Talk:Education

Technical Sense of "Education"

"In its technical sense education is the process by which society deliberately transmits its accumulated knowledge, skills and values from one generation to another."

This sentence evinces several shortcomings. It fails to recognize the active nature of the recipient's role in education, includes the generalization that only one society may impart education, and asserts that education necessarily involves more than one generation. This "technical" characterization of the process of education should be revised.

A person can educate others and can educate herself. A society can teach another society. And sisterss can teach their brothers. If the above sentence is not revised, then it implies that self-education doesn't fit its "technical" definition of education. Also, if a teacher teaches only one student, then that also lies outside the scope of the purported definition.

I propose that the sentence read, "In another sense it refers to the process in which a person or people develop, receive, or communicate knowledge, skills, and values." ElderHap (talk) 16:37, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

I agree with ElderHap. The lead sentences caught my eye right away.Lacbolg (talk) 14:03, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Citations desperately needed

There is a lot of Original Research in this article. The thoughts and theories expressed are not necessarily bad or of low quality but they needed to cite sources wherever possible. This article still reads like a tract form a particualr view of education. It is better than it has been in the past and I am not advocating changing it - only adding citations so the sources can be identified. I am thereby tagging it with {{Unreferenced}} in hope it will attract some citations. Alex Jackl 05:40, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanx for unlocking the article, I will begin googling away at those citations! Sue Rangell 19:12, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Sue! I will do the same! Alex Jackl 05:22, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Discrimination

Is it just me that sees something wrong about this order of pictures - Afghanistan/ pre-school; Mexico/ elementary school; USA - College???? Aren't we reinforcing stereotypes by this depiction of images? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.224.252.10 (talk) 15:47, 29 June 2009 (UTC) And shouldn't this graph about Russia have the number of graduates per capita???? What is the number of graduates telling if Russia is so much bigger than any tiny country in Europe????

Introduction

I took the below statement out of the introduction because it was highly specific and although not inaccurate there are many other modalities and ways education is factored besides these and it seemed innapropriate. I think a section on learning modalities would be awesome but I don't feel up to it .. aww heck... I will put a stub section in and maybe someone can expand...

Education can often be divided into tactile (hands on), visual (observered) and auditory (listening to instructions/information. Several overlaps occur.

Alex Jackl 14:50, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Learning Modalities

Okay- I ended up adding a section that was more than a stub. It needs work but is a good enough start that I didn't even tag it as a stub. It did highlight for me though HOW unreferenced this article is and that it needs a good editing. Any suggestions for a starting place? One thing I am thinking is that if we could associate all those references into their correct place in the article instead of just bullet points that would be great. Also, maybe add at least one citation to each section of the article and adjust the content appropriately. Just some thoughts... Alex Jackl 15:27, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

I think this section needs some more reliable sources. I read the link to the "Learning Curve" website, which is far from scholarly, as it makes unsubstantiated (and dubious) conclusions, and contains at least one ridiculous misspelling ("loose" for "lose"). I agree with a need for referencing the article but the references must be sound research and not just someone's opinion.

Please sign your comments! I agree that the "Learning Curve" article isn't the best 0- I was looking for any references that at least matched my personal test for reality (does this make sense?). I would love better citations. However- this whole article is a desert of citations. I would first look to the other parts of the Education article and start adding citations. Then I would upgrade the references. That is just my opinion. Thanks for working on the article... Alex Jackl 16:45, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

I certainly object to the current state of the learning "modalities" section. This sections does not even reference the learning styles entry in Wikipedia (probably becuase it calls into question the validity of this concept). At the very least the reference to "a lot of work has been done" should be removed or altered as that entry implies that the "work" is supporting research. A more objective view on learning styles and individual learner difference is required to bring this article up to reasonable standards. I'd say this whole section should be redone to discuss what current research has to say about the relative importance and unimportance of learner differences. Right now, this section is simply a popular view, not a scholarly one, in my opinion. RLJ

You are welcome to that opinion- but please review WP:AGF. I am sick of defending this piece. Before I touched it there were NO citations in the WHOLE article. I have tried to cite things and the article is better now - there are lots of Wikilinks to Wiki articles and there are a fair - though still inadequate amount of citations in the article. But the majority of citation of the article are on the two paragraphs on learning modalities. Instead of accusing me of not including an article because "it calls into question the validity of the topic" you could have just added a Wikilink to that - as I just did. I have no objection to that article at all- and you should reread because it comes down on the side of the fence of their being learning modalities. Everything in those paragraphs are cited and do represent major branches of accepted thinking in the education world.

