Message-ID: <199512011644.LAA111629@atlanta.american.edu> Date: Fri, 1 Dec 1995 08:42:00 -0800 From: mailto:khm1@AXE.HUMBOLDT.EDU> Subject: 19: Summary of 'Development Education' To: Multiple recipients of list DEVEL-L <mailto:DEVEL-L@AMERICAN.EDU>
A synopsis of the past week's efforts in Development Education may be in order:Having come to the view that education need not be synonymous with instruction, and that it in fact shared many features with what is known as development, I began by offering to the online 'development community' four questions: 1. Are the notions of producing competent practitioners and developing reflective participants compatible?
2. If the academic program is intended to put us - as a student "community" - in the target position (i.e., to learn to utilize the institutional amenities it provides), is this an appropriate model to apply to our (future) development work?
3. If "aid" is a useful application of human abilities, how well does it perform - not just as a self-perpetuating bureaucracy but as a sustainable social structure?
4. What evidence is there that the beneficiaries of international efforts up to now are going on to apply "developmental" concepts themselves?
John Berry agreed that technically oriented training for development was pretty scarce. Mike Gurstein and Andrew Isaak brought out the information that programs did exist at at the University College of Cape Breton, and in Rural Extension Studies at the University of Guelph, both in Canada. Don Stewart identified a graduate program at the International Development Technologies Centre (U. Melbourne), while Dave O'Reilly and Jim Becker recommended Hawkesbury College (NSW, Australia) and School for International Training (VT, USA) as "decentralized" models that integrate field training with campus coursework. (Humboldt's program is thus not unique for being located in a faculty of engineering, after all.)
Nicholas Meadows, and later Santiago Hileret confirmed that my experience of low utilization of student experience within education programs was not unique.
Martin Owen pointed out that many issues are the same whether we speak of international or community development, as in marginalised areas of Europe, and that 'the tyranny of English' itself did cultural violence. The point that personal involvement with the community was a significant factor was established, leading Julia Solomon and Helen Payne to ask to what extent that was possible for "outsiders."
Santiago Hileret added that such terms as "aid" and "assistance" rather than "mutual help" and "cooperation" make it hard to create a better model. Accepting that for the present, "development" is largely economic development, he argued for a quasi-commercial approach to bringing theory and practice together.
John's remark that 'no one ever learned to ride a bicycle by sitting in a lecture hall' was a reminder that there are still some subjects which are not taught (or, as far as I know, even attempted) formally. I myself wouldn't discount the possibility of successful simulation altogether, though!
Peter Pflaum (in a lengthy response to k.3 which I did not forward) put forward his vision of online schooling, which seemed to suggest that the day of complete integration of scooling with business may not be far off. In support of this synthesis, I asked, "You learned by doing - why shouldn't everyone?" while Elin Whitney -Smith wanted to hear more about his grading system.
Mike Gurstein forwarded an announcement relating to integrating "the design of human society with its natural environment" which I hoped to tie back to my first question (taking education as the design of human consciousness) and Peter McLaren's question of the relation between schooling and society.
My final posting to the collective lists was a highly abbreviated extract from _Contexts for Learning_ . It reported that collaborative learning is more effectively established within a structure of rules which are accepted as 'part of the game,' - something which is not often recognized within the 'constructivist' perspective.
All of the responses were stimulating, and contributed to the momentum of my train of thought (perhaps too much so!), even while not always along lines I had originally envisioned.
I thank everyone for their consideration, and invite them to join the next phase, which will be conducted by direct mail and DIY list serving.
kerry mailto:khm1@axe.humboldt.edu