Subject: [IFETS-DISCUSSION:4600] Some Notes
From: Stephen Downes (stephen@downes.ca)
Date: Mon 17 Mar 2003 - 21:46:06 MET
From: Stephen Downes <stephen@downes.ca> Subject: [IFETS-DISCUSSION:4600] Some Notes Date: Mon, 17 Mar 2003 16:46:06 -0400
> From: "Hall, Mary" <Mary.Hall@openpolytechnic.ac.nz>
> I've a couple of questions / thoughts in response...
> 1 - I think we need perhaps to distinguish between 'learning' and
> 'education'?
Some quick and rough distinctions:
Learning = the acquisition of new knowledge, where knowledge is
information that is acquired, evaluated and integrated
Education = (1) a process that supports learning, or
(2) the outcome of that process (as in 'an education')
> Surely, though, the concept of 'education' includes an
> implication of purpose? (Back to the old Latin root, as I learned it e ducere
> [ducare?]:to lead forth.
The ancient Romans got a lot of things wrong, and they never did
discover electricity. And their civilization fell. So we need to take Latin roots
with a certain degree of scepticism.
That said, yes, it could be said that education has a purpose: to
foster learning. Usually people have a certain purpose in learning as
well, a certain reason for wanting to acquire and use new knowledge.
But in my previous post I very deliberately compared education with
other freedoms. As Mill defines utility: the pursuit of one's own good
in one's own way. The concept of utility implies a purpose, but it
does not follow that a particular purpose (not even 'happiness') is
inherent in the definition of utility.
In our traditional understanding of education, the purpose of learning
is defined by an external agency: one's parents, the Church, the
State, the corporation. This is so entrenched it is difficult to conceive
of education without an externally defined purpose. And therefore,
it makes it difficult to define it without an institutional structure.
> If we make this distinction, and place 'education' as a subset of 'all
> learning' then I think the difference in perspective between your comments and
> Mark's are largely explained? It also would allow for the the assumption some of
> us seem to be making, that 'education' tends to imply a degree of 'formality' .
Education is not a subset of learning; that is a category error. Learning
is a process of a specific type; education is something that facilitates
that process. Learning is an event; education is a catalyst.
> If this concept of "feral learning" describes the individual's natural
> learning process in a de-institutionalised environment, (eg 'grazing' as opposed
> to lesson-sized 'mealtimes') - is this akin to what you are putting
> forward, Stephen, as 'education?
I didn't participate in the feral learning discussion. But...
What I am talking about I would be hard pressed to describe as anything
like 'natural learning.' It seems to me that feral learning would be
learning that takes place without any process intended to facilitate
this learning. It would be, as the name suggests, learning that we
would obtain no matter what, learning that would occur in the absence
of any teacher, in the absence of any education.
But the non-institutional learning I am talking about isn't like that. Such
learning is facilitated. But it is not facilitated by a certain structure or
institution. In some cases it is facilitated by the self; I deliberately
undertake a self-education process. In other cases it is facilitated by
external (but non-structured) resources.
Someone in another post compared the learning resources I described
as being akin to books. In one sense this is true, but only in the sense
that coal can be compared with rocks. Some books can provide
an education; they are specifically designed for that. Other books are
indifferent insofar as facilitating learning is concerned. Still others
(Heidegger comes to mind) are hostile to learning.
The resources I described were created with education in mind; they
are intended to facilitate learning. That is the reason for their being
and the genesis of their design. Just so, they could be compared with
books: but the interesting question is: with which books?
------------------------------------------------------
Stephen Downes
E-Learning Research Group
National Research Council
55 Crowley Farm Road,
Moncton, New Brunswick, Canada
E1A 7R1
stephen@downes.ca
http://www.downes.ca
---------------------------------------------------------
Subscribe to my free daily email
newsletter, OLDaily, devoted to news
and commentary about online
learning...
----------------------------------------------------------
---------------------------------------------------------
List address to send message to everyone:
ifets-discussion@catfish.valdosta.edu
Details of current discussion: http://ifets.ieee.org/discussions/discuss.html
Forum website: http://ifets.ieee.org/
Forum's contact person: kinshuk@massey.ac.nz
Info on Join/Leave List: http://ifets.ieee.org/maillist.html
---------------------------------------------------------
This archive was generated by hypermail 2a24 : Tue 18 Mar 2003 - 03:18:46 MET