Educational philosophies: Inputs for 21st century college science teaching initiatives in the new normal
List of Authors
  • Louella S. Degamon , Merlyn L. Estoque

Keyword
  • behaviorism, essentialism, existentialism. perennialism, progressivism

Abstract
  • This study aimed to determine the educational philosophies adhered by College Science teachers. A descriptive survey method was used, and an adopted research instrument was used to gather data from 18 Science teacher-participants. Findings revealed that Science teachers have high adherence to the philosophies with progressivism ranked first followed by behaviorism, existentialism, essentialism and perennialism, respectively. This implies that teachers espoused more on student – centered teaching beliefs than on teacher-centered beliefs. At 0.05 p-level of significance, a test of difference and Tukey HSD post hoc revealed that all profile variables considered such as sex (0.04), age (0.03), educational attainment (0.01), academic rank (0.01) and years in service (0.05) indicate significant differences on the educational philosophy orientations of the Science teachers. Progressivism, along with behaviorism and existentialism as contemporary educational philosophies are the most preferred educational philosophies by the male science teachers, young adult science educators and having academic ranks of assistant professors to professors. Findings of the study serve as inputs for 21st century College Science teaching and learning initiatives, taking into consideration their implications for teaching, and learning processes and considerations during the ‘new normal’.

Reference
  • 1. Abdelkader, A. (2014). Relationship between Educational Philosophy and Teaching Styles of Nursing Educators. 16. 75. 2. Arslan, F. and Kaysi, F. (2013). Virtual Learning Environments. Journal of Teaching and Education. Retrieved fromhttp://www.universitypublications.net/jte/0204/pdf/HVD867.pdf 3. Austin, J. R. and Reinhardt, D. C., (1999). Philosophy and advocacy: An Examination of Preservice Music Teachers’ Beliefs. Journal of Research in Music Education, 47(1), 18-30. 4. Bago, A. L., (2001). Curriculum development: the Philippine experience. 2nd Edition. C & E Publishing, Inc. 5. Bagley WC (1938). An essentialist‟s platform for the advancement of American education. Educ. Adm. Supervision 24:242-256. 6. Bilbao, P. B., (2015). Field Study 6. Lorimar Publishing. Quezon City 7. Corpuz, B. et.al. (2015). Principles of Teaching 2 (with TLE). Lorimar Publishing, Inc. Cubao, Quezon City, Philippines. 8. Doğanay, A., (2011). Hizmet Öncesi Öğretmen Eğitiminin Öğretmen Adaylarının Felsefi Bakış Açılarına Etkisi. Eğitim ve Bilim. 36(161), 332-348. 9. Elisasser, C. V., (2008). Teaching Educational Philosoply: A Response to the Problem of First-Year Urban Teacher Transfer. Education and Urban Society, 40 (4), 476-493. 10. Ergün, M., (2009). Eğitimin Felsefi Temelleri. Eğitim Bilimine Giriş. (Ed; Demirel, Ö. and Kaya, Z.) Ankara: PegemA Yayınları. 11. Floyd, T. (2010). An exploratory study of the philosophy and teaching styles of Georgia workforce educators and entrepreneurship educators. Doctoral thesis, faculty of Auburn, Alabama University. Retrieved from: http://hdl.handle.net/10415/2046 12. Freeman, S.,Eddy, S., Mcdough, M., Smith, M., Jordt, H. & Wenderoth, M. (2014). Active Learning increases student performance in science, engineering, and mathematics. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci, USA. 111, 8410-8415. 13. Galbraith M. (2004). Adult learning methods: A guide for effective instruction. 3 rd. Ed. Malabar, FL: Krieger. 14. Glaze, A.L. (2017). Teaching and Learning Science in the 21st Century: Challenging Critical Assumptions in Post – Secondary Science. Education Sciences, 8(12).DOI: 103390/educsci8010012. 15. Grasha F, Riechmann R. Teaching style survey. 