Educational Thought and Practice

Let's say that by "practice" here we mean the application or translation of a certain thought into action. But what is thought? It is said that thought is different from thinking, as the latter denotes a specific activity (e.g., calculating, planning, dreaming, reasoning, philosophizing).

Philosophies and movements in education

There are a number of well-known educational movements out there. All of them sound confident with their respective claims, which are often inconsistent, if not conflicting, answers to the basic problems of education. What ought to be the purpose of education? What ought we to teach in education? How ought we to teach?

Often, the proponents of the movements would justify their answers to these questions by citing the "truth" or "universality" of their assumptions about reality, the human being, knowledge, good, and, at times, beauty. Such assumptions, it may be noticed, are traceable to one or more philosophies. One, of course, has his/her own philosophy, possibly quite different from the known ones. Often, however, the student's or teacher's philosophy is more or less consistent with or similar to one or more philosophies. Platonic Idealism, Aristotelian/Lockean Realism, Augustinian Idealism, Thomasian Realism, Sartrean Existentialism, and Rousseau's Naturalism are some of such philosophies. (Already, my use of the expression "philosophy" here suggests that it is basically a body of fundamental beliefs or assumptions that one uses to justify answers to questions that are more or less similar to the educational problems that I've just stated.)

Students of education should be cautioned that it's not uncommon for a certain philosophy to be tied to the ideals and visions of a certain educational movement. Experts, however, may not agree as to the connections other authors make between an educational movement and a certain philosophy. This implies that impeaching a certain aspect of a philosophy does not necessarily mean that one has effectively undermined the validity of a certain educational movement.

One way to effectively invalidate an educational movement, and its recommended educational practices, is to show first that there is indeed a lack of robust connection between such movement and its supposed theoretical foundation (a philosophy or a cross between two or more philosophies). The next job is to attack the areas of philosophy/philosophies that serve as the major pillars of an educational movement in question. Another way to invalidate an educational movement is to prove that it has, if any, very little practical value, and it does more harm than good to the stakeholders, especially the students, in education. Of course, a more potent approach is to question both the theoretical and practical value of the movement in question.

The simple lesson that I wish to state here is that it's just unwise to embrace something if there is no good reason to do so.

For: My future students

When should it bother you if you fail to teach?

Many teachers deal with their students as though learning would certainly follow if the teacher has the required knowledge and ability to teach. This, I believe, often gives rise to good teaching attitude and practices. But we should also understand and keep in mind that, in the context of formal schooling, teaching and learning are neither causally nor logically connected. That is to say, learning does not entail the occurrence of teaching. Much less, teaching does entail learning. Now, this is just an introduction, not the issue itself.

Should you allow your conscience then to nag you if you're a failed teacher to your students? Take note that, with this question, I'm not suggesting that you have nothing to worry about if your students didn't learn from you. Just think about the issue without bothering whether we've similar answers to the problem that I've just stated. (TO BE CONTINUED)

Thoughts after reading "Building a Better Teacher"

Aside from having the right amount of knowledge and skills, what else do good teachers need to increase their chances of succeess in teaching? Read on. I promise you that the answer could not be found in the school situation.

Elizabeth Green's article titled "Building a Better Teacher" was published in The NY Times on 2 March 2010. Part of the story is about Doug Lemov, an American educational trouble shooter who works as consultant for schools that wish to improve the quality of education they offer. Green reported that Lemov found that abilities to command attention and to give clear and precise direction reside in the core of effective teaching. Another part of the story is about a group of educational researchers that piled up more evidence for the commonsense belief that effective teaching requires competence (i.e., sufficient knowledge, training, quick mind and sound judgment) to teach the subject . It seems futile thus to impeach any of the abovementioned elements of good teaching, for after all, these are some of the things that educators and great thinkers value as far back as the time before the pre-socratics were born.

