I thought it would be a good idea to start with a statement of my philosophy of education. So here I go…
I believe that every student can learn. I believe that, as educators, we are responsible for developing instructional methods that apply to all students not just to students who “get it” right away. Our methods must support learning not detract from learning. Our methods must make every student, regardless of race, creed, color, or academic level, feel welcome in the learning environment. Every student under the care of an educator must know that an education is the great equalizer. The student must know that no matter how rich or poor he/she may be, an education is the most valuable thing we all will ever possess.
Michelle
Advertisement
October 4, 2009 at 4:18 am |
Michelle,
I gather that you’re a teacher. Where are you teaching and what do you teach?
I was on my local school board here in Summit county Colo. for 5 years and that lit a fire for me.
I have real respect for the work that a classroom teacher does and the challenges he/she faces.
I like your statement of philosophy as an opening for your blog-site. Think I’ll do the same on mine. My philosophy paraphrases the law: Each child shall receive an education appropriate to his or her individual needs. I also think that education is the great equalizer.
Yor comments welcomed,
stuart
October 7, 2009 at 4:01 am |
Hi Stuart,
I am an English teacher in Howard County Maryland.
Being in the classroom can be quite challenging.
It is something that I really love though. I like to see
the expression on a student’s face when the little light
comes on. The Ahhhhh moment. It’s great.
Michelle
November 7, 2009 at 9:51 pm |
There is a conversation that should be going on in education circles comparing and evaluating the alternatives between constructivist and objectivist learning models.
It seems to me that the constructivist central axiom is that “people construct their own understanding and knowledge of the world (or even “truth”), through experiencing things and reflecting on those experiences” is true as far as it goes. I know that I have been forced, on many occasions, to change my understanding of the world through experience. But, sometimes that experience was of a teacher explaining how to multiply fractions, execute a parallel turn or, the understand the root causes of the Civil War.
To go on to assert that the (only) way to educate is guide students through self-discovery seems silly. I have often heard teachers say that their job is to help me to “learn how to learn.” I’m not satisfied with that. I expect that my history teacher knows history – and history, no matter what some people think, is constructed of facts. Also, I’d be pretty damn annoyed if my ski instructor charged me $100 an hour to help me learn how to learn how to ski. I want instructions. I want the benefit of his knowledge and experience.
Objectivist pedagogy asserts that foundational knowledge is essential. If knowledge builds on knowledge, it seems reasonable that one should ask what are the ‘first knowledges’ that a learner should acquire. E. D. Hirsch asserts that it is the mastery of the content that allows the student to develop language skills and from that, communications, critical thinking and analysis skills. The ‘content-neutral’ approach to education espoused by the constructivists is seen as a dead end approach.
I appear to be one of the only ones who takes the objectivist perspective. I don’t know why that is, but I am more concerned that no one seems to see this debate as meaningful. Constructivist perspectives more than dominate. And yet, I have yet to see a demonstration or any empirical-based research that supports one over the other. (In my last class, the esteemed Professor, Otto Peters, flatly refused to offer any proof when I asked for it).
Seems to me that educational effectiveness would be a greater value than theoretical elegance.