Teaching and Learning > DISCOURSE
Creativity and Enjoyment in Philosophy Teaching: Lessons From Adult Education
Author: Andrea Kenkmann
Journal Title: Discourse
ISSN: 2040-3674
ISSN-L: 1741-4164
Volume: 7
Number: 2
Start page: 207
End page: 220
Return to vol. 7 no. 2 index page
This paper describes some of the differences of teaching in adult education and higher education. It is argued that higher education in general seems to be more reluctant to incorporate strategies of active learning and learner-centred approaches than further and adult education. However, as the latest literature of higher education theory demonstrates, there are increasingly attempts to change higher education into a more involved and creative learning environment. Yet when one looks at the examples given in the literature one quickly realises few of them refer to teaching philosophy.
Philosophy—theoretical almost per definition—does not lend itself easily to kinaesthetic learning. But does this mean we can only continue in what has been up to now the conventional way of philosophy teaching? Whereas universities that provide small seminar and tutorial groups can probably afford to do so, universities where groups are larger and the student body is more inclusive might have to come up with more innovative ideas to capture students' imagination. This paper tries to provide some tentative suggestions as to what these might be.
Introduction
When I first started teaching in adult education it took me a while to unlearn my preconceptions of what education is. I had always enjoyed education, but I had also regarded it as a somewhat serious business with rigid structures. The teacher or lecturer would explain the material and then tasks would be set for students to accomplish. Teaching in higher education still follows this pattern to a large extent: the lecture is the presentation of material and the seminar discussion and the essay are the tasks to consolidate what one has heard.
Adult education however is fundamentally different.1 There is a greater emphasis on the enjoyment of education and there is more creativity in the classroom. The mix of students in many ways provides a challenge to the teaching in adult education, but it also provides variety and colour. It requires a more open and learner-centred approach to teaching, as otherwise the different needs cannot be met. As students attend classes to socialise and enjoy themselves as well as to learn, the key to high quality adult education is the idea of making learning fun as well as stimulating.
The contrast of adult education and higher education became very pronounced to me during a semester where I taught adults in the evening and then the next morning I would give a lecture and seminars at a university. Whereas in my evening class we often roared with laughter, played games and moved around in the classroom, some of the university students often slouched in the back row of the lecture hall disinterested and unwilling to contribute anything and when asked to move the tables for a more communicative layout for the seminars, they often struggled to do even this and ended up still sitting in rows.
So what is it that causes these two settings to provide such different experiences of education? There might be a variety of factors leading to the overall different experience, but my argument in this paper is that teaching methods in adult education are considerably more stimulating than standard teaching methods in higher education. They provide a more relaxed and enjoyable atmosphere of learning where students are encouraged to be creative, to develop their potential and to express themselves.
It is my belief that higher education can learn useful lessons from adult education and the present literature on higher education teaching suggests that there is already a gradual development towards more involved teaching methods. However, when reading the literature on higher education teaching one realises very quickly that few of the examples comes from the teaching of philosophy and they do not seem to be easily adaptable to a subject which has a reputation for being almost entirely theoretical.
But does this mean that philosophy tuition at university can only continue in what has been up to now the conventional way? Whereas universities that provide small seminar and tutorial groups might be able to afford to do so, universities where groups are larger and the student body is more inclusive might have to come up with more innovative ideas to capture students' imagination and stop them from being and becoming passive consumers. This paper tries to provide some tentative suggestions as to what such teaching methods might be.
Some differences between adult and higher education
Although in this paper my interest lies in teaching methods, it would be naive to ignore that there are other differences in the two settings that influence the involvement of students. In my case the size of the groups differed considerably. Whereas my adult education class consisted of about ten students the group at university contained over thirty. At the university where I taught the cut-off point for seminars was twenty-five and it was only half way through the module that we eventually had the group split into two seminars. The effect of the division of the group was clearly very positive. More students contributed and students were more willing to admit that they had not understood some of the issues mentioned in the lecture. Yet nevertheless about a third of the students never contributed at all, another third contributed once or twice and only a third showed a more constant engagement with the module. Age and maturity undoubtedly have an impact on students' willingness to take responsibility for their own learning, but on the one hand my adult education class was almost as young as the student group with half of them of a similar age to the university students, and on the other hand there were some mature students amongst the university students. Both groups also provided a colourful mix in terms of ability and cultural background. As the university where I taught was one of the more inclusive ones, the students were far from a homogeneous group. The ability to grasp the presented material clearly differed quite considerably amongst students. The needs of weaker students were not always met, because they only became evident after students had submitted their essays near the end of the course. Some students made up for the lack of individual support during the lectures and seminars by asking questions by e-mail and in person. But others simply hid their lack of understanding.
