Analyzing Teaching

I've been teaching at the college level for almost nine years.  This is the longest I've held down any kind of job.  Among all of the jobs that I've had, most of which are in retail, this is by far the job that I enjoy the most.  I feel a bit anxious as it may come to an end as I complete graduate school.  Getting a job as a philosophy professor is not all that different from trying to get drafted to a professional sports team as a collegiate athlete.

Anyways, I have a lot of interest in teaching, and have put some amount of thought into it.  I figure I'd lay out some of thoughts here in the form of an analysis.

So what exactly is teaching?  Let's start at the most general level.  First, there is the descriptive/normative distinction.  What is it that teachers actually do, and what should they do?  I'll start with the first.

Anytime you interact with someone, and the goal of that interaction is to impart knowledge on that individual, you are teaching.  Knowledge in this case could be a "knowing that" kind of knowledge, in which you are conveying some amount of information, or it could be a "knowing how" kind of knowledge, where you are trying to impart some sort of skill or ability.

The "knowing that" and "knowing how" distinction is important, as we shall see below.

The rough definition given above should be good enough for this little essay.  There might be some borderline cases that don't fit the definition, but I don't think we should be worried about them.

If that is what teaching is.  Then what should good teaching look like?  This depends on the context, as teaching occurs in a variety of situations.

The context that is relevant here is institutionalized teaching, i.e. the kind of teaching that you see in elementary, middle, high schools, and in college.  What are teachers supposed to do in these contexts.  What are they supposed to convey?

The conventional thought regarding institutionalized teaching is that it's all about the conveyance of "knowing that" knowledge.  Teachers are tasked with transferring information. It doesn't take long to realize that this view is incomplete.  It is true that part of what teachers do is transfer a body of information, but surely teaching from kindergarten through college is more than that.

Let's look at it from the other end.  What is the point of going to school as a student?  What is the goal or purpose?  The answer is not so clear cut, as there are probably several goals.  Two goals that are prominent in a liberal democratic society like the United States are political and economic in nature.  The political goal of education is to produce effective participants in the democratic process.  The democratic goal of education is to produce individuals who effectively contribute to a more or less capitalist economic system.

What does it mean to be an effective participant in the democratic process?  It probably means being able to make informed decisions about public policies and, in the case of our government, to be able to choose an individual that best represents those informed decisions in local, state, or federal government.

Capitalist systems are usually about growth.  So, to effectively contribute to a capitalist system is to contribute to the system's growth.  How society grows economically will be a function of various factors, which can include manufacturing, information, service, finance, etc.

So, given that those are the goals of an American student, education is recognized as a means to that end.  Thus, what teaching is supposed to be at the institutional level is the imparting of knowledge (both knowing that and knowing how) required for the student to meet both goals.

Of course this is still an incomplete picture of what teaching in a school setting is all about, but it's a start.

Who cares?

When you read philosophy articles, you'll often come across the "motivation" part of the article early on.  This is where the author tries to convince you that what he or she is writing about is worth your time and attention.  It's pretty clear that the truth of the article is not sufficient for it to be of value.  People also have to care about what the author has to say.

Unfortunately, there are lots of areas in philosophy that no one really cares about.  Here's one example.  In one of the intro classes that I teach, I cover six topics: knowledge/skepticism, the existence of God, the possibility of time travel, the relationship between mind and brain, personal identity over time, and free will.  Of these topics, I have the hardest time getting students to care about skepticism.  Do we really have access to the external world, or are we dreaming?  Or in a computer simulation?  Who cares?

If nobody cares about a particular issue or problem, then no one will work to solve it.  But how exactly do we understand this notion of caring?  Why do people care about the things they do, and how do the come to care about things that they didn't care about before?

Part of this is easy to explain.  People care about Maslow's hierarchy stuff like getting food, water, shelter, social interaction, etc.  This is explainable in terms of evolutionary concepts like survival or reproduction.

Other things that we care about might be explained as extensions of things that we care about for Darwinian reasons.  For instance, we often care about money because it serves as the means to stuff that ensures our survival or ability to reproduce.  Lots of things that we care about on a daily basis might fall into this category.

There are, however, things that we might care about that are don't directly serve our interests in surviving and reproducing, nor are they straightforwardly extensions of the aforementioned interests.  I'm thinking of things like art, music, literature, and philosophy.

Why do we care about these things?  There are lots of answers floating around that appeal to cultural, religious, or biological mechanisms.  I'm interested in a pedagogical standpoint.  If a student doesn't get them to care about philosophy, how do you get them to care?  Likewise for politics, art, etc.  Is concern for these things simply a function of how an individual was raised?  This doesn't seem quite right.  There are plenty of adults who come to care about these things when they had no prior interest.  What happened?  How do people come to care about something they didn't care about before?

My teaching statement

Below is a draft of my teaching statement.  It's part of my application dossier that I'll be sending to schools when I apply for jobs.
______________________________

The Definition of Philosophy 
I define philosophy very broadly as simply the study of ideas and the relations between ideas. I find this rough definition pedagogically useful, as it allows me to draw from a variety of sources, both traditional and unconventional, ordinary and esoteric, in order to illustrate philosophy at work, and to give my students different ways to practice philosophy.

