The Use of Technology in Education is a Means to an End and Not an End in Itself?
Question Details:--------------------
The Use of Technology in Education is a Means to an End and Not an End in Itself?
It seems to me that we are losing sight of the basic purpose of Education; which according to me is 'man-making', learning to be' and learning to become'.
The entire process of education needs socialization with a peer group and experiencing what we are learning. We are adding Technology to Education without any consideration of the objectives and adding technology seems to have taken precedence over other major concerns.
I have seen the impact and the advantages of technology and am witnessing the disadvantages of leaving everything in Education to Technology.
Please give me your valued opinion based on your experiences.
Kindly allow me to use your answer and suggestions in my Blog.
On 3/21/09 3:50 AM, Prof Bhushan Lal Handoo added the following clarification:
I regret the spelling error in the word Technology in my question?
I am genuinely concerned about good education and sad to find a lot of gimmickry going on in the name of technology and the gullible parents and students being cheated not only of their money but also of their expectation of good education.
I am aware that proper use of Technology in education can have tremendous advantages in learning, in reaching out to more numbers, in bringing the best education to our students.
I would love to have some fearless and daring opinions from those especially, who have seen the good and bad use of technology in education.
Thanks.
Jo Aggarwal wrote:
I can see a lot of well crafted opinions in the responses so far, so I will keep my post to examples of good and bad uses of technology I have seen in education.
As someone who left eLearning for being tired of selling "snake oil" but still uses technology for specific inputs your question strikes a chord with me.
One of the best examples of technology in education I have seen is a site called mathletics - my son's school uses this site - On World Maths Day - children from schools across the world spent more than 6 hours online answering maths problems, competing with each other to do the most correctly in a minute.
They compete against others who are at exactly their skill level, and from at least 3 other continents - so each child feels challenged but also motivated at the same time. Teachers can give them exercises on the site.
I love this because it uses the two biggest technology advantages - connecting with others, and personalization to make a great instructional experience.
But all too often technology in education is introduced for the wrong reasons. I see in my work so often that technology is used to drive the cost of "teacher time" per student down by providing online lectures or elearning- working completely counter to the advantages of personalisation or learning from peers and mentors.
This also happens when you use technology to "scale" a learning solution - something I have been hearing a lot about lately. Organisations like the University of Phoenix online who have done this successfully know that you can only have about 8 students to an instructor online where you could have had 20 students to an instructor live, to create the same impact..
At the end of the day, to get great education, we need great educators - and if technology gives people an excuse to fewer, or less committed teachers, it is always counterproductive.
However, if it enables people to build motivation by creating virtual classes that are more homogenous and personalised- where people who have exactly the same style of learning or the same level in a subject can get together for a very targetted learning experience, it could be brilliant.
Links:
http://www.mathletics.com
David Rountree wrote:
Technology is an end in itself as well as an enabler, enhancer, motivator, and expansion of the classroom. The short answer is technology is both or it could end up being neither.
First, if a student is truly prepared for the workforce, then technology is a necessary part of that preparation. My view is that technology needs to be a tool that students use as well as a tool that they observe being used to enhance their education.
Second, technology can extend the teacher's reach. It allows the teacher to bring things into the classroom that have traditionally been out of reach. A french class that can actually read a current french newspaper. Or a science class that can observe an online video of an experiment performed halfway across the world. There are no limits to bringing global works to wherever. Perhaps a museum in Egypt instead of stale, outdated text photos. Maybe timely participation in a webcast. Maybe calculators to focus on problem solving and give temporary relief from the mechanics of arithmetic.
Third, technology can be used to supplement a teacher's efforts. I used to put my outlines, lecture notes, and assignments online to make them available 24/7. It released me from the drudgery of writing code on the blackboard and students scrambling to get it all down before I erased it. And I was able to demonstrate programming in action instead of well rehearsed snippets and algorithms repeated too often.
Finally, technology allows students to learn even when a traditional learning environment is unavailable. A small farm community that can still offer an AP calculus class. Or a single mom able to take accounting while watching the kids.
There is no substitute for a good teacher, but that teacher recognizes the value that technology offers and strives to bring it in. And even if technology occasionally becomes the end, students observe a professional coping with new technology and mastering it. A learning experience in and of itself.
Scott Byorum wrote:
Technology can deliver the message in various and convenient ways, but it fails to deliver the heart behind the message. It is one thing to read a book or interact with a computer program explaining a concept or premise. But it is an entirely different and richer experience to interact with a human teacher on the subject. The wealth of their heart in the matter is physically transferred into your perceptions and expands your ability to think and conceptualize.
Dr. James Brewer wrote:
When one is taught using technology as a tool, it can increase one's ability to absorb (or at least gather) information more quickly.
When one is taught the technology itself, one is learning "knowledge" that was hopelessly out of date before the teacher ever learned it. The poor student is doomed to instant obsolescence.
Education is the ultimate enabler. Generally, if one is not educated, one is not able.
Let's be forthright here; the "technology" of which we speak is computer software in most cases. All software, in my mind, falls into a few categories:
1. Smart software for smart people. This is targeted to a specific need, and helps people who are already productive and know how to think be ten times more productive. CAD programs, for example.
2. Smart software for dumb people. This is also targeted to a specific need, and helps people to do something they simply could not do without the software. A web browser or email program, for example, are software that allows people with no tech savvy to gain access to prodigious volumes of information. This serves a valuable role in "technology".
3. Dumb software for dumb people. The only result of software in this category is to allow dumb people APPEAR to be more productive. PowerPoint is an example of this category. The largest number of users of this are marginally-literate dead wood who don't know much, will never know much, and refuse to think. They can use this software to APPEAR to be churning out reams of beautifully-crafted documentation, when in fact the emperor has no clothes.
I once worked at a company where all presentations had to be made in black on a white background, with no graphics. The meetings went faster, and attendees paid attention to the speaker instead of bells and whistles.
Susan Shwartz PhD wrote:
I agree that there is a difference between using technology and being used by it. I don't like to see higher education being used to teach people expertise in specific programs, then chuck them out with degrees when they are not educated, but simply adept at a program. That used to be considered secretarial -- and while I couldn't do an executive secretary's job on a bet, you used to go to Katy Gibbs for it, rather than to College. (I have heard that Gibbs now offers a degree, but I haven't checked this.)
I am wondering if, in our rush to credentialize, we should be giving out certifications, rather than B.A.'s or B.S.'s, and requiring updates as new releases come on the market. One exception: the computer science major, whose education should exceed reading manuals and digital and visual expertise.
I think PowerPoint is a -horrible- way of communicating because it does not foster good writing and, instead, cuts to the chase without any kind of interaction aside from the person inflicting the slides reading the bullet point to his or her victims. It generates a "this is excess verbiage (usually spelled wrong)" mentality that masquerades as being efficient and businesslike, but that often takes the form of jargon-ridden, brusque phrases. Do we need "fine" language in our business communications? Possibly not: but we need clear, workable prose.
Last, however, I do need to point out one thing. "Man-making" happens in the womb, where the XY chromosomes fuse. By the time the XY has gotten to university, it's already done. The individual grows and matures. There are more female than male individuals in the population and, in the U.S., definitely more in college and university.
Please take this into account. Another aspect of education is growth and change. NOT subsuming the larger part of the world's population into the smaller part because of "natural gender" is part of this evolution toward a more thoughtful and inclusive culture to the extent that, when someone does -not- do it, I wonder what other assumptions need to be questioned.
Angela Monroe wrote:
There are actually two separate topics to discuss here. The first is utilizing technology IN the classroom; the other is using it AS the classroom. I will post in two segments.
1. Technology in the classroom: Students need to be comfortable with technology because in ‘the real world’ they will be expected to utilize, embrace, and enhance it.
People tend to be afraid of what they don’t understand, especially if it’s really expansive and can be broken—I remember trying to teach my mom how to program the VCR. Therefore, technology must be introduced in the learning process, the earlier, the better. That said, the manner in which it is introduced is key: it must be introduced as a tool—an aid in solving problems—and not the answer itself; students must understand what the technology is doing.
For example, it is absolutely necessary for students studying math to understand the theory and science behind it, and therefore every third grader must suffer through problem upon problem of long division and later geometry proofs. *bleh* However, if that same student chooses to become an engineer, he/she will be expected to get the job done quickly, efficiently, and accurately, and therefore must be well-practiced in industry-standard software and the biggest, fattest calculator money can buy. In the same vein, a college student writing a paper should know the proper use of English grammar because the auto-correct isn’t always right, but take away spell check/auto grammar from any professional and productivity would decline due to dictionary look-ups for each and every email written (even if that professional was taught spelling in school). *double bleh*
On 3/27/09 6:57 AM, Angela Monroe added the following clarification:
I think education through technology fails when it is presented as the end-all/be-all, and the concept is not taught along with it. A fifth grader working at a rummage sale should be able to count back change, without waiting for his brother to finish using the calculator. What happens when that fifth grader buys something at a store and a crooked cashier short-changes him because the kid can’t do simple math? As long as we continue to present the theories and reasoning behind concepts along with introducing how technology can make the task faster and help identify errors (key word there is ‘help’), our kids will be OK.
2. Regarding the utilization of technology for course delivery, I have strong opinions on this topic also. I was in the admissions department at the Online campus of Herzing University for several years. It was one of the most rewarding experiences of my life to watch my students, who couldn’t confirm to a traditional college schedule /experience, go through college, graduate, and score a fantastic new job, thanks to their education. Many of my students were single parents, tired of working two and three jobs to support their children, who needed the flexibility our online education provided. The difference going to college made in their lives, and their children's lives, is mind-blowing. Utilizing technology to provide access to education is definitely a good thing for society.
However, this also goes back to how that technology is utilized. As other posters have said, a PowerPoint show and simple multiple-choice exam does not constitute learning! The online student must still be engaged in the experience, discussing concepts and ideas with other classmates and the instructor; the student MUST remain challenged and stimulated.
In summary, technology in education can be very dangerous, if left in the wrong hands. If used as a crutch, society won’t move forward because no one will understand the thought process behind technology in order to enhance it. But, when used correctly, technology can help students save time performing menial tasks and allow them more time for creatively finding new solutions to problems. If the abacus or slide rule was the highest tech devices for math majors, would they still be able to solve engineering problems? Sure, but the time differential would be enormous.
(For this post, I would have had to look up the spelling of conundrum and abacus if it weren’t for spell-check. On the other hand, I overrode two grammar suggestions. I’d like to thank my teachers for utilizing technology properly.)
Allen Laudenslager wrote:
Since the true purpose of education is to improve our lives, how you deliver the instruction is secondary.
I think it was Plato who said "A school is a log with a teacher on one end and a student on the other". This theory has stood the test of time - 3000 years (aprox).
Nitesh Chandra wrote:
I find it difficult to see how one can disagree with this fact. Technology can be an enabler, a potential field-leveler for many learners from comparatively disadvantaged background. Yet, unless one is clear about objectives for using the technology/tools, it can be of no significant consequence.
