EDUCATIONAL PHILOSOPHY FOR TEACHING
AND STUDENT AFFAIRS PRACTICE
During my first year in the Student Affairs in Higher Education Program at Miami University, I was asked to write a Student Affairs Philosophy. Approximately one year later, in the College Teaching Certificate Program, I was asked to write a Teaching Philosophy. Initially, I conceived them as similar in some ways but ultimately separate from one another. I planned to have a teaching philosophy to guide my work in academic affairs and a student affairs philosophy to guide my practice in student affairs. This made sense to me at first, given that many faculty members do not fully understand student affairs and its purpose and some student affairs administrators do not view teaching as highly relevant to student affairs practice. However, as I tried to write my teaching philosophy, I realized I was repeating many of the same elements of my student affairs philosophy – educating the whole student, focusing on learning and development in curricular and co-curricular contexts, and teaching for social justice. It occurred to me that structuring my teaching and student affairs philosophies as separate and distinct aligned with common practice in higher education, but did not align with my own values and perspectives as an educator.
I believe two of the primary purposes of higher education are student learning and development. Historically, higher education has separated these goals, which is why I initially conceived my teaching philosophy and student affairs philosophy as independent of one another. Arcelus (2011) explains that this dichotomy exists because faculty members typically support an academic or learning mission; whereas, student affairs professionals typically support a developmental mission.
However, due to my background in both academic affairs and student affairs, I do not believe it is my sole responsibility to teach a disembodied intellect in curricular settings, nor is it my sole responsibility to focus on interpersonal and intrapersonal development in co-curricular settings. I believe these binaries between academic affairs/student affairs and student learning/development are problematic for several reasons. First, they highlight the ways in which academic and student affairs are different, dividing them in the institution as entities with distinct purposes. However, as Keeling (2004) states, institutions of higher education need to adopt a campus-wide, integrated approach to meeting academic and developmental outcomes. Second, the binaries suggest that learning and development is somehow different in curricular and co-curricular settings, rather than an integrated, holistic process. As Magolda and Quaye (2010) state:
Historically, faculty members have overseen students’ cognitive and intellectual development, a high institutional
priority. Student affairs educators have become the de facto campus resource for affective, personal, social, and
vocational dimensions of students’ development, which typically are of secondary importance in the academy. This
separate and unequal organizational structure, rooted in a fragmented approach to serving students, artificially
separates the cognitive and affective dimensions of students’ lives, which is counter to the way students organize their
lives and counter to what student affairs educators know about the integration of intellectual, identity, and relational
development. (p. 387)
In other words, students do not divide themselves or their lives into silos - as a result, we should recognize that learning and development occur in all contexts in higher education.
Third, focusing solely on in-class learning versus out-of-class learning does not account for the educational experiences that blur the lines between curricular and co-curricular classifications, such as service-learning, professional development opportunities related to academic majors, and courses taught by student affairs professionals on career choices, leadership development, and social justice. Furthermore, faculty are increasingly involved in student affairs; for example, faculty members may work with living-learning communities in residence life, advise student organizations, assist students in advising, career exploration, and professional development, or serve as administrators in student affairs offices.
Thus, it is my goal as an educator to blur the lines and break down the barriers between the constructed binaries of academic affairs/student affairs and learning/development. In both my teaching and student affairs practice, I aim to educate and develop the whole student. This goes beyond teaching subject matter and ensuring content mastery—it also includes supporting and encouraging student development. Given this, I integrated my student affairs philosophy with my teaching philosophy to form an “educational philosophy” that synthesizes my views on teaching with my views on student affairs practice.
In addition to students in higher education developing intellectually, emotionally, spiritually, interpersonally, and intrapersonally, I believe they must develop civically. While many higher education institutions’ mission statements espouse the objective of developing global citizens, people often struggle to define what that means or what it looks like in practice. However, this goal should not be empty words confined to a mission statement—it should be reflected in student learning and development campus-wide. Our society is increasingly facing more challenging problems, and in order to address these issues and achieve democracy, colleges and universities must do more than just impart knowledge of subject matter and train professionals – they must develop citizens. As Keeling (2006) notes, “While intellectual and practical skills are essential, so is a deeper understanding of the world students inherit, as human beings and as contributing citizens” (p. 21). Additionally, as higher education institutions face increasing financial pressures, they may need to justify their existence beyond “academic learning.” Over time, more people may view colleges and universities as “ivory towers,” which are inaccessible and irrelevant to a significant number of American citizens. However, colleges and universities may be able to prove they are essential to society if they can demonstrate how they prepare people to positively transform their communities.
Once students have this deeper understanding, we must encourage students to ask, “What will I do with what I know?” In other words, we must guide students in taking action and becoming change agents. I highly value praxis as a teacher and student affairs professional, which Friere (1970) defines in Pedagogy of the Oppressed as “reflection and action upon the world in order to transform it” (p. 36). Through the process of continuously reflecting and acting, students will enhance their capacity to become lifelong learners and engaged citizens. According to Cress, Collier, and Reitenauer (2005): "Being civic minded is more than just what you know. It is what you do with what you know. Institutions of higher education risk producing graduates who know without doing…equally detrimental to our communities are those who do without knowing…what our country needs…is mindful individuals who choose to “do good” for their country" (p. 12, italics in original).