But will the said elements of good teaching suffice to ensure a significantly improved performance in school? The answer is no, for we all know that even the best teacher, regardless of the amount of scholarly and professional qualities he/she possesses, could still fail to teach his/her students. It seems to me thus that Lemov and that team of researchers, Green including, are too absorbed with facts about formal teaching that they have unintentionally neglected the major role that other factors outside the school situation play in the advancement, stagnation, or retardation of learning. I think I'll have more to say about this if my time will permit me. For now I just want to say a few words about success and failure in teaching, a topic that is often ignored in debates on the principles of accountability and difference in schooling.

Congratulations JM dela Paz & G. Porter

I'm so thrilled to hear from my two former EDFD 120 students that they've been invited to join the UPIS faculty starting June next academic year. I'm confident that both of them will be an asset to the University as they're not only beauty and brains. They're also passion and energy.

Congratulations Gayl Porter and John Michael dela Paz!

You two make me smile with pride. I'm genuinely happy today.

Social Reconstructionism: Where should we begin?

It seems easy to say why we sorely need an education that will enable us, in the long run, here in the Philippines, to reform our society into something it ought to be. But it's unwise to begin by looking for someone or some thinkers whose philosophy or philosophies shall be used as a guide in formulating a social reconstructionistic education in our country.

I believe that what we need to do is to examine or diagnose first our social and cultural situation before we reformulate the goals of education, think of what we ought to teach in order to accomplish such goals, and decide the manner by which we're going to deliver the agreed contents of reconstructionistic education. The social reconstructionist advises us to inspect the various areas of our social and cultural realities: politics, morality, arts, language, psychology, collective intelligence, worldview, and so on. What we ought to teach should be responsive to our own needs. But how could we tell whether there's anything wrong with our politics or the morals of our people, for instance? One way to diagnose our situation is to read our daily papers, both the broadsheets and the tabloids. They will not suffice as a strong basis for our diagnosis, but it's not bad to begin with them as they could show whether something is wrong with our politics or the morals of the people. How many people die everyday for no good reason? How much do corrupt government officials steal from the people? Does the public fall for commercial advertisements fallacious claims? How many people are ill and helpless? How many senior citizens and special children suffer from nightmarish neglect? How does the administration running our government survive condemnation? How many Filipinos want to leave this country? Suppose there are good reasons to believe that such and such are the problems of our people. Is there anything that education could do to effectively address our difficult situation?

Problem of Social Reconstructionism

Social Reconstructionism suggests that education should be an institution of change. Fine. But who will ever disagree with this very broad claim?

But this type of reconstructionistic change is said to go beyond the limits of space occupied by the school campuses. Isn't that good enough a reason to say that reconstructionism is good for us? Great! Great! But this is not clear enough about how things should be done. What exactly are or should be the objectives of formal education? What ought we to teach in school? How ought we to teach the supposed matter of education?

Social Reconstructionism implies that formal education is inadequate if it has no conscious effort to address the enduring problems of one's cultural and social context. This part needs clarification, too, as we do not know yet how far this context goes. Should it be responsive to the requirements of our immediate context alone?

A difficult problem remains unsolved even if we grant that there is no quarrel as regards the social reconstructionistic function of education, for this is still too abstract.

We must not lose sight of the fact that social reconstructionists do not share one and the same philosophy, ideology, and even psychology. In a way, Plato was also a social reconstructionist as evidenced by his desire to realize his vision of an ideal society. Karl Marx was also a social reconstructionist who thought that his communism was the solution to the problematic tension between the capitalist and the working class. Jose Rizal and Andres Bonifacio were neither platonists nor marxists, yet they also count as fine examples of social "educators" who desired systemic change in their society. How about Jesus Christ, St. Augustine, Gandhi, and many more? Even Hitler would count as a social reconstructionist.

So, while it's not difficult to agree with what Social Reconstructionism says in general, we can't help but quarrel when it comes to deciding whose framework ought we to use to guide the educator's attempt to partake in re-engineering or re-building our rickety (i.e., morally and legally corrupt) society.

