Week 1: Philosophies and Theories of Education, Theories of Instruction Technology and Visual Literacy

As we discussed this week the different theories/philosophies of education, my mind swirled with questions about my own philosophy and theories of education. I think of myself as a decisive person, but on issues of education I have a hard time nailing my theory or philosophy down to any one specific. I think that is because within education there are so many variables that are uncontrollable and also so many different facets of learning and people that are involved with the education system from the educators, to the students, to the parents, to the school board, and out through the community. After pondering all week and reading others' posts on the Moodle discussion board I didn't find myself any closer to determining my own philosophy or theory of ed that I follow in my classroom, but I was reassured that some great educators are in the same boat as me, they too are a little bit of each philosophy, or at least have a few qualities from each theory that they take into their classroom. Being reassured that I wasn't the only one pondering questions about my own philosophy of education, after being an educator for 5 years it feels like I should have figured out exactly how and what I think about education, but that definitely is not the case and I am proud of that because that means that I am willing to change my thinking, philosophy and theories with the changing of our society as a whole and my students as individuals throughout the school year and from year to year.

One question that Dr. Hargrave posed in Monday's lecture was whether there is an educational approach or system that adheres with each of the four theories of education that we have discussed. My answer to this question might be one of bias because of my existence within the public education system within the United States, but this is what I have discovered through my reflection of this question. Our education system today is largely still within the Essentialism theory. I say this because as educators we do how we were taught and I believe that the U.S. education system has been within the Essentialism theory for many, many generations, therefore, the teachers within the system where all taught using this manner, again this from my public education stand point. I think that as an education system and as pre-service teachers are taught different theories of education, most common recently being Progressivism or Reconstructionism, our system as a whole will change to look more as these theories explain. STEM, for example, is a huge push right now for all schools and the new assessments PARCC and SMARTER BALANCE both rely heavily on the process of thinking rather than the regurgitation of information, as has been in the past with standardized bubble tests, leading back to the Essentialism theory. All of the work with Skype in the Classroom and opening the doors of classrooms, using technology, also leads to the Reconstructionm theory. The only theory that I cannot match an educational system to is Perennialism and I blame that on my lack of knowledge of different types of school systems outside of the public education system.

In moving throughout our week of learning, the next topic covered Theories of Instruction Technology. I was brought back to my sophomore days at ISU in Psych 231 and methods courses, the many conversations about behaviorism and constructivism. In thinking about the best fit between theories of education and theories of instructional technology I interpreted that question in 2 different ways: Which theories of education match up with theories of instructional technology and What is the best fit between theories of education and theories of instructional technology for our current system and students? As far as which theories match up together, I think that Behaviorism and Essentialism are very similar in their obvious and measurable outcomes, the instruction being based on clear goals and objectives, and a mastery of learning. Constructivism matches up will with Progressivism and Reconstructionism, and in thinking about Constructivism, when I was in my teacher prep program at ISU we discussed Constructivism frequently and that is the theory that I decided I wanted to follow in my classroom, how much have I learned since then :), but I still believe that constructivism is a very powerful theory in the classroom, but also believe that it cannot be used at every stage of a student learning because their is a specific time where direct instruction must take place in order to master the skills necessary to learn in a constructivism environment. Do I have a classroom deeply rooted in constructivism, no I don't think that I have mastered that theory, but I do believe that I have pieces of the constructivism theory within my classroom. Going back to my second interpretation of the reflection question, the best fit for students, I would say again, and this is an on the fence answer, but it must be a little of each, leaving out Perennialism. Depending on the age of students, their background, their culture, language, learning ability, different theories are needed, but I would like to see our education system go into a more Constructivism/Reconstructionism/Progressivism theory which I think is the push currently within education due to STEM, technology resources, breaking down classroom walls (figuratively speaking), assessments such as PARCC and SMARTER Balanced, etc. My hope is that teacher prep programs are creating teachers to have theories and philosophies deeply rooted in these theories and teaching them ways in which to create a classroom environment where students can thrive while utilizing the latter 3 theories. 

Visual Literacy was the final topic of discussion this week. I connected with the political ads and enjoyed watching the difference in ads from today's campaigns back to the 1950's. One of my favorite ads was the black and white commercial for Dwight D. Eisenhower with all of the elephants marching and the theme song playing throughout and the button "Vote for Ike" symbol that popped up many, many times throughout the ad, which is an example of emphasis. The ad also had unity because of the elephants, the buttons, the theme song and the chant that I'm sure was heard often throughout conversations during election time, bringing everything together with solid unity. I compared this ad to the most recent ad on the page of the Barack vs. Romney election where the writer put segments of Romney singing American the Beautiful and the showing "facts" about Romney's job distribution to China, Mexico, India, etc. Again unity because the song went against what the facts were saying, but it was an interesting tie to the goal of the ad, also each fact was presented using the same font, the same signage, the same white background. Media literacy has changed drastically because of our ability to enhance advertising with technology, even just moving from black and white T.V. to color, but there are many, many for examples. 

I don't know if my parents used to critique ads with us a kids when we would watch T.V. but somewhere along the lines I critique almost every ad that I see, especially political ones because of the keen use of quotes and language to draw in voters. Just the other day my husband and I were watching TV and an ad came on about the new CW23 morning show and how they have had the most growth in ratings this year compared to every other morning news radio. We looked at each other and said, "Duh, they have to, they are new, so the only way their ratings can go is up." It is amazing to me how particular language is used in media literacy to make it sound one way and I think that a lot of people don't read into ads, they just take it for what it says, believe whatever is given to them and never stop to think, is this true or reliable. Most of the time it just takes a second to think about a statement heard or read in an ad or commercial to see the ways the producer/writer has twisted the line to work in their favor, which after all it is advertising.