Theory and Practice of Education

179 Pages·2007·8.96 MB·English

by  David A. Turner

THEORY AND PRACTICE OF EDUCATION
Also available from Continuum
Theory of Education, David Turner
Philosophy of Education, Richard Pring
Education and Community, Dianne Gereluk
Private Education, Geoffrey Walford
Key Ideas in Educational Research, David Scott and Marlene Morrison
THEORY AND PRACTICE OF EDUCATION
DAVID A. TURNER
Continuum International Publishing Group
The Tower Building, 11 York Road, London SE1 7NX
80 Maiden Lane, Suite 704, New York, NY 10038
www.continuumbooks.com
© David A. Turner 2007
All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced or transmitted in
any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording,
or any information storage or retrieval system, without prior permission in writing from
the publishers.
David Turner has asserted his right under the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act, 1988,
to be identified as Author of this work
British Library Cataloguing-in-Publication Data
A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library.
ISBN: 0-8264-9107-3 (hardback)
Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data
A catalog record for this book is available from the Library of Congress.
Typeset by Aarontype Limited, Easton, Bristol
Printed and bound in Great Britain by The Cromwell Press, Trowbridge, Wiltshire
Contents
List of Figures vi
1 Introduction 1
Parti Theory 15
2 As Simple as Possible 17
3 An Arrow into the Air 30
4 Modelling 44
Part 2 Practice 55
5 Classroom Management 57
6 The Parting of the Ways 75
7 Equality of Opportunity 97
8 Learning and Teaching 114
9 Quality Assurance 133
Part 3 Theory into Practice 151
10 Conclusions: Evidence-based Policy and Policy-based Research 153
References 166
Index 168
List of figures
2.1 Simple pay-off matrix for 'Scissors, Paper, Stone' 25
2.2 Modified pay-off matrix for 'Scissors, Paper, Stone' 25
2.3 Reduced pay-off matrix for 'Scissors, Paper, Stone' 26
2.4 Further reduced pay-off matrix for 'Scissors, Paper, Stone' 26
3.1 Sierpinski Triangle 33
3.2 A complex system 38
4.1 Sailing dinghy on (a) starboard reach or (b) port reach 46
5.1 Unruly classroom 60
5.2 Revolution in the classroom 62
5.3 'Perfect' classroom 63
5.4 My classroom 65
6.1 Simple pay-off matrix 79
6.2 Modified pay-off matrix 79
9.1 A scatter-plot of the relative performance of universities 147
Chapter 1
Introduction
I have remarked elsewhere that the failure of policy-makers to engage with
theory and the failure of researchers to provide a sound basis for policy-
making is a relationship (or lack of relationship) that has fault on both
sides (Turner 2004a). However, the greater fault undoubtedly lies with the
researchers who have failed to provide models of sufficient complexity that
they can be used effectively in the policy-making process.
It should be noted that in this context complexity is not a matter of how
many variables are involved in the explanatory models, nor of how many
factors are involved in a particular situation. Still less does it rest in the
view that the human sciences cannot benefit from the experience of the phy-
sical sciences because human situations are inherently more complex than
situations involving mere inanimate objects.
Complexity in the field of education studies, resides with the fact that
everybody is involved in constructing their own education. Each of us is
piecing together our own personality from the examples and cultural heri-
tage with which we are presented. Everybody is creating their own life-story
from their own experiences. At the core of each person is an active creator
whose primary task is the construction of their own self. A life cannot be
reduced to the constellation of 'factors' which gives it shape or structure.
The complexity of education resides with the fact that it involves human
beings, and that, perhaps more than in any other field, motivation, will-
power, choice and interpersonal chemistry are crucial to the endeavour
and do more to shape the outcome than background or prior experience.
At its most basic, when confronted with a challenging situation a human
being can do one of two things: embrace the challenge, restructure their own
understanding, accommodate to the new experience and change and hope-
fully grow as a result; or reject the challenge, refuse to reform their own
knowledge and remain steadfast to principles that have been acquired
earlier. This process is so firmly at the core of human learning and experi-
ence that it is difficult to describe it in neutral terms. As educationists we are
so involved in confronting people with fresh experiences and expecting them
to change, to incorporate that new learning into their way of thinking, that
2 Theory and Practice of Education
we are inclined to describe learning in positive terms and failure to learn in
negative terms. However, that is much too simple. There are times when
new experiences must be put aside and rejected. If Nelson Mandela had
learned from his experience in prison that the inhuman apartheid regime
was immovable, a whole range of positive consequences would have been
lost. If everybody who was bullied learned from their experience that bully-
ing was a good way to achieve one's ends, then educational institutions, and
