Teaching Philosophy
It has been my experience that most teachers – from kindergarten to undergraduate – thoroughly enjoyed the experience of being a student. This enjoyable experience was the basis for staying in school and crossing the floor to the other side of the classroom, ultimately becoming the person in charge of pedagogy. A lot of teachers, however, fail to recognize that many students do not find the academic experience pleasant or fulfilling. Even at the undergraduate level, for example, many students enroll for reasons that are not grounded in scholarship. That is, seeking higher knowledge and advancing global erudition is not the modus operandi for most students. Undergraduate registration, rather, is often driven by many other reasons, such as; parental and family pressures, the prospect of improving future economic standing, creating a buffer zone between secondary school and the workplace (where students can develop their character and personality), and the prestige of a post-secondary education. Pedagogy grounded solely in academia, therefore, is not conducive to all students. Furthermore, dropout rates at the undergraduate level are relatively high -- approximately 25% of all undergraduate students across Ontario do not graduate (2006-07). Although there are many reasons for dropping-out of university, I would argue that the majority of students that do not graduate have experienced a disconnection between themselves and what/how they were being taught.
As an educator, it is important for me to recognize and appreciate two important facts. One, many students have experiences in education that are very different from the ones I had as an undergraduate. Two, the reasons underlying why students register in undergraduate classes are complex and diversified. Thus, it is imperative that I employ pedagogy rooted in multiplicity; equitably addressing the multiple needs and requirements of a diversified student body, while simultaneously, and somewhat paradoxically, trying to maintain the academic integrity of the university. This multiplicity is rooted in three major areas:
(1) Inductive Model of Pedagogy and Curriculum:
Much of Western educational practices are rooted in deductive reasoning, where pedagogic delivery and curriculum design are pre-determined. Students are thus asked to engage and capitulate in a very one-sided approach to learning. This is what Miller (1993) refers to as the Transmission Model. Students are passive, submissive, and play no part in the meaning-making process.
Inductive reasoning, however, permits pedagogical and curriculum models that are driven by the needs and requirements of the student. This is what Miller (1993) refers to as the Transactional Model, a two-way relationship between the teacher and student, where the latter is an active and assertive participant in the meaning-making process. This type of dynamic teaching is also known as “constructivist pedagogy.” Moving forward from the Transactional Model is what Miller (1993) refers to as the Transformation Model, where the dynamic relationship between teacher and student transforms both parties into a new and higher sense of existence. This new plane of existence becomes part of the teacher’s pedagogical techniques that are used in future interactions with students. Pease refer to Figure 1: Three Paradigms of Pedagogical Practice. The transformation paradigm is the primary tenet behind Holistic Education, the teaching philosophy that I principally subscribe to.
(2) Dynamic and Flexible Assessment and Evaluation:
In a world where final grades are an undisputed and necessary component of the undergraduate experience, it is essential that teachers employ a diversified method of assessment and evaluation. Evaluating a student’s ability to write scholarly papers and memorize content represents only a small fraction of assessment techniques. There are numerous methods of evaluation available to the course instructor, such as assessing students’ awareness of their attitudes and values, assessing skill in application and performance, and assessing skill in problem solving to name a few.
(3) The Ebb and Flow of Pedagogy and Research:
Does pedagogy drive the research agenda? Conversely, does research drive the pedagogical agenda? In order to answer these questions, we need to consider the fact that universities cannot survive without sufficient student enrollment. Some universities situate research at their apex, under the basic premise that stellar research will give the institution prestige and popularity, ultimately attracting students to study with well-known faculty members. Other universities, however, situate stellar pedagogical practice at their apex. This falls under the basic premise that students excel with exceptional teaching, proudly and confidently spreading the good word about the quality of education they received, which ultimately attracts new students to the university.
Is stellar teaching possible without quality research? Conversely, is stellar research possible without quality teaching? With regards to the former question, undergraduate instructors need to engage in research in order to enrich their curriculum. That is, all of the best pedagogical techniques would be meaningless if there was no content to teach. Research, therefore, is the best fuel for developing curriculum. With regards to the latter question (is stellar research possible without quality teaching?), emphasis on quality teaching is the foundation of quality research. That is, the interactions and discussions with students provide a rich and fertile pool of ideas and concepts for future research.
The most obvious exemplar, therefore, is that the undergraduate instructor must engage in both quality pedagogy and research, as they are both vital to the success of each other. This ethereal plane where both teaching and research streams converge is what I refer to as the Pedagogical / Research Confluence, which should be the principal aim and objective of all university faculty. Please refer to Figure #2: The Ebb and Flow of Pedagogy and Research.
Although professors earn their title, they never cease being a student. All undergraduate educators are in perpetual pedagogic motion, always asking questions, challenging theories, and learning new and innovative methods of teaching. I would hope that my philosophy of teaching is rooted in candor, honesty, and reflective practice, constantly being refined and cultivated. In sum, the single most important factor – today, tomorrow, and always -- is that somehow and somewhere I have made an impact on the lives of my students via my pedagogy and my research. I would like to end with a quote by Brookfield (1990), who has so adeptly stated:
Teaching is about making some kind of dent in the world so that the world is different than it was before you practiced your craft. Knowing clearly what kind of dent you want to make in the world means that you must continually ask yourself the most fundamental evaluative questions of all – what effect am I having on my students and on their learning? (pp.18-19)
References:
Brookfield , Stephen (1990). The skillful teacher. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Miller, John P. (1993). The holistic curriculum. Toronto, Ontario: OISE Press.
