The three gifts of teaching:Towards a non-egological future for moral education

The centrality of learners and their learning in contemporary educational discourse and practice, seems to suggest that the self of the student should be at the heart of the educational endeavour. This is not just an educational programme, but actually an expression of a particular way of thinking about human beings and their position in the world; a way of thinking which, after Levinas, I characterise as egological. In this paper I explore an alternative approach that centres on the suggestion that everything begins with what is given to us, rather than what is claimed, constructed or interpreted by us. I explore this philosophically through a discussion of ideas from Jean-Luc Marion around the phenomenon and phenomenology of ‘giveness’. I connect this to a critical discussion of the role of learning in education and explore three ways in which teaching manifests itself as a gift that occurs beyond learning

Can the prevailing description of educational reality be considered complete? On the Parks-Eichmann paradox, spooky action at a distance, and a missing dimension in the theory of education

The question I address in this paper is to what extent the prevailing description of educational reality that can be found in contemporary research, policy and practice can be considered complete. The motivation for asking this question stems from an educational paradox to which I refer as the Parks-Eichmann paradox. This paradox has to do with the fact that what appears as educational success from one perspective is problematic when viewed differently, whereas what appears as educational failure may actually reveal something that is of crucial importance educationally. The paradox thus leads to the suggestion that the prevailing description of educational reality – to which I will refer as the ‘paradigm’ of education as cultivation – is insufficient or incomplete. I use the work of John Dewey to highlight key characteristics and key shortcomings of this ‘paradigm’ and argue that it needs to be supplemented by what I will refer to as an existential educational ‘paradigm’. I highlight the distinction between the two paradigms through the question whether it is possible to educate ‘directly’ – an option which Dewey explicitly denies. I turn to the German notions of Bildung and Erziehung in order to explore to what extent they provide us with a set of concepts for articulating the distinction between the two educational paradigms. I will show that this is not as straightforward as it may seem, as there is no agreement about the exact definitions of the terms. However, having two terms rather than just the word ‘education’ is important in order to be able to make the distinction I am after, and here the terms Bildung and Erziehung are helpful. I conclude the paper with a brief sketch of the ‘existential work’ of education in order to outline what the existential paradigm implies for educational practic

What constitutes the good of education? Reflections on the possibility of educational critique

I am grateful to Michael Peters for stepping in at the last minute when I was unable to make it to Beijing. And I am grateful for the opportunity to respond to his reflections on the educational good, which he formulated with reference to ideas from my book Good Education in an Age of Measurement: Ethics, Politics, Democracy (Biesta 2010), marking the occasion of the publication of the Chinese translation of this book. Michael makes a strong case for a contextual answer to the question of good education and the good of education, which he contrasts with what he characterises as my ethical, non-contextual and, in a sense, even foundational approach. I fully agree that questions about what makes education good, what counts as good education, and what constitutes educational goods, cannot be determined in abstracto, and cannot and should not be decided ex cathedra, that is, from some authoritarian position. On that point I think that we fully agre

Why the form of teaching matters:Defending the integrity of education and of the work of teachers beyond agendas and good intentions

Título, resumen y palabras clave también en inglésResumen basado en el de la publicaciónDisponible versión en inglésMonográfico con el título: "Explorando lo común y lo público en las prácticas de enseñanza"Se reflexiona sobre la finalidad y la integridad de la educación como la forma específica de enseñar más que los objetivos y propósitos de los programas educativos. Se basa en el pensamiento del educador alemán Klaus Prange, para quien lo que es propio y distintivo de la educación, no radica en los programas para la educación, que corren el riesgo de instrumentalizarla y convertir a los profesores en técnicos, sino que se encuentra en la práctica de la propia educación y, más concretamente, en lo que denomina las operaciones distintivas de la enseñanza. Se analiza la teoría de Prange sobre la operación básica de la educación de señalar y mostrar, la relación que establece entre enseñanza y aprendizaje, y su visión de la moralidad intrínseca de la educación. Se concluye que la integridad de la educación se encuentra en la forma de su ejecución como medio para combatir la reducción de la enseñanza a una cuestión técnica y la reducción de los profesores a meros técnicos.ES