03 | The Relationship between Education and Work
How and why we learn to become professionals.
A human being is not born as a complete self, it develops by interacting with its surroundings. Through its own experience, the individual defines the objects that surround it and the notion of its own self. Unlike other species, humans need to produce its own subsistence means continuously. It can’t adapt itself to nature, therefore it must adapt nature to its own needs. This systematic action against nature in order to obtain the resources needed for the continuation of life is what we call “work”.
“Work” is the way in which humans ensure their existence by creating tangible and intangible products and learn about their surroundings/ environment as an integrated process.
Demerval Saviani says that the result of human action on nature can be material /tangible or nonmaterial /intangible.
The material outcome is products (the artificial world).
The nonmaterial outcomes are culture and knowledge.
When taking action in order to survive and exist — working — humans reinvent their environment: change their reality and establish new ways of interaction with this new reality, making the whole learning process happen over and over again.
It is possible to observe the phenomena over the historic evolution of society: For instance, in order to survive nowadays, it is important to find a job. To find a job, one needs to fulfil several requirements, and all those requirements are intentionally/deliberately/on purpose (artificially) defined. Thus the job is part of this “artificial” world that demands a set of new knowledge; which in order to survive, one must learn.
To obtain and ensure the means of subsistence supposes an individual effort on perpetuating one’s life by acting upon it. Once the social strata is defined and a group of people does not need to work in order to survive (by the exploitation relationship; “capital gain”), they have to learn other way.
“School” comes from the greek word “scholé” that means “place of leisure”: it was the space where the possessing class learn the conditions and parameters of society integration, while the working class is educated by work. Thus, to take part of the human phenomena of socialisation and humanisation the possessing class must learn how to deal with the artificial and natural worlds by a structured extraneous process.
Education is “a process by which society moulds its members at will and based on its own interests (and needs)”. The alienation process between working and learning (and its socio-economic consequences) is an important element of the configuration of the economical roles in the society; for instance, the birth and establishment of the academic studies and the related professions.
The social group that assumed the political and administrative roles in the society were not workers. They got educated on specific places: the schools. The fundamental knowledge to enter this elite space was the literacy, in other words, to know how to read and write. Literacy is the fundamental “language” to structure and register theoretical reflection and analysis of experiences with the surrounding environment. In order to assume a role in a literate society is essential to dominate this language. As said before, to attend a school on the age before the Enlightenment was just for the possessing class. This unequal structure maintained and supported the interests of the privileged class.
“All (occidental/western) national education systems are based on two underlying models. There is always an economic model and an intellectual model and there is assumed to be a relationship between them.”— Sir Ken Robinson.
During the Middle Ages (where there was no “national education system”), the economic model was Feudalism and the Church guided/directed the intellectual model that supported the system.
The non-literate work was learnt by practical means. The apprenticeship model was the basis of knowledge transfer (education). This model works as in “act out” structure: the role of the “professional” in daily activities while he is being tutored by the more experienced one or “the master”. The guilds and big workshops also offered a similar approach to form new artisans, thus learning by working.
The growth of Universities, the enlargement of cities and the invention of the press re-shaped the education structure completely. The rise of a another social class and the establishment of science (academics) as the intellectual model of the Enlightenment age created new professions and defined new economic roles. By this time the academics and scientists were well organised in Colleges. These groups had enough political power to ensure that only educated people (on these Colleges) could be recognised as Professionals and legally practice. Now, the economic model was the Industrialism and the intellectual model that supported it was the academicism.
The national models of public formal education were built on those basis. The need for qualified work labour demanded by the industries pressured the state to narrow the education system. The delivery of workforce became the task of schools. Moreover, the definition of the “nations” also place the school as the institution responsible for cultural and social integration. The way by which the state would shape the new citizen under a common national ideology: a cultural role.
Sir Ken Robinson says that the educational formal system does not satisfies the needs of the future market, he suggests a re-definition of the “General Education”: the basic knowledge that prepares a citizen for social and work life. Nowadays, “general education” finds its grounds on literacy, numeracy (abstract, logic) and basics on natural and social sciences, thus academically oriented. “Intelligence” is defined by successfully dealing and memorising problems and subjects that come from this areas just mentioned. However, there is a growing demand for different ways of thinking and knowing.
The formal education
By definition, the adjective “formal” qualify a certain noun as “official” concerning criteria and rules set by an institution. “Being official” implies in recognition from someone who holds a recognised power (usually knowledge) to assure and certificate that someone (or something) else has attended the demanded criteria successfully. In practice this idea usually resemble to a “Control of Quality”. In other words, if the judged individual does not answer to all items in the check list of criteria, it is disposed or have to start the evaluation process again.
Usually a production flow or course is defined in a institution. This course might provide the needed elements that may guarantee the conditions to receive an official certificate. The one who wants to pursue such qualification must attend the defined course (what is a criteria by itself) and be evaluated in the “check-points” and, then, finally judged at the end. This course/ flow is based in methods, stages, phases and processes that aims prepare the individual to be qualified.