So in many ways the two groups of students were not entirely different. Although some of the adult education students lacked any formal education, there were also those who had university degrees. A few years ago I taught a GCSE German class in adult education where almost half the class possessed a PhD degree. Those students could have easily coped with more formal tuition, but they also seemed to enjoy the more playful and creative approach to teaching.
And it is the teaching strategy that is entirely different in these settings. The buzz word in adult education is learner-centred. On the one hand it has unfortunately led to increased paperwork, such as individual learning plans and learning styles questionnaires, but on the other hand it has encouraged more flexible teaching methods where students can do activities at their own pace and at slightly different levels. The interaction of students is encouraged through games, group work, simulations and discussions. The increased interaction between students allows the teacher to support individual students and the lack of students' understanding becomes very quickly evident and can be addressed.
The teacher in adult education is for large part of the lesson not the centre of the group, but a facilitator who monitors progress and helps to sustain the momentum of learning. Only intermittently the teaching changes into more tutor-led activities such as a presentation of new material. The result of this is that both teacher as well students are more relaxed, humour emerges naturally rather than just having the odd joke of the lecturer at which students smile politely. Even though with experience the task of giving a lecture becomes easier and the lecture hall full of students becomes less daunting, the lecture still remains a more stressful situation than a seminar or anything more interactive where the focus of attention shifts to other people.
Yet it is not only the teacher who benefits from more interactive teaching. The average attention span is twenty minutes and it is clear that some students struggle to listen and process the information given in an hour long lecture. When asked to do some group work to break down the presentation time the results were often quite poor and students talked about private matters. It looks as if students were not used to a more active way of learning. Even in the seminars a lot of students listened passively without ever contributing.
Innovative teaching in Higher Education
Had I not taught in adult education for several years and experienced the joy and happiness of students and the creativity and energy in the classroom, I might not even have worried about what happened in my lectures and seminars. My own university education had been similar to what I provided for students and the evaluation forms at the end of the semester were surprisingly positive. They had learnt the basics of phenomenology; they wrote essays and exams that all passed. Maybe it was too ambitious of me to want to see them flourish not only in their philosophical skills but also as human beings who gain confidence and develop their potential as creative and critical beings that support each other.
Yet there are two arguments which make me believe that my concerns are justified. One is the literature of higher education teaching, the other one is a more philosophical one about the philosophy of philosophy teaching. Let me briefly discuss the former. When looking for inspiration for my lectures and seminars, I thought the book On Becoming an Innovative University Teacher2 looked very promising. In many ways Cowan's book advocates a very similar teaching to what happens in adult education, namely theory interspersed with practical elements. The theoretical elements are meant to encourage a reflection and improve practical skills. Not surprisingly, none of the examples in the book comes from philosophy, but engineering and social work are frequently used. The book echoes and followed on from the work on the reflective practitioner by Schoen and Dreyfus.3
However the 'practice' of the philosopher is most of the time thinking rather than doing. In some areas such as ethics it would be possibly to integrate group work on case studies as the practical example, but in courses on individual philosophers this seems much more difficult. But even if one were to find some more practical engagement with material, it would be difficult to do so on a regular basis. There is nothing that naturally lends itself to breaking up the theoretical discussion, as the practical tasks in engineering or experiments in natural sciences. Gunn suggests the filling in of flow charts and mind maps as practical activities for philosophy, but this is with a course of logic in mind.4 I suspect if one were to create practical exercises around case studies or worksheets around quotes from texts this might come across as very contrived and thus patronising to students.
