My experiences in the British school system, teaching at a Montessori preschool in China, and now working in higher education marketing for a U.S. college have given me a multifaceted perspective on Gert Biesta’s framework for understanding the purpose of education: qualification, socialization, and subjectification.
In England, where I spent my formative years, the emphasis on qualification was evident in the structured National Curriculum and the high-stakes SATs, 11+, GCSE and A-level/IB exams. This system arguably excelled at providing students with a broad knowledge base and measurable skills. My experience also highlighted the strong undercurrent of socialization in English schools. The hidden curriculum—manifested in school uniforms and prefect structures—played a significant role in shaping my understanding of social norms and expectations.
My experience teaching in a Montessori preschool in Shanghai offered a contrasting perspective. The focus on self-directed learning and individual development aligned closely with Biesta’s concept of subjectification. The Montessori method seemed to prioritize the child’s agency and personal growth, while still imparting knowledge and social understanding. I might have said back then that the purpose of education there was primarily subjectification, with qualification and socialization as supporting elements; compared to a strong emphasis on qualification in the UK, closely followed by socialization.
Now, working in the online division of a Vermont-based college, I’m witnessing another interpretation of educational purpose. From a marketing perspective, I see how the American higher education system, particularly in its online form, is often promoted with a focus on qualification in a very direct, career-oriented manner; we frequently emphasize equipping students with specific skills and knowledge for the job market. Yet, adult learners are clearly engaging in a process of subjectification when pursuing education with specific career goals in mind. The very act of choosing to further one’s education, researching options, and committing to a learning journey demonstrates critical engagement with one’s life trajectory.
The hidden curriculum takes on new dimensions in digital spaces. As a marketer, I’m somewhat aware of how the design of learning management systems, the choice of communication tools, and the patterns of online interaction all convey implicit messages about what knowledge is valued and how learners should behave. Our marketing materials and strategies inevitably contribute to this hidden curriculum, shaping students’ expectations and perceptions of the educational experience.
The influence of past educational initiatives on current and future practices in digital education is an important consideration, especially when examining the hidden curriculum in online spaces. Gallagher, Nicol, and Breines (2023) apply the concept of hauntology to digital education, arguing that past initiatives continue to ‘haunt’ present and future trajectories. They note: “Hauntology provides a means of evading being locked into ‘atemporal and ahistorical analyses’ (Dale and Robertson 2012: 27). Again, in the digital, we see the projections of the future appearing from the past, as ‘what haunts the digital cul-de-sacs of the twenty-first century is not so much the past as all the lost futures that the twentieth century taught us to anticipate’ (Fisher 2012: 16).” This suggests that the goals and methods of past educational initiatives continue to shape our current approaches in the digital space, often in subtle or unexpected ways.
The interconnectedness of qualification, socialization, and subjectification is undeniable. They intertwine and reinforce each other in complex ways across different educational settings. But are these outcomes the same as purpose? Just because we observe these effects, does it necessarily follow that they represent education’s fundamental aims? This leads us to consider the intentionality behind educational systems. Are these outcomes the result of deliberate design, or are they emergent properties of the educational process? It’s possible that the purpose of education, as envisioned by policymakers, educators, or society at large, might be quite different from its actual effects.
A critical theory perspective prompts us to examine whether the apparent purposes of education perpetuate existing social structures and power relations. The hidden curriculum, manifesting in both traditional and digital learning environments, plays a crucial role in conveying implicit messages about knowledge, behavior, and social norms.
In my current role, these considerations take on practical significance. We must critically examine the narratives we promote, questioning whether we’re reinforcing existing assumptions about education’s purpose or challenging them to present a more nuanced vision. This reflection extends to the design of digital learning platforms and online interactions, which carry their own implicit lessons about the nature and value of education.
This critical stance invites a broader questioning of whether education requires a singular, defined purpose at all. Perhaps its value lies in its capacity to serve multiple, evolving purposes responsive to individual and societal needs. The tension between predetermined outcomes and open-ended exploration may itself be a fundamental aspect of education’s nature.
Ultimately, my journey across various educational contexts has led me not to a definitive conclusion about education’s purpose, but to a more sophisticated understanding of its complexity. As I craft narratives about online education, I’m increasingly aware of the responsibility inherent in shaping perceptions of educational purpose and the need for a more nuanced, culturally sensitive approach that acknowledges the multifaceted nature of education.
