skg's teaching philosophy*

• (Zeroth?) There is no such thing as "teaching" only learning
• First, do no harm -- ok, so I borrowed that from physicians. It's still a good idea. I try not to muck about and interfere with anyone's learning.
• Second, we learn best what we are most interested in -- so, I try to keep courses and assignments flexible and open-ended so that students can, as far as possible, pursue their own interests while learning the core content of the course. For students this has two effects: upside -- great flexibility; (possible) downside -- you've got to provide much more self-direction than you may be used to (some students like this, others find it a challenge -- take some initiative, be prepared and it won't be as much of a challenge)
• Students should be able to earn the grades they would like -- I try to arrange my grading so that it's possible for a student to choose the grade they would like to earn, normally by expending more energy and completing one or more projects for higher grades. But if you want to and do put in the work, you can earn the grade.
• Many students really like structure -- despite the fact that the structure makes no direct contribution to their learning, and can be detrimental by forcing the learner to follow a path through the content that is inappropriate for them, their learning style, their prior knowledge, their interests, etc.
      This is something I really struggle with. Because of student expectations, past experiences, uncertainty, lack of confidence in a new subject area, perhaps goals that focus on meeting requirements or earning grades rather than directly on learning a particular subject, structure ends up being important to many students. And for those students, the absence of structure can be detrimental to their learning. This is very much an individual characteristic of learners and the challenge is to provide minimal structure so that those who don't need or want it can maximize their learning, while at the same time providing structure for those who do need and want it.
• Active Learning -- I believe that learning is unavoidably an active process -- where there is no activity, there is no learning. The "activity" may not be readily apparent and can be as simple as a learner reflecting on the subject matter. But it is the learner's active involvement with the subject matter which is the essence of learning. To encourage learning, it becomes vital to provide opportunities to engage with the material as much and in as many different ways as possible.
• Learning communities are valuable -- they may not be absolutely essential, because individuals can and do learn on their own. However, learning communities can and do make learning more effective -- a learning community can provide feedback, criticism, and support; a learning community makes it far easier to engage in a larger range of activities revolving about the subject. Learning communities may be small (as few as two individuals) or large (an online community with hundreds of "lurkers" who are benefiting from the more vocal participation of others). But fostering learning communities is a vital step in learning.
• ... -- I'll probably add some more stuff here as I think about it, but I suppose this is enough to get you started or scare you off or ...

* Don't believe a word of anything said by someone who would use a term like "pedagogical philosophy". whuff.**

** Note that the previous note, given the label I used for this page (back on my homepage), ends up being reflexive and no doubt encourages a bit of quandary *** on the part of the reader. Perhaps you can resolve it by claiming I just "wrote" the above note rather than "said" it. Or you can just languish in a self-referential pit for the rest of your days. Your choice. Cheers, skg

*** I didn't have anything to do with the site linked here. Just thought it might be informative. Looked like fun, too.

Once more, with feeling (or a little more detail, anyway)

• (Zeroth?) There is no such thing as "teaching" only learning
  • This may not sound terribly impressive or important, but it is. A far too common theory of learning can be described (loosely, uncharitably even) as "Teachers spew forth volumes of facts, which fall upon the hearers' ears and lodge in their brain." Karl Popper described this as the "bucket" theory of knowledge. Students sit about with empty buckets and teachers fill the buckets up. He contrasts this with what he calls the "searchlight" theory -- students can't avoid taking an active role in learning -- they learn those things which they seek out and focus on and actively engage with.
  • The OpenSource Course Management system Moodle describes a similar idea as

    Constructivism

    This point of view maintains that people actively construct new knowledge as they interact with their environment.

    Everything you read, see, hear, feel, and touch is tested against your prior knowledge and if it is viable within your mental world, may form new knowledge you carry with you. Knowledge is strengthened if you can use it successfully in your wider environment. You are not just a memory bank passively absorbing information, nor can knowledge be "transmitted" to you just by reading something or listening to someone.

    This is not to say you can't learn anything from reading a web page or watching a lecture, obviously you can, it's just pointing out that there is more interpretation going on than a transfer of information from one brain to another.

    see http://docs.moodle.org/en/Philosophy

  • This view of how learning occurs has some impacts for the way I approach courses. I absolutely do not see myself as filling up student buckets with facts, information, and knowledge. I believe that students have to construct their own knowledge. Note that this is not to say that I think students "should" construct their own knowledge, but that I believe the only way any learning genuinely takes place is when an individual constructs the new knowledge for themselves. Learning is the responsibility of the learner, and it is impossible for it to be otherwise. Thus my role is to assist individuals as they construct their own knowledge. I can provide information that they may use in constructing their knowledge and (I think) more importantly, I can provide examples and strategies for tackling the problems posed by trying to construct knowledge in the various sub-domains of Computer Science, and (I think) most importantly, I can provide feedback to learners -- to help them identify weak spots in their knowledge structures and to give ideas of alternative ways they may attempt to structure their knowledge.
  • My primary goal, then, is always to help individuals to become effective learners and not to communicate some collection of factual information. If students are accustomed to and expecting bucket-style education, they can find this a bit surprising. But, we can always retrieve facts from reference materials. What we can't retrieve from reference materials are the questions that lead us to the information we need to incorporate into the knowledge structure we build as we learn.
  • So ... when I give an example, I see it as an example of the learning process. My goal is not to communicate particular facts. My goal is not to communicate some particular procedure for solving a problem or writing a program. Instead, my goal is to present a general approach that is being illustrated by the example.
• So, is this just a long-winded way to say that I'm going to make the students do all the work?
  • No. But the students have to accept responsibility for their own learning.
  • Often, students approach classes not as a learning opportunity, but as a minimization problem -- how can they satisfy the course requirements with as little effort as possible. This is a sensible and efficient approach, so long as the goal is seen as satisfying requirements (assignment, course, degree, ...). My goal, and additionally, what I hope for and work toward, is not satisfying requirements, nor even helping students construct a particular knowledge structure, but instead, helping students understand what they are doing and why they are constructing that complex system of interrelated information, so that they can build similar structures more easily in the future.
  • So ... given this philosophy I apply to learning/teaching subjects, the specific requirements for a course are almost completely unimportant to me. Students can find this surprising -- their attitude is often, "What do I have to do?" They want a very concrete list, they can use as the basis for filling their buckets, and recognizing when the buckets are sufficiently full. In contrast, my response (even though I may not say it out loud) is, "I don't know. What do you need to do?"
  • ...

• First, do no harm -- ok, so I borrowed this from physicians. It's still a good idea. I try not to muck about and interfere with anyone's learning.
  • Unfortunately, formal courses have two conflicting goals: learning something and certifying that something has been learned.
  • The need to certify that learning has occurred is a very different task from learning, and as often as not seems to interfere with learning!
• Second, we learn best what we are most interested in -- so, I try to keep courses and assignments flexible and open-ended so that students can, as far as possible, pursue their own interests while learning the core content of the course. For students this has two effects: upside -- great flexibility; (possible) downside -- you've got to provide much more self-direction than you may be used to (some students like this, others find it a challenge -- take some initiative, be prepared and it won't be as much of a challenge)
• Students should be able to earn the grades they would like -- I try to arrange my grading so that it's possible for a student to choose the grade they would like to earn, normally by expending more energy and completing one or more projects for higher grades. But if you want to and do put in the work, you can earn the grade.
• ... -- I'll probably add some more stuff here as I think about it, but I suppose this is enough to get you started or scare you off or ...