For: Those who are reviewing for the LET

The links below will take you to some sites whose content might be helpful in the Philosophy of Education part of the licensure examination for teachers in the Philippines:

1. Idealism, Realism, Existentialism, and Pragmatism
2. Perennialism, Essentialism, Progressivism, and Social Reconstructionism
3. Learning Theories
4. ARISTOTLE; AUGUSTINE, ST.; BAGLEY, WILLIAM C.; BODE, BOYD H.; BRAMELD, THEODORE; CHILDS, JOHN L.; COMENIUS, JOHANN; COUNTS, GEORGE S.; DEWEY, JOHN; FREIRE, PAULO; HERBERT, JOHANN; JAMES, WILLIAM; KILPATRICK, WILLIAM H.; MONTESSORI, MARIA; NEILL, A. S.; PESTALOZZI, JOHANN; PLATO; ROUSSEAU, JEAN-JACQUES; WHITEHEAD, ALFRED NORTH.

Home Education (Part 2)

What is a good learning home environment?

A well-modified (i.e., well-planned and organized) learning home environment is highly helpful in giving children, ages 0 to 3 years, a strong foundation for future schooling and life experiences. The content of the home environment as a learning place should be more than what a child could take as a learner. This is to maximize what his/her learning faculties would permit him/her to absorb. It's like an eat-all-you-can buffet set up in a restaurant where the foods are always more than what the diners could stuff into their stomach. Only in a similar arrangement could a child have the opportunity to learn so many things that are, nonetheless, just a fraction of what has been made available for him/her to learn. This, I believe, is the best kind of learning environment for infants, toddlers, and other pre-school children.

Home Education (Part 1)

The learning experience of the child in the home environment should be foundational to his/her future formal, informal, and non-formal education. Here, the purpose of teaching, prior to attending school, is to develop cognitive, creative, psychosocial, and other life skills. Learning in the home environment should, of course, include development of important habits and acquisition of certain values and attitudes. While play activities are a natural part of the infants’ and toddlers’ life, advanced learning of the said skills should be centrally¹ imbedded in the infants’ and toddlers’ home environment and daily routine. If this could be done from birth up to age 3, it is possible to turn out “home school graduates” who have the potential to learn things at a rate significantly and inconceivably faster than the speed of learning of average and above-average schoolchildren today.

Raw thoughts on Howard Gardner's MI theory

People from different places have different conceptions of intelligence. And Gardner’s view of intelligence is only one of the many ideas of intelligence that we could find in different cultures all over the world. We could say thus that Gaardner's meaning is true only insofar as it coheres with his own system of findings and claims about intelligence. And it may be thought unsatisfactory by those who do not share his view of intelligence.

John Watson's experiment on little Albert

I'm not sure if a similar observation has been raised elsewhere about Watson's ethically questionable experiment on little Albert, but I noticed that Watson himself--or his presence--was likewise a conditioned stimulus to Albert. Had Watson performed that experiment many times on Albert, anyone can bet that the little one could have learned to display a scared behavior at the mere sight or even thought of Watson. The theory, however, includes only the role of the rat, rabbit, monkey, dog, etc. and the loud metallic noise in the transfer of the putative inborn fear of Albert. Watson's presence during the experiment could have likewise turned into another potent conditioned stimulus. So, the finding could have been something like this:

WATSON'S PRESENCE > RAT > LOUD METALLIC SOUND > ALBERT BEING SCARED

And if this was done many times, it could have advanced into this:

WATSON'S MERE PRESENCE > POOR ALBERT AUTOMATICALLY SHRIEKING IN FEAR (or something like this)

Furthermore, I believe that it won't matter at all if Watson showed Albert a rat or offered him a chocolate bar. I'd wager just the same that he would have achieved the same effect with that startling noise even if it was paired with three lovely roses or a cone of ice cream. The point here is that Watson didn't realize that he played an unplanned role in eliciting fear behavior from Albert. His theory, on this count, has a missing element: his own presence.

Just a fleeting thought.