![]() | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
There is a lot of Original Research in this article. The thoughts and theories expressed are not necessarily bad or of low quality but they needed to cite sources wherever possible. This article still reads like a tract form a particualr view of education. It is better than it has been in the past and I am not advocating changing it - only adding citations so the sources can be identified. I am thereby tagging it with {{ Unreferenced}} in hope it will attract some citations. Alex Jackl 05:40, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
Thanx for unlocking the article, I will begin googling away at those citations! Sue Rangell 19:12, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
I took the below statement out of the introduction because it was highly specific and although not inaccurate there are many other modalities and ways education is factored besides these and it seemed innapropriate. I think a section on learning modalities would be awesome but I don't feel up to it .. aww heck... I will put a stub section in and maybe someone can expand...
Education can often be divided into tactile (hands on), visual (observered) and auditory (listening to instructions/information. Several overlaps occur.
Alex Jackl 14:50, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
the means through which the aims and habits of a group of people sustain from one generation to the next
Okay- I ended up adding a section that was more than a stub. It needs work but is a good enough start that I didn't even tag it as a stub. It did highlight for me though HOW unreferenced this article is and that it needs a good editing. Any suggestions for a starting place? One thing I am thinking is that if we could associate all those references into their correct place in the article instead of just bullet points that would be great. Also, maybe add at least one citation to each section of the article and adjust the content appropriately. Just some thoughts... Alex Jackl 15:27, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
I think this section needs some more reliable sources. I read the link to the "Learning Curve" website, which is far from scholarly, as it makes unsubstantiated (and dubious) conclusions, and contains at least one ridiculous misspelling ("loose" for "lose"). I agree with a need for referencing the article but the references must be sound research and not just someone's opinion.
I certainly object to the current state of the learning "modalities" section. This sections does not even reference the learning styles entry in Wikipedia (probably becuase it calls into question the validity of this concept). At the very least the reference to "a lot of work has been done" should be removed or altered as that entry implies that the "work" is supporting research. A more objective view on learning styles and individual learner difference is required to bring this article up to reasonable standards. I'd say this whole section should be redone to discuss what current research has to say about the relative importance and unimportance of learner differences. Right now, this section is simply a popular view, not a scholarly one, in my opinion. RLJ
Thanks for letting me have my opinion. Let me go further and say that leading off educational processes with "learning modalities" is a terrible idea. Ignoring the fact that learning "modalities" are not an educational process, I suggest that learning styles are well down the list of individual differences that have been shown to matter in education. This is not a matter of citations. The citations in the Wikipedia article on learning styles are sufficient--and indicate that the construct of learning style is not well supported empirically. Citations are a very good idea and should be included, but what exactly is being cited is even more important. We pretty much can get a citation for just about anything. I did not simply change the article because I thought that changes should be discussed before editing. If I editied the article, learning modalities would be deleted from an article with the current scope. You are taking to much owership of this article and taking criticsms to personally. Your efforts are apprciated but the idea of Wikipedia is that collaboration will result in better information. RLJ
Sorry if I sounded exasperated. It is just that this article is such a hodgepodge. I even agree with you that it doe snot belong in "educational processes". I am all for notability, and relevance is far more important than citation- believe me. There seems to be strong agreement in the educational community that leanirng modalities are extremely important. However- that was not my point. My point is that the rest of the article could use a 100,000 foot brush before we have 5,000 foot debates about learning modalities. That being said... do you truly think that section is inappropriate? Alex Jackl 14:49, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
This article sometimes says X "needs to" Y. This language is advocating and not compatible with WP:NPOV. -- Beland 23:40, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
I agree. The article is riddled with language like "important", "critical", "need to", "good", and "the goal" which brings into serious question its neutrality. Citations are also greatly lacking. Vague mention is made of "research", "studies", and "professors". Not that the article doesn't have a lot of good information, but it needs a lot of work to be encyclopedic, as it now reads like an essay of opinion. I've marked the page with refimprove, POV, and Original research, and unless someone has an objection I think they should be left up until the issues are resolved. 24.22.24.208 ( talk) 10:30, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
This article was vastly improved by the latest rounds of edits. I haven't studied all the changes carefully enough to determine if anything critical was taken out but it is much more coherent and holds together more like a single article. Good work! Still needs more citations and the POV caution above is a good one. Alex Jackl 05:43, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
This article contains an enormous amount of original research. I don't think that is SO bad but as much as possible we should try to cite sources. I invite others to add citations to this page! Alex Jackl 22:26, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
This article has a notation that reads, "This article is about formal education. For broader context of the term, see learning." Shouldn't this article be about education as a whole, since it is called "education?" If "formal education" needs an entire article, it needs to be called "Formal education" or "Schooling" and an article about "education" as a whole should still exist. "Education," "formal education," and "learning" are all distinct terms. Although there is obvious overlap, an article about one is not an article about the others. Amillion 03:57, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
