INTRODUCTION
A philosophy of teaching is
exactly like pohnpei397 explains. It is the map you follow when teaching
your students. As a middle school, high school, prison system, and
college teacher over my career, I would like to give you some examples that
would explain further for a beginning teacher. The key part for you of
pohnpei's answer is the very last sentence which says that a teaching
philosophy "allows teachers to know where they are...
A philosophy of teaching is exactly
like pohnpei397 explains. It is the map you follow when teaching your
students. As a middle school, high school, prison system, and college
teacher over my career, I would like to give you some examples that would
explain further for a beginning teacher. The key part for you of
pohnpei's answer is the very last sentence which says that a teaching
philosophy "allows teachers to know where they are trying to go and how
they plan to get there." As a beginning teacher, I had no true idea
what that really meant in practical terms. To be specific, let's say that
you are an English teacher who has to teach eighth graders how to write complex
sentences when they are now writing in only simple and compound sentences.
Your philosophy tells you to take them from where they are, in simple and
compound sentences, and figure out a plan to get them to write complex
sentences and why they want to learn this as it makes
their writing more grown up. Let's say your plan has to include something for
visual learners, physical learners, readers etc. For physical and visual
learners, you can put two students in the front of the room (choose carefully),
have them stand separately to demonstrate the I in one independent clause.
Then have them hold hands to demonstrate the conjunction which holds
compound sentences together or break the hand hold to demonstrate that they are
still independent sentences. Then, have them hold hands, but push on the
knee of one of them to show the students that without the one independent
sentence to lean on, the dependent clause with the bent knee would fall as it
needs the support of the independent clause. You will need to clarify
coordinating and subordinating conjunctions. Give them a rhyme to
memorize the coordinating as the subordinating list is too long. Construct
several as a class to show them the patterns D,I or ID so that they understand
the flexibility of complex. Then put them in groups to construct one complex
sentence together and present it to the class. The class can then decide
if it is correct or not. Make them vote individually after 2 or 3 so that
you can see who does not understand. Then have them write three sentences
of their own to trade among their small group. Have them choose the best
sentence in their groups and present again, but to the next group. Then
in each assignment after this, require one complex sentence which they must
underline and label D,I or ID. For those who need a reference
sheet, provide one which shows sentence patterns. Now, can you
see that you need a map and a plan for how to teach students every one of the goals
you have for them? You need to use your philosophy of teaching as to how
to treat students, how to teach every kind of learner, the plan to teach the
objective you have, and to make students use the information you have taught
them so that you know you have reached your goal. I hope this helps you
understand more completely with the examples provided.
THE
RELEVANCE OF PHYLOSOPHY AND CLASSROOM TEACHER
Philosophy
of education has very little practical value for beginner teachers. The best
way to learn to teach is to actually do it. When you’re face to face with your
first class of students, the only philosophy I’d advise is contained in the
following five principles:
- You’re the leader. Whatever happens in your classroom is your responsibility.
- Do your best to love your students. All of them.
- Be passionate about what you teach. If you’re not, you’re wasting everyone’s time, including your own.
- Always remember that you’re there to serve your students, not vice-versa.
- Your students will teach you all sorts of things that will affect your identity and influence the way you teach, but you can only ever be their teacher.
As
you gain experience, you’ll develop your own philosophy of education, and it
will serve you much better than the theories and ideas of other educators, past
and present.
To
be a good teacher means you need to not only know the content you are teaching,
but also how to teach it to your audience most effectively. For too many
teachers, they teach the way they were taught, or the way someone told them to.
This can help you get by, but it is important to understand why you teach in a
certain way. It is important to know that not all people learn the same way.
It
is also really important to understand these philosophies so you can create
your own, that drives all that you do. You need to be able to articulate why
you do something one way instead of another. You also need to be able to
recognise when your philosophy doesn't work in a situation so you can modify
your approach with a sound reason for doing so, not just because it was easy.
Philosophy
of education was always presented poorly in my experience, without actually
explaining why it is important to know. Once it has context, it is quite
fascinating and you will begin to see how things are continually recycled in
education.
Gone
are the days of the Classical and the Bildung
ideal. What remains now are kids that grow up to be fast tweeters who’s
main purpose is to get as many likes as possible on FB and as many followers as
possible on Twitter and Instagram. All the while sending Snaps of every detail
of their life into the world wide web in which they are caught as helpless
insects.
