My approach to teaching is multi-faceted, in my opinion though it may not seem so to others. I like the idea of breaking students away from traditional thought patterns. I would also have a great opportunity to get students thinking outside of the box about World War II issues as well as other controversies about the German speaking countries, such as Switzerland's role in WWII and who really started WWI. In those conversations I may not know the outcome of the conversation but I would want to encourage them to think outside the traditional text book answers. I also see teaching a foreign language as a construction, students do need to learn a new language but at the same time students need to use what they know to construct sentences. Both Biesta and Fenstermacher touch on these ideas and support opposite sides of this plus I have a plethora of other sources as mentioned in my philosophy of education paper. I do not believe a classroom needs to be quiet in order to be considered well-managed which Garrett supports in his article entitled Misconceptions and Goals of Classroom Management. 

Outside sources

Biesta and Fenstermacher both had opposing viewpoints in many respects. Fenstermacher was simple in his explanations about various teaching styles and Biesta was critical of what teaching has become. The outside source that were read during this semester still were not nearly as helpful as the book sources. I read the online article but had a harder time concentrating during them. Some of them like the constructivism in math was more difficult to read and I kept zoning out during it. The article on critical race theory was interesting but was not as beneficial as the video that we watched with it. The articles also did not make me think as much as Biesta and Fenstermacher did. Part of the problem I think is that it is easier to focus on reading when an actual book is in my hands as opposed to reading on a glowing screen. Either way I did not find the online articles as beneficial although I did enjoy getting them for assignments instead of Biesta who gave me a headache, but at least I was still more mentally involved usually criticizing Biesta on his antiquated negatative viewpoints, my philosophy of education was greatly influenced by Biesta as a negative reaction to his views and opinions. 

A Biest-of-a Book

Biesta, is a difficult to read philosopher. My opinion of him is that he is pessimistic, traditional with conservative tendencies, very set in his ways and bias. Then again, I like to think critically about what I read and poke holes in other people’s philosophies and ideas. Granted, I don’t have the same set of experiences or pieces of paper with my name awarding me degrees as he does but I do think that he needs to open up his mind a little bit. I feel like Biesta contradicted himself when he said in his chapter on communication that communication and learning involved actively participating as a part of communicating. Then the very next chapter he gives his very bias opinion on the constructivist method and how he thinks it is ruining education when what constructivists are trying to promote is participating in communication with group and discussions in order to learn. That being said, I agree with some points that he makes. His views on objectivity and subjectivity, once one understand what he is trying to bring across, make good points. In some classrooms, students are treated more like objects than people. Objects cannot learn, subjects can however think for themselves and are better equipped to present their ideas, defend their logic and learn. Once again though I go back to Biesta’s chapter on teaching. He not only rebuffed the constructivist approach to teaching he also put forth a good word for the traditional way of teaching saying something about how it is good for teachers to actually teach, but to just stand at the front of the class and teach in a traditional method, the students then become objects and lack the subjectivity that he argued for in his first chapter. There also doesn’t seem to be a medium or balance in Biesta’s views, it is either one way or the other. This book made me really think about what I wanted as a teacher, how I want to teach, many of my views were reinforced by Biesta putting them down so much but that partly has to do with the fact that he doesn’t account for different subject areas. Different areas of academics may respond to one teaching style better than another. Still, the book really inspired me to think about subjectivity and how I can bring that into my classroom without turning my students into objects or worse, dogs who just obey blindly without questioning anything. I think that although I might feel bad if my students were to question me, in the end of it I would be glad to see them questioning me because it means they are learning to think for themselves and not just rely on what I say because I am the teacher.  

Two sides to the Story

Education, in my opinion is always going to follow with risk. There are so many aspects involve in an academic environment especially schools, that one can never tell what exactly children are going to pick up. I think educations is beautiful because it opens the mind to information in the world that one might not necessarily have learned or thought to learn otherwise. Education can help a person, in a way, escape the world they live in and see beyond what is in front of their eyes. Education done right will teach students how to think for themselves and discover the world around them. The risk comes in with the ‘education done right’ part. How does one tell is education was done right? What is right? What will children pick up outside of what teachers are trying to get across? If we teach them to think, find information and argue, what will they use those skills for? There are good people and people who aren’t so good in this world and part of the risk with education, is educating someone who will use that knowledge they have learned for ‘bad’ reasons, for lack of a better word. There are two sides to every story, don’t judge a book by its’ cover, you can read many things between the lines, are all sayings that show how controversial any given being or object can be. Why then should education be any different. It is a beautiful thing to receive an education but some of the outcomes of education are risky. 

Freeing the Mind

Liberationist teachers in my opinion, are trying to get students to think outside of themselves. Learning about the world, how it affects them and how they can have an effect on the world are important ideals in a liberationist classroom. In the text by Fenstermacher, liberationists have a goal to “free the mind,” which in my opinion is a noble goal. A liberationist teacher would combine topics from multiple subjects in one lesson.

The problem that I think exists though, is that when only one teacher out of 6 or 7 each year is trying to ‘free the minds’ of their students, children will still be programmed to think in the traditional way. If the liberationist style of teaching were to be truly effective in long term goals, students would have to belong to a school where all teachers utilized this method in some form or another. Mixed methods are always better in my opinion. One specific teaching style to the extreme will either cause problems or get boring.

Facilitators

In my opinion the facilitator approach of teaching can have many benefits. Instead of having rows of desks a classroom might have the desks in clusters or even use tables. I see a facilitator teacher as one who would encourage the students to talk and discuss various topics. The classroom would be centered around the students rather than the teacher and I think manipulatives would be involved in many lessons. Teachers would could to know the background of their students, ethnicity, culture, likes dislikes, etc and would then relate the material to the students and how it benefits them.

The hard part about doing this, is that if a teacher has 30 plus students per class and even up in the hundreds per day, the time it would take to personally get to know every students background would be enormous. Other problems might come in the form of actual teaching or teaching by topic. There are some instances where a straight forward executive approach may benefit the students more than the facilitating approach such as in mathematics.

Execution

My opinion on the Executive style of teaching is that if it is used in full, the style can be an execution of a learning environment. Teaching executive is good when used to start and end class on time as well as in regards to preparation. I feel however that when education is dictated, in other words, when teachers are told what to say reactions to wait for before moving on, forced to move at certain intervals, than the fun is taken out of learning.

While in high school I saw the executive approach mostly in math. We had so much each day we had to accomplish and if you didn't get the concept tough luck on you, the class would be moving on to the next section the next day. The executive approach does bring order to a class which can be a benefit of the this particular style of teaching.

In teaching a foreign language I do like to use various methodologies to get the information across and methodologies is a large portion of the executive approach. I like using a variety of methodologies and experimenting with existing ones to find ways they can be improved on.