Of late, having visited quite a few schools to understand the use of technology to enable students to realise their potential, one realised that it essentially is the story of the old wine in a new bottle. The approach and objectives remain highly outdated and unless there is fresh thinking on the objectives of education and using technology to achieve those objectives, things will remain as they are, despite superficial changes.
Benjamin Goh wrote:
Education, like business and other areas of our lives is human driven. Without the human factor, education will be like stale fish, never fresh enough! This means that technology like the computer is only a tool.
-
-
Let's take the analogy of hearing and listening.
-
"There is a real distinction between merely hearing the words and really listening for the message. When we listen effectively we understand what the person is thinking and/or feeling from the other person’s own perspective. It is as if we were standing in the other person’s shoes, seeing through his/her eyes and listening through the person's ears. Our own viewpoint may be different and we may not necessarily agree with the person, but as we listen, we understand from the other's perspective. To listen effectively, we must be actively involved in the communication process, and not just listening passively."
- extracted from the article, Tips on Effective Listening by Larry Alan Nadig, Ph.D., Clinical Psychologist and Marriage & Family Therapist (http://www.drnadig.com/listening.htm)
-
-
As in the above analogy, "education" as the equivalent of listening while "technology" is merely hearing. An effective education can be achieved with or without technology but technology may not be able to effectively deliver a good education. This is how I see the relationship between education and technology.
-
Let's use technology the way it was intended by its inventors..that is, to make this world a better place to live in and embrace education as the means of acquiring knowledge and skills and more so, wisdom, with or without the help of technology!
Donald Philip wrote:
I would agree with you to a certain extent. Too many teachers are using technology without really knowing why or how. It's better to have a theoretical basis for the pedagogical use of technology. This supplies the rationale for why and hints at how.
To this end, I would recommend two books:
1. Jonassen (1996). Computers in the Classroom. Mind tools for critical thinking. New Jersey: Prentice Hall.
The title pretty much tells it all here. Jonassen focuses on technologies that support critical thinking and deep learning.
2. diSessa (2000). Changing Minds. Computers, Learning, and Literacy. Cambridge, MA.: The MIT Press.
diSessa introduces his theory of the pillars of literacy: material (signs, symbols, depictions or representations), cognitive (what we think and how we think in the presence of inscriptions), computational (new computer-based inscription systems, etc), and social (the basis in community for enhanced literacies).
From diSessa: "... an average ninth-grade mathematics student plus a particular inscription system [algebra] yields a material intelligence that surpasses Galileo's intelligence, at least in this domain of writing and "reasoning about" simple quantitative relationships" (p. 16). Why does he say this? Galileo did not have algebra–it hadn't been invented yet, and it limited his ability to communicate his mathematical ideas. The computational pillar is rapidly producing new representational systems that change the very way we think and learn. This is what teachers need to understand better. Jonassen's book provides a practical guide as to which software types are best for this.
Stephen Cottle wrote:
The different responses to this post reflect the various uses of technology in education. I don't think there's any one right answer.
My viewpoint is based on being a graduate of a real brick-and-mortar university (FSU) from an on-line program. Clearly, on-line programs make extensive use of technology. I've heard it said that graduates of on-line programs don't receive all of the benefits of full-time students on-site, and that may be true. They get the additional advantage of flexibility however. Even among full-time students, many are taking on-line courses because the in-person courses do not meet their needs or fit their schedule.
The key is the extent to which the use of technology is thought through. My professors used a variety of approaches to lectures, from delivering straight readings to slick presentations with voice-overs. They key was not the format so much as the content. I did the same group projects as my on-site peers, but had the advantage of working with classmates from different geographic regions and with wildly different experiences. I made friends that I'll have for life.
The exams that I took are the same ones that on-site students take. Some of them were administered on-line. Others were proctored.
There will always be a place for brick-and-mortar schools, but denying a role for distance learning is denying the future of adult education.
Alexandre Silva wrote:
The future of education is the same of others sciences and studys, whatever will happened depends of Technology. Paulo Blikstein, a visionary brazilian engineer, now Professor in Stanford, make a wonderful job in the impact tech pro education.
Links:
http://www.blikstein.com/paulo/
shubhranshu agarwal wrote:
I think 'man-making', l'earning to be' and l'earning to become' like mottos of education are not going to be affected by the use of technology but instead students are going to get benefit in many ways.
Adele Madelo wrote:
Technology is not the be-all and end-all answer. What matters above all is (1) a student's ability to read and comprehend different kinds of texts (inc. perspectives). Another useful skill is (2) critical thinking. Without the ability to look beyond surface level no technology will be able to rescue this child. **It still requires human-driven instruction.**
Here's one tech application: I have often used PowerPoints in the classroom because it allows my students (7th & 8th graders) to focus on something, not just my voice. The lights are also dimmed during this time, which as I've found, has lessened their anxiety.
While they like the PowerPoints, students in their evaluations emphatically said that discussion was the best way for them to learn and retain information. For them, that format made it meaningful.
In looking at technology in the classroom, it is important to put the application above all else. What do we want to achieve in our lesson? Students still need the scaffolding to give their projects life. So, they'll need the information, a teacher model, a rubric, and organizational skills to complete successful projects.
It is also important that faculty enter a workplace with basic tech skills. The knowledge to use them correctly is equally important. This includes etiquette--when to send e-mail, how to write effective e-mail messages--to the bigger question--how can technology be used to effectively deliver a lesson?
Like students, teachers must always be aware of how well they're using one of the oldest technologies: speech. This technology, when used correctly and followed through with diligent and mindful action, can cultivate an institution that holds clear and transparent communication at its highest. It should also ensure that our systems of communication and modeling for children do not break down as often. It will also serve as an example for our students, who, whether you know it or not, are always looking to teachers to do the right thing. Plus, like students, we've used discussions to find ongoing solutions for our hardest cases and for everyday practices.
Jay Mehta wrote:
Technology is certainly a means to an end and NOT the end itself. Primary purpose of education is to deliver knowledge/information from one person to another. While the knowledge remains the asset with human beings, it is only the way in which it is transfered from one person to another which has changed.
Time has evolved from the era when classroom (face to face) teaching was the only means to get the knowledge. In the internet age, various other channels have open up to deliver knowledge. Distance learning programs are the best examples. Besides that online education tools and online mentoring is the market that is rapidly evolving. With the kind of scarce resources India and perhaps many other nations as well are facing in terms of teaching staff vis-a-vis the number of students, use of technology has become imperative.
Even the classroom teaching itself has been so much revolutionized with faculty using audio-visual techniques and other technological tools to help in better understanding of the topic.
On the flip side I also agree that over-dependence on technology has relived the human brain from much of the work and thus to some extent lethargic as well. For example, a person today does not make much effort to remember any information since he knows that he can anytime google it when needed (at the time when internet is omnipresent). Why a student will make efforts to remember tables or percentages when he has calculator (not only stand alone but also in cell phones and watches). Spell-check and synonyms "Suggestions" by MS-Word has made people less concerned about their English grammar, vocabulary and accuracy in spellings. People prefer to peep into Wikipedia rather then looking for learned men in the concerned subject and get the right knowledge. Google has replaced the library for students community.
Thus, technology does have flips and flops. It depends on how we use it.
Subhas C Biswas wrote:
A teacher or a trainer is expected to transfer the learning to their audience. He must be a designer of the process. Technology often forms a part of the design or delivery or evaluation sub-process and should serve the purpose it is intended for, as designed by the teacher or trainer.
Teaching and training aids are now technology based. Technology also offers convenience and large population may be addressed by one or a few teachers and trainers using technology.
Trainees and learners often hate or dislike excessive use of aids and absence of personal touch or learning process facilitation.
Learning objective is not to show, impress people by using technology.
As a professional, we must use technology.
But use of technology does not make us a professional
Monday, April 13, 2009
“Are we in the 'Business of Education' or is 'Education a Business' for us?”
“Are we in the 'Business of Education' or is 'Education a Business' for us?”
I am addressing this question to all those who are in Education. I want honest views. Asked by- Prof.B.L.Handoo
Vinod Kad wrote:
If you are charging your students for educating them then you are in 'business' of education like any other business.
But if you are educating your students as a hobby or as a collective effort then you are in 'education' and not in 'business'.
A 'collective effort' means when you pool resources of your students collectively (not individually) to educate them.
The best example of 'collective effort' is the centuries old tradition of 'langar' prevalent even today in most of the Gurudwaras of the Sikh community.
They pool resources of individual devotees/ donors together and then serve them back in the form of 'langar'. So nobody pays 'individually' or 'separately' for the food (like in a hotel) yet everybody gets food including those who could donate much more and those who could not donate even a rupee.
Same was the system of education in Ancient India when a Guru was running an Ashram / School from collective donations/offerings from their students and imparting them education collectively and not charging them individually. Thus even a poor student was getting same education opportunity as a rich one because he need not pay individually for his education.
I hope you got my point. If not I can explain more.
Vinod
Natalia Fernanda Tieso wrote:
To what extent education is a business depends on your own personal motivation, I mean... in most LA countries, professionals working on education do not choose working in the field just because of money or income - salaries are quite low - and most teachers do it because of an inner feeling of (job) satisfaction and development.
On the other hand, I believe that education does not only deal with teaching itself, take policy-making for instance or even implementation of national curricula or courses of studies... people who are in charge of taking decisions related to education rarely think about education as a business, but rather as a social service, even to improve communities or societies in general.
Hope these points’ help!
Nat
Katina Faulk wrote:
Sadly, I think it is more of a business for the U.S.
Sanjay Goel wrote:
These are not mutually exclusive categories and there is sufficient space for doing the 1st while also complying with the constraints of 2nd.
Rajesh Shenoy wrote:
I think the whole idea of having educational institutions as non profit organizations in today’s world is not feasible. It should be viewed as a business model and this form of education as business hopefully would bring in better infrastructure and quality of teaching which is lacking in many institutions today. Whatever said and done even though most of the institutions are run by trusts or societies the funds are siphoned off in a systematic manner using the loopholes available in the law else how are we to explain certain Medical Colleges charging corers for postgraduate seats and you do not see this amount being ploughed back into development of these colleges but the members of the management team grow richer year by year.
Kevin Harville wrote:
It varies. The point is to empower the students. That should always be the primary goal. In the process we have to make a living or stay in business. I don't see primary education as a for-profit venture. Perhaps college shouldn't be either. Of course people should be free to choose their option.
Dan McCoy wrote:
That all depends on the intention of the administration.
I teach part time at a community college, and they have taken the stance that they are a "learning college." Instructors associate Profs and Profs have professional development programs available, and everything is build around enabling the student to learn and retain information. This is the business of education.
Then you have your universities where TAs are doing all the teaching and grading so Profs can write papers, and get grants for the university. Certainly not to say that TAs can't be good teachers. These doe-eyed individuals have such a zeal for it that the excitement can be contagious. However, this isn't even the business of education. This is the business of research.
