Differences_in_Educational_Philosophy_for_Male_and_Female_Children

Differences in Educational Philosophy for Male and Female Children Many individuals have believed that one’s internal processes have more of an affect upon humans and their development than do environmental, external processes. Conversely, many other individuals have believed that the influence of environmental, external processes have more of an affect upon humans and their development than do internal processes. A prominent pioneer in educational research and philosophy, Jean-Jacques Rousseau believed that male and female children should be educated in differing manners, as well as toward differing ends. His belief set the groundwork for the “nature versus nurture” debate and the question of whether males and females learn differently. Rousseau believed that man is born essentially good. He also believed that males should be educated with the endeavor to cultivate freedom, whereas females should be educated with the intent to foster docility. This was best illustrated in Rousseau’s Emile, in which he utilized the first four chapters to outline the conditions and type of education he was to be exposed to in order to facilitate learning. Rousseau explained that to succeed, Emile needed to be educated without infringing any outside beliefs or ideas upon him (Noddings). Because Emile, a ‘man’, was born ‘good’, he did not require a strict and moral education (Noddings). Rousseau also stated that Emile’s education must encourage the skills he already possessed as well as providing the basis for increasing his skills (Noddings). Emile’s education should take place in a secluded area in order to minimize outside influence while simultaneously providing physical freedom and space (Noddings). Although Rousseau’s thought regarding the education and upbringing for boys was very flexible and self-directed, his recommendation for the rearing of females was vastly different. Rousseau’s thoughts for females was outlined in only one chapter; the final in Emile. Sophie, on the other hand, detailed a confined and restricted education for females (Noddings). Rousseau believed that female children needed to be taught to employ caution to protect themselves from societal views (Noddings). Rousseau also indicated that female education should encompass learning to please, serve, be useful to, and raise males (Noddings). Because he believed that docility and servitude was a female’s lot in life, Rousseau believed that girls should be taught these skills when young (Noddings). Rousseau believed that if women were not taught these skills, and if the women did not master them, they would not fulfill their destinies and would thereby cause themselves and their men unhappiness (Noddings). Rousseau’s influence was prominent in A.S. Neill’s Summerhill, which detailed Neill’s ideas for the school that would be most appropriate for the education of children. Neill’s Summerhill did not exclude or restrict females, however, as Rousseau’s would have done. Neill, too, believed that children are born good, and believed that it was the pressure of advancing toward adulthood that corrupted and ruined their goodness (Neill). Summerhill avoided formal lessons, unless they were requested by the student(s), while simultaneously criticizing moral and religious education (Noddings). Summerhill also provided the children with one vote toward running the school, in all manners except safety, and the voted decisions were maintained, regardless of whether the decision was one that the adults and teachers at the school would have chosen or agreed with (Neill). On one occasion, Neill had gathered the students and teachers together because the children were playing football above his office and was disturbing him repeatedly. Although the students outvoted the teachers and the vote called for the continuation of playing football indoors, Neill and the teachers in the school followed through with the decision and continued to allow the children to play football indoors (Neill). Rousseau’s influence on Neill was illustrated in his theory that children are born good and therefore do not require moral education. His influence on Neill was also seen in Neill’s belief that the children should not be influenced by outside individuals, teachers included, to follow a specific path but rather should be able to follow as the will led them (Neill). Additionally, Neill believed that the teachers should always be supportive of the students and their achievements (Noddings). Rousseau also believed that timing in education was one of the most important elements of learning (Noddings). Rousseau believed that if the child was ready to learn, regardless of the topic, then the educational information and assistance should be available to him (Noddings). Additionally, Rousseau’s theory with regard to the importance of timing in education has also been seen in Piaget’s work, in Vygotsky’s work, and in Maria Montessori’s work with children. Montessori created her theories and philosophies about children and the appropriate education they required based on the timing of and availability of education to the children (Noddings). Montessori developed the ‘critical periods’ theory that indicated that children have certain periods of time during which they are best suited to specific educational goals. Montessori believed that the failure to learn or the failure to access the education the child was in need of during the critical period would reflect upon all future learning endeavors (Noddings). Montessori also believed that children were in need of and desired order in their lives. This belief led to Montessori’s declaration that children are in need of placement specifics within the