So now "this article is about institutionalized education" and "for broader context of the term" we are again referred to the learning article. Eduction is not synonymous with "institutionalized education." if "institutionalized education" needs an entire article, it should be separate from the education article. You can call it "Institutionalized education," or "Schooling," or whatever you think it appropriate, but "education" as needs its own article (covering the entire term). Amillion ( talk) 07:37, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
Yes, it really needs work- the article reads as if nearly all education is formal! It is cases like this where people look beyond wikipedia for answers. Britannica's treatment is comprehensive, balance, and supported with a lot of details and statistics. I would suggest a separate article on "formal education" with this article on general education, in the broad sense. Any disagreements with that? Snow555 ( talk) 19:56, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
There is a long winded unreferenced section at the page's bottom about US history and education. I'm removing it, and creating a page for what I'm deleting. In the "History of Education page" there's a similar section, perhaps from the same source? They are too specific to belong here. Wik idea 15:51, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
I've made a dozen or so alterations. They include putting the history, philosophy, psychology, etc into their own headings; expanding the sections on primary, secondary, and higher education, expanding the intro, deleting some of the longer headings, and making cosmetic additions such as inserting photos and putting the (very good) portals up higher on the page. I hope this makes the page a bit better to look at and further improvements to the real content can follow. I'm also archiving stuff on this talk page. Wik idea 17:06, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
The "Parental involvement" section of this article doesn't comply with the NPOV policy or the No Original Research policy. It talks about "ideas" for parents and teachers of elementary school children (like the "Thursday Envelope")and makes statements like "A homework planner is an organizational tool that is vital to the middle level elementary student." This section needs some serious gutting. Amillion ( talk) 07:14, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
Okay, fair enough I guess. Although I'm not at all sure where to put which tags. Most of the sections don't have sources, and a lot of them contain statements about what someone should do. It seems someone has put Original research at the top which is probably just as well. That's really this article's main problem. That'll do for now then? 24.22.24.208 ( talk) 02:22, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
AIMS OF EDUCATION
Aim/Purpose Source
Contribute to society Trilling and Hood (2001 p.9) Fulfil personal talents Trilling and Hood (2001 p.10) Fulfil civic responsibilities Trilling and Hood (2001 p.10) Carry tradition forward Trilling and Hood (2001 pp.10-11) Provide the engine for economic growth Wolf (2002 p.x) Provide a workforce with necessary basic 'academic' skills Wolf (2002 p.11) Provide individuals with opportunity, Wolf (2002 p.11) Enlightenment and knowledge (beyond work/occupation)
Trilling and Hood (2001 p.10) argue that whilst the four traditional reasons why education is seen as crucial to society (contribute to society, fulfil personal talents, fulfil civic responsibilities, and carry tradition forward) have not changed the move from the Industrial to Knowledge Age has meant that "our response to each of these goals shifts dramatically and brand new sets of demands appear, challenging our entire education enterprise".
Wolf (2002 p.11) argues that "basic 'academic' skills ... are also the main tools for survival in a developed economy, a precondition for running modern society, and, not least, a gateway to individual opportunity, enlightenment and knowledge which go way beyond the immediate concerns of work and occupation." (NB Wolf challenges the notion that education actually provides economic growth)
( Dhivesh 13:13, 6 April 2008 (UTC))
The preceeding was removed by Dbiel ( Talk) 02:38, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
many college student nowadays are hard-up to enroll, all the lines to go through, the time that is to be consumed and specially the errors that could be make in a certain procedure.
in the Philippines, students coming from different provinces go all the way to their designated schools, but with the requirements and steps to be done is time consuming at the same time they make to much effort knowing that some things in the process in the steps in enrolling, they committed an error.
Question:
-is it the lack of technology/staff in the school?; -lack of information?; or -is it the student himself/herself is the problem?
"> vahn_dinio 16:03, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
I have edited the lead section. Hopefully, this will satisfy the lead section requirements. Spinkava ( talk) 16:09, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
I noticed that the German term Bildung redirects here…I thought Bildung referred to much larger concept than mere education, but also cultivation of artistic and cultural sensibilities. Perhaps someone who knows the subject well could create a discrete article? Historian932 ( talk) 15:09, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
I thinkg this section needs to be fleshed out more. Historically speaking why not reference the medevil educational systems that start so call higher education beyond "primary" education? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.184.129.123 ( talk) 05:12, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
Agreed. I came to this page hoping to learn something about the progressive movement and the advent of the public education system. This stuff is in most grade school children's textbooks. Wikipedia just seems to draw a blank. Jmgariepy ( talk) 05:37, 1 March 2013 (UTC)
The classroom article is in deplorable shape. Expert? Simesa ( talk) 10:31, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
Also added Expert tag to Classroom of the future. Simesa ( talk) 10:41, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
Let's see what to do with it furthermore.
Please visit Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#Easy as pi? to see a discussion about making mathematics articles more accessible to a general readership.
It has been archived at Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)/Archive 35#Easy as pi?.
