What is Education?- A thread on learning and teaching, the creative process, practice

[marct]

One of my MMC professors at South Carolina once said of "higher education" -
As an undergrad we tell you what to think
As a master's student we teach you how to think
It's not until the PhD level that was ask "so, what do you think?" *

* caveat: my experience with Ohio State these past 6 years has led me to believe that they are unable to get beyond step 2 in the process, and they reach that step only occasionally and almost always by accident.

And that to me is one of the lingering and most malign influences of the 1960s on higher education. And I have heard professors of that same mindset bemoaning the fact that their masters students can't write coherent papers or essays. They always got defensive when I pointed out that they had some of those same students as undergraduates and obviously failed to prepare them for the demands of a masters program.

What I find fascinating about BB's quote is that it is really a fairly recent introduction to the academy showing up (variably) in the 1950's-60's. It is tied into a couple of important social changes that happened post-WW II: increasing credentialization, loosening of overt class boundaries, etc.

Simply because the system currently functions that way doesn't mean that it's ideal or that it accurately reflects what education *should* be, both for the teacher and the student.

Yup. Of course, Steve, that "should" is predicated on an idealization of the pre-WW II (more likely WW I) values of "education" .

This "should" idea is worth expanding on significantly since it relates to a whole slew of issues. Let me first expand it by analogy: we talk a lot about "ends" and "means". What is the desired end state of an education / training course / program / career? All of the discussions around pedagogical tactics and strategies rely on implicit ends, including "shoulds", but what are they?

For one thing, the choices made will inevitably impact the class structure of the society in question. Go back to Dewey and the Industrial Age education system he was pushing, and you will see that it lays the formal basis for a society where class is based on a combination of economic status and social positioning based on educational credentials (the infamous socio-economic status). Implicit, and by the 1960's it was explicit, this system is predicated on some variant of the Fordist production system where wealth is generated through the transformation of raw materials into consumer products. Does that sound like the type of society we have today? If it does, not only do you fail SOC 101, I also have some great waterfront acreage in Florida for sale .

Okay, let's shift it to who we are fighting. Would you train people in Napoleonic tactics? Unless you're a Napoleonic recreationist, I would hope not . How about other Industrial Age tactical systems - what we (inappropriately) call "Conventional Warfare" (it's inappropriate because it is a recent convention stemming from the Netherlands at the end of the 16th century). Um, yeah simply because other groups still use it, just not the ones we are currently fighting. Of course, the people we are currently fighting don't use it; they are using a totally different conceptualization of warfare, so we have to educate (and train) for that as well.

So, if we take as an operating assumption that both training and education have to be focused on both "conventional" and "non-conventional" forms of conflict, one of the first things we should be doing is analyzing exactly where the overlaps and disjunctures are, i.e. mapping out the total area of knowledge. The ACC and ALDS did this to a very limited degree, at least at the broad (pseudo)concept level, with details promised "later".

[pup]

Very interesting discussion and one that I have spent some time dealing with for the last few years. I come from a different perspective then most of the posts on this page; in that I am an internet educated holder of an associate’s degree in general education; however I am also a CSM and responsible for training, educating and developing junior leaders for our army.

Since the discussion started with TRADOC I went back to the latest DRAFT of FM 7.0 Training for Full Spectrum Operations and looked at their definitions of training and education.

Paragraph 3-5 states;

"The Army Training System comprises training and education. Training is not solely the domain of the generating force; similarly, education continues in the operational Army. Training and education occur in all three training domains. Training prepares individuals for certainty. Education prepares individuals for uncertainty. Education enables agility, judgment, and creativity. Training enables action."

I don’t particularly disagree with the statement. Training prepares one to act, and education prepares one to adapt those actions to meet success. That makes sense to me. What does not make sense to me is the ways in which the army has separated the two. As an enlisted soldier and later as an NCO, I have been “Educated” in only 4 schools in the Army; PLDC, BNCOC, ANCOC and the USASMA. Every other TRADOC experience I have had has been focused on “training”. Likewise I was never “educated” in unit training. The Army accounts for this by specifying three domains of training, one of which is self-development. That catch all says that if you need to know it, it is your responsibility.

