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
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.
3

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 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
4

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
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
5

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
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
6

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 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
7

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, 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
8

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 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
9

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
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
10

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).
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
11

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
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
12

• 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,
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
13

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 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
14

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
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
15

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.
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.
16

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.
17

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.
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.
18

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.
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.pdf
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.
19

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

MajorAssessment3CCornwell

More Related Content

What's hot

Viewers also liked

Similar to MajorAssessment3CCornwell

More from Chad Cornwell

MajorAssessment3CCornwell