Education is a broad phenomenon that applies to all age groups and covers formal as well as non-formal and informal education. Thanks to the spread of public education in the last few centuries, formal education has become a major part of almost everyone's childhood experience. Education is one key factor both on a personal and societal level in the contemporary world. Phlsph7 (talk) 09:00, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm unconvinced that this current ordering of the lead is the best way to introduce the topic. I think starting the article with the explanation of lived education (i.e., formal, non-formal, etc — what we've all experienced) is stronger than immediately noting differences in perspective. That aspect can then be used to introduce the conceptual side of education, with respect to socialising, etc. I've drafted a mockup change here.
That's an interesting idea. The original order is based on a logical exposition: it first describes the general concept, then how it can be subdivided into types, and then other considerations. I think both approaches work but you are probably right that putting the discussion of its types at beginning makes the article more digestable to the average reader so I implemented it. Phlsph7 (talk) 13:08, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"Beginning in the 18th and 19th centuries, public education became more important." — did it become more important or was it a societal shift in the perception of education's importance?
Both but primarily the first. The public education we have today is historically speaking a rather recent phenomenon. For most of human history since the ancient period, a proper formal education was not available to the average people and was primarily accessible to elites. The history section has more on this. Phlsph7 (talk) 13:08, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Definitions
"the bodily level" — unclear.
In doing some research on this point, I discovered that these explanations are used inconsistently in the sources: According to Vico 1999, educere refers to the mind and educare refers to the body but according to the Century Dictionary, educere refers to the body and educare refers to the mind. This point is not essential so I removed the reference to body and mind. Phlsph7 (talk) 13:08, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"This problem can be avoided by offering less precise definitions based on family resemblance." — add "instead" before "based" or the sentence could be interpreted as "definitions based on family resemblance" being the thing lessened to avoid the problem.
"This means that all the forms of education are similar to each other. But they need not share a set of essential features that all of them have in common" — merge sentences.
"But they are criticized because there are counterexamples." — could be reworded. Perhaps: "Less common types of education occasionally fall outside these parameters, which leads to the criticism of such precise approaches".
"They state that it is part of the nature of education that it is beneficial to the student or leads to some kind of improvement" — consider simplifying: "They state it is part of the nature of education to be beneficial to the student or lead to some kind of improvement".
"One reason for this view is that some forms of indoctrination may be necessary in the early stages of education while the child's mind is not yet sufficiently developed" — strong statement that might need an example or two.
The opening paragraph of this section is unclear. I understand it's supposed to lead into the subsections, but at the moment it's a few non-sequiturs.
I tried to reformulate it to have a better text flow. In theory, this paragraph could be removed. Its main purpose is to provide a very concise overview to give the reader some orientation for the following subsections. Phlsph7 (talk) 12:59, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Formal, non-formal, and informal
"extending all the way from primary school to university" — remove "all the way".
"Informal education is present in many settings. It happens throughout one's life, mostly in a spontaneous way." — I understand what this is trying to say, but I don't think it's as clear as it could be.
"This is how children learn their mother tongue from their parents or how people learn to prepare a dish by cooking together." — consider something like "Examples include the parental teaching of one's first language and the collaborative preparation of food". Not convinced by my food-related rephrasing, so any improvements are welcome.
"Formal education plays a central role in modern civilization. But in primitive cultures, most of the education happened on the informal level" — change to "Formal education plays a central role in modern civilization, though in primitive cultures, most of the education happened on the informal level".
"This was one of the reasons why in the course of history, formal education became more and more important" — if supported by sources, change to something like "This was one of the reasons why in the course of history, formal education became the most important type".
"In this process, the experience of education became more abstract and removed from daily life." — surely it became less abstract, with schools and universities becoming defined locations of learning?
I made a slight reformulation to emphasize that this is about the contents that are being learned. For example, a child learning to hunt first-hand by joining the other hunters in their tribe is more concrete than a child sitting in school and learning about the Pythagorean theorem.
"grasping general patterns" — change to "grasping general concepts".
What is the difference between secondary and upper secondary? It currently notes secondary is from the ages of 12-18, but that doesn't leave any room for further high school education as it typically ends at the age of 18. Is upper secondary from the ages of 15-18, for instance (i.e., year 10-12, while secondary is yr 7-9)? Probably worth merging and explaining these differences in more depth.
Yes, upper secondary education starts roughly at 15 though there are country-specific differences. I added this fact to the paragraph on upper secondary education. The previous paragraph gives a short explanation of the difference between lower and upper secondary education. Phlsph7 (talk) 13:59, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"in the form of a doctor's degree" — could link to Doctor of Philosophy. Likely worth to use the phrase "PhD" somewhere, as that is what people are familiar with.
In the paragraph that starts with "Forms of education can also be categorized by the subject and the medium used", it may be useful to note that some universities offer degrees or courses in an online format, and that this is not an example of open education.
"A more detailed classification focuses on the social institution responsible for education. It includes categories for institutions like family, school, civil society, state, and church" — shorten to "A more detailed classification focuses on the social institution responsible for education, like family, school, civil society, state, and church".
"may cause many jobs to be lost in the coming decades" — give a timeframe instead of "coming decades".
