PPE

It may not contain any formal philosophical connections, but a personal philosophy of education (PPE) is a written self-characterization, communicating the ethical principles, practical knowledge, and the intellectual depth of an educator. However, educators compose their PPEs for different purposes, depending on their career objectives. Within the realm of post-secondary education, the PPE is a support document for post-secondary job applications, describing the ideal persona of a post-secondary educator (Kearns, K. & Sullivan, 2011). Within the realm of public education (i.e., K-12), the PPE is a professional activity among teachers and administrators to promote dialogue in terms of improving learning environments and strengthening pedagogical practices. Although both approaches remain relevant within their respective realms, the PPE may contain further benefits for educators in terms of critical thinking. Strengthened by the perpetual cycle of reflection and action, a personal philosophy of education may have the potential to promote educators’ critical consciousness, particularly when guided by professional frameworks, ethical principles, and critical pedagogy.

According to the literature, a personal philosophy of education has a definitive purpose (1). Traditionally, it is a support document for graduate students and post-doctorate fellows, applying for post-secondary academic positions. Obviously, this would not be the vision for public educators, albeit there are some ideas worthy of consideration in terms of content and format. According to Boyle (2012), a personal philosophy of education should have basic stylistic qualities such as first person, present tense, and two-pages in length. Furthermore, it should align with missions statements, academic policies, and reverent in tone towards students. In terms of the content, Chism (1998) outlined general categories such as the Conceptualization of Learning, Conceptualization of Teaching, Setting Goals for Students, the Implementation of a Personal Philosophy, and a Personal Growth Plan; Kaplan et al (2008) recommended that the philosophy of education should also include the Evaluation for Assessment and Inclusive Learning Goals. In order to strengthen the authenticity of this document, Kerns & Sullivan (2011) encouraged graduate students and post-doctorate fellows to incorporate examples of teaching different kinds of courses (i.e., introductory/advanced, survey/topic course), students (i.e., beginner, intermediate, or advanced), and methodologies (i.e., lecture, discussion, field/studio/laboratory, online, and service learning). However, Brinthaupt (2014) warned that there was a danger of this document becoming standardized fromfocusing more upon the final product and being designed by what hiring committees what to see.

In context to public education, teachers may adopt an introspective methodology to construct a personal philosophy of education, which will have greater benefits in terms of moulding their professional identity and professional practices. According to Murray (1998), this is a process of philosophical exploration, engendering the molding of a mind-set. However, in order to construct a personal philosophy of public education (P3E), the fundamental inspiration is based upon action and reflection. Kearns & Sullivan (2011) stated that a reflective approach might inspire the improvement or innovation of professional practices such as learning assessment, teaching methods, and learning goals. Therefore, a personal philosophy of education for teachers should will not produce a support document for job applications or establish a set of fixed ideologies (2), which will inevitably limit their understanding of student empowerment, transformative pedagogy, and education as an ethical profession. By identifying with specific conceptual elements, it will not only reveal some philosophical characteristics that already reside within teachers’ pedagogical practices, but also it will guide an exploration that may strengthen the interrelationships between learning and teaching.

As a ‘philosophy’, a personal philosophy of public education (P3E) should have some philosophical underpinnings. By incorporating traditional philosophical theories and concepts, it may validate a teacher’s pedagogical approach. At least, it will promote authenticity, using precise language. Beatty, Leigh & Dean (2009) generated a table of theories and theorists in order to help professional educators craft their own philosophy statement (See Table 1). Specifically, their goal was to offer educators a philosophical grounding for similarities and patterns they observe within their own teaching (p. 121).

Although it is possible to relate with multiple philosophical concepts, idealism and realism are prominent within education (Beatty, Leigh, & Dean, 2009). In addition, educators may reflect upon the ideals of education in teaching excellence (Ruyter, 2003); they may reflect upon experiences with learning environments, learning materials, effective pedagogy, and classroom management; and/or they may reflect on education research, movements in education, and knowledge from specific subject domains. From these philosophical foundations, it defines general philosophical boundaries for reflection, and it develops a deeper understanding of teaching practices.

In terms of professional frameworks, Ontario public teachers must be familiar with professional frameworks that regulate the teaching profession. Specifically, the Ontario College of Teachers’ professional frameworks were designed to generate an awareness of teachers’ academic and ethical responsibilities. As an element of a P3E, the Standards of Practice and the Ethical Standards for the Teaching Professional provide a starting point (See Figure 1). Simply, the Standards of Practice focuses on teachers’ responsibilities to the teaching profession; the Ethical Standards focuses on teachers’ responsibilities to their students. Although defining unique categories that strengthen teachers’ understanding of codes of professionalism and ethical conduct, both frameworks are to work in synchronicity, empowering students and developing transformative, inclusive pedagogical practices.

