Philosophies of teacher education can be classified as Liberal, Behaviorist, Progressive, Humanistic and Radical. Each of these has specific purposes in education and defines the role of a teacher and his relationship with the learner, in the unique perspective of particular philosophical contexts. The most famous and important people who contributed to the development of the world had personal, deeply insightful educational philosophies on their own. Albert Einstein, Paul Freire and Rudolf Steiner were some people who wrote and followed powerful educational philosophies in their careers. John Dewey, one of the most prominent educational philosophers, in his book ‘Democracy and Education’, even devoted an entire chapter on teacher education philosophy and talks about various aspects that play a formative role in the education of children.
Learning is a concept that holds very important value in the societal fabric. The passing down of knowledge from one generation to another and subsequent sharing of inventions and discoveries over the years is what has shaped the world into what it is today. However, the big question is; who has been responsible for the transfer of important aspects of knowledge? How has the society been able to hold together and pass down knowledge across so many generations? Both classical and contemporary theories indicate that both formal and informal teaching has played significant role in knowledge transmission for many years.
Research shows that teaching philosophical tradition has particularly impacted on the development of educational theories that form the basis for learning behaviors and processes. It is important for every teacher to have a personal philosophy of teacher education based on a set of values and principles. It should reflect the person’s ideologies and philosophies of teaching and the overall development of the children. It becomes a crucial element in guiding the children towards a successful life.
The humanistic education movement, transformational philosophy, reinforcement of behavior and cognitive, progressive education, radical philosophy and liberal education are some of the notable learning theories that are germane to each philosophical tradition that will be evaluated by this research. The most famous and important people who contributed to the development of the world had personal, deeply insightful educational philosophies on their own. Albert Einstein, Paul Freire and Rudolf Steiner were some people who wrote and followed powerful educational philosophies in their careers. John Dewey, one of the most prominent educational philosophers, in his book ‘Democracy and Education’, even devoted an entire chapter on teacher education philosophy and talks about various aspects that play a formative role in the education of children.
Philosophies of teacher education can be classified as Liberal, Behaviorist, Progressive, Humanistic and Radical. Each of these has specific purposes in education and defines the role of a teacher and his relationship with the learner, in the unique perspective of particular philosophical contexts.
The liberal philosophy aims at developing intellectual powers, while the behavioral ideologies focus on the survival skills of a human being and the role of education in teaching them. The Progressive philosophy motivates cultural development of an individual in order to bring about societal change, whereas the Humanistic trends look at the overall development of the personality and characteristics of an individual. And the radical philosophers are interested in beneficial changes that should happen in a society from time to time, and the role of education in bringing about political, social and economical changes.
Teacher education philosophy is now used as a major marketing strategy by teachers and has become an essential component of a teacher’s resume. This has evolved to become part of the teacher’s personal profile, which outlines all of his essential skill sets and unique qualities, and highlights his specialties.
Philosophies of teacher education can be classified as Liberal, Behaviorist, Progressive, Humanistic and Radical. Each of these has specific purposes in education and defines the role of a teacher and his relationship with the learner, in the unique perspective of particular philosophical contexts. Teacher education philosophy is now used as a major marketing strategy by teachers and has become an essential component of a teacher’s resume. This has evolved to become part of the teacher’s personal profile, which outlines all of his essential skill sets and unique qualities, and highlights his specialties. Therefore, this study is centered on the principles of teaching and measures that have been put in place to ensure that discriminations of all kinds are eliminated from learning processes.
The objective of the research is to evaluate the importance and effectiveness of teaching in learning processes. The research will evaluate how liberal, progressive, behaviorist, and humanist philosophies have impacted on the development of learning and educational theories. The study will incorporate examples of specific learning theories germane to each philosophical tradition.
The basic rationale of the research is designed along the discussion of liberal, progressive, behaviorist, and humanist philosophies. The research also focuses on the challenges that teachers face in the efforts to create level playing ground for all children, with particular emphasis to the disabled. An effective analysis will be facilitated through the development of an appropriate framework that will enable deep insights into the theories and philosophies of education. As such, the success of the research study will be determined through deep understanding of the education priorities of teachers and the threats that education faces in the implementation of learning strategies.
Therefore, the study is based on the assumption that teaching forms the main pillars of education and plays very important role in growth and development of children. The study will focus on the different functional roles of the teaching profession in its capacity as an instrument of child education. The relationship among different functional areas of teaching will be established through comprehensive analysis of different statistics and variables that influence the strategic objectives teaching.
The research question will evaluate how liberal, progressive, behaviorist, and humanist philosophies have impacted on the development of learning theories. This research will seek to answer the following question: What are the implications of liberal, progressive, behaviorist, and humanist philosophies in learning processes? This question will form the basis of inquiry under which the study will seek to provide deep understanding of the impact of educational theories on the teaching practice.