The
reality is: philosophy has no real saying in education because it has failed as
a whole.
In
short: philosophy can help YOU personally as a person and a teacher to get a
broader understanding of your area of expertise but don’t expect it to give you
a proper philosophy of education that you can implement.
Schools
are organized and run by a logic of economy, just like any other organisation.
Economical thinking and philosophical thinking don’t go too well together…
To
have some idea of the philosophy of education gives you a chance to know what
you are doing in a classroom.
Without
a philosophy you are likely to be blown off course by the day to day
situations. A student comes in late, slams tbe door, sits on top of their desk
and throws their bag on the floor.
It
is annoying. Do you berate them? They have upset your lesson flow.
Turns
out that their mother is on dialysis, the student has to get two younger
siblings ready for school and then get to school themselves having not had time
for breakfast.
Without
a philosophy of why you are in that classroom with that student you are very
likely to make life more difficult for them and for yourself.
As
it happened I visited that student's mother in hospital when the student was
with her. We chatted. The student learned that I understood. Communication
improved, educational outcomes improved. A win all round.
As a teacher, one way or the other you
have to ask and answer questions,such as, “What should be taught and how should
it be taught’, what is the pedagogic relationship and it is always helpful to
have some understanding of the historical changes in teaching theory and
practice. So, yes, in so far as the philosophy of education considers these
matter I think it must be of use.
Theoretical
framework and philosophy about education are useful for informing the teacher
how to prepare as a content expert and to tailor their presentation as a
proficient educator with sufficient awareness to navigate what is happening
within the student, and between the student and the subject matter and
facilitator. Philosophy of education is necessary for instructors because what,
why, how, when, where, who and for what purpose instruction is used as an
instrument for making ethical-moral decisions for regulating ourselves, and the
positive or adverse consequences to our neighbors (regarding the 100-year
vision for society, family, and culture). Although a teacher may refine their
philosophy of education overtime, it is important that a new teacher is
prepared to view the domain and discipline of professional education beyond
their personal world experience. Therefore, certification of teachers is
necessary to include philosophy of education. Thinking about what has worked and
not worked for the past 3500 years in the history of education is significant
for examining our duty of care, level of accountability, and role-modeling as
educators that is necessary when influencing the next generation of responsible
citizens.
Education
is a very serious responsibility, i.e., the “ability to respond” to the needs
of a person in context of a civilization for the purpose of enabling that
person in their season of life and within their given mental, emotional and
physical capabilities, to become a responsible and productive citizen in the
community. An instructor/facilitator’s skills to apply various venues, styles,
and techniques enable the student to demonstrate proficiency of knowledge,
skills, and attitudes (abilities) (KSAs) and complete objectives that require
various forms of transactional and transformational leadership awareness that
is necessary to map-out what is happening, why it is happening, and to what
extent is “learning” “development” progressing within the capabilities of that
particular student. (By definition PhD students are abnormal).
The
human condition is measured in context to socio-cultural factors. Development
of humans requires pre-requisite readiness levels to demonstrate KSAs for an
accumulative purpose with an end-in-mind. It is important for the instructor to
observe if the student is processing as an INTJ or an E, or S? Because the
instructional style influences his/her word selection and use of examples to
make the subject relevant for the learner. For example, is the student able to
recall and construct abstract frames of thought to apply in practical
(concrete) modalities of learning? To what extent does the student need active
Cognitive Mediation, experiential anchor points, repetition and reinforcement
exercises, and auditory-visual-kinesthetic signals to apply the concepts and
precepts to grasp and comprehend a particular domain, such as math, music,
physics, chemistry, medicine, law, history, literature, or scuba diving?
Students
are harmed by exploitive teachers with attributes of narcissistic, bully,
power-control character deficiencies. The tax-payer entrusts teachers to
demonstrate suitable, professional, licensed, certified skills, to lead and
encourage the thoughts and learning experiences of students. Each of us can
recall a teacher that helped a difficult subject make sense and enjoyable to
learn, as well as those teachers who made an enjoyable subject a miserable
torture to endure being in the room under their tyrannical incompetence.