Finally, your diploma mills. The administration wants it's profs to consider a C their lowest grade so that people can pay their tuition and get their grades. No concern about retention or teaching methods. Not even research or classes being taught by doe-eyed idealistic TAS This the education as a business.
Andrew Scharf wrote:
Excellent question and one which is often discussed but not generally in public forums.
Let's all be clear: Education is a business. When you regard the fees being charged to file an application, fees to sit standardized exams, the tuition, let alone all the additional tag-ons, you come away with the conception that this sector generates big revenues.
There is nothing wrong with making money. However, many people in education find themselves in a twist over this 'philosophical issue'. Why? Because this is 'education' and the notion of education as a right, privilege, necessity, and at a certain level, a moral and social obligation on behalf of government and business leaders.
There is a strong argument that national education, country here is irrelevant, should be 'free' and open to all interested parties. We know for example that higher education in particular relies on resources both human and financial, and that this is not possible. Where does the funding come from? Who should pay? How much is education worth?
People start asking themselves how can a school such as Harvard or any other top institution consider themselves as a non-profit organization considering the enormous fees to run effectively and efficiently these academic powerhouses. People both inside and outside academia should drop this complex. It is fruitless and a dead end discussion. Let's just accept the fact that any organization should be cost effective, efficient, and provide a seamless service. The education sector is no exception. If you examine the best schools and look at the management, you will see that they are run like machines, but in the best sense of the term.
The answer lies in legal registration sanctioned by governments and regulatory bodies. We accept that academic institutions should have a special legal status for tax reasons because of the activity in question.
There are certain institutions when they are created have themselves set up as 'for profit' legal entities. This path is uncommon because its statute becomes a moral and social question, and we the public look at such places with a different set of eyes.
Another problem inherent in the question is the fact that unlike finance to cite everyone's favourite bug bear due to the recent and continuing uproar on greed, is that education is supposed to be a noble pursuit.
At its best, it is a noble pursuit. Education is a mission.
The sector is supposed to train, educate by broadening people's minds at all levels, by giving us a set of skills, values, code of behaviour, standards, and even friendships across disciplines and fields of interest so that we become active and positive contributors to our communities at large.
Think of the slogan carved out on many facades of the schools:
'Know thy Self'.
This in essence is the true value of education. Mentors across all fields at some level should be showing students how we can accomplish this in addition to gaining technical expertise.
How many of us can truly say, 'I know my Self'? Not many, I am afraid.
For those of us involved with education at whatever level or position, we know that to enter this realm that to work in education must be a passion. Just ask someone who is a teacher, the subject matter is inconsequential as is the level, doctorate or primary school. The response you will receive is 'I love my work. I love sharing my expertise; I love being able to help someone become all that they are capable of being.
Such dedication is admirable and should be fostered. Receiving or delivering 'this' type of education leaves an indelible footprint for the teacher and the student. Education has been and will always be an exchange. The best teachers also act as mentors. Many of us have been influenced by such professionalism, and in turn, when the moment is right used this inspiration to 'teach' someone else, even in business or technical environments.
from Andrew Scharf
Links:
http://www.whitefieldconsulting.com
http://www.mba4success.com
http://www.linkedin.com/in/andrewscharf
Twyla Pumroy wrote:
I believe serving the needs of the students is the only business an educator has. However, having said that, having gone to free public school where I was basically left to fend for myself and never mentored in anyway I would rather send my children to a school where I might have to pay for them to get the attention and encouragement they deserve. As a graduate of a state college I maintain the same ideology.... my student loans are only just behind me and I feel very strongly I would have fared better had I attended a school I felt was out of my price range but which I could have gotten into. I think schools have to be able to stay viable in terms of money - but the student has to be certain they are getting their money's worth. It's a complicated question and probably can be answered only individually. I do believe that there are a lot of perks associated even with going to a good career college. If your options open up by attending school, does it really matter if the school is a for profit institution? As long as they are ethical and providing what they promise the school is still improving the quality of life of the student/ graduate.
As for the cost: I paid a great deal of money, much of which I had to borrow, for my State University degree. I did this with a clear plan to get a PhD. When the time came to go to graduate school I could not afford to do so. This was an unfortunate setback for me and my loans were not forgiven because I was not able to go into the profession I had originally intended.
I do think the entire standardized testing issue in public schools has gotten past the point of ridiculous. It is as though the schools are teaching to the tests.
Even at this very basic level the stagnant system has caused education to be a business: everyone is so afraid to just teach. They have to teach to make sure the benchmarks are met in a way that is measurable and any student who can't pass the exams is excluded - one way or another. A public school should not need to sink to the level of running school like a business and fearing the performance reviews of students.
All schools above the regular level of high school in the US are indeed businesses. The only thing I have issues with are those private schools that take the student loan funds of students without providing them with a realistic set of skills to earn a better future. The only thing that comes to mind in this regard are those schools that fall into the realm of beauty academy without a preliminary measure of if the student has what it might take to "make it" in the real world. Of course I have a counter argument for that as well - my hairdresser, who I see more often than I see my doctor, earns more per visit than my very gifted physician does. I do not have insurance and I know what he charges me - and I know all too well what she charges me. There is something to be said for the "business of education" that got her to where she is today.
There is nothing wrong with Education as a Business as long as it is an ethical business with a high standard of performance.
Francis Laleman wrote:
Hello Bushan-ji, Namaskar!
What a perfect gem of a question this is! Thank you so much for inviting us to ponder upon this most exquisite of pahelis.
Or is it a dosukhna? - In which case it brings to mind Amir Khusrau's:
Pandit kyom na nahaayaa?
Dhoban kyom maari gayi?
Dhoti na thi!
Or, one could reformulate the question in a mockery of a kah mukarni:
"It was his business from morning till eve,
it took him the best of himself without leave,
it made him handsomely poor and occasionally rich
was it labour? well nay, it was educational buzz."
It should be quite evident that any truly committed educationist has education as his life's business. By the same token, to be accredited with the title of guru-ji, or acharya-ji, or master-ji or whatever the address may be, is a gift and an honour, bestowed by others, much rather than a self-assigned title on a business card.
The true and effective educationist, therefore, cannot exist unless he has the concept of "sharing" running through his each and every vein - and in order to be able to commit oneself to sharing, there needs to be something to be shared in the first place. For this reason, the true educationist is a continuous seeker, and his business is in the acquisition of skills, competences and attitudes as much as in the sharing of the same.
In this regard, I am thinking of the Buddhist concept of a teacher as a "tathagata", literally "one who has gone there".
Now, depending on the cultural environment in which he lives, the educationist will be esteemed, valued and compensated for his efforts in a variety of ways, ranging from simple feedback and warmly conveyed thanks, to getting a salary, a stipend, or even the settlement of purely invoicable services.
The variety of ways in which the educationist might be compensated, is exquisitely illustrated in the pan-Indian concept of "gurudakshina" - which can be something as simple as touching the guru's feet or offering him a garland of flowers, or an act as extreme and debatable as Ekalavya's, in payment of Dronacharya's unsollicited educational services.
But either way, and however much the educationist, by his very nature, is 'in the business of education', the educationist needs to earn a living, if only in order to be able to keep being an educationist. And responsible for providing the educationist with this means, are first and foremost those who have found profit in whatever it was that the educationist has shared with them. Interestingly, and to illustrate this point, in Satyajit Ray's Mahanagar (1963), the pennyless retired schoolmaster Priyogopal Mazumdar-Da visits his former students on a begging tour, and insists that the money they are asked to give him should not be considered 'financial help', but rather 'payment for done services'.
It goes without saying that those at the receiving end of the educational transaction are responsible for compensation only to the degree of their possibilities and at par with their profits gained from the educational process.
Therefore, ideally, an educationist, who is "in the business of education", should treat "education a business” only on basis of measurable (tangible or intangible, either or both) results, and taking into consideration the degree of prosperity of his clients.
Warm regards,
Francis Laleman
Business Consultant/Trainer/Coach
Links:
http://www.alif-india.com/index.html
http://caravanbpl.sulekha.com/blog/post/2008/06/the-eklavya-syndrome.htm
http://www.satyajitray.org/films/mahanag.htm
Brian Curry wrote:
I don't see much difference in the world of private education.
The problem, as I see it, is that the vast majority of people in this world can't afford to be customers / clients.
Dennis Gannon wrote:
I personally feel we are in the business of education because if it is only a business for us then we won't be putting as much of ourselves into it. With some it may be different but that is to each individual.
Celia Baula, PMP wrote:
First of all, education is not obtained only through institutions...
Education came from the word "educere", to lead forth or bring out. I believe that education comes in different forms hence the question about it is a bit misleading. For me, education is the acquisition of knowledge and it is up to the individual whether or not to use the knowledge acquired.
We all go to school/universities to get our degrees/diplomas in the hopes of landing a good-paying job or perhaps to start a business. Whatever the reason, education is the means with which we arm ourselves with information. I know people who went to the top 5 schools in the US and yet end up living with their parents for the rest of their adult lives. Conversely, I have met successful men and women because of their education. I have also met self-education successful people who struggled but in the end succeeded because of their determination to make it to the top.
Is education a business or are we in the business of education? It all depends on how you look at it...
On 3/29/09 5:21 PM, Celia Baula, PMP added the following clarification:
*self-educated
Prikshit Dhanda wrote:
1. Who sweat it out in the classrooms, seminar halls, labs, playgrounds
and give their all to nurture others.
2. Who themselves are not educated but have the means to open
so called Institutions of learning and accumulate wealth.
David Linus wrote:
Good question professor -
lets ask ourselves what education are we looking for -
is it valuable education - or is it education
either of the case you have to have pay for what you receive -
in what proportion you justify; what you pay to what you receive is really the point when the question arises that education is expensive and it is a business -
take the old days -
if you were under the tutelage of a renowned guru your dakhshina too was heavy and lower for lesser known gurus -
it has been a business of exchanging knowledge for something in return - be it money or kind (value of the exchange is what keeps us restless when we have to make that payment :) )
Lincoln said - education is priceless yet free -
it depends how you look at it -
cheers, David
david_linus@hotmail.com
www.successcollege.co.in
Private Note:
Good question professor -
lets ask ourselves what education are we looking for -
is it valuable education - or is it education
either of the case you have to have pay for what you receive -
in what proportion you justify; what you pay to what you receive is really the point when the question arises that education is expensive and it is a business -
take the old days -
if you were under the tutelage of a renowned guru your dakhshina too was heavy and lower for lesser known gurus -
it has been a business of exchanging knowledge for something in return - be it money or kind (value of the exchange is what keeps us restless when we have to make that payment :) )
Lincoln said - education is priceless yet free -
it depends how you look at it -
cheers,
David
david_linus@hotmail.com
www.successcollege.co.in
Daniel Suciu wrote:
I'm not in target ... but I'd ask if would not be (a lot) more relevant to ask the other part... the customers about theirs perception.