This analysis of the philosophical and theoretical background of learning theories will go along in assisting the formulation of future educational and teaching policies. The research will identify the weaknesses of the current learning strategies and suggest ways of eliminating the prevailing weaknesses. The analysis of teaching regulations will also provide informed perspective of the teaching profession in education and learning processes.
Review of existing literature reveals the existence of many challenges in both in education practices and the teaching profession. The issue of the schools role in addressing human differences is fairly cut and dried in my mind. School by its very nature is a social institution and must be approached as such. If you assume that human differences exist, then it seems unreasonable to think they would not be addressed in the school setting as they play such a large role in the social aspect of informal learning.
If one agrees with Locke that one role of the school is “to prepare individuals to manage their personal, economic, and political affairs prudently and morally” then it is important that the school have curriculum and processes in place to expose and educate students to human differences as they are intricately woven into the fabric of personal, economic and political affairs in countries across the world (Gutek, 2004, p. 176). Thus, if “every man is to be as rational and as knowing in his choices as circumstances will permit” as Broudy suggest, it is paramount that students learn of human difference (in Gutek, 2004, p. 48).
Now some may fear that by teaching of alternative sexual orientations, gender roles, and cultures that the educational system is encouraging radicalism and planting the seeds of insurgency, but I, like John Stuart Mill, believe “that society and its institutions, including schools, should be open to all ideas, even unpopular or unconventional ones” (Gutek, 2004, p. 179). “Schools should be places of academic freedom, where teachers are free to teach and students are free to learn, without having their freedom curtailed by censorship or arbitrary controls” (Gutek, 2004, p. 183). By exposing students to a wide breadth of perspectives the children are able to develop critical thinking skills as they develop their own opinion regarding the topic at hand.
By maintaining an open mind and delaying judgment until all cases have been made students can as Dewey suggests “determine the nature of the problem before proceeding to attempts at its solution” (in Gutek, 2004, p. 81). These critical thinking skills that develop from learning about human differences, allow children to make the informed rational decisions required when living in a modern world.
Now, no two students learn the same way and to assume such would be folly. This variability in learning stem from the human differences that exist from person to person. However, “mankind has a claim upon the full self realization of every man” and must take the steps necessary to ensure that every man reach his or her capability (Broudy in Gutek, 2004, p. 49). In order to assure that all our students are reaching the peak of their capabilities, the educational process must make adjustments to the instructive system and educators must be able to adapt and find ways to address the multiple intelligences and learning styles that exist within today’s schools in order to best achieve results.
However, this goal of total self realization comes with the price of self-determination. By self-determination it is meant that “one has accepted the responsibility for the making of his future and perhaps of the future of all other men” (Broudy in Gutek, 2004, p. 48). Despite this responsibility, the implementation of any variance in the application of the general curriculum will be met with suspicion among not only students, but fellow teachers. As such the human differences addressed above must be addressed in a larger social setting (in some cases as large as the community on whole).
From the Montessori Method to the more current and flexible theory of multiple intelligences created by Howard Gardner (1983) there are people addressing the individuality that exists in people and as such in schools. The difficulty is not identifying ways to include and teach to these differences, but getting them implemented in a school or program. With the overemphasis of test scores and the traditional intelligence quotient (IQ) we may be missing the boat concerning the process of making our students the best they can be. A society is only as good as the sum of its parts and requires people filling various roles within that social construct. If we hope to have a successful future as a country we need to embrace the differences that present themselves in human nature.
The third ethical viewpoint, the consequentialist educator, is distinctly social-constructivist, pursuing definite volitional ends which are often associated with social welfare and/or political activism (Toner 105-6). First, liberation pedagogys idea that `we have the power to take control of [our lives] and live them as we would like` (Gutek 239) fits well in this view. Second, the instructor guided by Marxist ideals desires to show students that their thoughts and experiences are shaped by their actions, speech, and writings. Finally, the critical theorists drive to “bring about transformative change in society” (Gutek 309) situates this theory firmly in the consequentialists’ ethical view. A teacher who encourages students to transform thoughts into actions is probably following the consequentialist viewpoint. These tasks are often emphasized through pedagogy that involves student communication with a wider readership outside the classroom. Consequentialist educators will often showcase student writing by encouraging presentations, assigning student-created blogs, or generating students’ interest in writing for publication.
In conclusion, the school must address the human aspects of learning and these aspects will not be the same in every child. These differences can not be ignored but to the detriment of the student and as such must be addressed to all students in order to create a safe learning environment for those that exhibit the differences and to instill a sense of tolerance on a much grander scale. The question then becomes “How best to address these differences?” I have briefly hinted at some solutions, but this is a much more difficult problem to answer.