Telling someone what to do, is not teaching them… In contrast, going
full-circle in the learning process in which the student becomes proficient at
teaching someone else the lesson then is considered completing a teaching task.
An example of this significant influence in education is evident in the Judge
Kavanaugh Senate Confirmation hearing this week on WETA and C-Span.
I
have observed K-12 teachers, PhD supervisors, and attending physicians
instructing medical residents in hospital situated learning, who are terrible
teachers. I respond to this inquiry from the perspective of PhD research of
comparative education, policy borrowing, and acquisition of best-practice
situated learning profiles in 33 countries. Since 1979, I have facilitated,
instructed, mentored, tutored, and coached students from elementary, middle,
high school, college, military and agency levels in classrooms, labs,
fieldwork, and seminars.
Ideally a student teacher should have a
philosophy of education - that they can then empirically test while they are
student teaching. Nothing can cut the rug out from under your personal
philosophy of education faster than a room full of high energy kids and the
mundane realities of mass education
Containing ten chapters, the book focuses
on ten key philosophical concepts, namely knowledge, -mentioned concepts in
relation to teaching and learning – emphasising “blank slate” notion of human
capabilities. Pragmatism believes that we should select the ideas, actions, and
consequences with the most desirable outcome, as well as Laxmi Vidyapeeth-Place To Learn,
Place To Grow
learning from previous experiences to achieve desirable consequences. John
Dewey’s Experimentalism brought the scientific method of inductive reasoning to
the educational spherehow action can be engendered within philosophy of
education. practical reasoning, productive action, education, free speech,
craft or art, deliberative engagement, love and friendship, cosmopolitanism,
and potentiality (the way things could be as supposed to the way they are).
A. RELEVANCE
OF PHILOSOPHY TO HIS LEARNER
Alex
Kierkegaard: 248. That no one apart from philosophers is really capable of
understanding philosophy can be seen by considering how they teach it at the
universities. Being unable to sort out what is right from wrong, they simply
teach everything. Now imagine how things would fare with any of the sciences if
they followed the same prescription, and the state of modern philosophy — and
the public's utter disdain and ridicule of it — should not be that hard to
understand and sympathize with.
846. People
ask "what has philosophy accomplished" as if their whole society
isn't predicated on innoculating unwitting idiots with primitive philosophical
axioms. We were feral before philosophy. All science is merely applied
epistemology.
573. Every
important problem in philosophy can be solved in a couple of sentences. It is
the details that require more space. To be sure, the details too are
important, but, philosophically at least, only to the extent that they make the
brief solutions more understandable to those who, without them, would not be
able to understand them. Apart from that, the details are also important to the
scientists, since all the sciences have always begun as "details"
taken by them from philosophical texts, and then carefully tested and greatly
expanded on (regardless of the fact that no scientist would ever admit, or even
realize this. It is in the nature of the scientist to have a limited view of
the knowledge-forming process, including of the history, and even more of the prehistory,
of his own science, and of course ultimately, and to an even greater extent, of
science itself.)
745. Explain
why you can — and should — learn about physics and evolution from people
other than Newton and Einstein and Darwin, but you can't learn about
Heraclitean or Nietzschean philosophy from people other than Heraclitus or
Nietzsche. Because scientific theories are relatively simple, and can be
grasped by many, some of whom will be better at explaining them than
those who were better at devising them — their creators — which latter,
precisely because they were so good at devising them, will probably not be the
best in the world at also explaining them.
All of this goes out the window with philosophical theories, however, since these are so broad and simultaneously deep — they are so complex — that they can only be fully grasped by their creators and those above them — i.e. other, better philosophers than them, if such people even exist at all, which they often don't. It is therefore utter folly to expect anyone else — let alone mere scholars and popularizers — to be able to properly explain these theories, since they can't even grasp them — let alone explain them better than the people who created them; which is why subhumans expect precisely that.
All of this goes out the window with philosophical theories, however, since these are so broad and simultaneously deep — they are so complex — that they can only be fully grasped by their creators and those above them — i.e. other, better philosophers than them, if such people even exist at all, which they often don't. It is therefore utter folly to expect anyone else — let alone mere scholars and popularizers — to be able to properly explain these theories, since they can't even grasp them — let alone explain them better than the people who created them; which is why subhumans expect precisely that.