others, would be intolerable.
Rejecting the lessons of new experience, remaining steadfast to con-
victions and cultivating a scepticism of new information can all be as
commendable as learning. Indeed, learning too quickly, achieving the
superficial understanding of the newly converted, is almost never desirable.
So, in taking a stance of acceptance or resistance in the face of new experi-
ence, one cannot assume that the moral balance is always weighted in favour
of the former.
Of course, we all know that too ready a recourse to resistance is all too
likely to close one off from new experiences and prematurely curtail learn-
ing. 'I can't do sums', or, 'I don't like spicy foods', are apt to become self-
fulfilling prophesies. Instant resistance to a new experience is likely to repre-
sent a defence against new ideas and permit the persistence of a comfortable
prejudice. But equally we know that the person who is too easily persuaded,
who accepts the latest information without question, is in danger of being
shallow, a flag blown hither and thither with every passing breeze, with
neither character nor moral resolution. Excessive readiness to reshape
one's way of thinking when presented with new ways of looking at things is
just as morally reprehensible as remaining fixed in one's prejudices. And
perhaps it is worth noting that many of our heroes and models of upright
behaviour, from Job to Mandela via Nelson and Edison, were heroic
mainly in their obstinate adherence to a principle and their willingness,
either literally or metaphorically, to hold the telescope to their blind eye in
order to avoid new information.
The process of education, therefore, involves a constant stream of deci-
sions as to whether new experience should be incorporated into our store of
knowledge, memories and patterned responses, or whether it should be
rejected, downplayed or neglected. And if we decide to incorporate a new
experience and the learning associated with it, this may or may not require
very radical accommodation among the experiences and attitudes that we
had previously decided to make part of our personality. Some new experi-
ences may require a radical reassessment of everything that had come
before, as might for example be the case in a religious conversion or adop-
tion of a new political persuasion. Other new experiences may involve
Introduction 3
almost no accommodation, as when I learn a new word in a language which
is not my main means of self-expression. The process of education is the pro-
cess of building a personal history. It is an active process in which the indivi-
dual chooses what is to be incorporated but also makes higher level decisions
about how important each element is to be, or how much ambiguity or
imprecision is acceptable in the personality as a whole.
There will be those who object to this characterization of experience as a
process of choice; some experiences are so obtrusive, so invasive, that I
cannot be said to have a choice as to whether I remember them or not.
I cannot choose to remember or to forget my multiplication tables, which
were drilled into me by a conscientious teacher at my primary school.
I may not even be able to choose whether that was an enjoyable or hate-
ful experience. But I am in a position to decide today where my under-
standing of basic arithmetic fits into the larger structure of knowledge with
which I am trying to grapple, even at this moment. Nor can I choose to
remember or forget the Alhambra in Granada. But I can decide whether
that breath-taking building can just remain as an isolated experience of
tourism, or whether it needs to be incorporated in some way into a broader
cultural understanding.
Similarly, some teachers are unforgettable, whether for being inspira-
tional or ogres, but only my subsequent actions, and my subsequent deci-
sions how to deal with the knowledge they imparted, can decide whether
they are a long-term influence on me, and, if so, whether for good or ill.
Those who object to the notion of choice in such a context tell me that they
never had the experience of making a choice; they only did what was
obvious and followed the expected path. And I can understand how that
would be. However, I still argue that if the 'expected path' turned out to be
objectionable, unpleasant or incompatible with other views they had of
themselves, then at some point the individual on the expected path would
rebel and choose a different route. We may not make conscious choices as
to what we incorporate into our personalities, but at least in a negative
sense we decide not to resist so long as the consequences of acquiescence are
not too terrible.
In this sense, my choice to talk about education in terms of choice is a
methodological decision. I believe that we can make sense of an individual's
educational experiences if we view them as purposeful on the part of the
learner. The learner is trying to accumulate a body of memories, disposi-
tions and attitudes which produce a comfortable accommodation with
their environment. (There are people who do not look particularly comfor-
table to me, in the sense that they take a hostile, aggressive or sceptical
approach to everything around them, but my methodological assumption