When a person claims they are educating, or addressing an educational problem, or have an interest in ‘education’, what exactly are they talking about? How (or is) ‘education’ distinctive different from, say, socialization a person or reforming them? As a domain of professional practice how (or is) education different from what social workers or physicians or police officers are concerned with? Are claims about education (what it is; what is should be; how to best go about it) different from claims about schooling?
(Reading: What are the Aims and Values of Education?, Gereluk et al, 2016).
There is no question that our current education system is used for the socialization of students. From a primary teacher perspective, we are continually working with students on expected behaviours (just look at the big push for self-regulation). We have expectations for how people should behave and train our children early to follow those expectations. Now I think most of us would agree, that this is for the benefit of the larger society, but also for the individual. Those who cannot behave in an expected manner are seen as different/other and often treated accordingly. Whether this is right or wrong is not really the point, but that for many individuals to reach that “happiness” or “well-being” state there needs to be some acceptance from others in your society, community, circle of friends (whatever it may be).
I would argue however that we do not just impart the social norms, but that there is value in a knowledge-based education. Firstly, the reality is that many forms of knowledge we teach are necessary for function in certain fields of work. Secondly, for me anyway, there is a subjective happiness (hedonic concept of well being) to knowledge based learning. I find enjoyment in learning new things and find true happiness when I beat my husband to an answer on “Jeopardy”.
Hi Amanda – thanks for being the first to step out of the gate. Interesting comment here. Martin, in this chapter, seems to argue that education and schooling are different things. Or that education is more than just “schooling”. If I want school, would it follow that I have been educated?
You claim that schools do in fact socialize. I wonder, is the fact that schools often do something a justification for doing it? For example, in many repressive societies (Fascism, for example) schools were also used to socialize students and make sure that they “fit in”. Is schooling in our kind of society basically the same thing as that, or do you think that there is something that marks it out as different (at least in terms of what schools should be trying to do?).
I would like to add to Amanda’s comment about socialization in schools and Dr. Martin’s comment that perhaps schools often do something as justification for doing it.
I wonder if we do create an eudaimonic conception of well being in a primary classroom out of necessity rather than an intentional well being model. I would like to think I am imparting knowledge on my students that broadens their understanding of the world around us. However, I feel that most of my teaching time is spent helping students make informed decisions and how their actions may impact not only them but those around them (in our classroom, on the playground, etc.). We spend large amounts of time practicing caring for others, reflecting on our actions and consequences of these actions in hopes of creating a harmonious environment for learning .
I am not sure if my aim of education could be knowledge based without first establishing some form of the well-being model within the classroom. I don’t necessarily set out to identify one’s “true self” or to develop personal autonomy, it just seems to happen.
Maybe this is a justification for teaching the well being model in schools today?
I wonder if this focus on the well being model shifts to a knowledge based model as students enter the higher grades of education and have a solid understanding of their true self?
Some really good points in there. I see two questions that might develop your line of thinking:
1. When teachers teach, should they have an education aim or purpose in view? Is it possible to teach without an aim in view?
2. If they do, does the teaching/activity involved have to be directly about aim or purpose? For example, if I want my child to think about their interests in the long term I have to “train” them into some kind of self-control, especially at the early years of their life. So, perhaps a safe classroom is necessary for teaching to get off the ground even if there is nothing directly educational about it.
Out of curiosity, I was reading the Siegel paper, “Why should educators care about argumentation?”, and the author defends the position that teachers should indeed hold an educational aim. He states that, “educators qua educators ought to be concerned with philosophical questions concerning education, especially those concerning the nature and justification of basic educational aims and ideals” (Siegel, 1995). He continues to support the position that Argumentation should be the educational target that we aim for, which truthfully, I’m not quite convinced that it is any better, or vastly different from what falls under the Well-being Model, but I think that I do agree that educators should have a sense of educational philosophy, and that we should teach with those aims in mind.
It is certainly possible to teach without a broader educational purpose. I’m sure I’ve done it. I might even do it again. So many times we get caught up in the “stuff” of teaching. It’s easy to allow assessment or textbooks or curriculum documents drive the bus, and organize your daily purpose around checking off those boxes. My students need to learn to write an essay because it will be on the final exam. It will not necessarily make them happier, or improve their future lives.
It seems a bit like the eudiamonic point, “taking ones [teaching] as a whole”, have we made sure that our instruction was “informed” (Gereluk et al, 2016, pg 16)? I tend to think that we should. Otherwise, what does it all mean? On the other hand, maybe it doesn’t ALL have to be about those aims, all the time. I visited my own children’s school today and they were in the midst of a presentation by a pair of very talented musicians. Now, I’m certain that none of my three kids will suddenly aspire to be accordion players, however, they were very appreciative of the experience. Perhaps it contributed to their happiness though…
I really like that Siegel article and really good of you to chase it down.
Just FYI, Siegel makes a particular kind of argument in supporting his justification for argumentation/critical thinking as the basic aim of education. It’s called a transcendental argument. Look back for it in the paper and you’ll find it, but it goes something like this:
When I ask the question, “Why should educators care about argumentation?” I’M actually ASKING for a justification. I’m asking for reasons. So the very ACT of asking WHY we should care presupposes that we care about argumentation for otherwise we would not ask the question! Siegel’s point is that the only way to decide on the aims of education is to give reasons for them, and so at bottom caring about argumentation is fundamental to education (because it the only method we have for sorting out the question).
Transcendental arguments are really interesting because they play weird tricks on your brain. Here’s another example:
“What makes an activity worthwhile?” In asking the question, I presuppose that I have access to the knowledge and understanding necessary in order to answer the question, “what makes an activity worthwhile?” That knowledge and understanding involves science, art, philosophy, and other forms so knowledge that we need to answer questions about what’s worth doing. Therefore, science, art, philosophy ARE worthwhile because anyone who wants to make choices about what’s worth doing needs that knowledge and understanding. (I don’t talk about it in the chapter but this is one way that R.S. Peters tries to justify the forms of knowledge).
1. To the question: When teachers teach, should they have an education aim or purpose in view? Is it possible to teach without an aim in view?
In my experience, teachers must teach with an education aim in view. Without spending time on classroom routines, teaching students awareness of self and others, identifying positive actions and how to make informed choices it would be nearly impossible to teach the values (purpose) of education (math, science, reading, etc), especially in a primary classroom.
2. To the question: If they do, does the teaching/activity involved have to be directly about aim or purpose?
I would suggest that the teaching activity is directly about both, aim (what we believe is worth spending time on) and purpose (value of education). Without one can we really have the other? If I don’t spend the time creating a learning environment for all students, how can I teach knowledge? Even once I have moved to a knowledge model of education I am constantly pulled back into reviewing my initial aim of classroom harmony. In today’s classroom I believe that the two go hand in hand.