2006. Retrieved May1, 2020 from http://longleaf.net/teachingstyle.html. 16. Karakuş, M. 2006. Öğretmen Yetiştirmede Felsefenin Yeri ve Önemi. Çukurova Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 1 (31), 79-81. 17. Kolbam T., Kemp, A., Evans, R. (1997). The spectrum of scientific literacy.Sci.Teach. 64,27-31 18. Kulinna, P. H., & Cothran, D. J. (2003). Physical education teachers' self-reported use and perceptions of various teaching styles. Learning and Instruction, 13(6), 597-609. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0959-4752(02)00044-0 19. Mathias, A.(2014). Active Learning in the Science Classroom. Honors Projects. 113.https://scholarworks.bgsu.edu/honorsprojects/113 20. Naimie, Z., Siraj, S., Piaw, C. Y., Shagholi, R., Abuzaid, R.A. (2010) Do you think your match is made in heaven? Teaching styles/ learning styles match and mismatch revisited. Procedia Social Behavioral Sciences, 2, 349-353. 21. Opdenakker M, Damme J. (2006). Educator characteristics and teaching styles as effectiveness enhancing factors of classroom practice. Teaching and Teacher Education Journal, 2006; 22 (1): 1–21. DOI: 10.1016/j.tate.2005.07.008 22. Orhun F. (2009).Training & teaching style in accessing a desired classroom discipline at visual art courses. Procedia Social and Behavioral Sciences journal, 6(1):692-696 23. Ornstein, A. C. and Hunkins, F. P. 1993. Curriculum: Foundations, Principles and Issues. New Jersey: Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs. 24. Rideout, G.W., (2006). Educational beliefs and the learning environment. Acad. Exchange Q. 10(2):67-71. 25. Rodrigues, K.J.B. (2009). Do learning styles, learning strategies, and student's preference for teacher's teaching philosophy predict student preference for online or in-class courses. Ph.D. thesis, Oklahoma State University. Retrieved May 2, 2020 from https://www.learntechlib.org/p/123556/. 26. Sadker, M.P. & D.S. Sadker. (1997). Teachers, schools and society (4th ed., pp. 403-405.) NY: McGraw Hill. 27. Severo, G. and Jung, L. (2010) The Educational Philosophy and Teaching Style Preferences of College Faculty at the University of Perpetual Help System, DALTA, Philippines. The Asian Conference on Education 2015 Official Conference Proceedings. Retrieved from: www.iafor.org. 28. Soccorsi L (2013). Instilling a personal teaching philosophy in pre-service teachers: Vitally importantbut not always easy to achieve. J. Student Engagement: Educ. Matters 3(1):21-28. 29. Talbot, B. (2014). Beyond Active Learning in Undergraduate Science. Retrieved May 1, 2020 from https://medium.com 30. Tozlu, N. and Yayla, A. 2005. Eğitimin Felsefi Temelleri. Eğitim Bilimine Giriş. (Ed: Erçetin, Ş. Ş. and Tozlu, N.) Ankara: Hegem-Mikro Basım Yayım Dağıtım. 31. Uyangor, N. Sahan, H.H., Atici, S. & Borekc, C. 2016. An Analysis Of Educational Philosophies And Teacher Competencies. International Journal Of Current Research. 8(4) pp. 30100-30106 32. Uzunöz, S. F., (2015). The philosophical dispositions of pre-servıce teachers and teacher educators. Academic Journals. 11(1):30-36. 33. West D. (2008). An exploratory study of the relationship between the educational philosophy versus teaching styles Of seminary professors. Doctoral thesis. Faculty of education. Virginia Commonwealth University. 34. Willson A. (2006). Predictors of teaching styles and the adult education philosophies of educators of radiologic technology programs. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Touro University International. 35. Witcher, A., Sewall, A., Arnold, D. & Travers. P. (2001). “Teaching, Leading, Learning: It's all About Philosophy.” Clearing House 74 (5): 277–279. Zheng, H. “A Review of Research on EFL Pre-Service Teachers' Beliefs and Practices. 36. Zhang, F. (2007). Do personality traits make a difference in teaching styles among Chinese high school teachers?. Personality and Individual Differences - PERS INDIV DIFFER. 43. 669-679. 10.1016/j.paid.2007.01.009.