Why the Philosophy of Education?

Well thanks to thoe who helped me with texts on Education.

Why was I asking? Part of working in a denominational seminary as a theologian is being available to help the denomination think theologically about some of its practices. I have had some involvement in a project on 'community' for Anglicare, the Anglican church's vast welfare arm.

One of other things we are involved in a major way of course is education. We have, in Sydney, 40 or more schools, many of which are less than 20 years old. Some of them are what you would call 'elite' private schools, but many of them are low fee-paying schools in the less-advantaged western suburbs of Sydney.

But there is no consistent thinking about what it means to be a Anglican educational institution. Or, at least, such thinking as there is is quite ad hoc. The 'Christian' component gets tacked on somewhat, by having chapel services or some such. I would guess that little sustained thought goes into thinking through the implications of theology for the curriculum, or the practice of discipline, for example. Or, to what degree do schools foster social inclusiveness.

On the other hand, the Christian schools model, insofar as it promotes a sectarian view of knowledge and of the Christian community, is not the way forward either. Furthermore, taking models from the US and trying to replicate them in Australia ignores the massive cultural and historical differences between us on the very issue of education. So - I will read Doug Wilson, for sure: he is ALWAYS interesting, perceptive, funny and ... well, eccentric. But what works in remote Idaho in the political context of Obama's America is not automatically transferrable to Oz.

So, what is needed is a bit of theological thinking about education which will help educational practioners do their job to the glory of God.

Thoughts anyone?

Theory of Education

Help me -

I need to compile a must-read reading list in the theory and philosophy of education. It ought to include classics as well as state-of-the-art works. And I am not interested in the tin-tacks of teaching: I need to get over education as a philosophy.

Any ideas?

The state of education... hmm...

Something has changed in our educational culture. When I say 'our', I suspect that this is true of most Western countries, but since what I am going to say is anecdotal and observational, I restrict myself to those systems with which I have some experience, namely, Australia and the UK. Some of these changes are undoubtedly for the better, or inevitable because of technological advances, so this is not a 'grumpy old man' list!

I am finding it hard to nail down, so this post is a necessarily inadequate attempt. I am hoping for responses which deepen this. So, here goes:

1. There seems to be a far greater expectation that educators are 'service-providers' and students (and, where relevant, their parents) are 'clients'. The economic paradigm is corrupting at almost every level - though it is understandable given the huge price of education.
2. Whereas in the past, students had to find their own articles and materials, and make their own way in attempting assignments, today there is an expectation that a task will be clearly spelt out with accompanying notes, and that specific articles will be provided direct to the student. Research in the library seems almost redundant.
3. Knowledge of 'learning styles' has led to great student/parent awareness of teachers not addressing the different learning styles. On occassion, students even refuse to learn if their 'learning style' is not catered to!
4. Teachers at secondary and tertiary level are weighed down with administration and reporting.
5. There has been a strong reaction against exams as a form of assessment. The advantage of exams is that they are the least labour-intensive form of assessment from the point of view of teachers - meaning they are free to care for students in other ways.
6. Vocational training has almost completely triumphed over the old, humanist-style (and Christian-endorsed) broad-based education in subjects which cannot be justified by appeal to 'relevance'. Like Latin, for example. Knowledge is almost never now seen as an end in itself. The complete victory of pragmatism?
7. The postmodern to turn to perspectival approaches to texts means that students no longer develop basic skills in interpretation and exegesis of texts in their own language. Year 12 students are taught how to give a Foucauldian reading of a website, but not how to read it. (And hey, I like some things about postmodernism!) They are equipped with suspicion, and not naivety: and I think the latter is essential for good reading. The former only gets in the way.
8. History is bunk, as far as contemporary education goes.
9. We don't put up with people who are bad teachers (on the face of it) but great thinkers. And yet some of the best educational experiences happen with such people.
10. The emphasis in high school on a final, standardised test/assessment has led to the dumbening down of educational standards, because of the need to compare apples with oranges. It also leads to very assessment-stressed students at tertiary level. Anxiety about assessment is palpable.
11. Memorisation of anything is now just not done.

Any more?

In praise of academic administration

In my days as a postgraduate student one of the things I enjoyed not being a part of most was the process of academic administration - the meetings and chores that inevitably crowd into an academic teacher's life and prevent him/her from doing what he/she feels called to do - teach students, research, publish and so on. Academics often wish they could be freed from the grind of admin in order to do the real thing.

