PME 811- Innovation: Philsophical Foundations of Teaching and Learning

 Articles:

1. Falkenberg, T. (2012). Teaching as contemplative professional practice. Paideusis, 20(2), 25–35.
2. Christou, T. M., & Bullock, S. M. (2012). The case for philosophical mindedness. Paideusis, 20(1), 14–23.

Both Falkenberg (2012) and Christou and Bullock (2012) frame teaching as a reflective and ethical practice rather than a purely technical one. Falkenberg’s focus on contemplative practice, including meditation, awareness, and attention, is intended to prevent teachers from operating on “autopilot.” While I understand this concern, I found his framing to feel heavier and more academic than the practice itself. In my experience, the core idea—pausing, noticing what is happening, and responding thoughtfully rather than reacting emotionally—is already embedded in the daily work of teaching. Teaching is a highly reflective profession that requires constant attentiveness to both students’ behaviours and our own emotional responses. Remaining calm, non-reactive, and impartial is not optional; it is fundamental to ethical teaching.

Christou and Bullock’s discussion of Dewey’s idea of being philosophically minded stood out to me for similar reasons. Their description of pausing, forming tentative explanations, refining thinking, and testing responses closely reflects how teachers problem-solve student behaviour every day. Teachers rarely respond to behaviour without reflection; instead, we observe patterns, consider context, try strategies, and adjust when needed. This reinforces teacher identity as moral and ethical, where every decision—from how we speak to students, to when we intervene or hold back—carries intention. This aligns strongly with Falkenberg’s emphasis on self-awareness and emotional regulation as professional responsibilities.

Learning, in both articles, is framed as a reciprocal and ongoing process. Students learn within environments shaped by thoughtful and patient responses, while teachers learn through reflection and adjustment over time. Learning is not linear or purely outcome-driven, but develops through interpretation, experience, and relationship. This closely aligns with my definition of learning as developmental and meaning-making, shaped by context and interaction rather than simple transmission.

In my opinion, innovation and creativity in these readings are not about large-scale reform or novel strategies. Instead, they refer to the small, everyday ways teachers adapt their thinking and practice in response to students. Creativity shows up in flexible interpretation and problem-solving, while innovation appears in the continual refinement of responses based on observation and reflection. These forms of innovation are subtle but essential, rooted in responsiveness rather than disruption.

Although reflective practice is often treated as something teachers need to be taught, most teachers already reflect constantly as part of their daily work. I’m left wondering how we can deepen or strengthen this reflection without it feeling like we’re being talked down to or corrected. Rather than adding more frameworks or expectations, it seems more valuable to create space for teachers to reflect together, share experiences, and learn from one another in ways that respect professional judgment. I also question how reflective practice functions in classrooms shaped by student disengagement, different age groups, class composition, and the realities of a changing society. How do the authors see reflective and contemplative practice operating within these broader cultural and structural factors, and what responsibility lies beyond the individual teacher to support meaningful teaching and learning?