Penny Thoughts: The aim of education is to develop thinking

America education theorists have rendered a variety of notions over the history of this great nation. After John Dewey visited Lenin in Moscow during the early part of the 20th Century, education in America became focused on the “socialization” elements of a democratic nation. 

After the Russians sent up Sputnik in 1957 – and, thus, ushered in the new age of space exploration while gaining a major step on the U.S. in both technology and propaganda – America focused on science education as the panacea for our national malaise owing to Sputnik’s success.

Then, in the 1970’s, some education theorists taught us that we needed to get in touch with the feelings of students at the expense of all else. This approach also encouraged parents to use “time out” instead of other some form of punishment. The devastating effects of this divergent path have become obvious in our 2020 society with those same children, now young adults, rioting and burning cities in America. They were never taught the meaning of “no,” but that how they “felt” should be their primary focus.

After phases of education theory have come and gone, we are still left with the question of the purpose of education. We have heard wide-spread cries that the education our youth receive does not promote significant thinking capabilities. 

Most of us believe the assumption that the primary goal of a pedagogist, as an artist of education, is to promote the development of thinking.

Such an approach can be frustrating if one does not understand the relative stages of cognitive development in the human condition. Starting with Piaget, the great Swiss philosopher/psychologist, we can see that our cognitive progress is directly tied to our individual abilities to process the information from the world around us, and to assimilate it into a workable reference body from which to make appropriate choices in our attempts to survive in that world.

Learning how to function in a world which is external to our thought processes is at the heart of any experience which is considered educational, or put more simply, at the heart of our learning. In essence, this is what we really mean when we talk about teaching youngsters to think – assisting them in assembling a workable, accessible, reference body from which they can successfully relate to the world.

Albert Einstein, in one of his many quotations relating to education, said, “One should never cram young minds with facts. They can be found in books and libraries. No, the aim of education should be to teach young minds to think.” And for him, this kind of education would result in producing a more effective and efficient society. 

At the same time, Einstein encourages students in their educational pursuits to “Never regard your study as a duty, but as the enviable opportunity to learn to know the liberating influence of beauty in the realm of the spirit for your own personal joy and to the profit of the community to which your later work belongs.”

Does today’s education effectively develop thinking? It is, perhaps, a function of our statistical data orientation that we need some hard numbers to effectively measure any progress in our schools. Politicians want to “see” something, when, unfortunately, the products of our educational efforts can only be measured for success in a longitudinal examination. Plainly said, while those who claim that there is a lack of thinking by our youngsters are looking at short-term indices, the more accurate measure should be in the long-term development and success of our students.

Our education establishments now claim to be engaged in more “critical thinking” as teaching processes for our young minds. The advancements in technological capabilities of delivery and the ubiquity of the technological revolution have dictated that those in education must respond in an engaging fashion. A comprehensive examination into how children learn and how educators deliver information must result in a convergence of these two processes.

The results seem to be encouraging. A good index for this is watching youngsters today manipulate the myriad of electronic games, learning devices and technological tools at their disposal. Their acumen and adroitness in these venues belie any ineffectiveness in the education system. While they may not have learned how to play “Roblox” in class, they certainly have gained tools there to allow them to win some of the games.

In the final analysis, however, it is the individual creative and critical thinker who makes differences in our world. Even though Bill Gates today has turned into a megalomaniac who seeks to vaccinate the entire world with whatever new serum his companies have developed, he did drop out of Harvard and in so doing developed Microsoft.

Fortunately, there are those education theorists who faithfully cling to notions of teaching and learning which make our system inclusive, yet demanding, individual and still universal. 

We can never really know what effect our pedagogic efforts will have on a young mind until we see that mind somewhere down the road years hence, but we can attempt to reach that mind at every junction, every encounter, and every opportunity along the way to assist them in developing their abilities to think.

Instead of proselytizing their own views in their classrooms, educators must be obligated to promote individual thinking in their students.

As Einstein observed: “The aim [of education] must be the training of independently acting and thinking individuals.”

The views and opinions expressed in this article are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the policy or position of The West Alabama Watchman.