The fact that schools often do something is certainly not a justification for doing it. In fact you would be hard pressed to find a teacher that didn’t feel there was some part of the curriculum that we are asked to teach by mandate of our provincial learning outcomes that doesn’t fit into that category. I completely agree with Martin when he says that “We can do lots of activities in school, but by being clearer on the nature, scope, and reasons for the aims or values of education, we will be better positioned to engage in such activities in a way that makes them meaningful for both students and teachers” (Gereluk et al, 2016, pg 7) . That being said, I would say there is value in teaching children how to work with others, how to deal with their emotions in a positive manner, how to voice their thoughts and opinions in a respectful manner. Is that not a form of socialization? I would not put such things in a class with fascism, but yes, we are imparting our cultural norms and values to students, but hopefully we are also teaching them to think for themselves and to think critically.
Very well replied. Values such as responding to emotions in a certain way, to work with other. Might this also be ‘eduction’ even if it isn’t formally under curriculum content? Might it be a form of moral education, perhaps?
Great points. I think most educators believe that education goes way beyond the curriculum. All of the interactions, relationships, programs, lessons and behaviours that go on in a day greatly contribute to a child’s educational experience. Many of these variables are what make one’s journey so unique and valuable. It is also important, however, to understand that many of these experiences may be negative for some, which is why it is so important to have strong structures of support for students who struggle with social interactions and/or academic tasks on a daily basis. There are so many needs that must be met, and skills that must be developed, which, in my opinion, is why the value, aim and purpose of education are so widely debated.
Absolutely! The question would be “Does moral education have ‘value’?” Obviously from my previous statement, I think so. Others who are entrenched in the knowledge base camp might now so whole heartedly agree.
Is the fact that schools often do something a justification for doing it?
Not always. Many would argue that the Fundamental Skills Assessments (FSAs) are a prime example. The schools all have to administer the FSAs. Even though they are nothing more than a snapshot of the students and the school, we use them to rank schools. That snapshot isn’t even reliable. The amount of preparation students get prior to the test varies from school to school, teacher to teacher. I could go on about the assessment but I won’t. A fair number of my colleagues and I do not see the value in the assessment, and I don’t know anyone that uses the results as a formal assessment of the students or as a tool to improve their teaching, yet we spend hours getting the kids ready for it and hours administering it. So just because we are all giving FSAs is not a justification for doing so.
How is the socialization of students in our culture different from repressive regimes such as Fascist regimes? My father was born in 1935 and grew up in Fascist Italy, so this hit a nerve. Repressive regimes, such as Fascism, look for uniformity, fear of government and often place the countries woes on a minority within their land. Part of teaching our students the social norms of our society is to accept and celebrate diversity. It is part of the fabric of Canadian Culture and that is what marks it out as different.
I appreciate the link to moral education, and I often feel that educational discourse focuses too heavily on what we want immediately for our learners instead of looking at what we want for the world at large. Students need to be more than successful and knowledgeable – success without a moral imperative isn’t what our world demands to solve critical problems. Many, if not all, knowledge based understandings depend completely on compassion to be ethical. Compassion, and empathy, is what anchors everything we do, and guides us to be successful in the right ways.
In a shift from content to skills, I don’t think there’s a bigger need than for our students to be resourceful. they need to be able to wade through the vast landscape of information, judge and filter accordingly,and be able to know what to do when they don’t know what to do. They need to know how to reach for support, build networks and capacity, access information and deliver it. They need to be connected to their community and the world, and utilize technology, media and human connections to do this. They need to be resilient problem solvers who are able to become managers of their own learning. They need to become aware of opportunities. They need to be resourceful enough to choose mediums that are meaningful, in terms of both accessing and sharing ideas and knowledge.They also need to have the core foundational skills of communication, numeracy, and literacy to allow them access to information and knowledge.
I think the world now demands a fusion of moral education, social emotional learning and knowledge- focusses that can be incredibly powerful in combination.
I often go back to this:
“The plain fact is that the planet does not need more successful people. But it does desperately need more peacemakers, healers, restorers, storytellers, and lovers of every kind. It needs people who live well in their places. It needs people of moral courage willing to join the fight to make the world habitable and humane. And these qualities have little to do with success as we have defined it.”(David Orr, 1992)
what education means for people, different people might get different answers in their heart. Just as the article said, Schooling is not just for education, it is a tool to exert some policies. If a country or a society need more socialized people, schools will regard it as a goal, but that is not the aim of our Education.
I had a student before, he hates study really much and did not want to do anything about study. He said he found no value and happiness about his study in schools. Does that mean he does not need Education? Maybe he does not need academic knowledge, but I think he needs education, which will help him to create a more desirable state of mind.
It was quite interesting reading and thinking about school aims and values, and how they are actually implemented within a school. If a school promotes economic well being within its set of values, an administrator ought to think carefully regarding what this means and what is the correct course of action to implement this value. The author uses an example of job training as a seemingly sound method in which to carry out such a policy, but could in fact be detrimental due to a fluctuating job market. In my previous work environment I never actually gave much thought regarding what our school idealized and how my teaching reflected these ideals.
A connection I made here was when the author talks of the knowledge model of education, which prioritizes cultivating knowledgeable and curious minds, as opposed to the more practical and apprenticeship based belief of what education should be. The author kind of refutes this claim indirectly when bringing up the job training argument above but I actually appreciate both forms of education. I tend to believe that the purpose of education is to create a well-rounded and knowledgeable mind but at around the age of 16-17 there should be a shift towards a more practical/apprentice oriented model. Anyways, interesting article. Just a few thoughts!
Thanks for being on of the first to comment! Good to see you dig into the question of economic aims of education. You ended off by claiming that later in school students should move to “practical” models. Could you explain what a practice model is (how it is different than say, roundedness) and why it is important?
One view of education in Canada can be regarded as preparing young people for life in a democratic society. In our nation, personal autonomy is held in esteem by many. Personal autonomy is “the ability and motivation to live a self-determined life. Personally autonomous people determine their ends and goals for themselves. They are also able to critically reflect on, and choose among, the shared values of the community or society they live in” (p. 18, Gereluk et al, 2016).
Educators often cherish values such as personal autonomy and industriousness. “Personal autonomy is especially relevant to societies that place a premium on individual freedom, personal responsibility, and choice” (p. 21, Gereluk et al, 2016). We can choose from a vast array of subjects, knowledge, skills, understanding, and application. Many citizens in the G-7 group of nations can appreciate “education for long-term economic well-being” (p. 7, Gereluk et al, 2016).
I made a formatting error on all of my quotes …… It should read (Gereluk et al, 2016, p. 7) not (p. 7, Gereluk et al, 2016).
Good job of citing the material and drawing our attention to certain aspects of the article. That said, perhaps you can explain in more detail why you selected those particular aspects of the chapter. Was there something you especially agreed/disagreed with about these points? Is autonomy the same as industriousness? Where do you stand on some of these ideas?