The Value of Philosophy 
If you are reading this, then you probably already believe that philosophy is valuable. If you do not believe that philosophy is valuable, then I probably won't convince you otherwise. I will however, give you two arguments that I give my students when I discuss the value of philosophy. 

James's Dad's Argument
1. Philosophy is valuable only if it directly provides some sort of substantial material gain.
2. Philosophy does not directly provide some sort of substantial material gain.
3. Therefore, philosophy is not valuable.

 James's Brother's Argument
1. Philosophy is valuable only if resolves long standing issues and debates that are part of its subject matter.
2. Philosophy has not resolved (at least not to my knowledge) such long standing issues and debates.
3. Therefore, philosophy is not valuable.

Understanding why both of these arguments are unsound goes some way into understanding the value of philosophy. Most of my students will agree that philosophy is instrumentally valuable. It strengthens the ability to participate in rational investigation, which is indispensible in just about every career field. Some of my students might even believe, as I do, that philosophy is intrinsically valuable. However, the former is sufficient to motivate the study of philosophy.

The Goal of Teaching Philosophy 
My goal in teaching philosophy is to train students to become philosophers. Of course, there is distinction between philosophy as an activity and philosophy as a profession. I don't teach with the expectation that all of my students will pursue a career in philosophy, but I do teach with the expectation (or at least hope) that my students will continue to practice philosophy in some form throughout their post-college life.

I hold that what distinguishes philosophy is its method, not its subject matter. While the methods of philosophy may not be as easily codified as the scientific method, it is clear that how philosophy is done is distinct from how the sciences are done. (Whether the methods of philosophy are distinct from other humanistic disciplines is less clear.) So, when I claim that the goal of teaching philosophy is to train students to become philosophers, I mean more specifically that the goal of teaching philosophy is to train students to become proficient in a certain method of inquiry. The difference between an amateur and a professional philosopher is simply a difference of degree of mastery, similar to the difference between an amateur and professional athlete. My task as a college instructor is to train my students to attain a certain degree of proficiency in the philosophical method which they can further hone in graduate school, or apply to other career fields.

The Method of Teaching Philosophy 
Now that I've stated what the goal of teaching philosophy, the question that follows is how this is to be done. As it is for all instructors, this is very much a work in progress. What I can say here is what I've tried, what seems to work, and what I'd like to try in the future.

At most universities, an Intro to Philosophy course briefly surveys topics in ethics, epistemology, and metaphysics. In Syracuse, there is no such course. Instead ethics is covered in its own intro course, and there is an intro to metaphysics and epistemology course. I've taught both types of classes. I have two goals when I teach these classes: to pique their interest in philosophy, and to introduce them to an assortment of philosophical tools. I try to meet both goals by having my students apply such philosophical tools to situations that might be familiar or relevant to them. For example, one such philosophical tool is conceptual analysis. I often have my students perform conceptual analyses on ordinary concepts like sport or art.

Along with the two goals mentioned above, I also have the goal of exposing my students to well known issues in philosophy. This includes subject matter like skepticism, the existence of God, the mind-body problem, utilitarianism, ethical relativism, etc. This goal, however, is subservient to the two aforementioned goals. So, in order to pique their interest in philosophical issues, I will bring in sources to supplement primary sources. For example, science fiction movies can illustrative of the problem of skepticism in ways that are more accessible than reading Descartes' Meditations. I also use these topics as a vehicle for the introduction and application of philosophical tools. For instance, I use arguments for and against the existence of God to introduce Inference to the Best Explanation.

This approach may depart from the way many instructors teach introductory courses. Most instructors teach these classes by focusing primarily on the exegesis of primary texts. I have no problems with this method. You learn philosophy by doing philosophy. However, this seems sub-optimal to me. Consider an analogy from sports and music. One can learn to be proficient at playing the piano or playing basketball simply by learning songs or playing basketball games. But, you'd be hard-pressed to find a professional pianist or basketball player who didn't spend a considerable amount of time performing activities whose sole focus was to develop mastery of fundamental techniques. A good basketball player has likely done countless drills. Similarly, a good piano player has likely played numerous etudes.

I hold that philosophy is analogous to activities in music and sport. People can become good philosophers just by doing philosophy, but it seems that an explicit focus on philosophical method would yield even better results. I believe that the practice of doing philosophy, i.e. becoming aware of the ongoing discussions occurring among philosophers in person or in the literature and making one's own contributions to the discussion, can be supplemented with activities that sharpen fundamental techniques essential to the practice of philosophy. It seems clear that such an approach would move us closer to a more fruitful pedagogy of philosophy.

The Purpose of Education: Part Two

In the post right before this one, I listed two different guiding principles that are commonly associated with education.  First, there is education as scholarship.  Second, there is education as a means to economic advantage.

