Philosophical Foundations of Teaching and Learning

As an introduction, I would like to specify that I have chosen to explore the article titled Pedagogy of hope: global learning and the future of education, because of the promise held in the notion of “hope” that is introduced and because this article is topical and narrates a very contemporary story that has been spurred on by such dramatic events as the climate emergency, the Black Lives Matter movement and, of course, the COVID-19 pandemic that was experienced the world over and that left nobody indifferent and/or untouched. As a complement to this article, I made it a point to view the video How should schools reboot the future? (mentioned in the article) that brings together the thoughts and ideas of a good number of professionals in the field of education. In less than four minutes this video summarizes many of the issues discussed in the Douglas Bourn article: in our current, dramatic present-day what is the purpose education? how can education infuse hope for the future? how do we empower students to believe in and act upon the need for a sustainable future? how do we allow ourselves to believe that positive change is possible? 

The Reboot the Future video begins with Pavel Luksha of Global Education Futures optimistically stating that educationalists “right now are in a very interesting moment, a bifurcation moment, a triggering situation that we have been waiting for for a long time.” And the video ends with other optimistic words from Rachel Musson of Thoughtbox Education who advocates for changes in education to boldly stem from the inside, not leaving change up to policy makers. Being somewhat fatalistic by nature, I have to say these optimistic stances initially left me doubtful, but both the article and the video score points with their pragmatic, down-to-earth proposals for an education that is fit for today’s 21st-century students facing 21st-century challenges.

In reading the Bourn article and viewing the video, we become permeated by a sense of (possible) hope and the confidence that change can occur. The question that I ask is how? In Pedagogy of hope, we can identify several ideas on how hope must be imagined, developed, and articulated for it to become actionable. The first notion that resonated with me is when Giroux (2002) as cited by Bourn, argues that with no real alternative to neoliberalism and free market capitalism, we/society must fight back with what he calls “a radical vision of hope, not in some ideal form, but grounded in concrete experience and social reality.” This is what Giroux calls “educated hope” and he further states that it “can engage the imagination, and includes a recognition of the importance of civic engagement.” I totally adhere to Giroux’s stance, as he promotes a hands-on, pragmatic approach to the pedagogy of hope without lapsing into esoteric or unrealistically optimistic discourses. His idea of “educated hope” pushes for having agency and being motivated.

Similarly, we learn that in recent works, Dave Hicks, a pioneer of global education in the UK, has come up with a praxis for the sound discussion/elaboration of hope in the classroom. Referred to in this article as “practical hope,” Hicks’ 4-point approach relating to climate change takes into consideration a young student’s possible uneasiness and concerns about revealing her/his opinions on important societal issues. This approach includes sharing or allowing students to openly express themselves without feeling uneasy or criticized; listening thus enabling students to feel that their opinion is heeded and important; understanding or gaining full knowledge on the societal issue in question, its implications, etc.; and acting or becoming aware of how one can meaningfully contribute to a cause that one holds dear.

And then, there is Paulo Freire’s very convincing plea that clearly speaks to me, the fatalist and wannabe education activist. He states “We succumb to fatalism, and then it becomes impossible to muster the strength we absolutely need for a fierce struggle that will re-create the world. I am hopeful, not out of mere stubbornness, but out of an existential concrete imperative.” In reading this citation, I feel humbled. Freire’s words have the effect of an earthquake and I am forced to come to grips with the plain truth: social change will not come about if we don’t put hope/faith/optimism at the forefront of our objectives, actions and aspirations. My sudden realization is that my role is not teaching a student to properly communicate. My role is teaching a student to properly communicate in order to engage in conversations that will promote positive change for the good of the individual, the community, and so forth. 

Clearly, this article has opened a window onto other realities that I was not in tune with. The notions of innovation in education, creativity, teaching, and learning discussed or alluded to here are underpinned by an imperative that I had never considered, I am ashamed to say: the survival of our planet for future generations. This is the real challenge. I fear, therefore, that my definitions of these terms lack the urgency of the call to action that I felt while reading Pedagogy of hope and viewing the Reboot the Future video. Hope here adds gravitas. Hope is not to be envisaged as a word rooted in pop psychology or some form of esoterism, but it is at the heart of man’s survival on planet A, because, as young climate activists like Greta Thunberg have insistently reminded us, there is no planet B. 

I have discovered that any definition relating to education is sterile and vacuous if it does not address and weave into it the notion of hope and moving forward: hope for the future, for sustainability, for progress, for peace, for equity and justice, and so forth. The definitions I worked on sound generic in comparison and they lack the solemnity and the sheer importance that the term hope carries with it. It makes good sense then that “all educationalists have to bring hope into their teaching, because the essence of learning is about moving forwards – how it can enrich both the individual and society in general (Smith, 2020 as cited in Bourn). 