Question: “As a domain of professional practice how (or is) education different from what social workers or physicians or police officers are concerned with? ”
I think when looking at this question, it is important to consider what perspective of Education you are coming from as a professional. If you are coming from the perspective of “the knowledge and understanding model” then you might argue that education is quite different. But from “the well-being model” you could argue that they are quite similar or should even be shared.
When looking at education from a knowledge and understanding perspective based on the work of R.S. Peters as described in this article. Education is described to have “intrinsic value”, to be about the “betterment of our minds,” and to be focused on the “forms of knowledge. “(Gereluk et al, 2016, p. 10-11) This philosophy is all about transforming understanding and learning for knowledge-sake. This is likely quite different from the practical understandings that a social worker, physician or police officer might be concerned with. The physician for example might seek to educate their patients about the importance of eating a healthy diet. This sort of lesson, though potentially valuable, doesn’t really follow the knowledge and understanding perspective. It isn’t clearly one of the forms of knowledge, it is not being taught simply for understanding, but with the bias that the doctor is hoping you will adopt these habits, and it would be very easy for a doctor from their privileged position to be considered to be brainwashing their patients. For example, as a classroom teacher, I have seen volunteer nurses teach my students about the food groups. My young students left that lesson very clearly convinced that they all needed more dairy products in their diets. Since they were being taught by “experts” they asked a lot less questions than I was accustomed to them asking in a typical science lesson. Without the critical reflection students weren’t taking the opportunity to consider the “reasons why” at any deep level.
On the other hand when you are coming from the well-being model this question could be considered differently. The well being model focuses on “what it means to live well.” (Gereluk et al, 2016, p. 15) This concept can be difficult to balance, but John White indicates that a critical concept is personal autonomy. A crucial part of the definition of personal autonomy is the ability to “critically reflect on, and choose among, the shared values of the community or society they live in.” (Gereluket al, 2016, p. 18) If the goal of education is to aid students to live a self-determined life and personal autonomy, critical reflection, and analyzing shared societal values are priorities then all of the above professionals could be working with a common goal. For example, in the alternate education setting that I teach in, I have had both a social worker and a police officer come into my classroom multiple times this year. Their professional concerns are similar to elements of the curriculum that I am teaching and well-being concerns that I have as their teacher.
I think you are quite right to say that the model you adopt will inform your practice. That said, is the choice of a model simply a matter of taste, or is one model more justifiable or worthwhile – hewing closer to what education really should be about – than others?
I think that it isn’t entirely a matter of taste. I do think that with professional autonomy as a teacher, to some extent there is variation in which models are being used in classrooms across our province, but I think that the policies of our current system are swaying in one direction. I feel that the knowledge and understanding model was the model of choice for a long time; but that in our changing society with technology on the rise and a changing job market a shift is happening. The well-being model with personal autonomy as a focus is what I see in the new curriculum in BC. The elements of critical reflection, thinking, and reasoning are all prevalent in the new curriculum and in the well-being model that is laid out in this reading.
I agree with your statement Erica that we are definitely seeing a swing in the direction of our curriculum from a strong focus on knowledge base to more of a well-being model as shown in the implementation of our new curriculum as well as the implementation of programs such as Mind Up and Zones of Regulation (as I stated in a previous post). With all things though, there needs to be balance. We do students a disservice if we do not prepare them for the realities of life outside of a school building. We certainly want them to feel happy and confident, but, I believe, we need to make sure they are prepared to function in a society that requires/expects adults to participate in our economy and let’s face it, most jobs are going to require you to have some basic knowledge and critical thinking skills if not more depending on the field you enter. Sure, not every job is going to expect you to spout poetry, or write an essay or do trigonometry (thank goodness), but they will be looking for people who work hard, can finish what they start, are willing to learn new things, can take criticism. Our jobs as teachers is a huge responsibility and I believe that we are all doing our best to help students become well rounded individuals who will leave their schooling prepared for anything. Not a small task, but I think one we are all working towards as evidenced by our discussions and presence here.
When I hear the words education and schooling, my mind immediately thinks of two different things. For me personally, education implies addressing the curriculum whereas schooling has a more social context to it. I feel our current (secondary) curriculum in British Columbia does very little to address the social and emotional well being of our students. As teachers we deliver the written curriculum while supporting the hidden curriculum. Skills such as time management, critical thinking and innovation don’t show up in the ministry IRP’s, but I do feel as teachers we address these skills on a regular basis. In my mind schooling includes the more social and emotional skills we teach. Education would include the facts and processes we teach.
After reading the chapter I do feel that there should be aims (plural) of education. I found it interesting how the chapter focused on boiling education down to seemingly one thing at a time. For instance the knowledge model leading to a decline in physical education. I feel there should be many aims of education. Perhaps we can’t aim at more than one thing at a time.
Hi Jeremy,
Nice education/schooling distinction. Just to help you develop you position further: you claim that BC doesn’t do much to develop the social and emotional wellbeing of students. Empirically this may be true (i.e. true as a matter of fact). But is there anything wrong with this? In other words, why should schools promote social and emotional wellbeing? Another question that you (and everyone) might want to take up: what does it mean to teach for emotional and social wellbeing? Can it be taught? If it can’t be taught, how reasonable is it to expect schools to make it a priority?
I feel emotional and social well being can and should be taught. Some students do not have positive role models in their lives who can demonstrate what it is to live a healthy (physical and mental) lifestyle. At the grade 11 level I teach a course which has a section where we focus on Healthy living. Topics such as mental health, stress and healthy nutrition to name a few, are all covered. We live in probably the most socially connected times in the history of the human race. Helping students decipher what healthy social interaction is, can and should be part of what we teach.
Schools have a mandate to deliver the curriculum. Unless the curriculum contains instruction related to social/emotional well being, it is very unlikely that teachers will have or find the time to deliver it. As we in BC move towards the “new curriculum” I feel there is more of an emphasis on social interaction and collaboration.
I can’t agree with you more. As the time changes, society puts forwards different kinds of requirements to the citizens. I think schooling is for meeting those requirements. We get all kinds of knowledge and skills we need to live better through schooling. However, if a person has got all the skills and meet all the requirements the society asks for, which means he doesnot need schooling, doesn’t he need education any more? I really doubt about this point.
When a person claims they are educating, or addressing an educational problem, or have an interest in ‘education’, what exactly are they talking about?
As educators, when we educate our students, we teach them about math, science, poetry, language, and other academic subjects so that they can slowly build up their knowledge. They now know how to write a poem or an essay, they know historical events to be remembered, they also know how to compute math operations in which will help them at convenience stores. Furthermore, we often show them multiple perspectives on a phenomenon and several ways to solve a problem; we also provide opportunities for them to expand their knowledge horizon. By doing so, they become educated. They are able to think critically, rationalize their thoughts analytically and objectively, being able to accept constructive criticism, learn new skills and grasp information quicker by applying previous knowledge.