We could use the sentence This applies also to changing circumstances in the economic sector, where technological advances and increased automation may cause 47% of jobs in developed nations to be lost in the next two decades. However, there are different studies with different numbers. It can be assumed that these numbers will change soon again thanks to ChatGPT and co. So instead of picking one specific number, it may be better to remain vague. Phlsph7 (talk) 17:33, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not fond of using vague timeframes when the year the article refers to is unclear. Potentially, something like "over the two decades following the 2020s" or "by mid-century" would remove this ambiguity, but I'm not convinced by those proposed wordings either. Anarchyte (talk) 12:03, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I hope I found a way to avoid this problem: the main point in this context is that the workforce needs change and education helps people adjust. So maybe we can get by without mentioning a time-frame at all. If that doesn't work, we can also use your suggestion. Phlsph7 (talk) 12:54, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I would adjust these sentences: "This way, education serves not just the purpose of reproducing society as it is but can also be an instrument of development by realizing social transformation to improve society. That applies also to changing circumstances in the economic sector, for example, because of changes in the workforce needs due to technological advances and increased automation". Consider something like (bold indicates changes) "This way, education serves not just the purpose of maintaining the societal status quo, but can also be an instrument of social development. That applies also to changing circumstances in the economic sector. For example, technological advances, particularly increased automation, are encouraging changes in the workforce. Education must adapt in order for society to progress." Anarchyte (talk) 09:12, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"This can be achieved by encouraging some competition among students while ensuring a balance of positive and negative feedback in the form of praise and criticism" — needs to be noted that this is an example.
"A central topic in education studies concerns questions like why people should" — can this be "A central topic in education studies concerns the question of how people should"?
This section appears to duplicate a lot of what is present in the "Role in society" section. It is unclear how these ideologies connect to education studies.
Thanks for pointing this out. I tried to reduce the overlap and better explain the role of educational ideologies. This is probably an oversimplification of the issue, but as I see it, the section "Role in society" describes what education actually does while the section "Aims and ideologies" describes theoretical constructs by education theorists about what education is supposed to do or how it can be conceptualized. For example, the question of whether education should foster creativity is different from the question of whether currently established educational practices actually foster creativity. Different scholars disagree so there are different viewpoints. These viewpoints can be used to evaluate existing practices. Phlsph7 (talk) 13:42, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Learning theories and teaching
Consider renaming the section to "Learning theories and teaching methods".
"The introduction of formal education also brought with it a new educational methodology focused discipline and drills." — not sure what this is saying.
Much like SusunW below, I am content that the issues I raised have been resolved but I would like to see the article progress further before expressing an opinion. I still believe the prose is weak in places and potentially not at an FA level yet. Anarchyte (talk) 10:53, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Anarchyte, I will be looking to close this soon and was wondering if your closing comments immediately above still stood, and/or you had any other thoughts on the article and its promotability? Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 18:38, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Gog the Mild: Thanks for the ping. My comments above have been answered; as far as they're concerned, I'm happy. However, in terms of the overall prose and promotability, I am opposed. It's a very good article, but I'm not convinced it meets FACR#1a. The prose is still quite jumpy and would need a comprehensive copyedit outside the FA process for me to be satisfied. Anarchyte (talk) 08:57, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for clarifying your position. I've tried to implement all your concrete comments on the prose as best as I could and I'm glad to learn that you are happy with the results. I'm a little surprised to hear that the article is still far from reaching the prose requirements. Several reviewers have commented positively on the prose, for example, that "This article is very well written", "It's extremely well-written", and "what’s here is well written". I'm not sure what to make of this discrepancy in judgment. Phlsph7 (talk) 09:32, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Link to formal education is a link to the article itself. Perhaps a better link would be Educational institution (although that article is horrid), or simply School.
I see that the previous reviewer commented on the order of the lede, and I shan't be an exception. It seems to me that the logical order is define the topic, give the history/background, explain relevant factors. The history section appears tacked on at the end, but to me, it flows better if it follows the opening sentence. I would make "There are many types of education" begin a new paragraph, followed by a paragraph that starts from "The main field investigating" and I would combine "Many factors influence" into this last paragraph.
That would also be a valid approach to structuring the lead. As I see it, for this type of article, there are usually 2 good place for the history: the beginning or the end. Which place to choose depends then on how much weight reliable sources give to the history in comparison to other topics. My impression is that things like the concept and types of education receive more weight but I don't feel particularly strong about this. I'll loop in @Anarchyte: to get their opinion before I make any changes. Phlsph7 (talk) 17:20, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
In my opinion, putting the history component in the first paragraph would be confusing for readers. I think people are more likely to expect the article on education to start with an explanation of education, not the history behind it. Similarly, opening history of education and being greeted by a distinction between formal and informal education would be confusing. I could see it being inserted before the "The precise definition of education" paragraph, but they would both need a minor rewrite to make this make sense. Anarchyte (talk) 08:19, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I find it somewhat repetitive for the string of "of education" terms. Perhaps truncate the links to "philosophy, psychology, sociology, and economics of education". Followed by "It also encompasses comparative education and the history of education".
Why no mention of Pedagogy? Surely it is a huge component in educational studies? Perhaps after "history of education" and pedagogy, the theory and practices of teaching. SusunW (talk)
Good point. It's discussed later in the subsection "Subfields" but it also merits a mention here. I included it with comparative education and history of education. Phlsph7 (talk) 17:20, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Definitions
"One approach is to view", would it be simpler as "One approach views"?
"Another outlook understands education not as a process but as the product resulting from this process" is confusing to me. Are you meaning Another outlook is that education is not the process, but rather the result of teaching and learning?
