"Education" and Teacher PreparationAuthor(s): Peter M. CollinsSource: Improving College and University Teaching, Vol. 25, No. 4, Teacher Education LookingDown and Looking Up (Autumn, 1977), pp. 252-253Published by: Taylor & Francis, Ltd.Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/27565153 .

Accessed: 24/06/2014 19:40

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range ofcontent in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new formsof scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

.

Taylor & Francis, Ltd. is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to ImprovingCollege and University Teaching.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 195.78.109.51 on Tue, 24 Jun 2014 19:40:44 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

"Education" and Teacher Preparation Author is Associate Professor (Philosophy of Educa

tion), Marquette University (B.A., Loras College; M.A., Ph.D., Catholic University of America).

By PETER M. COLLINS

Is

"Education" an academic discipline? Does it con

stitute a significant body of knowledge so organized that it can be taught and learned? Does "Education" in its own right belong in the catalog as a department, corege, or school? What significance, if any, do these

questions have for teacher education programs? The

question of the legitimacy of an academic discipline of

education appears to be closely related to these three

usages.

In understanding education as an accomplished fact, we must appreciate the centrality of the concept of

change. Persons who "have an education" are expected

to be different from what they were prior to the phe nomenon of "being educated": it is presumed that they have changed (hopefully for the better). Human

change is so vital to the experience called education that

it likely would be found explicit or implicit in all defini

tions of the term. Regarding what kinds of changes

actuary occur in students, and which among these are

most important, we must consult evidence from the

ology, philosophy, psychology, history, sociology, etc.

Secondly, education frequently is taken to mean a

social process, a transmission of a set of respected values (ideals, standards) from one generation to the

next, the purpose of which is to preserve and enhance

those values. This may occur informally or formally (in schoo's) ; in either case it is necessary for the con

tinuation and development of a culture. Although the

emphasis is apparently on stability rather than change in this signification, the latter is essential. However,

change here must be taken more in the sense of deepen

ing and re-app1ying what one already has or knows ( for

example, democratic freedom) rather than as substi

tuting one entity for another very different one. With

out change in one of these two ways, our culture is not

stable, but static, and therefore dying, if not dead.

Thirdly, the term education designates a process of

self-actualization, which is understood in various ways.

Depending upon your philosophy of man and of knowl

edge, se'f-actualization might signify (a) manifestation,

(b) acquisition, or (c) transaction. The manifestation is based on the presupposition that human persons

possess in germ (potentially) everything that they can

become; the process of self-actualization, then, is one of

identifying these latent characteristics and attempting to make them manifest. Education as acquisition is

founded on the principle that every human being has some innate capacities, but does not possess all that

he needs for maturation; then the work becomes that

of utilizing these inherent powers to acquire what one is lacking in order to achieve fulfillment. Self-actualiza tion as a process of transaction rests on some aspects

of the above two viewpoints, but also on the tenet that man is inseparable from nature (that is, man and nature are comprised of the same kind of rea1ity); education, therefore, is a process of give and take between man

and his environment. Although irreconcilable in some

respects, these viewpoints also share some common

ground, most important for us being the fact that they represent a process of human becoming, frequently termed "education."

Molding these three views into one will provide us

with the foundation for considering the possibility of an

academic discipline of education. In light of the above, what transpires under the name of education is a more or less organized process which is intended to, and actu

ally does (1) cause changes in human beings, (2) pre serve and enhance some individual and social values and ob1 iterate others, and (3) influence persons to become

themselves. What does this have to do with education as a potential part of the college and university cur

riculum? It provides a possible object of study; if we

find that education is a discipline in some sense, we can

logically presume that it will be comprised of knowledge about this process and the beings engaged in it. Con

cluding that this answers the question, what would be studied in education? we move to another: how will the student of education gain this knowledge? What meth

od(s) will he employ? Although the answers may vary

depending upon whether the question is what the process is (or was) or what it ought to be, common sense helps

us determine that sources of this knowledge lie primarily in the methods appropriate to such already established

disciplines as theology, philosophy, psychology, soci

ology, anthropology, history, biology, and others. It is

through these traditional studies that we learn what kinds of beings students and teachers are (or were) and

ought to be, and what this structured interaction (called education) is (or was) and should be.

If technical knowledge of the educational process is gained only through investigating and applying these

various disciplines, then we can conclude that educa

tion, if it is an academic discipline, is one which depends upon these other disciplines because they provide the

premises and methods of knowledge. Under these condi

tions, any "educational principles" are such in the sense

that they are principles about this process called educa

tion; strictly speaking, they are philosophical, sociologi cal, psychological (and other) principles about it.

It seems evident from this that prospective teachers must study the various disciplines in the liberal arts cur

ricu'um for professional as well as liberal purposes. For

they must understand students and the teaching-learning process, and this can be done systematically (if only

252 ICUT A '77

This content downloaded from 195.78.109.51 on Tue, 24 Jun 2014 19:40:44 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

partially) by means of study in philosophy, psychology, etc., in themselves and in their applications to educa

tional issues.