My current take on education is that it's purpose is civic.  Institutionalized education is supposed to train individuals to be good citizens.  What counts as a good citizen in a democratic society?  There are roughly three parts.  First, a good citizen is informed, has beliefs about what constitutes a flourishing society, is able and willing to participate in reasoned debate with disagreeing individuals, is able to evaluate competing claims, is able to cogently articulate her views to others, and so forth.  Second, a good citizen possesses the skills and the motivation to act on her ideas.  This includes voting, participating in civic discourse, tasks related to her vocation, etc.  Third, a good citizen has the desire and ability to act for the good of others, i.e. she has established a solid moral foundation.

This sort of view on education largely subsumes the other two views.  Being an informed citizen requires that one be educated on matters of all sorts, including topics that may not be deemed "practical" for job purposes.  Being an effective citizen requires that one possess the sorts of skills that largely overlap with skills that are pertinent to obtaining jobs.

Anyways, that's my brief take on the purpose of education.  So where does philosophy fit in?  It seems pretty obvious that philosophy plays a central role in developing the informed citizen.  I tell my students that philosophy is the study of ideas.  Philosophers examine the relationship between ideas and other ideas, as well as the relationship between ideas and the world the we observe, both physical and social.  The philosophical method is simply the method of critical thought.  If you are critically examining some claim, then you are doing philosophy.  People trained in philosophy are, ideally, people equipped to critically examine options on display in the marketplace of ideas.

The Purpose of Education

So earlier I wrote a post briefly musing on what I took education to be.  This post is on what the purpose of education is supposed to be.

The kind of education I have in mind here is what I call "institutionalized education."  This is the sort of education that occurs in publicly and privately funded schools from pre-kindergarten to graduate studies.  Institutionalized education is typically what first comes to mind among most individuals when they consider the meaning of the term, "education."

What is the purpose and function of institutionalized education?  There seem to me two general answers to the question: one is scholarly, the other is economic.

The scholarly purpose of education might be for the acquisition of knowledge for its own sake.  Under this guidelines, schools would train its students to acquire new knowledge as effectively as possible.  This typically entails training students in the methodologies of various fields, like the scientific method, probability/statistics, formal logic, hermeneutics, etc.

The economic purpose of education treats education as instrumental in nature.  Education is the means to which one can achieve a certain socio-economic status in life.  How is this so?  Society has used education as a filtering mechanism for its work force.  I guess the idea is that getting a degree, whether high school, college, or graduate school, is somehow supposed to indicate some kind of success in the workforce, that would be harder to attain without the degree.  Education along these lines typically entails teaching methods and informational content that would considered assets in the job market.

Either purpose is fine when considered independently.  The problems arise when educational institutions are charged to do both.  At least at the collegiate level, institutions regard themselves as being charged with the purpose of scholarly education.  However, education costs money.  It costs money to build classrooms, pay teachers, and procure lab equipment or teaching tools.  So, while many colleges would like to be viewed as institutions of scholarly education, economic realities often dictate that the pursue education along economic lines.  People view education as the means by which individuals and families can obtain economic stability.  This view influences the public funding of education, as well as the enrollment and alumni giving at private schools.

When schools view themselves as providing both scholarly and economic types of education, tensions can arise as to how to distribute limited resources.  When money's tight, do you cut back on departmental budgets uniformly?  Or do certain departments experience greater setbacks?

Here are a few things that I wonder about.  Is it true that most colleges and universities are trending towards a more economic view of education?  If so, is this a good, bad, or neutral thing?  More generally, is education only instrumentally viable, or is the pursuit of knowledge valuable for its own sake?  If we believe the latter, why?

What is education?

Having been a part of the American education system in some capacity for 25 or so years, I am often presented with many opportunities to reflect on education.

What is education?  Broadly construed - I like starting with broad definitions - education is a process by which knowledge is transferred from one party to another.  Given this very broad definition, lots of things can count as education, and that's as I think it should be.  Anytime some individual or entity passes on knowledge to another individual or entity, you have education going on.

Now, there are different sorts of knowledge.  In education, I take it that two types of knowledge are transferred.  First is "know-how" knowledge.  This is knowing how to do perform a particular task, like riding a bike, playing the violin, or baking a cake.  The other type of knowledge is propositional knowledge.  This is knowledge of facts.  It is also called "know-that" knowledge.  These two types of knowledge are distinct.  I can know facts about playing the piano without being able to play the piano.  Likewise, I might be able to play the piano without ever learning the facts about what piano playing amounts to.

Alrighty, so the positive claim that there all sorts of different kinds of education going on in every society is clearly uncontentious.  What's more interesting is the normative aspect of education.  What kind of education is good?  Is society morally obligated to educate its members?  If so, how?

Let's consider the institute of education in American culture.  By "institute" I mean some kind of social structure that plays a role in forming, changing, or reinforcing culture.  What is the function of the institute of American education?  What sorts of knowledge should American education pass on?

This is clearly an important question to answer, since we cannot evaluate the success of American education without first establishing what it is supposed to accomplish.  But, before we can answer, we'll need provide further clarifications.