Is it just me that sees something wrong about this order of pictures - Afghanistan/ pre-school; Mexico/ elementary school; USA - College???? Aren't we reinforcing stereotypes by this depiction of images? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.224.252.10 ( talk) 15:47, 29 June 2009 (UTC) And shouldn't this graph about Russia have the number of graduates per capita???? What is the number of graduates telling if Russia is so much bigger than any tiny country in Europe???? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.224.252.10 ( talk) 15:51, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
I made the images more diverse, all across the world and of all nationalities, ages, and varies areas of study such as engineering and the arts. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.97.254.158 ( talk) 20:03, 7 October 2012 (UTC)
Education has been criticized by authors such as Carter Godwin Woodson in "The Mis-Education of the Negro" on the basis of not only providing misinformation, but also exlusion of other content (such as the "creation versus evolution" debate in public schools)
Moddiddle ( talk) 11:56, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
Education is very important to all people and children, so learn information through computer and internet because it is very easy and simple process. All over world info in the net and website. Some website is very knowledge able on the internet for example Entertainments and informative. It is very simple, informative, site for children and all people i think learn this website [1]. So easily make graphics and web designer. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 110.37.42.164 ( talk) 09:53, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
This sentence evinces several shortcomings. It fails to recognize the active nature of the recipient's role in education, includes the generalization that only one society may impart education, and asserts that education necessarily involves more than one generation. This "technical" characterization of the process of education should be revised.
A person can educate others and can educate herself. A society can teach another society. And sisterss can teach their brothers. If the above sentence is not revised, then it implies that self-education doesn't fit its "technical" definition of education. Also, if a teacher teaches only one student, then that also lies outside the scope of the purported definition.
I propose that the sentence read, "In another sense it refers to the process in which a person or people develop, receive, or communicate knowledge, skills, and values." ElderHap ( talk) 16:37, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
I agree with ElderHap. The lead sentences caught my eye right away. Lacbolg ( talk) 14:03, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
Yes It's very imposing and implies that learning is just about one generation to the next. Education can also be about conducting scientific experiments personally. It's not just about blinding accepting the information from the previous generation. Also this does not account well for adult learners. Lot's of people are educated by people in the generation below them. May I suggest
"Education in its broadest, general sense is the means through which knowledge and skills are pursued and exchanged. Generally, it occurs through any experience that has a formative effect on the way one thinks, feels, or acts. In its narrow, technical sense, education is the formal process by which society deliberately transmits its accumulated knowledge, skills, customs and values." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.97.254.158 ( talk) 18:33, 7 October 2012 (UTC)
OECD PISA Study has lots of facts and data to be included in article. http://www.oecd.org/document/2/0,3343,en_32252351_32236191_39718850_1_1_1_1,00.html
-- Nevit ( talk) 08:23, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
EDUCATION IS NOT ONLY MEANS LEARING , READING , WRITING AND SO ON... , IT ALSO REFERS TO EXTRA CURICULARS LIKE SPORTS, DANCING , SINGING MUSIC AND BLA BLA BLA....
122.174.108.42 ( talk) 14:10, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
The BBC programme In Our Time presented by Melvyn Bragg has an episode which may be about this subject (if not moving this note to the appropriate talk page earns cookies). You can add it to "External links" by pasting * {{In Our Time|Education|p005463m}}. Rich Farmbrough, 03:13, 16 September 2010 (UTC).
It seems bizarre to have the stained glass window at Yale, a parochially named work of art, competing with a high level common name "Education" and holding such a prominent place at the beginning of the article. If we had one more, we could create an "otheruses" template and point to a dab, which would make a lot more sense and not be as intrusive as this window is. Student7 ( talk) 21:27, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
I removed the specific information about Alternative Education in the Philippines. I think that would be better placed in an education section in the Philippines article, or maybe in the Alternative Education article. Wikipelli Talk 15:02, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
We could do with a "Teaching by fear" article explaining the traditional idea of teaching, such as in Victorian times, where it was thought a good teaching technique to intimidate and humiliate students. Still used these days to a degree.-- Penbat ( talk) 17:39, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
I am somewhat disappointed that this article seems to imply occasionally that formal education is the only form of education, resembling an article about spirituality that implies the same about institutional religion or, for a further example, an article about sexuality that makes a similar implication in relation to the institution of marriage. In my opinion, there ought to be more references to autodidacticism and homeschooling. There are many pictures in this article; can't there be one depicting a person studying on one's own? 213.109.230.96 ( talk) 11:39, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
This article seems to be primarily about schooling, which is distinct from education (google it or watch this). I propose a separate page is dedicated to schooling, and that "schooling" is treated like a subcategory of this article instead of its central topic. In other words, the lede of this article has it right, and schools are merely one way, a formal and institutionalized way, in which society transmits itself to the young.-- Lhakthong ( talk) 14:04, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
For example, the young in societies without schools are nonetheless educated. Museums educate. Families educate. Religious institutions educate (beyond their own schools) . . . .-- Lhakthong ( talk) 14:11, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
Opening this thread for the obvious action. Appears to be an advert of some sort. What's stated is way overblown like somebody selling motivational or self improvement bs with its claim of optimality, not as a (lofty, aspirational) goal but as a (presumably) default normal result. 72.228.177.92 ( talk) 21:29, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
An editor purporting to be "Dr Amit Sharma" has added to this article - multiple times, without discussion even after I reverted his or her original edit with clear objections - a "definition" of this topic that is unhelpful and unprofessional. It adds little to the article and as the edit adds two ridiculous mnemonic devices supposedly related to this topic it's quite unprofessional and unbecoming an encyclopedia article. Further, the edit is sourced to a book written by Dr. Sharma so there is a blatant conflict of interest if this editor is who he or she claims to be and is using Wikipedia to promote his or her own book. ElKevbo ( talk) 14:14, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
can you please tell me that formal education is as we can say to regular education? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 115.249.67.250 ( talk) 11:43, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
Someone just -ized a bunch of words that had been -ised. And otherwise Americanized the article. I did research the article and found that someone who was Canadian had started it. Therefore that is the permanent style of this article. BUT, I am not personally familiar with Canadian vs American spelling. Do the recent change pass muster? If not, please revert. Student7 ( talk) 14:55, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
There are a significant number of Americans who homeschool. ConservGal ( talk) 00:12, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
Americans are constantly using data from the United States in this article. As a result, other countries have done so as well. These mostly need to be moved to country articles. Student7 ( talk) 18:56, 29 September 2012 (UTC)
Hey, I see a problem with the terminology "from one generation to the next" in the definition at the top here. This definition could be applicable to the schooling of young people but after that generations do not come in to play. There are often older people being mentored by people much younger than them. It's a system of information exchange. When you pick up a book on plato and educate yourself on it, are you getting that information from the generation above you? I can see the place of this phrase when it comes to educating children, who lack most ability to pursue for themselves, but for most of us this is not the case. The opening definition is there to define education as a whole, not just this specific kind. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.242.57.84 ( talk) 03:09, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
The second section of this article (as of [1]) is titled Political legislation. This section is misplaced and probably misnamed. The section was added here: [2], a couple of months ago.
