The Image of the Learner: Toward a Christian Philosophy of Learner Development
John Liang, john.liang@biola.edu
A Story
Last summer I visited a prestigious high school in Beijing, 50 percent of whose graduates go to Beijing University and Tsinghua University, two top universities equivalent to Harvard and MIT. At the entrance to the school, I found myself stunned by the beauty of the campus. Never had I seen any school so neat and clean, with so beautiful a campus. The school's director of the International Department showed us around. "Look at the auditorium in the middle of the campus. What does it look like?" She pointed at a magnificent structure before me. Gazing at the building, I fumbled for the right word. Seeing me trying hard, she uttered, "Doesn't it look like a doctoral cap?" "Yeah, that's right!" She further explained, "In fact, there's a meaning to the design. The auditorium symbolizes the Palace of Knowledge. We want our students to be knowledgeable like a PhD." She then pointed to other buildings on the campus and explained the symbolism for them, including the library, which looks like books. "On this campus, each building has its meaning. Collectively, the architecture conveys our beliefs about education: the development of the mind, body, and aesthetic appreciation." "True!" I agreed.
The buildings on campus were creatively designed to convey such themes. However, I somehow felt that one theme appeared to be missing. "I feel that there still seems to be something missing on the campus. Don't you think so?" I tentatively commented, fearing that I would offend her. To my surprise, she quickly responded, "You're right! Look at the lawn in the middle of the campus. For 3 years we've tried to find something that could best represent the spirit of our campus, but we haven't been able to find a good symbol yet. Perhaps you could help us," she said earnestly. "So, for 3 years your school hasn't found its spirit yet?" I replied. She smiled awkwardly.
Initial Reflection
Later, back in the United States, I read the school's material one night, and a photo of the auditorium caught my attention. Marble slabs along a path leading straight from the main entrance to the auditorium had various mottos: science, humanism, creativity, and individuality, as well as famous remarks by Nobel laureates. I seemed to see a picture of students walking in the steps of science, humanism, creativity, and individuality to enter the Palace of Knowledge. The motto of the school is unto the development of man, unto the shaping of character, and unto quality education. I was instantly intrigued. If the purpose of education is to develop full-grown people, how does it do so? What makes a full-grown person? A full development of the intellect, the body, and character? It appears to me that according to the beliefs of this school, like many others in China and in the United States, becoming a full-grown person requires full development of the intellect and the body. As for the education of the spirit, it is often partially or selectively addressed (as in cultivating a sense of artistic appreciation), if not completely ignored or inadvertently neglected.
In this article, therefore, I delve into the nature of learner development for answers to my questions. I first review current research on learner development, as it appears to be directly relevant. Although this brief review covers only research in second language learning, the philosophical principles uncovered are undoubtedly applicable to other educational settings. I then dig deeper into the philosophies of education that underpin our current view of learner development. In so doing, I uncover these educational philosophies' images of the learner, and in challenging these philosophies, I turn to a biblical philosophy of education to paint a complete picture of learner development.
The Concept of Learner Development
The concept of learner development is not new. Originating from the learner-centered instruction movement in the 1970s, it regards the recognition of learner diversity (learners' interests, needs, goals, attitudes, strategies, and abilities) as the basis of learner education, and emphasizes the need for learner-centered teaching to personalize instruction, tailor it to the learner's goals, draw on the learner's interest, respect students' learning style preferences, require active learner involvement in classroom language practice, use authentic material, consider learners' sociocultural backgrounds, engage learners in self-assessment, encourage student creativity and self-direction, involve learners in curricular decisions, and foster independent learning (Wenden, 2002). In a nutshell, for instruction to be learner-centered, it should be individualized, personalized, and humanized (see Altman, 1980, for a brief review).
In a close examination of the premises listed above, however, one may come to the realization that even learner-centered instruction is not truly learner-centered but teaching-centered; it focuses on how to improve classroom instruction and curriculum rather than on how to improve learners' learning. In reviewing past research on learner-centered instruction, Wenden (2002) contended that developing the learner's ability to learn should be the focus of learner development. Citing research on self-directed language learning, which emphasizes learner autonomy, and learner strategies in language learning, which emphasizes explicit instruction of successful language learners' strategies, Wenden proposed that classroom instruction should aim to cultivate the learners' "human potential" (p. 44), fostering the growth of learners' metacognitive knowledge of learning as well as their ability to plan, monitor, and evaluate their learning. The term learner development means the fostering of an ability to effect efficient learning through self-management (including managing negative feelings such as learning anxiety and low self-esteem), self-regulation, self-instruction, and self-assessment.
Truly, a successful learner is often independent in shaping his or her learning. Yet, fairly similar to the educational beliefs of the high school I previously described, learner development theory appears to be primarily dependent upon a full development of metacognitive skills, or the development of the head. The education of the "heart," on the other hand, continues to be missing, though Wenden did briefly touch upon the affective aspect of learning. In reading a commentary on learner temperament, I learned of a teacher who noted that academically at-risk students are rarely self-managed; instead, it seems they are easily restless and distracted¹ , reflecting an obvious disconnect between the development of the head and the heart.