The intention of the study is consummated by redefining vital teaching on bodies of research. Research in this field is comparatively modern and for achieving a vivid comprehension of the education sector with current issues of discriminatory practices and information databases such as academic journals, educational websites, philosophy reports, annual information, educational bulletins such and indispensable databanks were betrothed and appraised. Additionally, in sequence to achieving exterior perspective, interrogations with knowledgeable persons within the education sector were based on the unfolding patterns in the learning theories. Expertise and accepted wisdom was acquired by means of impeccable literature; this was also implemented through electronic mails and other sources. Concluding remarks from knowledgeable personalities are inclined on prime areas all through this paper where necessary. The questionnaire was developed inline to the research objectives. The instrument contained three sections that were formulated as follows:
Face to face and telephone interviews was arrived at in bid to enhancing a concrete reprisal. The collective objective of the interrogates is mainly to shed light on where the interviewees conceptualize the industry direction, their opinions on the recent trends in the industry as well as their outlook on how schools can survive in the presence of discriminatory practices.
Supplementary statistical assortment methods were identified, such as the Delphi Survey method, but due to time constraints, this was not reckoned suitable. Through this technique opinion from a group of experts can be obtained by employing painstaking feedback from along with prohibited assessment response. The interviews were tape recorded with permission of the participants and the appropriate information prearranged into suitable subdivision. Also incorporated were a multi-sensory, class room experience, which included video,( digraphs, tri-graphs, orthography, related to the DVD’s and CD’s. -and connected with visual cues and prompts related to their own experiences) audio, role play activities, and writing their sentences on the board) Students devised their own game, utilizing the skills learned in the classroom; acting in the capacity of mentors to each other.
The construction of a cluster of queries that determine future events might occur with response from near term, future, to never. These queries were almost always multiple alternatives. The subsequent move constitutes knowledgeable responses to queries by means on automated polling conduits. In the event of the arising issues in regard to the queries, proposals for modifying the questions could be tabled to make them more answerable. Interrogative protocol stretching for about one to two hours was employed during the findings. These interviews were centered on knowledgeable experts that worked for different schools. The structuring of the questions in this case varied to some great extent. The email also served as a reliable medium through which the experts were contacted.
Historically, teachers have worked in isolation–one teacher to a classroom. As children with disabilities entered the public schools in the 1970s, they were taught in separate classrooms with their own teachers. Over the past 25 years, these students have slowly moved into the flow of the regular classroom, thus the use of the term `mainstreaming.` However, students were mainstreamed for selected subjects or parts of the day; they were not considered part of the typical class. Now the philosophy is to include all students in the same class, which has brought about teams of general education and special education teachers working collaboratively or cooperatively to combine their professional knowledge, perspectives, and skills.
The biggest change for educators is in deciding to share the role that has traditionally been individual: to share the goals, decisions, classroom instruction, responsibility for students, assessment of student learning, problem solving, and classroom management. The teachers must begin to think of it as `our` class. This Digest explores the facets of this new collaboration between general and special education teachers.
Cooperative teaching was described in the late 1980s as `an educational approach in which general and special educators work in co-active and coordinated fashion to jointly teach heterogeneous groups of students in educationally integrated settings….In cooperative teaching both general and special educators are simultaneously present in the general classroom, maintaining joint responsibilities for specified education instruction that is to occur within that setting` (Bauwens, Hourcade, & Friend, 1989, p. 36). The distinctive feature of cooperative teaching, which differs from earlier approaches, is that it is direct collaboration with the general education and special education teachers working together in the same classroom most of the day. An effective team of teachers will work together as equal partners in interactive relationships, with both involved in all aspects of planning, teaching, and assessment.
Areas for this collaboration will include curricula and instruction, assessment and evaluation, and classroom management and behavior. As one team teacher says, `the key to making co- teaching work is joint planning. You must both know the entire curriculum so that you can switch back and forth and support each others efforts. If you do not know the curriculum you are not a co-teacher, you are just an assistant` (Crutchfield, M. in press).
In developing and implementing cooperative teaching, school professionals experience great changes in the way they go about their daily work. To overcome the inevitable fears and stresses associated with change, the educators involved must feel that they are responsible for the change and that its success or failure lies directly with them` (Bauwens & Hourcade, 1995, p. 189).
In a collaborative model the general education and special education teachers each bring their skills, training, and perspectives to the team. Resources are combined to strengthen teaching and learning opportunities, methods, and effectiveness. `The one point that clearly developed from this relationship was that both of us had expertise in many areas, and combining these skills made both teachers more effective in meeting the needs of all students` (Dieker & Barnett, 1996, p. 7).
Typically the primary responsibility of general education teachers is to use their skills to instruct students in curricula dictated by the school system. Typically the primary responsibility of special education teachers is to provide instruction by adapting and developing materials to match the learning styles, strengths, and special needs of each of their students. In special education situations, individual learners needs often dictate the curricula.
