The Disappearing Aims of Education
Tiffin and Rajasingham: Education in an
information society"
For Next Time
Any serious educational theory must consist of two parts: a conception of the ends of life, and a science of psychological dynamics, i.e. of the laws of mental change. Two men who differ as to the ends of life cannot hope to agree about education. The educational machine, throughout Western civilization, is dominated by two ethical theories: that of Christianity, and that of nationalism. These two, when taken seriously, are incompatible, as is becoming evident in Germany. For my part, I hold that, where they differ, Christianity is preferable, but where they agree, both are mistaken. The conception which I should substitute as the purpose of education is civilization, a term which, as I mean it, has a definition which is partly individual, partly social. It consists, in the individual, of both intellectual and moral qualities: intellectually, a certain minimum of general knowledge, technical skill in one's own profession, and a habit of forming opinions on evidence; morally, of impartiality, kindliness, and a modicum of self-control. I should add a quality which is neither moral nor intellectual, but perhaps physiological: zest and joy of life. In communities, civilization demands respect for law, justice as between man and man, purposes not involving permanent injury to any section of the human race, and intelligent adaptation of means to ends. If these are to be the purpose of education, it is a question for the science of psychology to consider what can be done towards realizing them, and, in particular, what degree of freedom is likely to prove most effective.
How would you explain to someone how/why/whether you find this paragraph "dated"? Do you think it's hopelessly dated; i.e. of no use in talking about contemporary education? Russell's writings on education, like those of Dewey, are part of a tradition in educational thought that valued the clear formulation of educational aims and goals as a prerequisite to sound educational practices. For a variety of reasons (some of them suggested by your answers to the first question), this "aims of education" approach has withered. An interesting question is whether we can do as well educationally without have something to replace the sort of norms that were a part of the liberal theory in the US.
Why does this matter to us in CS92? The answer is that, as you're all aware, the constraints of your projects have very much to do with the educational setting in which your program is to be used. Which freedoms/constraints do you cherish in your own projects, compared to the others, and which do you envy in the projects of others? We have discussed right along, or at least since reading Dewey, what makes for a bona fide educational/educative experience, but we could also ask the question: What sorts of educational settings/experiences are most conducive to the innovative use of software (and educational technology generally)?
This week we continue these meditations by reading something "futuristic", the book by Tiffin and Rajasingham. While history, the philosophy of education, and social scientific research are important ways to clarify our thinking about the roles and relations of computers in/and education, sometimes an examination of a "vision" of a particular educational future can reveal assumptions, insights and/or problems that we've missed before.
We'll discuss the first three chapters of In Search of the Virtual Class: Education in an information society on Tuesday, focusing on Shiwon's questions and comments. You may also be interested in Tom Reagan's questions about these chapters from last year. On Thursday, we'll continue with chapters 5, 8 and 9, basing the discussion on Christy's questions.
Next week we'll read two more chapters from Engines for Education, by Schank and Cleary. On Tuesday we'll focus on chapter 10 ("Goal-Directed Learning and Creating the Software We Need") and on Thursday chapter 11 ("Goal-Based Scenarios and the Open Curriculum").