This post is in response the blog post by Dave Cormier “Planning for educational change: what is education for?”
This was followed up by Jon
Dron and the comments on his blog at “What is education for?” and thesubsequent comments.
The posts by Dave and Jon are
excellent, as are the comments and I thank them for the thinking and reflection
that they have stimulated in me.
I guess at one time my position used to be similar
to that of Dave’s and I saw learning as an individual process that
happens throughout life and education as a systemic process that is ‘done’ to
people. For sure I also understand what Jon is writing about and the comment
from Derek Briton and his quote from Althusser’s “Ideology
and Ideological State Apparatuses”
However recently my thinking has started to shift
based on the writing of Mark K Smith on the Infed website (http://infed.org/mobi/)
He has a rather different 'take' on this and seems to argue
that it is “schooling” we are describing as the systemic process of, I quote, “trying to drill learning into people
according to some plan often drawn up by others” and that education can in
fact be (to also quote)–
- Deliberate and hopeful.
- Informed, respectful and wise.
- Grounded in a desire that at all may flourish and share in life.
His definition-
“Education is
the wise, hopeful and respectful cultivation of learning undertaken in the
belief that all should have the chance to share in life.”
This article is, in my opinion,
really worth reading and thinking about.
I found the
discussion around pedagogy and the comparison of the role of a pedagogue and that of a teacher that Mark
discusses in these articles, really stimulating.
These have
led me to spend time investing the works of Nel Noddings and a ‘pedagogy of
care’ and how we might better develop pedagogies of care in online learning
contexts and in higher education in general.
I think using the definition of
education that Mark describes we come closer to some of the ideas of Rhizomatic
learning, if I have understood both your work and Mark Smith’s correctly.
I hope that this contributes to
the discussion.
No comments:
Post a Comment