Dear Tony Wall.

You rightly say that "many educational approaches in contemporary primary, secondary and tertiary systems embed design features organised around the individual" But I know of educational approaches whose focus is on the social more than on the individual. This happens, for example, in Vygotskian-oriented approaches to education. As you certainly know, Vygotsky's theory is called socio-cultural for it espouses the idea that on'e knowledge, developed and learning is always mediated and hence co-constructed by the individual and the others. This idea is well documented in Vygotsky's famous notion of zone of proximal development, the distance between the child's independent problem solving, level of actual development, and problem solving under the guidance of an adult or a more competent peer, level of potential development. Note also, that Piaget's theory of learning, often faulted for being individualist-oriented, emphasizes the role of the active, not the traditional or conservative, methods in educations.The active methods appeal to individual work and to group work.

Note, however, that regardless of how education is oriented (individually or collectively) there are always individual learns, that is, individuals who learn qua individuals.

I hope that I have got your question and that this helps.

Best regards,

Orlando Lourenço

This is very helpful, thank you Orlando.

Yes, I think Vygostky and his disciples offers a great deal to this debate. I also like the work of Bourdieu and Holland et al (figured worlds) which connect with Vygotsky in various and different ways. I think the work in activity theory is essential here.

I am also interested in finding alternative responses, dimensions, and critiques, for example, the potentially controversial idea that learning can be group rather than individually located! I find this provocative . . .

Hi Tony!

I am more than happy to hear from you that Vygotsky offers a great deal to the interesting issue you are raising. Of course, the French sociologists Bourdieu and Lapassade, among others, leave us a legacy to be taken into account while trying to answer your question.

As for the  provocative and  controversial idea where learning should be located, in groups or individuals, my tentative answer would be to say that learning should be individually located, in the sense that it occurs in individuals. For example, it would be misleading and even nonsensical to say that Pythagoras's theorem is located in a group, not in individuals. Of course, the radical opposition between the individual and the social, nature and nurture, innate and acquired, and the like, are but a sad reminiscence of a positivistic tradition that still pervades many fields of science.  

Still, for the controversy mentioned above, I think that it is important to distinguish, but not to oppose,between, as it were, the  "what of learning" (learning of a fact, a concept, a principle, and the like), and the "why" of learning (what conditions, causes or brings about one's learning). In this respect, I would be inclined to say that the what of learning makes us think more of individuals who learn qua individuals in a certain language-game or cultural context (see, for this respect, Wittgenstein's famous book, Philosophical Investigations), whereas the why of learning makes us think more of the physical and social milieu that greatly brings about, conditions or causes what one learns.

More to the point, I believe that any comprehensive theory of education and development has to deal with what I call the four "hs" of education or development. The what of education (what education is about; see above); the why of education (what factors or antecedents condition, cause, or bring about one's education); the how of education (what psychological, social, neural processes are at issue when one learns, for example, a physical rule, a logical necessity, a moral norm); and the when of education (what is the due time for a certain learning, the proportionality concept, for instance, to be possible). In terms of the when of education, for example, it would be a waste of time, to try to teach to a 4-year-old child, the proportionality concept, for the understanding of this concept is much above of, say, a normal 4-year-old child's ability to understand.

I hope that this is a small contribution to the interesting and provocative question you raised. Needless to say, science advances when one raises provocative questions or irritating doubts as C. S. Pierce used to say,

Best regards.

This is great, thank you Orlando. It reminds me of Stephen Billett's work to bring a number of the dimensions you mention together. See attached as an example. I like the notion of 'irritating doubts' - what a useful way to express scientific curiosity!

Your response also gives me another angle of 'how structures outside influence structures inside'. Using the work of Bourdieu, Lacan and Zizek, in terms of what exists inside (as Dorothy Holland calls it 'inner workings'), have a relation to what is outside. Indeed, Lacan would argue with the inside/outside dichotomy, but this idea afford us a way of thinking that highlights the dialectic or mutually influential nature of the social.