Underpinnings of Modern Philosophies of Education
The emphasis on the language learner as an intellectual being in learner development is not a practice without a philosophical orientation. In fact, it reflects a humanistic philosophy of education that has greatly influenced modern and contemporary education. Some such philosophies are idealism, realism, neo-scholasticism, behaviorism, pragmaticism, existentialism, progressivism, perennialism, essentialism, reconstructionism, futurism, multiculturalism, and critical pedagogy (see Knight, 1998, for a review of the various schools of philosophies and their influences on education). As it is beyond the scope of this article to review all educational philosophies, I will simply summarize in simple terms the tenets of modern and contemporary humanistic educational theories, particularly in the light of their definitions of the nature of the learner and the learning process.
Novick (1996) noted that subject to the various philosophical orientations, educational theories may fall into two major camps: the traditional transmission approach and the more innovative transactional approach. The transmission approach to education, with its subscription to behaviorism and other philosophies that emphasize truth as absolute, sees knowledge as the sum of discrete facts that can be learned and practiced in isolation of their function before being assembled into a whole. In this approach, to teach is to directly impart rules, information, and skills to the learner, and to learn is to receive the meaning from the teacher. Thus, in one metaphor, the learner is just an empty vessel ready to be filled with knowledge by the teacher.
In her discussion of the transmission approach, Novick (1996) also noted a complementary approach to education: the psychometric philosophy of education, which posits that because learners possess measurable abilities, education is a process of imparting quantifiable knowledge and skills that can be objectively measured on standardized tests. In this approach, learning can be compared to a train racing on a railroad, and learners are the passengers, though some arrive on time, some late, some never complete the trip, and some—with an unusual ability—complete the trip unusually quickly. In short, within the transmission approach, learner development means change in an observable, if not quantifiable, behavior (Bode, 1995).
In contrast to the transmission approach that subscribes to the subject matter curriculum, the transactional model of education focuses on the learner (Novick, 1996). Drawing on the theories of Piaget, Dewey, and Vygotsky, this approach to education posits that learning is an active process, whereby learners, driven by innate curiosity and eagerness to learn, seek to make sense of their experiences in interacting with the social and physical environment around them, attempt to discover the meaning personal to them, and form and reform their knowledge of the world. As this approach subscribes to the experience curriculum, the learner is not seen as a passive, empty vessel ready to be filled with information, but rather as an intellectual adventurer, a rational and critical inquirer, an active constructor of knowledge, an experiential problem-solver, and an independent intellectual being who learns to frame and pursue his or her own educational aims (Novick, 1996). Unlike the transmission approach, learner development here means self-realization, self-discovery, and self-actualization.
Although these two educational approaches shed some light on the nature of learner development, they both focus primarily on the development of the head, seeing the learner merely as an intellectual being and failing to draw adequate educational attention to the role of the heart in the learner's development as a whole person (Bode, 1995).
Toward a Christian Philosophy of the Learner and Learner Development
But what do we mean by the education of the heart? From a biblical perspective on education, with all truth being God's truth, knowledge can be imparted to the learner as both information and as scientific observations, discoveries, hypotheses, proposals, and testing of theories (Bode, 1995). Therefore, from the head, the learner learns the Word of God as a revealed body of information (i.e., the name of God, His mighty deeds, His will for our lives, etc), studies other bodies of information such as centuries of wisdom (i.e., science, philosophy, literature, etc), and develops new understandings. Yet, the aim of education encompasses more than developing one's intellectual capacity; it also includes learners coming into a right relationship with God, with others, and with their selves (Bode, 1995) and coming to an understanding of their purpose in life, in accordance with which they act. The coming into right relationship and attaining a vision of life form the education of the heart. This education includes the shaping and reshaping of learners' spiritual, moral, emotional, social, and thought lives, as well as their motivation, attitudes, and identities. Just as Proverbs 4:23 indicates ("Above all else, guard your heart, for it is the wellspring of life"), understanding the heart is key to understanding the nature of the learner and learner development.
The Image of the Learner
We now face another question: What is the nature of the learner? In the behaviorist transmission approach, the learner is seen "as a biological organism characterized by the current state of the evolutionary process and specifically by its own DNA" (Guillermin & Beck, 1995, p. 110). As such, learning means change in observable behaviors that can be conditioned. In the transactional approach, the learner is seen as "a self-expressing unit with unlimited potential" (Guillermin & Beck, 1995, p. 111). A Christian philosophy of education does not negate the fact that the learner is a person with a physical body created out of physical, chemical elements (Guillermin & Beck, 1995), nor does it negate the fact that the learner is also an intellectual being who has rational power and emotional capacity (Graham, 2003). However, a Christian philosophy of education does not stop there. It sees the learner as a person with a physical body that has a purpose, created to be committed to the Creator; it also sees the learner as a person with more than a physical body—a person that has both mind and heart, which are endowed for a purpose as well, that is, to be transformed and renewed in the likeness of Christ (see Romans 12:1-2).