(Pictures from Alice's Adventures in Wonderland - Alice-in-Wonderland.net)
Good work Melissa and I think this is an excellent start to a dialogue that we are going to have for the entire semester. Overall, this is really good work. How I like to give feedback on these posts is to dig in a bit on your specific positions, add some supplemental or complementary perspectives (and readings), and move to the next. What you really want to accomplish over the next 11 weeks is a sharpening of your critical argument, a gradual refinement of how you use evidence to support that argument, and a growing confidence in your creative abilities to chart a synthesis of what we are learning into creative practice. A solid foundation to begin with here Melissa so carry forward with that same enthusiasm!
‘The interconnectedness of qualification, socialization, and subjectification is undeniable. They intertwine and reinforce each other in complex ways across different educational settings. But are these outcomes the same as purpose? Just because we observe these effects, does it necessarily follow that they represent education’s fundamental aims? This leads us to consider the intentionality behind educational systems. Are these outcomes the result of deliberate design, or are they emergent properties of the educational process? It’s possible that the purpose of education, as envisioned by policymakers, educators, or society at large, might be quite different from its actual effects.’
Agreed that we cannot assume that if something is, then it was designed deliberately as such. Much of what we see in education (both good and bad) has what might seem like a randomness about it: a particular, slightly improbable, outcome as a result of its interaction with a host of other interconnected and complex variables. Any analysis of complex social systems (like education) is inherently an engagement with complexity. Even if this weren’t a ‘digital’ education programme, this analysis would be challenging. Digital technologies make it more so as it introduces a suite of non-educational actors into the structuring of education as well as introduces an amplifying actor (technology) that can wreak havoc on what is generally thought of as a stable system. Biesta is making the case here for claiming purposes of education that might have emerged through centuries of trial and error in less than intentional ways. Technology complicates this considerably.
‘A critical theory perspective prompts us to examine whether the apparent purposes of education perpetuate existing social structures and power relations. The hidden curriculum, manifesting in both traditional and digital learning environments, plays a crucial role in conveying implicit messages about knowledge, behavior, and social norms.’
Good that you are demonstrating a willingness to engage with theory as it is most helpful in framing an analysis (particularly with complex systems). Without theory, we are merely describing phenomena; with it, we are prying with purpose. Critical theory is a good one in this respect. There are others we will explore in this course: posthumanism, capability approaches, social reproduction, actor-network theory, and more. All frame in a particular way and all help provide particular insights.
‘In my current role, these considerations take on practical significance. We must critically examine the narratives we promote, questioning whether we’re reinforcing existing assumptions about education’s purpose or challenging them to present a more nuanced vision. This reflection extends to the design of digital learning platforms and online interactions, which carry their own implicit lessons about the nature and value of education.’
Indeed they do, Melissa so good on you for pointing this out. The technologies are embedded with values; they carry with them particular pedagogical approaches that betray the view of their creators as to the purpose of education. They are not agnostic in any sense. As this week’s discussion will suggest, they carry with them imaginaries as to the purpose of education and the role that technology should play in it. As you suggest, all of this needs critical attention.
Glad you mention as well your experience with particular learning approaches and theory (Montessori and so forth). Good to note how these approaches are predicated on underlying learning theory (as opposed to the more sociological theory presented above). A good resource for this is https://mybrainisopen.net/learning-theories-timeline.
A few minor points
1. Good introduction but I might encourage you to go ahead and boldly lay out what you believe the purpose of education to be at the onset and then begin to make your case. Professional practice and experience can certainly be a part of that argument, but I am (and always will be!) most interested in what you think the answer to the question is. So this isn’t criticism so much as encouragement for future posts!
2. Good use of the image. This is something we most certainly encourage as the blog medium provides nuanced ways to engage across modes towards a larger critical or creative argument or position. You will find that much of what we do on the programme is designed to push the limits of what ‘counts’ as academic argumentation and discourse. Incorporating images, video, audio, links, and so forth can all be placed in an ensemble that extends meaning and critical insights so we encourage you to continue pushing on those doors. You can see some of our past student work here which speaks to this a bit: https://www.de.ed.ac.uk/mscde/showcase. James Lamb on our MSc programme wrote about this a few years back: Lamb, J. (2018). To boldly go: Feedback as digital, multimodal dialogue. Multimodal technologies and interaction, 2(3), 49.
3. I might encourage use of Zotero (https://www.zotero.org/) to organise all of this as it will make it easier to include references inline and as a reference list on these posts.
Great work Melissa! Keep it up!
Hi, thank you for your feedback, Michael! I’ll respond here if I have any specific questions about it!
You are very welcome, Melissa! There will be plenty more where that came from!