EDUC 6470 Draft Statement of Philosophy

My philosophy about teaching grew first in comparing my teachers in the fifth and sixth grades, their approach to individuals, to homework, and to reading. In high school, I recall several experimental methods my science teachers used, such as unguided student research and concept maps, along with recognized curriculum that was considered excellent, such as PSSC physics. In college I recall the difference between physics courses for majors and those for others, such as class size and expectations. All this history I use as a base to think about my own philosophy of teaching, and teaching science.

Look to other subjects

I think science educators, including me, have a lot of reforms to consider seriously. First, something a bit more unique to my own philosophy, is to look for excellence in other subjects. As a member of a hiring committee for my latest school, I noticed that we had one to two applicants for each science position, but about ten for each english position. It stands to reason that our selective process allowed us to choose excellent english teachers, but we were forced to hire whomever we could for science teachers. I hope, having been hired by such a school, that that process doesn't reflect too closely on myself! But, looking through books at educational bookstores, reading journals, reading through the LB section at Mann Library, anyone can see that as a society we have really thought long and hard about teaching english and mathematics.

More specifically, having collaborated with humanities teachers, their penchant for allowing the student to seek their own answers and to express themselves uniquely has rubbed off onto my philosophy. That brings me to student choice.

Student choice

The curriculum in physics is very narrow. It is considered a difficult and frustrating subject, often even disdainfully. Physics teachers often discuss how they need to sugar-coat the content to reach more students. (see #Relevance)

I have experimented with allowing each student in a class to study their own circuits or their own 2-D motion, and will never go back to whole-class labs for those subjects. It is conventionally recognized that students who feel they own their curriculum are more attached to that curriculum, more motivated, and perhaps retain ideas about it better. The first step in constructivist pedagogy is to allow students to build their own knowledge. The next step, obvious to me but not to all, is to allow students to choose, somewhat, their path, their curriculum. I posit that students will truly, if only partly, own their curriculum when they choose their subjects. I am aware that this goes against standardization of curriculum, but I argue that it serves standardization of achievement very well, that it helps students reach higher achievements than if they all have to be in lock-step.

Secondly, it is a way to achieve a more diverse curriculum, allowing students, courses, and schools across the world to learn more and become a more diverse workforce. But, workforce development isn't the highest goal of education, see #Education is part of life.

Education is part of life

Education is part of life, rather than just preparation for life.

Relevance

Physics teachers often state that they are making physics relevant by talking about skateboards and cars. There are several problems with the assumption that that is proper and that it works.