Yes, that is correct. I tried to reformulate this and the following sentence to clarify this point. The basic idea is that education belongs to a different ontological category: it is not the process of teaching and learning but the (momentary) state characteristic of educated people. Please let me know if the formulation is still unclear. Phlsph7 (talk) 17:53, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
What do you mean by "educational phenomena"? My thought was you meant the role and purpose of education in development, but I am unclear of your actual intent. I'm also unsure about using "correctly identify" what does correctly add? (My point is that as there are different theories about the role and purpose of education, there cannot be a single "correct" answer.)
As I see it, when understood in a wide sense, anything related to education is an educational phenomenon. This can include teaching practicies, educational policies, factors of educational success, different aspects of teachers, students, and schools etc. Since giving a comprehensive list would be long and challenging, I opted for this term instead. You are right about the "correctly", I removed it. Phlsph7 (talk) 17:53, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Related to the last point, "It also matters when trying to measure or improve them" is vague. What are it and them? If it is indeed the role and purpose of education, I think it might flow better by saying "Having a clear idea of what the term education means is important to identify, measure, or improve the role and purpose of education in development".
I have had conversations with other editors about the inclusion of bulleted lists and tables in FA and as I recall, the consensus is to convert them to running prose; besides which, the bullets are fairly close paraphrasing to Marshall's bullets on p 34. Perhaps: "three essential features of education, which include imparting knowledge and understanding, of value to the student, in a "morally appropriate" manner".
I agree with you about the bullet points. With precise definitions, it is often a challenge to navigate the narrow path between close paraphrase and original research. I implemented a slight reformulations of your suggestion. Phlsph7 (talk) 18:23, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"This problem can be avoided by offering less precise definitions" - I am not sure that a differing viewpoint is "a problem". Perhaps just "Offering less precise definitions based on family resemblance includes all forms of education with similarities, but which are not required to share a set of essential features in common."
The problem was meant to refer to counterexamples but I just saw that this expression was removed in a recent edit. I reformulated it to keep this point in the current version. Phlsph7 (talk) 18:23, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"According to one view", whose? Why does their opinion matter? Perhaps "Writers Keira Sewell and Stephen Newman acknowledge that the term "education" is context-dependent, as its meaning varies depending on the situation in which it is used".
What are "regular speakers"? People who speak regularly? Can a concept discuss? I think from looking at the sources you mean "Descriptive concepts refer to how the term is commonly used by the general public"?
I think I would replace aims with goals, as it is a more commonly understood term.
It probably does not matter much but "aims of education" is often used as a technical term frequently used in the sources so there is an advantage to keeping this expression. Phlsph7 (talk) 18:24, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Link Epistemology to epistemic; since epistemology is the study of knowledge and its scope, perhaps "epistemic goals of knowledge..."
"independent of whether they", the clause follows the last noun student, but I don't think you mean to imply that the students are rational, but rather that the beliefs are. Replace they with the beliefs are or the ideology is.
Unlink "rational" as it is linked earlier. I think it would be more concise to say "They state that mere indoctrination is only interested in instilling beliefs in the student, independent of whether they are rational;[23] whereas, education requires critical analysis (or reflection?) and questioning of beliefs.
Again, definitions can't see. Perhaps "Teacher-centered definitions focus on the perspective and role of the teacher in the transmission of knowledge and skills in a morally appropriate way".
They and it are not clear. Perhaps "Student-centered definitions analyze education from the student's involvement in the learning process of transforming and enriching their subsequent experiences.
"They often form a hierarchical structure" Probably me but you are referring to tertiary education as an it. When I hit they, it caused pause and I had to reread it to ascertain that you meant "these levels".
Perhaps this "State education, also sometimes referred to as public education, is typically funded and controlled by the government and available to the general public" is less choppy than those 3 separate sentences. But, I would note that public schools in the UK and Commonwealth countries are not the same as state education, but rather private schooling, so I flipped your original order. I think you should probably have a note that addresses that a public school has different meanings in different jurisdictions. (I was quite surprised when living in the Caribbean to discover that public schools were fee-based parochial schools, whereas government schools were free schools operated by the government.)
The paragraph that begins "Education can prepare" has a lot of "this". Suggest you reword it to eliminate repetition which may distract readers (like me) who lose the content because their focus shifts to finding that word.
"Exact requirements for teachers and how they are trained" does this mean "qualifications required of teachers"? I am confused by "how they are trained" - what does how they acquired their qualifications have to do with anything? (Again, speaking from experience in the Caribbean, some primary and secondary teachers there have a university education and some do not. They complete an examination process to determine if they meet the qualification requirements. How they got the skills needed is irrelevant).
The idea was that there are standards for teacher hiring and for teacher training. But I'm not sure that the 2nd point is very important so I reformulated it to focus on the 1st point. Phlsph7 (talk) 18:43, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"A curriculum is" seems very complicated. Perhaps "a plan of instruction or a program of learning that guides students to achieve their educational goals".
"promotes the exchange of colleges and universities", I think you do not mean that the institutions hop about the globe, but rather that it encourages member colleges and universities to exchange knowledge?
