Education is my calling in several ways. I'm a student and a teacher and have been both for most of my life. My recent work in philosophy has organized and deepened my thinking on education. I am endlessly fascinated by the theoretical, practical, and (I think most importantly) personal aspects of education.
I'm constantly "talking shop" at work. But, in the past two weeks I've had two friends ask for my general thoughts on education. Of course I was happy to comply. What follows is a blend of both conversations.
Do you have a philosophy of education? If so, what is it?
I believe education is best thought of in terms of the formation of a person with the goal of that person’s flourishing. As such, education should seek to form the intellect, emotion, and will of a person.
(My thoughts coincide with James K.A. Smith on much of this. See the first few chapters of his Desiring the Kingdom.)
Typically, education is reduced to an intellectual transmission of information. This is why students are usually judged by their ability to repeat the given information and little else. However, I don’t think we should reduce education to merely an intellectual exercise, because I don’t think we should reduce students to merely intellectual “thinking things.” Intellectual activity is certainly an important part of a person’s formation. However, the intellect, emotion, and will are so deeply integrated in a person, that attempting to work with one but not the others is a limited strategy at best--damaging at worst.
So, simply, I believe a good education will seek to form a person’s:
intellect by teaching them how to think (not merely what to think)
emotion by teaching them how to feel (I think it’s helpful to think of emotions in terms of what concerns a person. So, this aspect of education would teach what matters most in life.)
will by teaching them habits that lead to flourishing (everything from study habits to appreciation of art, to civic duty, to spiritual disciplines)
I think these things are true for any kind of education. However, what distinguishes Christian education is how we define flourishing. We believe that a person is truly flourishing when they are living life as God intended. This is possible only through obedience to the Father, discipleship to the Son, and submission to the Spirit. So, a truly Christian education will seek to form a person’s:
intellect by teaching them to think like Christ would think (having the mind of Christ)
emotion by teaching them to feel like Christ would feel (having the concerns of Christ)
will by teaching them act like Christ would act (having the habits of Christ)
Do you have an opinion on traditional, classical, and more modern approaches within Christian education? (Do you think that Christian schools should emphasize classic literature, such as Plato, etc.?)
I’m somewhat pragmatic when it comes to strategy. I think good teaching is good teaching. There are traditional practices that are tried and true and shouldn’t be ignored. But tradition does not guarantee perfection. I think there are relatively new ideas that are brilliant. But novelty does not guarantee improvement.
The classical Christian education movement is interesting. I find value in the reintroduction of classical works of literature and even some classical techniques of learning. Much of classical education coincides with what I outlined above with its emphases on logical thinking, aesthetic appreciation, and practical rigor. But sometimes I wonder if a wholesale return to the Trivium and Quadrivium is worth what it takes to do it well. (For example, I almost took a job at a classical Christian school. A major part of my decision not to was what it would require of my kids. My son would have been a year behind in Latin—entering the fourth grade!) I think all students should be exposed to classical literature, but not at the expense of things that traditional/modern education do well.
There are philosophical assumptions in modern education that are counter to Christianity. But I think the same is true with traditional and classical education. I think we have the freedom and obligation find the most feasible and beneficial amalgamation of it all.
Do you see any benefit to some of the world’s viewpoints, such as idealism/realism, pragmatism, or existentialism? (It seems the textbook favors some good features to consider in many of these viewpoints, but with limits.)
It sounds like I would like the textbook. Ha!
I would need to see how each of these are defined, but I can say that I’ve seen attractive ideas in each. All the viewpoints mentioned are far too big and multifaceted to simply stamp approval or disapproval. I think we have the responsibility to be charitable and honest with each.
I hold to an “all truth is God’s truth” mentality. But also, as a general rule, I find that most (if not all) philosophies that are not explicitly Christian are essentially seeking what Christianity provides. Accordingly, I can agree with what they look for while disagreeing with where they find it.
What are your thoughts on positive and negative reinforcement (as opposed to pure behaviorism)?
Considering the context, I’m assuming that by behaviorism you mean behavior modification. (Please correct me if I’m wrong.)
Practically, I find that positive reinforcement is always preferable to negative reinforcement for all parties involved. Personally, I strive to take positive reinforcement beyond what I am immediately inclined to do. If I feel like dropping the hammer, I probably shouldn’t. (Ha!) But also, making positive reinforcement the rule and negative reinforcement the exception has all kinds of benefits. I have found that the more rare my negative reinforcement is, the more impactful it is. I think it’s worth saying that the ultimate goal should not be to produce rule-following automatons but to guide hearts towards a genuine love for goodness, truth, and beauty. I don’t think this happens when negative reinforcement is the rule and not the exception.