I would also suggest that another question could be more relevant "Education is JUST a business for you?" That's the worst case and I feel it's not so far from truth in many cases (With all my apologies for those which are not in this category. I really appreciate the true educators... in any area and at all levels)
Brijesh Shukla wrote:
Dear Prof. Handoo,
I came back to linked discussions after a long time as was busy setting up my operations. When I was going through discussions and came across your questions I had to stop and think and honestly I felt that the answer lies in our approach. For those among us who looks are into education just for a social cause and are not financially inclined might feel that for other education is a business and will try to work for those who cannot afford the education tagged with heavy fee structure whereas the other segment who are charging for their services but providing the best in that fee structure will see themselves as they are in business of education. What will be disturbing is the last category for whom Education is business as they might be the one to maximize profits and charging whatever they can and offer as less as possible and this set of mind frame is the most dangerous for the society. They are the one who are dangerous for not only current but for next generation as well. Till we are in business of Education, people are still being educated but the moment education becomes business for us, the noble intentions and objectives are lost.
Your vast experience ensures me that you will correct me if in case I am wrong in my approach anywhere.
Cheers
Brij
Bahare` Sabeti wrote:
I am not in education in any way, but I am a big critic of what I see in USA as pre college education ( i.e high school, middle school, etc) as someone who has experienced schooling in many countries as well as in US. I think it is a tragedy for a nation with many top universities to bear such horrible schooling system with lack of sufficient mandatory science and math for all in a more nationalized way, just like other nations around a world. Discipline does not exist anywhere in schools of this country and good luck with science and math levels I see my cousins are exposed to, more like what we had in kindergarten, I had finished 6 yrs of intense math ( all kinds), chemistry ( both inorganic and organic), biology ( of all kinds), geology, etc before I moved to US at age 17 already and all of these took place in several countries just to give an example.
shubhranshu agarwal wrote:
As a professional I don’t see nay fault in the business of education but it becomes our duty to impart quality education in return. For the students, education is a business as they build their career in return of working hard while studying.
Salman Khan.....Rocking wrote:
Let us be practical.As far as the scenario in India is concerned Education has become a business & given the current economic situation it is the hottest sector & has not been hit by recession.That is good in one way.But there is a problem.The very basis for which a person pursues education has been lost to commercialisation.So many private institutes have sprung up without any check on the quality or content of the curriculum,unapproved by any regualtory body,with the sole purpose of making money.They are least bothered whether it adds up to the the talent pool of the country or would help the person himself whether in increasing his knowledge or in career advancement.Im appalled by the current situation
John E. Smith wrote:
Hi, Professor Handoo - interesting question.
I believe that my answer to your question has to be "Both".
Those of us who choose to spend our lives teaching and facilitating learning in others should ideally feel a calling to this mission. In that sense, our business is Education. It becomes our reason for working and putting effort into that activity.
However, Education is a business. This means that clear-eyed decisions must be made using proven decision-making models, employees need to be developed and evaluated using clear performance standards, budgets need to be developed and adminstered, and all the rest of what constitutes running a business.
I worked in the non-profit world for a number of years. My organization did very good things for people who needed help and were unable to take care of themselves. This was our business and we felt good about doing it.
However, we also recognized the importance of running our organization as a business. Had we not done so, the organization would not have been able to provide the services. We had a saying "A Christian Heart and A Business Head", which served us well as a reminder that what we did was both a calling and a business - both elements are needed.
John
Permission to use wherever you want, with accreditation
Jay Mehta wrote:
I believe both. General public tend to think idealistically when it comes to education. However, for those who take up the service of imparting education to others as a full time activity, populist thinking defies practicality. Yes, those who are in the "Business of Education" have the right to think of "Education as a Business" as well and that's what most of the private schools and colleges in India all about.
No doubt, while education is a kind of social service, those who are into the business of it have to think in business terms rather then social service since its the question of their survival as well as sustainability. However, the line has to be drawn where there comes a question of making a trade-off between profits and social responsibility an educational organization carries.
While profits are important in the business, thinking only in terms of profits widens the gap between the two sections of the society where the children from the underprivileged section are equally deserving to receive that quality education. While government is responsible to bridge the gap as much as possible, putting the entire burden of bridging the gap on government is also unfair. I believe the concept of education cess of welcome (assuming the money is going in the right direction), it should be implemented at the corporate levels as well with greater cess levied on high profit making institutions especially those who are in the domain of K-12 education.
Subhas C Biswas wrote: When the responsible authorities in Government and society failed to provide education and necessary regulations to control the process, it has been given to the people who are keen to do either of these two
We have both the situations at different places, and luckily they do not co-exist in one place.
One must check the credibility of the institution, faculty, infrastructure, certification/accreditation, performance and feedback of past students for identifying their true intention.
Labels are often fables and claims in advertisements are not always credible enough.
I am addressing this question to all those who are in Education. I want honest views. Asked by- Prof.B.L.Handoo
Vinod Kad wrote:
If you are charging your students for educating them then you are in 'business' of education like any other business.
But if you are educating your students as a hobby or as a collective effort then you are in 'education' and not in 'business'.
A 'collective effort' means when you pool resources of your students collectively (not individually) to educate them.
The best example of 'collective effort' is the centuries old tradition of 'langar' prevalent even today in most of the Gurudwaras of the Sikh community.
They pool resources of individual devotees/ donors together and then serve them back in the form of 'langar'. So nobody pays 'individually' or 'separately' for the food (like in a hotel) yet everybody gets food including those who could donate much more and those who could not donate even a rupee.
Same was the system of education in Ancient India when a Guru was running an Ashram / School from collective donations/offerings from their students and imparting them education collectively and not charging them individually. Thus even a poor student was getting same education opportunity as a rich one because he need not pay individually for his education.
I hope you got my point. If not I can explain more.
Vinod
Natalia Fernanda Tieso wrote:
To what extent education is a business depends on your own personal motivation, I mean... in most LA countries, professionals working on education do not choose working in the field just because of money or income - salaries are quite low - and most teachers do it because of an inner feeling of (job) satisfaction and development.
On the other hand, I believe that education does not only deal with teaching itself, take policy-making for instance or even implementation of national curricula or courses of studies... people who are in charge of taking decisions related to education rarely think about education as a business, but rather as a social service, even to improve communities or societies in general.
Hope these points’ help!
Nat
Katina Faulk wrote:
Sadly, I think it is more of a business for the U.S.
Sanjay Goel wrote:
These are not mutually exclusive categories and there is sufficient space for doing the 1st while also complying with the constraints of 2nd.
Rajesh Shenoy wrote:
I think the whole idea of having educational institutions as non profit organizations in today’s world is not feasible. It should be viewed as a business model and this form of education as business hopefully would bring in better infrastructure and quality of teaching which is lacking in many institutions today. Whatever said and done even though most of the institutions are run by trusts or societies the funds are siphoned off in a systematic manner using the loopholes available in the law else how are we to explain certain Medical Colleges charging corers for postgraduate seats and you do not see this amount being ploughed back into development of these colleges but the members of the management team grow richer year by year.
Kevin Harville wrote:
It varies. The point is to empower the students. That should always be the primary goal. In the process we have to make a living or stay in business. I don't see primary education as a for-profit venture. Perhaps college shouldn't be either. Of course people should be free to choose their option.
Dan McCoy wrote:
That all depends on the intention of the administration.
I teach part time at a community college, and they have taken the stance that they are a "learning college." Instructors associate Profs and Profs have professional development programs available, and everything is build around enabling the student to learn and retain information. This is the business of education.
Then you have your universities where TAs are doing all the teaching and grading so Profs can write papers, and get grants for the university. Certainly not to say that TAs can't be good teachers. These doe-eyed individuals have such a zeal for it that the excitement can be contagious. However, this isn't even the business of education. This is the business of research.
Finally, your diploma mills. The administration wants it's profs to consider a C their lowest grade so that people can pay their tuition and get their grades. No concern about retention or teaching methods. Not even research or classes being taught by doe-eyed idealistic TAS This the education as a business.
Andrew Scharf wrote:
Excellent question and one which is often discussed but not generally in public forums.
Let's all be clear: Education is a business. When you regard the fees being charged to file an application, fees to sit standardized exams, the tuition, let alone all the additional tag-ons, you come away with the conception that this sector generates big revenues.
There is nothing wrong with making money. However, many people in education find themselves in a twist over this 'philosophical issue'. Why? Because this is 'education' and the notion of education as a right, privilege, necessity, and at a certain level, a moral and social obligation on behalf of government and business leaders.
There is a strong argument that national education, country here is irrelevant, should be 'free' and open to all interested parties. We know for example that higher education in particular relies on resources both human and financial, and that this is not possible. Where does the funding come from? Who should pay? How much is education worth?
People start asking themselves how can a school such as Harvard or any other top institution consider themselves as a non-profit organization considering the enormous fees to run effectively and efficiently these academic powerhouses. People both inside and outside academia should drop this complex. It is fruitless and a dead end discussion. Let's just accept the fact that any organization should be cost effective, efficient, and provide a seamless service. The education sector is no exception. If you examine the best schools and look at the management, you will see that they are run like machines, but in the best sense of the term.
The answer lies in legal registration sanctioned by governments and regulatory bodies. We accept that academic institutions should have a special legal status for tax reasons because of the activity in question.
There are certain institutions when they are created have themselves set up as 'for profit' legal entities. This path is uncommon because its statute becomes a moral and social question, and we the public look at such places with a different set of eyes.
Another problem inherent in the question is the fact that unlike finance to cite everyone's favourite bug bear due to the recent and continuing uproar on greed, is that education is supposed to be a noble pursuit.
At its best, it is a noble pursuit. Education is a mission.
The sector is supposed to train, educate by broadening people's minds at all levels, by giving us a set of skills, values, code of behaviour, standards, and even friendships across disciplines and fields of interest so that we become active and positive contributors to our communities at large.
Think of the slogan carved out on many facades of the schools:
'Know thy Self'.
This in essence is the true value of education. Mentors across all fields at some level should be showing students how we can accomplish this in addition to gaining technical expertise.
How many of us can truly say, 'I know my Self'? Not many, I am afraid.
For those of us involved with education at whatever level or position, we know that to enter this realm that to work in education must be a passion. Just ask someone who is a teacher, the subject matter is inconsequential as is the level, doctorate or primary school. The response you will receive is 'I love my work. I love sharing my expertise; I love being able to help someone become all that they are capable of being.
