Learning Philosophy

Teaching is an interesting word. It can be interpreted, in my view, in one of two ways. In one sense, it can refer to the attempt (successful or not) to impart novel knowledge or skills. In another, it is the successful download of novel knowledge or skills. Many educators and learners subscribe to the latter interpretation of the word. It is my position that such an interpretation is problematic, and the feat it implies, impossible (with current technology). To imply that a person can actively will thoughts and ideas into the minds of others is scary, but it is an expectation that has been baked into our current education system. Many an educator has heard a familiar lament from students upon receiving a grade they disliked: “You didn’t teach us this!”. What people believe about teaching informs what they believe about learning. Students who subscribe to the latter interpretation of teaching believe learning is something that happens to them. 

Learning, in my view, is not something that happens to you. Though it may arise as a result of something you experience, it is a process that requires your participation. This foundational belief, informs my planning and practice as an educator and as a learner. My statement is not meant to suggest that before learning something, a student must actively decide to learn and flip something akin to a learning switch in their brains. However, those who have learned something, at some point in the process, decided to actively participate in an experience which lead to acquisition of new knowledge or skills. Our goal then, as educators, should be to create and/or facilitate experiences students WANT to participate in, and that, if participated in, will lead to learning. It should explicitly NOT be to plan a performance for students. This goal must also translate to me as a learner. If I want to learn something new, I must actively participate in learning experiences made available to me, or create them for myself. 

I would not mind a change in title from “teacher” to “learning facilitator” , “learning mentor” or even “learning guide”. I believe such a change might result in a cultural paradigm-shift in education. Too often it is implied that learning is essentially a teacher’s job. In fact, in many districts, student data from standardized tests is used to decide pay-tiers for teachers. With that kind of system, it’s no wonder students don’t take ownership of their learning (and we enable them). My aim is not to abdicate responsibility but rather to highlight the reality of what must take place for lasting learning to occur. I believe this is also the reason a learning philosophy is of more use than a teaching philosophy. A teaching philosophy would seem to place more importance on the actions of the teacher than the actions of the learner in the process of learning. It is more important for a teacher to understand the process of learning than the process of teaching, just as it is more important for a fisherman to understand the process of catching than the process of fishing (if the fisherman cares more about catching fish than being seen holding a rod and reel). 

My background is in behaviorism, and this informs to some extent my learning philosophy. Before I continue addressing my personal learning philosophy I need to get a few things out of the way: I would argue many learning philosophies today, which would on the surface seem reactionary to the (in their view) inhumane and industrial philosophies of BF Skinner, actually rely on them to a similar extent that many modern behaviorists do. In many ways, when I look at modern learning philosophies, I don’t find their approaches to be as radically different from modern behaviorists as their proponents would probably like them to be. When I was working toward my undergraduate degree, I had professors who would become demonstrably upset if you compared behavior analysis to psychology. Their view was If you wanted to spend hours talking about something, find a psychologist. If you want to get something done, find a behavior analyst. Behaviorists say psychologists are essentially useless, and psychologists blame behaviorists for standardized testing and everything wrong with our current education system. It was certainly an “us” vs. “them” mentality. I am aware of the extent to which being in that environment colors my view of various learning philosophies. 

That being said, behaviorism attracted me in college because it made sense to me. It seemed to reflect for me at the time, the most realistic (if not attractive) solution to a host of seemingly unsolvable issues. However, my aim is to approach my learning philosophy the way I try to approach the rest of my life:

“Sit down before fact as a little child, be prepared to give up every preconceived notion, follow humbly wherever and to whatever abysses nature leads, or you shall learn nothing…” - Thomas Huxley

Our students’ learning is too important to be worried or dug-in over labels. If research shows a strategy can be effective, I will attempt it. I have seen from experience as a teacher and a learner that a project and problem-based learning approach can be extremely effective in accomplishing the goal I outlined above (to create and/or facilitate experiences students WANT to participate in, and that, if participated in, will lead to learning). My review of the literature established that project and problem based learning are a subset of constructivist learning theory championed by John Dewey, Jon Piaget, and--more specifically for project based learning--William Kilpatrick who developed project method, a precursor to project-based learning (Pecore, 2015). 

