Currently reading Biesta (2009): “Good education in an age of measurement: On the need to reconnect with the question of purpose in education”
What is the purpose of education? In the midst of preparing classes, giving classes, reading student work, giving feedback, assessing, we don’t often enough stop and think about why we are really doing all of this. Yesterday, I did have the chance to discuss the purpose of education for a while with colleagues, though, and so I am re-reading what Biesta has to say on it, and summarizing it below.
In his 2009 paper on “Good education in an age of measurement: On the need to reconnect with the question of purpose in education“, Biesta starts by describing the European landscape of measurement in education, where league tables based on international comparative studies like PISA introduce competition between countries or even schools, and inform policy. This sounds very familiar thinking back to my own days in school, and also now working at a proud “top 100” university.
But it is important to remember that “educational outcomes can and should be measured“, even with the best intentions of working towards social justice and quality improvement etc, is just an idea, even though widely accepted, and not a natural law. And both the can and the should, in “educational outcomes can and should be measured“, in fact, can, and maybe should, be questioned. And, importantly, “the question [is] whether we are indeed measuring what we value, or whether we are just measuring what we can easily measure and thus end up valuing what we (can) measure“. And as someone who is trying to measure a lot in the context of learning myself, I definitely know how difficult it is to measure what we want to measure! And even more so if we aren’t clear on what it is we value in the first place. Also what is often measured (or at least attempted to measure) is the effectiveness of teaching and learning. But that tells us only about the process, not whether the outcomes themselves were desirable. And it is very easy to fall into the trap of seeing a bunch of data and believing that it tells us what to do next. Even if that data was actually measuring what we value, what comes next is still a value judgement — or lots of smaller ones — where to go to from where we interpret that data tells us we are at. So what is it that we value, where we want to go? What is our vision?
Back on the topic of effictiveness, Biesta writes
“…sometimes educational strategies that are not effective, for example because they provide opportunities for students to explore their own ways of thinking, doing and being, can be more desirable than those that effectively proceed towards a pre-specified end. Instead of simply making a case for effective education, we always need to ask ‘Effective for what?’ – and given that what might be effective for one particular situation or one group of students but not necessarily in another situation or for other groups of students, we also always need to ask ‘Effective for whom?’”
And then this:
“the absence of explicit attention for the aims and ends of education is the effect of often implicit reliance on a particular ‘common sense’ view of what education is for. We have to bear in mind, however, that what appears as ‘common sense’ often serves the interests of some groups (much) better than those of others.”
It is in the interest of those benefitting from the way things currently are to not question the status quo. And this is often even supported by those who are not (yet) benefitting because they believe that they can work their way into benefitting, too, not seeing that that happening might a) not be wanted by those who are already “in”, and b) change the status of for example a degree when it is not as exclusive any more, so then being “in” might not end up being what they had hoped for (reminds me of how many well-paid jobs suddenly pay a lot less when a the number of women entering the field crosses some threshold…).
Biesta then goes on to write about the “learnification’ of education: the translation of everything there is to say about education in terms of learning and learners“. What he points out as problematic is that learning is very much about the individual (even when methods like collaborative or cooperative learning are used), in contrast to education, which is about a relationship in which there is guidance towards a goal, not just in the process. And while the process is important, Biesta stresses that “it also matters what pupils and students learn and what they learn it for– that it matters, for example, what kind of citizens they are supposed to become and what kind of democracy this is supposed to bring about“.
Biesta then discusses three interlinked, overlapping, and partly conflicting functions of education: qualification (to be able to do something in the workforce or function in society), socialisation (to continue culture and traditions, values, norms, … to bring newcomers in; can be professional or other), and subjectification (becoming autonomous and independent in thinking and acting).
Conflict between the three fuctions can, for example, arize when qualification is seen as learning “neutral” facts and skills (and as the only purpose of education). But then socialization inadvertently and necessarily happens, too, if not through the explicit curriculum, then implicitly through the values and norms that went into choosing the content, approach, materials, role models students meet, etc…. Using the example of mathematics education that is definitely a lot about learning knowledge and skills, Biesta points out that socialization is actually an important part, too, even if that is not typically made explicit: conveying that mathematics is an important skill in society is socializing students into a world where this is accepted as true. And in addition, we can and should consider the opportunities for subjectification, “for becoming a particular kind of person, e.g., a person who, through the power or mathematical reasoning is able to gain a more autonomous or considered position towards tradition and common sense“.
And the same, I would argue, holds for engineering education at a prestigeous school. We should balance the danger of inadvertently indoctrinating people by a more explicit focus on subjectification. As Biesta states: “any education worthy of its name should always contribute to processes of subjectification that allow those being educated to become more autonomous and independent in their thinking and acting“.
And now please enjoy some pictures of yesterday’s after work dip!
Biesta, G. (2009). Good education in an age of measurement: On the need to reconnect with the question of purpose in education. Educational Assessment, Evaluation and Accountability (formerly: Journal of Personnel Evaluation in Education), 21(1), 33-46.