classroom to assist them in the development of the order in their lives (Noddings). Rousseau also influenced John Dewey, who believed that there should be an emphasis on the child’s motivation and actions, as opposed to outside influences providing weight to the educational goals (Noddings). However, Dewey did not believe that children were born essentially good or essentially evil, but rather that children have the potential to become either based on their education and upbringing (Noddings). Rousseau also influenced Pestalozzi, Herbart, and Froebel (Noddings). Pestalozzi believed that children should be educated through their senses, while Herbart believed in building education on the use of the senses (Noddings). Froebel’s creation of Kindergarten was based largely on Rousseau’s belief that children are intrinsically good, and that this goodness must be nurtured (Noddings). Accordingly, for many years the influences and weight of the environment versus the influence and weight of biology upon people has been debated. Recently the discovery that human beings have only a small number of genes within their DNA caused the question of how much influence genes could have on a person to resurface. The belief that ‘nature,’ or internal genetic processes, affect the development of the human and his personality and behavior is brought into question by this discovery, in that the connection between the small number of genes within humans and their affect upon behavioral and personality traits is not an integral portion of who we are as individuals. Craig Ventner, one of the individuals who cracked the human genome, has indicated that genes are not an integral piece of the shaping of who we are as individuals. As an example, a gene was discovered that was connected to colon cancer, and it was also found that many individuals carry this gene but do not develop the cancer. It is believed that environmentally related influences cause the individual to develop cancer, including the toxins that are created in the stomach and are passed through the colon. Therefore, Ventner states that he believes (colon) cancer is an environmental disease rather than having a propensity for inheritance. Additionally, other geneticists and researchers have concluded that inherited factors have less of an impact than has been previously believed (Davies). Genetic factors that influence behavior and personality may not have as much of an impact upon behavior and personality as previously thought. It may be that variations in the proteins of certain genes have an impact on a person’s behavior and personality, but it is strongly believed that environmental, or ‘nurturing,’ influences have as much, if not more, of an impact on behavior and personality. Many scientists believe that the question should not be one of nature versus nurture, but rather should be to what extent they work together to shape who we are (Davies). Rather than say something to the effect of ‘the devil made me do it,’ believing that genes shape who we are and how we function allows us to say ‘it runs in the family.’ The role of genetics versus environment, or nature versus nurture, continues to be reviewed and debated. Because society needs to have individuals take responsibility for their actions in order to function properly, indicating that genes determine human attitudes and behaviors indicates that genes can alter human attitudes and behaviors. This results in deconstruction of responsibility, and therefore contributes to the breakdown of societal functions. The ‘nature’ side of human behavior cannot be accurately measured. Behavior indicates purposeful and meaningful activities and ideas, and therefore is not instinctive. Instinctive behaviors are performed without learning to do so. Humans have the smallest number of instinctive behaviors in the animal kingdom, and therefore have a higher ability to respond to environmental stimuli that can affect the development and changing of human behavior and personality. Ultimately, ‘nurture’ has a stronger impact than ‘nature’ upon humans (trinity.edu). Jean-Jacques Rousseau’s indication that males should be educated in a vastly different manner than females has laid the groundwork for decades of efforts to understand human personality and behavior and the effect of circumstance upon the development of personality and behavior. Because Rousseau indicated that males should be educated in an open-educational system while females should be educated with the sole intent of creating a servile individual, it was then believed that one’s personality and behaviors were primarily shaped by ‘nurture,’ or the external influences upon one’s self. As other educational philosophers, such as Froebel, Montessori, and Dewey, have reviewed Rousseau’s philosophies and ideas for the creation of self, it has been determined that altering the manner in which one is educated to “be” will have at least some affect upon the person’s personality and behavior. However, with more recent and specific scientific research having been added to these assumptions, it has been determined that the ‘nature’ portion also affects an individual’s propensity for certain results. In other words, outside influences have an affect upon the development of self, while internal predisposition lays the initial groundwork for the outside influences to act on. References: Davies, Kevin. Nature Versus Nurture Revisited. Retrieved 22 December 2006 from: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/genome/debate.html No author. Nature Versus Nurture: How Much Free Will Do We Really Have' Retrieved 22 December 2006 from: http://www.trinity.edu/mkearl/socpsy-2.html Noddings, Nel. (1998). Philosophy of Education. Colorado: Westview Press.