Problem-based learning (PBL) is an innovative educational approach that dates back to the 1960s. However, the twenty-first century goal of sustainable education poses a challenge to PBL, especially as it relates to isolation. Here we discuss the underlying issue of isolation in three respects. First, the information-processing model of PBL depends on generalized skills, whereas real life problem-solving skills involve context-bound cognitive processes. Second, in all models of PBL, the focus on knowledge acquisition for a specific problem improves performance but separates education from the world at large. Third, the existing culture of measurement strengthens the aforementioned isolating effects. In response, we introduce a conceptual approach based on Hannah Arendt’s technical notion of ‘world’. We make suggestions to meet the criteria of sustainable education by reconnecting PBL to our shared world, and emphasizing a responsibility for this shared world.
For Hannah Arendt, authority is the shape educational responsibility assumes. In our time, authority in Arendt's sense is under pressure. The figure of Greta Thunberg shows the failure of adult generations, taken collectively, to take responsibility for the world and present and future generations of newcomers. However, in reflecting on Arendt's use of authority, we argue that her account of authority also requires amendments. Arendt's situating of educational authority in-between past and future adequately captures its temporal dimension. We make explicit another, spatial, dimension: authority in-between world and earth. Arendt's neglect of the material earth also has implications for the relational dimension of authority. Arendt's authority depends on a dichotomy between the private (education, the child) and the public sphere (politics, the adult). This is problematic. First, we agree with Arendt's feminist critics that the personal can be made into the site of the political. Second, we point once more to Thunberg, the child, taking the public stage, thereby contesting the division between public and private. In response, we situate the relational dimension of authority inbetween private and public. The three dimensions of educational authority taken together imply that it is situated in-between domains that cannot be reduced to each other or taken as absolutes: past and future (time), world and earth (space), and the private and public sphere (relation). This brings us to our concept of ambiguous authority, which expresses the Arendtian nature of our reflections and the ways in which we seek to renew her original insights on educational authority.
Biesta distinguishes three functions of education: qualification, socialization and subjectification. We focus on subjectification. When first addressing this concept, Biesta referred to action as defined by Arendt, thereby stressing the importance of 'the question of freedom'. More recently, the question of freedom (Arendt) is replaced by 'the question of responsibility' (Levinas). For Levinas responsibility is related to irreplaceability. While the concept of responsibility is valuable, we question the call upon irreplaceability in education. Actively taking responsibility where irreplaceability might not be either present or felt should be central to education. Unlike the morally clear examples invoked by Biesta, complex societal issues like the climate and refugee crisis are not accessible as an immediate appeal to a specific subject. Therefore, we propose a return to Arendt and her concept of action. Action allows and requires students to create the world anew, to take a position without pretending that the outcome can be controlled. Biesta refers to this as the impossibility of education. However, rather than repeating the theme of impossibility, we focus on the possibilities of education: there are several ways to create the world anew.
Arendt‐inspired philosophy of education has been a lively field of research in recent years. This research is mostly based on Arendt's essay ‘The Crisis in Education’. In the same historical context, Arendt wrote her initial essay on education, the controversial ‘Reflections on Llittle Rock’, and her political‐theoretical work The Human Condition. All three texts show Arendt's concern about the public realm and its capture by ‘society’, which she understands as discarding the distinction between private and public. This raises the question of where education should be located in Arendt's thought: in the private realm, in society or in the public realm? In her ‘Reflections’ Arendt places education in the societal realm, but this approach fails to convince. The answer consistent with Arendt's use of the category of the ‘in‐between’ in her educational thought is that it is in none of the above. Instead, education takes place in an ambiguous zone in between private and public, where both make their influence felt, but neither dominates the other. This has implications not only for how we should understand Arendt's educational philosophy but also for her notions of private and public spheres as well as for other political‐theoretical concepts in her work. This answers the question about the location of education in a second way: education in Arendt's thought is not simply derivativeof her political works but can itself serve as an interesting perspective from which to view her writings.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.