That brings me to paragraph 3-9 which states;

“Traditional training and education may not meet all the needs of an expeditionary Army. The Army is adapting training and education as appropriate to meet the conditions of today‘s operational environments. Developing new approaches may be necessary to ensure Soldiers and Army civilians are confident in their ability to conduct full spectrum operations anywhere along the spectrum of conflict with minimal additional training.”

The reason for this paragraph was to give the opportunity to develop approaches to training such as Outcome-Based Training and Education (OBTE) of which I am a firm believer. The core idea behind OBTE is that simply training on a skill or learning new knowledge is not sufficient to develop soldiers capable of success in full spectrum operations. One key aspect of FSO that everyone can agree on is that there is no certainty on which to train. Every event will be new, different and unexpected, and it will come at a rapid pace with little time to prepare. What is necessary for success in FSO are soldiers who have been developed, through their training and education, to be adaptable leaders who are confident, inventive and who hold themselves responsible for meeting the strategic commander’s intent.

To get back to the original question; “what is education” I would say that education is half of the requirement to prepare soldiers for Hybrid Warfare and FSO (as stated in A Leader Development Strategy for a 21st Century Army, 25 Nov 2009). Education cannot be separated from Training if we are attempting to develop soldiers who can adapt their training to meet the demands of the current conflicts. Education is understanding the skills that one is trained on and how they interrelate, vital to understanding how to adapt those skills to uncertainty later in life.

This brings me to another point that I would like to bring up about Training and Education in our Army. FM 7.0 states that the goal of training is mastery (paragraph 2-42). It then defines mastery as being able to perform the task intuitively without having to think about how to perform it, and being able to perform the tasks to standard regardless of the conditions.

I disagree with the first statement that mastery is not thinking. I think a true master is someone who understands the task to the level that he can adapt it to any situation. I think that is summed up in the second half of the statement about performing to standard in any condition. By linking mastery to uncertainty (unknown conditions) Education becomes necessary to being labeled a “master”. I then think that TRADOC needs to relook in FM 7.0 the ideas of Mastery to incorporate execution of the task to standard (training), and understanding the task (education) to the level that it can be adapted to any conditions.

[marct]

Hi pup,

Very interesting discussion and one that I have spent some time dealing with for the last few years. I come from a different perspective then most of the posts on this page; in that I am an internet educated holder of an associate’s degree in general education; however I am also a CSM and responsible for training, educating and developing junior leaders for our army.

Excellent! We need someone who will go "Uh, guys, do you realize you are about to walk over a cliff?"

Since the discussion started with TRADOC I went back to the latest DRAFT of FM 7.0 Training for Full Spectrum Operations and looked at their definitions of training and education.

Paragraph 3-5 states;

"The Army Training System comprises training and education. Training is not solely the domain of the generating force; similarly, education continues in the operational Army. Training and education occur in all three training domains. Training prepares individuals for certainty. Education prepares individuals for uncertainty. Education enables agility, judgment, and creativity. Training enables action."

I don’t particularly disagree with the statement. Training prepares one to act, and education prepares one to adapt those actions to meet success. That makes sense to me. What does not make sense to me is the ways in which the army has separated the two. As an enlisted soldier and later as an NCO, I have been “Educated” in only 4 schools in the Army; PLDC, BNCOC, ANCOC and the USASMA. Every other TRADOC experience I have had has been focused on “training”. Likewise I was never “educated” in unit training. The Army accounts for this by specifying three domains of training, one of which is self-development. That catch all says that if you need to know it, it is your responsibility.

You know, I was never taught how to teach either, but I've been doing it for 15 years now, so I am very familiar with the "self-development" domain . Part of the problem I had when I started teaching was this training / educating dichotomy. I rapidly realized that most of my students just weren't prepared for what and how I wanted to teach, so i had to adjust to a more training based model. "Frustrating", since I was teaching in a university, doesn't even come close to it!