Such dedication is admirable and should be fostered. Receiving or delivering 'this' type of education leaves an indelible footprint for the teacher and the student. Education has been and will always be an exchange. The best teachers also act as mentors. Many of us have been influenced by such professionalism, and in turn, when the moment is right used this inspiration to 'teach' someone else, even in business or technical environments.
from Andrew Scharf
Links:
http://www.whitefieldconsulting.com
http://www.mba4success.com
http://www.linkedin.com/in/andrewscharf
Twyla Pumroy wrote:
I believe serving the needs of the students is the only business an educator has. However, having said that, having gone to free public school where I was basically left to fend for myself and never mentored in anyway I would rather send my children to a school where I might have to pay for them to get the attention and encouragement they deserve. As a graduate of a state college I maintain the same ideology.... my student loans are only just behind me and I feel very strongly I would have fared better had I attended a school I felt was out of my price range but which I could have gotten into. I think schools have to be able to stay viable in terms of money - but the student has to be certain they are getting their money's worth. It's a complicated question and probably can be answered only individually. I do believe that there are a lot of perks associated even with going to a good career college. If your options open up by attending school, does it really matter if the school is a for profit institution? As long as they are ethical and providing what they promise the school is still improving the quality of life of the student/ graduate.
As for the cost: I paid a great deal of money, much of which I had to borrow, for my State University degree. I did this with a clear plan to get a PhD. When the time came to go to graduate school I could not afford to do so. This was an unfortunate setback for me and my loans were not forgiven because I was not able to go into the profession I had originally intended.
I do think the entire standardized testing issue in public schools has gotten past the point of ridiculous. It is as though the schools are teaching to the tests.
Even at this very basic level the stagnant system has caused education to be a business: everyone is so afraid to just teach. They have to teach to make sure the benchmarks are met in a way that is measurable and any student who can't pass the exams is excluded - one way or another. A public school should not need to sink to the level of running school like a business and fearing the performance reviews of students.
All schools above the regular level of high school in the US are indeed businesses. The only thing I have issues with are those private schools that take the student loan funds of students without providing them with a realistic set of skills to earn a better future. The only thing that comes to mind in this regard are those schools that fall into the realm of beauty academy without a preliminary measure of if the student has what it might take to "make it" in the real world. Of course I have a counter argument for that as well - my hairdresser, who I see more often than I see my doctor, earns more per visit than my very gifted physician does. I do not have insurance and I know what he charges me - and I know all too well what she charges me. There is something to be said for the "business of education" that got her to where she is today.
There is nothing wrong with Education as a Business as long as it is an ethical business with a high standard of performance.
Francis Laleman wrote:
Hello Bushan-ji, Namaskar!
What a perfect gem of a question this is! Thank you so much for inviting us to ponder upon this most exquisite of pahelis.
Or is it a dosukhna? - In which case it brings to mind Amir Khusrau's:
Pandit kyom na nahaayaa?
Dhoban kyom maari gayi?
Dhoti na thi!
Or, one could reformulate the question in a mockery of a kah mukarni:
"It was his business from morning till eve,
it took him the best of himself without leave,
it made him handsomely poor and occasionally rich
was it labour? well nay, it was educational buzz."
It should be quite evident that any truly committed educationist has education as his life's business. By the same token, to be accredited with the title of guru-ji, or acharya-ji, or master-ji or whatever the address may be, is a gift and an honour, bestowed by others, much rather than a self-assigned title on a business card.
The true and effective educationist, therefore, cannot exist unless he has the concept of "sharing" running through his each and every vein - and in order to be able to commit oneself to sharing, there needs to be something to be shared in the first place. For this reason, the true educationist is a continuous seeker, and his business is in the acquisition of skills, competences and attitudes as much as in the sharing of the same.
In this regard, I am thinking of the Buddhist concept of a teacher as a "tathagata", literally "one who has gone there".
Now, depending on the cultural environment in which he lives, the educationist will be esteemed, valued and compensated for his efforts in a variety of ways, ranging from simple feedback and warmly conveyed thanks, to getting a salary, a stipend, or even the settlement of purely invoicable services.
The variety of ways in which the educationist might be compensated, is exquisitely illustrated in the pan-Indian concept of "gurudakshina" - which can be something as simple as touching the guru's feet or offering him a garland of flowers, or an act as extreme and debatable as Ekalavya's, in payment of Dronacharya's unsollicited educational services.
But either way, and however much the educationist, by his very nature, is 'in the business of education', the educationist needs to earn a living, if only in order to be able to keep being an educationist. And responsible for providing the educationist with this means, are first and foremost those who have found profit in whatever it was that the educationist has shared with them. Interestingly, and to illustrate this point, in Satyajit Ray's Mahanagar (1963), the pennyless retired schoolmaster Priyogopal Mazumdar-Da visits his former students on a begging tour, and insists that the money they are asked to give him should not be considered 'financial help', but rather 'payment for done services'.
It goes without saying that those at the receiving end of the educational transaction are responsible for compensation only to the degree of their possibilities and at par with their profits gained from the educational process.
Therefore, ideally, an educationist, who is "in the business of education", should treat "education a business” only on basis of measurable (tangible or intangible, either or both) results, and taking into consideration the degree of prosperity of his clients.
Warm regards,
Francis Laleman
Business Consultant/Trainer/Coach
Links:
http://www.alif-india.com/index.html
http://caravanbpl.sulekha.com/blog/post/2008/06/the-eklavya-syndrome.htm
http://www.satyajitray.org/films/mahanag.htm
Brian Curry wrote:
I don't see much difference in the world of private education.
The problem, as I see it, is that the vast majority of people in this world can't afford to be customers / clients.
Dennis Gannon wrote:
I personally feel we are in the business of education because if it is only a business for us then we won't be putting as much of ourselves into it. With some it may be different but that is to each individual.
Celia Baula, PMP wrote:
First of all, education is not obtained only through institutions...
Education came from the word "educere", to lead forth or bring out. I believe that education comes in different forms hence the question about it is a bit misleading. For me, education is the acquisition of knowledge and it is up to the individual whether or not to use the knowledge acquired.
We all go to school/universities to get our degrees/diplomas in the hopes of landing a good-paying job or perhaps to start a business. Whatever the reason, education is the means with which we arm ourselves with information. I know people who went to the top 5 schools in the US and yet end up living with their parents for the rest of their adult lives. Conversely, I have met successful men and women because of their education. I have also met self-education successful people who struggled but in the end succeeded because of their determination to make it to the top.
Is education a business or are we in the business of education? It all depends on how you look at it...
On 3/29/09 5:21 PM, Celia Baula, PMP added the following clarification:
*self-educated
Prikshit Dhanda wrote:
1. Who sweat it out in the classrooms, seminar halls, labs, playgrounds
and give their all to nurture others.
2. Who themselves are not educated but have the means to open
so called Institutions of learning and accumulate wealth.
David Linus wrote:
Good question professor -
lets ask ourselves what education are we looking for -
is it valuable education - or is it education
either of the case you have to have pay for what you receive -
in what proportion you justify; what you pay to what you receive is really the point when the question arises that education is expensive and it is a business -
take the old days -
if you were under the tutelage of a renowned guru your dakhshina too was heavy and lower for lesser known gurus -
it has been a business of exchanging knowledge for something in return - be it money or kind (value of the exchange is what keeps us restless when we have to make that payment :) )
Lincoln said - education is priceless yet free -
it depends how you look at it -
cheers, David
david_linus@hotmail.com
www.successcollege.co.in
Private Note:
Good question professor -
lets ask ourselves what education are we looking for -
is it valuable education - or is it education
either of the case you have to have pay for what you receive -
in what proportion you justify; what you pay to what you receive is really the point when the question arises that education is expensive and it is a business -
take the old days -
if you were under the tutelage of a renowned guru your dakhshina too was heavy and lower for lesser known gurus -
it has been a business of exchanging knowledge for something in return - be it money or kind (value of the exchange is what keeps us restless when we have to make that payment :) )
Lincoln said - education is priceless yet free -
it depends how you look at it -
cheers,
David
david_linus@hotmail.com
www.successcollege.co.in
Daniel Suciu wrote:
I'm not in target ... but I'd ask if would not be (a lot) more relevant to ask the other part... the customers about theirs perception.
I would also suggest that another question could be more relevant "Education is JUST a business for you?" That's the worst case and I feel it's not so far from truth in many cases (With all my apologies for those which are not in this category. I really appreciate the true educators... in any area and at all levels)
Brijesh Shukla wrote:
Dear Prof. Handoo,
I came back to linked discussions after a long time as was busy setting up my operations. When I was going through discussions and came across your questions I had to stop and think and honestly I felt that the answer lies in our approach. For those among us who looks are into education just for a social cause and are not financially inclined might feel that for other education is a business and will try to work for those who cannot afford the education tagged with heavy fee structure whereas the other segment who are charging for their services but providing the best in that fee structure will see themselves as they are in business of education. What will be disturbing is the last category for whom Education is business as they might be the one to maximize profits and charging whatever they can and offer as less as possible and this set of mind frame is the most dangerous for the society. They are the one who are dangerous for not only current but for next generation as well. Till we are in business of Education, people are still being educated but the moment education becomes business for us, the noble intentions and objectives are lost.
Your vast experience ensures me that you will correct me if in case I am wrong in my approach anywhere.
Cheers
Brij
Bahare` Sabeti wrote:
I am not in education in any way, but I am a big critic of what I see in USA as pre college education ( i.e high school, middle school, etc) as someone who has experienced schooling in many countries as well as in US. I think it is a tragedy for a nation with many top universities to bear such horrible schooling system with lack of sufficient mandatory science and math for all in a more nationalized way, just like other nations around a world. Discipline does not exist anywhere in schools of this country and good luck with science and math levels I see my cousins are exposed to, more like what we had in kindergarten, I had finished 6 yrs of intense math ( all kinds), chemistry ( both inorganic and organic), biology ( of all kinds), geology, etc before I moved to US at age 17 already and all of these took place in several countries just to give an example.
shubhranshu agarwal wrote:
As a professional I don’t see nay fault in the business of education but it becomes our duty to impart quality education in return. For the students, education is a business as they build their career in return of working hard while studying.
Salman Khan.....Rocking wrote:
Let us be practical.As far as the scenario in India is concerned Education has become a business & given the current economic situation it is the hottest sector & has not been hit by recession.That is good in one way.But there is a problem.The very basis for which a person pursues education has been lost to commercialisation.So many private institutes have sprung up without any check on the quality or content of the curriculum,unapproved by any regualtory body,with the sole purpose of making money.They are least bothered whether it adds up to the the talent pool of the country or would help the person himself whether in increasing his knowledge or in career advancement.Im appalled by the current situation
John E. Smith wrote:
Hi, Professor Handoo - interesting question.
I believe that my answer to your question has to be "Both".
Those of us who choose to spend our lives teaching and facilitating learning in others should ideally feel a calling to this mission. In that sense, our business is Education. It becomes our reason for working and putting effort into that activity.
However, Education is a business. This means that clear-eyed decisions must be made using proven decision-making models, employees need to be developed and evaluated using clear performance standards, budgets need to be developed and adminstered, and all the rest of what constitutes running a business.