Addressing an education problem may be similar to raising a concern towards a policy or a goal, which I think is caused by the difference in personal values of education. These problems or questions are often raised by people who have a passion in education. Educated people do not necessarily know everything but they are learning for true interest and they show passion and appreciation towards learning. They are interested in educating others and being educated in return through interactions and revisions, they would like to make changes and see changes in schools, they hope to foster and build a sense of culture, identity, important skills in life, etc., they want to promote education for both intrinsic and extrinsic reasons.
How (or is) ‘education’ distinctive different from, say, socializing a person or reforming them?
In my personal opinion, education is different from socialization or reforming. Education tends to refer to the theoretical knowledge and skills someone acquires, the focus depends on the values of the educator, which means education is more selective based. For example, one math teacher may focus on problem solving skills more than memorizing definitions or algorithms. Education can be thought as knowledge-centric with its aim being understanding concepts and principles or can be viewed as the well-being model where the emphasis is on making critical judgment and participating as young citizens. Regardless of the model, education is a two-way communication as it includes interactions with one another. It is also personal oriented because everyone shares different values of success & worthiness of doing things.
However, socialization usually involves following order or command in order to be accepted by the society. For example, children learn what is norm or acceptable since they are young. It’s a series of habits and customs. Moreover, reforming or socializing someone does not depend on an educator. It’s a set of “rules” passed on from generation to generation. In our society, we deal with various relationships everyday. We learn how to deal with people and things in a way that can be recognized by our society through our colleagues, friends, bosses, parents, spouses, etc.
Are claims about education (what it is; what is should be; how to best go about it) different from claims about schooling?
I think education is different than schooling. Schooling is simply the notion of attending school. It is structured in terms of time and location, it is formal because it usually is conducted by a teacher, instructor, professor, etc. They have the power to decide on topics, skills, concepts and contents. People attend schools in their younger years, therefore typically speaking, the number of years of schooling is finite. Examples of schooling may be learning how to analyze literature, language acquisition, etc.
On the other hand, education is a broader sense. It is a life-time learning journey, there’s always something to be learnt even at the age of 80. People learn from not necessarily a school teacher, and learning takes place anywhere (home, work, friend’s house, store, etc.). Some examples of education include learning how to care and love for one another, how to interact with others especially people from different cultures, how to establish social connections, how to let go of things and people.
The complexities of educational values, aims, curriculum, and policies, are ever present. The key to these educational complexities begins with an awareness that they exist. This awareness, however, continues to leave the educator (myself) with more questions than answers, thus blurring the path to clarity. For myself, the question is not: What educational models and philosophies do I focus on?, but rather: Do I focus on, value, and give respect to each of them?
As we know, each student/person is a unique individual. This, in turn, makes all learning styles and needs unique to that individual. In order to meet the variety and complexity of these needs, I believe that aspects of all educational philosophies and models are needed to support the vast educational aims and values.
As a teacher of the Montessori philosophy within the public education system, I feel that I am aware of the knowledge model and the skills intended to be acquired (as directed by the Ministry of Education), while incorporating the well-being model in terms of “…abilities, skills, or intellectual powers that will enable them to pursue those things in life that make them happy…” (Gereluk et al, 2016, p.15).
I do wish to emphasize, however, that while this is an ongoing debate with myself and others, and is mirrored in the evolution of my teaching practice, I have by no means mastered this process. Goal setting and reflection remain key time consumers. For these reasons, the following quote stood out from the reading: “We can do lots of activities in school, but by being clearer on the nature, scope, and reasons for the aims or values of education, we will be better positioned to engage in such activities in a way that makes them more meaningful for both students and teachers” (Gereluk et al, 2016, p.7).
Lot’s of deep reflection here and I like how you’re able to raise a number of interesting question about what it is we are actually talking about when we talk about ‘education’. Some points to help develop you position further and to generate further discussion:
I wonder if the claim that students are individuals necessarily means that there is no right answer to what education really is (or should be). For example, if it IS true that all students are individuals that might mean that schooling that attacks, denies or suppresses individuality is no education at all. So the belief in individuality commits us to some kinds of education and not others. And to be sure, there is an unavoidable element of judgement in teaching when we are dealing with different people, but I’m not sure if that means that people are entitled to different “kinds” of education. But I might be misreading your comment – but what I’m moving toward is the claim that children, regardless of who they are, may be entitled to some kind of common education standard. But I’m not sure.
Another interesting question that comes out of your point: if you are right and educational aims do come down to the individual, who should decide what kind of educational aims best fit that individual?
Finally, I’ve seen the term ‘learning style’ come up more and more in education courses and here is a short article that might be of interest. It is by no means the final word on this concept. Further, the author by no means denies we shouldn’t take the learner into consideration when we teach, however, they do try to distinguish between that and the belief that there are certain “ideal types” of learners: http://www.wired.com/2015/01/need-know-learning-styles-myth-two-minutes. I raise this also because one of the big tasks in exploring ‘education discourse’ is trying to parse out what we mean when we use certain concepts and ideas and what those ideas and concepts commit us to in practice.
I agree that we, as learners, are not solely right or left brained, analytic or dynamic, visual or auditory. We are a combination of many different strengths and weakness based on our brain development, experiences, and growth. Our brains are working with all lobes simultaneously, including the right and left lobes in the prefrontal cortex. This does not, however, mean that we do not have tendencies or strengths that are more prevalent than others. The article and your comments have me seriously reflecting on the term “learning style”. So, to help explain the differences in the learner, it might be more appropriate if I focus on the term “learning needs”. This would help me explain the unique needs of the individuals and question what, as an educator, I can do with this knowledge and understanding in helping students reach educational aims and their full potential.
The ultimate goal of my teaching is to support the growth of the learners’ areas of strength and address needs. This brings me to my original comment of trying to use a variety of models and philosophies in order for the students to reach their fullest learning potential.
At this point in time, I believe that only having one standard will leave me with the “normal” curve, or the bell curve theory, that I will only be reaching a certain percentage of my learners. Having one standard may be the most effective based on time and resources. The problem arises in a situation where the composition of one’s class is filled with a high percentage of students with learning disabilities, and cognitive challenges and/or a multi-aged population. Finding one appropriate standard in an environment such as this becomes quite the challenge.
In response to your comment, by no means do I believe that we should not have standards. Without standards we have nothing. No common expectations, no baseline for achievement, not contrast. I do believe that as education evolves (and as you mentioned) and we prepare our students for the future and jobs that do no yet exist, our standards should be evolving as well. Having said this, it still seems to come down to the individual instructor’s interpretation, understanding, and execution of these standards. On this note I would like to thank you for stretching my thinking, challenging me to read critically and presenting it in a way that was meaningful. As I have observed with my own children and students…sometimes we learn best when we don’t know we are learning at all. ☺
I like your comment about combining the knowledge and skills model with the well-being model. I think the well-being model is becoming more prevalent in the policies being set out in Education in BC. It is really apparent in the new curriculum, particularly the competencies. But, as our subjects are so clearly divided into knowledge areas in how we divide our days and report on report cards, I think the knowledge and understanding model is still definitely a part of our system.