Thus, my educational philosophy and practice is grounded in a commitment to civic engagement. I also highly value social justice and critical pedagogy. While the terms “civic engagement,” “social justice,” and “critical pedagogy” are sometimes misused or overused in the context of higher education, I view them as interconnected and essential to my practice as an instructor and student affairs professional. Critical pedagogy, social justice, and civic engagement share the common themes of raising learners’ critical consciousness, making learners aware of oppressive social conditions, and empowering learners to take action and create change within their communities. Enacting this philosophy in my teaching and practice may look different depending on the context, but broadly speaking, I aim to educate (i.e., teach, develop, and empower) students through a continuous process of reflection, dialogue, and action.
Reflecting on my personal and professional development and contemplating the next steps in my development journey have pushed me to consider how people in higher education enact their philosophies both inside and outside student affairs. I believe putting one’s philosophy into practice would differ depending on context, but could be achieved in variety of situations and environments. For example, if I am a student affairs educator, I might create a multi-year developmental program on civic leadership. As a faculty member, I might incorporate a service-learning experience into my course. As a researcher, I might engage in inquiry related to civic engagement in higher education. These examples demonstrate that there are numerous possibilities for enacting one’s philosophy in professional and scholarly practice. Thus, my student affairs philosophy will not lose its meaning after I graduate in May and move on to a PhD program in Disability Studies. Rather, I will continue to reflect on the purposes of higher education and consider the roles I can play in teaching, developing, and empowering students.
References
Arcelus, V. J. Transforming our approach to education: Cultivating partnerships and dialogue. In P. M. Magolda, & M. B. Baxter Magolda (Eds.) Contested issues in student affairs: Diverse perspectives and respectful dialogue. (pp. 61-73). Sterling, VA: Stylus.
Cress, C. M., Collier, P. J., Reitenauer, V. L. (2005). Learning through serving: A student guidebook for service-learning across the disciplines. Sterling, VA: Stylus.
Freire, P. (1970). Pedagogy of the Oppressed. New York, NY: Herder and Herder.
Keeling, R. P. (Ed.). (2004). Learning reconsidered: A campus-wide focus on the student experience. Washington, DC: National Association of Student Personnel Administrators, American College Personnel Association. Retrieved from http://www.myacpa.org/pub/pub_books_services.cfm
Keeling, R. P. (Ed.). (2006). Learning reconsidered 2: A practical guide to implementing a campus-wide focus on the student experience. Washington, DC: National Association of Student Personnel Administrators, American College Personnel Association. Retrieved from http://www.myacpa.org/pub/documents/LearningReconsider ed2.pdf
Magolda, P. M. & Quaye, S. J. (2010). Teaching in the co-curriculum. In J. H. Schuh, S. R. Jones, & S. R. Harper (Eds.), Student services: A handbook for the profession (5th ed.). (pp. 385-398). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
I believe two of the primary purposes of higher education are student learning and development. Historically, higher education has separated these goals, which is why I initially conceived my teaching philosophy and student affairs philosophy as independent of one another. Arcelus (2011) explains that this dichotomy exists because faculty members typically support an academic or learning mission; whereas, student affairs professionals typically support a developmental mission.
However, due to my background in both academic affairs and student affairs, I do not believe it is my sole responsibility to teach a disembodied intellect in curricular settings, nor is it my sole responsibility to focus on interpersonal and intrapersonal development in co-curricular settings. I believe these binaries between academic affairs/student affairs and student learning/development are problematic for several reasons. First, they highlight the ways in which academic and student affairs are different, dividing them in the institution as entities with distinct purposes. However, as Keeling (2004) states, institutions of higher education need to adopt a campus-wide, integrated approach to meeting academic and developmental outcomes. Second, the binaries suggest that learning and development is somehow different in curricular and co-curricular settings, rather than an integrated, holistic process. As Magolda and Quaye (2010) state:
Historically, faculty members have overseen students’ cognitive and intellectual development, a high institutional
priority. Student affairs educators have become the de facto campus resource for affective, personal, social, and
vocational dimensions of students’ development, which typically are of secondary importance in the academy. This
separate and unequal organizational structure, rooted in a fragmented approach to serving students, artificially
separates the cognitive and affective dimensions of students’ lives, which is counter to the way students organize their
lives and counter to what student affairs educators know about the integration of intellectual, identity, and relational
development. (p. 387)
In other words, students do not divide themselves or their lives into silos - as a result, we should recognize that learning and development occur in all contexts in higher education.
Third, focusing solely on in-class learning versus out-of-class learning does not account for the educational experiences that blur the lines between curricular and co-curricular classifications, such as service-learning, professional development opportunities related to academic majors, and courses taught by student affairs professionals on career choices, leadership development, and social justice. Furthermore, faculty are increasingly involved in student affairs; for example, faculty members may work with living-learning communities in residence life, advise student organizations, assist students in advising, career exploration, and professional development, or serve as administrators in student affairs offices.
