MajorAssessment3CCornwell

Running head: EDUCATIONAL PHILOSOPHY

A Continuity of Experience in Education: A Philosophy of the Educator

Chad D. Cornwell

Walden University

EDUCATIONAL PHILOSOPHY

Abstract

John Dewey’s Experience and Education, Jean Piaget’s theory of cognitive development, and

Howard Gardner’s theory of multiple intelligences combine with the copernican plan to reveal a

philosophy of education in which the educator guides students through a variety of learning

experiences requiring both depth and breadth of comprehension and achievement. All students

learn by differing means and require time to interact with concepts and curriculum. Experiential

education accounts for depth of curriculum, time spent on learning activities, and student choice

of learning methods. The student engages with content from multiple disciplines

simultaneously as coordinated by teaching teams.

Experience and Education

2


Education succeeds when students interact with the content through time and a variety of

methods and means. John Dewey (1938) believed that everything in education depends on the

quality of the experience. Dewey wrote Experience and Education after his analysis of

traditional and progressive educational trends in the 1930s in which he observed the great mis-

education of pupils in both traditional and progressive settings. Applying Dewey’s thoughts to

contemporary education, the paradigm must shift from conditions in which students receive

information to an environment in which students actively engage with content through multiple

activities from which they can make connections to the world around them (Dewey, 1938, p.

18). Connections can then be expanded via scaffolded experiences throughout the student’s

lifetime.

Rather than subjegating the student to a docilly receptive state, Dewey (1938) suggested

the freedom of the learner’s interaction with his or her learning on an intimate level. Educators

arrange experiences in which pupils are engaged in learning, and more important, encourage the

pupil to seek out engagement in future experiences, i.e. instilling in the student the desire for

continual learning. Along the way the educator “discrimintate between experiences that are

worth while educationally and those that are not” (Dewey, 1938, p. 33). This requires teacher

engagement with the content in meaningful ways rsulting in the creation of effective learning

moments for students.

Three student-centered threads of Dewey’s theory function in the contemporary

educational system. The first thread being that “all knowledge has a social origin and that the

interest of the child are the primary sources of learning” (Spring, 2008, p. 300). Dewey (1938)

believed that social surroundings influenced a child’s understanding of social organizations, of

3


which the school system is but one. Children bring to the classroom ideas about how and what

to learn from their home, their immediate surrounding community, and faith-based practices.

Teachers who recognize these factors as they design entry points for student engagement within

each lesson create environments excited about learning.

Second, Dewey (1938) recognized the need for educational institutions to evolve

culturally. The culture in which Dewey wrote is significantly different from culture today, due

to the women’s and civil right movements, and the development of new technologies. Schools

and teachers must adapt to the world that surrounds the student. Reluctancy to change inhibits

student success and creates challenges in education.

Finally is the belief that curriculum and learning based on student’s interest, versus

motivation by rewards and punishment, is best practice. Allowing students to choose the

methods with which they want to explore content (also known as differentiated education)

changed the educational landscape. Not only are teachers responsible for students’ knowledge

but the student assumes a role in his or her education, thereby encouraging their development as

a lifelong learner.

Whereas Dewey laid the foundation for the students’ experiential education, Howard

Gardner defined a means of engagement based on students’ predisposition for individual styles

learning. Gardner’s theory is not grounded in educational practice, but in brain research, which

provides a platform for educators’ endorsement lifelong learning.

Howard Gardner formulated his theory of multiple intelligences (MI) based on the

theories of constructivists Jean Piaget and Lev Vygotsky who, similarly, believed that “social

interaction is critical for cognitive development” (Ormrod, 2006, p. 140). Piaget’s processes of

4


cognitive development require the child to interact with his or her environment, forming schema

through assimilation (confronting the new in a way consistent with existing understanding), and

accommodation (confronting the new and either creating a new understanding or changing an

existing understanding).