Thank you, Orlando - a stimulating conversation!

Article Learning in the circumstances of practice

What an interesting conversation!

Orlando - I wonder at your proposition that "it would be misleading and even nonsensical to say that Pythagoras's theorem is located in a group, not in individuals" and thus learning is located individually. It is difficult to see how Pythagoras' theorem constitutes an example of learning (as opposed the object or outcome of learning, say). In contrast, the learning involved in developing an understanding of Pythagoras' theorem, for instance, might be seen to be socially and culturally constructed and thus located in the collective. Furthermore, the cultural meanings ascribed to elements of the theorem and what they represent are historically and socially constructed and thus can be seen to be located in the collective.

It is perhaps also problematic to consider notions such as learning, education, schooling and teaching somewhat interchangeably. What does it mean to teach concepts of proportionality, for instance, in contrast to developing understandings of proportionality? For example, that my biscuit is twice as big as yours is a concept well within the capacity of most "normal" 4-year-olds to understand.

Nga mihi

Raewyn

May I suggest the work of David Perkins et al at Harvard University Project Zero - for the past 35 years they have been considering the understanding the 'what' as one kind of understanding and the 'how' as an entirely different kind of understanding with practical pedagogies for teaching thinking with children... with links to Vygotsky's work. 

My thoughts on building skills in collective thinking and action are more influenced however by my PhD research - at this stage research in the substantive area of andragogy rather than pedagogy - however, nevertheless relevant as it focuses on individuals learning de Bono's thinking tools and processes and collective thinking with these tools and processes ... the results from my research: Thinking-On-The-Same-Page ... a theory that explains a transformative trajectory of personal cognitive change that takes place when an individual thinker uses Edward de Bono's tools, firstly within the context of their own mind then within their own mind at the same time as one or more other individuals using these tools within their own minds - at the same time ...for practical, pragmatic action about an issue, problem or task. 

Ali, this is great, and yes de Bono's work is very relevant to this discussion. I would love to hear more about your research at an appropriate point. 

You also raised an interesting point about the use of the word 'pedagogy' - I know this is used in different ways, including as synonymous with andragogy and even heutagogy. 

I'd like to include all the 'gogies here if it helps us expand out thinking (Vygotsky's work is case in point). Thank you, Ali.

Thanks Tony ... finishing off my Thesis before mid-year ... first PhD ever on de Bono's work in the context of work groups/organisations/leadership and only third PhD on any of de Bono's work as far as I am aware ... so hoping it will contribute with the Thinking-On-The-Same-Page Theory as a benchmark study. Cheers Ali  

Thanks, all, for the stimulating conversation.  I tuned in with interest because of the connection to my work in student leadership development, particularly thinking about designing opportunities for university students to learn/practice working across differences to co-create goods/resources for the common good.  The individualist nature  that you pointed to in your initial question, Tony, pervades the student leadership literature as well given that leadership is typically understood as something done by an individual.  However, Nick Longo and Marguerite Shaffer suggest that educating for "public leadership" necessitates a shift to understanding leadership as something done by a group . . . and therefore we in HIED are in need of new thinking about group learning.  All that leads me to suggest an addition to Orlando's 4Hs:  to what end is the learning taking place?  

I've attached the Longo/Shaffer piece here, and direct your attention to the brief discussion of the Citizenship Schools of the U.S. Freedom/Civil Rights movement in the 1950s and 1960s as an example of that learning for collective leadership.  This piece profiles a program in place at Miami University (Ohio) . . . I'm curious to know how this might all relate to your work as I didn't have a good sense of the age of learner upon which you are focusing.

And Ali -- I too look forward to the thesis.  Your work seems to hold promise for advancing our thinking in student leadership development.  Best wishes for the final push to completion!