Today was the marathon meeting of our academic year at Moore, the famous post-exams 'Board of Studies' meeting. It is 8 hours of hard slog, for the most part. Meditating on the process when I was supposed to be thinking about something else, I realised that the nexus between academic administration and academic knowledge (in the best sense) is tighter than it feels. It just isn't true that they have nothing to do with each other. Governing the process of teaching and learning depends heavily on - and in turn informs - teaching and learning itself. The ordering of education is in itself educative. While the process can be more or less pleasurable, it is still part of the business of academic thought to which academics are called.

The history of the university depended on this observation: that knowledge was united and its various parts ordered to one another in a certain way was at the heart of the medieval university. And theology, of all the disciplines, held the honoured place - 'the queen of sciences'. The university, as much by its structures and by its location and communal disciplines as by its curriculum, upheld and reinforced a view of knowledge.

It doesn't make it more pleasant, but hopefully makes it feel more purposeful!

What the best college teachers do

Well we have arrived in sunny Sydney. For those not in the know, I am about to resume teaching Doctrine at Moore Theological College here in Sydney. Having now travelled to and fro upon the earth, I remain convinced that, pound for pound, it is a world-class college in which to pursue training for ministry. Working among these colleagues is a amazing privilege. But teaching such students is sublime - they want to learn! Crazy, huh?

So, in preparation, I have been reading up on pedagogy. The most inspiring book I have found to date is Ken Bain's What the Best College Teachers Do . It is a good book because it focuses not on classroom techniques but on the attitudes that great teachers have towards the process of learning. The insights of the book are numerous: for example, that students are less motivated to learn by extrinsic factors such as exams and assessments and most motivated to learn when the intrinsic value of the subject is itself the motivation.

That is not to say that these educators settle for a kind of 'learning for learning's sake' philosophy: not at all. They are also concerned to connect what the teach to 'real' life.

Furthermore:

Highly effective teachers design better learning experiences for their students in part because they conceive of teaching as fostering learning. Everything they do stems from their strong concern for and understanding of the development of the students. They follow few traditions blindly and recognise when change in the conventional course is both necessary and possible. (p. 67)

Innovation, but not for its own sake, in other words.

I also like what he has to say about what great teachers expect from students. They expect that every student can learn - they don't foster elitism, nor do they seek popularity by making the course 'soft'. Neither do they think they are setting a high standard merely because they pile on the work.

Lectures - for or against?

A while back I wrote about what makes a good lecturer.

I have been thinking - and reading - again about lectures and their place in tertiary education, and especially in the preparation of Christian ministers. Most seminaries I know of have a very heavily lecture-based programme, with few tutorials or seminars, if any. In contrast to university teaching, which is usually a rather sparsely arranged timetable of lectures, seminaries crowd their days with alloted teaching hours. Partly, I speculate, this is because of a view of theology as not only a method to be demonstrated but a body of knowledge to be passed on in an authoritative way by recognised teachers. Also, theology is such a composite of disciplines - language, history, text-interpretation, philosophy - that it is hard to leave anything out of the programme, or to allow for an option-based course of study.

But, speaking from my experience as a student, I found lectures a largely very frustrating and slow way to learn, unless the lecturer was peculiarly good. It is particularly inefficient if the lecturer feels he/she has to cover everything in a particular course, because the lectures are replacing the role played by a text book. Further, a lecturing style that depends on the questions of students loses impact with large classes. And, frankly, I am not interested in the ignorance of my fellow students (and neither are they in mine!). In theological colleges, lecturers are often too nice (believe it or not!) to students and pander too much to their worst vices (especially by catering to their passivity in learning...).

So: lectures - for or against? What are lectures good for? When do they work, when do they fail? What can a lecture give that you can't get from a book in less time?

In Praise of Teachers Meme

Back in September last year, I wrote a post in praise of teachers.

In it, I listed ten of my favourite teachers selected from the whole spread of my educational career (20+ years and still going...). I gave a brief explanation in each case.

Now, I am not much one for memes - but could this one work? I need your help.

Here goes:

List FIVE of your favourite teachers, and tell us what made them great. Then tag some people whose blogs you read...

I tag:

Justin, Karen, Ruth, Jason, Byron, Guy, Nicole and Sam

Violence, the OT and teaching children

In teaching the Old Testament to children in the 7-15 age range I have myself in the past emphasised the drama and action of the narratives. They are really well told stories and they make for good reading - and frankly, anything to get kids to read the Bible will do.

