Teaching Philosophy

Donald H Taylor at ‘trainingzone.co.uk’ has an article about recent research on the myth of remembering only 10% of what you read, etc.: Modern myths of learning: You only remember 10% of what you read. It follows the research summarized at ‘Will at Work’: People remember 10%, 20%…Oh Really? This research has been around for a while (and it has been discussed widely since the ‘will at work’ post in 2006), but what I find the most interesting is the last section of the trainingzone.co.uk post:

What does this tell us about our profession?

First, arguably, it tells us that we do not have a profession. A real profession would have more concern about what was acceptable data rather than adopting things uncritically because they look pretty. Also, sadly, it tells us that many people working and writing in learning and development don’t seem to want to take the time to stop and think.

I’ve been reading a lot of educational theory this summer, in preparation for an upcoming workshop at Transylvania U on the future of the liberal arts. Much of it, it seems to me, contains similar missteps. Allan Bloom’s famous <em>Closing of the American Mind</em> contains some shockingly  terrible arguments (these are noted by other scholars, including Searle), and much of the classical theorists base their arguments on the ‘faculty’-theory of the mind.

Is education–especially in philosophy–the kind of thing that can be subjected to rigorous research without a well-established theory of mind? Or do we have to wait until cog sci has created a defensible picture of cognition before we can come up with a suitable educational theory? Isn’t it just better to encourage a diversity of educational practices and let students gravitate to the environment in which they learn best?

Unlike brain surgery, the practice of philosophy shouldn’t be limited to professionals. That’s why I run a Socrates Café at the Scranton, PA public library. We are having our fourth monthly meeting tonight. We had 4 people attend the first month, 10 the second, and 21 last time. Because of the publicity created by the above linked article, the library is now thinking about expanding to two meetings per month, and maybe doing a third for 8-10 year olds.

Moderating a Socrates Café is a lot of fun, the discussions are lively, and I learn important lessons that I know enhance my teaching. Particularly I learn how to listen. This is not easy for me; as an academic, I like to talk. In the last meeting we discussed “Individual vs. Collective.” A woman who had moved recently from Russia brought this up, saying her motivation was to hear how much people loved the way we can express our individuality here in America. She heard some of that of course, but some people also criticized what they saw as the implicit lack of freedom in many cases to express their substantive individuality. There was 99% participation: how many times do you get that from a class? (And one of the two people who were just listening made it a point to come up and thank me at the end.)

People in the community are apparently eager to have philosophical discussions, and well, maybe like brain surgery, a professional should start it, but then a lay person can take over and do just as well. (OK, maybe brain surgery wouldn’t work quite that way.) If you are at all inclined, I highly recommend starting a Socrates Café in your area. I got hooked on this by starting one last year in Little Rock, AR. In fact, I just heard from the awesome gentleman with a BA in philosophy that took it over when my visiting position at UALR ended and my tenure-track position started here in Scranton. They are still going strong and thinking of expanding as well.

Con Houlihan, a columnist for the Irish Independent, has an op-ed arguing for increased emphasis on philosophy in education, because journalists and - worse yet - ordinary people are not questioning our leaders. Specifically Bush. But he does call out journalists in Ireland who were complicit with (or silent about) the Provisional IRA. He’s probably right about the phenomenon, and hey, who am I to argue against more philosophy in schools?

Many journalists of this generation have not distinguished themselves

One of the biggest challenges in teaching philosophy to beginning students is demonstrating its relevance to their lives. This year I’m experimenting with movies and videos, both through mail services and free content on the web, and I think the results may actually be working, though the semester is admittedly still young.

For instance I’m attempting to model the process of asking and answering questions, so central to the philosophical enterprise, and the video series Ethics in America, available free by registering at the Annenberg Media Learning site, offers an apt and entertaining way to do this. A commentator poses common but thorny ethical situations to a panel composed of various public figures (e.g., in one there’s a member of congress, a reverend, a rabbi, a university president, and a famous columnist, among others), giving each an opportunity to respond and defend their positions. The responses by the panel are thoughtful and lively, and most importantly for my purposes, there are probing questions by both the moderator and other panel members about what justifies each person’s moral standpoint. One could call this a diluted version of the Socratic Method or an intense version of a spirited everyday conversation depending on your perspective. These videos have the perfect tone to introduce students to two fundamental philosophical objectives: 1) persistent inquiry into the bases of our surface beliefs and intuitions, and 2) the little known fact (to students anyway) that intelligent people can negotiate disagreements and still respect one another’s point of view. For me, these are two key goals to aspire to in the classroom, especially given the current surrounding social climate where many seem drawn to extreme views.

Insidehighered.com had an article covering Marvin Croy and Harriet Barber’s presentation at the Eastern APA on Friday called “Upgrading to Philosophy 2.0“. I’m thrilled to see that this kind of thinking is getting coverage. We’ll see if anything comes of it, but at least someone is trying to get the theory out there.