Not only these frameworks establish a standardize the professional and ethical landscape for all public education, but also the Standards of Practice identifies the knowledge, skills, and values, which are inherent in the teaching profession; the Ethical Standards engenders dialogue and reflection among teachers to gain a deeper understanding of teaching as an ethical profession (Malito, 2017). Both frameworks promote the awareness of the social and ethical responsibilities to students and the general public. Knowledge of these professional frameworks will not only guide on-going action and reflection in education, but also these frameworks identify the core educator (Smith, 2013).

The conceptual element of experience is another dimension of a P3E. However, it is a construct beyond the understanding of the teacher. It is framed by within a democratic context (Dewey, 1938). According to Brinthaupt (2014), student experience is the most important information source for teachers to adjust the ways they achieve goals and values. As a result, it will achieve a greater accuracy and validity in terms of identifying excellence in teaching and promote better practices through on-going categorization and reflection (Brinthaupt, 2014). In addition, when teachers use their students as a source to understand experience, it is possible to identify both philosophical dimensions of idealism and realism within their pedagogical practices. Perhaps, teachers may pose the following interview questions to their students:

i) What is the purpose of education?

ii) What is the best environment for you to learn?

iii) How should you prepare for an unforeseeable future?

iv) How may the education system improve?

Student responses to these interview questions will be biased in relation to the history, culture, and academic success of each student; however, it is important for teachers to record and analyse all data to identify categories. By coding the data, it may provide teachers insight into their professional identity in terms of the democratic balance between teachers and students. In addition, with a dialectical mind set, it may be possible to understand the political and economic influences in public education that marginalize their students (3). After collecting this qualitative data, teachers may code and construct categories such as ‘learning environment’, ‘curriculum’, ‘pedagogical practices’, and/or ‘facilities’. Using this collaborative approach, it may be possible to identify themes that may not only promote critical thinking, but it may awaken a critical consciousness, identifying oppressive pedagogical practices and any other suffocating ideologies onnimposed upon both teachers and students (Giroux, 2017).

Pedagogy, the subtle alchemy of knowledge, experience, and critical consciousness, symbolizes the educator’s professional identity in practice (4). According to Beijaard, Meijer, & Verloop (2004), effective pedagogy is built upon a skillful balance between academic and social interaction. According to Freire, as a highly personal, subjective, and influential element of public education, pedagogy is the artistry of education that makes it possible for students to become themselves (Horton, 1990). However, throughout a teaching career, pedagogical practices may either evolve or devolve, depending upon the quality of teachers’ personal experiences, knowledge, and professional learning (Ontario College of Teachers, 2016). For a P3E, the element of pedagogy may focus on general teaching strategies and techniques, beliefs, and practices of classroom management, motivation, and decision-making (Day, 1991). Depending upon students’ cultural background, educators may focus on the cultural, economic, or the political influences of public education, which may promote dialectical thinking in terms of pedagogical practices as being liberating, oppressive, or something in between m(Giroux, 1988). Lastly, depending upon an educator’s academic interests, it may be possible to connect pedagogical practices using education research, relating to social constructivist theory or cognitive theory.

A personal philosophy of public education is framed by critical reflection.However, this is not a form of self assessment or evaluation, but it is dependent upon a critical consciousness, which is a level of human awareness that not only identifies social and political hierarchies, but it is considers the social and political awareness of oneself within society to maximize social justice in education (Malito, 2014). According to Freire (2000), within an educational environment, a critical conscience developed within an environment of reflection, action, and empowerment. Through these lenses, the strength of a critical consciousness may affect one’s ethical stance by investigating movements in education such as social justice, critical race theory, and critical pedagogy. An educators’ critical consciousness may ignite by thinking dialectically. For example, it may begin by asking: “What do we have, and what should it be?” (Kincheloe, 2004). Incidentally, the answer to these questions may provide the overall reflective theme, drawing from teachers’ personal beliefs, values, and histories. For others, it may produce more questions than answers. Yet, a critical consciousness may have the most profound effectupon teachers’ professional identity and their overall understanding of the public education system.

Public educators have referenced the writings of Paulo Freire to understand critical reflection and the development of a critical consciousness in education. Freire, the founder of an educational movement called critical pedagogy, focused his writings on the socio-political dimensions of education. Specifically, he claimed that education could not only reshape larger social structures, but also it could liberate the socially oppressed (Freire, 2000). His publication, Pedagogy of the Oppressed (Freire, 1970/2000), which is recommended resource for all public educators, became a critical examination of oppression within schools. He identified the concept of the dehumanization in society, which is strengthened by the socio-political influences within education. He later proposed pedagogical principles such as dialogical learning, problem-posing education, dialectical thinking, and critical praxis to give rise to a democratic system of education (Aliakbari & Faraji, 2011). Freire’s writings not only defined critical consciousness for educators, but also he inspired decades of scholars within numerous subject domains.

For teachers, a personal philosophy of public education is more than a support document when applying for career positions. Teachers will benefit by participatingwithin an on-going cycle of critical reflection and revision, strengthening their understanding of education and moulding their professional identity. By including professional frameworks and understanding the concepts of experience and pedagogy, not only teachers may produce a quality document, but also they may ignite a critical consciousness when framed by on-going reflection. Although a personal philosophy of public education is only a snapshot based upon one’s current knowledge and experience, the process is a worthy endeavour, which is inspiring and insightful for public educators.

