Social Educational Theories Essay Example for Free

Social Educational Theories Essay Education plays a major role in any society. But the specifics involved in this role are still subject to debate. That is, the methods of teaching, the strategies of handling students, the style of managing schools, and the goals and standards of the educational system have been the subject of deliberation and reflection among educators, psychologists and social theorists. Educational systems have also changed numerous times throughout history and such changes are often the results of the emergence of social theories that influence the decisions of policy makers. In this research paper, four social theories will be examined: functionalism, Marxism, interpretivism, and post-modernism. These four social theories will be compared and their strengths and weaknesses will be discussed. In doing so, this paper will to what extent do these social theories explain the function of education in American society and how do these theories compare with the realist theory. What is functionalism? Functionalism is believed to have been developed by several philosophers in the nineteenth century but it was only during the early part of the twentieth century, the 1930s, did this social theory take official form in the United States through the work of Talcott Parsons. Unlike the earlier social theories that treat society as one vaguely defined system, functionalism boasts of focusing on the parts of the system and how these parts interact and influence each other. The parts have needs that the other parts can meet and this is why the parts exist in a state of cooperation. The system is then considered to be in equilibrium. However, the functionalists also recognize the changing nature of this system and that the parts adjust to these changes towards a new equilibrium (Parsons, 1951). Strengths and weaknesses. In the field of education, the major strengths of functionalism lies on the emphasis of interdependence and a path of evolutionary change that is not dramatic or chaotic. This is because the functionalists shun conflict and believed that any conflict can be avoided because each individual is influenced by the society’s norms. If an individual scorns these norms, there would be consequences such as social disapproval or even imprisonment. Unfortunately, despite the discouraging presence of these consequences, and based on the history of the world, the history of the American society, and of American education, conflict seemed to be significantly present. This made the tenets of functionalism naive and incomplete. Within the classroom, a functionalist teacher may induce the students to behave in an equilibrium-producing manner by emphasizing the classroom norms and the consequences that are given if such norms are ignored. Some of the consequences might be time-out, lower grades, suspension, and other sanctions. Again, similar to the greater society, the classroom society may have a few students who are not deterred by the consequences. This is not because the student intends to create conflict but because there might be some needs of the students that were not met. In the same way, there would be dissent and revolutions if social problems, such as poverty and tyranny, persist and come to a point when they become unbearable (Ballantine, 1997). Functionalism and education in an American society. Within the American society, functionalism might propose that the whole education system is entrusted with the responsibility of meeting one particular need of the society – to produce responsible and productive citizens. From one perspective, this functionalist role of the educational system may explain the function of education in America. This is because one of the purposes of the current NCLB or No Child Left Behind Act is to produce highly skilled citizens, who will be competitive in the global market (U.  S. Department of Education, 2004). Another perspective of functionalist that can describe the changes in the educational system in America is the concept of equilibrium. For example, the American society realizes that it needed to have better teachers and better students. The educational system responds by establishing standards and a more extensive evaluation procedure for school performance. Unfortunately, these two perspectives seem to be the only obvious connection between functionalism and education in a modern American society. Functionalism and realism. In the same manner, the aims of functionalist education doe not agree with the educational aims of realism, which is to produce perfection in an individual. Despite this difference in stated goals, functionalism and realism indirectly agree on some aspects of pedagogical methodology, such as the use of positive rewards. Functionalists espouse negative consequences for misbehavior while realists applaud positive rewards for admirable behavior (Merton, 1968). What is Marxism? Marxism is essentially a critical theory, which means that it seeks to reveal the negative and detrimental characteristics of an existing system. In this case, Marxism critiques capitalism. The major criticism is the way capitalist societies prey on the people who are stricken by poverty or possess vulnerabilities (Kellner, 1989). For example, capitalists praise the industrial revolution, which brought about rapid economic progress. The Marxists reveal the other side of industrial revolution that is unpleasant, which is the exploitation of children. Children, who may be as young as three years old, are allowed to work in factories (Cody, 2002). Strengths and weaknesses. In the field of education, the major strength of Marxism is the emphasis on teaching methods that encourage critical thinking. Marxists teacher engage in teaching approaches that develop collaboration and independence. Marxists teachers are critical of methods that only demand emulation and passive listening. Thus, some of the preferred methods of the Marxist approach to education are hands-on activities, cooperative learning, and constructivist methods (Kellner, 1989). However the social theory developed by Karl Marx often deludes clear understanding among philosophers, psychologists, and educators. This is because the terms used by Marxists are interpreted in a different way by the largely dominant capitalist society. And here lies the major weakness of Marxism. It cannot be completely understood and its tenets are viewed negatively by the society. Marxism and education in an American society. Politically, the American society is primarily against Marxism. It might be because America is a capitalist country or because Marxism is vaguely understood. In the area of education, however, the aim of Marxism to have students who are capable of thinking independently and critically agrees with the aim of many American teachers. There is a campaign towards the creation of questions that encourage critical and creative thinking. There is also an emphasis towards the creation of activities that encourage collaboration. But, the other Marxist educational aim, which is to produce individuals who will lead radical changes in the society, does not agree with the function of education in the modern American society. The American society may welcome critical-thinking individuals but these individuals must conform to well-established norms. Marxism and realism. Some aspects