Multiple intelligence is less about lessons taught by differing methods than it is about

developing student as lifelong learners. Linda Shirley highlights educators who “show students

that there are different ways of learning by building upon all of the intelligences [so that]

students find new and creative ways to solve problems, achieve success, and become lifelong

learners” (1996, p. 1). Gardner (as cited in Henderson, 2006) admits that “the basic problem

with America has been mediocre standards for everyone” (Henshon, 2006, p. 193), due to

limits placed on students subjected to learning only by mathematical or linguistic methods, and

assessed through standardized paper-pencil tests (Shearer & Jones, 1994). Shearer and Jones

believe that MI encourages lifelong learning by identifying and encouraging the individual’s

strengths and weaknesses” (1994, p. 5).

Harkening back to Piaget, Gardner’s theory recognizes that the human brain continually

updates with new information in ways unique to each individual. Every human receives,

processes and stores information differently (Weiss, 2000, p. 54), a theory supported by

Gardner’s eight intelligences. Individual differences are students’ entry point into curriculum,

and their means of content exploration through differentiated and integrated instructional

strategies.

Based on Piagetian theory of cognition all human thought is consumed with sense-

making of the world around them (Gardner, 1983). MI theory moves education from stagnant

5


regurgitation of factual information to understanding about how content functions globally.

Sherer writes, “The more time we spend trying to isolate and transmit bits of information that

lend themselves to assessment in a short-answer instrument, the less time that we have to present

materials that are rich in content and that can engender understandings” (1999, p. 15). Once

contemporary American education transitions away from standardized testing and into

educational systems grounded in seeking and solving problems we will once again be leaders in

the global marketplace.

Two criterion define intelligence for Gardner: (1) skills of problem solving, and (2) skills

for finding or creating problems. The first “[enables] the individual to resolve genuine problems

or difficulties that he encounters and, when appropriate, to create an effective product” while the

second “[lays] the groundwork for the acquisition of new knowledge” (Gardner, 1983, p. 65).

Students’ intelligences are never static, they interact with each other as one or more intelligences

assumes primary function in any given situation, managing learning through the experience.

Every individual possesses all eight intelligences in a highly complex series of combinations and

each intelligence within the individual works with the others in highly complex ways (Quigley,

1994). Students experience different combinations of intelligences in any moment throughout

their lives. Providing numerous opportunities for student engagement in the learning addresses

the needs of individual student, but also the moment-to-moment changing of individual student’s

needs.

The depth and breadth of educational experience is the unifrying factor in Dewey, Piaget

and Gardner. Dewey wrote, “a philosophy of education [is] based on a philosophy of

experience” (1938, p. 29). While educational practice is in conflict, contemporary theories of

6


education remain grounded in Piaget’s theory of cognitive development where children develop

an understanding of the world around them through their interactions. Howard Garnder’s theory

defines eight intelligences through which students interact with information and develop an

understanding of how content relates to one another and functions in the world. The missing

component of the Dewey-Piaget-Gardner paradigm is the amount of time students need to

engage in higher-order educational experiences.

The Experiential Education Model: A Philosophy of Education

The impetus behind my philosophy of education are threefold: a copernician versus

carnegian plan for class structure; utilization of Gardner’s theory of multiple intelligence to

guide curriculum and students’ experiences; and comprehensive longitudinal assessment based

on the demonstration of content mastery. Recent trends of block scheduling, differentiated

education, and backward lesson planning support this philosophy. The concepts are not new but

a modern repurposing of the theories and ideas discussed above.

For success through experiential education the school calendar and schedule must

accommodate with time for student engagement in a wealth of experiences. The standard

schedule, based on Carnegie units, includes six to seven classes which meet daily for forty-five

minutes over 180 days. By Soars (1999) computation, each teacher manages anywhere from 125

to 150 students every day.

The copernican plan provides more time in class for student interaction with content by

whatever means necessary, ensuring comprehension and cross-curricular connectivity. Some

benefits of the copernican plan include: improved knowledge retention, individualized

instruction based on students interests and needs, evaluation, and credits based on mastery of

7


learning content, mastering more material, individualized learning plans, more efficient use of

teacher time and workload, dejuvenializing the high school climate (Carroll, 1989).

