The Routledge Companion to Education

James Arthur, Andrew Peterson, James Arthur, Andrew Peterson

• Publisher: Routledge
• Year: 2013
• eBook ISBN: 9781136625466
• Topic: Education
• Subtopic: Education General

Who are the key thinkers in education?

What are the hot topics in education?

Where will education go from here?

The Routledge Companion to Education presents the most comprehensive, up-to-date guide available to the key theories, themes and topics in education. Forty specially commissioned chapters, covering all aspects of education, introduce you to the ideas, research and issues that have shaped this most diverse, dynamic and fluid field.

• Part one provides an introduction to the key theories, thinkers and disciplines within education
• Part two covers ideas and issues about how, what and why learning takes place
• Part three includes analysis on particular approaches to education and explores the issues that attract much contemporary interest.

Written by an international team of expert contributors, the chapters all include a descriptive introduction, an analysis of the key ideas and debates, an overview of the latest research, key questions for research and carefully selected further reading.

The Routledge Companion to Education is a succinct, detailed, authoritative overview of the topics which are at the forefront of educational research and discourse today. This classic collection is a bookshelf essential for every student and scholar serious about the study of education.

Section 1 Educational Foundations

DOI: 10.4324/9780203802243-1

Chapter 1 Liberal Education

D.G. Mulcahy

Central Connecticut State University

DOI: 10.4324/9780203802243-2

Overview

The idea of a liberal education is so central to educational discourse that it is almost necessary to grasp what it means in order to understand the concept of education itself. Predating schools and universities as we now know them, its beginnings are usually traced back to classical Greece. There it is associated with the education Plato envisioned for his idealized ruler, the philosopher king, for whom it was considered essential, and with the philosophy of Aristotle (Hirst, 1971; Carr, 2009). With the rise of the university in the Middle Ages, studying the liberal arts and sciences which had become the recognized content of a liberal education was seen as both worthwhile in itself and foundational to further studies. Although it lost some favor over time, liberal education is still widely viewed as the measure of what it means to be an educated person and as the best preparation for employment and further studies. Yet, while the contrary impression exists, what is now variously termed ‘liberal education,’ ‘liberal arts education,’ and ‘general education,’ is a contested concept that continues to evolve (Kimball, 1995). It is as such that I shall treat of it here.

Introduction

The historian Sheldon Rothblatt wrote of Cardinal Newman’s Idea of a University that it “remains the singlemost influential book on the meaning of a university in the English language” (Rothblatt, 1997, p. 7). One might add that by virtue of the issues it addressed and the justification it presented, it also provides the basic language of the conversation surrounding liberal education. It is, accordingly, an appropriate point at which to begin examining the idea in its more recent evolution. Here one detects several differing points of view. The general position adopted by Newman remains widely held, and I shall treat of that first. Second, I shall treat departures from this view, ranging from those that reject the idea entirely to those that seek a reconceptualization. Of special interest here is the question of how current thinking on wider educational issues impacts the idea. Consideration of this, and of theorizing possibly at odds with sometimes romanticized idealizations of liberal education, comprise the final section of the chapter.

Liberal Education as Cultivation of the Intellect

Cardinal Newman

For Newman, stated succinctly, liberal education was “cultivation of the intellect,” its object “nothing more or less than intellectual excellence” (1947, p. 107; see also Arthur and Nicholls, 2007, pp. 120–149; and Mulcahy, 2008a, pp. 35–69). Fundamental to this stance is Newman’s theory of the nature and structure of knowledge and the mind’s capacity for intellectual development. For him, following Aristotle, knowledge is a true account of reality. It is one unified whole of which the various subjects constitute the parts. By studying these subjects (which, strictly speaking, were literature, science, and theology) and their interrelations, one can gain an understanding of the world and of the relative value of things. With the assistance of intensive tutorial work it is possible, according to Newman, to develop a philosophical habit of mind, combining with a broad knowledge the ability to engage in critical analysis and reflection. This it is that constitutes cultivation of the intellect and that defines intellectual excellence. It is this formation that fortifies for Newman the belief that liberal education is foundational to further studies and engagement in the world, and why it is ultimately the most useful education even if it seeks no such end. Moral or religious formation has no place in liberal education; although in the university as he envisioned it, Newman insisted – overly so in the opinion of some (McClelland, 1973, passim) – that liberal education should be accompanied by such moral and religious formation.

Mortimer Adler

Newman’s insistence on intellectual excellence as a defining characteristic of liberal education caused him, as it did Aristotle, to distinguish it sharply from professional or mechanical education, just as he viewed it as distinct from moral and religious formation. He also remained largely silent on a central feature of liberal education as it took form in the United States, namely, education for democratic citizenship, one emphasized in the so-called Western Civilization courses on many campuses in the mid-twentieth century. At the University of Chicago during the presidency of Robert Hutchins, this took the shape of a Great Books program (Carnochan, 1993). Working closely with Hutchins on that project and others, including the editing of Encyclopedia Britannica, was Mortimer Adler. Adler later adapted this idea for schools in The Paideia Proposal.

Adler represents well the view that basic schooling should be “general and liberal,” “nonspecialized and nonvocational” (1982, p. 18) while simultaneously providing an education for democratic citizenship. Based on the principle attributed to Hutchins, that “the best education for the best is the best education for all” (Adler, 1982, p. 6), basic schooling would, in addition, educate the young for personal development and even for work (Adler, 1982, p. 18). It would also remain true to core principles of democracy, namely, that all citizens are equal, democracy depends upon an educated citizenry, all are educable, and democracy demands that all should have the same quality of education.

