A VERY BRIEF SUMMARY OF MY TEACHING PHILOSOPHY
The leading teaching philosophy that I use is that
of constructivism. This philosophy is based on the works scholars such as
Piaget, Vygotsky, Von Glaserfeld, Maturana, Apple and others, propagates the
fundamental ideas that we construct our own meaning of our environment through
a process of learning that depends on the environment that we live in. The
environment that we encounter is filled with values, beliefs, and traditions that
we may or may not espouse depending on our relationships with the members and
institutions of society around us. Hence we as members of society can form
sub-cultures with common beliefs, values and traditions. These members will
support and remain attached to the subculture as long as it remains crucial to
their development. These subcultures may be institutionalised by a society
largely led by the values, beliefs and traditions of a dominant culture. Because we can and are allowed to by society
to attach or detach from various sub-cultures of greater society, our experienced
environments may differ, and so will our cultures. We may even momentarily
detach from a subculture and attach to another that that fundamentally differs
from the previous. Our main motivation for doing this is the viability of such detachment
or attachment in terms of our development. When it comes to the academic
culture that we adhere to, the question certainly must be, “what is the most
viable academic culture for my personal growth and success”. We cannot consider
this question without as if we are totally free to choose a hypothetical
culture. We first have to consider to what extent the constraints that society
puts on the viability of the proposed culture. We have to examine the
institutionalised value system of a dominant culture. The constraints may be
severe enough to prevent our hypothetical culture to survive and we may have to
resort to putting pressures on the institutions that guard the oppressing
dominant culture. As experienced and informed teachers we are in a position to
influence the dominant academic culture of our students. If we are not that
experienced, we must embark on a scholarly route to inform us as to what should
be done to influence the academic culture of our students.
Informed by my own scholarly experiences in
Mathematics Education, I am convinced that a student must be given the
opportunities to experience academic cultures which will challenge the way they
make sense of established knowledge. This challenge is important because two
students can experience the same exposure to information, and yet make sense of
that information differently. As long as the different meanings are viable, the
students may remain successful, but where these differences involve
misconceptions, they need to be exposed and discussed. It is therefore
necessary to be put students in an academic environment in which their meaning
making is challenged. The students’ conceptual framework can only be examined
through the expose of their contextual thoughts. One of the best ways to expose
these frameworks is by open conversation. Peers can challenge each other
constructively and stalemates in discussion can be resolved by more capable
others that take on a facilitating role. This kind of challenge has a direct
impact on the conceptions or misconceptions present in the knowledge structure of
the student. It is therefore important that the academic culture has to include
more capable facilitators of learning to make sure that conceptions of the
students are dealt with properly.
So in my undergraduate teaching practice, apart
from the lectures (information and practice), small group discussions are
organised, where students discuss the solutions to mathematical problems facilitated
by senior tutors (Maters or PhD Students).
These discussions have a preparatory phase, followed by the actual
discussion and finally a report back/assessment phase. In the preparation for
these discussions it is crucial for students to consolidate, on their own, the
conceptual frameworks that they have constructed from information and practice.
These may be weak constructions to begin with but is good enough to prompt
discussion. Preparation for the discussion also eliminates “free-riding”. Hence
worksheets of problems to be discussed are given to the students beforehand. Ideally
these worksheets contain questions and or instructions that test a hierarchy of
abilities. Students attempt to solve these problems on their own before discussing
them in the workshop. However, not all students share the same level of
understanding, and some may be slower than others to construct acceptable
cognitive frameworks. For the latter students it is imperative to be engaged in
the discussions so that the most viable cognitive framework can be shared by
all. It is therefore important to set up the groups in a way that all students
get an equal chance to construct meaningful cognitive frameworks. My own
research confirmed that instead of students being allowed to choose their own
groups, their group structure should be informed by a measure of their past
academic ability in order to ensure that students with various abilities join a
specific group allowing each member the opportunity to gain from the group
discussions. Those students who manage to construct viable conceptual
structures in order to solve the problems before others, are in a position to
explain to and maybe convince others, and thereby hone their own meaning
making, while others listen and question with an eagerness to rise to the same
level of understanding. The group structure is not revealed to any of the
participants and leads to lively discussions that can clearly be monitored by
the facilitators. The facilitating tutor’s main aim is to watch for any
misconception.
However, it is vital to include the fundamental
requirement of dedication in the preparation of students. Weaker students,
who have been interviewed by me over the years, all have the common flaw in
their study process of not studying regularly and/or attending classes
regularly. For this reason the teaching strategy should require students to
engage regularly with the subject matter. The majority of students do not
engage regularly but can survive a progress test on the basis of rote learning
just a few days before the test. This gives them the false hope that they can
survive not only a final examination in the same manner, but also be in a good
state of readiness for the next tier of learning. Many students who fail the
final exams also score low in class attendance and in class participation. In
order to try and obviate this problem, my teaching strategy requires students
to prepare themselves for a random question based on the previous lecture. This
allows the lecturer to see on a daily basis how students are keeping up. The
quizzes can also serve as a foundation for the lecture that follows. As their
written answers are marked and the mark obtained is part of the Continuous
assessment mark, students are now found to be more dedicated in terms of
preparing themselves for a lecture and the attendance is on average above 80%.
Summary:
The teaching philosophy and subsequent teaching
strategy is grounded in social constructivism with foremost idea of changing
the academic culture of students who rely on rote learning, an ill-structured
personal conceptual framework for success. The latter is very typical of
under-prepared students. The cultural values that are espoused and propagated in
my teaching philosophy are dedication, and effective peer interaction marked by
constructive criticism, academic altruism (helping each other to make sense),
team work with the intent to raise each member of the team to a higher and more
comfortable level of understanding. This definitely implies a shift in culture for
many students and allows them not only to overcome the backlog in necessary understanding
that they bring to the university, but also to make meaning of subject material
at a level that is appropriate for university study.
The problem that we have is that any new culture learned
takes time to get a foothold when institutionalised constraints prevent us from
continuing a culture that is viable for the progress of under-prepared students,
and can be easily undone when the traditional institutionalised values do not
support the culture that is expounded here. My research at Cornell University established
such a support system for students who scored low in their math SAT. As
co-founder of the Academic Excellence Workshops (AEW) at Cornell, I gained
first-hand experience on how mainstream lecturers and AEW staff can work
together to help at-risk mainstream students make a success of their studies.
At the end of the AEW at Cornell Engineering these at-risk students
out-performed their counterparts in Engineering Mathematics. A similar strategy
can be employed at any university where mainstream students are underperforming.
