to introduce a lesson
on poetry. Another way to increase student interest is to use
authentic tasks that create realistic problems that don’t
necessarily have a right or wrong answer, such as the issues of
capital punishment or abortion. These authentic tasks can also be
connected to real-life situations that students can better relate
to. For example, on the East End of Long Island students can study
the problems, causes, and possible solutions of beach erosion, or
how the local elections may effect their lives. These types of
tasks increase both knowledge and motivation. When we use a
differentiated approach that focuses on increasing both knowledge
and motivation then all children will be able to learn.
Teaching all children certainly should be the goal of any
educational system.
My philosophy on how
children learn clearly follows along the liberal view that children
learn from experiences that make clear connections with their real
world interests and taps into their prior knowledge. However, I do
not believe the curriculum should be “watered down” or “thinned out”
as many critics to the progressive view of education suggest results
from basing schooling on student interest. Making connections to
student interests does not mean the entire curriculum must
revolve around the interests of the student, but rather, these
connections must be made within the core academic classes. I
believe education must concentrate on the core subjects of social
studies, language arts, science, and math, but do so in away that
all students can learn and enjoy themselves. We must have a core
curriculum, but within that curriculum there should be flexibility,
choice, and students’ interest should be a priority. In other
words, taking the liberal philosophy mentioned earlier on how
children learn and applying it to the conservative philosophy of
what they should learn. There is no reason why teachers can not
associate what is being taught in an academic core subject to a
student’s real–life experiences and interests.
The reason for
focusing on a core curriculum is twofold. First, a core curriculum
provides all students with a truly academic education that is both
general and liberal. As Mortimer Adler (1982) suggests in his
“Paideia Proposal”, this liberal and general education allows all
students to acquire knowledge and develop the intellectual skills
needed for critical thinking and communication thereby providing
children with the opportunity for personal development as well as
allowing them to become good citizens.
Secondly, a core
curriculum can provide the necessary time needed to properly address
how students learn. Time is needed to implement strategies
properly, to go into greater depth in subjects, and for teacher
collaboration. Focusing on the core subjects, not only provides a
liberal education to all students, but allows for more time to teach
each of those subjects. The school schedule can be redesigned as it
has in some schools to allow for block scheduling in which the core
courses are taught in 90-minute blocks as opposed to the traditional
45-minute class. In doing so teachers can focus on quality rather
than speed, courses are taught rather than “covered”, and teachers
have the time to make connections between subject areas and the
real-life experiences and interests of their students (Raebeck,
1998). Also, by teaching just these four courses there is the time
for teacher collaboration thereby making an interdisciplinary
curriculum a possibility.
Essentially, less
becomes more. As Adler (1982) explains, focusing on the core
courses, “is as important for what it displaces as for what it
introduces”(p. 21). Concentrating on the core displaces a number of
electives that have little or no educational value including those
courses narrowly focused on specialized job training (Adler, 1982).
In fact, those students who currently take vocational training
classes in secondary school do not even seem to reap the benefits in
the job market and may even be less employable or earn lower wages
than other high school graduates (Oakes, 1986). The key issue here
is time, therefore everything non-essential must be done away with.
As Barry Raebeck (1998) suggests in his book Transforming Middle
Schools: A Guide to Whole School Change, this includes,
“prolonged holiday festivals, Friday afternoon video reward parties,
hang-out times in the cafeteria, social issue programs, and
substance abuse overkill” (p. 99). All of these, along with the
traditional school electives, compete with a school’s attempt to
focus on the core.
However, doing away
with social issue programs and “hang-out” time is not to suggest
that the school’s role is purely academic. While certainly subject
matter is the primary purpose of school, it would be asinine to deny
the social aspect of education. There is undoubtedly a social
element of school, even if some wish there was not, as there is any
time there is interaction between people. Schools should work to
promote the regular interaction between students, between teachers,
and between student and teacher. There should not be a one way flow
of information from the top down. Students should be active
participants in constructing their own knowledge. We do not want
our students to be passive learners that simply memorize fragmented
bits of information, but rather we want our classes to be
student-centered and education must therefore be a social experience
as well as an academic one.
All students can
learn and continue to learn throughout their lives if education is
gone about in the right way. First, it must be understood how
children learn. Children learn through experiences and by making
connections with their interests. Teachers must make an effort to
connect students’ school experiences to their real-life interests
and must make school practices more closely resemble life outside of
school. This can be done through an interdisciplinary curriculum,
using collaboration in the classroom, and by addressing the various
learning styles of the students. The teacher should be the
facilitator of this process thereby creating a student-centered
curriculum.
Second, we must
understand what children should learn. The student-centered
curriculum should be based on a solid core of academic subjects
including social studies, English, math, and science. Doing away
with the non-essentials in the curriculum creates the time needed to
go into depth on the core subjects and thereby allows the teachers
to apply the strategies that address how the students learn. By
applying this conservative curriculum through liberal means, we are
combining what children should learn with how they
should learn it, thus creating lifelong learners out of all our
children.
References
Adler, M.J.
(1982). The Paideia proposal: Rediscovering the essence of
education. In J.W. Noll (Ed.), Taking sides: Clashing views on
controversial educational issues (pp.18-24). Guilford, CT:
Dushkin/McGraw-Hill.
Ismat, A.
(1998). Constructivism in teacher education: Consideration for those
who would link practice to theory. [Online] Washington, DC:
Clearinghouse on Teaching and Teacher Education. (ERIC Document
Reproduction Service No. ED426986).
Kohn, A. (1997).
How not to teach values: A critical look at character education.
Phi Delta Kappan, 78, 429-439.
Oakes, J.
(1986). Keeping track, part 1: The policy and practice of curriculum
inequality. Phi Delta Kappan, 68, 12-17.
Raebeck, B.
(1998). Transforming middle schools: A guide to whole school
change (2nd ed.). Lancaster: Technomic Publishing
Company.
Slavin, R.E.
(1995). Cooperative learning (2nd ed.). Boston:
Allyn and Bacon.
Stevens, P.W., &
Richards, A. (1992). Changing schools through experiential
education. [Online] Charleston,WV: Clearinghouse on Rural Education
and Small Schools. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No.
ED345929).
Tomlinson, C.A.
(1995). Deciding to differentiate instruction in the middle school.
Gifted Child Quarterly, 39, 77-87.
Rosenthal, S.
(1993). Democracy and education: A Deweyan approach. Educational
Theory, 377-389.
Woolfolk, A.E.
(1998). Educational Psychology (7th ed.). Boston:
Allyn and Bacon
Adam
Waxler is a middle school social studies teacher, teacher mentor,
and the author of eTeach: A Teacher Resource for Learning the
Strategies of Master Teachers. Adam is also the
editor and publisher of The Teaching Teacher’s Newsletter.
For more information about his ebook or to sign up for your free
monthly newsletter log onto:
http://www.teaching-teacher.com
|