I agree that we, as learners, are not solely right or left brained, analytic or dynamic, visual or auditory. We are a combination of many different strengths and weakness based on our brain development, experiences, and growth. Our brains are working with all lobes simultaneously, including the right and left lobes in the prefrontal cortex. This does not, however, mean that we do not have tendencies or strengths that are more prevalent than others. The article and your comments have me seriously reflecting on the term “learning style”. So, to help explain the differences in the learner, it might be more appropriate if I focus on the term “learning needs”. This would help me explain the unique needs of the individuals and question what, as an educator, I can do with this knowledge and understanding in helping students reach educational aims and their full potential.
The ultimate goal of my teaching is to support the growth of the learners’ areas of strength and address needs. This brings me to my original comment of trying to use a variety of models and philosophies in order for the students to reach their fullest learning potential.
At this point in time, I believe that only having one standard will leave me with the “normal” curve, or the bell curve theory, that I will only be reaching a certain percentage of my learners. Having one standard may be the most effective based on time and resources. The problem arises in a situation where the composition of one’s class is filled with a high percentage of students with learning disabilities, and cognitive challenges and/or a multi-aged population. Finding one appropriate standard in an environment such as this becomes quite the challenge.
In response to your comment, by no means do I believe that we should not have standards. Without standards we have nothing. No common expectations, no baseline for achievement, not contrast. I do believe that as education evolves (and as you mentioned) and we prepare our students for the future and jobs that do no yet exist, our standards should be evolving as well. Having said this, it still seems to come down to the individual instructor’s interpretation, understanding, and execution of these standards. On this note I would like to thank you for stretching my thinking, challenging me to read critically and presenting it in a way that was meaningful. As I have observed with my own children and students…sometimes we learn best when we don’t know we are learning at all. ☺
Today after our staff meeting, two teachers were discussing the value of math education, and it reminded so much of this article that I had to discuss the correlation between education/schooling and how we as individuals see the purpose of school.
I am thrilled to learn the term ‘eudaimonic’ because I think that is what my capstone has been about: hHow transformative to my teaching it has been to have found my passion and to bring it into my class room. As I read about eudaimonics, however, I came to an opinion that this is not an understanding that can happen when one is an adolescent or a child. There is too much of the world to be exposed to before one has enough data to properly evaluate what is one’s ‘true self.’ Cultivating “knowledge, abilities, and motivations” (Martin, 2016. p. 17) takes more than a decade or two, though we do get them on the road and helping them gather some understandings for their metaphorical backpacks so they can get started on the journey. I like this image.
What happens when various members of a school staff (or even a department) have opposing philosophies? How can we benefit as a school by having these discussions, and developing an understanding of agreed upon mutual goals? Is such philosophical cohesion the miracle glue to outstanding schools? What’s your experience? Does your worksite function with one governing educational philosophy? (which may or may not be the same one that is on the letterhead or the school growth plan).
I have wondered the same thing – what happens when teachers, Department Heads or Curriculum Developer at a school have opposing or simply different philosophies? For example, when our math department has some heated debates over which assessment policy to implement, what’s the best solution? As mentioned in the article, one math teacher may believe in algorithm while another favours in problem solving, with different goals, values and teaching methodologies, the skills acquired will differ across classes. The article has also mentioned that high school math curriculum hasn’t prepared students well enough. I think it’s important to understand the basic math concepts and know the operations, but concepts like integration isn’t for everyone. Like you have questioned, how can we benefit as a school? Perhaps different level of math courses should be developed to meet the diverse needs and values of students and teachers.
I’m actually incredibly glad that educators possess such a wide array of perspective, values and beliefs about education, because I think those differences are what provide an opportunity to engage in professional conversations about what really matters. I think that disagreement doesn’t always have to be divisive, and that it is those conversations that can transform thinking. Education is incredibly subjective, so having divergent perspectives serves as a checks and balance system.I think it would be more dangerous and concerning if Department Heads and Curriculum Advisors easily agreed and didn’t offer critical perspectives on what they were struggling with or have the opportunity to be reflective of our own inherent biases and values. There isn’t a one size fits for for schools, and I appreciate the times when these conversations force us to me introspective and consider alternatives.
Thanks for the post. I think your claim about deliberation and multiple perspectives hits on something really important, not only about educational aims, but the nature of education discourse in general.
Just a quick follow-up to a specific point you make: you claim that education is “subjective”. When we use this term we usually mean that our judgement about something is fundamentally a matter of personal taste or opinion. Flavours of ice cream are subjective – nobody could claim that we should all like the same flavour. And while we might have trouble understanding why someone would like a particular flavour (mint ice cream? really? yuck!) we can’t really say that they are incorrect in liking a particular flavour.
But is educational decision-making really the same as this? Let me offer an example: let’s say that I believe the education should aim at indoctrinating students or brainwashing them. And so I structure my teaching around this belief about education. Would we say that I’m mistaken in my belief about education, or would would we have to say that while it’s a distasteful view this is my subjective judgment and so nobody can disagree/challenge me in my beliefs on education because they are basically a matter of taste or personal preference? (To make the example more practical, imagine that this someone who is teaching with you, or someone teaching your own child). (Anyone is invited to reply to my question, of course!)
Thanks for your thoughts! The subjective piece – I think that educational decision-making definitely has a subjective element, but I do think that conversations and decisions should share some foundational elements that bind the discussion. The dialogue has to be informed by a body research and practice that can be held to to the moral and ethical standards we seek on the the communities we live in. I think that research around regimes where indoctrination and brainwashing the population would offer us insights and compelling stories that would deter reasonable academics and educators from embracing these practices. I would hope that even if professionals were to hold these internal beliefs, systems and structures that exist beyond the world of education(legal, medical, government) would offer checks and balances that would provide perspectives and evidence that confront perspectives seeking to undermine self determination, empathy and critical thinking. That being said, I say this from a pretty clear position of privilege, because I likely take my abundant liberties and rights for granted having never lived under an authoritarian regimes that threaten the democratic systems I have lived within, or been on the historical receiving end of racism or discrimination. I would hope that educational discourse at the sytem, school, and micro level would be rooted in values about human rights and social justice, and that those concepts frame how we structure education. How we work towards those human goals allows for some subjectivity, and limitless variation, but it would be a dangerous discussion of moral and ethical considerations didn’t root the discourse.
Very well said. Would a better word for what you mean is ‘fallibilism’? The term means that you aim for knowledge and understanding but you are always aware that you could be wrong and that you therefore need to be open to new evidence/other perspectives/better arguments.
I think, for me, education is a holistic approach to education that focuses not only on what someone should know and need in life, but also what they could need and know. As a student advisor I tell my students this every day. I try to emphasize the fact that education is a process of building knowledge so that an individual is capable of engaging in the processes of life.