General educators bring content specialization, special education teachers bring assessment and adaptation specializations. Both bring training and experience in teaching techniques and learning processes. Their collaborative goal is that all students in their class are provided with appropriate classroom and homework assignments so that each is learning, is challenged, and is participating in the classroom process.
Collaboration involves commitment by the teachers who will be working together, by their school administrators, by the school system, and by the community. It involves time, support, resources, monitoring, and, above all, persistence. However, the biggest issue is time–time for planning, time for development, and time for evaluating. Planning should take place at the district and the building levels, as well as at the classroom level.
District planning helps ensure that all resources will be available, including time, money, and professional assistance. District-level planning will take into consideration the effect change in one place will have on other settings. Building-level planning will assist the teams in being sure adequate support is in place to sustain new initiatives.
Principals play an extremely important leadership role in facilitating collaborative efforts by instructional personnel. Both district- and building-level planning should provide staff development opportunities to encourage teachers and administrators to participate in classes, workshops, seminars, and/or professional conferences on cooperative teaching. Motivation is an important ingredient for success, but additional skills will be needed to realize the goals teachers set for themselves and their classes.
Planning also is a factor in selecting the students who will be part of the collaborative process. It is important to keep natural proportions of typical students, students identified as being at risk, and students who have been found to have disabilities. Achieving a balanced classroom is easier at the elementary and middle school levels than at the secondary level, where a certain amount of grouping takes place with course selection.
A major consideration is in arranging planning times for co-teachers. Co- planning must take place at least once a week, according to studies. `Planning sessions were viewed as priorities by both teachers; they refused to let other competing responsibilities interfere with their planning sessions` (Walther-Thomas, Bryant, & Land, 1996, p. 260). The planning must be ongoing to allow teachers to review progress on a regular basis, make adjustments, evaluate students, and develop strategies to address problems either in discipline or learning.
Walther-Thomas and her colleagues (1996) found that five planning themes were identified by co-teachers who considered themselves to be effective co- planners:
- confidence in partners skills;
- design of learning environments for both the educators and students that require active involvement;
- creation of learning and teaching environments in which each persons contributions are valued;
- development of effective routines to facilitate in-depth planning;
- increased productivity, creativity, and collaboration over time. Participants in collaborative programs agreed that the time required for planning does not decrease during the year, but the quality of instruction continues to improve.
Collaboration should also be part of teacher preparation programs. This begins with the understanding that all teachers will be working with both typical and special needs students. Every teacher needs to study teaching techniques, subject area(s), disability, individualization, accommodation, and skills for collaboration in the classroom.
Time away from the classroom for consultation, professional conferences, and additional training is vital to the success of any program. Teachers, related service providers, and administrators will benefit from research findings on collaborative teaching, inclusion, and related subjects.
Research findings on schools where collaborative teaching has been practiced indicate student benefits for both special education students and their typical peers. Walther-Thomas and others conducted a study of inclusion and teaming in 1996 to assess collaboration between general education and special education staff. Improvements were attributed to more teacher time and attention, reduced pupil-teacher ratios generally, and more opportunities for individual assistance.
Students with disabilities developed better self images, became less critical and more motivated, and recognized their own academic and social strengths. Their social skills improved and positive peer relationships developed. Low-achieving students showed academic and social skills improvements. All students gained a greater understanding of differences and acceptance of others. All developed a stronger sense of self, a new appreciation of their own skills and accomplishments, and all learned to value themselves and others as unique individuals. Staff reported professional growth, personal support, and enhanced teaching motivation. Collaboration brought complementary professional skills to planning, preparation, and delivery of classroom instruction.
The concepts of individualized instruction, multiple learning styles, team teaching, weekly evaluation, and detailed planning are all of direct benefit to students. The purpose of the collaboration is to combine expertise and meet the needs of all learners. It is important that teachers receive preparation and classroom support. It is also important that planning time continues to be available throughout the school year. `Most important, all students win by being challenged by collaborating teachers who believe that they are responsible for all children in the classroom` (Angle, 1996, p.10).
Reference
- Gardner, H. (1983). Frames of Mind. New York: Basic Books.
- Gutek, G.L. (1995). A history of the western educational experience (2nd ed.). Prospect Heights, Ill.: Waveland Press.
- Gutek, G.L. (2003). Philosophical and ideological voices in education. Mass: Allyn & Bacon.
- Gutek, G.L. (2004). Philosophical and Ideological Voices in Education. 5th ed. Massachusetts: Pearson Education Incorporated, Oregon, United State.
- Toner, L. M. (1996). “Ethical Roles for the Writing Teacher: A Rhetorical Casuistic Perspective.” Diss. Purdue University, 1996.
