Identifying Your Philosophical Orientation
The multidimensional dynamics of education is well accepted. That is shown in works which explore the nature of beliefs in order to better understand how such systems, both on the level of personal philosophies and culture, interact to impact just how individuals act. From a grown-up education perspective, a lot of the concentrate has been along the way these systems potentially impact teacher behaviour and consequently have an effect on just how seekers of adult education learn. This too is shown in the proliferation of views about what education is or should be, what it should aim at, how it should proceed, etcetera. Zinn's School of thought of Adult Education Inventory displays this concern. It's been developed specifically with the aim of helping adult teachers better understand their own philosophical orientations, thus making them more philosophically dependable. According to Zinn the benefits associated with this are manifest and she outlines several in her section, Discovering Your Philosophical Orientation (Zinn, 1990, p. 44).
After reading Zinn's article I completed the Inventory. My results were the following:
Liberal Adult Education (L) 78
Progressive Adult Education (P) 73
Humanistic Adult Education (H) 70
Behaviourist Adult Education (B) 68
Radical Adult Education (R) 65
Thus according to Zinn's formulation, it would appear that my main philosophical orientation is Liberal Adult Education. While these results didn't initially surprise me, further factor has exposed lots of concerns. Several Zinn's reviews also perplexed me. However I am quite more comfortable with my primary designation(s). If anything, it was the overall lack of shock that was most amazing, and this increased an important question. If the above results simply bring to the fore my pre-existing orientation(s), which is what's to be likely if the Inventory fulfills its purpose, what in terms of actual class practice is the advantage of enlightened decision making over intuitive decision making? The solution of course is determined by whether Zinn and her resources are correct that folks can consistently action inconsistently, by positioning to a working theory-in-use that differs to their espoused theory (Zinn, 1990, p. 43). Though Zinn spends some time trying to determine this, I in the end find the argument unconvincing. Such an extended incongruity between behaviour and opinion would, in my opinion, require a level of dissociation a normal-functioning adult would struggle to sustain.
As for my perplexity with Zinn's reviews, they primarily happen out of the following conclusion observations. 1) That "typical mixtures are Liberal and Behaviourist or Progressive and Humanistic. 2) That "it is highly unlikely that you'll have high ratings in both Liberal and Radical categories. 3) That if your ratings are evenly sent out, "you might need to work on clarifying your values and looking for contradictions among them (Zinn, 1990, p53). Such feedback seem to suggest that Zinn's platform is premised on the notion that folks are either philosophically set or only with the capacity of moderate overall flexibility. This appears to me both counter intuitive and deterministic. I reject any notion that people can somehow be so rigidly slotted into predefined boxes.
In my view there is absolutely no issue with Liberal and Intensifying philosophies being utilised in match to each other. They are simply different aspects of what I regard as a broader idea. Quite simply, I really do not see that there are any inherent issues between them, as Zinn's article means, (and her Inventory as an artefact of her construction). For example, I do not agree, as Zinn's inventory implies, any particular one style inherently snacks people with more respect and look after their personhood, that is with more dignity than another, as her various categorisations suggest. It's the role of the educator to do something respectfully in virtually any given framework. Thus while I recognise that Zinn's goal is to help one identify his or her own philosophical orientation, I nonetheless feel that the Inventory, using its inflexible and demarcated approach, is limited in its usefulness. It could even be unhelpful in the sense that it may assist to perpetuate a similar kind of what could be considered restricted thinking.
My reluctance to simply accept such rigid categorisations, I believe, is due to an aversion I have to anything paternalistic. It probably also talks about why Personally i think somewhat uneasy with areas of The Hamburg Declaration on Adult Learning, though I also agree with a lot of what it stands for and seeks to achieve. My nervous about this Declaration, which reads like a humanistic missiological affirmation, is that while it seeks to move forward the rights of all adults regarding education, yet looks for to impose its own values on peoples who might not exactly share them (UNESCO, 1997).
In addition, insufficient consideration is given to context in both Zinn's Inventory and article. While concluding the Inventory, I frequently found myself conflicted. I often experienced difficulty answering questions, because I thought that the best response to many of them, in the end depended on framework. With regards to the context, I may have answered in a different way. Foley shows my sentiments when he quotes (Usher & Bryant, 1989, p. 82) as expressing "The question for the specialist is not what[philosophical]guidelines should I apply' but how ought I to act in this particular situation'"(Foley, 2004, p. 10).
As for my relatively even syndication of scores, should they be accepted as a possible indication of confusion, as Zinn suggests, or might they reveal something else? It appears that my own personal beliefs is extensive enough, and flexible enough, to permit me to acquire from a wide range of approaches, depending on the framework. This being the truth, I tend to feel that it is perhaps better recognized as confirmation of my eclecticism.