If you want to do some work on the article PLEASE beef up some of the sections with NO CITATIONS at all OR add some cited work to the Learning Modalities paragraphs with citations to shore up what you feel is missing there. Do remember though that this is a summary page and we shouldn't go into too much detail. Thanks! Sorry if I reacted a little strongly it is just that the rest of the article needs so much work and to have someone accuse me of intentionally not citing an article just sent me off the deep end. Thanks for working on the education article. Alex Jackl 14:35, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me have my opinion. Let me go further and say that leading off educational processes with "learning modalities" is a terrible idea. Ignoring the fact that learning "modalities" are not an educational process, I suggest that learning styles are well down the list of individual differences that have been shown to matter in education. This is not a matter of citations. The citations in the Wikipedia article on learning styles are sufficient--and indicate that the construct of learning style is not well supported empirically. Citations are a very good idea and should be included, but what exactly is being cited is even more important. We pretty much can get a citation for just about anything. I did not simply change the article because I thought that changes should be discussed before editing. If I editied the article, learning modalities would be deleted from an article with the current scope. You are taking to much owership of this article and taking criticsms to personally. Your efforts are apprciated but the idea of Wikipedia is that collaboration will result in better information. RLJ

Sorry if I sounded exasperated. It is just that this article is such a hodgepodge. I even agree with you that it doe snot belong in "educational processes". I am all for notability, and relevance is far more important than citation- believe me. There seems to be strong agreement in the educational community that leanirng modalities are extremely important. However- that was not my point. My point is that the rest of the article could use a 100,000 foot brush before we have 5,000 foot debates about learning modalities. That being said... do you truly think that section is inappropriate? Alex Jackl 14:49, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

POV

This article sometimes says X "needs to" Y. This language is advocating and not compatible with WP:NPOV. -- Beland 23:40, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree. The article is riddled with language like "important", "critical", "need to", "good", and "the goal" which brings into serious question its neutrality. Citations are also greatly lacking. Vague mention is made of "research", "studies", and "professors". Not that the article doesn't have a lot of good information, but it needs a lot of work to be encyclopedic, as it now reads like an essay of opinion. I've marked the page with refimprove, POV, and Original research, and unless someone has an objection I think they should be left up until the issues are resolved. 24.22.24.208 (talk) 10:30, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Re-organization

This article was vastly improved by the latest rounds of edits. I haven't studied all the changes carefully enough to determine if anything critical was taken out but it is much more coherent and holds together more like a single article. Good work! Still needs more citations and the POV caution above is a good one. Alex Jackl 05:43, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Citations

This article contains an enormous amount of original research. I don't think that is SO bad but as much as possible we should try to cite sources. I invite others to add citations to this page! Alex Jackl 22:26, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Formal education vs. education in general

This article has a notation that reads, "This article is about formal education. For broader context of the term, see learning." Shouldn't this article be about education as a whole, since it is called "education?" If "formal education" needs an entire article, it needs to be called "Formal education" or "Schooling" and an article about "education" as a whole should still exist. "Education," "formal education," and "learning" are all distinct terms. Although there is obvious overlap, an article about one is not an article about the others. Amillion 03:57, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

It's been over a month now. If no one replies, I'm going to make the changes myself. If you have anything to say on this matter, please speak up now. Amillion 03:35, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Amillion, formal education is a subset of education, which in turn of course does not include all forms of learning. Learning: acquiring knowledge, skills, etc. Education: organised activities to help people learn. Formal education: education by an institution which learners attend on a regular, long-term basis, i.e. schools and universities. As such this article should mention non-formal education such as training courses, exchanges, etc, and lifelong learning. SociableLiberal 12:53, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

So now "this article is about institutionalized education" and "for broader context of the term" we are again referred to the learning article. Eduction is not synonymous with "institutionalized education." if "institutionalized education" needs an entire article, it should be separate from the education article. You can call it "Institutionalized education," or "Schooling," or whatever you think it appropriate, but "education" as needs its own article (covering the entire term). Amillion (talk) 07:37, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes, it really needs work- the article reads as if nearly all education is formal! It is cases like this where people look beyond wikipedia for answers. Britannica's treatment is comprehensive, balance, and supported with a lot of details and statistics. I would suggest a separate article on "formal education" with this article on general education, in the broad sense. Any disagreements with that?Snow555 (talk) 19:56, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

History of education in the US

There is a long winded unreferenced section at the page's bottom about US history and education. I'm removing it, and creating a page for what I'm deleting. In the "History of Education page" there's a similar section, perhaps from the same source? They are too specific to belong here. Wikidea 15:51, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