774. If you
say, as Julian Barbour does in his great book The End of Time, that
"time doesn't exist, it's merely an illusion", you might as well say
"I don't exist, I am merely an illusion", as Baudrillard did
indeed end up saying ("I am my own simulacrum"), since as Hermann
Minkowski pointed out while elaborating Einstein's conception of spacetime,
"Nobody has ever noticed a place except at a time, or a time except at a
place". By killing time, in other words, you simultaneously kill all
"places", including your very own: i.e. your own perspective on
things, which you created precisely by creating your very own personal
spacetime frame, whose uniqueness implies that 1) It will fundamentally diverge
from everyone else's spacetime frames, and 2) When added to all the others will
amount to zero because at the level of the universe all these divergencies
(which you abstracted by subtracting their relative values from the sum of all
of them in the first place) cancel each other out — leading those who believe
that a model of the world is the same thing as the world — the scientists, one
of whom is Julian Barbour — to conclude that the universe doesn't exist, and
therefore nothing inside it either, neither time nor space — or Baudrillard and
Julian Barbour.
We are still therefore waiting for someone to write "The End of Julian Barbour", which is to say the book that explains to us that Julian Barbour "doesn't exist", because he is "merely an illusion". The question is whether Julian Barbour himself will agree with that book when he reads it. And that's where John Bell comes in, with his acutely psychological observation that "It is always interesting to find that solipsists, when they have children, have life insurance". Barbour admits that he has it. Did Baudrillard also have any, or did he trust that the simulacra of his wife and children would do just fine without the simulacrum of the simulated policy's simulated money, and save himself the simulacrum of the expense of simulating buying it?
In short, don't hold your breath waiting for scientists or second-rate philosophers to understand how thought works; just chill out and wait for this book's final chapter instead. It won't be long now, we are nearly there already.
We are still therefore waiting for someone to write "The End of Julian Barbour", which is to say the book that explains to us that Julian Barbour "doesn't exist", because he is "merely an illusion". The question is whether Julian Barbour himself will agree with that book when he reads it. And that's where John Bell comes in, with his acutely psychological observation that "It is always interesting to find that solipsists, when they have children, have life insurance". Barbour admits that he has it. Did Baudrillard also have any, or did he trust that the simulacra of his wife and children would do just fine without the simulacrum of the simulated policy's simulated money, and save himself the simulacrum of the expense of simulating buying it?
In short, don't hold your breath waiting for scientists or second-rate philosophers to understand how thought works; just chill out and wait for this book's final chapter instead. It won't be long now, we are nearly there already.
547.
Baudrillard is my nihilistic counterpart (bemoaning reversibility as rendering
all our efforts pointless, instead of glorifying it as an essential and
ingenious mechanism of an astonishingly well-designed and world-encompassing game),
as Schopenhauer was Nietzsche's (lambasting the will as something reprehensible
that's worthy of being "negated", instead of celebrating it as the
most spiritual manifestation and justification of existence). And in both cases
the healthy philosophy follows closely on the heels of the nihilistic one
(indeed, was inspired partly by it) within a margin of a mere couple of
decades. I am convinced that this is no coincidence.
778. Macbeth's
famous line that life is "a tale, told by an idiot, full of sound and
fury, signifying nothing" is often used by pessimists and the
half-educated as a standard beneath which to fight their wretched fight. And
Macbeth isn't wrong, if by "life" you assume he's talking about the
universe. The whole universe doesn't signify anything because there's no
one outside of it for whom to signify something, but parts
of the universe signify everything to various lifeforms, and it's only
because the universe as a whole signifies nothing that it can signify
everything to everyone inside of it — even to those who pretend that, to them,
nothing does (and what that signifies to them is that they are cool,
intelligent people who have figured out stuff that others haven't. Hence they
become content with their lot, and turn their attention to projecting this
contentment outwards via means of verbiage that's meant to glorify their
relative passivity by demeaning the activity of others.)