The same is true for visual and kinaesthetic learning material. In a book on giving lectures5 it is suggested that one should pass around objects during the lecture or give demonstrations; again the examples come from the natural science, the geologist who passes around some stones, the lecturer in medicine who uses a model of the heart to make his point. But what could the philosopher hand around? I have only ever seen books being passed around in philosophy lectures. Audiovisual material is equally difficult. Gilleat-Ray suggests using music, film, drama and art for the teaching of religious education.6 Whereas some philosophy modules lend themselves naturally to the inclusion of such material, for example modules on philosophy and literature or philosophy and film, this is not easily integrated into other modules. Any material needs to promote the learning process rather than being included for the sake of variety. I have included pictures of philosophers and other related objects on PowerPoint presentations, but if one looks at the various PowerPoint slides and handouts from philosophers that are available on the Internet, the vast majority look entirely uninspiring, just crammed full of text.
So is there really anything that philosophy can adapt from more innovative ideas about higher education? In many ways it appears to be rather difficult to make philosophy into a more practically engaged session. The theoretical nature of the subject means there is always a risk that practical exercises and activities are seen as dumbing down and contrived. At the end of the semester I created an online quiz for the module which was organised around quotes and was meant to encourage students to read the primary texts again. As it was online students had the choice to take it or leave it (about half of the students had a go at it and there was some positive feedback), but I would be very reluctant to include such an activity into a lecture even though it might be in line with innovative teaching principles7 and I quite happily use activities like that in adult education. The problem is that philosophy cannot be reduced to simple facts and students cling to definitions already more than enough. What needs to be encouraged is a more creative and independent thinking. Yet the other reason for my reluctance is that students are not used to a playfulness in learning and maybe there is a need to change the atmosphere of learning first of all.
There have been some studies on humour in education.8 The conclusions of these studies are all similar. Humour helps people to learn. It opens people up, makes them more receptive. In adult education students have put down humour as positive feedback on the evaluation form. I would not see myself as a naturally funny character or as having any talent for comedy, but using games and interactive material often leads to laughter which does not appear to be quite possible in lectures. It sometimes emerges naturally in very small seminar groups. Maybe it is the fact of the number of unknown people around us that stops students from letting down their defences. It amazes me that a lot of the students do not communicate at all with each other. Some people have friends in the class, but there are also those who do not seem to know anybody. Although universities make a great effort for people to get to know each other at the induction week, there are subsequently very few attempts to encourage students to interact.
Every adult education course starts with an icebreaker, however I have never attended a module at university where there was an activity to break the ice. Thus the atmosphere remains clearly somewhat 'icy' throughout the semester. Often students approach me after the lecture or seminar to ask a question; in return I usually ask them why they did not raise the same question in the lecture or seminar. The answers vary slightly, but mostly the reason is a lack of confidence, which is linked to a lack of trust into the group, the fear of being ridiculed or judged.
There is of course a lot to be taught in the available twelve weeks of a semester and one does not want to waste any time, but maybe one has to invest a little into the group dynamic to change the atmosphere into a supportive and relaxed space where students respect each other. Group work and dialogue come to mind as activities to encourage this, but as Beckham writes 'students' expectations of learning/teaching may equally contribute to difficulties in group learning and confound attempts to change practices'9. This was certainly confirmed in my teaching where students stayed with their friends rather than used the opportunity to work together with students unknown to them.
What we can conclude from reading some of the recent literature on higher education teaching is that in theory there is a move towards what already happens in adult education. The words 'student-centred' and 'active learning' become increasingly important and there are attempts to include practical elements in lectures.
Creativity as a teaching objective
In a discussion about what philosophy actually is, a colleague once defined it as 'the study of an argument'. For me this is a reduction of philosophy to a branch of mathematics where numbers are replaced with statements. If this was philosophy, then clearly there would be little need for creativity. The main task of undergraduate philosophy teaching would then be to stuff students' heads with logical principles and ensure that they can apply them. The creativity needed for such a task is the transferral of these logical principles to new contexts, as only very few undergraduate students will have the ability to develop principles further.
For me as a continental philosopher the task of philosophy however lies in asking and exploring fundamental questions about the world and our lives. The aim of philosophical enquiry is not neutral and detached knowledge, but the hope to make sense of our lives and flourish as human beings. Ideally, philosophy should make us happier, better and more critical people. Philosophy is an adventure where we try to cut paths through a thicket of problems. Philosophy thus reflects our engagement with life in general and returns to our practices.
