1. Concepts as the Basis of Teaching

1.1. EPISTEMOLOGICAL PROBLEMS

There is a part of philosophy called epistemology, which explores the nature of human knowledge - it's origin, possibilities and quality (Hautamäki 1988, 159).

According to the classical definition of knowledge it is a belief, which is true, actionable and justified. There are different theories, which try to define, what can be considered as a true belief, what kind could be the quality on human knowledge. For example:
1) Correspondence theory: truth has to have correspondence with the facts of outer world.
2) Pragmatistic theory: truth is anything, which functions in practice.
3) Consensus theory: a belief is true, if most people for example in a scientific community agree it
(Rasinkangas 2003, web / Wikipedia 2003/2, web)

There are three approaches concerning the origin of human knowledge
1) Rationalism: we gain our knowledge with the help of our logical thinking - so the origin of knowledge isn't dependent on our perceiving about the "outer world" (f.ex Descartes)
2) Empirism: all knowledge has it's basis in sensory perceiving and experiences in the world (f.ex. Locke)
3) Immanuel Kant has developed a synthesis between these two approaches: according to him there is needed both, logic and experience for gaining knowledge

There are two main views about the possibility of human knowledge
1) it´s possible to have realistic knowledge about the world because the objects of knowledge have no dependency on the perceiver (realistic approach) and
2) we can't have (objective) knowledge, because our thinking and perceiving has very strong depedency on our inner concepts and point-of-views (for example cultural manners) (Fallabilistic / constructivist approach).
(Rasinkangas 2003, web / Wikipedia 2003/1, web)

If we accept Kant's synthesis, our perceptions have strong role in our knowing. Tapio Puolimatka writes about some kind of synthesis between realistic and constructivists views: if it would be so, that only cultural aspects would affect our perception, how is it possible that people from different cultures or ages can have same kind of experiences of the same objects (for example a hard stone or a soft pillow)? (Of course they would still interpret the objects differently). So there have to be two different levels of perception: basic level and cultural level (Puolimatka 2002, 99-101)

I think there are quite good evidence that our previous knowledge and attitudes affect our perception and learning, so it isn't possible for me to accept realistic view. On the other hand, if we think according the second claim (constructivism), we must admit that we have to have some kind of "objective" knowledge about the outer world, because we can act succesfully in it (Puolimatka 2002, 99-100). (In this essay I am NOT going to speculate if there is any outer world or not - I simply assume it exists). If we would only believe, that flowers need water and light to grow but actually they would need for example acid instead of water, we would see our believe isn't correct because all our flowers would die in spite of loving care. But now we can succeed in growing flowers in the outer world, so we have quite a good evidence about our knowledge. Of course it can be so that flowers would grow yet better with water and acid, so our knowledge can be insufficient, but at least it is heading on the right way.

Realistic approach is considered as old-fashioned and connected with behaviorism and mechanistic human being while constructivistic view is bright and new (for example seminar handout Theory grounds…). They can be understood also as a modern and a postmodern way of thinking. According to Efland et al the main principle of modernids is to seek the universal truth while postmodern thinking is interested in plurality (Efland et al 1998, 17) Antero Toskala, Professor of Psychology in the University of Jyväskylä writes about critical constructivism, which is quite good compromize between realistic and constructivistic approaches. It doesn't deny the possibility of objective knowledge, but it reminds how personal and contextual our knowledge is (Toskala 2003, web). It is quite interesting, that Puolimatka has strong emphasis on realistic view while Toskala stands up for constructivism - to me their thoughts appear very similar.

Myself I think, that cultural relativity (extreme constructivism) is very dangerous way of thinking, because if we can't have any common agreement about truth and knowledge we can't also have common ethics and human rights. As dangerous would be very realistic concept of knowledge, if we would think that there would be one and only truth, which is similar to everyone. So I agree with compromizing views in the question of human knowledge: it is based on both logic and perceiving and depends on the outer world and the experiences of the subject.

