As a Teacher Candidate, I asked myself these questions during my practicum:

“How will I meet the diverse needs of students in my classroom? How do I deliver an education, where students are not rewriting information I have given them?”

My teaching philosophy is focused on diversity in the classroom, and honouring the uniqueness of each student. I believe that I can invoke the inquisitive nature of each student, regardless of background, and show them that I am invested in their education, and them as a person. It is important that learning in the classroom is student-centred, and that as an educator, I am fully prepared and passionate about what I am going to teach, whether it is Shakespeare, or subjects outside of my specializations.

The following is an excerpt from a paper I wrote at the beginning of my tenue with  the Teacher Education Program at UBC. Through my pracitcum and teaching, I still ground myself in this teaching philosophy:

 

Defining My Teaching Philosophy Through Helen Harper and Ken Osborne

“I once asked a Grade 8 student what he was learning in history class. He told me that he was learning to copy notes from the overhead projector screen,” (p.34) highlights a key issue that Ken Osborne (2009) discusses in his work “Education and Schooling: A Relationship That Can Never Be Taken For Granted.” Osborne examines and questions Canadian teaching practices, presenting that the way schools and teachers approach education needs to be redefined. In comparison, Helen Harper (1997) believes that “… it is evident that the designation and meaning of one’s school identity shifts according to the response dominating educational agendas at the time.” In Harper’s work “Difference and Diversity in Ontario Schooling,” she examines how suppressing, insisting, denying, inviting, and critiquing gender, race, class, and language difference exists in Ontario schools. As a teacher candidate, these articles sparked a key question: how will I meet the diverse needs of students in my classroom, taking into account different societal factors, and on top of that, how do I ensure that I am delivering an education, where students do not feel as if they are just rewriting information I have given them?

Harper presents five models in reaction to the suppression, insistence, denial, invitation, and critique of difference in schools. In examining my own teaching philosophy, I will explore both denying and inviting difference, because I believe that they can work together to create a successful learning outcome. Denying difference is described as “a counter position to insisting on difference” which functions “to ignore or minimize differences among students and demand the same education treatment for all.” Harper explains how education discrimination and biases have led to a reduction in gender segregation, but also that denying difference is naive to the problems that students face. When looking at the perspectives Harper presents for denying difference, it seems logical to create a hybrid teaching philosophy that does not completely deny that difference exists, but to recognize potential ways that we are subconsciously or consciously creating difference in the class. Here is where inviting difference and denying difference collide. I propose that we deny difference in the sense of segregation, biases based on race and gender, social class, and abilities, but invite difference as a means to extend boundaries of the traditional classroom. Now, it is impossible for me to understand the racial, gender, and societal backgrounds that students come from, but assessing and learning students is key to providing a transformational classroom experience.

To further support the idea of both denying and inviting specific differences, we can examine Osborne’s idea that “…it is urgent that teachers take advantage of whatever opportunities they find… to widen their students’ base of knowledge, to reflect on what they learn, to gain some appreciation of the human heritage of thought and achievement… and to begin to think about the perennial questions surrounding the nature of the good life and the good society.” (p.37) If we take Osborne’s advice to challenge the boundaries of the traditional classroom, we can use differences to our advantage. Just a few weeks ago in LLED 366, our class examined a short story that explored the relationship between a Chinese mother and son, as well as the history of their family. In the classroom discussion, we were able to make cultural connections and understandings about the text because of the diversity of the classroom. Native speakers of some of the language used in the text gave us insight into the inner workings of the family in the story, and why specific Cantonese words were used by the author to convey certain meanings. Our professor further went on to explain how when he teaches this text to the classroom, students continue to add meaning to the text in a way that he cannot, based on cultural understandings.

Building on my experience in LLED 366, and examining Osborne’s and Harper’s views on education, we can use both evaluations of education and difference to our advantages in the classroom. Harper cites that when difference is denied, it is successful, but does not account for racial differences that students face. Osborne contends that traditional teaching methods lack imagination and engagement from the students, but are an effective teaching method for overworked educators: “[these methods] ensure coverage of prescribed content; they help to maintain order and control and a sense of purpose while also guaranteeing a certain predictability in the classroom; they prepare students for tests and examinations; they make lesson planning and delivery manageable.” (p.35) Linking this information back to the idea that “teachers [need to] take advantage of whatever opportunities they find” to enhance their students learning, denying and inviting difference helps a teacher build concepts that widen students knowledge and awareness of others around them. Essentially, we invite difference to help build concepts in the class, and deny difference when it comes to making assumptions about our students.

Revisiting my earlier question of meeting the diverse needs of students and educating outside of traditional methods, difference in the classroom is a factor that I will consider when shaping my teaching practice. Understanding that each student brings a unique identity to the classroom, I believe that I can bring out the inquisitive nature of each student, regardless of background, as long as it is evident that I am invested in them as a person, as well as their education. Further, I also believe that I can provide an experience for my students that does not include just copying notes from the projector. As an educator, I need to be fully prepared and passionate about what I am going to teach, whether it is Shakespeare, or even a subject that is not my specialty. As we are learning more about the teaching profession as candidates, we are also learning how schools are evolving. Schools are redefining what it means to be a school, and us as teacher candidates need to think about how we were taught in the past, and how we need to teach in the future.

 

Reference List:

Harper, H. (1997). Difference and diversity in Ontario schooling. Canadian Journal of Education, 22(2), 192. Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com.ezproxy.library.ubc.ca/docview/215378593?accountid=14656

Osborne, K. (2009). Education and Schooling: A Relationship That Can Never Be Taken For Granted. Why Do We Educate?, 21. Retrieved from https://ares.library.ubc.ca/aresinternal/ares.dll?SessionID=D2044518528A&Action=10&Form=50&Value=23975