Yes, either of those would work. Visiting scholar programs are in my experience widely known, as are Research fellowships. There are many that could be named, i.e. Alexander von Humboldt Foundation, Erasmus Mundus Programme, Marie Skłodowska-Curie Actions, etc. SusunW (talk) 15:58, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
(I have to go for today, but will return) Please do not let my detailed comments detract from your work on this article. I think it is very, very important and appreciate your willingness to tackle the subject, which certainly isn't easy to do. You do not have to agree with anything that I wrote, reviews are a collaboration to improve an article, IMO. Anything is up for discussion and I encourage you to disagree heartily if you feel inclined. SusunW (talk) 23:04, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm going to stop with a line by line analysis of the prose, I'm happy to continue if you want that, but feel some basic observations may be helpful.
Sociological
I think it needs to be clearer that the issue with poverty is that families cannot meet basic nutritional needs, causing poor development, which in turn leads to health instability and absenteeism,[3],[4],[5] not to mention that drop out rates are linked to school performance and the need to provide income to the family.
I mentioned both nutrition and dropouts. I just fear that we trying to pack too much into this paragraph. But it is often an issue with this kind of article on very wide topics that it is very difficult where to draw the line. Phlsph7 (talk) 18:22, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see a discussion in this section or in history that discusses discrimination, segregation, etc. on the basis of poverty, ethnic or racist policies, gender, etc., which I would expect to be covered in a general article on education. Things like segregated Black schools in the US and South Africa; separation policies that saw Aboriginal Australians, Native Americans and [Canadian Indian residential school system|First Nations]] Canadians removed from their families for assimilationist boarding school education; discrimination against the non-dominant populations in general - China, Japan, Latin America (Ethnic school segregation in Latin America averages 92% in the nine countries with Indigenous students, p. 22) and Education of women and girls. (In general I try to avoid male/female as they refer to any animal species and particularly female can be perceived as a derogatory word). Formal education of women wasn't "severely hampered" it was mostly barred because women were denied public roles in society, and certainly at the tertiary level. (Granted there were exceptions, but few opportunities existed before the late 19th, early 20th centuries anywhere) Obviously in an overview you don't want to get too detailed, but [6],[7],[8], [9],[10],[11]
That's a good idea. I used the Jim Crow laws and the Taliban as examples. But if you feel that some of the examples you mentioned are better then we can also use them instead. Phlsph7 (talk) 18:22, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm struggling with this a bit, as I don't want to use stereotypical examples, but perhaps some of that is unavoidable in such a broad article. What we don't want is for the reader to assume that these types of discrimination were few and far between. They were widespread and that needs to be acknowledged somehow. SusunW (talk) 19:39, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I slightly reformulated the passage to not imply that this was rare. The beginning of the paragraph makes the point about it being widespread. We could try to provide a longer list of cases but the danger here is that it is very easy to miss something. And I'm not sure that this short overview section is the right place for this. Regarding the examples, it's usually a good idea to select representative and well-known cases where it is easy to identify the main point. For example, since we are talking about official policies, it should be clear in the example that the discrimination was not just established practice but officially sanctioned. The current examples fulfill these requirements. Would you prefer to replace one of those two with one of your examples? Phlsph7 (talk) 13:15, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Totally understand your point and it's hard in this section because we are talking about negative policies, but my take is a little different. By using stereotypical examples that everyone knows, it reinforces the stereotype that it was only in a few known places. Were it me, and it isn't, I would try to use global examples every time an example is used throughout the article and avoid using US/EU examples whenever possible to broaden the scope of the article. If you must use a stereotypical example or one from the US/EU, then try to balance it with another lesser known one, or one from the global south, although sourcing might become an issue then. I note that Mujinga said something similar about the lack of material on the global south. SusunW (talk) 14:58, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure about using little-known examples but I agree that having diverse examples is a good idea, including regional diversity. I already made some attempts to include more regional diversity. I'll have another look to see if I can find more opportunities to address this point. Phlsph7 (talk) 17:18, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I followed your suggestion and removed the US example. I replaced it with the case of China you mentioned. I also managed to include several examples related to the Global South. In principle, more could be added, but I'm hesitant since the examples are meant to illustrate and focusing too much on them could distract from the main points. If you have more concrete suggestions, I could see if there is a way to include them. Phlsph7 (talk) 20:02, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Overall, I am impressed that you have tried to tackle this very complex and very broad topic. I'm not sure that it is quite at FA level yet, but hopefully with community input, it will get there. It is a very, very important subject and I applaud your efforts. I am happy to help in any way that I can. SusunW (talk) 18:06, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Wow, thanks for this comprehensive review and the many concrete suggestions. I feel that the article has already received quite a few improvements. Let's hope we can get it all the way to FA. Phlsph7 (talk) 18:22, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but I am not ready to yet make a decision on the article. Would still like to see the prose tightened up, examples broadened, and the outcome on some of the other comments. SusunW (talk) 14:58, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hi SusunW, I will be looking to close this soon and was wondering if your closing comments immediately above still stood, and/or you had any other thoughts on the article and its promotability? Cheers. Gog the Mild (talk) 18:36, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Gog the Mild having just read through the article again, I am happy that it is not as oriented toward the Global North as when we began, that its scope in general has been broadened, and the article has improved by the collaboration here. There still are some weaknesses in the prose and structure. I truly applaud all of the effort that has gone into it, but with such a broad general topic, it seems nearly impossible to include all the salient information with high quality sources to make it truly comprehensive on a global scale. I am sorry to say I am not yet convinced that the article is as strong as it needs to be for FA. SusunW (talk) 19:28, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I appreciate the idea of holding FA candidates to high standards. I hope that this does not mean that it is a basic requirement to have a level of comprehensiveness that "seems nearly impossible" to achieve. Phlsph7 (talk) 09:10, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"Education theorist R. S. Peters, for instance," - is RS Peters a big enough cheese to get this first mention? he might be!