I'd suggest that it be moved to a subsection of Sociology, and renamed to "Politics" or "Law". Sparkie82 ( t• c) 22:48, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
The Sociology section is about "...the study of how social institutions and forces affect educational processes and outcomes, and vice versa." The Econ section is about how education improves a society's economy, and cites several sociological studies. Sociology is a broad subtopic of education and it seems as if the Econ section should be a subsection of the "Sociology" section. And maybe the "Sociology" section could be renamed to "Society". Sparkie82 ( t• c) 23:08, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
It seems to me that the "Systems" section requires reorganization. Of the included education systems, at least Anarchistic free schools and Education through recreation could be merged into the Alternative education article. Several others, such as Primary schools, Secondary schools, and Curriculum, offer more than just a summary of their respective sub-articles and in accordance with WP:SS should be reduced. I won't make any big reorganization myself, however, without consensus. Please indicate your positions below. HectorAE ( talk) 17:44, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
The lede specifies that education transfers learning from one generation to the next. It happens fairly often that a younger teacher is teaching an older student, however, or that two people of roughly comparable age are learning from one another. Should the generational qualification be dropped? hgilbert ( talk) 03:09, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
I'm not sure where this belongs, but not under the history section. hgilbert ( talk) 22:13, 28 August 2013 (UTC)
There is no criticism section, implying to the casual reader who does follow the news, that everyone agrees on the educational objectives of their community and nation. This is false. Student7 ( talk) 13:59, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
There are currently 16 major subsections, further subdivided. This article has become hard to grasp. It is easier to read Higgs boson, or the Standard Model. This should not be the case. Nearly everyone reading this has been in a classroom. The article shouldn't be that hard to understand nor to have concepts which are very nearly obscure, ambiguous, or weasel-y. e.g. Autodidacticism and "Indigenous." Article should be worded in standard English and make its points clearly.
If it can't be grouped in ten sections, maybe it should be forked in bulk and the sections (new article) mentioned in the lead or something. Student7 ( talk) 19:21, 6 October 2013 (UTC)
For the record, I have removed the following images, which in my view didn't add much to the article and created clutter.
[[File:Eden College, Durban Multiform.jpg|thumb|right|School children in [[Durban]], [[South Africa]].]] [[File:Diego Suarez Antsiranana urban public primary school (EPP) Madagascar.jpg|thumb|Teacher in a classroom in [[Madagascar]]]] [[File:Samdach Euv High School.jpg|thumb|Students in a classroom at Samdach Euv High School, [[Cambodia]]]] [[Image:ClareCollegeAndKingsChapel.jpg|right|thumb|The [[University of Cambridge]] is an institute of higher learning.]] [[File:Royal Academy of Music- the work of the Royal Academy in Wartime, London, England, UK, 1944 D22286.jpg|thumb|upright|A [[violin]] student receiving [[music education]] at the Royal Academy of Music, [[London]], 1944. ]] [[File:Alumni Hall 1889 Sun.jpg|thumb|Saint Anselm College, a traditional [[New England]] liberal arts college.]] [[File:FBE CTU lecture.jpg|thumb|Lecture at the Faculty of Biomedical Engineering, [[Czech Technical University in Prague|CTU]] in Prague.]] [[Image:Teaching Bucharest 1842.jpg|thumb|right|Primary school in open air. Teacher (priest) with class from the outskirts of [[Bucharest]], around 1842.]] [[File:Lab4 students1 65b 1000.jpg|thumb|Students at the [[Technical University of Sofia]], [[Bulgaria]]]] [[File:One Laptop per Child at Kagugu Primary School, Kigali, Rwanda-19Sept2009.jpg|thumb| Students in Kagugu Primary School of [[Rwanda]].]] [[File:Arch bridge construction model.jpg|thumb|An arched bridge being made from blocks at an interactive "Discovery Day" event in Laos]]
-- PeterEastern ( talk) 18:08, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
![]() | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
There is a lot of Original Research in this article. The thoughts and theories expressed are not necessarily bad or of low quality but they needed to cite sources wherever possible. This article still reads like a tract form a particualr view of education. It is better than it has been in the past and I am not advocating changing it - only adding citations so the sources can be identified. I am thereby tagging it with {{ Unreferenced}} in hope it will attract some citations. Alex Jackl 05:40, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
Thanx for unlocking the article, I will begin googling away at those citations! Sue Rangell 19:12, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
I took the below statement out of the introduction because it was highly specific and although not inaccurate there are many other modalities and ways education is factored besides these and it seemed innapropriate. I think a section on learning modalities would be awesome but I don't feel up to it .. aww heck... I will put a stub section in and maybe someone can expand...