Though limited and usually informal, this eclecticism also appears to have been well reflected in my own teaching experience. For example, when working as a team head with a sizable telecommunications corporation, I got often necessary to educate technical personnel in the utilization of new technology and evaluating methods. Such a framework often necessitated that which was essentially a Behaviourist approach. This is because I had found from experience that behaviour repetition and designed instruction were ideally suitable for the development of this kind of technological knowledge. For instance, when training staff in the utilization of test equipment or tracing data through telephone exchanges, I'd first demonstrate the abilities and techniques involved, have learners practise them, and i quickly would answer any questions or provide feedback as required. However, progressive elements, such as problem dealing with exercises, were often included, especially in response to specific learner demands.
On the other side, when teaching English to students of other languages (TESOL), who were people of Korean origins, I intuitively recognised that it had not been only appropriate but often necessary to use elements from a number of solutions, even Radical, in the sense of "getting at the foundation of something (Zinn, 1990, p. 53). For example, while learning often happened through formal instructor led instructing (L), learners were also urged to choose what they wanted to focus on and how they needed the sessions to proceed (H). Students could, for instance, work out whether to formally work through exercises in text literature (B), learn and practise through role participating in (P), or through singing sounds or reciting limericks (H). Sometimes the class went on field excursions or take rides on public transportation to be able to practise, reinforce and discover new learning (P, H, B, R). Again, after debate with students, ethnical aspects such as etiquette were often incorporated into lessons (H, P). Additionally, because some students believed the need to show you that it was very important in Korean culture not to lose face, much attention was also directed at developing class guidelines which encouraged pupil participation in an wide open and non-judgemental way, thus creating and ensuring a supportive and nurturing learning environment (P, H). This, I really believe, approximates what Heron describes regarding his decision mode-levels. In my own opinion it constitutes an effort, albeit intuitive, to develop a holistic approach to learning and educating (Heron, n. d, p. 4). It could thus look that in my case, Zinn's Inventory perhaps better demonstrates the uniformity that is accessible between practice and school of thought than her platform allows.
It is ideal for reasons such as these, that Personally, i prefer Illeris's Pressure Field of Learning Theory. As the model, it recognises that all learning is multidimensional, that "the cognitive, the emotional and the public all have a role to learn. That, "irreducibly, individual learning always will involve all three at the same time (Sawchuk, 2006, p. 4). This is personally much more acceptable because it presents and focuses on the complete multifaceted-individual with his or her attendant needs. And Personally i think that much more emphasis generally must get to the central role of learners.
Illeris' model is also more suitable due to way theories of adult learning can be mapped within the so-called "pressure field, allowing us to[better]consider relations between ideas which all too often neither guide nor even acknowledge each other "(Sawchuk, 2006, p. 4), vis- -vis Zinn's way. In a nutshell, it encourages a less rigid and even more useful way to take into account theory.
Another possible matter that Zinn's Inventory outlined, is the evident efficiency with which experiential knowledge can be subordinated to, and thought to be smaller than, theoretical knowledge. I, on the other palm, trust Foley that "a conception of theory and practice that emphasises their shared dependence is more useful than the one which views theory as prior to practice(Foley, 2004, p. 11). For me personally, theoretical and experiential knowledge are two attributes of an individual occurrence, as are teaching and learning, and as such are blended with techniques that can't be easily segregated. Foley seems to reflect this seductive fusion when he emphasises the necessity to derive "theory from both experience and review as a means of supporting "adult teachers to do their work better (Foley, 2004, P. 3). Thus, for me, to divide them, is to artificially divide the cognitive from the sensible. It introduces what I consider as an needless dualism, which in my own opinion detrimentally elevates one form of knowledge over another.
Thus I conclude that there surely is some merit in analyzing one's philosophical orientation, at least as an educational exercise, because now I am more alert to the opportunity of the question, itself an artefact of the competing philosophies. However, despite Zinn's exhortations to clarify one's school of thought, at this point I remain to be persuaded of the sensible advantages of rigidly aligning myself with any one particular beliefs. I am also, more than ever, committed to the fact that when it comes to education, the learner(s) must always be the primary focus along with the context where learning occurs. I consider Sawchuk's way, unlike Zinn's, preferable because it offers a framework with higher overall flexibility for the educator to work within, and in the end respond creatively to the student of their particular context. To me, this is true congruence. Zinn's Inventory on the other palm, does not allow for the overall flexibility needed in real life. If taken up to speed and strictly adhered to, in my opinion, this type of rigid thinking eventually leads to loss of ingenuity, effort and creativeness in teaching, and therefore, learning. For my own way, I feel that this better aligns using what I presently understand of Sawchuk, Foley and Heron, for the reason that they generally appear to give greater consideration to the needs of learners within particular contexts.
Reference List
Fenwick, Nesbit, Spencer. 2006, Contexts of Adult Learning, Thompson, Toronto.
Foley, G. 2004, Dimensions of Adult Learning, Allen & Unwin, Crows Nest.
Heron, J. n. d. The Politics of Facilitation, Unpublished paper.
UNESCO, 1997, The Hamburg Declaration on Adult Learning, CONFINTEA, Hamburg.
Zinn, L. 1990, Determining Your Philosophical Orientation, in ed. Golbraith, Adult Learning Methods, Kreiger, Florida, pp. 39-77.
