Talk:Education

Citations deperately needed

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)

Thanks Sue! I will do the same! Alex Jackl 05:22, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Introduction

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)

Learning Modalities

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.

Please sign your comments! I agree that the "Learning Curve" article isn't the best 0- I was looking for any references that at least matched my personal test for reality (does this make sense?). I would love better citations. However- this whole article is a desert of citations. I would first look to the other parts of the Education article and start adding citations. Then I would upgrade the references. That is just my opinion. Thanks for working on the article... Alex Jackl 16:45, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

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

You are welcome to that opinion- but please review WP:AGF. I am sick of defending this piece. Before I touched it there were NO citations in the WHOLE article. I have tried to cite things and the article is better now - there are lots of Wikilinks to Wiki articles and there are a fair - though still inadequate amount of citations in the article. But the majority of citation of the article are on the two paragraphs on learning modalities. Instead of accusing me of not including an article because "it calls into question the validity of the topic" you could have just added a Wikilink to that - as I just did. I have no objection to that article at all- and you should reread because it comes down on the side of the fence of their being learning modalities. Everything in those paragraphs are cited and do represent major branches of accepted thinking in the education world.

If you want to do some work on the article PLEASE beef up some of the sections with NO CITATIONS at all OR add some cited work to the Learning Modalities paragraphs with citations to shore up what you feel is missing there. Do remember though that this is a summary page and we shouldn't go into too much detail. Thanks! Sorry if I reacted a little strongly it is just that the rest of the article needs so much work and to have someone accuse me of intentionally not citing an article just sent me off the deep end. Thanks for working on the education article. Alex Jackl 14:35, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

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)

POV

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)

Re-organization

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)

Citations

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)

Formal education vs. education in general

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)

It's been over a month now. If no one replies, I'm going to make the changes myself. If you have anything to say on this matter, please speak up now. Amillion 03:35, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Amillion, formal education is a subset of education, which in turn of course does not include all forms of learning. Learning: acquiring knowledge, skills, etc. Education: organised activities to help people learn. Formal education: education by an institution which learners attend on a regular, long-term basis, i.e. schools and universities. As such this article should mention non-formal education such as training courses, exchanges, etc, and lifelong learning. SociableLiberal 12:53, 24 June 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)

History of education in the US

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. Wikidea 15:51, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

More changes

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. Wikidea 17:06, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Parental involvement section = POV

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)

Yes, I agree. So few people seem to care about education these days, that it's surprising it wasn't removed already. If someone wants to write it up again, they can find it in the history, they can source the comments with proper references, and most importantly, they can put it on the Education in the United States page, where it belongs. It is wholly country specific.

On a different note, I'd suggest that neutrality, POV and OR tags should really be confined to the specific section rather than shoved at the top of the whole article. First it lets people know what's meant to be a POV, without looking at the discussion page, and second, it'll look less messy and not tar the whole article at once. The rest seems quite okay, though obviously some real improvements in references and content are needed. Wikidea 12:36, 17 February 2008 (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)

The following was cut from the article

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)

how hard is it to enroll?

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)

Lead section

I have edited the lead section. Hopefully, this will satisfy the lead section requirements. Spinkava (talk) 16:09, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Redirected from German Bildung?

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)

History

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)