This is why Cowley is right in saying that philosophy can cultivate transferable skills, but he is wrong in merely focusing on problem-solving, analysis, justification of arguments, communication, and practical judgement.10 Creativity is not mentioned and maybe there is even a skill of being happy that can be cultivated in philosophy. These skills appear to be central attributes to a philosopher. Wisdom is different from knowledge and skill, it combines them into a more holistic thinking related to our way of life.
Yet such a view of philosophy as intricately related to our lives also raises the questions about the ethical framework of teaching. Why do we teach philosophy in the first place? If philosophy is merely the study of an argument would it then not be sufficient to provide a mix of maths and literary criticism? For Socrates, teaching philosophy meant letting people see their own errors, talking to them to let them discover the truth for themselves rather than providing clear-cut words of wisdom. Yet Socrates was not interested in merely helping people develop techniques of enquiry, but he was first of all interested in the subjects he talked about.
Philosophical discussion is thus about more than just abstract technique—it is also an interest in problems that affect our lives. As a lecturer my aim is not only for students to sharpen their minds but also to reflect on issues that strike me as important. The objective of philosophy teaching is not that students agree with the lecturer, but that they explore the fundamental problems of human existence. With the rather passive and consumerist attitude of some students, this is not happening. They follow the path of the lecturer. The lecture handouts are quoted in students' essays not in order to tell me that I get it all terribly wrong, but they believe that this is what I want to hear. The demand for more creativity in students is of course to a large extent motivated by my selfishness. I want to be surprised, learn something from my students, be challenged, explore ideas I never thought about. My favourite class in adult education often taught me new things, put their own stamp onto activities and the classroom was bubbling with energy and laughter. Needless to say we had many happy course reunions in years afterwards. However, this also links to my own experience as a student. One of the most inspiring lecturers I ever had was an old professor with an international reputation in his field, but he always came into a room giving us the feeling that he wanted to learn something from us. He seemed to have total faith in his students' ability to create new lines of thought and provide inspiring contributions. Alas, even in those times this approach was not appreciated by all students. The lecturer's invitation to creative freedom only encourages some students to be more active in their learning, but it does not inspire and awaken the majority of them.
Encouraging creativity in philosophy
In small group discussions students often become more active and creative in their thinking, yet with rising numbers in higher education a lot of universities cannot afford small seminar groups. I cannot help wondering whether there is anything else one can do apart from trying to encourage a more active learning through group work and dialogue and just accepting that a number of students do not appear to respond to this and persevere in their passive consumerism. It is the experience of adult education and my belief that university students are really not very different from the learner in adult education that makes me think more must be possible to spark students' imagination.
On three occasions I ran workshops where I incorporated museums, one on the theme of otherness, one on the body and one on education. The participant groups were in the first case staff and postgraduates from a variety of disciplines and in the latter cases A-level students on university summer schools. The exhibits were photos, mirrors, Barbie dolls, quotes, activities with cameras and other embodied activities. They may seem banal, but the museum experience created a buzz in the room and subsequent discussions were very lively with lots of participants contributing. Even those who were quiet in the discussion had at least discussed ideas with their partner or group with whom they had explored the museum.
The workshops, unfortunately, were always one-offs. Thus, I cannot judge whether the relaxed and lively atmosphere would have continued into subsequent sessions. The workshop character also had the advantage that the rooms were particularly suitable for such activities and there was plenty of time to set things up and clear up afterwards. The logistics of undergraduate teaching, however, maybe should not stop us from attempting to incorporate such elements into our teaching. It is my belief that any kind of philosophical questions can be provoked in a variety of ways.
Yet, there is part of me that thinks we need to take this even further. As Edwards et al say in a recent volume on Developing Creativity in Higher Education: 'So it's a really interesting circular dilemma there. Yes, we privilege students' capacity to be creative, but we don't let them show it to us in anything that counts.'11 Do we need to include a more creative project into the assessment to set the expectation of creative and active involvement into a module? Would it not be possible to complement the conventional assessment such as essays and exams with a more engaged activity?