Best,

Tami Moore

Tami, I have really enjoyed your post and attached paper. I have done a little bit of work with some of the freedom movements in the UK here:

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/310460150_Slavoj_Zizek_A_Zizekian_Gaze_at_Education

So your post is great in terms of giving a perspective from US history. It is also interesting and serendipitous that you mentioned Longo. Here is another Longo, but not the same one, who highlights another dimension here:

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/312407708_It%27s_Not_Easy_Living_a_Sustainable_Lifestyle_How_Greater_Knowledge_Leads_to_Dilemmas_Tensions_and_Paralysis

You are right, I intentionally wrote is vague to see what we might learn from different educational systems and structures. I get a sense from these posts that we are crossing boundaries which is really fruitful in my view.

I am particularly interested in the idea of collective benefit in higher education and in practice (and the cross overs) and I articulate such ideas here:

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/310794443_CABS_Leadership_Policy_Paper_Business_schools_as_educational_provocateurs_of_productivity_via_interrelated_landscapes_of_practice

I also like how you articulate public leadership and the shift that is required. In this regard, I draw insight from some of Joe Raelin's work here:

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/278100524_Imagine_There_Are_No_Leaders_Reframing_Leadership_as_Collaborative_Agency

I wonder if this appears in your work, Tami? What other ideas help organise your approach, Tami - is it based on Longo? Or are there other underpinning authors or theories?

Thank you for your contributions so far.

Article Imagine There Are No Leaders: Reframing Leadership as Collab...

Book Slavoj Žižek: A Žižekian Gaze at Education

Technical Report CABS Leadership & Policy Paper: Business schools as educatio...

Article “It’s Not Easy Living a Sustainable Lifestyle”: How Greater ...

Tony -- hello and thank you for your thoughtful and just plain FULL response.  That will keep me reading and thinking for a while!!

You ask about the foundational ideas in my work . . . I'm interested in how people (particularly college students) develop civic agency.  I'm just finished with a research leave in Minneapolis, thinking and talking with Harry Boyte.  I'm attaching here his review of literature on participatory democracy, organized using his theory of public work, or "self-organized efforts by a mix of people who solve common problems and create things, material or symbolic, of lasting civic value."  He's frequently posting his work on Academia.edu for comment/conversation.

I am not familiar with Joe Raelin's work, and appreciate the recommendation in his direction.  Based on a glance at the summary, my sense is that a distinction between his work and that of Boyte is that Harry is specifically interested in what it takes to prepare strong citizens and thus a strong democracy on a day to day basis in terms of the function of local communities and the building/protecting of the commons.

Maybe you are familiar with Luke Bretherton's work . . . .Resurrecting Democracy is his latest book, about community organizing in London.  That's the direction my work has tended to lean toward -- community organizing and civic politics -- rather than toward leadership models.  However, by focusing my attention on college students, I've created an opportunity to think about the epistemological and cognitive aspects of this work as well.  Your comments/reading suggestions will be quite helpful!

I look forward to other contributions to this conversation . . . thanks for starting it!

TLM

I share the sentiments, Tami - thank you for sharing this reference, and I'm going to look into these ideas . . .

Thanks Tami.

My research interests lie in conferences (academic/scientific/professional), and how we use them to learn, share, interact and communicate. They are very under-studied, but I am begining to see them as communities of practice, and especially as locuses for collective thinking and action.

The conference area is key to the professional practice and development of a wide range of disciplines, has a multi-billion $ expenditure (it's really huge!), but very few people seem to be interested in it. My own work is showing that this is because the events offer the collective delegate body what they want (professional-social engagement, a break from routine, visibility etc.), but not what they need (effective interaction, effective learning, effective visibility, tangible outcomes etc.). I touch on these points in a forthcoming book, but the ideas of a pedagogy and theory of collective thinking & action are definitely an area I will be looking into. Thanks for sharing these highly useful opinions and references  ;-)

@Tony 

Pedagogies for collective thinking and action

Thank you for the introduction on the five elements from the Japanese values which are quite common in many Asian regions. Politically, the ideas of collective thinking has been divided. To develop the idea of collective thinking there are various pedagogies which have been practiced  in ancient times. There are five techniques which can be discussed at large to bring the "spirit" back... but practised currently at the primary and secondary level. 