782. What does
the concept universe mean? It means "everything", which is as much to
say that it means nothing, since it is precisely by distinguishing
something from the "everything" that we create concepts and their
associated names in the first place. The highest concept therefore finally
proves itself to simultaneously be the lowest, the emptiest concept of all, the
anti-concept even, that can be deployed at its wielder's whim to detroy
all others — a weapon of mass destruction of such vast complexity and
terrifying efficacy (nukes are mere toys in comparison) that the only one who
has so far managed to figure out how to use it is me.
556. Socrates
was really the last, and the greatest, of the sophists (which is why he became
the most well-known and respected of them), for he was the one who took the
very last step needed to achieve the ultimate proficiency and excellence in the
philosophy of life expounded on and propagated by them: to really believe his
own lies and sophistries.
392. Socrates:
"The unexamined life is not worth living." But no life is
"unexamined". It's just that the capacity for examination varies from
person to person, something which Socrates was too superficial to take into
account. Those he thought led an "unexamined" life were simply bad at
examination (and consequently led dull lives which were not even worth
examining). "The unexamined life is not worth examining", would be
the correct thing to say, then — and that's precisely why it isn't.
665. Socrates,
like all pseudo- and semi-intellectuals, was proud of himself when he had
identified a contradiction in his interlocutor's arguments. But in a universe
of flux the real intellectual feat is not to discover contradictions,
but to resolve them.
B. RELEVANCE OF PHILOSOPHY TO SOCIETY
Kind of
perfect relevance if you mean simply “philosophy” and not “the study of
philosophy.” Philosophy is the collection of beliefs behind our actions as
individuals and our collectives like “society.”
This is true
whether you mean by this last term, human society or all the many societies
through time and space on Earth referred to by this general term.
As to the
academic or simply directed study of philosophy, there are different ways to
consider its relevance. One would be to consider the output of individual,
professional philosophers or their departments or their entire field. Not just
the philosophical papers/books and their worth, which is a subjective matter to
some degree, but the effect on others that they were written. In other words,
it is important to the degree these ideas affect the philosophies of
individuals and collectives of individuals.
People, like
the founders of the USA had to consider, in an organized and directed way, the
basis by which a new kind of national society might be formed. This is an
example of ‘doing’ philosophy. But beyond this, the study of philosophy
considers such matters as what philosophies do ‘we’ and others live (whether
laid out by those who hold them or not) and what outcomes they have produced.
Philosophy
matters to the extent that what we do as humans both individually and
collectively matter. It clearly matters to us. Whether it matters in any larger
sense is not settled and therefore the basis by which one will have ‘a
philosophy.’ The matter of oil’s toxicity is matter of science. Whether we will
continue to poison ourselves with it will be determined by our society’s (or
our societies’) philosophies that determine our collective and personal choices
on matters such as transportation and production.
We are all
philosophers to the extent there are consistent bases by which we make choices
in life and of course...leaders are essentially philosophers for whatever it is
they lead.
What is the
relevance of ANYTHING in society? What is the relevance of society? Does
relevance exist? Do any of these questions matter? Does ANYTHING matter?
Sorry, but
those questions actually are important. Really think about them. Do you have an
answer? Well it is wrong. Or is it right? Exactly my point. Philosophy teaches
us just how little we know, how arrogant we are despite our lack of knowledge,
how often our ignorance causes our own downfall, and how to amend or avoid
these human faults.
REFERENCE
Students'
Britannica India (2000), Volume 4,
Encyclopædia Britannica, ISBN 978-0852297605, p.
316
Hiltebeitel,
Alf (2007), Hinduism. In: Joseph Kitagawa,
"The Religious Traditions of Asia:
Religion, History, and
Culture", Routledge
Randall
Collins (2009). he Sociology
of Philosophies. Harvard University Press. pp. 184–85.
Ganeri,
Jonardon; The Lost Age of Reason
Philosophy In Early ModernIndia 1450–1700, Oxford
U. press.
Garfield
(Editor), Edelglass (Editor); The Oxford
Handbook of World Philosophy, Anglophone
philosophy in Colonial India.
Garfield
(Editor), Edelglass (Editor); The Oxford Handbook of World Philosophy, Chinese
philosophy.
Ebrey,
Patricia (2010). The Cambridge Illustrated History of China. Cambridge
University Press. p. 42.
Bruce
B. Janz, Philosophy in an African Place (2009), pp. 74–79, Plymouth, UK: Lexington Books,
No comments:
Post a Comment