Download - Inquiry Paper - rough draft

7/30/2019 Inquiry Paper - rough draft

1/7

Nielsen 1

Josh Nielsen

Carrie Sippy

ENGL 1102

4-9-2013

Where There's A Will There's A Way

It is impossible to say that education is not an important thing. Many studies have been

done to prove the correlation between education and having better jobs, less oppression, and a

greater sense of well being among other things. My purpose is not to list these studies or argue

for the importance of education. Rather my goal is to look at the purpose of education itself and

to determine whether the classical style of education does a better job of equipping students. To

do this I have brought in a number of sources, people who have done research or inquiries into

the field of classical education. This part of my inquiry is a way of discussing ideas that have

already been presented. Furthermore it will answer some preliminary questions and open up new

questions to be asked as I continue in my inquiry.

Between my sources there was somewhat of a consensus that most of the current systems

of education were not performing the role they should be. Several years ago Sir Kenneth

Robinson made a presentation at a conference on creativity and education. In this presentation he

argued that education should be a time of preparation for life beyond school. Paulo Friere in his

bookPedagogy of the Oppressedmakes a similar argument. Friere does not seem to be as

concerned about creativity, at least not in this work, but he does allude to preparation as being a

key purpose of education. Friere uses the term consciousness frequently in his book to push the

argument that education needs to be promoting a sense of consciousness. In other words students

need to be learning both how to be aware of the world around them, and also how to interact with


2/7

Nielsen 2

the world.

Robinson also expresses his frustration with the school system by saying that it is doing

exactly the opposite of what it should. To emphasize this he quotes Picasso once said this he

said that all children are born artists. The problem is to remain an artist as we grow up. (par. 6)

Robinson claims that school systems should be doing their best to allow students to retain that

sense of creativity. Instead he says they are stripping children of their innate sense of creativity

and artistry. If it is true that the purpose of education, or even a significant part of it, is to prepare

students for the future than they are doing quite a poor job. By removing and discouraging

creativity, schools are limiting the way children use their brains. After all it is creativity and the

ability to think and reason that guides us through situations we have never been through before.

For the purpose of my inquiry I would want to ask my sources why they think school

systems are doing this. Although many of them answer this question in some way. It is at this

point that they begin to divide. Friere would say that this type of education is instituted by

teachers and systems that are unable to see the teacher-student relationship as a partnership (75).

He admits that it is often done unknowingly for there are innumerable well-intentioned bank-

clerk teachers who do not realize that they are serving only to dehumanize(75). Pulitzer Prize

winning author and historian Daniel Howe, provide a rather different view. In his article

Classical Education in America he claims that in recent history most universities have either cut

their classics department or cut the budgets of those departments so as to render them nearly

useless (par. 1). To show just how important this is he spends a little time talking about and

explaining classical education. He says that Ever since the Middle Ages, a classical education

had represented a synthesis of reason and virtue (par. 4). This synthesis has been especially

valued by Christians but also was central to early Americans in general. Howe claims that if


3/7

Nielsen 3

nothing else the study of the classics forced a sense of discipline that most students don't get

now. This, in Howe's opinion, is why modern systems are failing. GeorgeBugliarello, therenown former president of the Polytechnic Institute of NYU presents a number of

disagreements with Howe's view. Bugliarello in an article entitledA New Trivium and

Quadrivium states that An education cannot be called truly humanistic if it fails to look at

humans in the context of the evolutionary history of the biosoma and its projections into the

future (par. 26). In many more words he is saying that the trivuim and quadrivium which have

been the central curriculum for classical schools are outdated. They no longer apply because they

do not include studies in engineering, technology, and other newer fields. I found it interesting

that though Bugliarello is definitely not in favor of using the classical curriculum he doesn't

provide an alternative. In addition he does not attack the method of the classical model but rather

goes after the content. To help settle some of these issues I interviewed Rachel McClure, who is

currently an english student at Belmont Abby College. Rachel received most of her education

prior to college at a small classical school which gives her significant insight into the issue at

hand. One of the things she emphasized about classical education was that is intended to build

up the whole self. As opposed to Freire's banking model and other similar systems the

classical model is not concerned as much about test grades. The focus is on establishing

character and virtue. Rachel said that one of the biggest reasons she enjoyed her education was

that is was centered around discussion and learning how to think critically. As an alternative to

the banking model Friere proposes another system which he calls the problem-posing method.

This method seems to have a lot of similar things to the education that Rachel received. This

method requires that teachers focus on showing the students how to be conscious of the

information they receive. Rather than just committing it to memory, students must discuss it


4/7

Nielsen 4

pulling out the flaws and emphasizing the beneficial natures (81). In this way students become

engaged in the material and more interested in what they are learning.