At the tertiary level , I have a model  which has been submitted on collaborative learning.. online.. Please let me know if you are interested in the paper.. 

Designing and Evaluating Collaborative Projects in Learning Communities: Innovative Practices and Strategies :New York Publication.

The  model is new and its very innovative. However, there must be a tertiary University willing to take up the method , It will provide good results because it connects education, people and the community issues. I am looking out for a platform to explore  the outcomes of the  implementation.

Thanks for this 

regards

 suma

@Nicholas - yes, I hadn't thought of that angle, but you are right. Having just come from a conference, it is like a micro-environment of connections and collective energy. Although not all conferences are like that!

@Suma - thank you for this, and connecting to one of my papers. Yes, I would love to see your paper - it may spark some new connections and lines of inquiry.

Thank you both for joining the conversation.

Hi all,

This is really a nice exchange of ideas. I easily accept Tami Moore's suggestion of adding something more to my 4 Hs in that one may ask what is the ultimate goal or end of learning and education. I would be led to think that this aspect could be framed in terns of the ultimate "why" of education,  teaching and learning. Whereas my first "why" is, as it were, the causal or proximal why of learning and education, the second why could be called the distal or final why of education.

I would say that the ultimate goal of education is, as once Piaget noticed, to give rise to intellectually and morally autonomous individuals. Intellectually autonomous individuals are individuals who are innovators, creators, and reconstruct or reinvent everything they learn, not conformist people, that is, people who do not accept established truths and dogmas imposed on them. Morally autonomous individuals are those who are oriented to an autonomous morality, a morality guided by the ideas of equality, cooperation, and mutual respect, not to a heteronomous morality, a morality guided by the ideas of obedience, coercion, and unilateral respect. 

Note also that only education -- and when we speak of education we also think of teaching and learning -- can save societies  from possible collapse, be it violent or gradual. Thus, the ultimate goal of education (my distal why) is to save societies, and even individuals, from possible collapse. Of course, education is costly, but it is far less costly than its alternative, ignorance.

In a previous comment I said that it would be misleading and even nonsensical to say that Pythagoras's theorem is located in a group, not in individuals. With this I wanted to stress that individuals are priori to groups, even when a certain concept (e.g., the proportionality concept) is learnt by a group. I would say a group of individuals instead of a group.

 I would agree with R. Eden when she claims that we have more outcomes of learning than simply learning. When a learning has no outcome, there is no learning at all. I would include learning outcomes in my "What" of learning.  

Of course, it can be said that the cultural meanings ascribed to elements of Pythagoras' theorem and what they represent are historically and socially constructed and thus can be seen to be located in the collective. It is worth mentioning, however, that such theorem is the same for different individuals and cultures, which seems to show that, contrary to the postmodernist claim, the theorem is not as socially and culturally constructed as some authors claim. That this theorem is the same for different individuals and cultures speaks more in favor of the constructivist claim that individuals all construct essentially the same understanding of knowledge and value as a result of their interactions with the physical and social worlds than the postmodern constructionist claim that all knowledge and value is socially constructed.

As far as I know, it was Pythagoras, not a group of individuals, who formulated his famous theorem. To recognize this, does not amount to saying that he was not immersed in  a cultural and social environment, or, as Wittgenstein used to say, immersed in  a certain language-game, cultural context, or form of life.

What I find it interesting in this and  other discussions is that we all agree that we can disagree with one another and  that this is the normal way of getting  ahead on the topic at hand.

For example, I think that the example "My biscuit is twice as big as yours is a concept well within the capacity of most "normal" 4-year-olds to understand"  is only  a minimal indicator that 4-year-olds mastery the proportionality concept.  What a 4-year-old child would reply in the  following example: " Here there are two bags . As you can see, this bag (A) contains 2 white beads and 3 black beads; this bag (B) contains  3 white beads and 4 black beads. Is it easier at a first trial to take away a white bead from A, from B, or is it equally easy or  possible to take away a white bead from A or from B, and  why".  Please, try to ask this to a 4.year.old child, and do not forget justifications. I can assure you that  4-years olds are not able to present the correct solution and an adequate  justification.  If they were, then one can credit them with a clear understanding  of  theproportionality concept.