At least in terms of the influence of his definition, I think he is. Many academic discussions on the topic refer to his definition, including the ones critical of his approach. Phlsph7 (talk) 10:11, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, this is far from my area of expertise so I thought I'd check, but again this flags up my general theme, since is Peters referred to worldwide or only in english langauge literature I wonder Mujinga (talk) 11:18, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"Different thick definitions disagree" -are definitions capable of disagreeing? I see SusunW making a similar point above
That probably depends on how literal we want to interpret the term. I replaced it with an alternative formulation to avoid the problem
Switching to more general comments:
"Today, primary education is compulsory in almost all countries and over 90% of all primary-school-age children worldwide attend primary school.[44]" - would it be interesting to say where it is not? further, obviously you can't cover all countries in an article like this, but in terms of broadness I feel that at the moment, I'd come away with a fairly good idea of how education works in Europe and North America but no so much in for example Russia or Somalia. And I have a niggling feeling that in repressive states there might well be primary school but it will simply be an indoctrination centre
It would be interesting but I fear that it might lead to a digression since the topic of this section is how the different levels of education are defined. The discussion of the different levels of education follows the international standard set by the UNESCO. It's possible that this fits better for Europe and North America than other countries but I'm not sure that we can do much about that. There are currently various changes to education in Russia, such as rewriting school books. Phlsph7 (talk) 10:11, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I shouldn't have said Russia or Somalia but rather Education in Asia and Education in Africa. That was more what I meant; I think as an abstract introduction to what education is, this article is pretty good but it needs a more wroldwide perspective and thanks for your responses elsewhere on that. Assessing an artticle on such a broad topic got me thinking again about umbrella articles. I've been working on "Sqyutting in X" articles where X is a country, so for example Squatting in Kazakhstan, and the umbrella article is Squatting. I wouldn't pretend the Squatting article is or should be particularly similar in format to Education since I don't believe articles all need to follow the same rules exactly, but there are parallels. Likewise, @Grnrchst: and others have been working on Anarchism in X articles, @Horserice: on nationality laws in different countries and @LunaEatsTuna: on Time in X. I'll ping them in case they are interested, as we've all separately had short discussions about this before. The way I think about Squatting at the moment is to build up from Squatting in X pages to continental pages eg Squatting in Africa and Squatting in Asia and then from there make Squatting more of a summary of those pages, having moved out what's there currently to subpages. If I'm thinking along those lines then I suppose I'm wanting Education to draw on existing pages such as for example Education in Asia and Education in Europe (which redirects to Educational policies and initiatives of the European Union), even if they are a bit thin at the moment. My impression remains that there is more about for example Europe than Asia in this article and the process of summarising of other pages might help to balance out this discrepancy. I wouldn't be surprised at all if you or others see this entire kaboodle very differently! (And if this discussion is going too meta I'm fine with moving to the Education talkpage by the way). Cheers, Mujinga (talk) 11:28, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I think I get your point now. The articles you mentioned are mostly about contemporary education. One way to implement your idea would be to add subsections to the history section, like "Contemporary education in Asia", "Contemporary education in the European Union", and the like. However, this seems to give a lot of weight to the contemporary perspective while education in general is a much larger topic. We should also be careful to not expand this article too much.
For the general outline and weight of the topics, I tried to follow reliable overview sources on education in general. I don't think they give much weight to this topic. Our Outline of education does not either. My suggestion would be to cover this topic more in the form of examples, like the recent additions in terms of alternative education from different regions or historical higher-learning institutions of different regions. Phlsph7 (talk) 12:40, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"Formal education plays a central role in modern civilization, though in primitive cultures, most of the education happened on the informal level" - There must be a lot of material on education through time, as in modern times. You do of course talk about who had access, and sexism and racism later on but I'd still like to read more on all of this
This is covered in more detail in the history section. We could move some of the material here but my impression is that it is better to keep them separate. Phlsph7 (talk) 10:11, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The "Levels" section seems Minority world-specific overall, same in "others", for example: "There are many alternative schooling traditions, like Montessori schools, Waldorf schools, Round Square schools, Escuela Nueva schools, free schools, and democratic schools.[56] Alternative education also includes indigenous education." Worldwide there surely are more examples of alternative schooling?
For the Levels-section, see my comment above: this is the international and widely used standard set by the UNESCO. I'm not sure if there is a good way to address this but I'm open to suggestions. I'll get back to you later for the Others-section. Phlsph7 (talk) 10:11, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Universities get more attention due to their worldwide influence today but you are right that having some more diversity here is preferable so I added a few more examples. Phlsph7 (talk) 10:31, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This article is very well written, only sometimes I think some sentences could be rolled together more, to avoid having "They .. they" or "It ..it..". Again, I can appreciate there will lots of different opinions on this; I'll give some examples:
I've been trying to balance the requirements of having short and accessible sentences vs having a good flow in the text. These requirements don't always fit together well. Phlsph7 (talk) 13:03, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
eg Education can be characterized from the teacher's or the student's perspective. Teacher-centered definitions focus on the perspective and role of the teacher. They tend to see education as the transmission of knowledge and skills in a morally appropriate way.[27] Student-centered definitions analyze education from the student's involvement in the learning process. They may define it as a process that transforms and enriches their subsequent experience.[28
eg In this process, the experience of education and the discussed topics became more abstract and removed from daily life. More emphasis was put on grasping general patterns and concepts instead of observing and imitating particular forms of behavior.[40]
eg Alternative education also includes indigenous education. It focuses on the transmission of knowledge and skills from an indigenous heritage. Its methods give more emphasis to narration and storytelling.[57]
eg A further distinction is based on the type of funding. Public education is also referred to as state education. It is education funded and controlled by the government. It is available to the general public. It normally does not require tuition fees and is thus a form of free education. It contrasts with private education, which is funded and managed by private institutions.