In other words, a Christian philosophy of education does not see learners merely as people with physical bodies; they are persons who are spiritual beings created in the image of God (Guillermin & Beck, 1995). This means that the nature of the learner should reflect the mental, social, moral, and spiritual aspects of the nature of God (Edwards, 1995; Graham, 2003). Hence, as an intellectual being, the learner possesses intellectual power and has an ability to reason, to perceive, to understand, to conceptualize, to evaluate, and to relate intellectually to his or her surroundings. As an emotional being, the learner possesses volition, and can express and control emotions. As a social being, the learner has self-awareness and self-concept, and is capable of relating to other persons, depending on others, loving others and being loved by others, extending mercy to others, and receiving grace from others. As a moral being, the learner is capable of making a choice among behavioral alternatives, forming judgments about the ethics of actions, and is held accountable for the consequences of those choices. Finally, as a spiritual being, the learner is active and purposeful, has convictions, and is committed to the sovereign will of the Creator. In a nutshell, the learner is rational, creative, moral, free, responsible, social, merciful, dependent, and convicted about knowing and living the truth (Graham, 2003).
The Nature of Learner Development
This perspective on the learner as a spiritual being carries significant implications for education. It means the education of learners should be an integration of both the head and the heart. In addressing the nature of learner development, Edwards (1995) contended that learners need development of their unique characteristics and their diverse needs that can "affect their desire for and efficiency of learning" (p. 170). As developmental beings, learners need to be molded and nurtured, instructed and guided, loved and disciplined by caregivers. As a developmental being with unique learner characteristics, the learner needs growth not merely in the cognitive domain, as in creativity, critical thinking, and rational inquiry, but also in other domains, such as character, personality, temperament, mood, motivation, attitude, learning styles, creativity, self-esteem, and beliefs (see Dornyei, 2005, for a detailed discussion of learner characteristics and individual differences). As a developmental being with a wide range of needs, the learner, on his or her way to becoming a full-grown person, should receive assurance of care, love, grace, and freedom from fear, rejection, alienation, and isolation. Finally, as a spiritual being in need of development, the learner should demonstrate learning outcomes that reflect the attributes of God—love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, gentleness, faithfulness, and self-control (Gal. 5:22)—and exhibit the attainment of a vision of life.
Closing Thoughts: The Story Revisited
As I conclude, the comment by the director who entertained me at her school continues to linger in my ears. For 3 years they tried to find something to represent the spirit of their campus, but they couldn't find a good symbol. Clearly, in light of the discussion of the education of the heart above, an over-emphasis on the education of the head leaves out a fairly wide range of learner outcomes. Yet, if I were to express in one word what is missing as the spirit of that school, I would offer one that represents a significant, millennium-long moral teaching that has somehow been lost in the midst of people's increasing obsession with materialistic well-being over the past 30 years or so, which is also a moral teaching that has a spiritual mandate in the Holy Scriptures: feng xian, or self-sacrifice. It represents and reflects a vision, a purpose, a conviction. It marks the development of a full-grown person.
Note
¹ See the brief commentary at http://epaa.asu.edu/epaa/v4n14c1.html.
Originally from China, John Liang is an associate professor of TESOL at Biola University in La Mirada, California. In his free time he enjoys surfing the Internet, playing with shareware and freeware programs, and collecting fun digital material for his grammar class.
References
Altman, H. (1980). Foreign language teaching: Focus on the learner. In H. Altman & C. V. James (Eds.), Foreign language teaching: Meeting individual needs (pp. 1-16). Oxford, England: Pergamon Press.
Bode, B. (1995). Evaluating a personal knowledge of the nature of learning. In P. A. Kienel, O. E. Gibbs, & S. R. Berry (Eds.), Philosophy of Christian school education (pp. 183-214). Colorado Springs, CO: The Association of Christian Schools International.
Dornyei, Z. (2005). The psychology of the language learner. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Edwards, D. (1995). Conceptualizing a personal knowledge of the nature of the learner. In P. A. Kienel, O. E. Gibbs, & S. R. Berry (Eds.), Philosophy of Christian school education (pp. 155-182). Colorado Springs, CO: The Association of Christian Schools International.
Guillermin, P., & Beck, D. (1995). Comprehending a personal knowledge of a Christian philosophy of education. In P. A. Kienel, O. E. Gibbs, & S. R. Berry (Eds.), Philosophy of Christian school education (pp. 105-130). Colorado Springs, CO: The Association of Christian Schools International.
Graham, D. L. (2003). Teaching redemptively: Bringing grace and truth into your classroom. Colorado Springs, CO: Purposeful Design Publications.
Knight,G. R. (1998). Philosophy and education: An introduction in Christian perspective. Berrien Springs, MI: Andrews University Press.
Novick, R. (1996). Actual schools, possible practices: New directions in professional development. Educational Policy Analysis Archives, 4(14). Retrieved on February 19, 2007, from http://epaa.asu.edu/epaa/v4n14.html.
Wenden, A. L. (2002). Learner development in language learning. Applied Linguistics, 23, 32-55.