I hope that this may be of some  help for the discussion at issue.

Best regards.

Dear Orlando:

Thank you so much for your important remarks!

I could not agree more with you! Certainly, “Of course, education is costly, but it is far less costly than its alternative, ignorance.”

My best regards,

Javier.

@ Tony

"But what do we know about alternative educational approaches in tertiary education systems which focus on 'the collective', whether as a primary organising concept, or in an aspect of the system?"

@ Orlando

"I would say that the ultimate goal of education is, as once Piaget noticed, to give rise to intellectually and morally autonomous individuals". 

How to look at processes that enhance the above?

Suma

Hi Tony,

I find your question rather confusing. What do you mean by “collective thinking”. Do you have a group of individuals immersed in discussions with each others; a teacher talking to a group of students; discussions between different teams; or something else in mind? Who is doing the thinking – the individuals or the group as a whole? Can the group think on its own, even without members?

The topic of social construction is another issue which is never discussed and properly evaluated. Who is constructing the meaning of a word – the individual or a group? Raewyn Eden says that “In contrast, the learning involved in developing an understanding of Pythagoras' theorem, for instance, might be seen to be socially and culturally constructed and thus located in the collective. Furthermore, the cultural meanings ascribed to elements of the theorem and what they represent are historically and socially constructed and thus can be seen to be located in the collective.” This does not make much sense. Meaning is always created/generated by individuals and, subject to the interaction with other individuals, it is adopted or not by other individuals. We identify those individuals as a group (of individuals) who share the common meaning. But this does not mean that the group itself created the meaning. In many discussions of this kind social groups are regarded as actors in their own right, which are of the same scale as the members of those groups. This is illogical.  

Hello Wes - thank you for raising exactly the sorts of thoughts and issues I am looking to explore through posting this question on here. I think there a number of tensions/paradoxes/issues/etc here which we need to air - which are raised in the attached documents. This questions isn't really about how people learn. You'll see above, the sub text to the question was:

Many educational approaches in contemporary primary, secondary and tertiary systems embed design features organised around the individual. Indeed, the personalisation agenda in these systems is accentuating this way of organising. There are of course consequences of this way of organising (see attached).

But what do we know about alternative educational approaches in tertiary education systems which focus on 'the collective', whether as a primary organising concept, or in an aspect of the system? And what do we know of the consequences of organising in this way? I have attached some possibilities in the links related to this question.

One way of conceptualising contemporary educational systems is around the individual and self gain (there is a whole literature focused on the critique of neo-liberalism - e.g. http://esmeefairbairn.org.uk/news-and-learning/publications/education-for-all). There is a whole research literature which argues that this way of organising promotes self gain over are greater or collective gain.

So the question was really about alternative ways of organising education which promote a greater concern and orientation towards the collective and collective gain. You'll see colleagues above have posted alternative responses in their own contexts.

I'd love to hear your thoughts and experiences on how we go about this, or how we might - the questions is what might be the principle organising design features, and what are consequences of trying to deliver these in contemporary education settings?

http://esmeefairbairn.org.uk/news-and-learning/publications/education-for-all

Dear Tony:

Thank you so much for sharing your opinion and this important document!

I could not agree more with you when you say, “a wider vision of education should respect and reward the practical as well as the academic, informal and experiential as well as formal learning, and should draw upon the wide range of expertise within the community.”

In this regard, I believe that for this to be effective every educational institution, which develops its instructive tasks in every one of both schools and Universities, should develop an action based on the following educational principles:

• Take into consideration students’ level of cognitive competence (development level), that is to say, their development level in which they are, and  their knowledge on which they have built previously (previous knowledge).
• Facilitate the construction of meaningful learning.
• Promote functional learning.
• Make it possible learn to learn.
• Focus on student-centered learning process.
• Encourage interaction in the teaching-learning process.
• Construct motivational learning situations.

