Education is not neutral. The experience of education is aligned with the experiences of an individual and society in general. It is a social activity where learners bring their experiences, perspectives, and cultural contexts – this is what Habermas referred to as lifeworld (mentioned in Fong, 2017). In my case, I see teaching first as an individual activity (i.e., psychological) and second as a social activity (i.e., sociological). However, I am starting to realize that there are ways to integrate both individual and collective approaches to education. Jarvis (1992; mentioned in Illeris, 2017) called for the integration of cultural, historical, and existential perspectives into education.
Adult education, in particular, is not neutral. Adult learners engage in activities to satisfy their own needs and the needs of their society (Spencer & Lange, 2014). An adult’s need varies from developing technical skills to maximize the opportunity of being promoted at work, to the pure pursuit of self-understanding. Aside from satisfying our needs, the way we acquire knowledge is dynamic and is constantly influenced by our immediate individual social, cultural, and historical environment and experiences – an idea that reflects situated learning (Lave, 2009).
How education-as-not-neutral is reflected in my teaching practice?
Teaching social psychology in a culturally homogeneous classroom is different from teaching social psychology in a culturally diverse classroom. The concepts and principles of social psychology are discussed but the way I and my students engage in making sense of these ideas are different. A culturally diverse classroom has students disagreeing on the meaning of a concept based on their different cultural experiences and perspectives. For example, students coming from different religious backgrounds (or lack thereof) have different views on the helping motivation of religious people.
Why does it matter to view education as not neutral?
Seeing education as not neutral matters because its direction (or purpose) impacts the way students and teachers think, feel, and behave. This impact may be viewed in two ways. First, if the priority of education is focused on economic growth, then less priority may be focused on critical thinking and democratic decision-making (Nussbaum, 2010). This trickles down to how teachers approach their instructions and how students engage in the learning materials. From a macro perspective, funding and scholarships for an education focused on economic growth will prioritize those students who can contribute to the business goals of the higher education institutions and may neglect the humanities aspect of such educational pursuit. Second, the direction of the education and its aspects such as the curriculum directly impact how the teachers and students situate themselves in the story of their learning and ways of thinking – Bruner (1996, 2009) called this narrative thinking. The teachers and students will make sense of their learning experience according to the culture of the curriculum. If the curriculum focuses on improving technical and vocational skills, then all the learning experiences may be seen as more valuable and meaningful through the lens of its applicability in the workplace. If the curriculum focuses on deliberating democracy, then all the learning experiences may be viewed as more valuable and meaningful when they give both the teachers and students the ability to think for themselves and society and take responsibility for their thoughts and actions.
How does the purpose of education impact the students?
An example of how the purpose of education impacts students and teachers is the focus of learning how to write a psychological report. If the curriculum focuses on the applicability of skills at work, then the report should be evaluated in terms of how it summarizes the results coming from different psychological assessment methods with a clear summary of the person’s psychological profile – all these are directed towards making the report a clearcut representation of who the person is in relation to the goal of the report (e.g., fitness for an executive position, recruitment decision, and other employment-related goals). However, if the curriculum focuses on understanding the self, then the psychological report is evaluated in terms of how comprehensive it is in interpreting the results from multiple theories of personality and human development. There will be no clear-cut representation of who the person is but will be focused on providing information that the client will have to be aware of to further understand himself/herself – to facilitate personal growth.
References
Bruner, J. (1996). The culture of education. Harvard University Press. Available at http://mehrmohammadi.ir/wp-content/uploads/2020/07/The-Culture-of-Education-Jerome-Bruner.pdf
Bruner, J. (2009). Culture, mind, and education. In Illeris, K (ed.), Contemporary theories of learning (pp. 159-160). Routledge. https://doi-org.proxy.lib.sfu.ca/10.4324/9780203870426
Fong, J. (2017). Habermas’s theory of communicative action and the colonization of the lifeworld. In: The Death Café Movement (pp. 53-68). Palgrave Macmillan, Cham. https://doi-org.proxy.lib.sfu.ca/10.1007/978-3-319-54256-0_3
Illeris, K. (2017). Peter Jarvis and the understanding of adult learning. International Journal of Lifelong Education, 36(1-2), 35 – 44. https://doi.org/10.1080/02601370.2016.1252226
Lave, J. (2009). The practice of learning. In Illeris, K (ed.), Contemporary theories of learning (pp. 200-208). Routledge. https://doi-org.proxy.lib.sfu.ca/10.4324/9780203870426
Nussbaum, M. C. (2010). Not for profit. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Spencer, B., & Lange E. (2014). The Purposes of adult education: An introduction. Toronto: Thompson Educational Publishing.
flowjame 