While some educators may argue that there is a definitive “goal” in education i.e. to get students to graduate or to get them into X school so that they can become doctors, lawyers etc. I believe that formal education is more about developing cognitive thinking and competencies that enable the learner to fully participate in life.
I don’t think we can compare education to socialization because we have to be in a position that provides education equally and fairly so that all students, regardless of where they are coming from, have an equal opportunity to learn and grow. I think, for sure, we need to differentiate between the idea of schooling students and educating them. We need to focus on competencies and strive to produce systems and processes that “graduate” critical thinkers with knowledge of the world.
I think you make a very important point in your first paragraph when you say that education ” focuses not only on what someone should know and need in life, but also what they could need and know.” We as teachers are preparing students for the unknown. In many cases we are preparing them for jobs which don’t yet exist. Very few students know “what they want to be when they grow up”, and even when they think they do, there are no guarantees in life (death and taxes aside). Is it then possible for the aims of education to prepare students for a rapidly changing society? Must the aims change at an equally rapid rate?
Hi Danai, good to see you again! I totally agree with your point that education isn’t about memorizing facts or concepts or going to a certain school in the end, it’s more about what you learn along the way, these learnings may take place anywhere, not necessarily bounded by a classroom or an instructor. It could be a new way of thinking or looking at a particular event, or how to deal with relationships/partnerships in life, etc. Moreover, they are meant to be on-going, there’s no such thing as the most educated people, they are constantly been educated with newer knowledge and life skills. These are the essential skills required in today’s world.
As a School Based Resource Teacher (SBRT) my job is to help facilitate meaningful integration of students into the school environment. In the knowledge model Peter’s posits that “education should aim to leave people better off in a more general and wide-ranging sense than employment or skill development” (Gereluk et al, 2016, p.10). I wondered if this was my job description of developing the student with special needs a place to be the best they can be without imposing curriculum, but finding the intrinsic value that is important for each student. For me, the educational aims might be different for each student with which I work. I continually check my own practice and wonder if I am going in the right direction with my students. Is there too much me in what I am trying to accomplish with them? Do they have enough input/collaboration into their goals?
There were a lot of very persuasive arguments regarding educational aims in that paper. In fact, as I was reading it, I began to feel like Sally Brown in You’re a Good Man, Charlie Brown and her song, “My New Philosophy”. Each model of education seemed to fill my teacher soul with deep satisfaction, until I got to the next one. Then I couldn’t believe I had been so foolish as to fall for the previous model, as it had clearly fallen far short of the mark. I ended up seriously questioning my critical thinking skills.
After reading the question, but before working my way through the paper, the analogy that I drew was that of a five-course meal versus a buffet. Social workers, physicians and police officers are offering the five-course meal. There will be plenty to eat, it will be well prepared by an expert Chef, and you will even get dessert. Once you find yourself at the table, it will all be brought out to you. You may find it a little heavy on the Brussels sprouts, there will certainly be a kale salad, and dessert will likely be that superfood super star, BLUEBERRIES. Basically, it will be something thoughtfully planned and above all, good for you.
Education, on the other hand, is the buffet. Here you will find all sorts of goodies. You will find comfort foods, will-power testers, food you can’t stand and food you can’t even identify. And there will be lots of things that you haven’t tried before. But don’t worry; you will be given plenty of time to choose. And there will be other diners there to share your experiences with and a team of culinary experts to help you with your decisions. It promises to leave you wanting more.
Food for thought.
But I know that what the paper was saying goes beyond this. It is not simply that education offers many opportunities to try new things. There is the need to consider how many opportunities, and which new things should be offered. And who decides? That was something that I am left with. Obviously, in the classroom it is the teacher who chooses his or her own philosophy of education; however, beyond that – at the school, district, ministry or societal level – who decides?
In the end, I felt that the well-being model sat best with me, however, I recognized the problems with happiness and the “true-self”. What especially appealed to me about the personal autonomy approach was the social responsibility element of it. We are not alone on this planet, and there are many factors beyond ourselves that deserve our consideration. I agree that personal autonomy strikes a balance between happiness and eudiamonics. Overall, I felt it would provide me with the most satisfactory answer to “why do we even have to learn this?” Much better than, “because I said so.”
When a person claims they are educating, or addressing an educational problem, or have an interest in ‘education’, what exactly are they talking about? How (or is) ‘education’ distinctive different from, say, socialization a person or reforming them? As a domain of professional practice how (or is) education different from what social workers or physicians or police officers are concerned with? Are claims about education (what it is; what is should be; how to best go about it) different from claims about schooling?
(Reading: What are the Aims and Values of Education?, Gereluk et al, 2016).
I believe when a person claims that they are educating, or addressing an educational problem; what they are talking about is trying to show their interest in something that they believe is worthwhile knowing. “Education should be concerned with acquiring a broad knowledge about the world”( Martin, 2016. P.7). Meaning that education is about teaching a variety of broad knowledge from around the world, that will better prepare a person for life. This is different from socializing a person, or reforming a person by saying this “skill” has “… a purpose because it leads us into thinking of education as an assembly line where the teacher’s jobs is to mass produce a certain type of person according to a predetermined objective” (p. 6).
As a domain of professional practice, education is different from social workers, physicians, and police officers; because education is when a person is teaching an individual to become knowledgeable in all facets of knowledge, which allows an individual to adapt to changing environments, and always be fluid in the skills and knowledge that the individual has. Meaning that education will always be changing, and never remain the same, to ensure that the individual is able to adapt in all situations of life. Whereas, social workers’, physicians’, and police officers’ jobs is to look after the persons’ emotional wellbeing; though this is ensuring an individual will survive in the “real world,” these three jobs do not teach the individual the broad range of knowledge to become a contributing citizen, or a citizen that will be able to adapt to all of life’s obstacles.
I believe that the claim of education and schooling are different. Education is what is taught (ie. Literary cannons), and has past the test of time. I believe that education is combination of life skills, knowledge, awareness, and the personal discovery that is needed by an individual, in order to become a contributing citizen. Whereas, school is an organization that dictates what the individual does, and how the individual must behave. Each organization (school and education) have an impact on the individual, but one focuses on desired outcomes (school), and the other focuses on the growth of the individual to give them the tools to succeed in life (education).
We are all acting on a set of beliefs about the aims and purposes of education, our beliefs about the aims and purposes of education will have a direct impact not only on what we teach, but on how we teach. We use our own philosophy of the purpose of education to justify our own teaching practices.
This article inspired me greatly in one point.
It lies on my understanding about the difference between schooling and education, as well as the difference between their aims.
Education doesn’t happen only in school. Not all the activities in schools are for the aims of Education. The article illustrated this point in detail by providing some vivid examples. The difference between education and schooling determines the difference between their aims. It helps me explain a problem that I was always confusing before. Why do students go to school? Why do they need to learn all kinds of subjects? Why do kids need to be educated? Is there any relationship between educational degrees and personal well-being?
