Science, moral authority and the implications for education

Starting back to a new term and prepping for the classroom myself and read this latest post from Frank Furedi in Spiked

• At a time when society finds it hard to provide compelling answers to the problems that people face, the realm of science is being plundered in search of moral authority.
• Evidence-based education, which is intimately linked to the ‘what works’ culture, leads to a form of processed education. Processed education is dominated by an instrumentalism that threatens to reduce education to a technique and teaching to a technical intervention.
• Not only does the quest for an evidence base distract educators from teaching and from confronting challenges - it also doesn’t work, even in its own terms. 

Two things are inter-related here: the use of science to infer moral, political authority within decision making and the implied corollary that education not embracing the presumptive process is deficient. Furedi issues an important warning against both trends but is particularly worried about the reductionist effect that a reliance upon science (especially normative science and post-normal science) invokes within education. 

Teaching should be the facilitation of discovery and personal understanding of experience, not the imposed accreditation in approved thought, paradigms or ideology.

Life, learning and living

Good post this: what-if-i-dont-have-a-passion
 

Don't expect your calling in life to find you -- you have to go grab the world and be brave enough to venture out and discover for yourself!
 

Or just live the life of quiet desperation your family prescribes for you and confines you to because of their fears. 

You have to live your life as you, not the life anyone wishes for you.
 

And that can take time to discover, define and realize. But it's not a race, it is a journey and enjoying, experiencing the journey is the point of life.  We are all going to die.  Crossing the finishing line first is not the goal.  Giving love, finding love and sharing our love with people, of spaces and places and creating something of value -- that's the purpose.  There is no timeline but our own.

value and edcuation

A thoughtful post from James Delingpole, who writes:

• The most important thing of all for a teacher is – or should be – to be placed in circumstances where you are properly able to teach.

Delingpole sees the problem in contemporary education as stemming from a cheapening of instruction, wherein the free, state-provided education is akin to

• ...one of those all-you-can-eat-buffets, where the food is so cheap you no longer see it as a dining-out treat but as something almost contemptible.

What is needed is for the institutions, the students and the larger society to perceive and re-assert the value that arises from an education.

This presumes, of course, in higher education, that institutions and professors are supplying an education that provides value in contemporary society, for a globalized world, in an era of profound and rapid change. 

It also calls into question the real worth of MOOC's and the pressures to adopt massive, on-line, distance and remote courses distinct from the personal, communal contact of the real classroom.  As Susam Blum writes learners are people, not isolated test-taking brains.

Update:

•  Education is primarily driven by motivation, and online learning doesn’t do anything to address people’s motivational needs. Why on-line education is mostly a fantasy. 

education as coaching or a plantation economy?

Two contrasting perspectives on university education caught my eye recently. The first article was an excellent exposition on the meaning of learning and why technology and teaching are not the same:

• Education is not the transmission of information or ideas. Education is the training needed to make use of information and ideas. As information breaks loose from bookstores and libraries and floods onto computers and mobile devices, that training becomes more important, not less.

• Educators are coaches, personal trainers in intellectual fitness. The value we add to the media extravaganza is like the value the trainer adds to the gym or the coach adds to the equipment. We provide individualized instruction in how to evaluate and make use of information and ideas, teaching people how to think for themselves.

• Just as coaching requires individual attention, education, at its core, requires one mind engaging with another, in real time: listening, understanding, correcting, modeling, suggesting, prodding, denying, affirming, and critiquing thoughts and their expression. 

In contrast, the second article was a post lamenting how contemporary universities now resemble a plantation economy:

• The modern university is a plantation....a large agricultural enterprise that raises and sells livestock and crops for profit....
• Undergraduates are livestock. In an actual plantation, livestock are raised and sold for profit....moving undergrads through the system is how universities make a great deal of money...
• An important aspect of raising livestock is keeping them docile... 
• If students are livestock, what corresponds to crops? Research grants and contracts. Not research itself, but research done in order to receive outside money....
• In the modern research university, obtaining grants is a requisite for employment. Yes, one can do research without external funding, but that doesn't count, at least not for much...
• Every plantation needs overseers, bosses who enforce rules and dole out the rewards and punishments. In universities these are department chairs and deans...

The connection between the two posts?  Increasing efforts to transpose teaching practice with the use of technology through the widespread imposition of distance education, on line and "free" large enrollment classes.  What is driving these "initiatives" is not pedagogy nor the quality of education.  Rather, the plantation owners and operators of the university sector are  seeking to further increase revenue, decrease expenditures and sell their measures as educationally sound and driven "improvements".

Education suffers when learning is replaced by grade attainment and performance indicators for the success of your plantation university are the throughput of the livestock students.  Big courses, using distance technology are the university equivalent of Google and Wikipedia: large repositories of information, data and opinions, but they are not learning in and of themselves.  Teaching still requires that a teacher facilitate and empower the learning of the student.  Good tools are nice but are no substitute for skilled coaching, personal engagement and emotional investment.

empowerment

Too often it is assumed that education has to be structured and that learning has to be taught.  A recent experiment with technology reveals just how much this proposition is a fallacy.

