Teaching Philosophy

I've been thinking about how I taught in class the other day. I need to make sure that I've synthesized my lesson down to the foundational principle so that I can cater all my teaching elements to it.

In regards to my teaching philosophy, I think it will take some time to seriously nail down the principles I will use in it. Right now, I think i'm drawing upon the principles I have seen some of my favorite teachers use in their teaching. I have one professor who stresses the difference between a student and a scholar. He says a student wants to know how much work is required in order to get the job done, while a scholar wants to know everything there is to know about the job. The student wants to know how many words are required in the essay assigned to them while the scholar is concerned with how well the subject matter of the essay was researched and argued. The student wants know what material is covered on the test while a scholar wants to know the material. This professor expects his students to be scholars, to be concerned with learning, understanding, applying and assessing outcomes rather than passing tests and getting grades. Though his classes are some of the more difficult classes I've taken, I feel more motivated to study and apply principles. I push myself harder because I know the work he gives me isn't busy work, but that it actually applies to me and that I can actually find real value in it.

I want my teaching philosophy to include something about that.

Wong 1

Ok, There's some pretty motivational stuff so far. I like his advice that I should remain an active learner always participating in things that will continue to push me to become better at my craft. I also find his advice about latching on to positive people who don't complain and moan about their job helpful because they are the one's that will make me a better teacher rather than the other people who are always critical of change and always complain about their job.

I also appreciate the advice he gives that we should only implement research-based teaching practices and theories rather than just latching on to fads or even conventions that have to proven success.

However, I don't agree with his statement that, "There is absolutely no research correlation between success and family background, race, national origin, financial status, or even educational accomplishments. There is but one correlation with success, and that is ATTITUDE." This is bogus for two reasons. 1) It doesn't take me very long to find critically reviewed research that shows correlations with many of those variables he states and student success. There may not be a causal relation between those variables and success but there are definitely corollary relationships between those variables and student success (and failure for that matter). 2) Wong goes to great lengths to talk about success, but never gives a definition to this very subjective but key term therefore making his thesis seemingly inarguable but also unprovable. I get tired of these arguments constructed to win only because they manipulate semantics rather than using real, tested theories to make their point. Motivational speakers are often the worst culprits of this and I feel that this book branches from that family of snake-oil communicators.

Does this mean that certain attitudes don't correlate with or even possibly cause success? No, but Wong's argument tries to ignore the fact that things like family background, or ethnic culture, or financial status, etc. mold and shape various attitudes that result in various successes and failures among students. A teacher cannot ignore the affects these influences on his or her students' attitudes without forfeiting his or her effectiveness.

Reflection 1

I have a common comparison I make between the fine arts trade and advertising. In fine arts, when I send a message through my art and the audience doesn't understand it, it's the audience's fault; but as an advertiser, if I send a message through my art and the audience doesn't understand it, it's my fault. However unfair this comparison is to the fine arts, it illustrates the virtue of the advertising world that I admire and I hope to apply to my philosophy of teaching. If my audience doesn't get what I'm teaching, then it's my fault. But doesn't this ignore the responsibility of students to choose to listen, learn, probe, remain conscious, etc.? Yes, but it also means that if I have a student who chooses not to pay attention, I become concerned with what will get his attention again. It means that I will always become willing to tailor my lesson plans and teaching styles to the students I am working with. If I stand to the side and give my students 100% of the responsibility for their failures to learn, then I give up the opportunity to try to connect with them.