Education can often be divided into tactile (hands on), visual (observered) and auditory (listening to instructions/information. Several overlaps occur.
Alex Jackl 14:50, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
the means through which the aims and habits of a group of people sustain from one generation to the next
Okay- I ended up adding a section that was more than a stub. It needs work but is a good enough start that I didn't even tag it as a stub. It did highlight for me though HOW unreferenced this article is and that it needs a good editing. Any suggestions for a starting place? One thing I am thinking is that if we could associate all those references into their correct place in the article instead of just bullet points that would be great. Also, maybe add at least one citation to each section of the article and adjust the content appropriately. Just some thoughts... Alex Jackl 15:27, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
I think this section needs some more reliable sources. I read the link to the "Learning Curve" website, which is far from scholarly, as it makes unsubstantiated (and dubious) conclusions, and contains at least one ridiculous misspelling ("loose" for "lose"). I agree with a need for referencing the article but the references must be sound research and not just someone's opinion.
I certainly object to the current state of the learning "modalities" section. This sections does not even reference the learning styles entry in Wikipedia (probably becuase it calls into question the validity of this concept). At the very least the reference to "a lot of work has been done" should be removed or altered as that entry implies that the "work" is supporting research. A more objective view on learning styles and individual learner difference is required to bring this article up to reasonable standards. I'd say this whole section should be redone to discuss what current research has to say about the relative importance and unimportance of learner differences. Right now, this section is simply a popular view, not a scholarly one, in my opinion. RLJ
Thanks for letting me have my opinion. Let me go further and say that leading off educational processes with "learning modalities" is a terrible idea. Ignoring the fact that learning "modalities" are not an educational process, I suggest that learning styles are well down the list of individual differences that have been shown to matter in education. This is not a matter of citations. The citations in the Wikipedia article on learning styles are sufficient--and indicate that the construct of learning style is not well supported empirically. Citations are a very good idea and should be included, but what exactly is being cited is even more important. We pretty much can get a citation for just about anything. I did not simply change the article because I thought that changes should be discussed before editing. If I editied the article, learning modalities would be deleted from an article with the current scope. You are taking to much owership of this article and taking criticsms to personally. Your efforts are apprciated but the idea of Wikipedia is that collaboration will result in better information. RLJ
Sorry if I sounded exasperated. It is just that this article is such a hodgepodge. I even agree with you that it doe snot belong in "educational processes". I am all for notability, and relevance is far more important than citation- believe me. There seems to be strong agreement in the educational community that leanirng modalities are extremely important. However- that was not my point. My point is that the rest of the article could use a 100,000 foot brush before we have 5,000 foot debates about learning modalities. That being said... do you truly think that section is inappropriate? Alex Jackl 14:49, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
This article sometimes says X "needs to" Y. This language is advocating and not compatible with WP:NPOV. -- Beland 23:40, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
I agree. The article is riddled with language like "important", "critical", "need to", "good", and "the goal" which brings into serious question its neutrality. Citations are also greatly lacking. Vague mention is made of "research", "studies", and "professors". Not that the article doesn't have a lot of good information, but it needs a lot of work to be encyclopedic, as it now reads like an essay of opinion. I've marked the page with refimprove, POV, and Original research, and unless someone has an objection I think they should be left up until the issues are resolved. 24.22.24.208 ( talk) 10:30, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
This article was vastly improved by the latest rounds of edits. I haven't studied all the changes carefully enough to determine if anything critical was taken out but it is much more coherent and holds together more like a single article. Good work! Still needs more citations and the POV caution above is a good one. Alex Jackl 05:43, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
This article contains an enormous amount of original research. I don't think that is SO bad but as much as possible we should try to cite sources. I invite others to add citations to this page! Alex Jackl 22:26, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
This article has a notation that reads, "This article is about formal education. For broader context of the term, see learning." Shouldn't this article be about education as a whole, since it is called "education?" If "formal education" needs an entire article, it needs to be called "Formal education" or "Schooling" and an article about "education" as a whole should still exist. "Education," "formal education," and "learning" are all distinct terms. Although there is obvious overlap, an article about one is not an article about the others. Amillion 03:57, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
So now "this article is about institutionalized education" and "for broader context of the term" we are again referred to the learning article. Eduction is not synonymous with "institutionalized education." if "institutionalized education" needs an entire article, it should be separate from the education article. You can call it "Institutionalized education," or "Schooling," or whatever you think it appropriate, but "education" as needs its own article (covering the entire term). Amillion ( talk) 07:37, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