A two or four-hour lecture is not the objective of the copernican plan. Rather, it

“establishes conditions that foster using a variety of more personalized and effective

instructional appropaches and stresses the importance of providing adequate support for staff to

develop these approaches” (Carroll, 1989, p. 26). When students have opportunities to interact

with curriculum in a variety of ways they retain more information and create connections

between information learned in multiple courses. Robert Calfee (1981) believes that when

students experience education, those moments are preserved in memory. When experiences

occur close to each other in time or space students make better connections between learning

moments. The copernican plan emphasizes greater quality in educational experiences over the

number of experiences, allowing students to connect content with the world around them.

Under the current school schedules individualized instruction is less successful than

would be under the copernican plan. “Presently, teachers are not in control of the instructional

environment” (Carroll, 1989, p. 30). Carroll (1989) addresses the quantity of homework

assigned by teachers that has little impact on learning; the generalization of homeworks

assignments; student absence from classtime learning for field trips and administrative needs; the

inability for scheduling learning experiences with guest teachers; and an overall limit to

exploring teachable moments as they arise. Current schedules and class sizes reduce the amount

of individual student feedback that teachers can complete on a daily basis. Teachers cope with

the same challenges today, almost 25 years after Carroll’s writing. A new school structure,

8


based on block scheduling with more time for educational experiences could reduce or eliminate

the stressors Carroll identified.

Revived under the new term “block scheduling” researchers like J. Allen Queen (2000)

believe that student success increases with longer block of instruction and that this new approach

to the school day better prepares students for life. At stake are differences between allotted

instruction time and time for engagement. Gandra (2000) defines instructional allotted time as

the time provided for a course (in hours and days as required by law); and engaged time when

students are working on an assigned task.

Providing more time for higher quality learning experiences supports a mastery learning

concept in which students earn course credit upon demonstration of content mastery (Carroll,

1989). The new paradigm levels the field for all students, where heretofore some students might

receive a grade of A based on their mastery of material and others could earn grades of C or D

based on partial mastery but would pass the course at the same level of A students. Donald

MacKenzie recognizes that “more effective schools employ systems of positive accountability,

acceptance of responsibility for learning outcomes, and strategies to avoid nonpromotion of

students” (MacKenzie, 1983, p. 13). Under the copernican plan teachers have more resources to

employ toward student success and students interact with curriculum in ways that both interest

them and meet their intelligence(s).

Infusing the copernican plan with Gardner’s multiple intelligences unlocks the gates to a

higher-quality, higher-order education, based on understanding content and the ability to use

knowledge across the curriculum. Gardner defines understanding as “the capacity to take what

you learn in school and use it in new ways” (Lockwood, 1993, p. 6). Aligned with

9


differentiated education, multiple intelligence and the copernican plan help students make

informed choices about learning activities and explore content in ways that interest and engage

them. Patricia Bolanos, principal of The Key School in inner-city Indianapolis, uses Gardner’s

MI theory schoolwide. “Students are encouraged to make choices here. They are functioning in

a culture where their opinion counts. They choose what types of projects they want to create,

what kinds of activities they want to do in the flow….It’s very necessary for developing a child’s

interpersonal intelligence and understanding of himself, and also being able to build on their

strengths and find ways to cope with their weaknesses in some way” (Lockwood, 1993, p. 8).

Students at The Key School are partners in their education rather than passive recipients.

Key to this philosophy is the engagement of the student and his family in the educational

experience. Ted Sizer, former Dean of the Graduate School of Education at Harvard University

believes that teaching consequential subject matter leads students to think about consequential

subject matter; and when students are focused on consequential subject matter critical and

resourceful thinking emerges (Brandt, 1988) A forty-five minute daily class is not enough time

to explore consequential subject matter. Teachers require time to introduce concepts. Students

require time to assess their prior knowledge about the content before making decisions about

what they want and need to know, the means in which they want to explore the curriculum, and

how they can and will make connections with other course content.

The foundational purpose of education lies in helping children learn to be active and

contributing members of the global community. Checklye (1997) believes that educators aid

children’s discovery of how their minds are different from others, and how they can use their

minds to the best of their ability. The traditional school schedule relegates this kind of thinking

10


to an assessment of the primary learning style of students, mixed into differentiated education to

produce the solitary method used to engage the student. That is not what Gardner intended for

MI: “learning styles are different from multiple intelligences. Multiple intelligences claims that

we respond individually, in different ways to different kinds of content…This is very different

from learning style” (Checkley, 1997, p. 13). Used as intended, MI allows students to apply any

combination of intelligences at any moment to engage with content, working toward the

demonstration of mastery.