Thus, it is my goal as an educator to blur the lines and break down the barriers between the constructed binaries of academic affairs/student affairs and learning/development. In both my teaching and student affairs practice, I aim to educate and develop the whole student. This goes beyond teaching subject matter and ensuring content mastery—it also includes supporting and encouraging student development. Given this, I integrated my student affairs philosophy with my teaching philosophy to form an “educational philosophy” that synthesizes my views on teaching with my views on student affairs practice.
In addition to students in higher education developing intellectually, emotionally, spiritually, interpersonally, and intrapersonally, I believe they must develop civically. While many higher education institutions’ mission statements espouse the objective of developing global citizens, people often struggle to define what that means or what it looks like in practice. However, this goal should not be empty words confined to a mission statement—it should be reflected in student learning and development campus-wide. Our society is increasingly facing more challenging problems, and in order to address these issues and achieve democracy, colleges and universities must do more than just impart knowledge of subject matter and train professionals – they must develop citizens. As Keeling (2006) notes, “While intellectual and practical skills are essential, so is a deeper understanding of the world students inherit, as human beings and as contributing citizens” (p. 21). Additionally, as higher education institutions face increasing financial pressures, they may need to justify their existence beyond “academic learning.” Over time, more people may view colleges and universities as “ivory towers,” which are inaccessible and irrelevant to a significant number of American citizens. However, colleges and universities may be able to prove they are essential to society if they can demonstrate how they prepare people to positively transform their communities.
Once students have this deeper understanding, we must encourage students to ask, “What will I do with what I know?” In other words, we must guide students in taking action and becoming change agents. I highly value praxis as a teacher and student affairs professional, which Friere (1970) defines in Pedagogy of the Oppressed as “reflection and action upon the world in order to transform it” (p. 36). Through the process of continuously reflecting and acting, students will enhance their capacity to become lifelong learners and engaged citizens. According to Cress, Collier, and Reitenauer (2005): "Being civic minded is more than just what you know. It is what you do with what you know. Institutions of higher education risk producing graduates who know without doing…equally detrimental to our communities are those who do without knowing…what our country needs…is mindful individuals who choose to “do good” for their country" (p. 12, italics in original).
Thus, my educational philosophy and practice is grounded in a commitment to civic engagement. I also highly value social justice and critical pedagogy. While the terms “civic engagement,” “social justice,” and “critical pedagogy” are sometimes misused or overused in the context of higher education, I view them as interconnected and essential to my practice as an instructor and student affairs professional. Critical pedagogy, social justice, and civic engagement share the common themes of raising learners’ critical consciousness, making learners aware of oppressive social conditions, and empowering learners to take action and create change within their communities. Enacting this philosophy in my teaching and practice may look different depending on the context, but broadly speaking, I aim to educate (i.e., teach, develop, and empower) students through a continuous process of reflection, dialogue, and action.
Reflecting on my personal and professional development and contemplating the next steps in my development journey have pushed me to consider how people in higher education enact their philosophies both inside and outside student affairs. I believe putting one’s philosophy into practice would differ depending on context, but could be achieved in variety of situations and environments. For example, if I am a student affairs educator, I might create a multi-year developmental program on civic leadership. As a faculty member, I might incorporate a service-learning experience into my course. As a researcher, I might engage in inquiry related to civic engagement in higher education. These examples demonstrate that there are numerous possibilities for enacting one’s philosophy in professional and scholarly practice. Thus, my student affairs philosophy will not lose its meaning after I graduate in May and move on to a PhD program in Disability Studies. Rather, I will continue to reflect on the purposes of higher education and consider the roles I can play in teaching, developing, and empowering students.
References
Arcelus, V. J. Transforming our approach to education: Cultivating partnerships and dialogue. In P. M. Magolda, & M. B. Baxter Magolda (Eds.) Contested issues in student affairs: Diverse perspectives and respectful dialogue. (pp. 61-73). Sterling, VA: Stylus.
Cress, C. M., Collier, P. J., Reitenauer, V. L. (2005). Learning through serving: A student guidebook for service-learning across the disciplines. Sterling, VA: Stylus.
Freire, P. (1970). Pedagogy of the Oppressed. New York, NY: Herder and Herder.
Keeling, R. P. (Ed.). (2004). Learning reconsidered: A campus-wide focus on the student experience. Washington, DC: National Association of Student Personnel Administrators, American College Personnel Association. Retrieved from http://www.myacpa.org/pub/pub_books_services.cfm
Keeling, R. P. (Ed.). (2006). Learning reconsidered 2: A practical guide to implementing a campus-wide focus on the student experience. Washington, DC: National Association of Student Personnel Administrators, American College Personnel Association. Retrieved from http://www.myacpa.org/pub/documents/LearningReconsider ed2.pdf
Magolda, P. M. & Quaye, S. J. (2010). Teaching in the co-curriculum. In J. H. Schuh, S. R. Jones, & S. R. Harper (Eds.), Student services: A handbook for the profession (5th ed.). (pp. 385-398). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