Since I began my inquiry my views have not changed significantly. However having

studied the issue I am able to articulate my opinions in a far better manner. I was not a student in

a classical school but my education was very much centered around discussion. It was far more

about understanding what was being presented than blindly accepting pure facts. In this sense I

am very much in agreement with Friere's point of view. I can also very much understand the

ideas that Rachel presented. One of my favorite things to do is to have discussions on various

topics. I enjoy learning about a topic, analyzing it, adapt my views if I think it is a good idea, and

then present it in a discussion. For me discussion is a way of polishing my views and learning

how to better articulate them. In interacting with fellow students and attending university I have

noticed that discussion and critical thinking are skills that are no longer taught. To me this is the

greatest loss. I am not concerned that people have perfect logic and rhetorical skills, but I do

think that it is essential for people to be able to think and interact with ideas. The following quote

taken from Freire's book very well sums up my thoughts. The solution is not (nor can it be)

found in the banking concept (73).

As I stated I am not concerned about everyone knowing the classical curriculum perfectly

and I understand many of George Bugliarello's objections to it. So I would like to see what some

of my other sources have to say about teaching newer subjects that more adequately prepare

students for the technologically advanced world we live in. First I must define the trivium and

quadrivium which are the central part of the classical curriculum. The trivium consists of

grammar, logic, and rhetoric which are taught in that order (16). The quadrivium includes

arithmetic, geometry, music and astronomy. These were generally taught simultaneously after the


5/7

Nielsen 5

studies in the trivium were completed. As we saw Bugliarello disagrees with the standard

classical approach because he fears that it will fail to propel the next generation forward in

technological and scientific advances. Robinson does not speak about the classical method at all

but his interest in preparation for the future must mean that he is also concerned about the next

generation being able to push forward in modern fields of study.

This leads me to the very center of my inquiry. What is the balance between establishing

the foundational principles that will allow a person to continue learning throughout their live,

and giving that person the tools they will need to succeed in a job and push society forward?

While I think that the classical system may need to include more studies in science and

technology I also believe that many of the failures of the current systems have to do with a lack

of the use of logic and reasoning.

Both Robinson and Friere contended that the students need to interact with the material

that is presented to them. If we treat them as if they know nothing then when we are neglecting

so much. Children even at a young age can be brilliant. Mozart was only six years old when he

began playing publicly in the courts of the European royalty ("Wolfgang Mozart" 1). Likewise

Einstein said that two of the most important events of his life happened when he was just five

and twelve ("Albert Einstein" 1). There are so many more examples of people who changed the

course of history at such young ages. All this is to say that children are not completely ignorant

they simply need to be directed in how to better put their mental faculties to use. They need tools

to guide them through their lives. Tools such as logic, rhetoric, and reasoning. Beyond this they

need to be challenged and to be taught the importance of what they are learning.

Scott Armstrong argues that students need to take more responsibility for their own

education. Teachers have some amount of responsibility but ultimately for a student to succeed


6/7

Nielsen 6

they need to want to succeed. Armstrong also believes that we need to present material that

challenges the way that students think rather than just presenting views that they are already

familiar with (3). If only the common methods are taught students will have a hard time thinking

outside the box and coming up with solutions to new problems.

Although each person has different views on smaller issues it seems that all agree that

education must be about more than just memorizing facts and passing tests. There must be some

amount of learning how to learn. The differences in opinion come when the the discussion turns

to possible solutions. My research and inquiry into this topic has led me to think that there is no

one magical method that can be used in education. Rather the teacher needs to be attentive to the

students and adapt existing methods to fit their specific class. As far as curriculum goes I think a

balance is also important. While I would lean towards a classical style of education as much as

possible, there are times when that simply isn't practical. I think that a structured education that is

centered around building the student up in a more holistic sense. However in developing

countries providing a classical education would probably not be as practical. students would not

be able to read much of the classical literature simply because they have little or no reading skills

to begin with. When a student has a family at home that is wondering where their next meal will

come from they are not likely to be excited about Euclid's theories or the works of Mozart. So

there are times when vocational skills need to be emphasized. However even in such cases I

believe that vocations can still be taught using a method that does not completely strip the

student of their creative abilities. It may seem unfair to suggest providing a lesser curriculum to

those students. Why should they be subject to the endless cycle of poverty and illiteracy. I think

the key is that we are taking baby steps. One cannot expect an entire society to change in an

instant. It would be unwise to go into such a situation with a classical education in hand. This is


7/7

Nielsen 7

where it is up to the teacher to decide, based on the context they are in, which style the will use. I

strongly believe that it is possible to teach math, science, or any other vocational skills while still

teaching discipline, logic, and consciousness. I am not a teacher and it is not likely that I will

ever be, at least in the traditional sense. Yet as human we all come across opportunities to pass on

knowledge. If I could sum up what I would want my reader to take away it would be this; be

aware of who you are teaching and what you are teaching. Respect that they do have knowledge,

it may not be in the same things as you but it is there nonetheless. Lastly, never force your

opinions, provide the information and let them choose. By just telling them the right way you

are in fact disrespecting them by not encouraging their ability to think and make decisions. This

is, as with most things, easier said than done. It takes time and effort and a desire for the success

of the student(s), but the saying holds true; where there is a will, there is a way.

"Wolfgang Mozart." 2013. The Biography Channel website. Apr 30 2013

"Albert Einstein." 2013. The Biography Channel website. Apr 30 2013

Download - Inquiry Paper - rough draft

Top Related