Assessment within the Experiential Education Model

Neither multiple intelligences nor the copernican plan support standardized paper-pencil

assessments. The objectives of both MI and the copernican plan focus on the manipulation of

content by the student. Gardner suggests allowing students to demonstrate mastery of content

through a variety of methods (Checkley, 1997). In his presentation at the 1995 International

Conference on Educational Assessment, William Martin (1995) recommended a shift from

standardized assessment instruments to project-based evaluations, impacting more than just the

logical-mathematical and linguistic domains.

Gardner (as cited in Eberstadt, 1999, p. 13) views standardized testing as “spitting back

material" and that teachers must direct students to “construct answers for themselves.” This new

paradigm fits nicely on the top tier of the new Bloom’s fourth domain, innovation, where

students synthesize content in itself and as it relates to other content; imagine connectivity,

develop new connections and new problems; and create some new output from their learning

(Dettmer, 2006).

11


Experiential education requires a demonstration of mastery by two means: standardized

testing a staple in public education; and a longitudinal portfolio following the student through

his or her entire educational career. Testing provides a glance at one moment in the student’s

academic career, whereas the portfolio represents the full movie, showing changes and growth

over time (Ogan-Bekiroglu & Gunay, 2008, p.1). Through the portfolio the student shows

mastery of each subject at each step of the journey, identifies areas of challenge, and connects

ideas across content, and from year to year. The portfolio creates both quantitative and

qualitative assessments for students who struggle in either side of the assessment equation.

Nelson (2000) recognizes the frustration in students who demonstrate growth in the classroom

but fail to show similar improvements on standardized tests. Utilizing both tests and portfolios

provides teachers and administrators a complete picture of student growth unit to unit, year to

year, and throughout the student’s academic career.

Portfolios engage students in work they enjoy (and are more likely to complete) and

which supports higher-order thinking. Borowski, Thompson, and Zaccaria (2001) identify three

characteristics of students who are engaged in their learning: an attraction to their work,

persistence in work despite challenges and obstacles, and joy in the accomplishment of work.

Assessment of the portfolio is a critical component to success in experiencial education.

“Portfolios allow assessment activities and classroom activities to occur throughout the school

day, so teachers are not required to take time away from the instructional program; the teching

and the assessment are done concurrently” (Borowski, Thompson, & Zaccaria, 2001, p. 42).

Through the portfolio, teaching and testing intertwine so that one is indistinguishable from the

other. Roe and Vukelich (1998) refer to “teastech” rather than the standard teach-test model

12


currently employed in schools. Teastech provides continual streams of assessment for teachers,

students and parents, and models methods of self-assessment for students.

Each student’s portfolio contains three categories, each maintained in a separate binder or

similar organizational method. The Elementary portfolio covers grades 1 through 5, middle

includes grades 6 through 8, and high school concludes with grades 9 through 12. Work for

each portfolio is selected by teachers, the student and the student’s family based on the following

creiteria:

Results of summative standardized tests

Results of semester examinations and end of course examinations for each course

Four literacy assignments - one significant literacy assignment from each quarter

Two integrated assignments - one cross-curricular assinment from each semester

One research-based assignment – one long-term integrated assignment for the year

Two technological assignments – two annual assignemnts involving the application of

technology, and

Additional assignments demonstrating the mastery of course content throughout the year.

The flexibility of portfolios allow for completion of assignments based on students’

individual strengths, resources, and interests. Each major portfolio component (“additional

assignemnts” excluded) include a teacher’s assessment, a peer-review by another student, and a

self-reflection by the portolio owner. Grounlund writes, “children find the process of evaluation

rewarding and affirming, and often strive to achieve higher goals because of the clarity of the

evaluation process” (Grounlund, 1998, p. 5). When participating in the assessment process

students are “more critical of their own work than were their peers and/or teachers” (Grounland,

13


1998). Student involvement in assessment creates an empowered student population, striving to

produce higher-order work.