But I have noticed a tendency to glorify the gory aspects of it, or, to make them cartoonish so that kids will find them appealing in some way.
As an ad for one Bible for boys puts it:
Finally, a Bible just for boys! Discover gross and gory Bible stuff...

Shouldn't we be teaching our kids to be troubled by the destruction of Jericho and Ai? The terrible fate of household of Achan? The highly symbolic violence of the book of Judges? And so on? Not that these should be edited, or seen as in some way compromising the character of God, but it just troubles me that we teach these texts as if they are Itchy and Scratchy cartoons ...

In praise of teachers

Like most people, my life has been shaped by a number of significant educators. As an educator myself, I thought thinking about what made them so important might help me think about the process of teaching. Here is a select list. I could easily come up with another list, so read nothing into who is not there. I have not included my own relatives in whose classes I have sat, of course; and I do not include my present teachers.

1. Mrs MacGregor, North Newtown Public School. Mrs MacGregor was a white-haired lady who on first appearance was quite fierce. I had her for fifth and sixth class, in 1981 and 1982. The school was very multi-cultural, and had a large range of abilities and behavioural issues in the classroom. In retrospect she managed this very well indeed, giving some of us extension work that really pushed us to do research and extended writing. I am still doing this today! She loved music, and ran the choir.

2. Mr Dickens, English Teacher, Trinity Grammar School I don't know why I loved Mr D's classes especially: the class were often quite rude to him and disruptive. I guess I sided with him, and sitting up the front, could here the witty remarks he made about the dullards who were giving him trouble! He was my English teacher for 3 of my 6 high school years, and it was my favourite subject. He loved Chaucer, which was a great discovery, and he just knew how to attack a poem. I vividly remember doing Hopkins and the passage from Job where the warhorse snorts 'ha ha!'.

3. Mr West, Headmaster, TGS. Rod West educated by sheer charisma. I had him for both Latin and for English. In a sense he made Latin hard for me, and I lost interest in in Yr 11 and went off to do Economics instead (I hang my head in shame). But I should have risen to the challenge...a man of culture, formidible intellect, spiritual depth, rhetorical ability. He was generally interested in the boys under his care, a model for pastoral care and attentiveness. On several occassions he called me into his office: once to rebuke me gently for swearing on the cricket field, once to give me the number of a dermatologist because of my poor complexion, and on other occassions as well. As the School Captain in 1988 I had the experience of visiting the bereaved families of the school community on a humid January day. He was a crazy driver!

4. Mr Phil Harmer, Cricket Coach, TGS. This man changed my life. My other coach was a 'tear em down' kind of coach. Phil was a 'build em up' kind. He made sure everybody knew what role they were to play in the team. I was told 'open the bowling into the wind, and come in at number 6 and hit quick runs'. So, I did. Confidence returned: I performed at my best and had a great time. Wonderful days.

5. Jenny Ash, Tutor, Sydney University. I had Ms Ash in first year and we somehow just clicked. She was a research student in Early English lit. She was a feminist and a lover of critical literary theory. What did we have in common? I am not sure - though I did discover that she too was a minister's kid. Maybe that was it. But we used to chat about words after class, and my eyes were opened to the possibilities and forms of langauge. She was bold enough to challenge me in my naivety without doing it in an aggressive way. I guess she was a teacher with passion, and that is more than enough.

6. Dr Bruce Gardiner, Sydney University. The effort that Bruce put into his seminars was extraordinary. American literature was an amazing colourful journey accross cultural time and space... scintillating. Once again, not a person at all like me.

7. Dr Penny Gay, Sydney University. A model of sensible feminism and responsible, thoughtful literary criticism. Lovely person, terrific tutor, suspicious of theoretical waffle (and believe me there was heaps of it flying around in the English depts of the early 90s!!). Shakespeare, Virginia Woolf, wow. She really knew her stuff, but she also had time to chat.

8. Bruce Smith, Moore College. I have written about Bruce elsewhere on this blog. I would like to be a theologian like he was: solidly evangelical in commitment, but widely read. He simply was a brilliant conversationalist, an anecdotalist sublime, gifted with the extended metaphor and very very funny. A keen eye for the tragic as well as the comic.

9. Dr Robert Doyle, Moore College. Doylely has a formidible capacity to read and integrate material. He intices you by being more than a little mysterious. He comes at the student as a challenge, and not all rise to it. Uses the Socratic method to advantage.

10. Dr Peter Bolt, Moore College. Creative: a genuinely original thinker. An NT scholar who knows his history. At his best for me when supervising my final year project on the Genesis of Hell. Committed to high standards!