I worked in the non-profit world for a number of years. My organization did very good things for people who needed help and were unable to take care of themselves. This was our business and we felt good about doing it.
However, we also recognized the importance of running our organization as a business. Had we not done so, the organization would not have been able to provide the services. We had a saying "A Christian Heart and A Business Head", which served us well as a reminder that what we did was both a calling and a business - both elements are needed.
John
Permission to use wherever you want, with accreditation
Jay Mehta wrote:
I believe both. General public tend to think idealistically when it comes to education. However, for those who take up the service of imparting education to others as a full time activity, populist thinking defies practicality. Yes, those who are in the "Business of Education" have the right to think of "Education as a Business" as well and that's what most of the private schools and colleges in India all about.
No doubt, while education is a kind of social service, those who are into the business of it have to think in business terms rather then social service since its the question of their survival as well as sustainability. However, the line has to be drawn where there comes a question of making a trade-off between profits and social responsibility an educational organization carries.
While profits are important in the business, thinking only in terms of profits widens the gap between the two sections of the society where the children from the underprivileged section are equally deserving to receive that quality education. While government is responsible to bridge the gap as much as possible, putting the entire burden of bridging the gap on government is also unfair. I believe the concept of education cess of welcome (assuming the money is going in the right direction), it should be implemented at the corporate levels as well with greater cess levied on high profit making institutions especially those who are in the domain of K-12 education.
Subhas C Biswas wrote: When the responsible authorities in Government and society failed to provide education and necessary regulations to control the process, it has been given to the people who are keen to do either of these two
We have both the situations at different places, and luckily they do not co-exist in one place.
One must check the credibility of the institution, faculty, infrastructure, certification/accreditation, performance and feedback of past students for identifying their true intention.
Labels are often fables and claims in advertisements are not always credible enough.
“Can there be Teaching without Learning?”
“Can there be Teaching without Learning?”
Teaching is regarded as 'a set of actions' meant to induce Learning.
If Learning does not take place, how can we say that Teaching was going on?
I have instances of Class Theatres where as per normal parlance Teaching was going on but the students were not learning and did not learn. I said to such Teachers," Dear friend, you were doing everything except Teaching.".
My contention is that if a desired activity fails to achieve the objective for which it is meant, how can we say that the activity was going on?
Please give me your valued inputs asked by: Prof. B. L .Handoo.
Ken Robertson wrote:
Teaching as a generic activity can take place without any learning accompanying it. I have seen this many times at the university level over my career, but have no recent experience in high schools and the like.
Much of the ineffective teaching I have seen has involved the delivery of new concepts and material to classes ranging from a few to several hundred (my biggest first year class was 924). However, the material was delivered by people who are predominantly researchers, with few interpersonal skills, in a manner that did not engage the students.
Often the material was presented in the same form the research results to students whose learning has not reached anywhere near this level. There was no common point of communication. If there were post grad students in the same class, this material would have been suitable for them, and thus learning could occur.
Learning is about bringing together the needs and abilities of the audience, the material and a method of delivery appropriate to that audience. Teaching is getting this combination correct.
Subbaraman (Subba) Iyer wrote:
The teaching - learning interlocks are indeed complex. Based on my own student days and even now, I learn better outside the classroom than inside. Some responsibility for this has to be borne by the teachers, but nonetheless there's always a better way that teachers can do the job.
More often than not, the teacher stands on the stage like a sage with a bowl of knowledge in his head and is often insensitive to the student's background and learning approaches. I would rather have a teacher who's a guide by the side than having a sage on the stage.
I have blogged about the disconnect between the education approaches and the learning approaches. You are free to use this response and also my blog post after appropriate attribution.
Links:
http://subbaiyer.wordpress.com/2007/01/14/the-education-and-learning-approaches/
http://subbaiyer.wordpress.com/2008/04/29/indian-education/
http://subbaiyer.wordpress.com/2007/01/14/questions-the-key-to-learning/
Hesham Metwalli wrote:
I believe the right way to ask this question is "can learning be EFFECTIVE if the learner is not involved?"
teaching and learning are two sides of one coin. you can not separate them or judge them separately.
All educators nowadays agree that the learner is the target of the teaching, so if teaching is not engaging the learner it is pointless.
if you are talking about what happens at most of the universities where you have 900 people sitting in a big hall with one gentleman in the front talking to himself, this is not called teaching this would either be delivering a speech or a lecture. of course in this case learning might still happen but it is the least effective type of learning as it will be random and unplanned because the learner was not involved in exploring or discussing the concepts.
there are agreed criteria for effective teaching and learning. I can pass to you if like so
Eugene Rembor, MBA wrote:
Of course! If you ever tought, you sure have had a number of students who learnt nothing despite your best efforts. May it because they don't have any interest or learning difficulties, there are many reasons why some people never learn.
Links:
http://www.remborpartners.com
Allen Laudenslager wrote:
I used to teach technical information to a non-technical audience. The burden to "teach" was always on me as the instructor. That is I must engage the student. The student's job is to show up and pay attention. If they are not learning it's always the teacher's fault.
I write tech manuals and if the information is not clear it's always the writer's fault.
So, no there can not be teaching without learning (in my not so humble opinion)
Rick Sharrard wrote:
I received a great quote yesterday from LI member Allen Dudley Brown, PhD who said, "When I pretend to teach, students pretend to learn". I think that really hits the mark! The point is that finding a creative way to facilitate learning a particular subject is a challenge. There is no one right way, but there are certainly wrong ways.
Michael Medlock wrote: A teacher's ability is assessed by the learning results he or she achieves. If there are no learning outcomes then there is no teaching going on. So however beautiful or "technically" correct a teacher's method is if the students are not learning then everyone is wasting their time.
Caroline Cole wrote:
There are many reasons students do not learn, even with the best instructors. Certainly we can point to overcrowded classrooms with increasingly fewer resources. We can cite the current “edutainment” view of education, where teachers in today’s attention-deficit world are evaluated according to how “fun” they are or how much teachers can entertain students with classroom bells and whistles. There’s also the consumer view of education, where the student-consumers (and their so-called “helicopter parents”) insist that, because they’re paying for their education, they are always right and, thus, entitled to the exceptions, exemptions, and other special treatments a classroom or educational system might afford. Or, we can attribute problems to myriad systems in our society that reward children (and adults) for every endeavour, regardless of success, making it harder to genuinely engage, motivate, and inspire those in our classroom.
Perhaps, however, many of these reasons come together in the fact that classrooms increasingly represent a range of students with different learning preferences. In such contexts, teachers who tap into some learning strategies rather than (or at the expense of) other strategies, encourage some students may learn while others do not; moreover, among the students who learn, students may take different things from any given lesson.
Efforts to track students into more homogenous classroom populations aim to address this challenge; specifically, the more common ground there is in a classroom, the more likely a teacher can "teach to the masses" and efficiently achieve target results. Such efforts, however, have been deemed separatist, classist, racist, sexist, and politically incorrect all around.
Yet, as more diversity enters a classroom, teachers struggle to address--much less accommodate--the increasingly divergent learning strategies today’s students represent, forcing teachers to either focus on the largest common denominator of student abilities or address the less common learning strategies in haphazard, unsustained ways. Whatever the choice, the result are the same: some students will learn, and others will not.
Aiming to be the best teacher I can be, I have learned that I cannot be all things to all students. I teach to my strengths (e.g., subject matter, teaching style), and help students who prefer other systems as best as I am able. But I have come to realize that some students are better served by colleagues who have different strengths, approaches, ways of presenting materials; therefore, as much as possible, I try to help students identify those resources so students can achieve their goals in the most efficient and effective way.
As a university faculty member, however, I recognize that I am in a privileged position, because higher-education students have some options about the courses they take or the sections in which they enrol; my views, therefore, are informed by luxuries many K-12 teachers do not have. But, even when students do not have choices (as in the case of some mandatory courses I teach), there is a Buddhist proverb that both explain the teaching/learning connection: "When the student it ready, the master [teacher] appears."
Education is a reciprocal process, and there’s comfort in knowing that sometimes we are the teacher a student is ready to receive, and sometimes we are not.
Shaheen Salam wrote:
Teaching and learning are reciprocal and it is a situational scenario. In a class or any teaching session it is not that teacher teaches and learner learns. At times the teacher picks a learning point from the students. It is also not true that any teaching could be 100% failure because in a class, learning takes place at different levels and every student has his/her own pace of receiving knowledge and then applying it. Nevertheless, good learning always comes out of an interactive teaching session.
Indira Chaudhry wrote:
One cannot teach if one has not learnt.....and to learn one must have a teacher or learn on own...
But if there is no aptitude then the teacher is helpless....as the student has not made effort to learn...
On the other hand if the teacher is not appropriate or has no interest in teaching then the student is at a loss...
For the desired effect...ie activity to go on Teaching and Learning have to be performed by the respective teacher and student(s)
Brian Curry wrote:
Dear Bhushan,
My understanding is that teaching is the work of teachers. Therefore, if their work is bad, there will be no learning, except of course if the students learn in spite of the teacher.
Regards,
Brian
Prikshit Dhanda wrote:
Why is there a need to teach ?
Just present the subject as a sumptuous meal to starving souls and guess what.....the students will devour the same.
Coy Lee wrote: Prof, Handoo
Learning is a Requisite
You must be Master of your Learning
When Learning is thrown away,
All that is left is pure Motion without Thought
Hope it helps,
Coy
Larissa Wowk wrote:
If there has been no learning then neither has teaching taken place. This is not the fault of the student but in how the "teaching" was delivered.
In order to teach someone you need to be able to connect to and reach your audience. If you are not doing so then it is a waste of your time and theirs. The teacher needs to come down to the level of the student and work up from there. The teacher needs to ensure knowledge and competence is acquired in one lesson before teaching the next. Knowledge builds on knowledge. This is true in all areas of teaching across all ages.
Patrick Fitzgerald wrote:
Well 'Teaching without Learning' can in fact occur. The idea of teaching is it is meant to impart knowledge and enhance learning. In order to learn you have to have an audience that is willing to listen.
1) The students (generally) cannot know more than the teacher. If they do then a majority of the time is wasted.
I know this for a fact because I was one of those students who knew more than the teacher. I took a high-school level HTML/Web Design class and basically did not learn a single thing (thankfully the college level class I got into had stuff to learn like JavaScript, SQL and PHP and usually took a good period of time to complete). I finished all the tasks in about 5-15 minutes depending on complexity and how nice I wanted it to look and spent the remaining time of the 2 hours helping other classmates with their understanding of the lesson.
2) The teacher has to be able to effectively communicate their knowledge to the students. If they cannot do this then I think you can claim that no teaching is really happening.
I had a professor in my first semester of college who was responsible for the Ana log Electronics course and it was blatantly obvious that he KNEW what he was talking about but he just could not get it into words that would help YOU understand. There was also a language barrier I believe as well as it seemed like English was not his first language.