As laid out in programmatic terms in The Paideia Proposal, students would be presented with organized knowledge, namely, language and literature, mathematics and science, and the social studies. Students would also acquire the basic intellectual skills of learning. For Adler, these consisted first of reading, writing, speaking, and listening; second, calculating, problem-solving, observing, estimating, and measuring; and third, exercising critical judgment. Basic schooling in the shape of liberal education would also require students to gain an enlarged understanding of ideas and values through the study of great books and involvement in creative activities. Finally, so as to avoid tracking students, Adler was adamant that since everyone is considered to be essentially equal, all should follow the same course of study.

Paul Hirst

The emphasis on intellectual formation in Adler is consistent with Newman. But as in Newman, the perception of education for citizenship as a feature of liberal education remained less pronounced in England throughout much of the twentieth century. Of particular importance here is the position of Paul Hirst for whom, in line with Newman and along with his colleague R.S. Peters, a liberal education lies in knowledge and understanding in depth and breadth (Hirst and Peters, 1970). According to Hirst, over time the human race constructed seven forms of knowledge as ways of understanding reality: mathematics, physical science, interpersonal experience as found in history for example, moral judgment, aesthetic experience, religion, and philosophy (Hirst and Peters, 1970, pp. 63–64; Hirst, 1974, pp. 30–53). The forms express how humans think and know, and the young need to be initiated into such thinking and knowing. According to Hirst, moreover, since each of the forms corresponds to a way in which people attempt to understand the world, liberal education is to be focused on the study of all of the forms. As with Newman and Adler, such an education is highly rationalist in character. It is directed at intellectual formation and does not include moral or religious formation any more than vocational or professional preparation.

Departing from Tradition

Rejections and Modifications of Liberal Education

Hirst’s commanding theory of a liberal education dominated the philosophical discussion of curriculum at the level of schooling for over a quarter century. In 1993, however, Hirst retracted his position, saying that experiential knowledge trumps theoretical knowledge in important ways. In a manner reminiscent of Newman’s own retreat from liberal education (Mulcahy, 1973; Mulcahy, 2008b), he now believed that “education may at many stages turn out to be best approached through practical concerns,” and considered “practical knowledge to be more fundamental than theoretical knowledge, the former being basic to any clear grasp of the proper significance of the latter” (Hirst, 1993, p. 197). Moving beyond Hirst, John White characterized general education as concerned to promote “a person in the round,” as one “who lives the life.” Highlighting “the primacy of the practical,” he argued that we ought to “begin our thinking about the curriculum with the human being as agent, not the human being as knower.” This, he believed, may lead us to “a more practically-oriented curriculum” of general education as distinct from one premised on the acquisition of knowledge and a consequent neglect of “thinking about ends and means” (2004, p. 184).

As intimated earlier, the idea of a liberal education has not been without its critics. Throughout the nineteenth century it faced persistently sharp attack in the Edinburgh Review. More recently, Richard Pring (1993) raised questions regarding the premature dismissal of so-called vocational subjects from the idea, and Nel Noddings went so far as to argue that “liberal education is a false ideal for universal education” (1992, p. 28). Hirst’s remarkable retraction of his theory of a liberal education, moreover, followed along lines of criticism brought against his original position by Jane Roland Martin. It is the sharply focused analysis of Martin made in 1981 in “Needed: A New Paradigm for Liberal Education” (Martin, 1994, pp. 170–186) that is considered here the most compelling of critiques.

Seeking a New Way Forward: Jane Roland Martin

Believing her criticism of Hirst’s theory to be applicable to contemporary curriculum theorizing in general, Martin argued that philosophical investigation of curriculum was stuck in a rut and “endorsed a theory of curriculum that is seriously deficient” (1994, p. 171). Of particular concern to Martin was its exclusion of values of practicality, feelings, and emotions, and what she termed the ‘3Cs’ of care, concern, and connection. Traditional thinking about the school curriculum such as that found in Hirst’s theory, she believed, “ignores feelings and emotions and other so-called ‘non-cognitive’ states and processes of mind.” It also ignored “knowledge how,” it excluded education for action (1994, p. 173), and it relied on a conception of education that divorced mind from body (1994, pp. 170–186).

Given Martin’s critique, the question arises if alternative conceptions of liberal education ought to be considered. Reflecting a forthright attempt to create a new conceptualization reflecting a well-articulated feminist perspective, here, too, Martin provides a starting point by adding a new goal for liberal education. The new goal is preparing the young for the 3Cs, that is, for the reproductive and productive processes in society (1994, 2000). In this, Martin does not overlook academic studies long associated with liberal education. She sees them as but one part of a broader education, however, one that “integrates thought and action, reason and emotion, education and life” in a reconceived idea of liberal education (1994, p. 183).

Seeking a New Way Forward: Innovative Theory and Practice

While these are directions about which Martin theorizes (see Mulcahy, 2002), innovative practice especially in higher education is making headway in bringing them into being. Given the growing force of marketplace considerations in redefining education...

Table of contents

• Cover Page
• Half Title Page
• Title Page
• Copyright Page
• Table of Contents
• List of illustrations
• Author biographies
• Editors’ introduction
• Section 1: Educational foundations
• Section 2: Teaching and learning
• Section 3: Organisation and issues in education
• Index