Yes, it really needs work- the article reads as if nearly all education is formal! It is cases like this where people look beyond wikipedia for answers. Britannica's treatment is comprehensive, balance, and supported with a lot of details and statistics. I would suggest a separate article on "formal education" with this article on general education, in the broad sense. Any disagreements with that? Snow555 ( talk) 19:56, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
There is a long winded unreferenced section at the page's bottom about US history and education. I'm removing it, and creating a page for what I'm deleting. In the "History of Education page" there's a similar section, perhaps from the same source? They are too specific to belong here. Wik idea 15:51, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
I've made a dozen or so alterations. They include putting the history, philosophy, psychology, etc into their own headings; expanding the sections on primary, secondary, and higher education, expanding the intro, deleting some of the longer headings, and making cosmetic additions such as inserting photos and putting the (very good) portals up higher on the page. I hope this makes the page a bit better to look at and further improvements to the real content can follow. I'm also archiving stuff on this talk page. Wik idea 17:06, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
The "Parental involvement" section of this article doesn't comply with the NPOV policy or the No Original Research policy. It talks about "ideas" for parents and teachers of elementary school children (like the "Thursday Envelope")and makes statements like "A homework planner is an organizational tool that is vital to the middle level elementary student." This section needs some serious gutting. Amillion ( talk) 07:14, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
Okay, fair enough I guess. Although I'm not at all sure where to put which tags. Most of the sections don't have sources, and a lot of them contain statements about what someone should do. It seems someone has put Original research at the top which is probably just as well. That's really this article's main problem. That'll do for now then? 24.22.24.208 ( talk) 02:22, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
AIMS OF EDUCATION
Aim/Purpose Source
Contribute to society Trilling and Hood (2001 p.9) Fulfil personal talents Trilling and Hood (2001 p.10) Fulfil civic responsibilities Trilling and Hood (2001 p.10) Carry tradition forward Trilling and Hood (2001 pp.10-11) Provide the engine for economic growth Wolf (2002 p.x) Provide a workforce with necessary basic 'academic' skills Wolf (2002 p.11) Provide individuals with opportunity, Wolf (2002 p.11) Enlightenment and knowledge (beyond work/occupation)
Trilling and Hood (2001 p.10) argue that whilst the four traditional reasons why education is seen as crucial to society (contribute to society, fulfil personal talents, fulfil civic responsibilities, and carry tradition forward) have not changed the move from the Industrial to Knowledge Age has meant that "our response to each of these goals shifts dramatically and brand new sets of demands appear, challenging our entire education enterprise".
Wolf (2002 p.11) argues that "basic 'academic' skills ... are also the main tools for survival in a developed economy, a precondition for running modern society, and, not least, a gateway to individual opportunity, enlightenment and knowledge which go way beyond the immediate concerns of work and occupation." (NB Wolf challenges the notion that education actually provides economic growth)
( Dhivesh 13:13, 6 April 2008 (UTC))
The preceeding was removed by Dbiel ( Talk) 02:38, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
many college student nowadays are hard-up to enroll, all the lines to go through, the time that is to be consumed and specially the errors that could be make in a certain procedure.
in the Philippines, students coming from different provinces go all the way to their designated schools, but with the requirements and steps to be done is time consuming at the same time they make to much effort knowing that some things in the process in the steps in enrolling, they committed an error.
Question:
-is it the lack of technology/staff in the school?; -lack of information?; or -is it the student himself/herself is the problem?
"> vahn_dinio 16:03, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
I have edited the lead section. Hopefully, this will satisfy the lead section requirements. Spinkava ( talk) 16:09, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
I noticed that the German term Bildung redirects here…I thought Bildung referred to much larger concept than mere education, but also cultivation of artistic and cultural sensibilities. Perhaps someone who knows the subject well could create a discrete article? Historian932 ( talk) 15:09, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
I thinkg this section needs to be fleshed out more. Historically speaking why not reference the medevil educational systems that start so call higher education beyond "primary" education? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.184.129.123 ( talk) 05:12, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
Agreed. I came to this page hoping to learn something about the progressive movement and the advent of the public education system. This stuff is in most grade school children's textbooks. Wikipedia just seems to draw a blank. Jmgariepy ( talk) 05:37, 1 March 2013 (UTC)
The classroom article is in deplorable shape. Expert? Simesa ( talk) 10:31, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
Also added Expert tag to Classroom of the future. Simesa ( talk) 10:41, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
Let's see what to do with it furthermore.
Please visit Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#Easy as pi? to see a discussion about making mathematics articles more accessible to a general readership.
It has been archived at Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)/Archive 35#Easy as pi?.
