Talk:Education

Possible conflict of interest

"Open education is fast growing to become the dominant form of education" "Higher education, in particular, is undergoing a transition towards open education". Those are really baseless assertions. I also see a conflict of interest, for it's in the interest of Knewton to suggest that E-learning is overtaking the traditional system at a fast pace. E-education is not even close to being the dominant form of learning. Wikipedia should not run ahead. This article does not reflect today's reality, which is that very few universities provide online courses and even if they do it's only for a very small number of subjects.

Good point. I rm first sentence and tweaked the second (now first) sentence. Still needs work. Over what time frame did the "14x" growth take place? Student7 (talk) 14:49, 6 April 2014‎

Number of children vs percentage

A fragment reads "There are 73 million children,[clarification needed] mostly female children in poor families, who did not start elementary school. There are more than 200 million children, mostly females from poor families, who did not go to secondary school."

The problem is that numbers not attending are meaningless for children.

Let's say there are 8 billion people in the world. Let's say they are evenly distributed among 80 years of life giving us 100 million for each year of age. So there could be, what?, 400 million children 14-18 (age of "majority") total? Meaning that half of all children do not attend secondary school? Numbers are meaningless unless there is a total to compare. For elementary school, there would be a candidacy of 800 million students? And only 73 million did not attend school? Who knows? We need percentages or total population. Meaningless without one of the other. Student7 (talk) 23:33, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

Definition in lead

Currently the lead begins as follows:

Education in its general sense is a form of learning in which the knowledge, skills, values, beliefs and habits of a group of people are transferred from one generation to the next through storytelling, discussion, teaching, training, or research. Education may also include informal transmission of such information from one human being to another. Education frequently takes place under the guidance of others, but learners may also educate themselves (autodidactic learning).

While I understand that the phrase "is a form of learning" is an attempt to focus on the goal (learning), education is actually the process of facilitating learning, rather than the goal of the process. For example, we call someone who facilitates learning an "educator" even though the educator is not the learner.

Moreover, as has been mentioned previously on this page, education is not just transferring knowledge etc. from one generation to the next, as it can be transferred between two people of the same generation.

I propose to replace the above passage with

Education in its general sense is the process of formally or informally facilitating learning, by which knowledge, skills, values, beliefs, and habits of a group of people are transferred to other people, through storytelling, discussion, teaching, training, or research. Education frequently takes place under the guidance of educators, but learners may also educate themselves in a process called autodidactic learning.

Comments? Loraof (talk) 15:59, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

Not a big difference, but I support the new wording.

Environmental vs Genetic Factors in Educational Achievement

The article says that "Furthermore, it is likely that this trend arises due to genetic factors. As twin studies have shown, inherited traits are more important in predicting educational attainment than any environmental measures.", with a citation to https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Wendy_Johnson3/publication/7027486_Genetic_and_environmental_influences_on_academic_achievement_trajectories_during_adolescence/links/0deec5272732884fdf000000.pdf

However, that paper only looks at a few environmental factors (things like parental drug abuse) and only looks at pairs of twins living within a day's drive of Minneapolis, MN. The scope of environmental factors measured and the relatively restrictive set of environments considered don't, IMHO, support the claim that inherited factors in general outweigh environmental factors in determining educational achievement. To say that, you really need to cite a study that measures more about your environment (number of books in your house, whether you have enough to eat, whether your family speaks the same language as your school, etc.) and that covers a wider range of environments than are available within an hour's drive of Minneapolis. Remember too that the twins are being split up, so at least one family of each pair of twin families must have been cleared by an adoption agency.

Is this a case where {{Failed_verification}} should be used?

67.149.211.110 (talk) 21:41, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

This is certainly a question. I have moved the passage here for discussion and separated it into two parts:

1. Furthermore, it is likely that this trend arises due to genetic factors. As twin studies have shown, inherited traits are more important in predicting educational attainment than any environmental measures.

   This seems to be distinctly weak support, as suggested above. The wording would have to be modified heavily and a review of many studies rather than a single study should in any case be used to support such a broad claim.

2. Also, educational attainment and intelligence share more than one half of their genetic influences, suggesting the two are highly related.

   No citation is given. Can we find support for this? HGilbert (talk) 03:08, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

This study on the inheritability of educational attainment might be useful, but it is a complex subject. HGilbert (talk) 03:23, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 9 February 2016

I think I think it is wise to mention something about the difference between Education and Indoctrination. I fear both are very similar since education is indoctrination without coercion.

Many schools still force things without a real dialogue with their students. Imagine being thought how amazing your great leader is every day. Is this education? If I read the first part of the article I would come to the conclusion yes. He is great at facilitating learning, helps me with the acquisition of knowledge, skills, values, beliefs, and habits. I did not have a choice, if I wanted to learn about my great leader but I will believe after reading the article I am being educated. So to make it very clear I think its wise to add that teaching something in a forceful process makes it automatically indoctrination.

You have presented such a forceful case for this that I find myself involuntarily agreeing with you. HGilbert (talk) 13:24, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

Zimonh (talk) 01:01, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

Edit requests to semi-protected or protected articles should contain the exact wording of the proposed edit. Your request is vague, unsourced, and unlikely to be accepted by other editors without preliminary discussion. ElKevbo (talk) 01:57, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

Education

I think the article explains about education understandably, so I could understand easily. To be specific, I learned when did the education begin and why education is necessary among people in the world. However, the article will be much better if the writer talked about the education in other countries and compared to several nations. Especially, Korea is a good example of writing about because Korea is famous for the strict school system. On the other hand, America is more focus on the creativeness. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 104.174.158.130 (talk) 06:22, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 26 February 2016

Besmartusay (talk) 17:36, 26 February 2016 (UTC) aWSCDF;A/

Purpose of schools section

The "Purpose of schools" section currently (5 March 2016) gives the impression of editorial opinion rather than a summary of relevant literature on the topic. This should be edited to encyclopedic style.Apegrrl (talk) 02:16, 5 March 2016 (UTC)