I think there are numerous possibilities of doing this. Creating a museum might be one of the more difficult options. What could be easier is for students to run workshops on the material taught in a module for school children or other community groups. This might have all sorts of advantages—not only would it foster all sorts of transferable skills, it would also avoid the problem of plagiarism, and lead to strengthening ties to the community. Unlike the museum it would be unlikely to create a need for financial resources. Other possibilities might be the creation of accessible material. At the University of East Anglia a politics lecturer uses editing of Wikepedia sites as part of the assessment. Or maybe little booklets for school children or interested members of the public could be a way of integrating more creative parts into the assessment. Such ways of assessing students would not provide easy marks for students, but quite the opposite. Simplification of very complicated material is only possible if you understand the original material in the first place. Students often write essays with the help of secondary literature without really understanding what they write.
By fostering creativity through the assessment one sets clear expectation of a more active student involvement and hopefully changes the atmosphere away from the consumerist attitude 'give me your lecture notes and I'll give you my essay'. The problem one might be worried about is the measurability of creativity, yet I do not regard this as an insurmountable obstacle. Maybe it requires peer assessment and video recording of assessed workshops to give groups marks or a more simplified mark scheme, but these are also problems that occur in relation to assessed presentations which are sometimes part of the assessment. To discuss the measurability of such assessment with students could provoke in students a critical understanding of the framework of their education. Surely, philosophy should be at the forefront to question society's absurd obsession with rankings, which reduces everything to economic commodities.
If the atmosphere in higher education classes could be changed into something more relaxed and creative similar to what happens in adult education, then interactive elements such as dialogue or group work could be used more effectively. However, it is not merely the creative side of philosophy teaching that needs to be developed—it needs to go hand in hand with activities that establish students' trust and confidence in each other, so that the atmosphere is supportive rather than competitive. In universities where the bulk of teaching is done in small seminar groups, all this often evolves naturally, but in universities with very large groups it is my belief that lecturers can do more to facilitate active learning. Alas, it requires a lot of careful planning of and reflection on teaching, which is time-consuming and not rewarded in our present academic climate.
- There is a substantial literature on how adult education differs, see for example Rogers, J., Adult Learning (Milton Keynes & New York: OUP 2001), Knowles, M. et al, The Adult Learner (Butterworth Heinemann: 1997), Petty, G., Teaching Today (Nelson Thornes: 1998).
- Cowan, J., On Becoming an Innovative University Teacher: Reflection in Action, (Buckingham: Open University Press 1998).
- See Schön, D., The Reflective Practioner (Arena 1991) and Dreyfus, H. et al, Mind Over Machine: The Power of Human Intuition and Expertise in the Era of the Computer (1987).
- Gunn, A. 'Practical Suggestions for Teaching Students to Think for Themselves' Discourse vol. 4 No.1, Autumn 2004, pp. 71-76.
- Exeley, K. and Dennick, R., Giving a Lecture. From Presenting to Teaching (London: RoutledgeFalmer 2004), p.92.
- Gilleat-Ray, S. 'Breaking Down the Classroom Walls: Innovative Teaching and Learning Methods in Religious Studies and Theology—some perspectives from the University of Wales' PRS—LTSN Journal 2 /2 Winter 2003, pp.200-210.
- For example Brown, S. & Race, P., Lecturing. A Practical Guide. (London: Kogan Page 2002) p.123 suggest mini-assessments as one way of helping student to focus and keep attention.
- See for example J.P. Powell and L.W.Andresen 'Humour and teaching in higher education', Studies in Higher Education 10/1, 1985, pp.79-90; A.Ziv 'Teaching and Learning with Humor. Experiment and Replication', Journal of Experimental Education 57/1, 1988, pp.5-15 or N.Kher et al, 'Using Humour in the College Classroom to Enhance Teaching Effectiveness in "Dread Courses"' College Student Journal 33, 1999.
- Beckham, R. 'A Preliminary Study of Group Learning/Teaching' PRS-LTSN Journal 2/2 Winter 2003, pp.79.
- Cowley, C. 'Cultivating Transferable Skills in Philosophy', PRS-LTSN Journal, 1/1 Summer 2001, pp.39-51.
- Edwards, M. et al 'Creativity curricula in higher education: academics' perspectives' in Jackson, N. et al (eds.) Developing Creativity in Higher Education. An imaginative curriculum (London & New York: Routledge 2006), p.66.
Return to vol. 7 no. 2 index page
This page was originally on the website of The Subject Centre for Philosophical and Religious Studies. It was transfered here following the closure of the Subject Centre at the end of 2011.