More changes

I've made a dozen or so alterations. They include putting the history, philosophy, psychology, etc into their own headings; expanding the sections on primary, secondary, and higher education, expanding the intro, deleting some of the longer headings, and making cosmetic additions such as inserting photos and putting the (very good) portals up higher on the page. I hope this makes the page a bit better to look at and further improvements to the real content can follow. I'm also archiving stuff on this talk page. Wikidea 17:06, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Parental involvement section = POV

The "Parental involvement" section of this article doesn't comply with the NPOV policy or the No Original Research policy. It talks about "ideas" for parents and teachers of elementary school children (like the "Thursday Envelope")and makes statements like "A homework planner is an organizational tool that is vital to the middle level elementary student." This section needs some serious gutting. Amillion (talk) 07:14, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I agree. So few people seem to care about education these days, that it's surprising it wasn't removed already. If someone wants to write it up again, they can find it in the history, they can source the comments with proper references, and most importantly, they can put it on the Education in the United States page, where it belongs. It is wholly country specific.

On a different note, I'd suggest that neutrality, POV and OR tags should really be confined to the specific section rather than shoved at the top of the whole article. First it lets people know what's meant to be a POV, without looking at the discussion page, and second, it'll look less messy and not tar the whole article at once. The rest seems quite okay, though obviously some real improvements in references and content are needed. Wikidea 12:36, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Okay, fair enough I guess. Although I'm not at all sure where to put which tags. Most of the sections don't have sources, and a lot of them contain statements about what someone should do. It seems someone has put Original research at the top which is probably just as well. That's really this article's main problem. That'll do for now then? 24.22.24.208 (talk) 02:22, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

The following was cut from the article

AIMS OF EDUCATION

Aim/Purpose Source

Contribute to society Trilling and Hood (2001 p.9) Fulfil personal talents Trilling and Hood (2001 p.10) Fulfil civic responsibilities Trilling and Hood (2001 p.10) Carry tradition forward Trilling and Hood (2001 pp.10-11) Provide the engine for economic growth Wolf (2002 p.x) Provide a workforce with necessary basic 'academic' skills Wolf (2002 p.11) Provide individuals with opportunity, Wolf (2002 p.11) Enlightenment and knowledge (beyond work/occupation)

Trilling and Hood (2001 p.10) argue that whilst the four traditional reasons why education is seen as crucial to society (contribute to society, fulfil personal talents, fulfil civic responsibilities, and carry tradition forward) have not changed the move from the Industrial to Knowledge Age has meant that "our response to each of these goals shifts dramatically and brand new sets of demands appear, challenging our entire education enterprise".

Wolf (2002 p.11) argues that "basic 'academic' skills ... are also the main tools for survival in a developed economy, a precondition for running modern society, and, not least, a gateway to individual opportunity, enlightenment and knowledge which go way beyond the immediate concerns of work and occupation." (NB Wolf challenges the notion that education actually provides economic growth)

(Dhivesh 13:13, 6 April 2008 (UTC))

The preceeding was removed by Dbiel ^(Talk) 02:38, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

how hard is it to enroll?

many college student nowadays are hard-up to enroll, all the lines to go through, the time that is to be consumed and specially the errors that could be make in a certain procedure.

in the Philippines, students coming from different provinces go all the way to their designated schools, but with the requirements and steps to be done is time consuming at the same time they make to much effort knowing that some things in the process in the steps in enrolling, they committed an error.

Question:

 -is it the lack of technology/staff in the school?;
 -lack of information?; or
 -is it the student himself/herself is the problem?

">vahn_dinio 16:03, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Lead section

I have edited the lead section. Hopefully, this will satisfy the lead section requirements. Spinkava (talk) 16:09, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Redirected from German Bildung?

I noticed that the German term Bildung redirects here…I thought Bildung referred to much larger concept than mere education, but also cultivation of artistic and cultural sensibilities. Perhaps someone who knows the subject well could create a discrete article? Historian932 (talk) 15:09, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

I wholeheartedly agree, especially since this article doesn't contain anything on Bildung! The concept is very much a live one in much of continental Europe. Perhaps it would be better if the redirect went to Liberal education, because that is closer in tone to Bildung.David ekstrand (talk) 14:08, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

This is uh, wrong. It's not that Bildung is or is not an exact cognate for Education. Rather, the concept of learning as an institution, process, result, etc., does not have a simple translation, even within the closely related West German group. The (main) Dutch word for instance is nothing like either the English or German word . The expectation that there could even be anything other than appropriate and approximate interwiki mappings is based on an ignorant assumption about human language as it actually exists. The fact that English and the Latin languages share a common linguistic ground on this concept may create a false sense of universality here. Lycurgus (talk) 04:42, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