The criteria are set due the pursued qualification. In an “either/or” perception, they can be subjective/qualitative (based on or influenced by personal feelings, tastes, or opinions; dependent on the mind or on an individual’s perception for its existence) or objective/ quantitative (the opposite of subjective). Even if objective, the artificial nature of the criteria implies in a subjective basis, in the end, it is possible to assume that there is no objective criteria, but an objective evaluation (a subjective evaluation having pre-set common agreed criteria).
The criteria are related to the “reason to be” of the institution. Institutions are artificial organizations which, by definition, has a human planned aim, a “reason to be” that is embed in its parts and elements. In order words, it is not neutral — it has a social role and political view, for instance.
A institution can be a small organisation or a nation. Ivan Illich arguments that the educational institutions play a role in education that actually is not related to pursue learning. The primary aim of any institution is self-preservation.
For that, there is a huge consumption of resources narrowed only to sustain, manage and guarantee the control of a large amount of people and processes. Although an institution has a primary aim (its “reason to be”), the self-preservation and the maintenance of its functions are actually its fundamental goals (or basic needs) otherwise, the “reason to be” can not be fulfilled anyways.
It can be seen in the “First Uneasiness”: in order to guarantee the resources provided by the dictatorial government, the universities have adopted the guidelines imposed without concern the impact in the educational activities. The self-preservation were more important than the “pursuing learning”.
In short, Educational Institutions exist to sustain a specific market: the credited professors and teachers. Considering that everything can be learnt everywhere, we have learnt most of what we know outside school, it is possible to presume the Educational Institutions just exist in order to provide a valid certification in a specific subject matter (the efficacy and efficiency of education are not considered here). In order to be recognised by society as authority, the members of the institutions have used different strategies. One is the political influence in order to guarantee market, for instance the example from Lawyers and Doctors described by Peter Burke:
“Law and medicine were the two secular learned professions, with their place within the medieval university as well as status in the world outside it. They were corporate groups, sometimes organised in colleges (like the London College of Physicians, founded in 1518), concerned to maintain a monopoly of knowledge and practice against unofficial competitors”.
The lawyers and doctors have legislate in order to assure that no one could compete in the market with them if not qualified and certificated by them. The educational institution here has as main aim to guarantee the monopoly of certain market. It can be also exemplified by the “regularisation of professions” — a committee is established in order to define the rules that all professionals must follow, otherwise the person can not work.
Since there are plenty of those colleges (or certification centers), there will be a competition for which institution offer the best certification. The members of the organisation (professors), the infrastructure (facilities), the outcomes (alumni) and the process (curriculum) are the main factors of decision making. Indeed the curriculum as the main product of a educational institution since the human factors (professors and alumni) might not be a perfect representative of the goals of the institution.
The curriculum, then, can be considered as an attempt to explicit the learning experience (which is tacit), and proposes it as a product — a promise that anyone who joins the institution will know what is described in the syllabus. Besides, as exemplified by the Brazilian example in the “First Uneasiness”, it can be just a fallacy:
“School is inefficient in skill instruction especially because it is curricular. In most schools a program which meant to improve one skill is chained always to another irrelevant task.” — Ivan Illich.
In summary, the formalisation of the education are merely a strategy to consolidate social structures of hierarchy (institutions have more power and individuals) and social power (market segmentation and resources control). The quality and efficiency of the learning experience in institutions are not considered here. In other words, it is not meant institutions are not good for learning. Nevertheless, the fact of being “formal” and “institutional” does not guarantee the learning quality.
The informal education
The opposite idea of “formal education” is the “informal education”. It is important to highlight here that it is not a opposition between “Traditional Education” and “Progressive Education”, since both Traditional and Progressive can be formal or informal. Nevertheless the Traditional approach is more present and suitable in a formal structure rather than the Progressive.
Basically what defines informal learning is the non-formalisation of its process and non-validation of its outcomes: there is no an institution which design and is responsible for the quality of the process and certification, everything is set (or not) in an individual and subjective basis. However it does not imply in an absence of social recognition.
Informal education, when related to Progressive Education, is incidental. There is no any regulation or pre-set structure hence the learning occurs by the interaction with the situation (that might not be planned or defined). So it is possible to state that any situation that we experience is a situation of informal education. However the informal education just takes place when there is a proper situation of pursuing learning even if there is an external aim:
“People thus think that education must be for the sake of something extrinsic what is worthwhile, when the truth is that being worth-while is part of what is meant by calling it education.” — R. S. Peters.
Once it is related to Traditional Education, it usually acquires a linear configuration, without any certification or maybe social recognition. Someone sets the path and his or her methods are judged as worthwhile by the individual who will attends it.
The recognition and validation is done by the people which uses it. There are plenty of manifestations on this case, from yoga professors to youtube tutorials. While the formal education stands over the reputation of professors, description of curricula and the influence of the institution, the Informal education usually relies in peer-to-peer relationships (“I know the professor”) and specific shared interests that are not mass interesting (“I want to learn lomo photography”).