1. 2. CONCEPTS OF HUMAN BEING

The basic nature of human race can be considered along the next dimensions:

Good ---------------------------------------Bad
Autonomic --------------------------------- Deterministic(no freedom, does only what s/he is
(has freedom of choice and ability “programmed” for. Doesn’t have any power over own life)
to assess the decisions made. Can affect
one’s own life) (Shotter 1977, 125)
Self-directed(intrinsic motivation) ------------Directed from outside(outside rewards needed)
Active -------------------------------------- Passive
Indivisible whole -----------------------------feelings are not considered very important.
Body + intelligence+feelings etc.
Part of society -------------------------------Independent individual

I think the main difference between the sides of the table is the level of optimism. If teachers believe people are bad and passive they can’t appreciate their students very much. It’s also very elitistic point of view (because I don’t really believe they think themselves to be lazy and bad). For example schooling in middle age (and still 50 years ago…) was very strict and high disciplined because this kind of thinking. We also have our lutherian concept of work (learning) as something, which has to be hard and stressing. On the left side of the table we can find some thoughts, which are near to humanistic and cognitive concepts of human being. Thoughts on the right side refer to mechanistic (behaviouristic) view of human. (Salo 1997, 180-181.)

My own view of human being lies undoubtedly on the left side of the table. I think that people have ability to choose their actions and take responsibility of them. I’m more interested in the inner actions of human being than the outer reactions, because the deepest learning happens when the learner really processes the content. I think that we are in some sense products of our culture, but at the same time we can assess our culture and direct ourselves to the way we consider suitable for ourselves. I also see humans as multidimensional beings – all the different aspects of humanity affect for example cognitive processes.

1.3. LEARNING – AN INNER OR OUTER PROCESS?

The main learning concepts can be roughly divided in two parts: behaviouristic and cognitive approaches on the basis of the interest orientation (to outer or inner processes). Behaviouristic approach is based on the mechanistic view of human being: it relies on outside rewards and punishments and considers the human being quite lazy and bad in her/his basic nature. The learning process is not considered interesting: most important is the learning product. So, the interest is in the outer processes of learning – for example what kind of tasks and rewards should be given and how to measure the results (Salo-Gunst & Vilkko-Riihelä 1992, 22-29.)

Constructivistic learning theory is based on cognitive psychology, which explores the problems of human thinking, problem-solving, learning etc. (Hautamäki 1988, 11 / Puolimatka 2002, 85). A learner is considered active, self-directed actor, who can master her/his learning processes. Cognitive theory has been criticized about it’s concentration on the brain – it forgets the human as a whole being. (Salo-Gunst & Vilkko-Riihelä 1992, 28.) Constructivistic theory is interested in the inner conditions of learning: motivation, learning strategies etc. Learning is understood as a construction process: a learner must build her/his own knowledge out of the information s/he gets in order to understand it deeply (Puolimatka 2002, 33). Constructivistic theory takes account also the earlier experiences and the emotions of the learner. It has different sub-approaches, for example experiental paradigm, which suggests that the learning process should be arranged on the basis of the student’s experiences. Co-operational paradigm highlights the social nature of human knowledge and the group as a knowledge builder.

I’m myself interested in experiental and co-operational paradigms, because I think that most important is to take account the different dimensions on human being as a psychological, physical and social entity (Salo 1997, 16). I also think that learning is fun – although we all have mostly unpleasant experiences from school. I would like to find a way to change this boredom to excitement in my own teaching. Of course learning is hard work – I don’t still want to change it to empty entertainment, but if it can be fun and efficient at the same time, why not try?

2. Two Visual Art Curricula

I refer here to two basis of curricula, because they concern programs I’m teaching at the time. The first is the curriculum of basic visual art education mainly for children and young aged 3-18 (Opetushallitus 2002) and another concerns Vocational Qualification in Audiovisual Communication (Opetushallitus 2001). The two programs have quite different functions: first is a hobby and another provides an occupation. They still have much in common- goals like broadening the students’ understanding about visual culture, increasing their self-esteem and building a ground for further studies (Opetushallitus 2002, 5 / Opetushallitus 2001, 9, 12).

The concepts of learning, human being and knowledge, which build the basis of curricula are explicitly expressed. Both documents see human being in very positive way: s/he is considered to be ethical, active individual, who has freedom of choice (Opetushallitus 2002, 5). Every person is respected as a unique individual, who aims towards good and wants to develop her/himself (Opetushallitus 2001, 93-94). Individuality is highlighted in the texts, but not without the aspect of co-operation. As a summary: human being is considered to be good, active, forward-aiming and co-operative individual.