By the second time I taught a class, I had come to the conclusion that my students had never gone through what I would call "Basic [Academic] Training" - they couldn't write, they didn't know how to read like a scholar, and their most frequent question was "Will this be on the exam?" I *think*, I'm not sure, that a rough equivalent would be you teaching at an SNCO school and having a bright student ask you how many men where in a rifle platoon.

Every since then, I have had to assume that my students didn't have "the basics" - and that has held true for classes from Intro To.... through to graduate level courses - so I have had to structure the courses to assume that they were missing. Occassionally, all of my students have had the basics, and I have been pleasantly surprised; rapidly reworking my lectures as I go .

To get back to the original question; “what is education” I would say that education is half of the requirement to prepare soldiers for Hybrid Warfare and FSO (as stated in A Leader Development Strategy for a 21st Century Army, 25 Nov 2009). Education cannot be separated from Training if we are attempting to develop soldiers who can adapt their training to meet the demands of the current conflicts. Education is understanding the skills that one is trained on and how they interrelate, vital to understanding how to adapt those skills to uncertainty later in life.

I would agree with that with one, minor, proviso - that the training include training in how to adapt. This, to me, seems to be one of the stumbling blocks.

This brings me to another point that I would like to bring up about Training and Education in our Army. FM 7.0 states that the goal of training is mastery (paragraph 2-42). It then defines mastery as being able to perform the task intuitively without having to think about how to perform it, and being able to perform the tasks to standard regardless of the conditions.

I disagree with the first statement that mastery is not thinking. I think a true master is someone who understands the task to the level that he can adapt it to any situation. I think that is summed up in the second half of the statement about performing to standard in any condition. By linking mastery to uncertainty (unknown conditions) Education becomes necessary to being labeled a “master”. I then think that TRADOC needs to relook in FM 7.0 the ideas of Mastery to incorporate execution of the task to standard (training), and understanding the task (education) to the level that it can be adapted to any conditions.

You know, the concept of "mastery" ties directly back to that old, Guild system I was talking about earlier: Apprentice, Journeyman, Master. "Masters" or "mastery" implies someone who has internalized an area of knowledge so well that they are not only licensed to make changes in it, they are noth capable and required to do so.

Years ago, back when the guild system was really operating, in order to gain recognition of "mastery" each candidate had to produce a "master piece" (NB: TWO words, not one). This was the piece of work upon which their mastery would be decided by other masters of the guild. In academia, we have a remnant of that still with the idea of defending a thesis / dissertation, but it has disappeared in most other areas.

[Ken White]

I would agree with that with one, minor, proviso - that the training include training in how to adapt. This, to me, seems to be one of the stumbling blocks.

Very important. It is easy to do yet is rarely done. Really good leaders will do it in subtle ways but too many will avoid it due to the subjectivity required in evaluating success. I believe it is mostly not done due to the fact training or educating to a sliding standard or a 'no right or wrong answer' solution make many uncomfortable. Shouldn't -- and it is absolutely NEEDED in warfighting!

Such a lack of 'objectivity' (and metrics...) definitely makes many in the US Army uncomfortable nowadays and I blame that largely on the Task, Condition and Standard training regimen.

That and the Congressional demand that the Army be able to show 'objectivity' in training and education to insure the supposed overseers that fairness reigns.

You know, the concept of "mastery" ties directly back to that old, Guild system I was talking about earlier: Apprentice, Journeyman, Master. "Masters" or "mastery" implies someone who has internalized an area of knowledge so well that they are not only licensed to make changes in it, they are noth capable and required to do so.

While I and many would agree with you, the bureaucracy would not -- having the unannointed (non-LTC and above command selectees) make changes to processes or products is definitely a 'No-Go.'

[rizythomas]

Are all those posting here military mens. I saw in one picture the training and the education in military services, it's really tough job right. But still it hold it importance from protecting the country from all sides. it's a awesome duty. Proud to be a soldier.