Is it just me that sees something wrong about this order of pictures - Afghanistan/ pre-school; Mexico/ elementary school; USA - College???? Aren't we reinforcing stereotypes by this depiction of images? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.224.252.10 ( talk) 15:47, 29 June 2009 (UTC) And shouldn't this graph about Russia have the number of graduates per capita???? What is the number of graduates telling if Russia is so much bigger than any tiny country in Europe???? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.224.252.10 ( talk) 15:51, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
I made the images more diverse, all across the world and of all nationalities, ages, and varies areas of study such as engineering and the arts. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.97.254.158 ( talk) 20:03, 7 October 2012 (UTC)
Education has been criticized by authors such as Carter Godwin Woodson in "The Mis-Education of the Negro" on the basis of not only providing misinformation, but also exlusion of other content (such as the "creation versus evolution" debate in public schools)
Moddiddle ( talk) 11:56, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
Education is very important to all people and children, so learn information through computer and internet because it is very easy and simple process. All over world info in the net and website. Some website is very knowledge able on the internet for example Entertainments and informative. It is very simple, informative, site for children and all people i think learn this website [1]. So easily make graphics and web designer. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 110.37.42.164 ( talk) 09:53, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
This sentence evinces several shortcomings. It fails to recognize the active nature of the recipient's role in education, includes the generalization that only one society may impart education, and asserts that education necessarily involves more than one generation. This "technical" characterization of the process of education should be revised.
A person can educate others and can educate herself. A society can teach another society. And sisterss can teach their brothers. If the above sentence is not revised, then it implies that self-education doesn't fit its "technical" definition of education. Also, if a teacher teaches only one student, then that also lies outside the scope of the purported definition.
I propose that the sentence read, "In another sense it refers to the process in which a person or people develop, receive, or communicate knowledge, skills, and values." ElderHap ( talk) 16:37, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
I agree with ElderHap. The lead sentences caught my eye right away. Lacbolg ( talk) 14:03, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
Yes It's very imposing and implies that learning is just about one generation to the next. Education can also be about conducting scientific experiments personally. It's not just about blinding accepting the information from the previous generation. Also this does not account well for adult learners. Lot's of people are educated by people in the generation below them. May I suggest
"Education in its broadest, general sense is the means through which knowledge and skills are pursued and exchanged. Generally, it occurs through any experience that has a formative effect on the way one thinks, feels, or acts. In its narrow, technical sense, education is the formal process by which society deliberately transmits its accumulated knowledge, skills, customs and values." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.97.254.158 ( talk) 18:33, 7 October 2012 (UTC)
OECD PISA Study has lots of facts and data to be included in article. http://www.oecd.org/document/2/0,3343,en_32252351_32236191_39718850_1_1_1_1,00.html
-- Nevit ( talk) 08:23, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
EDUCATION IS NOT ONLY MEANS LEARING , READING , WRITING AND SO ON... , IT ALSO REFERS TO EXTRA CURICULARS LIKE SPORTS, DANCING , SINGING MUSIC AND BLA BLA BLA....
122.174.108.42 ( talk) 14:10, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
The BBC programme In Our Time presented by Melvyn Bragg has an episode which may be about this subject (if not moving this note to the appropriate talk page earns cookies). You can add it to "External links" by pasting * {{In Our Time|Education|p005463m}}. Rich Farmbrough, 03:13, 16 September 2010 (UTC).
It seems bizarre to have the stained glass window at Yale, a parochially named work of art, competing with a high level common name "Education" and holding such a prominent place at the beginning of the article. If we had one more, we could create an "otheruses" template and point to a dab, which would make a lot more sense and not be as intrusive as this window is. Student7 ( talk) 21:27, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
I removed the specific information about Alternative Education in the Philippines. I think that would be better placed in an education section in the Philippines article, or maybe in the Alternative Education article. Wikipelli Talk 15:02, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
We could do with a "Teaching by fear" article explaining the traditional idea of teaching, such as in Victorian times, where it was thought a good teaching technique to intimidate and humiliate students. Still used these days to a degree.-- Penbat ( talk) 17:39, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
I am somewhat disappointed that this article seems to imply occasionally that formal education is the only form of education, resembling an article about spirituality that implies the same about institutional religion or, for a further example, an article about sexuality that makes a similar implication in relation to the institution of marriage. In my opinion, there ought to be more references to autodidacticism and homeschooling. There are many pictures in this article; can't there be one depicting a person studying on one's own? 213.109.230.96 ( talk) 11:39, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
This article seems to be primarily about schooling, which is distinct from education (google it or watch this). I propose a separate page is dedicated to schooling, and that "schooling" is treated like a subcategory of this article instead of its central topic. In other words, the lede of this article has it right, and schools are merely one way, a formal and institutionalized way, in which society transmits itself to the young.-- Lhakthong ( talk) 14:04, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
For example, the young in societies without schools are nonetheless educated. Museums educate. Families educate. Religious institutions educate (beyond their own schools) . . . .-- Lhakthong ( talk) 14:11, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
Opening this thread for the obvious action. Appears to be an advert of some sort. What's stated is way overblown like somebody selling motivational or self improvement bs with its claim of optimality, not as a (lofty, aspirational) goal but as a (presumably) default normal result. 72.228.177.92 ( talk) 21:29, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
An editor purporting to be "Dr Amit Sharma" has added to this article - multiple times, without discussion even after I reverted his or her original edit with clear objections - a "definition" of this topic that is unhelpful and unprofessional. It adds little to the article and as the edit adds two ridiculous mnemonic devices supposedly related to this topic it's quite unprofessional and unbecoming an encyclopedia article. Further, the edit is sourced to a book written by Dr. Sharma so there is a blatant conflict of interest if this editor is who he or she claims to be and is using Wikipedia to promote his or her own book. ElKevbo ( talk) 14:14, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
can you please tell me that formal education is as we can say to regular education? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 115.249.67.250 ( talk) 11:43, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
Someone just -ized a bunch of words that had been -ised. And otherwise Americanized the article. I did research the article and found that someone who was Canadian had started it. Therefore that is the permanent style of this article. BUT, I am not personally familiar with Canadian vs American spelling. Do the recent change pass muster? If not, please revert. Student7 ( talk) 14:55, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
There are a significant number of Americans who homeschool. ConservGal ( talk) 00:12, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
Americans are constantly using data from the United States in this article. As a result, other countries have done so as well. These mostly need to be moved to country articles. Student7 ( talk) 18:56, 29 September 2012 (UTC)
Hey, I see a problem with the terminology "from one generation to the next" in the definition at the top here. This definition could be applicable to the schooling of young people but after that generations do not come in to play. There are often older people being mentored by people much younger than them. It's a system of information exchange. When you pick up a book on plato and educate yourself on it, are you getting that information from the generation above you? I can see the place of this phrase when it comes to educating children, who lack most ability to pursue for themselves, but for most of us this is not the case. The opening definition is there to define education as a whole, not just this specific kind. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.242.57.84 ( talk) 03:09, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
The second section of this article (as of [1]) is titled Political legislation. This section is misplaced and probably misnamed. The section was added here: [2], a couple of months ago.