Knowledge is understood to be built out of two kind of elements: theory and experience. Tacit knowledge and emotions are also noticed. Knowledge is changing all the time, so the metacognitive skills are considered important. (Opetushallitus 2001, 94.) The curricula don’t tell explicitly anything about the nature of knowledge – is it only a construction or information about the “real” world (compared to the chapter 1.1) but to me it seems they support the critical constructivism approach: Knowledge is understood as a personal experience but it’s origin and the place for using it is in the outer world.
Concept of learning is constructivistic in both curricula. The curriculum of basic visual art education highlights experiental learning as a most important method: students have to understand the spiral of conceptual thinking and making art. Students’ motivation and activity are important (Opetushallitus 2002, 7). The vocational curriculum is also explicitly constructivist, but doesn’t stress experiental learning as much. Co-operational learning method is mentioned (Opetushallitus 2001, 94-95). So based on these two curricula it can be said that in art education constructivistic approach, especially experiental and co-operative methods, are strong. It has also humanistic view of human being and critically conctructivist view of knowledge.

I like the curricula quite much and it’s easy to work along them, because I believe in the same issues. Of course the fine words can sound very naïve and unrealistic but I think it’s never possible to reach good goals if you don’t first set them. If the teachers really act on the basis of these curricula, there should never again be heard a teacher denying a student to paint skies green and meadows blue – and that is something I’m very happy for.

3. Approaches in Practical Work

It is quite easy to see how the different paradigms have affected the reality of education: thinking human being as lazy and non-autonomous caused schools to be very high disciplined. Teacher’s authority was strong: s/he was almost next to God. On the other hand humanistic educational approach (f.ex. Rousseau) caused the childcare to be very (maybe too) child-centered. Different approaches have very big impact to teachers’ role: if the students are considered to be active and individual, the teacher can’t any more be a strict authority.

I think it’s quite important to know the concepts behind one’s practical action. When we analyze our reactions in different situations, we can maybe find quite surprising information about ourselves. Why do I react for example with anger to some kind of behaviour and why am I happy with other kind of action? It’s important that we don’t just repeat the written text and memorize surficially the nice words in books. We have to find out our real, personal way of thinking. And if we notice that it is something we wouldn’t really want to agree we should work it out and really try to change our thinking. I think when we are working with all these wonderful words it’s important to remember that the words alone are nothing – only the action can make them alive.

4. Sources

Web sources

Opetushallitus (2002) Taiteen perusopetuksen visuaalisten taiteiden laajan oppimäärän opetussuunnitelman perusteet
http://www.oph.fi/pageLast.asp?path=1;17627;927;14248

Opetushallitus (2001) Ammatillisen peruskoulutuksen opetussuunnitelman ja näyttötutkinnon perusteet: audiovisuaalisen viestinnän perustutkinto, media-assistentti
http://www.oph.fi/SubPage.asp?path=1;17627;927;1561

Rasinkangas, Reijo (2003) Tieteen ja ajattelun historiaa / Johdanto
http://cc.oulu.fi/~rar/historia/johdanto.html

Toskala, Antero (2003) Henkilökohtainen totuus: uusi näkemys totuuden luonteesta
in web magazine Yksilöstä Yhteisöön
http://www.jyvaskylankoulutuskeskus.fi/lehti/artikkelit/2003_04_henkkoht_totuus.html

Wikipedia, Free Encyclopedia (2003/1) Article on Epistemology
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epistemology

Wikipedia, Free Encyclopedia (2003/2) Article on Truth
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Truth#(A)_The_Correspondence_Conception_of_Truth

Printed Sources

Efland, Arthur D., Freedman, Kerry & Stuhr, Patricia (1998) Postmoderni taidekasvatus – eräs lähestymistapa opetussuunnitelmaan. Helsinki: TAIK, Taidekasvatuksen osasto

Hautamäki, Antti (1988) Tekoäly, logiikka ja tiedon esittäminen teoksessa Kognitiotiede toim. Hautamäki, Antti. Helsinki: Gaudeamus

Puolimatka, Tapio (2002) Opetuksen teoria -konstruktivismista realismiin. Helsinki: Tammi

Salo, Outi (1997) Teema ja muunnelmia – psykologian perustieto I. Espoo: Salutonova

Salo-Gunst, Leena & Vilkko-Riihelä, Anneli (1992) Psykologian opas. Porvoo-Helsinki-Juva: WSOY

Shotter (1975) Psykologian ihmiskäsityksiä. Espoo: Weilin+Göös

Concepts of Learning and Teaching