And yet, I have found some common ground between my definitions and what is announced in the Bourn article:

Innovation: I write → “As in society, innovation in education is also of highest importance, as ‘forward-thinking’ schools nurture, motivate, and engender the global citizens of tomorrow. Without innovation in schools how are we to expect our youngsters to be prepared to face the challenges of this fast-paced 21st century?” Indeed, one can say that forward-thinking schools are those that build their practices on hope, thus promulgating that the quality of life can be improved. In a future definition, I would explicitly mention the need for hope as the underlying force that enables this forward movement.

Creativity: It would have been advisable to add to my definition that creativity would genuinely serve a purpose for an individual, a society, an industry if grounded in what Orr (2009) as cited in Bourn, calls “realistic hope.”

Teaching: I write → “Teacher as Facilitator: to guide students as would a sherpas during an expedition. A facilitator is not only a font of knowledge but she/he also helps students pursue their personal goals by showing them how to navigate through obstacles and information.” To me this definition comes very close to Hicks’ 4-point approach to teaching by sharing, listening, understanding, and acting, as mentioned above.

Learning: I write → “… Dr. Ambrose’s [definition of learning that I adhere to is]: “Learning is a process that leads to change, which occurs as a result of experience and increases the potential for improved performance and future learning.” The mention of improved performance and future learning, to me clearly alludes to a sense of optimism that can lead to positive change. 

In closing, I would like to cite Bourn who insightfully states “to ensure this sense of optimism, and that change is possible, development education and global learning practice needs to give more emphasis to considering the importance of hope within its practices […]. As Freire (2004: 9) himself said, there is a ‘need for a kind of education in hope.’” This has not fallen on deaf ears. In the same way that I am now convinced that we must be trained in creativity, I also believe that hope needs to be worked on and cultivated.

My question to the author: We are currently living in troubled times with wars, uncertainties, the upsurge of racism, antisemitism, and crass intolerance of anything and anybody, etc. and we are looking to a pedagogy of hope to help us imagine and shape the future. How is this different to the challenges in society experienced before the first and second World Wars? Was education envisaged then as a font of hope for a better future? Do you believe there was the same urgency to build hope through education?

As an addendum, here are a few of my favorite citations gleaned from the Reboot the future video titled How should schools reboot the future? Food for thought. 

“In the last month and a half, we’ve fed about one million kids in India because that is the first thing that they’ll ask for, before bringing or even talking about values or cutting-edge math techniques, but just the bare, basic necessities.” 

-Amitabh Shah, YUVA Unstoppable.

“Our systems are based on a model [constructed] for earning money and we need to shift that economic system to one that is based on the well-being of humanity. Once the system begins shifting, then schools will follow suit.”

-Neil Hawkes, Values-based education

“If we co-design the evolutions of schools, learning, universities, and life-long learning with the students themselves, we are much more likely to have meaningful changes. If we change in a top-down centralised way, the likelihood that we are off the mark, is super high.”

- François Taddei, Center for Interdisciplinary Research

REFERENCES

Bourn, D. (2021). Pedagogy of hope: global learning and the future of education. International Journal of Development Education and Global Learning, 13(2), 65–78. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.14324/IJDEGL.13.2.01

Reboot the future. (2020, August 24). How should schools reboot the future? YouTube. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c8yg18OrYek 

***

Before discussing the chanicka et al. article titled An inclusive design vision for Canada, I would like to share two points that as an outsider to the world of education I take to heart. 

First, why are scholarly articles at times so difficult to decipher? The question that comes to mind is: who are they writing for? Do scholars merely want to impress other scholars? One thing is clear, they are not writing for me. I will be transparent: at times, if authors did not include concrete examples to illustrate their findings, I would not grasp very much. As a mature student who still wishes to learn and grow, my plea to academia is: please start writing for those, like me, who will still be impressed with your knowledge and viewpoints even if you write in a plainer, simpler, clearer, and non convoluted way.   

My second peeve is this: can we not stop complicating life with the numerous types of learning? I am referring to terms such as problem-based learning, project-based learning, research-based learning, social justice-based inquiry, place-based learning, blended learning, and on it goes. Now, these terms may be clear to those students who are also teachers and have experimented with these practices, but again, for me, these are nothing more than generic terms that all sound the same. As far as I am concerned, the use of the terms authentic or experiential learning would suffice and then, we would add the angle, framework, spectrum, or perspective that will be used to launch the learning experience. Does the angle we wish to use involve a research question, an inquiry, a problem? Or will it be authentic learning focusing on social justice? I realize many of you may find my comment banal, but I am simply revealing my difficulty in understanding the concepts behind these coined expressions.

And now, a few comments on the article. 

I will begin with what struck me the most and made me smile in appreciation. The authors note “Anchored in the indigenous understanding that “we do not inherit the world from our ancestors, we borrow it from our children…’” Now, this is a very novel and meaningful thought and, in my books, it deserves to be considered an innovative concept. Mainstream thinking or perspectives would probably focus on the fact that something is considered a “possession” because it has been metaphorically or materially “inherited.” We need to change our point of view and our value system to see things under a different light. Is it appropriate for adults to believe that the world belongs to them, the young and the mighty? After all, our children are also living on this planet… and so are our elders, which means we are all sharing this very delicate world. As I see it, this indigenous concept could be the object of an entire learning journey where students would research and discover how, through the ages, man has tended to appropriate things, knowledge, nature, and even people to his advantage. I’m thinking here of slavery that I believe still exists today.