When I was a child, people around me told me that I needed to study hard in schools so that I could change my fate. I thought the reason people go to schools was for getting knowledge, passing the exams, getting the degrees as a stepping-stone to good jobs. This thought was strengthened after I became a teacher in a rural school. After that I went to Beijing to work as a math teacher in an international high school. Once a time, a student asked me that why they need to come to school to study while they have quite enough money for their whole life? Why do they need to remember the formulas to address the integral problems while they will not do any jobs relevant to integral? I was confused and could not give him an answer. Moreover, when I heard that a master murdered his roommate just because of a tiny thing, I was thinking why a highly educated person did such a thing and where the value of his educational experiences was.
What does it mean to say one person is educated? What is the purpose of our education? A person with high educational degrees cannot be defined as educated. Schooling is not equal to education. Schools can be a place where we could educate people, which does mean people can become educated through going to schools. If the purpose of Education is for the well-being of people, I think the knowledge is definitely over-emphasized although it is really important to human’s life. If personal autonomy is an approach to education of well being, how could it be integrated into our curriculum so that we can get closer to the purpose of education through schooling?
There are a lot of really great points being made here, and one thing is certain, “The questions of what education is for and why it is worthwhile are complex.” (Gereluk et al, 2016, p.5) The value of education, in my opinion, is to provide children with the opportunity to prepare themselves for the life they decide to live. This is very broad, I know, but so are the many things schools deliver and teach, which includes the mandated BC curriculum and everything beyond it, such social skills, conflict resolution skills and perseverance, just to name a few. Now, the fact that life goals and paths are so unique suggests that the aim of education is different for everyone. Everyone’s educational journey is unique and dependent on so many variables. Martin states, “Some activities that take place in schools are directly related to educational aims while other activities may be indirectly related to those aims – or not at all” (p.7) For some, the aim of education is to prepare and build their skills so that they can pursue a career as an engineer, which may mean a strong value would be placed on understanding and learning mathematics. For another, the aim may be to become a translator, which could be the result of being enrolled in an early French immersion program and tackling a high school schedule focused on international languages, for example. For another, school was simply a place to learn how to build meaningful relationships, because everything else felt meaningless, at the time. So, if this is the case, then the aim of education in schools is different for each individual it educates, is it not?
As a teacher I obviously feel that education is something good and worthwhile. I see great value in it. However in reading this chapter I found myself thinking “good point” or “Hmm, I’ve never considered that”. I found it interesting that when I jotted down some notes to answer the question, “What is an Educated Person?” at the beginning of the chapter, I included thoughts under two distinct categories. First being Academic, second being Real Life. As I read through the chapter I found myself relating to points made by Peters, Martin and White. So maybe they are all correct. I’m not sure yet.
As a teacher of young elementary children I feel it is important to teach the basic foundational skills needed to carry them through their years of schooling. Foundational skills such as reading, writing and basic math computation (the Knowledge Model). However, academics is only one aspect of the needs of these children. The students who find themselves struggling in academic areas begin to struggle, in my experience, in areas of socialization, self-worth, self-regulation, mindfulness, and relationship building. I believe a feeling of success in academics contributes to the social behaviour of individual students.
Young students are just learning how to relate to each other on a social level, how to work in cooperative groups and with a partner as well as how to self-regulate. They are just beginning to find their place in the big world around them and to understand the rules and regulations of our society. I feel it is just as important to educate them socially as it is to educate them in the academics. All students need opportunities in which they can grow as social beings within a safe classroom environment through engaging in various activities and experiences that allow them to connect with others, to make their own informed decisions, to contribute to the classroom community and to gain an understanding of who they are. I suppose I agree with White when he speaks about personal autonomy and its importance.
Shouldn’t our educational values and aims be tied to both academic success and the well-being of each student that enters our classroom?
In my second year of teaching, a Science teacher told his students that there was no need to study Social Studies because it was useless and would not help them later in life. It sparked a small war between him and myself. But since then, I have found myself in many conversations revolving around the importance of the ideas discussed in chapter 1. I have often felt our perception of education relies too heavily on content and not enough on wisdom. This chapter opens a dialogue that addresses many of the issues I feel are important.
Since teaching and education are so broad, many of us come to this discussion with our unique biases formed from our own experiences. I will expose mine as a teacher whose most important focus is critical thinking. As such, I must first define my terms; what is education? As Tain Li has stated, “Education doesn’t happen only in school”. School, while married to education, is not education. And while we have a need to separate education policy from forms of knowledge, we, in my opinion, can not. As teachers and educators we are part of an institution and must reconcile these two ideas. However, this topic revolves mainly upon the aim of education as a separate entity and to which the remainder of my comments will be addressed.
Most people believe in at least the basic idea to which White was referring to, that education is preparing youngsters for life. I believe that this is one of the many roles it attempts to fulfill. I more strong agree with the eudiamonic approach to “education” as it encompasses both knowledge and how to use knowledge for tangible means. Yes, I believe our goal in life is to be happy and not in the hedonistic as Martin was referring to. Education within the school system is, or should be, multilayered and perhaps this is the problem. How can we focus on one aspect without acknowledging the other? The aim of education, it seems, can’t be resolved in a simple statement. It has not been discussed in this article of the element of developmental psychology. Can students really be autonomous? And if so, should we allow them to be?
I am a high school teacher and as such, bring into this discussion another bias. I have often made a general statement to students and teachers that in high school, the students enter as children and leave as adults. I make this statement based on not only the wisdom and maturity they acquire in these years but on the physiological development of the brain. I think it is absurd not to separate our educational aims by development. In other words, our educational aim should be different depending on age. The aim of an elementary school teacher will not be the same as a high school teacher’s. I won’t even begin to further dissect this idea by acknowledging the challenges to the individual’s rate of development. While I acknowledge our discussion is more holistic, I feel it must be mentioned.
Upon reflection of both my own teaching philosophy and this chapter, I come to realize the answer to this question is perhaps too layered for me to answer. I have written far too much and have bored any reader that has come this far and I have yet to discuss my thoughts on the cultural element to education. So I will sum up my thoughts with a poor analogy. The aim of education is like creating a cup; the clay is our knowledge which we can give the student, and the student can learn how to find this on their own, the teacher introduces the skills on what to do with the clay, and lends them tools to work with. At the end of the day, the student makes the cup, which is ready to be filled with the rest of their lives. We just hope we do a good enough job so the cup doesn’t leak.