Experiential education changes the paradigm of public education from student as passive

recipient, to daily student engagement in every aspect of their learning. Three elements are

required for realization of this new educational paradigm: (1) adequate classtime for educational

experiences by (2) methods and means engaging students by their individual intelligences,

measured against (3) a longitudinal assesssment model maintained jointly by teachers and

students.

Future Implications for Experiential Education Model

Experiential education provides an equitable education for every student. Each student

demonstrates growth over time (annually or throughout elementary, middle, or high school) and

meets the requirements of school district curriculum and state standardized tests by interacting

with the same curriculum in new ways. Community resources become catalysts for the

completion of learning activities regardless of socio-economic condition, language barriers, or

cultural barriers that may have prevented learning in the old (current) education model.

Increasing community engagement in the education process prepares students for activity

in the real world and increases the amount of resources available for teachers and students that

might not otherwise be affordable. Longer class period increase the potential of community

members participating in education as resident experts or visiting artists. Using extended

classtime, teachers incorporate community experts into interest and issue seminars where

students gain new perspectives on issues and generate solutions in real-world scenarios.

Students solve real-life problems from their own communities, raise significant questions, and

14


brainstorm potential crises alongside community members. Apprenticeship, in which a young

person learns directly from a very knowledgable adult (Brandt, 1993) formulates learning

experiences that are appropriate for the student in which he or she gains a depth of understanding

that is missed from textbook-only learning.

Experiential education requires the use of technology by students every day in every

class. The rise of distance learning expands the classroom from ninety-minutes to 24/7 learning

opportunities. Media presents information in a multitude of methods and touches on a variety of

intelligences simultaneously (Weiss, 2000). Learning experiences beginning in the classroom

and continue uninterrupted from home or any off-school site. Students access a world of

information, diagnose problems, and prescribe solutions for issues impacting their neighborhood

or children hundreds of miles away. Opportunities arise for shared learning with students in

other locations.

As experiential education develops, so too must means of assessment. No longer will

paper-pencil, multiple-choice tests adequately evaluate student learning. Curricular assessment

must match the kinds of activities in which students are engaged (Quigley, 1994). Assessments

may include: professional writing – the gathering and sysnthesis of information into a published

format; composition – creating an original musical score for band, orchestra or vocal ensembles;

coaching – teaching the basics of a sport and managing a club or competitive team; technological

and visual – creation of marketing campaigns, including websites for local business or

organizations.

Demonstration of knowledge on written exams will not dissappear, rather mastery is

proven through a cumulative portfolio that includes standardized test scores. This comination of

15


test and portfolio score determins advancement from fifth grade and eight grade. Graduation

from high school requires a submission and defense of the high school portfolio in which the

student is asked to discuss his or her learning in realtion to the world around them.

Student production of portfoloio items is achievable considering the amount of time

allotted for curriculum exploration, cross-curricular activites reducing the amount of work in

place of quality of work, and self and peer assessment raising the quality of work because it is

tied to students’ interests. Collaboratively teachers and students decide how to manipulate

curriculum to meet needs within the portfolio which includes federal and state testing

requirements. Education becomes a higher-order adventure in which students want to

participate.

Conclusion

Grounded in theories of Piaget, Dewey, Gardner, and the copernican plan, experiential

education provides opportunites for student interaction with curricular concepts in personally

relevant ways. Students design their own educational experience through queerie, study,

research, and evaluation processes, using school and community resources. Faculty members

support students with integrated instructional designs and encourage students in cross-curricular

activities via teacher-prescribed and student-driven proposals.

Students demonstrate curriculum mastery through state-mandated and end of course

exams which are combined with portolio submissions and defenses for final grades and

advancement from grade level. Opportunities for higher-order thinking emerge when students

apply knowledge across content and to the world around them. Student learning no longer

suffers due to limited funding because teachers engage the community as learning resources.

16


Experiential education ensures that every student learns by methods that best suit his or

her needs and interests. The one-size-fits-all ideology is no longer effective in our global

community. Changes like a restructuring delivery methods, active participation of students,

teachers, and family members; and school engagement with the surrounding community create a

better prepared and more educated global workforce ready to face the challenges that lie ahead.