of Marxism agree with realism – especially about the view on knowledge. One of the pillars of realism, Francis Bacon, cautioned people to be aware of factors that prevent the acquisition of truth, such as limited experience, popularity, religion, and prejudice. Being cautious about these conditions equates to thinking critically. Another tenet of realism, which is espoused by Russell, states that education must lead towards the solutions of the ills that the society has. This can be translated into the radical changes that Marxists wanted. Unfortunately, Marxism is too radical for many realists and these two schools of thoughts are difficult to merge (Grabb, 1990). What is interpretivism? Interpretivism is one of the lesser-known social theories that emphasize the convergence of truth and perception. That is, the truth is similar to what is perceived. Since there might be different perceptions among individuals, these individuals must agree to one level of perception that is unanimously accepted. Once accepted, the common perception becomes a reality. Essentially, the reality that interpretivists create is based on the perceptions of the individuals. Due to this nature of reality, interpretivism can be perceived as a process rather than a theory. That is, in the field of social research, a society’s reality is obtained through interpretivism. And in the field of law, individuals must agree upon the interpretation of practices, statutes, and legal duties (Brink, 2001). These individuals, therefore, must have another basis for their agreement on interpretations. The basis is the set of norms and values of the society. Stated in this way, interpretivism can be deemed similar to functionalism, in which individuals or the parts of the society must conform to norms. And with regards to norms, both interpretivism and functionalism are opposed to Marxism. Strengths and weaknesses. In the field of education, the major strength of interpretivism is that it attempts to develop creativity in the learners, teachers, and education researchers. An object does not remain a simple object but takes on other forms. For example, a chair is no longer a simple chair but a place of rest, a symbol of sentimental moments, or a private corner. All these and more can be the forms of the chair. In this manner, the students not only develop creativity but a degree of open mindedness that will be useful in a global community (Vrasidas, 2001). Unfortunately, interpretivism lacks the structure that many educators wanted. This lack of structure is probably due to the history of interpretivism – which is a critical theory of positivism. Thus, Marxism and interpretivism have one thing in common – both are critical theories that offer a contradiction to an existing and dominant theory. Interpretivism and education in an American society. In the modern American society, interpretivism has been limited to the area of research. Due to this, it cannot be reliably utilized to explain the function of education in the American society. Except for the goal of producing creative thinkers, the interpretivists do not offer much detail or position regarding the teaching and learning processes. At the same time, there are tenets of interpretivism that contradicts the present educational system. For example, Interpretivists, due to their interpretation of reality, may not agree to the presence of standards and curriculum. They may also want to change the predominant methods of evaluation. Interpretivism and realism. The concept of reality between interpretivism and realism are conflicting. The reality of interpretivism is based on the perceptions of people whereas the reality of realism exists even without the presence of any person who can perceive such reality. Due to the opposing nature of reality, there would also be opposing perceptions about the nature of knowledge, which leads to differences in curriculum (Shinn, 2004). What is post-modernism? Similar to Marxism and interpretivism, post-modernism rose at the heels of a dominant existing theory. In this case, that theory was modernism. But, unlike the two previously described social theories, post-modernism adopts many of the tenets of modernism, which are futuristic in nature. Both modernism and post-modernism see a world that is not categorized by labels but fused. For example, in literature, there are no genres that separate poems and stories. But, there is no existing and recognized unity because both modernists and post-modernist realize the fragmented nature of the world. The difference between modernism and post-modernism is the attitude that the proponents and followers have towards this fragmentation and ambiguity. The modernists are saddened by it while the post-modernist embrace it. For example, post-modernist artists display their delight and fascination with chaos and disorganization (Heartfield, 2002). Strengths and weaknesses. In the field of education, the major strength of post-modernism is its ability to embrace and utilize the rapidly changing, chip-driven world. The teachers who are influenced by post-modernism will have the needed flexibility and adaptability to maintain and create direction for the students. For example, the meteoric rise of computers and other electronic gadgets might drag a teacher from his comfort zone and make him less effective. The post-modernist teacher would embrace the changes and will become computer savvy, along with his students. However, the post-modernist approach to education might endanger other aspects of the teaching and learning process. This is because the learning process needed structure and order – a concept that is not respected by post-modernist (Klages, 2007). Post-modernism and education in an American society. The theory of post-modernism might be used to explain the function of education in a modern American society, which is to help the learners adapt to their changing world. Obviously, the world perceived by the learner will change constantly and continuously. But, many of the educators and policy-makers in the American society will have second thoughts regarding this eager attitude towards change. Embracing the change might not be the best action to take. However, post-modernism wanted the students to think less of subject but more of purpose (Sarup, 1993). For example, the student must first determine his reasons why he must get a college degree. In this manner, post-modernism is aligned with the other social theories. However, post-modernism, at this moment, could not be utilized to fully explain the function of education in American society. Post-modernism and realism. Post-modernism, in the field of education, is not compatible with realism. This is because realism values the influence of science whereas post-modernism shins the importance of science. However, post-modernism embraces technological advances. These technological advances will not be possible without science. This attitude might lead to some compromise with the attitude of realists towards science. Realists believe that science will influence philosophies and post-modernists recognize the influence of changes. The function of education in the contemporary American society cannot be described fully by using only one social theory. A composite of these social theories must be used because the present American society has an eclectic view of the function of education.