I'd suggest that it be moved to a subsection of Sociology, and renamed to "Politics" or "Law". Sparkie82 ( t• c) 22:48, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
The Sociology section is about "...the study of how social institutions and forces affect educational processes and outcomes, and vice versa." The Econ section is about how education improves a society's economy, and cites several sociological studies. Sociology is a broad subtopic of education and it seems as if the Econ section should be a subsection of the "Sociology" section. And maybe the "Sociology" section could be renamed to "Society". Sparkie82 ( t• c) 23:08, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
It seems to me that the "Systems" section requires reorganization. Of the included education systems, at least Anarchistic free schools and Education through recreation could be merged into the Alternative education article. Several others, such as Primary schools, Secondary schools, and Curriculum, offer more than just a summary of their respective sub-articles and in accordance with WP:SS should be reduced. I won't make any big reorganization myself, however, without consensus. Please indicate your positions below. HectorAE ( talk) 17:44, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
The lede specifies that education transfers learning from one generation to the next. It happens fairly often that a younger teacher is teaching an older student, however, or that two people of roughly comparable age are learning from one another. Should the generational qualification be dropped? hgilbert ( talk) 03:09, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
I'm not sure where this belongs, but not under the history section. hgilbert ( talk) 22:13, 28 August 2013 (UTC)
There is no criticism section, implying to the casual reader who does follow the news, that everyone agrees on the educational objectives of their community and nation. This is false. Student7 ( talk) 13:59, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
There are currently 16 major subsections, further subdivided. This article has become hard to grasp. It is easier to read Higgs boson, or the Standard Model. This should not be the case. Nearly everyone reading this has been in a classroom. The article shouldn't be that hard to understand nor to have concepts which are very nearly obscure, ambiguous, or weasel-y. e.g. Autodidacticism and "Indigenous." Article should be worded in standard English and make its points clearly.
If it can't be grouped in ten sections, maybe it should be forked in bulk and the sections (new article) mentioned in the lead or something. Student7 ( talk) 19:21, 6 October 2013 (UTC)
For the record, I have removed the following images, which in my view didn't add much to the article and created clutter.
[[File:Eden College, Durban Multiform.jpg|thumb|right|School children in [[Durban]], [[South Africa]].]] [[File:Diego Suarez Antsiranana urban public primary school (EPP) Madagascar.jpg|thumb|Teacher in a classroom in [[Madagascar]]]] [[File:Samdach Euv High School.jpg|thumb|Students in a classroom at Samdach Euv High School, [[Cambodia]]]] [[Image:ClareCollegeAndKingsChapel.jpg|right|thumb|The [[University of Cambridge]] is an institute of higher learning.]] [[File:Royal Academy of Music- the work of the Royal Academy in Wartime, London, England, UK, 1944 D22286.jpg|thumb|upright|A [[violin]] student receiving [[music education]] at the Royal Academy of Music, [[London]], 1944. ]] [[File:Alumni Hall 1889 Sun.jpg|thumb|Saint Anselm College, a traditional [[New England]] liberal arts college.]] [[File:FBE CTU lecture.jpg|thumb|Lecture at the Faculty of Biomedical Engineering, [[Czech Technical University in Prague|CTU]] in Prague.]] [[Image:Teaching Bucharest 1842.jpg|thumb|right|Primary school in open air. Teacher (priest) with class from the outskirts of [[Bucharest]], around 1842.]] [[File:Lab4 students1 65b 1000.jpg|thumb|Students at the [[Technical University of Sofia]], [[Bulgaria]]]] [[File:One Laptop per Child at Kagugu Primary School, Kigali, Rwanda-19Sept2009.jpg|thumb| Students in Kagugu Primary School of [[Rwanda]].]] [[File:Arch bridge construction model.jpg|thumb|An arched bridge being made from blocks at an interactive "Discovery Day" event in Laos]]
-- PeterEastern ( talk) 18:08, 2 December 2013 (UTC)