MTCU OSAP Performance Indicators (2006-2007). Retrieved 2007, from http://www.edu.gov.on.ca/eng/general/postsec/uindicator.html
As an educator, it is important for me to recognize and appreciate two important facts. One, many students have experiences in education that are very different from the ones I had as an undergraduate. Two, the reasons underlying why students register in undergraduate classes are complex and diversified. Thus, it is imperative that I employ pedagogy rooted in multiplicity; equitably addressing the multiple needs and requirements of a diversified student body, while simultaneously, and somewhat paradoxically, trying to maintain the academic integrity of the university. This multiplicity is rooted in three major areas:
(1) Inductive Model of Pedagogy and Curriculum:
Much of Western educational practices are rooted in deductive reasoning, where pedagogic delivery and curriculum design are pre-determined. Students are thus asked to engage and capitulate in a very one-sided approach to learning. This is what Miller (1993) refers to as the Transmission Model. Students are passive, submissive, and play no part in the meaning-making process.
Inductive reasoning, however, permits pedagogical and curriculum models that are driven by the needs and requirements of the student. This is what Miller (1993) refers to as the Transactional Model, a two-way relationship between the teacher and student, where the latter is an active and assertive participant in the meaning-making process. This type of dynamic teaching is also known as “constructivist pedagogy.” Moving forward from the Transactional Model is what Miller (1993) refers to as the Transformation Model, where the dynamic relationship between teacher and student transforms both parties into a new and higher sense of existence. This new plane of existence becomes part of the teacher’s pedagogical techniques that are used in future interactions with students. Pease refer to Figure 1: Three Paradigms of Pedagogical Practice. The transformation paradigm is the primary tenet behind Holistic Education, the teaching philosophy that I principally subscribe to.
(2) Dynamic and Flexible Assessment and Evaluation:
In a world where final grades are an undisputed and necessary component of the undergraduate experience, it is essential that teachers employ a diversified method of assessment and evaluation. Evaluating a student’s ability to write scholarly papers and memorize content represents only a small fraction of assessment techniques. There are numerous methods of evaluation available to the course instructor, such as assessing students’ awareness of their attitudes and values, assessing skill in application and performance, and assessing skill in problem solving to name a few.
(3) The Ebb and Flow of Pedagogy and Research:
Does pedagogy drive the research agenda? Conversely, does research drive the pedagogical agenda? In order to answer these questions, we need to consider the fact that universities cannot survive without sufficient student enrollment. Some universities situate research at their apex, under the basic premise that stellar research will give the institution prestige and popularity, ultimately attracting students to study with well-known faculty members. Other universities, however, situate stellar pedagogical practice at their apex. This falls under the basic premise that students excel with exceptional teaching, proudly and confidently spreading the good word about the quality of education they received, which ultimately attracts new students to the university.
Is stellar teaching possible without quality research? Conversely, is stellar research possible without quality teaching? With regards to the former question, undergraduate instructors need to engage in research in order to enrich their curriculum. That is, all of the best pedagogical techniques would be meaningless if there was no content to teach. Research, therefore, is the best fuel for developing curriculum. With regards to the latter question (is stellar research possible without quality teaching?), emphasis on quality teaching is the foundation of quality research. That is, the interactions and discussions with students provide a rich and fertile pool of ideas and concepts for future research.
The most obvious exemplar, therefore, is that the undergraduate instructor must engage in both quality pedagogy and research, as they are both vital to the success of each other. This ethereal plane where both teaching and research streams converge is what I refer to as the Pedagogical / Research Confluence, which should be the principal aim and objective of all university faculty. Please refer to Figure #2: The Ebb and Flow of Pedagogy and Research.
Although professors earn their title, they never cease being a student. All undergraduate educators are in perpetual pedagogic motion, always asking questions, challenging theories, and learning new and innovative methods of teaching. I would hope that my philosophy of teaching is rooted in candor, honesty, and reflective practice, constantly being refined and cultivated. In sum, the single most important factor – today, tomorrow, and always -- is that somehow and somewhere I have made an impact on the lives of my students via my pedagogy and my research. I would like to end with a quote by Brookfield (1990), who has so adeptly stated:
Teaching is about making some kind of dent in the world so that the world is different than it was before you practiced your craft. Knowing clearly what kind of dent you want to make in the world means that you must continually ask yourself the most fundamental evaluative questions of all – what effect am I having on my students and on their learning? (pp.18-19)
References:
Brookfield , Stephen (1990). The skillful teacher. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Miller, John P. (1993). The holistic curriculum. Toronto, Ontario: OISE Press.
MTCU OSAP Performance Indicators (2006-2007). Retrieved 2007, from http://www.edu.gov.on.ca/eng/general/postsec/uindicator.html