Peter Arno Coppen wrote:
This seems to me a matter of definition. If you define teaching as a "set of actions meant to induce learning" (and not "a set of actions inducing learning"), then the intentions of the teacher suffice to call such a set of actions teaching. It may be teaching that does not work as intended, but that doesn't change the word.
Apparently, your contention is that your definition of the word 'teaching' is different from what you state in the beginning. You seem to include the intended result in the definition.
The question can be posed for all words denoting intentional actions. An analoguous example would be: if you are sending a message to someone and it never arrives, would you still call it a message?
LaRue Williams wrote:
--Can there be "teaching" without learning? In my humble opinion "no". The objective and purpose of "teaching" is learning. The two are intrinsically bound. Teaching is not being achieved without learning. If there is no learning taking place then some sort of activity is definitely going on in the environment, but that activity, whatever it is, cannot be called teaching. percentage of learning is the metric for teaching. If a person does not measure teaching by the learning taking place that person does not understand the concept of "teaching" at all. The reluctance to measure teaching with metrics of learning is the reluctance to be held accountable for results. This discussion goes to the very fiber of why educational standards drop.
Private Note:
Prof. Bhushan Lal: I'm very glad you asked this question. It goes to the very fiber of problems in the educational system. The desire for tenure and organization supercedes that of being sure our youngsters learn. I was in the public school system for 7 years as a secondary teacher and too often the concern was job-security; organization of neat lesson plans; and short hours with summers off rather than focus on the students, their needs, and the skill sets that taught them with the result of learning.
Alice de Sturler wrote:
You can only tell whether teaching took place once the students start to write papers and display how much they know/have learned, through discussion they have with fellow students on a subject matter discussed in class, their interaction during class is another meter and of course, whether they recommend your class to fellow students.
I guess you need to separate the traditional style of teaching with the "as of yet unknown outcome."
shubhranshu agarwal wrote:
Teaching without learning is as impossible as the cooking without water. Today, teaching has become multi task activity instead of just guiding the students about one or two aspects.
Manoranjan Mishra wrote:
dear prof Bhushan
i think i partly agree with your point of view in indian context. Our tearchers are not helping in learning activity. teachers are kind of programmed to teach certain subject with limited exposure/knowledge.
the problem is not the knowledge but the creative process in teaching that encourage to learn/discover new things is not at all happening .
there is a kind of risk-averse nature in teaching process to new things. So whatever a teacher teaches it has only little effect on students.
theachers should encourage experimentation and should be a part of that to accelerate the learning process.
Salman Khan.....Rocking wrote:
I will give you a practical example.I joined a part time course to enhance my skills as i am a firm believer in continuous education.The teacher came in 15 mins late-talk about discipline-& finished the lecture in 1 hr without even bothering whether anyone understood what she had taught.For once i thought that i had missed some previous lectures due to which I could not understand.I was in dire straits.After the lecture I came to know that half the class was in the same position like me.So we formed a group & gave her the feedback.Her response was shocking.I just have to follow my schedule which is really tight & what else do you expect in part time classes.You have to try to learn yourself.
It reminded me of my father who was a gold medallist & an educationist himself.He used to say howmany ever times a teacher teaches & if the student doesnt understand it is the teacher's fault but once the student says he has understood but then doesnt know then it is the students fault.I wonder howmany teachers follow this today.
The motive of teachers today is exam preparation.They will teach you how to pass in the exam with flying colours.They are not bothered whether you learn or not
Caroline Pinto wrote:
How much time do teachers spend on helping students to ground their learning within their experience base? A good teacher in my mind focuses on providing opportunities for students to make sense of that which is presented within their own context. So, the process of facilitating learning is as important as the content that is being taught. The onus goes back to the teacher to reflect on how content can be made relevant to students.
Cheers
Caroline
Nasir Tajuddin wrote: I would have to agree with Peter Arno Coppen's answer.
If our focus is entirely on words, then teaching is just a set of observable actions, as you have mentioned.
However, from practice, I would like to define teaching as the intention and subsequent action of delivering meaningful concepts / messages to others while simultaneously reinforcing these concepts within the self.
Hence, we learn before we teach, and we learn further as we teach through a process of further elucidation and self-expression. Teaching without learning is, hence, an irrational contention. Even if the entire class completely refuses to learn at the end (which is an extremist assumption), the teacher's intention to teach, and opportunity to express herself is what would matter.
The problem you have identified seems more dependent on context rather than how we define certain actions through the limitations of the English vocabulary. People, at times, do not wish to learn no matter how hard a teacher may try (evening classes, for example, which professional attend half asleep). Such contextual variances would not change the nature of the teaching process, at least
Sigrid Steinschaden wrote:
Let me ask one short question: when do I know that I have not learned anything? Some things I have learned I realised and recognised even only some years later.
Was it the teacher who was bad or was I a bad learner?
Did I focus too much on myself and too less on the teacher or was it the other way round?
Especially with arts there is so much to learn and according to ones own capabilities (that need to have a broad basis) some things might be expressed / lived later than others. It is a permanent exchange and reflection of ones own personality!
Every single learning needs time as it is a process - such a time is needed by students... and teachers!
Tools (for both sides) are:
- self reflection
- mentoring
- deepening ones own knowledge in various fields (permanently).
Usually there are always similar experiences made by others who even did / do some research about it!
Sigrid Steinschaden wrote:
Thank you very much for your question!
For me the basic question is the definition of education and its intentions.
One can educate oneself / become educated in so many fields that looking for the specifically needed and appropriate technique is more important than asking whether technology has gained too much influence on education itself.
Technology therefore can be one tool of many others to educate - sometimes it might be the (situationally) best tool than other media, other times it might be the worst tool in comparison with other media.
Furthermore technology can be an additional tool to other tools chosen (such as face to face education, reading,...), as one needs to separate education as well in 'teachers' and learners.
It is the learner who needs to go into details of the things learned by face to face teaching. Teachers only can give some input, gaining and deepening knowledge to ones own needs is propbably one of the most important obligations people do have towards themselves and towards others.
Teachers can introduce technology in a balanced way without using it because one needs to do so - this is the decision-taking responsability of the teacher!
I really do hope that this discussion goes on (even though it might be one of the main discussions in didactics already for centuries)!
Subhas C Biswas wrote: Teaching is teacher-centered. Learning is learner-centered.
When there is mis-alignment of the objective as perceived by the teacher or learner, it is a possibility.
Situation can be corrected through effective evaluation of the people and process.
Teaching is regarded as 'a set of actions' meant to induce Learning.
If Learning does not take place, how can we say that Teaching was going on?
I have instances of Class Theatres where as per normal parlance Teaching was going on but the students were not learning and did not learn. I said to such Teachers," Dear friend, you were doing everything except Teaching.".
My contention is that if a desired activity fails to achieve the objective for which it is meant, how can we say that the activity was going on?
Please give me your valued inputs asked by: Prof. B. L .Handoo.
Ken Robertson wrote:
Teaching as a generic activity can take place without any learning accompanying it. I have seen this many times at the university level over my career, but have no recent experience in high schools and the like.
Much of the ineffective teaching I have seen has involved the delivery of new concepts and material to classes ranging from a few to several hundred (my biggest first year class was 924). However, the material was delivered by people who are predominantly researchers, with few interpersonal skills, in a manner that did not engage the students.
Often the material was presented in the same form the research results to students whose learning has not reached anywhere near this level. There was no common point of communication. If there were post grad students in the same class, this material would have been suitable for them, and thus learning could occur.
Learning is about bringing together the needs and abilities of the audience, the material and a method of delivery appropriate to that audience. Teaching is getting this combination correct.
Subbaraman (Subba) Iyer wrote:
The teaching - learning interlocks are indeed complex. Based on my own student days and even now, I learn better outside the classroom than inside. Some responsibility for this has to be borne by the teachers, but nonetheless there's always a better way that teachers can do the job.
More often than not, the teacher stands on the stage like a sage with a bowl of knowledge in his head and is often insensitive to the student's background and learning approaches. I would rather have a teacher who's a guide by the side than having a sage on the stage.
I have blogged about the disconnect between the education approaches and the learning approaches. You are free to use this response and also my blog post after appropriate attribution.
Links:
http://subbaiyer.wordpress.com/2007/01/14/the-education-and-learning-approaches/
http://subbaiyer.wordpress.com/2008/04/29/indian-education/
http://subbaiyer.wordpress.com/2007/01/14/questions-the-key-to-learning/
Hesham Metwalli wrote:
I believe the right way to ask this question is "can learning be EFFECTIVE if the learner is not involved?"
teaching and learning are two sides of one coin. you can not separate them or judge them separately.
All educators nowadays agree that the learner is the target of the teaching, so if teaching is not engaging the learner it is pointless.
if you are talking about what happens at most of the universities where you have 900 people sitting in a big hall with one gentleman in the front talking to himself, this is not called teaching this would either be delivering a speech or a lecture. of course in this case learning might still happen but it is the least effective type of learning as it will be random and unplanned because the learner was not involved in exploring or discussing the concepts.
there are agreed criteria for effective teaching and learning. I can pass to you if like so
Eugene Rembor, MBA wrote:
Of course! If you ever tought, you sure have had a number of students who learnt nothing despite your best efforts. May it because they don't have any interest or learning difficulties, there are many reasons why some people never learn.
Links:
http://www.remborpartners.com
Allen Laudenslager wrote:
I used to teach technical information to a non-technical audience. The burden to "teach" was always on me as the instructor. That is I must engage the student. The student's job is to show up and pay attention. If they are not learning it's always the teacher's fault.
I write tech manuals and if the information is not clear it's always the writer's fault.
So, no there can not be teaching without learning (in my not so humble opinion)
Rick Sharrard wrote:
I received a great quote yesterday from LI member Allen Dudley Brown, PhD who said, "When I pretend to teach, students pretend to learn". I think that really hits the mark! The point is that finding a creative way to facilitate learning a particular subject is a challenge. There is no one right way, but there are certainly wrong ways.
Michael Medlock wrote: A teacher's ability is assessed by the learning results he or she achieves. If there are no learning outcomes then there is no teaching going on. So however beautiful or "technically" correct a teacher's method is if the students are not learning then everyone is wasting their time.
Caroline Cole wrote:
There are many reasons students do not learn, even with the best instructors. Certainly we can point to overcrowded classrooms with increasingly fewer resources. We can cite the current “edutainment” view of education, where teachers in today’s attention-deficit world are evaluated according to how “fun” they are or how much teachers can entertain students with classroom bells and whistles. There’s also the consumer view of education, where the student-consumers (and their so-called “helicopter parents”) insist that, because they’re paying for their education, they are always right and, thus, entitled to the exceptions, exemptions, and other special treatments a classroom or educational system might afford. Or, we can attribute problems to myriad systems in our society that reward children (and adults) for every endeavour, regardless of success, making it harder to genuinely engage, motivate, and inspire those in our classroom.
Perhaps, however, many of these reasons come together in the fact that classrooms increasingly represent a range of students with different learning preferences. In such contexts, teachers who tap into some learning strategies rather than (or at the expense of) other strategies, encourage some students may learn while others do not; moreover, among the students who learn, students may take different things from any given lesson.
Efforts to track students into more homogenous classroom populations aim to address this challenge; specifically, the more common ground there is in a classroom, the more likely a teacher can "teach to the masses" and efficiently achieve target results. Such efforts, however, have been deemed separatist, classist, racist, sexist, and politically incorrect all around.
Yet, as more diversity enters a classroom, teachers struggle to address--much less accommodate--the increasingly divergent learning strategies today’s students represent, forcing teachers to either focus on the largest common denominator of student abilities or address the less common learning strategies in haphazard, unsustained ways. Whatever the choice, the result are the same: some students will learn, and others will not.
Aiming to be the best teacher I can be, I have learned that I cannot be all things to all students. I teach to my strengths (e.g., subject matter, teaching style), and help students who prefer other systems as best as I am able. But I have come to realize that some students are better served by colleagues who have different strengths, approaches, ways of presenting materials; therefore, as much as possible, I try to help students identify those resources so students can achieve their goals in the most efficient and effective way.
As a university faculty member, however, I recognize that I am in a privileged position, because higher-education students have some options about the courses they take or the sections in which they enrol; my views, therefore, are informed by luxuries many K-12 teachers do not have. But, even when students do not have choices (as in the case of some mandatory courses I teach), there is a Buddhist proverb that both explain the teaching/learning connection: "When the student it ready, the master [teacher] appears."
Education is a reciprocal process, and there’s comfort in knowing that sometimes we are the teacher a student is ready to receive, and sometimes we are not.
Shaheen Salam wrote:
Teaching and learning are reciprocal and it is a situational scenario. In a class or any teaching session it is not that teacher teaches and learner learns. At times the teacher picks a learning point from the students. It is also not true that any teaching could be 100% failure because in a class, learning takes place at different levels and every student has his/her own pace of receiving knowledge and then applying it. Nevertheless, good learning always comes out of an interactive teaching session.
Indira Chaudhry wrote:
One cannot teach if one has not learnt.....and to learn one must have a teacher or learn on own...
But if there is no aptitude then the teacher is helpless....as the student has not made effort to learn...
On the other hand if the teacher is not appropriate or has no interest in teaching then the student is at a loss...
For the desired effect...ie activity to go on Teaching and Learning have to be performed by the respective teacher and student(s)
Brian Curry wrote:
Dear Bhushan,
My understanding is that teaching is the work of teachers. Therefore, if their work is bad, there will be no learning, except of course if the students learn in spite of the teacher.
Regards,
Brian
Prikshit Dhanda wrote:
Why is there a need to teach ?
Just present the subject as a sumptuous meal to starving souls and guess what.....the students will devour the same.
Coy Lee wrote: Prof, Handoo
Learning is a Requisite
You must be Master of your Learning
When Learning is thrown away,
All that is left is pure Motion without Thought
Hope it helps,
Coy
Larissa Wowk wrote:
If there has been no learning then neither has teaching taken place. This is not the fault of the student but in how the "teaching" was delivered.
In order to teach someone you need to be able to connect to and reach your audience. If you are not doing so then it is a waste of your time and theirs. The teacher needs to come down to the level of the student and work up from there. The teacher needs to ensure knowledge and competence is acquired in one lesson before teaching the next. Knowledge builds on knowledge. This is true in all areas of teaching across all ages.
Patrick Fitzgerald wrote:
Well 'Teaching without Learning' can in fact occur. The idea of teaching is it is meant to impart knowledge and enhance learning. In order to learn you have to have an audience that is willing to listen.
1) The students (generally) cannot know more than the teacher. If they do then a majority of the time is wasted.
I know this for a fact because I was one of those students who knew more than the teacher. I took a high-school level HTML/Web Design class and basically did not learn a single thing (thankfully the college level class I got into had stuff to learn like JavaScript, SQL and PHP and usually took a good period of time to complete). I finished all the tasks in about 5-15 minutes depending on complexity and how nice I wanted it to look and spent the remaining time of the 2 hours helping other classmates with their understanding of the lesson.
2) The teacher has to be able to effectively communicate their knowledge to the students. If they cannot do this then I think you can claim that no teaching is really happening.
I had a professor in my first semester of college who was responsible for the Ana log Electronics course and it was blatantly obvious that he KNEW what he was talking about but he just could not get it into words that would help YOU understand. There was also a language barrier I believe as well as it seemed like English was not his first language.
Peter Arno Coppen wrote:
This seems to me a matter of definition. If you define teaching as a "set of actions meant to induce learning" (and not "a set of actions inducing learning"), then the intentions of the teacher suffice to call such a set of actions teaching. It may be teaching that does not work as intended, but that doesn't change the word.
Apparently, your contention is that your definition of the word 'teaching' is different from what you state in the beginning. You seem to include the intended result in the definition.
The question can be posed for all words denoting intentional actions. An analoguous example would be: if you are sending a message to someone and it never arrives, would you still call it a message?
LaRue Williams wrote:
--Can there be "teaching" without learning? In my humble opinion "no". The objective and purpose of "teaching" is learning. The two are intrinsically bound. Teaching is not being achieved without learning. If there is no learning taking place then some sort of activity is definitely going on in the environment, but that activity, whatever it is, cannot be called teaching. percentage of learning is the metric for teaching. If a person does not measure teaching by the learning taking place that person does not understand the concept of "teaching" at all. The reluctance to measure teaching with metrics of learning is the reluctance to be held accountable for results. This discussion goes to the very fiber of why educational standards drop.
Private Note:
Prof. Bhushan Lal: I'm very glad you asked this question. It goes to the very fiber of problems in the educational system. The desire for tenure and organization supercedes that of being sure our youngsters learn. I was in the public school system for 7 years as a secondary teacher and too often the concern was job-security; organization of neat lesson plans; and short hours with summers off rather than focus on the students, their needs, and the skill sets that taught them with the result of learning.
Alice de Sturler wrote:
You can only tell whether teaching took place once the students start to write papers and display how much they know/have learned, through discussion they have with fellow students on a subject matter discussed in class, their interaction during class is another meter and of course, whether they recommend your class to fellow students.
I guess you need to separate the traditional style of teaching with the "as of yet unknown outcome."
shubhranshu agarwal wrote:
Teaching without learning is as impossible as the cooking without water. Today, teaching has become multi task activity instead of just guiding the students about one or two aspects.
Manoranjan Mishra wrote:
dear prof Bhushan
i think i partly agree with your point of view in indian context. Our tearchers are not helping in learning activity. teachers are kind of programmed to teach certain subject with limited exposure/knowledge.
the problem is not the knowledge but the creative process in teaching that encourage to learn/discover new things is not at all happening .
there is a kind of risk-averse nature in teaching process to new things. So whatever a teacher teaches it has only little effect on students.
theachers should encourage experimentation and should be a part of that to accelerate the learning process.
Salman Khan.....Rocking wrote:
I will give you a practical example.I joined a part time course to enhance my skills as i am a firm believer in continuous education.The teacher came in 15 mins late-talk about discipline-& finished the lecture in 1 hr without even bothering whether anyone understood what she had taught.For once i thought that i had missed some previous lectures due to which I could not understand.I was in dire straits.After the lecture I came to know that half the class was in the same position like me.So we formed a group & gave her the feedback.Her response was shocking.I just have to follow my schedule which is really tight & what else do you expect in part time classes.You have to try to learn yourself.
It reminded me of my father who was a gold medallist & an educationist himself.He used to say howmany ever times a teacher teaches & if the student doesnt understand it is the teacher's fault but once the student says he has understood but then doesnt know then it is the students fault.I wonder howmany teachers follow this today.
The motive of teachers today is exam preparation.They will teach you how to pass in the exam with flying colours.They are not bothered whether you learn or not
Caroline Pinto wrote:
How much time do teachers spend on helping students to ground their learning within their experience base? A good teacher in my mind focuses on providing opportunities for students to make sense of that which is presented within their own context. So, the process of facilitating learning is as important as the content that is being taught. The onus goes back to the teacher to reflect on how content can be made relevant to students.
Cheers
Caroline
Nasir Tajuddin wrote: I would have to agree with Peter Arno Coppen's answer.
If our focus is entirely on words, then teaching is just a set of observable actions, as you have mentioned.
However, from practice, I would like to define teaching as the intention and subsequent action of delivering meaningful concepts / messages to others while simultaneously reinforcing these concepts within the self.
Hence, we learn before we teach, and we learn further as we teach through a process of further elucidation and self-expression. Teaching without learning is, hence, an irrational contention. Even if the entire class completely refuses to learn at the end (which is an extremist assumption), the teacher's intention to teach, and opportunity to express herself is what would matter.
The problem you have identified seems more dependent on context rather than how we define certain actions through the limitations of the English vocabulary. People, at times, do not wish to learn no matter how hard a teacher may try (evening classes, for example, which professional attend half asleep). Such contextual variances would not change the nature of the teaching process, at least
Sigrid Steinschaden wrote:
Let me ask one short question: when do I know that I have not learned anything? Some things I have learned I realised and recognised even only some years later.
Was it the teacher who was bad or was I a bad learner?
Did I focus too much on myself and too less on the teacher or was it the other way round?
Especially with arts there is so much to learn and according to ones own capabilities (that need to have a broad basis) some things might be expressed / lived later than others. It is a permanent exchange and reflection of ones own personality!
Every single learning needs time as it is a process - such a time is needed by students... and teachers!
Tools (for both sides) are:
- self reflection
- mentoring
- deepening ones own knowledge in various fields (permanently).
Usually there are always similar experiences made by others who even did / do some research about it!
Sigrid Steinschaden wrote:
Thank you very much for your question!
For me the basic question is the definition of education and its intentions.
One can educate oneself / become educated in so many fields that looking for the specifically needed and appropriate technique is more important than asking whether technology has gained too much influence on education itself.
Technology therefore can be one tool of many others to educate - sometimes it might be the (situationally) best tool than other media, other times it might be the worst tool in comparison with other media.
Furthermore technology can be an additional tool to other tools chosen (such as face to face education, reading,...), as one needs to separate education as well in 'teachers' and learners.
It is the learner who needs to go into details of the things learned by face to face teaching. Teachers only can give some input, gaining and deepening knowledge to ones own needs is propbably one of the most important obligations people do have towards themselves and towards others.
Teachers can introduce technology in a balanced way without using it because one needs to do so - this is the decision-taking responsability of the teacher!
I really do hope that this discussion goes on (even though it might be one of the main discussions in didactics already for centuries)!
Subhas C Biswas wrote: Teaching is teacher-centered. Learning is learner-centered.
When there is mis-alignment of the objective as perceived by the teacher or learner, it is a possibility.
Situation can be corrected through effective evaluation of the people and process.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)