Footnotes:

1. A personal philosophy of education is also known as teaching philosophy, teaching rationale, teaching philosophy statement, philosophy of education, and educational philosophy.

2. This may also take the form of a one-line aphorism or a lengthy romantic ideology.

3. Within context of critical pedagogy, this would align with the concepts of hegemony and hidden curriculum.

4. In terms of this description, pedagogical practice relates to an educational artistry. According to Paulo Freire, the teacher is of course an artist, but being an artist does not mean that he or she can make the profile, can shape the students. What the educator does in teaching is to make it possible for the students to become themselves (Horton, 1990).

References

Aliakbari, M., & Faraji, E. (2011). Basic principles of critical pedagogy. International Proceedings of Economics Development and Research , 77-84.

Beatty, J., Leigh, J. A., & Dean, K. (2009). Finding our roots: An exercise for creating a personal teaching philosophy statement . Journal of Management Education , 33 (1), 115-130.

Beijaard, D., Meijer, P., & Verloop, N. (2004). Reconsidering research on teachers’ professional identity. Teaching and Teacher Education , 20 (2), 107-128.

Boyle, A. (2012). Writing your teaching philosophy. Texas Tech University. Lubbock: Teaching, Learning, and Professional Development Center.

Brinthaupt, T. (2014). Using a student-directed teaching philosophy statement to assess and improve one's teaching. Journal of Faculty Development , 28 (3), 23-26.

Chism, N. (1998). Developing a Philosophy of Teaching Statement. Essays on teaching excellence: Toward the best in the academy , 9 (3), 1-2.

Danielewicz, J. (2001). Teaching selves: Identity, pedagogy, and teacher education. Albany: State University of New York Press

Day, R. R. (1991). Models and the knowledge base of second language teacher education.

In E. Sadtono (Ed.), Issues in language teacher education (pp. 38-48). Singapore: SEAMEO Regional Language Centre.

Dewey, J. (1938). Experience in education. New York, NY: MacMillian.

Eierman, R. (2008). The teaching philosophy statement: Purposes and organizational structure . Journal of Chemical Education , 85 (3), 338-339.

Freire, P. (1973). Education for critical consciousness. New York , NY: Seabury Press .Freire, P. (2000). Pedagogy of the oppressed (30th anniversary ed.). (M. B. Ramos, Trans.) New York, NY: Continuum Publishing.

Giroux, H. (1988). Teachers as intellectuals: Toward a critical pedagogy of learning . Granby, MA: Bergin & Garvey .

Horton, A. (1990). We make the road by walking: Conversations on education and social change. (B. Bell, J. Gaventa, & J. Peters, Eds.) Philadephia: Temple University Press.

Kaplan, M., Meizlish, D., O’Neal, C., & Wright, M. (2008). A research-based rubric for developing statements of teaching philosophy. In D. R. Nilson (Ed.), To Improve the Academy: Resources for Faculty, Instructional, and Organizational Development (Vol. 26, pp. 242-262). San Francisco, CA: Jossey- Bass.

Kearns, K., & Sullivan, C. (2011). Resources and practices to help graduate students and postdoctorate fellows write statements of teaching philosophy. The American Phyisological Society , 136-145.

Kincheloe, J. L. (2004). Critical pedagogy primer. New York, NY: Peter Lang.

Malito, B. (2017, September 1). Strengthening the vision: A critical discourse on the ethical standards for the teaching profession. Retrieved September 11, 2017 from Ontario College of Teachers': http://www.oct.ca/-

/media/PDF/Strengthening%20a%20Vision/Reflecting_on_Ethical_Standards_English.pdf

Malito, B. (2014). Understanding the phenomenon of critical transformation within nmulticultural music classes as informed by the principles of critical pedagogy. Boston, MA: Boston University Press.Murray, B. (1998).

Developing a personal philosophy of music education. The Choral Journal, 56 (9), 67-69. Ontario College of Teachers. (2016, June). Professional Learning Framework for the

Teaching Profession. Retrieved June 25, 2017 from https://www.oct.ca/-/media/PDF/Professional%20Learning%20Framework/framework_e.pdfOntario College of Teachers. (2007). The ethical standards for the teaching profession. Retrieved June 6, 2017 from The Ethical Standards For the Teaching Profession: http://www.oct.ca/public/professional-standards/ethical-standards

Ontario College of Teachers. (2007). The standards of practice for the teaching profession. Retrieved June 6, 2017 from The Standards of Practice for the Teaching Profession: http://www.oct.ca/public/professional-standards/standards-of-practice

Ruyter, D. (2003). The importance of ideals in education. Journal of Philosophy of Education , 37 (3), 467-482.

Shulman, L. (1986). Those who understand: Knowledge growth in teaching. Educational Researcher , 15 (2), 4-14.

Smith, D. (2013). A dialogic construction of ethical standards for the teaching profession. Issues in Teacher Education , 22 (1), 49-62.