Subject: Re: the purpose of education
From: Ania Lian (ania@lingua.arts.uq.edu.au)
Date: Thu 13 Apr 2000 - 04:18:55 MEST
Date: Thu, 13 Apr 2000 12:18:55 +1000 (EST) From: Ania Lian <ania@lingua.arts.uq.edu.au> Subject: Re: the purpose of education
List address to send message to everyone: ifets-discuss@LISTSERV.READADP.COM
Details of current discussion: http://ifets.ieee.org/discussions/discuss.html
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On Mon, 10 Apr 2000, Bill Ellis wrote:
> The ongoin discussion has been most revealing.
> It seems that the consensus is "power" personal power is the reason we
> educate.
> But isn't the root of learning something much more satisfying than that?
> [...] I don't see that reading Poe or Shakespeare gives us power any
> more than walking in the forest, listening to birds or watching a sunset has
> anything to do with power. There is a deep feeling of belonging that comes
> from such experiences. A feeling of awe, wonder, and participation in a
> great mystery. This is what Einstein called his cosmic religion. It too
> comes from knowing; from comprehending and understanding the cosmos. Isn't
> that what drives our curiosity, our motive to learn? Just knowing.
It seems to me that sensations like curiosity and wonder, and sensations
like that one knows something, are not independent of the power mechanisms
around us which structure, or shape, the kinds of things about which we
are curious or which give us a sense of understanding. If power is thought
about as a system of forces in relation to which things are done, then
curiosity turns out to be a product of logics which does not occur
independently but in relation to forces which structure it and which give
us a sense of achievement, for lack of a better word. This may not be the
only way to talk about curiosity, but, in the context of education,
questions arise regarding the sources of those contexts in relation to
which our sense of achievement (or learners' sense of achievement) is to
arise. What role do educators play and should play in regard to those
contexts which regulate learners' understanding and their sense of
achievement?
Is knowledge something, as Corrie Bergeron (10, April) asserts, a form of
reality that we all share and hence a form that educators must give to
learners with tools that do this best? If, to follow Corrie Bergeron, the
what of knowledge seems pretty fixed ("Humans (at least by their
observable behavior) all seem to seek the same kinds of things"), what
form (source) of logic renders it fixed? Does this mean that reality is
the way it is because we read it in ways that follow from some algorithm
that dictates our understanding of things? In other words, understanding
is not a product of application of the algorithm that we all have access
to. Not-understanding then is..?
Or, maybe, reality is the way it is because we diversity and conflict rule
and hence diversity and conflict prevent us from knowing things ever? All
we can do is hope that we can achieve things without necessarily claiming
a greater power behind our knowledge than it deserves. Therefore, to
return to Bill Ellis, the concept of power may not refer to blind
assertion of one's ability to UNDERSTAND. It may refer to a management
process in which learners are given a chance to experience their own power
(achievement/wonder/ability to pose and answer questions) through
educational contexts (like the forest walk or formal classroom and other
settings). But in such context, it cannot be the KNOWLEDGE (as some
abstract categorie held by no-one) which functions as the reference which
taps us on our shoulder every time we get it right. It has to be something
else that is more personal while at the same not divorced from reality
which is Corrie Bergeron's concern. It has to be a sense of achievement
which is real and it is based in a true experience of achieving. But if it
is not the KNOWLEDGE that taps us on our shoulder to give us confidence,
what is it and how can we systematise our thinking about an environment
that enables this process. If technology allows us to do things better, or
in a richer way, how can we systematise our thinking about
technology-based environments where learners' power derives from a true
achievement backed by a wonder rather than from a tap by a magical and
abstract category? Does on-line fix our problem automatically? Or to put
the question differently, if we were given a chance to make education
better, would we tell the government that the problem is that not everyone
is on-line?
Ania Lian
---------------------------------------------------------
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 : Thu 13 Apr 2000 - 05:43:21 MEST