1.1 My Ontological and Epistemological Views

Teachers, like all human beings, exhibit their socio-cultural capital in how they see the world or social reality. This is referred to as the ontological viewpoints, which Jackson (2013) defines as the philosophical study of the nature of educational reality. It is, therefore, important that as teachers we evaluate the distinct positionalities on how as individuals we relate to the world around us. Bracken (2010) asserts that such evaluation enables us to unearth how our perceptions of nature determine the approach we consciously choose to reveal social truths with regard to our educational settings. This is also crucial for the choice of methodological approaches to the selection and implementation of curriculum design and delivery (teaching and assessment strategies), as well as how we deal with educational problems. This is well captured by Biesta (2012), where he argues as follows;

“I don’t think of philosophy of education, therefore, as a form of applied philosophy, one that raises philosophical questions about education, but as a ‘device’ cultivated by engagement with philosophy and philosophising for dealing with the problems of education as educational rather than as philosophical problems”.

There is quite a number of onto-epistemological viewpoints, but within the education field; humanism, realism, positivism, constructivism, relativism, and feminism top the list. My ontological position(s) (not fixed) stem from my upbringing. I was brought up by traditionalist parents, who embodied a positivist perspective about life, especially in relation to cultural norms and values. As such, I grew up in this environment where there was an absolutist way of seeing life in general. However, as a highly inquisitive chap, I began seeking alternative views about life and being exploratory in understanding my context. My approach to social reality is that which seeks to explore multiple truths through interacting with my context and others to construct meaning. Such is known as the symbolic interactionism (interpretivist/constructivist) approach to learning and it underpins my teaching practice to a greater extent. Although I am what Prensky (2001) refer to as a digital immigrant, I have, however, assimilated into connectivism (Siemens, 2005) to position myself as a marketer and teacher in the 21st century. With such kind of philosophical fluidity, I am better described as a pragmatist, particularly because I have escaped the false dichotomy of positivist-constructivist binary reasoning. Henceforth, I see knowledge as a context-bound negotiated settlement and not absolute, meaning what becomes acceptable or unacceptable as knowledge is communal.

I firmly believe that social reality is or can be co-constructed by students through social interactions. Thus, as a teacher, I allow my students to bring their social capital into our learning spaces and use their students’ lived experiences as the foundation of making sense of the world and curriculum, marketing in particular as they interact in their diversity. With such an approach, I view my students as actors in the process of learning than being passive recipients of knowledge. This also allows me to practice Friere's (1970) problem-solving (dialogical) approach to teaching and learning. As noted by Bracken (2010), examining one's one’s onto-epistemological position is crucial for locating one's arguments to justify the choice of teaching methodological approach.

It is common that most teachers, without formal training in teaching, tend to take a lot from their schooling experiences – "teaching the way they were taught" (Oleson and Hora, 2014) and Palmer (1993) criticises teachers for privatising teaching and learning activities. Palmer uses an analogy of surgeons who cannot do their work without being observed by other medical peers, thus collectively treating patients. He also uses that of lawyers who in a trial, are observed and challenged by other legal minds in pursuit of justice. Like surgeons who are entrusted with patients’ lives and lawyers who are entrusted with the delivery of justice, teachers are entrusted with students’ (often young people) mental state - the future of nations. To avert the ills raised by Larrivee and Palmer, I am inspired by Larrivee's (2000) concept of a reflective practitioner which "begins self-awareness, self-inquiry, and self-reflection" (p. 293). My reflectivity starts with the examination of philosophical premises (Bracken, 2010), which enables me to reflect and avoid teaching the way I was taught. Perhaps, the desire for different learning experiences than what we were subjected to as students was one of the reasons I ended up in academia, to exercise the kind of teaching approach that create authentic learning opportunities. In so doing, I take as an axiological obligation that I must avail social justice by observing the need for equality and/or equity when designing curriculum, delivering instruction and conducting assessments.

However, it is a fact that academic fields, also known as semiotic domains (Gee, 1990) have distinctive social practices and disciplinary literacies that dictate knowledge creation. For example, certain principles within the marketing/business management field need to be adhered to as the acceptable norms of creating knowledge. More so, most of these practices and literacies are the cornerstone of the discipline which students have to grasp to become disciplinary apprentices. This calls for some objectivist approach espoused under positivism. To strike a balance and to allow students to be part of disciplinary knowledge creation, I allow them to critique and question these norms than to take them at face value. As a result, my teaching approach seeks to connect objectivity and subjectivity to allow abductive reasoning.

I capture all this in my Statement of Teaching Philosophy.