One might well object that the question of an aca demic discipline called education is unnecessary; what

matters is the development of principes to help us understand this educational process. This is a very sound

objection; perhaps no one could deny that the develop ment and communication of this knowledge for purposes of teacher preparation is far more significant than the

question of whether that which these prospective teach ers are studying satisfies requirements for an academic

discipline in some sense. Let us consider briefly the broader question of the nature of teacher preparation.

Teacher education is necessary. Teaching involves more than a knowledge of one's subject; it demands communication of that knowledge in such a way that others are prompted to learn for themselves. This kind of communication requires artistry; although some seem to possess much of the "know-how" naturally, prepara tion for teaching and supervised practice of it appear to

be quite necessary (or at least beneficial) in most cases.

Therefore, a teacher education program should be de

veloped. Two facets of this program have already been mentioned: (1) a liberal arts education (certainly one of the most important features of the future teacher's

preparation), and (2) an application of some of the liberal disciplines to educational issues. Another re

sponsibility of the teacher education program is the

development and implementation of the best methods and techniques to teach the various subjects in the ele

mentary and secondary schools; this again requires familiarity with the arts and sciences of the under

graduate liberal arts curriculum.

We have stated three essential dimensions of any program for teacher preparation. One of them has been and is undertaken by the traditional liberal arts college. The other two are not part of the regular undergradu ate curriculum. Undoubtedly, the academic departments could apply their various specialties to educational

issues, and they could devise and impart the best ways of teaching the respective subjects. However, as matters

stand, these responsibilities are usually those of a de

partment, school, or college of education. In all likeli

hood, a sufficient amount of the best kind of attention to these matters would not be realized without this spe cialized professional department, which also coordinates

programs in student teaching and intern teaching, staffs a reading center, and maintains a teaching materials and

audio-visual center. Since all three of these fundamental features of teacher education involve the liberal arts

curriculum, a faculty of education must cooperate very

closely with the various liberal arts faculties. Since there are faculties of education which assume

responsibilities such as those indicated, and since a com mon object of study does exist, there is a tendency to

develop a body of knowledge cal1ed education. From this writer's point of view, the unitary factor is the educative process and the persons involved in it, which

is of course a legitimate object of study. The principles and methods utilized in studying this phenomenon and its participants will be as varied as the disciplines which can be applied in this direction. Thus we can establish the legitimacy of (and necessity for) philosophy of edu

cation, history of education, psychology of education, sociology of education, and others; but what could "edu cation" as an academic discipline be apart from its de

pendence upon the relatively autonomous branches of

knowledge as represented in this manner?

This analysis obviously (and intentionally) leaves

many unanswered questions. One of them concerns the

detailed relationship between the "discipline" of educa tion (in whatever sense that is taken) and the art of education. This distinction bears upon the nature and

place of "methods courses" in the teacher education

program. Can teaching methods be deliberated upon profitably at some length without direct and relatively constant advertence to the pertinent modes of inquiry and u'timately a theory of knowledge? Can methods of

teaching (as distinct from the methodologies of knowl

edge) really be taught? Or can the master teacher only discuss and suggest various "methods" and procedures of classroom management, which are more

truly learned

only in their doing, that is, through teaching experience ? Also beyond the scope of this discussion is any direct consideration of such graduate areas in education as administration and supervision, curriculum and instruc

tion, and guidance.

We have considered some uses of the term "educa

tion," the necessity and nature of teacher preparation, and the role of a department (or college or school) of education in the university in attempting to ascertain some possible meaning for "discipline of education."

Five conclusions appear. First, a teacher education pro

gram is significant and needed in ordinary circum

stances; we have surveyed briefly three basic features of it. Secondly, in concrete situations, one can hardly

visualize anything but a haphazard program without a

faculty of education. Thirdly, concerning the question of an academic discipline of education, our answer is not so definitive. If education, as such, is a body of

knowledge in some real sense, its scope (or material

object) is the teaching-learning process and the par ticipants (at least qua participants) in that activity. It is not an autonomous discipline as many others in the curriculum if knowledge of its object is had only by

means of such independent disciplines as philosophy, theology, psychology, etc. Some justification of a place for philosophy of education, psychology of education, sociology of education, and the other so-called "founda tions" seems apparent. Fourthly, regardless of the status

of education as a discipline, that question might well be subordinated to efforts toward establishing principles and clarifying knowledge of the process of education and the nature of teachers and students, as well as how to teach the various subjects. One final contusion re

mains: teacher education must be a conjoined effort of the various academic departments of the university.

ICUT A '77 253

This content downloaded from 195.78.109.51 on Tue, 24 Jun 2014 19:40:44 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions