Advertisement

What Are We Doing? Reflecting on the Purpose of Education—And Where Such Reflection Might Lead

  • John D. WhelenEmail author
Chapter

Abstract

The question of purpose, or the point of education, has a long history in writing on education and continues to be a site of controversy and debate. Whelen critiques the approaches taken by two authors, Nel Noddings and Gert Biesta, to the question: what is education for? The very idea of purpose in education is so often taken for granted in contemporary discourses focussing on its instrumental value in terms of national identity, or positioning, whereas for those involved in doing it, or more importantly, experiencing it, the question of purpose is framed very differently. Noddings in particular argues for a revival of what she calls ‘aims-talk’ in order to clarify the fundamental ends of education and in doing so argues that an ethics of care is indispensable to the educational enterprise. Whereas Noddings argues the case for the primacy of an ethic of care in education, Biesta, while deeply concerned to clarify ‘ultimate values’ underlying the aims and purposes of education, asks ‘what is good education for?’ By refining the question with the adjective ‘good’, or ‘effective’, he is able to interrogate a range of arrangements and endeavours in education in terms of what he refers to as domains of educational purpose. These two positions then form the basis of a discussion in which the author, further drawing on performative crises experienced by teachers, brings them together to suggest pedagogical and curricular consequences that might be expected if (new, often young) teachers, together with their students, can find a way to understand and to challenge the situations they find themselves in.

Bibliography

  1. Apple, M. (2004) [1979]. Ideology and curriculum. New York: RoutledgeFalmer.Google Scholar
  2. Ball, S. J. (2003). The teacher’s soul and the terrors of performativity. Journal of Education Policy, 18(2), 215–228.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Ball, S. J. (2004). Performativiities and fabrications in the education economy. In S. J. Ball (Ed.), The RoutledgeFalmer reader in sociology of education. London: RoutledgeFalmer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Ball, S. J. (2016). Subjectivity as a site of struggle: Refusing neoliberalism? British Journal of Sociology of Education, 37(8), 1129–1146.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Ball, S. J., & Olmedo, A. (2013). Care of the self, resistance and subjectivity under neoliberal governmentalities. Critical Studies in Education, 54(1), 85–96.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Biesta, G. J. J. (2006). Beyond learning. Democratic education for a human future. Boulder: Paradigm Publishers.Google Scholar
  7. Biesta, G. J. J. (2007). Why ‘what works’ won’t work: Evidence-based practice and the democratic deficit in educational research. Educational Theory, 57(1), 1–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Biesta, G. J. J. (2009). Good education in an age of measurement: On the need to reconnect with the question of purpose in education. Education Assessment, Evaluation and Accountability, 21(1), 33–46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Biesta, G. J. J. (2010). Good education in an age of measurement. Boulder: Paradigm Publishers.Google Scholar
  10. Biesta, G. J. J. (2012). Giving teaching back to education: Responding to the disappearance of the teacher. Phenomenology and Practice, 6(2), 35–49.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Biesta, G. J. J. (2013a). The beautiful risk of education. Boulder: Paradigm Publishers.Google Scholar
  12. Biesta, G. J. J. (2013b). Receiving the gift of teaching: From ‘Learning From’ to ‘Being Taught By’. Studies in the Philosophy of Education, 32, 449–461.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Biesta, G. J. J. (2015). What is education for? On good education, teacher judgement, and educational professionalism. European Journal of education, 50(1), 75–87.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Biesta, G. J. J. (2017). The rediscovery of teaching. New York: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Bleazby, J. (2015). Why some school subjects have a higher status than others: The epistemology of the traditional curriculum hierarchy. Oxford Review of Education, 41(5), 671–689.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Darling-Hammond, L. (2010). The flat world and education. How America’s commitment to equity will determine our future. New York: Teachers College, Columbia University.Google Scholar
  17. Dewey, J. (1944) [1916]. Democracy and education. An introduction to the philosophy of education. New York, The Free Press.Google Scholar
  18. Dewey, J. (1997) [1938]. Experience and education. New York: Touchstone.Google Scholar
  19. Freire, P. (1994). Pedagogy of hope. New York: Continuum.Google Scholar
  20. Freire, P. (1996) [1968]. Pedagogy of the oppressed. London: Penguin Books.Google Scholar
  21. Gilligan, C. J. (1982). In a different voice: Psychological theory and women’s development. Cambridge MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  22. Goodman, P. (1972) [1962]. Compulsory miseducation. Harmondsworth: Penguin Books.Google Scholar
  23. Harber, C. (2004). Schooling as violence. How schools harm pupils and societies. London: RoutledgeFalmer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Hattie, J. (2009). Visible learning: A synthesis of over 800 meta-analyses relating to achievement. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  25. Hattie, J. (2012). Visible learning for teachers. Maximizing Impact on learning. London: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Illich, I. (1971). Deschooling society. Harmondsworth: Penguin Books Ltd.Google Scholar
  27. Lingard, B. (2010). Policy borrowing, policy learning: Testing times in Australian schooling. Critical Studies in education, 51(2), 129–147.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Lingis, A. (1994). The community of those who have nothing in common. Bloomington: Indianna University Press.Google Scholar
  29. Moore, A. (2015). Knowledge, curriculum and learning: ‘What Did You Learn in School?’. In D. Scott & E. Hargreaves (Eds.).Google Scholar
  30. Neill, A. A. (1961)[1926]. Summerhill. London: Penguin Books.Google Scholar
  31. Nikel, J., & Lowe, J. (2010). Talking of fabric: A multi-dimensional model of quality in education. Compare: A Journal of Comparative and International Education, 40(5), 589–605.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Noddings, N. (1984). Caring. a feminist approach to ethics and moral education. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
  33. Noddings, N. (1988). An ethic of caring and its implications for instructional arrangements. American Journal of Education, 96(2), 215–230.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Noddings, N. (1992). The challenge to care in schools. New York: Teachers College Press.Google Scholar
  35. Noddings, N. (1998). Feminist morality and social policy. In J. G. Haber & M. S. Halfon (Eds.), Norms and values. Essays on the work of Virginia Held. Lanham, MD: Rowman and Littlefield.Google Scholar
  36. Noddings, N. (2002a). Educating moral people. New York: Teachers College Press.Google Scholar
  37. Noddings, N. (2002b). Starting at home. Caring and social policy. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
  38. Noddings, N. (2003). Happiness and education. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Quay, J., Bleazby, J., Stolz, S. A., Toscano, M., & Webster, R. S. (2018). Theory and philosophy in education research. London: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Scott, D., & Hargreaves, E. (Eds.). (2015). The Sage handbook of learning. Los Angeles: Sage.Google Scholar
  41. Slote, M. (2010). Selected essays (pp. 260–270). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  42. Teese, R., & Polesel, J. (2003). Undemocratic schooling. Equity and quality in mass secondary education in Australia. Melbourne University Press.Google Scholar
  43. Whelen, J. (2011). Boys and their schooling. The experience of becoming someone else. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Faculty of EducationMonash UniversityClaytonAustralia

Personalised recommendations