Assisted Learning. Rolf ArnoldЧитать онлайн книгу.

      Table 2.2: Fundamental maxims of education

      Example:

      These fundamental maxims of education mark the boundaries in which we constantly interact educationally. “What should I do?” - a friend recently asked, after he had described to me in detail the increasingly alarming situation in which his sixteen years old son found himself. “Actually” - so his conclusive judgment – “I don't even like my son any more. He has become a real wimp! He steals, loafs around with dubious friends, and gets nothing done. He neither has a school certificate nor an apprenticeship. That's not 'my son' at all”. The problem outlined here does not lend itself to a systemic-constructivist approach - so I started my support to the disappointed father not by addressing the question “What can I do?”, but rather by allowing the question, “What am

      I doing and how has what I have already done contributed to the continued existence of this unsatisfactory situation?”True to the first fundamental maxim “One can't help but educate!” Such a question puts the systemics of the situation under focus and does not begin with a judgment or condemnation. The aim is to understand how the players justify their behaviors – with mostly hidden meanings – and thus often create external situations, in which they then activate their familiar pattern of thinking and feeling. In this process, not just the behavior of the son which is classified as "problematic" is initially placed under focus, but also one's own reaction to such a behavior: “Why is my basic reaction to weakness and failure so exaggerated and rigid?”This is the sort of question that first softens the judgmental attitude and turns attentions to the peculiarities of one's own observation and response patterns. This step alone seems to bring a lot of things to light that have absolutely nothing to do with the actual issue of education.

      The reasons why my discussion partner basically reacts rigidly to weakness and failure became evident. He even supplied biographical material which helped him to understand that there was an overwhelming fear of weakness and failure in himself, which “clouded” his view and determined his reaction to the behavior of his son. In this context, it can be faintly deduced that this overwhelming fear was probably that of his father as well, who had to boldly undertake highly risky operations in the last few months of war as a sixteen-year-old “elite soldier” without any toleration for hesitation, fear, or evasion. The systemic that is re-constellated in an training situation is always of a diachronic nature; the experiences of people with similar structural dispositions are revealed, which in this case, means fear and weakness cannot be tolerated and must be suppressed, whoever expresses them simply “does not belong.” Only after reflection on this biographical systemic was it also possible to approach the question: to what extent was his derogatory reaction to his own son perhaps partially responsible for creating the lamented situation. During the consultation, the fundamental maxims numbers 3, 6 and, especially, 2 were also addressed, since the problematic behavior of the son could also be understood as a kind of "cry for help" to his helpful and supportive father.

      This example illustrates how a systemic-constructivist view of an educational problem always leads beyond the everyday certainties of life. The possibility to change the existing interpretation of the situation emerges through discussing, identifying, and reflecting on the resonating systemic within a situation. The change in interpretation creates the possibilities for all players involved to be different.

      In the conversation reported above, the discovery of the underlying patterns of one's own observations created the possibility to add another perspective to the familiar ones. After this discovery, what had been perceived as a problematic situation became clear in its (inevitable) constructiveness and could be re-analyzed in the light of these own preconceptions. Only then did the view of the systemic in which his counterpart was entangled become clear(er) and a helpful discussion of "educational measures" could ensue with respect to the logic of the counterpart and less as an expression of one's own past experiences. Thus, the fundamental ability to understand is the real basis of education.

      Self-reflection 2: Describe a fictional or a true experience about a situation in which new interpretations and meanings of the situation became apparent through further inquiries.

      2.2 Education As a Moral Communication

      "Education without a value-basis is unthinkable!" This is the basic consensus of all those professionally concerned with education. However, the broad agreement seems to end with that observation. The contentious issue in today’s "open" pluralistic society is not only about values, but rather whether there are still values on which a consensus can be built. Also debatable is how to permanently anchor such values in the heart and mind to serve as an orientation point for adolescent youths.

      Even though many theorists today propose that we are living in a value uncertain or better said – uncertain society – we cannot fail to notice that parents, if asked, generally know very well what they want to achieve with the education of their children. The open question remaining is that of the communicability of values, i.e., the question of whether and how an effective and long-lasting embedding of values in the minds and hearts of the adolescent generation can be ensured. The plurality and the uncertainty of values, which brings freedom and diversity of choice to individuals also brings with it the danger of the disintegration of the society. This observation should not be understood as a lamentation over the loss of formerly effective integration models, rather it is a matter of seeking intelligent ways of facilitating the development of the value orientation so important in the lives of adolescents, while also assisting the people in a society to relate to a common value base. According to the messages heard today in the public, social sciences and philosophical debates, this can only be achieved when there are no more material values declared and pronounced as binding for everyone. It is more important to motivate the individual to give meaning to his own existence and life than to communicate, reflect, and argue with others about the meaning.

      No more gods? Is education after the ending of the greatest story ever told still possible? The American educator Neil Postman, postulates in his book “The End of Education” that the “gods” or, to use his term “the common tales”, of public education cannot survive. “ (Postman 1995, p. 20). In his fundamental consideration, he grapples with the “gods who are not”, and in the process he unmasks all the “tales” on which the modern society of America lives. He rails against the “belief in the market economy” as much as against the “promise of consumption god”, the “god of economic utility,” the “god of technology,” the “melting-pot tale of America,” and “multiculturalism.” In his opinion, these are no more suitable as “gods” than computers and television and the information cult associated with them. In contrast, he sketches some concepts, from which a guiding force could also emerge in a value uncertain and pluralistic society. Among other things, he offers the following concepts:

      • The “spaceship earth,” i.e., a concept that assumes that humanity has a moral obligation towards the preservation of the earth,

      • The “fallen angel,” i.e., the recognition that people make mistakes, therefore claims of certainty and faith in science are not suitable as standards and guidance for the society and the lives of individuals,

      • The “American experiment,” i.e., the idea that human rights and the principle of continuing discussion are suitable for regulating social cooperation,

      • The “law of diversity,” i.e., the idea that from linguistic, religious, cultural differences reciprocal stimulation, growth and strength can emerge.

      These four concepts can be understood in the deepest sense, as humanistic concepts because they have no normative requirements and do not prompt individuals to adopt values, rather they create a framework, within which the validity of guidelines can be discussed and negotiated. At the same time, these concepts prove to be insightful concepts as they question superficial success and the superficial forces of technological and market standards. Certainly, in agreement with Erich Fromm - not the criteria of “having,” but that of “being” is brought into focus. In this sense, the “new gods”