In the book Constructivist Learning Environments: Case Studies in Instructional Design, John Savery and Thomas Duffy outline the philosophy as having three main propositions: 

1. “Understanding is in our interactions with the environment.”

2. “Cognitive conflict or puzzlement is the stimulus for learning and determines the organization and nature of what is learned.”

3. “Knowledge evolves through social negotiation and through the evaluation of the viability of individual understandings.”

A quick google search for interactions defines it as “a reciprocal action or influence”. Reciprocal implies that both parties are involved. Thus, point one would seem to point to an active learning approach, where students learn primarily by doing. Cognitive conflict or puzzlement as the stimulus for learning is an interesting point because it lines up with recent research by Douglas Thomas and John Seely Brown in their book “A New Culture of Learning” showing that constraint is a key in creating authentic learning experiences (Thomas, 2012). Knowledge evolving through social negotiation and through the evaluation of the viability of individual understandings would seem to also be backed up through (relatively) recent findings showing that in order to "learn how to learn", a metacognitive approach must be taken wherein students learn to monitor their own understanding and/or progress in problem solving. Monitoring isn't internal but it is a mindful, intentional process, that can be taught externally through teacher modeling and scaffolding (National Research Council, 1999). I would claim these three points as broadly encompassing what I believe to be true about learning. With that being said, I think it would be appropriate to define myself as a constructivist. 

The main idea that I believe has “converted” me to constructivist theory, is the idea of learning as an organic process. The analogy of the garden in education has been made by quite a few people, though it was Allison Gopnik’s juxtaposition between the Gardener and the Carpenter that struck me as most complete. In Gopnik’s view, while precision and control are allies of the carpenter, gardeners create a protected and nurturing space for plants to flourish:

“Our specific plans are always thwarted and yet the compensation is that our greatest horticultural triumphs and joys also come when the garden escapes our control. “ (Gopnik, 2016)

I have experienced this first hand. In 2019, an EF1 tornado passed near our property and destroyed the garden my wife and I had been working to create for the previous two years. Our fence was destroyed, our trees were uprooted, and our raised beds were badly damaged. But our plants thrived in the chaos. Their growth couldn’t be thwarted, even by the tornado. The soil was too rich for that. We rebuilt and the garden is better than it was back then. The tornado forced us to reimagine the garden in ways that we never would have considered had it not blown it all down that day. 

Our students are not like cedar boards. They don’t come in pre-determined dimensions. They aren’t meant for pre-determined applications. Their learning, like their development, is unique. But just as every plant needs good soil, sun, and water, each student needs an environment where they can thrive. I believe it is our role, as educators, to create safe and engaging spaces where students learn by doing, encounter unique and authentic challenges, and systematically evaluate their own understanding. 

I believe it is my responsibility to advocate for and facilitate positive learning-centered change. To accomplish this, it will be important to highlight not only the effectiveness of learning strategies, but also the underlying learning philosophy they represent. Research shows (ironically) that research has a very small impact on teacher practices. Thus I will make it my aim to encourage others, through training and collaborative partnerships, to develop clear beliefs about learning, and to remain willing to incorporate new research-based strategies if they prove to be effective. 

References

Pecore, J.L. (2015) From Kilpatrick’s project method to project based learning. International Handbook of Progressive Education, 155-171. 

Wilson, B.G. (1996) Constructivist learning environments: case studies in instructional design. Retrieved from https://books.google.com/

Thomas, D. (2012, Sept. 12) A new culture of learning. Retrieved from: https://youtu.be/lM80GXlyX0U

National Research Council. (1999) How people learn: bridging research and practice. National Academies Press.

Gopnik, A (2016) The gardener and the carpenter: what the new science of child development tells us about the relationship between parents and children. Retrieved from: https://books.google.com/