eg Another was the Education for All initiative. It aimed to offer basic education to all children, adolescents, and adults by the year 2015. It was later replaced by the initiative Sustainable Development Goals as goal 4.[88]
I think for me I'd prefer the history section to come first to ground things, but I take your point made above about it coming either at the beginning or the end.
It seems the opinions are divided on this point. The same point came up in the recent FAC of communication. In the end, we settled there on having the history at the end but we don't have to follow that example here. I'll wait with changes to see if some kind of consensus crystalizes. Phlsph7 (talk) 13:11, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm going to stop here for now; the comments went from prose to at some point. Basically I think this article is great, my main issue is that it could do with a more global perspective. I hope that critique can be taken in the constructive way I intend it to be made, I know it's rather vague. It's very easy to be critical and much harder to create such a quality article on a fundamental component of society Mujinga (talk) 18:51, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks again for your insightful comments. Let's hope we can figure a way to address the global perspective point that works for both of us. I left a reply on this issue above. Phlsph7 (talk) 13:11, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Not really to be honest - I'm seeing structual issues here which I think would require more discussion then a rewrite. It's good that you are open to broadening the perspective to a global one, but adding examples seems rather tokenistic. I had hoped to trigger more of a debate on that above; I do appreciate it's a discussion that goes far beyond this article and that mine is just one view on what such a broad article should look like. I think I'll stop commenting here, not feeling strongly enough either way to support or oppose. Cheers and good luck with the article! Mujinga (talk) 12:32, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There are different ways to organize the topics belonging to an article. Whether a region-based approach to the general layout is appropriate probably depends a lot on the topic of the article. It's well possible that this is the case for the example you mentioned: the article Squatting. But checking a few other articles with FA status on very general topics, like Earth, Communication, Logic, Bird, and Evolution, this region-based approach to the general layout does not seem to be common. However, it's a good idea to consider diverse perspectives in a review and I have the impression that the article benefited from your suggestions. Thanks for all your input! Phlsph7 (talk) 13:25, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm concerned by the choices of images at the top of the article, as in the current form they serve to reinforce bias. No individual image is objectionable in itself, but what we have here is: an NGO-funded early childhood classroom in Africa with straw floors ("Africa is poor and primitive"); a room of white undergraduate students with their labcoated professor in a room full of tech equipment (the opposite, with bonus Science Man); two Asian kids being tutored by another ("Asians are smart/studious")... and the early childhood educator is a woman and the postsecondary educator is a man. I'm less concerned by "old man in India reads a newspaper" but given the other three I wonder if I'm just ignorant of some other stereotype on that one. We have to do better than this. A photo of a tech classroom in Kenya. Some Japanese kids in gym class. White kids at Catholic school. An adult literacy classroom. Anything. -- asilvering (talk) 20:58, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The idea behind the current selection was to have good variety in terms of geographical regions, age groups, and types of education. Whatever changes we make, I think it would be a good idea to preserve that variety. It's also good to avoid stereotypes but the images should be representative at the same time. What do you think of the following:
Hi! Your (Mostly) Friendly Neighbourhood Text Technology Historian here! I apologize in advance for when I inevitably come off as irritated in the comments below. It's not you, it's this field! I don't know why academics who are not specialists in this field feel so compelled to write academic work on it, but they are. I beg you - don't cite non-historians on history! And if you can possibly avoid it, don't cite anyone writing about pre-1600 or so unless they are actually specialists on the time period they're writing about.
Thanks for providing a critical perspective here. I think the most important part of this section is to get the high-level perspective correct by showing in very broad strokes how the development happened from prehistory to where we are now. I'll try to follow sourcing suggestions. One difficulty I see is that we need to rely on high-quality overview sources for deciding which patterns to mention and how to connect them to condense the history of several millenia into a few paragraphs. I'm not sure that this can work by relying on specialist sources within a narrow context for all claims before 1600. Phlsph7 (talk) 14:43, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I've added a few sources for the first few claims, such as "Stearns, Peter N.; Langer, William Leonard (2001). The Encyclopedia of World History". I would go ahead and add similar sources for the other claims. But before that, I was hoping to get some feedback on whether you think that this addresses the point you mentioned. Phlsph7 (talk) 09:41, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No, an encyclopedia of world history is not at all the kind of source we are looking for here. You need high-quality sources - this means sources by people who are experts on the topic they're writing about in some depth. Overbroad non-specialist encyclopedia articles aren't that. You may wish to have a read of doi:10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199340033.001.0001 and follow the individual bibliographies given there as appropriate. -- asilvering (talk) 02:40, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for suggestions. I implemented various changes to the first two paragraphs. I mainly followed Johnson & Stearns' Education in World History. I hope there are no objections to the quality of this source. Phlsph7 (talk) 13:12, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
For the most part, there were no specialized teachers and most adults taught the youth, usually informally during everyday activities. We don't know this - we can't know this - this is just someone making something up! Nothing to fix here - just kill this sentence. -- asilvering (talk) 22:36, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I hope you don't mind me at least making an attempt to fix it so I added a qualification to the claim. I'll remove the sentence if you feel strongly about it but my impression is that this sentence helps establish the contrast to later developments. Form the sources:
Bartlett 2007 p.15: In small-scale and self-sufficient societies children would learn about survival from adults. In these communities adults are multi-skilled and can satisfy most of their wants by using their own abilities. There may be only few specialist roles such as healer or midwife in such groups. As form of employment diversified and became specialised, increasingly specific training needed to take place.
