Pragmatism teaching philosophy

Pragmatism as a teaching philosophy#

Klockner, K., Shields, P., Pillay, M., & Ames, K. (2021). Pragmatism as a teaching philosophy in the safety sciences: A higher education pedagogy perspective. Safety Science, 138, 105095. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ssci.2020.105095

Pragmatism is a logical and valuable teaching philosophy which centres on linking theory, research, ideas and actions to multi-disciplinary practical applications. It is embedded in the notion that both multiple stakeholder, and multiple perspectives are required to solve practical safety-oriented problems. Pragmatism links to a reflective practitioner paradigm whereby students are asked to think critically about what they do. (Klockner et al., 2021, p. 1)

The key theoretical underpinnings of pragmatism are presented, as well as the 4 Ps of pragmatism (Practicality, Pluralism, Participation and Provisional) as a teaching framework. (Klockner et al., 2021, p. 1)

Pragmatism is seen as both a path forward in reducing the theory into practice divide for safety science educators and professionals (Klockner et al., 2021, p. 1)

Elkjaer (2009) has previously alluded to this lack of appreciationand value of pragmatism 'as a relevantlearning theory' (p. 91) in spite of the growing recognition of its important role in education and teaching (Dewey, 1923, 1938; Garrison and Neiman, 2003; Shields, 2003a; Sharma et al., 2018), scholarship and academic development (Bradley, 2001), academic practice (Shields, 2004; 2006), curriculum (Biesta, 2014) and online learning (Jayanti and Singh, 2009). (Klockner et al., 2021, p. 2)

Shields (2008) linked classical pragmatism to the public administration space and presented its '4 Ps' tenets framework of Practical, Pluralistic, Participatory, and Provisional, (Klockner et al., 2021, p. 2)

A teaching philosophy is closely linked to learning theory and has been defined as a purposeful and reflective essay about the author's teaching beliefs and practices (Vanderbilt University, 2019). (Klockner et al., 2021, p. 2)

Third, the mixed methods literature has recognized this drawback and adopted pragmatism as their research paradigm because it takes the research problem as its point of departure (Johnson and Onwuegbuzie, 2004). (Klockner et al., 2021, p. 3)

In contrast to positivism and interpretivism, pragmatism holds the view that the research question that needs to be answered is more important than either the philosophical stance or the methods that support such stance (Klockner et al., 2021, p. 3)

Dewey believed that "teachers were not technicians following the dictates of university-based experts ... but problem solvers who must inevitably generate their own practices (Tomlinson, 1997, p. 377)." (Klockner et al., 2021, p. 3)

Public policy scholars Ansell and Geyer (2017) note that "pragmatists emphasize that learning is an on-going process of problem-solving, deliberation, experimentation, sedimented over time as experience, identity, habit, skill and knowledge (Ansell and Geyer, 2017, p. 149)." (Klockner et al., 2021, p. 3)

Here, pragmatism bridges theory and practice because theory is considered a "tool of practice" which can strengthen student/practitioner skills and make academic (process and products) stand up to the light of practice (Shields, 2006, p. 3). (Klockner et al., 2021, p. 5)

The 4P's of pragmatism include the notions that education needs to be Practical (scientific inquiry should incorporate practical problem solving), Pluralistic (the study of phenomena should be multiand inter- disciplinary), Participatory (learning includes diverse (Klockner et al., 2021, p. 5)

perspectives of multiple stakeholders) and Provisional (experience is advanced by flexibility, exploration and revision), as show (Klockner et al., 2021, p. 5)