Take chances, makes mistakes, and get messy!
- Miss Frizzle, The Magic School Bus My Teaching Philosophy I would love to say that I am a constructivist educator; that I see myself as a facilitator of learning, whose main job is to supply opportunities for students to ascertain and assemble concepts for themselves (Edmunds et al., 62). However, I do not believe that it is a realistic notion to suggest this philosophy, with all of its merits, could successfully work with every classroom or student. I believe that there is a balance needed between constructivism and progressivism, with a touch of behaviourism, to create a successful learning environment. What is unclear is what portion of each theory is needed to create a recipe for success. That dilemma is where the core of my personal teaching philosophy exists, in finding the unique balance of these teaching ideals that is specific to individual classrooms and students.
Constructivism theory focuses on the cognitive processes and strategies of learners. It is a student-centered learning process, which values material based on student’s interests and student’s formulating their own values of the content (Edmunds et al., 70). This is opposed to teacher-centered theories, such as Essentialism, which believes there is a core base of principles that the students should be taught. Essentialism places the teacher’s or society’s value onto what the student is to be taught (Edmunds et al., 67). Constructivists believe that “learning is an active, meaning making process” and that students are not passive recipients for information to be pressed upon (Edmunds et al., 70). Constructivist educators use student’s prior knowledge and inquiry based activities for students to attain new, meaningful, knowledge. This process requires a great deal of work for the instructor prior to each lesson, as they must know their students well, and understand their knowledge levels of each content area to accurately understand their knowledge base. Further, teachers must also do a lot of preparation to adjust for student’s interests; constructivism asks students to discover concepts on their own, so teachers must have multiple potential pathways for the student’s learning process to proceed down (Edmunds et al., 71). However, this principle of student-centered learning is idealistic as it is impractical to assume that this discovery based structure would work in every classroom. This learning style is a groomed process, teachers must build up to a fully constructivist classroom. It takes time for students to be able to work independently and with little intervention from the teacher. This can be due to young age or that students have been taught in teacher-centered classrooms up until this time. Once this trust can be established successful constructivist learning can occur. Yet, this still may not be realistic in all classrooms. The trust and independence needed for this learning style may be unattainable for different learning level classrooms, such as applied and locally developed. In my experience this style of teaching is not within reach for every group of students. In a grade six classroom I spent half the day in for five months, I can attest that these students would have been capable of inquiry based learning if the teacher had began the process of implementing this teaching style. In contrast, on my placement I was in applied and locally developed high school classrooms I cannot conceive that this practice would be possible. Though I spent significantly less time in these classrooms I saw independent work in each class and can concluded that the students were unable to remain on tasks or use the time productively in the slightest way. Even with activities that the students found enjoyable they were quickly off task and uninterested in learning. These students were so accustomed to spoon feed information that I do not believe that these students learning styles could be moulded to a constructivists’ ideal. This downfall of constructivism can be counter balanced by the concepts of behaviourism and progressivism. Progressivism and Constructivism have many similarities. They focus on content based on student’s interests over curriculum; they take students cognitive processes into account and believe that learning is an active process. Progressivism believes that what is true or significant today may not be true or significant in the future. Therefore, students must be taught how to learn rather than what is considered as the truth (content). This is what I find most agreeable; students must be equipped with the ability to continue learning throughout their lives to be successful in their careers and in our ever changing society. This process implies structure, to teach learning strategies, while still maintaining freedom, for students to choose what to learn based on their interests. Progressivism equips learners with problem solving tactics that allow them to utilize the inquiry based method of constructivism (Edmunds et al., 69-71). Together, the psychological based constructivist model is balanced by the progressive philosophy. Lastly, I believe it is important to also utilize aspects of Behaviourism in my classroom philosophy as well. Constructivism concentrates on the mental processes of learners to mould the students learning. Behaviourism, on the other hand, focuses on observable and measurable behaviour. Behaviourism argues that humans so not have free will but a set of learned behaviours based on ideals pressed upon them by societal values. This practice uses reinforcement to promote positive behaviour (Edmunds et al., 70). I believe that positive reinforcement is a great method of setting behaviour in any classroom. I also believe that there are basic standards that we should instil in our students, such as manners, respect and motivation. This is significant to mention because it veers away from the student-centered philosophies of Constructivism and Progressivism by instilling values that the teacher sees an important over giving that choice to the students. I have seen positive reinforcement used successfully in a variety of classrooms, including raffle tickets for good behaviour in the grade six classroom and jolly ranchers to promote motivation the high school classrooms. I believe that Behaviourism can be used to accurately balance Progressivism and Constructivism in a classroom by filling in the gaps, such as disciplining, that the other philosophies do not cover. Together, these three strategies create a more holistic and tangible classroom philosophy. I believe there is no finite mix of these educational philosophies that can guarantee a successful learning environment in every classroom. One teaching style is not transferable from one student to the next and this is the same for education philosophies. Therefore, to understand what balance is necessary in a new classroom requires a diagnosis process. This process has no fixed method; it requires an understanding of the students, how they learn and a bit of trial and error. In a new classroom, the teacher must first come to know the children, what they are interested in and how they have been taught to learn in the past. This process will allow an educator to base content on student’s interests and deduce the children’s prior knowledge. The instructor must also understand how students learn; this study of the children’s learning process should allow the educator to discover how the class learns - visually, audibly, textile, etc. The instructor should gage the student’s levels of independence and work towards making them more independent learners for inquiry teaching. Finally, once the teacher has diagnosed the students and how they learn they can start to implement constructivist teaching methods, starting by slowly giving the students more and more prerogative over their educational goals. For example, while on practicum I was in an English classroom that had a very strict structure for learning. The students understood the teacher’s expectations and poor behaviours were disciplined immediately. The instructor ran a very teacher-centered classroom where she transmitted information onto the passive students instead of the students actively discovering the information for themselves. One day, she opted for partner work on a worksheet instead of independent work. The students were disorderly and disruptive and little to no work was accomplished, even with the instructor and myself constantly circulating the classroom. The students were not ready to be given educational independence; they did not have the skills necessary to become active and engaged learners. The teacher promptly returned to a teacher-centered classroom the following day. I believe that no class will be an effective constructivist class immediately, but that an instructor must work with the students to build on their independent skills to create an effective classroom. This process of give and take may include having lessons that introduce more independent activities each day or a mixture of teacher-centered, lecture, and student-centered work (group work) until the perfect formula is discovered (Edmunds et al., 223). There is no chart to illustrate how receptive a classroom will be to independent learning and trying different balances until success is achieved is an effective strategy to finding your education philosophy recipe for success. In an era that champions unique and creative students we cannot use a cookie-cutter formula for education, we must strive to find the unique teaching strategy that will most effectively support our students learning. This fluidity will take extra effort for the teacher through the diagnosis and preparation process, but its benefits will surmount those efforts; making that process worthwhile to every educator. |
**Please note students faces have been blurred for privacy ** |
References
Edmunds, A., Nickel, J. & Badley, K. (2015) Educational Foundations in Canada. Don Mills:
Oxford University Press Canada.
Parkay, F, W., Stanford, B. H., Vaillancourt, J. P., Stephens, H. C. & Harris, J. R. (2012).
Becoming a Teacher, 4th Canadian Edition, Toronto: Pearson Education.
Edmunds, A., Nickel, J. & Badley, K. (2015) Educational Foundations in Canada. Don Mills:
Oxford University Press Canada.
Parkay, F, W., Stanford, B. H., Vaillancourt, J. P., Stephens, H. C. & Harris, J. R. (2012).
Becoming a Teacher, 4th Canadian Edition, Toronto: Pearson Education.