Bowen, Gelpi & Anweiler 2023 Introduction, Prehistoric and Primitive Cultures: In the most primitive cultures, there is often little formal learning—little of what one would ordinarily call school or classes or teachers. Instead, the entire environment and all activities are frequently viewed as school and classes, and many or all adults act as teachers. As societies grow more complex, however, the quantity of knowledge to be passed on from one generation to the next becomes more than any one person can know, and, hence, there must evolve more selective and efficient means of cultural transmission. The outcome is formal education—the school and the specialist called the teacher. ... The purpose of primitive education is thus to guide children to becoming good members of their tribe or band. ... Primitive children, before reaching puberty, learn by doing and observing basic technical practices. Their teachers are not strangers but rather their immediate community.
Education began in prehistory, as adults trained the young in the knowledge and skills deemed necessary in their society. This is a sentence that looks like it contains information, but when you think about it, there's nothing really here - when else would education begin? I think if you go find an anthropologist writing on the topic you might find something more interesting to say, but you might also just blend this into the next paragraph. Absolutely be wary of any source using the word "primitive", as one cited here does. "Pre-literate culture" or "oral culture" is your keyword here. -- asilvering (talk) 22:36, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I was thinking here about readers who strongly associate education with going to school. They may be surprised to hear that there was education before the rise of civilizations. Given your comments on the prehistory part, would you suggest that we remove the discussion of prehistoric education entirely and start with the ancient period? Phlsph7 (talk) 13:53, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The earliest ancient civilizations developed in the period from 3000 to 1500 BCE in Egypt, Mesopotamia, and North China. Both heiroglyphs and cuneiform predate 3000 BCE afaik so this is an odd cutoff. Again I see that 2/3 of the sources here are definitely not historians, which concerns me. I think you'll get a more accurate and more interesting sentence if you go find some specialists on these topics. You might find something interesting on the Indus valley and Mesoamerica too. -- asilvering (talk) 22:36, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, the first forms of writing came before the ancient period. I reformulated the passage to not imply that this happened simultaneously. 3000 BCE is usually taken as the time when the ancient period started and this is how our sources treat the subject. But I'm also open to different suggestions. If you are aware of a high-quality source that uses a very different timeframe of these developments in education then I would be happy to have a look at it. I also mentioned the Indus valley. Phlsph7 (talk) 14:39, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Through writing, it was possible to store and preserve information and make it accessible to more people. I see this kind of statement all the time, and it sets off a huge "citation needed" flag for me. Accessible writing? Where?! Early writing is often things like tax records ("accessible" is a strange way to describe this kind of writing), and writing/reading ability is often a class marker. Which of these sources is this one from? I'd like to have a look at its sources. It's also strange to suggest that writing is a precondition for schools. -- asilvering (talk) 22:36, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, early forms of writing are not that accessible. Maybe the term "available" would be better in this context. The paragraph talks about the ancient period, so this includes more advanced forms of writing as well, like the works of Plato. I implemented some reformulations so that our text reflects more closely the language used in the sources:
From Hoskin 2021: the invention of the technology of writing ... enabled a new kind of (i) storage of information, (ii) communication, ....
From Kuskis & Logan 2014:The invention of writing ... led to the creation of the first schools.