One aspect of the “Deschooled Society” from Ivan Illich — that is based on a Informal Traditional Education model — resembles to the scenario described by Chris Anderson for the new market of media products (“The long tail”). There is a market of niches for learning that can not be afforded by institutions. Because there is no mass demand for certain kinds of education (considering here knowledge as a good), so the institution can not invest the resources on those (just on things that might have a more massive adoption).
Although the certification and validation in the formal education do not have a proper role in pursuing learning itself, the formalisation mighty leads to a better quality of the elements in the learning environment (better facilities, access to resources, opportunities to travel, scholarships, etc). What in the informal learning those aspects can represent a lack that would not allow the learning experience happens. For instance a school without a wood workshop might not be a good place to learn carpentry.
The informal learning is “interest oriented”. The individual decide with more precision what is the content that will be learnt, whereas in the formal education, usually, it is necessary to deal with topics (elements of the curriculum) that are not interesting. Hence, the formal learning sometimes can provide more “random learning experiences” than the informal (similar to a radio station which you have to listen what the radio has chosen for you). It does not mean that the informal does not offer opportunity for unpredictable experiences.
Indeed the informal learning can lead to different experiences than expected (hence to a bigger growth), however it might require specific profile from the individual
“The creature whom schools need as a client has neither the autonomy nor the motivation to grow on his own.” — Ivan Illich
Experience
The dichotomy between “formal” and “informal” education stresses the aspects of who provides the learning environment1 . Formalisation does not interfere neither in the content (it can be everything decided by the institution) nor in the means (it can be Traditional, Progressive, or something else).
Concerning Education theory, the other remarkable opposition is between Traditional and Progressive Education. However the discussion can not be treated in terms of “Either- Ors”. It is stated that both approaches are complementary and must be adapted regarding conditions related to the context and learning aim.
By neglecting one of the extremes (what usually happens by the adoption of one), there is a lack in certain aspects that might lead to conflicts. For the Traditional Education, “learning” means the acquisition of heritage knowledge that is usually incorporated in books and is sequentially organised in a curriculum and program. Its main attribute is the objective — an external aim that is imposed to the individual.
The Progressive Education considers the individual and his past experiences as driven elements to self development and growth. Its main element is the internal conditions (of the individual). Even if sounds logical and obvious, it is important to stress that both approaches have a role and promotes a better learning environment in different contexts. The genuine education comes about through experience.
Since not all experiences are genuinely or equally educative, he proposes the Criteria of Experience: interaction and continuity since “in they active union with each other provide the measure of the educative significance and value of an experience”.
a) Interaction
“The word ‘interaction’, (…), expresses the second chief principle for interpreting an experience in its educational function and force. It assigns equal rights to both factors in experience — objective and internal conditions. Any normal experience is an interplay of these two sets of conditions. Taken together, or in their interaction, they form what we call a situation.”
b) Continuity
“The principle of continuity of experience means that every experience both takes up something from those which have gone before and modifies in some way the quality of those which comes after.”
Those criteria are not criteria like a quality criteria (in a industrial production), they can not be used to measure and provide a precise binary answer. They are concepts that allows step further in the strict perception of learning from the Formal, Traditional and Progressive Education. Although “criteria” should provide an objective and neutral bases to assess if a situation or environment can lead to learning, it would be naive to understand the criteria in this way. Hence, the criteria are conceptual support (maybe framework criteria) to think about education.
Going back to the presented scenario in the “First Uneasiness “, it is possible to perceive how the criteria manifest in the hacking actions. The Traditional education elements (e.g.: heritage knowledge) gives the parameters to start the action. Therefore even if the action might aim to neglect the established learning proposal by the curriculum, the Traditional Education plays a role: its initial function is reinterpreted by the individual and assumes a more meaningful role.
The interaction, both with the Traditional Education elements (lecture, books, objective criteria…) and the topic itself ( e.g. History of Art), is considered valuable as learning experience. The outcome from the established relationship with the situation (or better, “learning opportunity”) and the situation out of the interaction might attend the continuity criteria, and, obviously, it is not easy assessable.
Skills are capacities that can be developed by practice and have a parameter to judge proficiency. Therefore, once the student can accomplish a certain task, it means that he is proficient in that skill.
Skills are easy to perceive and pursue. A skilled person is recognisable by his/her portfolio, performance or results. It is also easy to transfer such kind of expertise: since it has quality parameters and well established methods. Then there is just the need to set up the right learning environment, apply the teaching/learning methods and assess the results in order to check where improvements are needed.
When it comes to competences, the scenario is different. Competences does not manifest in the same way. There are uncountable ways of being “independent”, “wise” or “self-confident” due context, situation and who is judging it. It also may change depending on the action it is being applied, since competences mean a way to do something.
Competences can not be easily perceived, by doing so, they can not be easily pursued. The listed designer competences are plenty. However in the registered presentations, when they explain their choice (to which school they are planning to go),competences were never listed as a motivation. Since, unlike the skills, competences can not be taught (in a “frontal-master-pupil” teaching way) therefore, they can not be a curricular promise.
Although competences are pointed out as more relevant to professionals than skills. The questions that comes up then is how design competences are learnt (or developed) and what are the elements that compound this learning process.