These principles have been put forward by various current psycho-pedagogical currents (social learning: A. Bandura and cognitivism -constructivism: J. Piaget, D. Ausubel., L. S. Vygotski and J. Bruner).

Kind regards,

Javier.

Wenger’s concept of communities of practice for learning comes closer to a pedagogy for collective thinking. It provides a structure for facilitating collective learning from persons of varying experience and knowledge, but it is easy for individual thinkers to focus on how individuals benefit in such a community rather than focusing on collective concern for the group that is a very real expression of collective thinking. Furthermore, few educational settings consistently facilitate the discussion that benefits learning through a community of learning.

Collaborative learning is another potential pedagogy that can tap into the collective mindset but it is often set in education settings that still focus on individuals learning from the collaboration. Chi (2009) differentiates between constructive learning activities that demonstrate individual learning and interactive learning that generates co-construction that incorporates concepts from dialogue partners. This description of interactive learning comes much closer to the values embedded in collective thinking. Both communities of learning and collaborative learning pedagogies hold potential for designing learning that facilitates the collective mindset

I am presently analyzing data from researching small group discussions in a multicultural educational setting in Africa. I found in my interviews that African students consistently expressed their concern that they move together as a group, that they share and shape ideas collectively, that they support others’ participation and ideas, and that they agree together on the group outcome or product. Designing pedagogies for the collective view could facilitate a variety of opportunities for mutual participation and contribution towards learning that benefits the group and the community.

@ Javier and @Jane - this is really interesting, thank you. These are both very relevant perspectives and comments. 

@Javier - the first bullet point is particularly interesting, and might even be linked to a broader umbrella of 'personal history' which shapes a particular way of viewing or interacting with the world. This would then link to the idea of participation in a world, as @Jane mentions in communities of practice.

@Jane - I would be interesting in reading any articles or reports you write up related to the data you are collecting. Sounds fascinating. DO they identify with ubuntu or other overarching perspective, do you know?

Thank you both, very useful.

Tony, none of my participants made reference to ubuntu or any other overarching perspective. However, many of my participants spent their early days in village or rural settings and have since had secondary and tertiary education in urban settings. I am not sure to what extent  the word "ubuntu" is explicitly used in education or whether ubuntu is a term used by academics and politicians to capture the pervasive sense of community that is passed on in traditional settings and transcends most African cultures even in the face of globalization. But your question bears significance since the sense of community represented by ubuntu rarely penetrates formal education settings in Africa. Much more research could be done to explore this further.

I find this very interesting, thank you Jane. Yes, my understanding of ubuntu is that because of its oral heritage, we are still trying to make sense of what it is or may be. I have peers in cape town who talk about it manifesting in different ways, depending on the 'personality' development of the individual. That is a curious and interesting perspective.

I can also see your comment about the use of ubuntu in political spheres, in terms of cultural 'reclamation'. I found the attached a very interesting article by Adbul Karim Bangura over a decade ago - a kind of manifesto in some regards. I would be interested to know if you see any of these aspects in your data.

http://connection.ebscohost.com/c/articles/19221350/ubuntugogy-african-educational-paradigm-that-transcends-pedagogy-andragogy-ergonagy-heutagogy

Hi Tony,

I am obliged to you for your polite and patient reply to my rather abrupt way of questioning. I realise that most readers/responders are interested in teaching strategies/methodologies (e.g. ubuntu). They take the general issues I want to question for granted. I think those concerns have to be raised to place the discussion in the broader context.

 I read the whole rather lengthy document called “Education for All”. I would like to focus on the developmental issues outlined on page 21-22:

 REGARDING “The strong influence of heredity on intelligence ‘is now accepted’ but the emphasis in research is on the ‘key role of environment for explaining variability’.”