History

I thinkg this section needs to be fleshed out more. Historically speaking why not reference the medevil educational systems that start so call higher education beyond "primary" education? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.184.129.123 (talk) 05:12, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Classroom

The classroom article is in deplorable shape. Expert? Simesa (talk) 10:31, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Classroom of the Future

Also added Expert tag to Classroom of the future. Simesa (talk) 10:41, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Could the following fit in "education" or "Education of the future" or some other article? "The cost of providing educational CD-ROM technology to 50 million U.S. school children is miniscule compared to what is wasted every day by a system that currently pays teachers for how long they have been teaching rather than how well they teach. It would cost about $300 per student per year to provide every child with a CD-ROM personal computer, contrasted with the $7,500 that U.S. school systems currently spend per student per year on K-12 education." From Paul Zane Pilzer's book "God Wants You to be Rich", Simon & Schuster, 1995. Stars4change (talk) 06:54, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Link

• Rigpé Yeshé founded by Sogyal Rinpoche, aims to support families who wish to bring up their children in the light of the teachings of the Buddha

Let's see what to do with it furthermore.

Austerlitz -- 88.72.1.209 (talk) 21:00, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Making mathematics articles more accessible to a general readership

Please visit Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#Easy as pi? to see a discussion about making mathematics articles more accessible to a general readership.

-- Wavelength (talk) 17:39, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

It has been archived at Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)/Archive 35#Easy as pi?.

-- Wavelength (talk) 15:56, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

The Ultra Modern Educational Policy

• Everyone who could not even identify and list the properties exhibited by everyone and everything should be honored with degrees and diplomas.

• The degrees and diplomas awarded by universities and institutions which could not even identify and list the properties exhibited by everyone and everything should be honored.

• Everyone who asks the question, "what properties are exhibited by everyone and everything?" be condemned and punished. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.212.249.50 (talk) 08:17, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Inclusion of Criticism subsection(under Systems of Education Section)

Education has been criticized by authors such as Carter Godwin Woodson in "The Mis-Education of the Negro" on the basis of not only providing misinformation, but also exlusion of other content (such as the "creation versus evolution" debate in public schools)

Moddiddle (talk) 11:56, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Education are very importent for all people and children’s

Education is very important to all people and children, so learn information through computer and internet because it is very easy and simple process. All over world info in the net and website. Some website is very knowledge able on the internet for example Entertainments and informative. It is very simple, informative, site for children and all people i think learn this website [1]. So easily make graphics and web designer. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 110.37.42.164 (talk) 09:53, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

是 Lycurgus (talk) 17:57, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

OECD PISA

OECD PISA Study has lots of facts and data to be included in article. http://www.oecd.org/document/2/0,3343,en_32252351_32236191_39718850_1_1_1_1,00.html

--Nevit (talk) 08:23, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

by 122.174.108.42

EDUCATION IS NOT ONLY MEANS LEARING , READING , WRITING AND SO ON... , IT ALSO REFERS TO EXTRA CURICULARS LIKE SPORTS, DANCING , SINGING MUSIC AND BLA BLA BLA....

122.174.108.42 (talk) 14:10, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

In Our Time

The BBC programme In Our Time presented by Melvyn Bragg has an episode which may be about this subject (if not moving this note to the appropriate talk page earns cookies). You can add it to "External links" by pasting {{In Our Time|Education|p005463m|Education}}. Rich Farmbrough, 03:13, 16 September 2010 (UTC).

Competing with a stained glass window?

It seems bizarre to have the stained glass window at Yale, a parochially named work of art, competing with a high level common name "Education" and holding such a prominent place at the beginning of the article. If we had one more, we could create an "otheruses" template and point to a dab, which would make a lot more sense and not be as intrusive as this window is. Student7 (talk) 21:27, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

I could start a band and call it Education. Kidding aside, I agree with you but not sure what else would go on the dab page. :) Wikipelli ^Talk 22:02, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

 :) And where is Pink Floyd when you need them? Student7 (talk) 21:08, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Alt Ed in the Philippines

I removed the specific information about Alternative Education in the Philippines. I think that would be better placed in an education section in the Philippines article, or maybe in the Alternative Education article.Wikipelli ^Talk 15:02, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

"teaching by fear"

We could do with a "Teaching by fear" article explaining the traditional idea of teaching, such as in Victorian times, where it was thought a good teaching technique to intimidate and humiliate students. Still used these days to a degree.--Penbat (talk) 17:39, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Yes. The history section is exceptionally skimpy. We know the lucky kids in Ancient Rome, who got to attend school, were taught by rote and by beating them when they failed to learn it fast enough. The really fortunate ones got Aristotle. But even regular Greek tutors could force rote learning. So there is a lengthy history. Not sure it varies that much so still may not be a long subsection. Student7 (talk) 22:49, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Institutional education vs. personal education

