IEPPP On-line Resources

THE TRADITIONAL/PROGRESSIVE CONUNDRUM

A Discussion Paper by Dr Pete Rogers

It is usual, in educational theory, to distinguish between traditional and progressive theories of education. The traditional model, which is also thought of as conservative, has arisen out of Plato and Aristotle's theories. The progressive model, which is thought of as liberal, received its first description and elucidation from Rousseau and Dewey. James Bowen, for instance, in the introduction to his Theories of Education summarises these different approaches. He says of the traditional approach that,

The authority of the teacher is stressed and his role is seen as one of instilling in his pupils a required body of set subject matter. Little attention is paid to individual differences or children's interests, children are expected to remain quiet and passive and, to this end, coercive techniques are common. The school is cut off from outside life and what goes on within is seen primarily as a preparation for the future rather than an enrichment of the present. The basic stress is on the knowledge to be acquired and it is this that determines the aims; notions such as development of potentialities or self-realisation being largely ignored. Utilitarian and practical knowledge is seen as fit only for the less able, who are to receive a minimum education, the full programme being open only to the intellectually gifted. (p.14)

Bowen's description of the progressive model runs as follows:

Here, the child's interests and needs are regarded as the main factor in deciding what should be taught, and instrumental and practical knowledge is given a place in the curriculum. Activity methods and learning by discovery replace formal instruction as the dominant educative process, and examinations and testing are given less stress. The teacher's role is seen as one of encouraging the development of individual potentialities rather than moulding children according to some preconceived pattern. He becomes a guide more than an external authority figure and thus coercive techniques are used only as a last resort, if at all. Life in the school is related wherever possible to life outside the school, and education is seen as an enrichment of the present at least as much as a preparation for the future. (pp.14-5)

Clearly, there is a question as to whether the traditional theory of education does any justice to Plato and Aristotle's views. The historical process has, no doubt, had a distorting effect such that important discrepancies may have developed between their original intentions and the traditional theory that is said to be derived from their work. Indeed, the suspicion that a great deal of distortion may have taken place is raised by the characterisation of the Western ideal of education that Bowen himself gives. In discussing the concept of education itself, he contrasts conservative cultures with creative cultures. For conservative cultures, education is equivalent to socialisation. Since, as Bowen puts it,

When we speak of a static or primitive society we mean one in which conservative practices predominate, while creative ones are kept at a minimum and are adopted only with difficulty. By contrast, one of the important characteristics of advanced societies is a concern to provide for creativity and change and the recognition of the ideal of humanity in itself and of human potential for excellence, independent of social pressures. (p.2)

So, for Bowen we come to the concept of education 'as one of heightened awareness and intellectual curiosity concerning everything that takes place on earth, and the quest to satisfy this curiosity.'(p.2) Bowen goes on,

Through education in this sense, man can get beyond the limitations of conservative practices to creative thought and action; the concept of education is enlarged from one of socialisation to one that includes the idea of transcendence. By this we mean that education in its most ideal sense provides us with a wider vision, one that transcends the restrictive boundaries of our own particular society. This process is really independent of institutions, yet it has always been regarded as the highest goal of the school, in the generic sense, and in fact from the time of the ancient Greeks to the present day efforts have been made to attain this goal through the formal process of education. (pp.2-3)

Not only does Bowen here explicitly attribute the origin of this Western ideal of education to the ancient Greeks, he also goes on to explain what the Greeks meant by education in terms of that transcendent ideal of education.

It was the ancient Greeks who developed the notion that the only activities worthy of the name of education are those that enable man to transcend the limitations of time and space imposed by his finiteness; the limitations, that is, of a biological basis that ties him to a particular moment and place in which to live his life. Man, at least in the generic sense, has the capacity to make this transcendence through a properly organised set of experiences, and the Greek position was that these should be concerned firstly with heightening sensitivity to, and facility in, language (both speech and writing); and, secondly, through this instrumentality, with exploring the realm of the timeless and placeless; that is, the realm of ideas…Because they were held to be the means by which man can be liberated from his limitations, these studies, based on language and mathematics, were therefore called the liberal arts, and this distinguished them from the "illiberal" crafts, which were the customary activities of menial workers. (p.4)

Even today, Bowen suggests that vocational education can leave us with a yearning for the ideal of education described by the Greeks.

Our difficulties come from the nagging awareness that these are limited goals [those of vocational education] that fall short of a grander and nobler ideal of education. The Greek notion that genuine education is wholly disinterested and autonomous, for example, survives fully in our concept of the truly educated man. Implanted firmly in us all is the belief that each of us has an unfulfilled "potential" and that only "genuine" or "true" education will ever develop this. Although we may try to ignore the intuition, we suspect that inside each of us is the void of unrealised excellence. (p.5)

Hence, in discussing the concept of education Bowen initially describes the ancient Greek approach as transcending and creative, in contrast to the conservative education of socialisation. Thus, it, at least, seems odd that Plato and Aristotle's theories of education eventually become characterised as conservative in contrast to the progressive theories of education put forward by Rousseau and Dewey. This is particularly jarring when Bowen's synopses of the theories emphasise that the traditional model largely ignores the "development of potentialities or self-realisation"(p.14), yet he describes the Greek ideal of education as precisely concerned with those things (see the last long quotation in particular).

Given this apparent contradiction in educational theory that Bowen's characterisation serves to highlight, it seems important to investigate this problem further to avoid confusion about the learning methods and aims of the collaborative distance learning of philosophy. Are we, for instance, distancing ourselves from the traditional approach and, therefore, Plato and Aristotle, in virtue of taking a collaborative, discursive approach? Or, conversely, can that approach appeal to Plato and Aristotle's views about education as well as progressive theories in virtue of striving to attain the Greek ideal of education?

Given that philosophy is the subject of the collaborative learning in our case these sorts of question are particularly pressing. Since, if it turned out that a collaborative approach were progressive in a way that contradicted Plato and Aristotle's teaching methods, then, it may be the case that a collaborative approach would be inherently biased against the content of their philosophy. Since, they both emphasise that their views about education are a direct consequence of their philosophical views. One might even go so far as to say that their educational programmes make possible the appreciation of their mature philosophies. On the other hand, it may be the case that their educational programmes only differ markedly from progressive theories in the education of the young, but that they coincide with progressive theories at the level of adult education. In which case our model for the collaborative distance learning of philosophy could draw on the full range of educational theories to describe a basis for the adult learning of philosophy of all types.