What I will say about this article is that it is chock full of insight into innovation, creativity, teaching, and learning, but grosso modo, the examples that it describes are innovative but not new. To repeat myself, the question of innovation and creativity in the classroom depends largely on the context in which they are occurring. Here in the rural areas of the Province of Treviso, Italy, the co-creation of knowledge between teachers and students is likely to be considered science-fiction. While in more important cosmopolitan cities like Milan, Rome, Turin, or Bologna such practices may be more commonplace.

I personally view the co-construction of knowledge as a very effective practice, because it has students fully engaged in the decision-making processes that regard all aspects of life in the classroom. As I see it, there is nothing like including a student in the decisions and choices that regard their learning and their environment to make them feel fully invested in the process and outcome. Furthermore, feeling that they have a vested interest in how things are handled can only augment their sense of agency, their self-worth, their determination, etc. 

The other very significant point is that, as the authors note, by critically engaging the student, “the teacher does not have to know all the answers” and I have to say that I find this idea extremely refreshing within a classroom setting. As a PR professional, I would very often and very openly admit that I did not have an answer to a particular question, but that, as a facilitator, I would do all that I could to scout out the answer and quickly “deliver” it, so to speak. No human being knows all the answers, so why do we perpetuate the figure of the teacher as font of all knowledge? It is totally unrealistic and it turns the teacher into an intimidating figure. So, it makes perfect sense that “challenging the structures of the traditional classroom as well as the curriculum is important because in doing so, the hierarchy of power typically present in the classroom is transformed.” This to me is highly revolutionary, although I know it not to be new. 

I also appreciate the fact that in such a situation, teachers – as co-learners and co-creators – are called to impart critical thinking skills in their young students. Because, to be clear and as Judy Wearing explains, when a student is asked to evaluate a process or make an illuminated choice say on the curriculum, she/he is exercising critical thinking. The co-construction of knowledge in a classroom also enables teachers/ facilitators and students to stray from the traditional systems of the status quo and build, together, a different sort of relationship and dialogue based on respect, openness, and mutual understanding. I find it uplifting to see how a change in classroom structure can change the hierarchical dynamics. 

Another example that spoke to me has to do with how grade 8 students at Aldergrove Public Schools used the Six Elements of Social Justice Education (SJE) framework to guide their exploration of stories and legends from world literature that contain overt injustices and prejudices. Framed by the principles of Respect for Others, Self-Love and Knowledge, Issues of Social Injustice, Social Movements and Social Change, Social Action and Awareness Raising, the SJE framework enabled the students to understand the mechanisms underpinning these injustices and biases and examine their own value systems with an aim to develop and let ripen their own opinion and voice. In my view, other key learnings that could have emerged from this example are 1) students discover that injustices in storytelling, historical accounts and legends may reflect traditions and cultures from other epochs 2) cancel culture should not be promoted to do away with stories/elements of the past that have existed and been brought down for generations. Sensitive matters need to be appropriately explained and contextualized, but we cannot cancel what has existed 3) as in past eras, we are currently writing/developing 21st-century legends and histories of our own that will also hold biases and distortions that may one day come as a shock or surprise to future generations. Again, contextualizing is the way to go. 

Essentially, I would say that adopting a non-traditional approach to teaching and learning that invites students to take part in the decisional processes that affect the classroom are always optimal choices that will help hone a student’s capacity to think creatively, critically, and independently and feel they are part and parcel of what goes on in the school, in the community, in the world. More than ever, I believe this could not be truer. Kids today need to be prepared to hit the ground running. “The world into which children will graduate is not one that requires the rote memorization of facts or information. It requires the development of their global competencies. […] [B]y the time they graduate, they will need to solve problems and work in jobs that have not yet been created” (chanicka et al.).

Although this reading was not particularly mind-blowing, it was interesting to read some of the examples outlining how innovation, creativity, teaching, and learning can unfold in a classroom, be intertwined and reap benefits for the students and teachers alike. 

All in all, I feel my definitions of these terms align with what we have seen here.

My question to the author: I am particularly interested in the concept of cancel culture as related to the exploration of stories and legends from world literature that contain overt injustices and prejudices. What is your position on this? Do we promote cancel culture or do we teach and enlighten students to grasp inequalities of the past as part of a long-time tradition akin to folklore?

REFERENCES

chanicka, jeewan, Mahari de Silva, R., & Merkley, K. (2018). An inclusive design vision for Canada - schooling as a process for participatory democracy and responsible citizenship. Intercultural Education (London, England), 29(5–6), 632–646. https://doi.org/10.1080/14675986.2018.1508620

Wearing, (n.d.). Teaching Strategies for Critical Thinking Learning Activities. Faculty of Education, Queen’s University.