I am somewhat disappointed that this article seems to imply occasionally that formal education is the only form of education, resembling an article about spirituality that implies the same about institutional religion or, for a further example, an article about sexuality that makes a similar implication in relation to the institution of marriage. In my opinion, there ought to be more references to autodidacticism and homeschooling. There are many pictures in this article; can't there be one depicting a person studying on one's own? 213.109.230.96 (talk) 11:39, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

I've inserted a pointer to an article on homeschooling. There apparently was a subtopic here but disappeared. The problem with integrating them (including private tutoring) here is that homeschooling varies widely in practice and results and does not lend itself well to a "simple" widely accepted explanation. Formal public-type education is widely debated and practiced and certain parameters have general acceptance. Student7 (talk) 13:12, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Education vs. Schooling

This article seems to be primarily about schooling, which is distinct from education (google it or watch this). I propose a separate page is dedicated to schooling, and that "schooling" is treated like a subcategory of this article instead of its central topic. In other words, the lede of this article has it right, and schools are merely one way, a formal and institutionalized way, in which society transmits itself to the young.--Lhakthong (talk) 14:04, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

For example, the young in societies without schools are nonetheless educated. Museums educate. Families educate. Religious institutions educate (beyond their own schools) . . . .--Lhakthong (talk) 14:11, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Need a bit more discussion about this. Try one or more of the banner pages. We also have hundreds of "Education in X" all over the place. Education in Florida, just to name one. You may be right, but this has far-reaching consequences. May have to discuss under WikiProject United States. Hard to get a good audience sometimes. I realize it's not just the US, but best place to get a larger audience. I don't know about Village Pump. Maybe the audience is too large there!  :)

Even if this doesn't affect the Education in X articles, there is also the relationship with "Higher Education" and similar topics. If we are going to change, it needs to be precise this time. Student7 (talk) 01:55, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps it is best to start by modeling after the Law article. That is, sections could be 1) educational subjects (ed psych, special education, instructional methods, school law, etc.), 2) educational theory (phil of ed, curriculum theory, history of ed, sociology of ed, etc.), and 3) educational institutions (schools, universities, community colleges, family, libraries, museums, religious communities, etc.). Or something along those lines. As for Ed in FL, this article can point specifically to education in the united states, and that point further to education in individual states. But this article should be about education generally.--Lhakthong (talk) 21:07, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

As you can see, this has become a two-person discussion. There are hundreds of articles name "Education in ..." that would be affected. Please discuss on Project Education, and failing to get more than one or two answers there, try Project United States, which isn't really the higher level project over Education, but has more people watching it. Discussing this with me won't help advance what you have proposed. Student7 (talk) 13:12, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

"Don Berg" sourced definition of Education?

Opening this thread for the obvious action. Appears to be an advert of some sort. What's stated is way overblown like somebody selling motivational or self improvement bs with its claim of optimality, not as a (lofty, aspirational) goal but as a (presumably) default normal result. 72.228.177.92 (talk) 21:29, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Will remove pending comment/explanation for what appears to be link/ref spam in the lede. Lycurgus (talk) 21:30, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Please do. I think that this is the edit that introduced the current (crappy) "definition" in the lead. Unfortunately, there have been quite a few additional edits made since then so cleaning this up won't be easy. :( ElKevbo (talk) 21:57, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

At best, there should be one citation, even if we keep the definitions as they are. I think we should stick with more notable sources and brad definitions. I'll start at it. Please join in.--Lhakthong (talk) 22:07, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

See this being addressed so bowing out in favor of other fires. 72.228.177.92 (talk) 23:09, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Contested "Meaning of Education" Edits

An editor purporting to be "Dr Amit Sharma" has added to this article - multiple times, without discussion even after I reverted his or her original edit with clear objections - a "definition" of this topic that is unhelpful and unprofessional. It adds little to the article and as the edit adds two ridiculous mnemonic devices supposedly related to this topic it's quite unprofessional and unbecoming an encyclopedia article. Further, the edit is sourced to a book written by Dr. Sharma so there is a blatant conflict of interest if this editor is who he or she claims to be and is using Wikipedia to promote his or her own book. ElKevbo (talk) 14:14, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

education

can you please tell me that formal education is as we can say to regular education? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 115.249.67.250 (talk) 11:43, 30 January 2012 (UTC)