Perennialism
First, there is perennialism, which has the basis that, the curriculum chosen will be chosen for all students, and it will be a perpetual, arduous education, but the result will expectantly be fruitful. The teaching methods that flow from this philosophy include the lecturing and questioning of the student. This allows all students to be given a general knowledge of basic meanings, which in turn prepares each student with the intellectual dimensions that will lead to a higher capacity of thinking.
A teacher with this philosophy of teaching would probably answer the question of the students by pointing out that the information being taught by them is as reliable as anything can be, that the knowledge being given has been, is, and always will be foundational for a good education. This method, it is thought, has served many generations, and has historically led to the numerous discoveries and technologies that we find vital in our everyday lives.
Essentialism
The second methodological approach is essentialism. This philosophy of teaching is very similar to the previous one. Both perennialism and essentialism stress the issue that “knowledge and understanding are preeminent” (Kauchak & Eggen, 2011, p. 203). However, essentialism does not put as much emphasis on the classical subjects as those they understand to be "useful" in today’s society (Kauchak & Eggen, 2011). It requires teaching methods such as lecturing and questioning as perennialism does, with an extra emphasis on practice routines and feedback. Kauckak and Eggen (2011) summarize the essentialists’ thinking as “want[ing] to ensure that the educational system produces a literate and skilled workforce able to compete in a technological society. They’re concerned about a general ‘dumbing down’ of the curriculum, they decry social promotion of students, and they’re wary of student-centered instruction” (pp. 203-204).
The essentialist would answer the inquiries of the wondering student by telling them that the material being discussed will prepare them to be good citizens with a strong understanding of the basic principles, while also having a good grip on practical application that will make them competitively functioning individuals in the marketplace.
Progressivism
The third philosophy is progressivism. This was held in high regard by John Dewey, the father of modern public education. Those who hold to progressivism treat the student as though she is a tabula rasa, a blank slate. Accordingly, the student is more a creator of meaning and understanding than a receptor of the transmission of knowledge. Thus, progressivists teach in such a way as to include as many real-life experiences and applications as possible; they do this by using problem-solving, decision-making, and guided learning. Kauchak and Eggen (2011) state, from the progressive teaching perspective, the “curriculum should be composed of experiences that reflect today’s world, and instructionally, teachers should guide students in the process of development” (p. 204). Progressivism is all about experience and development for the coming lifespan of the student, that she should only be guided in the discovery of the knowledge she will need to succeed in the so-called real world.
The progressivists would be sure to tell the student that everything that they are being taught is generating experience to enable them to make good decisions in life. The students experience, in terms of progressivism, is simply a steady relation of the subject matter to the students real-life (or future hypothetical-life) experiences. “How does all this relate to my life,” the student asks. The progressivist teacher replies, “You will see in the next assignment/project.”
Social Reconstructionism
The last secular educational philosophy considered is social reconstructionism. The social reconstructionist view of education would be that every unjust social issue stems from ignorance, and that ignorance stems from children not being taught in their schools to undo our society’s problems. Teachers would do this by discussing topics that reflect current social issues (Kauchak & Eggen, 2011). This philosophy proposes that the teachers are those primarily in charge of preparing the students to go out in the world and be responsible in society—teachers are to be social engineers.
The social reconstructionist would answer the inquiring child that, by the teacher’s instructions, they will be given the principles to be able to turn their unjust society on its heels and reform it by making a difference through the principles of social justice being applied in their various social contexts.
Biblical Wholism
The view of the present writer, however, cannot be reduced to any of the above philosophies, yet it encompasses all of them. I believe that the four secular teaching philosophies above can be classified under three generalized aspects or perspectives in every students’ ordinary experience; these are the normative (i.e., God or his laws), the situational (i.e., the world or social context), and the existential (i.e., the self or subjective) aspects or perspectives. This is simply an application of the Christian epistemology of theologian John Frame (see Frame, 1987, pp. 89-99). This particular teaching philosophy may be called biblical wholism, because it grows out of the Christian worldview, grounded in Scripture, and, in principle, comprehensively covers all aspects of the students’ experience.
A general understanding of how these three aspects or perspectives relate is made plain by Frame (1987), who has argued that
The knowledge of God’s law, the world, and the self are interdependent and ultimately identical. We understand the law by studying its relations to the world and the self—its “applications”—so that its meaning and its application are ultimately identical. Thus all knowledge is a knowledge of the law [or normative]. All knowledge also is a knowledge of the world, since all our knowledge (of God or the world) comes through created media. And all knowledge is of self, because we know all things by means of our own experience and thoughts. The three kinds of knowledge, then, are identical but “perspectivally” related; they represent the same knowledge, viewed from three different “angles” or “perspectives” (p. 89).It is plain that there is no human knowledge or experience that is not a particular expression of one of these three aspects or perspectives, and thereby all of them; it is therefore comprehensive. Additionally, biblical wholism has the living God and his plan as its ultimate ground motive, being revealed in Scripture.
The other four philosophies suffer from reductionism. For example, essentialism rightly emphasizes the normative perspective, giving the student the unchanging law-like principles of each subject, but also marginalizes the student’s situational and existential aspects. This leaves the content seeming so abstract and removed from experience that the students’ question, concerning real-life application, should not surprise teachers. On the contrary, progressivism makes the existential aspect the ultimate. In doing so, the normative aspect of the student’s experience is annihilated, leaving her with the impossible task of creating the laws, norms, and meaning that are necessary for a coherent understanding of her experience. So, by not having God as their ground motive or starting point, each of the secular philosophies takes a single aspect of our created experience, and making it ultimate, reduce the others to the point of irrelevance.
Rather than reducing one or the other of the student’s experience to nothing, biblical wholism eliminates the sort of context that would invite the student’s question, “How does all of this relate to real-life.” Biblical wholism understands each of the three aspects—normative, situational, existential—as interrelated and simply varying perspectives of the others’ meaning. Beginning on the ground motive of God and his revealed plan, the normative is not some abstraction or principle begging for application to reality; rather the normative is final Reality, it is a Person. Moreover, biblical wholism is not only a teaching philosophy awaiting the teacher’s application; it is part and parcel of the curriculum for Christian education. So, according to biblical wholism, the entire educational career of each student is an extended answer to the question, “How does all this relate...?”
References
Frame, J. M. (1987). The doctrine of the knowledge of God. Phillipsburg, NJ: Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing.
Kauchak, D., & Eggen, P. (2011). Introduction to teaching: Becoming a professional (4th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Education.
No comments:
Post a Comment