Virginia AHPERD_SpringSummer2026

as avoiding tobacco use) and then attempts to teach and empower individuals to adhere to them. Defining health behavior is an ongoing process with an aim of addressing health-related issues such as mental health and substance abuse (Fertman, 2002). Over time, a behavior change phi losopher evaluates if behaviors improved after teaching a lesson or implementing targeted programs. Strategies at the disposal of the health educator include methods such as self-monitoring, goal setting, contracting, and other techniques that target modification of unhealthy behaviors (Hochbaum, 1969). Freeing/Functioning Philosophy The health educator with a freeing/functioning philos ophy seeks to liberate individuals so they can make deci sions that are best for them and not according to societal norms or expectations. Greenberg (1978) proposed a free ing/functioning philosophy and challenged traditional health education approaches that at times tended to blame individuals for practicing certain health-related behaviors that he felt were outside their control or may not be in their best interests due to various reasons. Therefore, individual decisions are based on personal circumstance, needs, in terests, and so on instead of what society or others reason is the best health decisions for them. This philosophy aligns with the premise that youth should be involved in defin ing their own health (Turunen et al., 2017) and thus the health educator would focus on teaching students’ skills to adapt and self-manage when faced with health-related circumstances and other challenges (Huber et al., 2011). Additional strategies and techniques the health educator may use with this philosophy include self-directed and au tonomous learning, an emphasis on a lifelong process, as sisting students with identifying ways to be healthy as they define it, discovery lessons to help free the individual to make decisions as they see fit, individual choice, and activ ities that allow students to determine their personal values and the prioritization of them. Social Change Philosophy Developed by Freudenberg (1982), the social change phi losophy targets macro level instead of individual modifica tions. Health educators employing a social change philoso phy have long believed that efforts should be focused on environmental, social, and societal factors and not limited to individual attainment of knowledge and skills related to health behavior (Minkler, 1989; Minkler, 1999; O’Rourke, 1989). An additional area of focus targets economic and political change that would benefit and improve a com munity or given population. It is important to note there are several prominent models in the health education field that are grounded in the social change philosophy (Green & Kreuter, 1999; Hoyman, 1965). A health educator might focus on teaching advocacy skills for individuals to enact positive social change with one example being letter writ

ing to local, state, or federal officials advocating for policy changes to improve community health. Discussion There are several direct and indirect benefits to devel oping a teaching philosophy such as providing guidance, direction, and consistency, while addressing other areas in the health field like ethics, profession, and definition. While it is in the interest of the health educator to develop a philosophy of teaching, they should be cognizant of not becoming too rigid with the approach and adapt and evolve as time and circumstance demands. One may start with a personal belief system that drives the development of their philosophy but may suddenly shift when the health topic at hand driven by science causes self-reflection and adjust ment. Many health educators have identified with the deci sion-making philosophy but when entering the classroom and challenged with a host of health units in a curriculum, deviated from this approach (Black et al., 2010). Ultimately, philosophy is similar to objectives in that it aids in the at tainment of reaching goals and learning outcomes. Some prominent researchers have attempted to ascer tain if a dominant philosophy encompasses most health educators and found that behavior change was preferred, followed by the freeing/functioning philosophy (Welle et al., 1995). In addition, others contend that K-12 health edu cators that do not endorse a behavior change philosophy are neglecting their role in shaping health enhancing be havior, ignoring student needs, and neglecting community and parent expectations (Governali et al., 2005). Regarding the cognitive-based philosophy, Kolbe (1982) discussed how it allows for the dissemination of knowledge and pro vides the foundation for other philosophies to build upon. Most would agree that some knowledge base is needed, regardless of approach or philosophy when teaching cur riculum and guiding youth. Health educators should caution against a concrete phil osophical approach for their entire career or else they risk alienating specific groups and can potentially cause harm to individuals or the profession (Black et al., 2010). Yet, Gambescia (2007) discussed how the health education field does not have a singular established philosophy. One may consider that having a diversity of thought and philosophi cal approach has the potential to enrich curriculum and enhance the learning process for students. Each educator should teach to their strengths and utilize their skillset; de veloping a philosophy may aid in this endeavor. Olson (2013) in a review of Philosophical Foundations of Health Education (Black et al., 2010), discussed how this comprehensive manuscript represents past health educa tion research from the mid 1950’s through the 2010’s but each individual should determine their own philosophy about health education before developing a philosophy about the profession. In addition, note how many current

SPRING/SUMMER 2026 • Virginia AHPERD • 3