The One Laptop Per Child project decided to side track educational structures and, instead, just dropped off sealed boxes of Tablet PCs in two Ethiopian villages.  The results are inspiring to all who subscribe to the strength of the human condition and innovative spirit:

• We left the boxes in the village. Closed. Taped shut. No instruction, no human being. I thought, the kids will play with the boxes! Within four minutes, one kid not only opened the box, but found the on/off switch. He'd never seen an on/off switch. He powered it up. Within five days, they were using 47 apps per child per day. Within two weeks, they were singing ABC songs [in English] in the village. And within five months, they had hacked Android. Some idiot in our organization or in the Media Lab had disabled the camera! And they figured out it had a camera, and they hacked Android.

what is school for?

One of my past students sent me this link:

http://www.sethgodin.com/sg/docs/StopStealingDreamsSCREEN.pdf 

and I am rejoicing that I already have the blog to both share and discuss it's manifesto or otherwise I would have to start one!

This is my first link to the manifesto:I have just finished reading it for the first time and rather than wait while I reflect on it and formulate some responses, I wanted to simply share the link and promote awareness of the manifesto others asap.

My immediate reactions:

• inspired
• validated
• optimistic
• emboldened
• comprehending of what I am seeking to do in my own courses and why my pedagogy resonates with many but perplexes snowflakes

 Some points that stood out for me:

• That’s the new job of school. Not to hand a map to those willing to follow it, but to inculcate leadership and restlessness into a new generation. 

And the book's concluding summary concerning What we Teach:

• When we teach a child to make good decisions, we benefit from a lifetime of good decisions.
• When we teach a child to love to learn, the amount of learning will become limitless.
• When we teach a child to deal with a changing world, she will never become obsolete. 
• When we are brave enough to teach a child to question authority, even ours, we insulate ourselves from those who would use their authority to work against each of us.
• And when we give students the desire to make things, even choices, we create a world filled with makers.

 

education, not training

 I am both a dynamist and a libertarian.  For me, education is a liberating praxis of individual empowerment.  It is the very antithesis of the social engineering so many elites, both within and outside academia, appear content to both promulgate and justify.


Dennis Hayes recently wrote a piece for Spiked which discusses the construct at the heart of this contrast:

• ...the idea we have of the university, and one seldom commented on, is the shift from education to training. In short, HE has been transformed into a huge training scheme. Whereas education is an open-ended, creative endeavour, training is designed to prepare people for specific roles and is structured around meeting fixed objectives. 
• What has been entirely forgotten in current discussions about ‘What is university for?’ is this important distinction between training and education. Policymakers, political commentators, university managers, lecturers and students now see no difference between the two.

For me it is as simple as the stating that I train my dog, I do not train students.  Unlike my dog, I want students to think for themselves, to appraise a situation, problem solve, interact and engage in social situations with empathy and compassion, act decisively and to daily raise their level of self-awareness and sense of personal integrity.


Training is fatally flawed within the education system, especially at university.  Change is both ongoing and accelerating.  By definition, any training provided at a university level is already dated, behind the times and irrelevant to the very market requirements it claims to be serving.  Training is frozen in the constructs and concepts of those professors doing the training: it is a map of how the world was, not how it is or how it is becoming.


In contrast, education is the basis of lifelong learning.  It is a compass to empower and guide an individual through their life journey, a set of principles and constructs that are both timeless and progressively honed through practice and application as an individual's life develops and unfolds.


Training has an inherently self-justifying quality: the student must keep repeating and recycling their training to "remain current" -- a recurrent , reregistration function not lost on institutions that profit from that training activity.


Conversely, education should be one and done.  Get a handle on the whole learning thing once, and then be equipped to use that higher education to continuously adapt to and innovate the change you wish to see in the world.


If you are a student in one of my courses, and you desire to learn, you do.  The motivation to learn, to extend the mind and to push the envelop of understanding, is an internally derived enthusiasm.  We learn because we are engaged, we are enjoying the experience and we see the relevance of the learning to our own lives.  Simple really.


Many students come into my courses not knowing or accepting this reality.  They have been conditioned to associate grade attainment with education.  They fail to realize that a high mark does not mean understanding or comprehension, merely the successful completion of an assessment activity.  In my courses assessment is learning, of learning and for learning.


The high entitlement snowflakes in the class bitch and complain, some repent and prosper, others not. Some even boast of their lack of engagement on the rate my professor websites, not even aware of the irony that they are posting their own disrespect for their own learning.


I do not "learn" students.  I do not "train" them and then in an exam ask them to jump and assess the height and form of their ability to respond in some Pavlovian multiple-choice stimulus.


Rather, I engage the students in an exploration of their own comprehension and understanding of the subject, its relevancy to them, and them as individuals as a consequence of the learning that has now changed who they are and who they going to be in life.


You can Google anything.  The point is not trained memorization. Or the ability to puke the "correct" ideas as stipulated by a professor's lectures in the approved style for a journal no one will ever read. 


No, the point to higher education should be the progressive realization of a higher functioning human being, one who can take responsibility for themselves and their actions, can lead, can inspire, can innovate change to improve the world wherever they find it and is enthused to act sustainably i.e. to actively engage in the complexities of continuous improvement consistent with deep values of human purpose.


Education, not training.