17


References

Borowski, M., Thompson, C., & Zaccaria, K. (2001, May 00). Portfolios: Authentic assessment.

Master of arts action research project . Chicago, IL: Saint Xavier University and SkyLight

Professional Development.

Brandt, R. (1988). On changing secondary schools: A conversation with Ted Sizer. Educational

Leadership , 30-36.

Brandt, R. (1993). On teaching for understanding: A conversation with Howard Gardner.

Educational Leadership , 4-7.

Calfee, R. (1981). Cognitive psychology and educational practice. Washington D.C.: Review of

Research in Education.

Carroll, J. (1989). The copernican plan: Restructuring the American high school. Andover, MA:

The Regional Laboratory for Educational Improvement of the Northeast and Islands.

Checklye, K. (1997). The first seven... Educational Leadership , 8-13.

Dettmer, P. (2006). New Blooms in established fields: "Four domains of learning and doing".

Roeper Review , 70-78.

Dewey, J. (1938). Experience and Education. New York, NY: Touchstone.

18


Eberstadt, M. (1999). The schools they deserve: Howard Gardner and the remaking of elite

education. Policy Review , 3-17.

Gandra, p. (2000). The dimensions of time and the challenge of school reform. Albany, NY:

State University of New York Press.

Gardner, H. (1983). Frames of mind: The theory of multiple intelligences. New York, NY: Basic

Books.

Grounlund, G. (1998). Portfolios as an assessment tool: Is collection of work enough? Young

Children , 4-10.

Henshon, S. E. (2006). The evolution of creativity, giftedness, and multiple intelligences: An

interview with Ellen Winner and Howard Gardner. Roeper Review , 191-194.

Lockwood, A. (1993). Mltiple intelligences theory in action. Research and the Classroom , 2-14.

MacKenzie, D. (1983). Research for school improvement: An appraisal of some recent trends.

Educational Research , 12-15.

Martin, W. (1995). Assessing multiple intelligences. The International conference on

educational assessment, (pp. 1-13). Ponce, PR.

Nelson, K. (2000). Measuring the intangibles. Classroom Leadership , 1-3.

Ogan-Bekiroglu, F., & Gunay, A. (2008). Physics student's perceptions on their journey through

portfolio assessment. Proceeding of CASE - Conference of Asian science education (pp. 1-7).

Kaohsiung, Taiwan: Conference of Asian Science Education.

Ormrod, J. E. (2006). Essentials of educational psychology. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson

Education, Inc.

19


Queen, J. (2000). Block scheduling revisited. Retrieved April 8, 2012, from DeMest Jesuit:

http://www.desmetjesuit.org/resource/resmgr/faculty_resources/block_scheduling_revisited_a.pd

f

Quigley, K. (1994). Multiple intelligences in the schools. Orangeburg, NY: Dominical College.

Roe, M., & Vukelich, C. (1998). Literacy portfolios: Challenges that affect change. Childhood

Education , 27-32.

Scherer, M. (1999). The understanding pathway: A conversation with Howard Gardner.

Educational Leadership , 12-16.

Shearer, C., & Jones, J. (1994). The validation of the Hillside Assessment of Perceived

Intelligences (HAPI): A measure of Howard Gardner's multiple intelligences. Annual meeting of

the American education research association (pp. 2-20). New Orleans, LA: National Institute on

disability and Rehabilitation.

Shirley, L. (1996). Pocket guide to multiple intelligences. Clemson, CS: National Dropout

Prevention Center.

Soares, L. (1999). Structure, content, and process in teacher training: The relevance of

Copernicus, Gardner, and Dewey. Clearing House.

Spring, J. (2008). American Education, thirteenth edition. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.

Vardin, P. (2003). Montessory and Gardner's theory of multiple intelligences. Montessori LIFE ,

40-42.

Weiss, R. (2000). Howard Gardner talks about technology. Training & Development , 52-56.

20

http://www.desmetjesuit.org/resource/resmgr/faculty_resources/block_scheduling_revisited_a.pdf

http://www.desmetjesuit.org/resource/resmgr/faculty_resources/block_scheduling_revisited_a.pdf

Documents

MajorAssessment3CCornwell