The sentence itself is contradictory, but that is of lesser importance to me (I object to the phrase “key role”). Instead, I prefer to think that variability between individuals is both hereditary and environmental. One cannot separate one from the other. Humans evolved through natural selection to interact with the physical (and by extension with cultural) environments. The tendency to modify one’s own behaviour (to learn) or form social groups is entirely genetic. No schooling program can ever turn a pigeon into a responsible member of human societies, the same way as no amount of flapping one’s own arms will turn the person into a bird.

 What I am trying to say is that the genetic endowment facilitates or restricts the interaction of individuals with their physical environment. Most individuals have the ability to adapt their behaviour to gradual changes. By changing the environment, social groups can modify the behaviour of individuals and make them members of that group.

 REGARDING: “Schools often ‘neglect the considerable funds of knowledge that children themselves bring to school’.

Here is the point I am trying to make. Children go to school with different experiences due to their genetic predispositions and prior environmental restrictions. This natural variation is further restricted by the schooling program. We tend to think that students gain knowledge and enrich their lives by attending schools, but in some important way their personal development becomes limited as a result of education the sole goal is to produce responsible members of a specific social group.

This raises number of critical questions: what social groups should be included in the mix? Surely, not all of them. To what extent one group should be emphasised over the other? Who should decide about all this? This is where education falls prey to ideology which results in various often contradictory educational programs.

 This is why I advocate “educational approaches in contemporary primary, secondary and tertiary systems embed design features organised around the individual”. To overcome the problems listed in the previous paragraph, I think the schooling should provide all students with tools to think independently and make choices for themselves in this rather confusing multicultural environment. This issue is closely related to Jane E Rhoades comment about designing pedagogies for the collective view.

 REGARDING: “I found in my interviews that African students consistently expressed their concern that they move together as a group, that they share and shape ideas collectively, that they support others’ participation and ideas, and that they agree together on the group outcome or product.”

 One has to separate teaching strategies (collective/collaborative learning) from the teaching goals. The preferred way of learning should not replace the need to help students to develop ability to think for themselves.

 Best

Wes

Thank you Wes for your considered response, and I found it really interesting. I really liked this:

No schooling program can ever turn a pigeon into a responsible member of human societies, the same way as no amount of flapping one’s own arms will turn the person into a bird.

It reminds me of the behaviourist research into pigeons and how the researchers generated insight into creativity through teaching pigeons different moves/responses - and monitoring the different ('creative') combinations!

Wes, thank you for your thoughts. I was particularly interested in your statement, "This raises number of critical questions: what social groups should be included in the mix? . . .To what extent one group should be emphasised over the other? Who should decide about all this? This is where education falls prey to ideology which results in various often contradictory educational programs."  The questions you ask are critical and controversial in the sense that they touch on contradictory philosophies regarding how different groups should be accommodated in specific education settings. National or school-specific policies may play a specific role in answering the questions and the consequences may be felt individually by students and by the broader community in the long run. Banks’ (2009) Routledge International Companion to Multicultural Education is very helpful in exploring a wide variety of approaches that are shaped by national and regional policies.

As to your final paragraph commenting on the preliminary findings of my research you stated, “One has to separate teaching strategies (collective/collaborative learning) from the teaching goals. The preferred way of learning should not replace the need to help students to develop ability to think for themselves.” I so much agree with you. There is room and necessity for multiple approaches to learning. My research was looking particularly at one component of a whole program – small group discussion groups formulating a plan to address issues identified in case studies. I believe that being exposed to others’ ideas is a powerful way for learning to think for themselves. My preliminary findings, I believe, reveal a unique way that the multicultural students do that in Africa.

Jane - a strong and carefully thought out reply. I am looking forward to reading more as it is released.

There was a report in 2011 which reported that goals/methods are intrinsically linked - I am playing with this in a new chapter related to infusing ethics into pedagogy.

Kind regards, Tony.

http://esmeefairbairn.org.uk/news-and-learning/publications/education-for-all