While reading the chapter, I started to think about the Pause for Thought question. What is an Educated Person? Never before have I had to actually sit down and think about what that means to me. My answer will be as unique as I am, for I think each person’s experiences defines what education means to them. Educating is a process that begins the day one is born and continues for a life-time. In addition to acquiring empirical knowledge, problem solving skills, decision making skills, and social emotional skills, education needs to include the following:
• the understanding of one’s culture and the cultures of others
• developing an understanding and respect for the environment
• the skills needed to navigate the social norms of society
• acquiring the skills to maintain a career (responsibility, organization…)
To me the ultimate goal of education is for a person to be able to do the following: look at the world and see the value in not only his or her own culture and beliefs but those of others as well, see the value of individuals whether or not one agrees with their politics or ideology, find a field of interest and use ones talents in it (whether it be scientific research or mechanics) and to be able navigate life successfully. Schooling is one of the means to obtaining the goals. It takes the big picture and divides it into smaller chunks, whether that be math, history or job skills.
How does this relate to the Knowledge Model and the Well-being Model? As Peter’s stated (as cited in Martin, 2016), education has to be worthwhile, not taught in a way that indoctrinates or brainwashes the learner, and should enhance or broaden the learner’s perspective. At the same time, looking at what my idea of what education is, you can’t ignore the Well-being Model either. The end product of education also has to be, the ability to make good, well-informed decisions that will produce well-being in the long run.
I’m so sorry! I thought I had posted a comment, but it must not of – the curse of rural and unreliable internet. Apologies for late entry and not actually posting. Below is my initial response but the previous comments and discourse on this thread has altered my original thoughts.
The initial question is the one that struck me the most is the connection to values – I think so much of what we do is connected to what we value as human beings, even if we don’t explicitly say so. I think the values we hold as educators will undoubtedly drive the work we do with children in classrooms even in times when we aren’t deliberately reflecting on what those values are and the lens they create for us. I do feel that if educators are provided a space for reflection, and a colleague or community to engage in values-based conversations with, we can become more aware and purposeful of the foundational beliefs about education we hold, and what we see as the purpose of education. I worry that educators often find themselves to consumed with the day-to-day work and discussions about technique, strategies and individualization, that we don’t have the time we need to engage in the deeper conversations about values and education that guide our practice and subtly inform our perspectives. In my experience, grounding difficult discussions in core values and hopes for our students in the larger world, allows us to be critical of our work in a way that always keeps the learner as a human being in the center of our thoughts and reflectively examine our own practice.It’s as much about what we want for the world, and the future, as it is about what we want for individual learners.
The challenging, and most interesting piece, is that our core values and beliefs about education vary so greatly, and are so incredibly subjective. The values that inform our goals are ever-shifting, and this is why the ongoing discussions about values are so critical within the education system. As the larger world outside of education shifts, the urgency for education to shift to meet new needs and challenges increases. Traditional models of job-training and economic well-being are shifting, and in many ways are outdated in the rapidly changing reality our learners are facing as they enter the world. I could argue that what I want most for my learners is for them to be ever flexible, critical, creative, and adaptable, and leave with thinking skills that can transfer to an uncertain, shifting future. The models of compliance that have followed schools are no longer relevant- I want learners to be able to both challenge systems and work within them to create the change they want to see in the world. The way that schools are approaching knowledge acquisition in a digital age should also be informed by the new reality that we live in a world where knowledge has never before been so easily accessible and available- but our ability to sift through knowledge and make critical decisions about the knowledge we acquire is now what matters most. An educated person in the world we now live in must be more than a human with with content and academic knowledge who is equipped with the skills to provide economic well-being – those qualities will not transform the future.
Hello colleagues!
A phrase from this reading that caught my attention is, “we are all acting on a set of beliefs about the aims and purposes of education, whether we know it or not – and whether we know what it is or not.” (Gereluk et al, 2016, p.5). This sentence reminded me of Ron Ritchhart’s book, Creating Cultures of Thinking (2015), where he writes, “teachers do not so much work from a set of practices, either prescribed or ingrained, as they are guided profoundly and implicitly by their belief sets about teaching, learning, and the meaning and purpose of school.” (p.41) This caused me to wonder, should educators have a professional responsibility to identify the set of beliefs that drives our practices? And if so, how aligned (if at all) should those beliefs need to be with the beliefs of others in our schools, or districts, or province? Or does our professional autonomy take precedence over having a coherent purpose for education? I am interested to hear anyone’s thoughts around belief sets, professional responsibility, and the need (or lack thereof) align with our colleagues about fundamental aims, given that each educator is being driven from their own background, experiences, and schemas.
As the Gereluk et al chapter continued, I kept coming back to similar questions, such as, is it possible for all stakeholders to agree on the values and aims of education? And do we have to identify the most important reason to educate? Most would agree that knowledge certainly used to be a fundamental aim of education, as R. S. argue The arguments R. S. Peters presents for knowledge as an aim have values; however, there have been significant shifts in technology in the last two decades, leading to almost every student having internet access, or what I like to call knowledge in their pockets.” I would argue that to truly educate students, we need to help them develop skills to critically evaluate, analyze, and utilize available knowledge to be able to creatively produce something of value. Mehta and Fine (2015) propose that deep learning occurs on three subsequent levels, the first being mastery, the second being identity, and the final level being creativity. The main argument set forth is a student can know and understand something (mastery), but unless they personally connect with it and it becomes part of their identity, it is still not deep learning. The ultimately level of deep learning occurs once a topic is so much a part of one’s identity that he or she has the ability to work creatively with that idea. Based on this, I would propose that deep learning of knowledge be considered one aim of education.
Works Cited:
Metha, J. & Fine, S. (2015). The Why, What, Where, and How of Deeper Learning in American Secondary Schools. Unpublished. Retrieved November 29, 2015, from https://canvas.harvard.edu
Ritchhart, R. (2015). Creating Cultures of Thinking: The 8 Forces We Must Master to Truly Transform our Schools. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
While reading this article I too saw a lot of similarities in the well-being model to how the new curriculum in BC has be in a way “marketed” at my place of work. All of the downtown cultural district institutions (the gallery, museum, rotary centre for the arts, etc) have had two different presentations now by members of the Okanagan school district to discuss the purpose for this redesign and how we should utilize it to support teachers in the programs we offer (field trips 🙂 ). When designing my own art gallery tours I agree with Amanda that there must be a balance. I know I cannot send a group of students out the door saying they are happy they saw some pretty paintings today. Instead I have been working on asking the students to exercise their critical and creative thinking skills when looking at art and I have adapted this same goal to all K-12 grades. It’s amazing how much you learn about one particular subject after reteaching it at that many different levels of education. In one day I might teach grade 2, in the afternoon I’ll have a lengthy discussion with grade 9, and then finish the day off with a seniors tour. Given that is the nature of my profession, I have grown to see education now from a much wider perspective where the competencies and ability to ask questions, make connections, and understand goes a lot farther than say, reciting every title, date, and medium for an entire collection of art. I am not saying the knowledge model should be tossed out, but I am quite convinced the BC curriculum is moving forward in a direction, balancing the knowledge model and the well being model, that will help students succeed after university, or also just high school as contributing members of our society.