Theology as pure method?

This summer I obtained two books for my 9-year old son to read - The Philosophy Files 1 and 2 by Stephen Law.

They are quite brilliantly conceived books, using a dialogical style to introduce kids to the great issues of philosophical debate. Law is able to give the arguments for both sides in most instances, and then prompts some further questions. We had great fun talking about whether eating meat was ok, for example.

My thought was, why aren't there similar books on theology for Simon's age group: books that are fun, stimulating, don't talk down, don't provide cheap easy answers and have cool pictures in them?

But then a further realisation: Law is able to do what he does because he presents philosophy as a method of thinking rather than any particular set of thoughts. Essentially, as he offers it, philosophy means developing your skill in rational thinking (it's a very English view!). What answer you come to on the various questions is in the end irrelevant pretty much: it is the process of thinking them through that concerns him. And it makes for a more interesting book because it is open-ended in this way.

Can theology be presented like this? Can we say 'this is good theological thinking' without actually resolving some of the questions the philosopher is happy to leave unresolved? How could you then present theology to intelligent 9-13 year olds as not merely a set of answers but a way of thinking?

A good lecturer...

1. Doesn't spoon-feed the students, even when they beg and beg and beg. Never hand out full text notes, or make them available.

2. Stimulates futher thinking and reading rather than provides the definitive answer for all time. But doesn't shy from conclusions either.

3. Gives you an account of the views of others, but is unafraid to give their own opinion - with passion if necessary. Prejudice is a wonderful pedagogical tool!

4. Gives a brief but quality reading list.

5. Is disciplined about questions, and is even quite harsh with rambling or hectoring questioners if necessary. Perhaps he or she makes clear how questions are going to run before the lecture. If there is no time, then tough.

6. Is disciplined about discussions or other in class activities.

7. Does check to see if he or she is being listened to, and asks for clarification questions.

8. NEVER belittles other students for a laugh. In fact, is secure enough not to have to be funny all the time.

9. Makes time for female students to ask questions, speak, talk, interact etc.

10. Starts on time/finishes on time.

11. Never or rarely runs out of time: but each lecture is presented whole.

12. Makes an effort to communicate with colour and variety.

13. Isn't obsessed with powerpoint.

14. Provides a simple outline. One A4 sheet is sufficient.

15. Appears to be enjoying him/herself.

16. Gives clear and simple information about assessment. Doesn't spend too long fussing about it.

17. Is accessible outside the class room.

18. Knows what he or she is actually talking about.

19. Is not defensive when questioned, but firm.

Can you add to the list?

Participating in Seminars: a guide

I sit in and participate in several academic seminars with an international and ecumenical membership, both formal and informal in nature. Sometimes they work really well as delightful mutual learning experiences; sometimes of course they don't. I notice that sometimes I say something (or someone else does) and it doesn't actually advance the discussion, it just confuses it, or sidetracks it, or diverts it. So, I have been thinking recently: what is the most 'helpful' way to contribute to one of these seminars? So, in the spirit of contemporary knowledge: a list. (An important note: I find myself breaking these all over the place!)

1. Do read the text under consideration before you come. Do have a couple of things you might raise as interesting points for discussion.

2. Be brief-ish: keep your comments to a sentence or two. Don't dominate. Advance the discussion rather than colonise it.

3. Be clear, or strive for clarity, rather than waffle till something intelligible arrives.

4. Be opinionated, please; but don't rant or preach. And try to say new things (for you) rather than return to the same criticism or the same author you trotted out last week - try to expand your range of comments.

5. Refer to the text in question as much as you can: this allows everyone a toe-hold in the discussion.

6. Try to understand before you criticise - it is a really big temptation to want to critique first.

7. Don't repeat yourself if people don't agree with you.

8. Ask others to clarify what they have just said, and do challenge it when necessary. Promote good communal listening practices.

9. Try to put emotions aside, and be ready to apologise for words out of turn.

10. Humour can increase the groups enjoyment of the subject: but use it sparingly.

11. Hang around after class and get to know people - increased trust increases the possibilities available to the class.

12. Bring snacks.

13. Change the subject if you feel it lagging, but not prematurely.

14. Anecdotes are almost always a waste of everyone's time. Think about it, then decide against. (I can't help myself...)


Any others?

PS - the seminars I am attending at the moment are very enjoyable, and I think it is partly because of observation of most if not all of these suggestions by the members!