Another key aspect of ancient education was the establishment of formal education. Have another look at this paragraph and the one before - it's repeating itself. The rest of this paragraph is very strange. I won't addresss individual sentences, since these aren't good sources on the topic, and I think once you get some you'll want to rewrite this whole bit. Though I will note that restricted to the intellectual elites (which is true) conflicts with the accessible to more people above. -- asilvering (talk) 22:36, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
In the medieval period, religious authorities had a lot of influence over formal education. This applied specifically to the role of the Catholic Church in Europe. But it is also seen in the Muslim world. You absolutely must get sources specifically about the development of European universities, the madrasas, and medieval Jewish education before attempting a sentence like this. There is a lot of anti-Semitic, Islamophobic, and post-medieval anti-Catholic bias unintentionally wrapped up in statements like "religious authorities had a lot of influence over formal education". Luckily for you, there is also a lot of really in-depth work on this field. You don't need to read all that to write a couple of sentences here, but skimming a recent article or the introduction to a recent book will do you. -- asilvering (talk) 22:36, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The stuff on guilds is fine; if you're so inclined, you might want to have a quick skim of the Nicholas book again, since this is also a period of rising middle class and secular education, which would be worth pointing out more overtly given the religious stuff earlier in the para. -- asilvering (talk) 22:36, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
People who aren't 15thc historians love to say wild stuff about the Print Revolution, and you've cited some of those people here. The trajectory overall is correct (obviously, movable type and newspapers are not unrelated), but things were similar more than they were different for quite a while. Notice how this jumps from from the 15th century to the 18th century? There's a lot missing here. This is Education, not History of Education, so I don't think this needs to be exhaustive, but it certainly can't make a claim about print and then jump forward three centuries. -- asilvering (talk) 22:36, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I also note that this is the Standard Western Narrative - what else is happening in the world? Most importantly, where is China, which famously has had an intensive civil service education for literally thousands of years? This is an enormous omission. -- asilvering (talk) 22:36, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
From here on out we're no longer in my period so it's harder for me to tell if something is missing, but it does strike me as odd that public education is framed as an alternative to education provided by religious institutions. Public education today is provided by religious institutions the world over (if you're from western Europe or Canada, you surely know someone who was "taught by nuns"?) and certainly was early on. -- asilvering (talk) 22:36, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that a contrast between public education and education provided by religious institutions in general would be misguided. The main point of the sentence in question is more specific about the contrast between earlier periods and the developments in the 18th and 19th centuries. If the sentence appears problematic, we could remove it or reformulate it. But my impression is that pointing out this contrast is helpful to the reader. Phlsph7 (talk) 09:23, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
A side effect of the establishment of public education was the introduction of standardized curricula for public schools as well as standardized tests to assess the students' progress. Like I said, no longer my period, but surely this isn't broadly true? Seems a bit chicken-and-egg, especially when you consider historical Chinese bureaucracy? It may well be true for the United States, but in that case I would omit this as too specific and instead say something broadly about standardized curricula in the globalization section. For example, it seems odd to not mention something like the TOEFL exams, the beginning of worldwide comparisons of students' math abilities, etc. -- asilvering (talk) 22:36, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I reformulated the sentence to not imply that there was no standardization before publication. I also added TOEFL and PISA as examples. Phlsph7 (talk) 10:03, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, that was a lot of grousing. I don't want to end this without saying how much I appreciate all your hard work on this article. A huge subject, one that's so hard to summarize, and on such a visible topic - thank you for this. -- asilvering (talk) 22:36, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks a lot for the time and effort to review this article. I tried to implement your suggestions but I'm not sure that I fully succeeded in all cases. Phlsph7 (talk) 10:07, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Gog the Mild, sorry about this, I have to give up - I've got a concussion and am struggling to read dense text, which unfortunately is most of this article. (Unfortunately for me; don't read that as some kind of comment about the article!) I got down to "Role in society" before I threw in the towel, and can say that overall I am impressed with how the topic is clearly and simply explained. I haven't been able to check up on the responses to my comments above. I find some of them concerning and I'm worried about the quality of the sources used in the History section, and I recall sharing some of the concerns of SusanW and mujinga, but I'm afraid that's the most I can say right now. Happy to (try to) answer specific questions here if you or Phlsph7 have any you can ask without sending me back to the article itself, though (for some reason, Talk pages are much easier to read). -- asilvering (talk) 21:46, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for working on this article! It's extremely well-written and concise. One small comment from me - I wonder if some of the words throughout the article (knowledge, skills, character traits, institutions, etc) could be unlinked? Per MOS:OVERLINK, Everyday words understood by most readers in context, as well as major examples of...languages (eg Latin), should not be linked. Best, Frostly (talk) 04:51, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Frostly and thank you for the comments. I removed several links to common terms. I left some in cases where the term in question is part of a definition. I'm not sure if that's the best practice. If that is not the case then I'm open to removing them as well. Phlsph7 (talk) 08:57, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Leaving a marker here, though it is currently finals week at school so I probably won't get to this before Wednesday at the earliest (if it's taking me a while, a reminder ping would be much appreciated). PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 06:07, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@PCN02WPS: Thanks for planning to review this nomination. I was wondering if you have found the time to have a first look through the article. This is a big topic so please take your time. Phlsph7 (talk) 09:02, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Broadly, I think the prose needs a bit of work to meet FA standard. It reads very choppy throughout and sounds kind of dumbed-down at times. I think there are too many uses of "This way," "Examples are", "Another example is", etc., which break the flow of the writing. I also feel that revisions would be helpful to make sure that ideas are not repeated multiple times using different wording.
The idea behind using short and simple sentences was to make the text accessible to the average reader. But you are right that readers familiar with topic may feel that some parts are choppy. I'll try to follow your suggestions to find a middle way that increases the flow of the text for those knowledgeable on the topic without make it overly difficult. Phlsph7 (talk) 09:30, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Lead
This might just be me, but the first paragraph reads a little choppy and I think that flow could be improved by combining some sentences.
"Non-formal education happens in places that are occasionally visited" → I'm pretty sure I know what you're trying to say here but it's a little awkwardly worded; additionally, this sequence of sentences is very choppy to me
"Autodidacticism or self-education is self-directed learning" → After this sentence, this paragraph gets very repetitive as the sentences are a little choppy and all begin with "it"
"Examples include e-learning (use of computers)..." → what is the distinction between online education and other types like e- and m-learning? My instinct is that m- and e-learning both must also use the internet, or at least in most cases do
I think you are on the right track. If you use your computer to access an educational website, it's both e-learning and online education. If you use an educational computer program that works offline, it's e-learning but not online education. Phlsph7 (talk) 10:09, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"also referred to as public education" → footnote added before punctuation
The first paragraph seems to be a little repetitive; as I read it, the flow of ideas is "education makes society possible...education is necessary for people to function in society...children join society as a result of being educated...education is necessary for people to function in society...education teaches you what society deems appropriate...after you learn what is appropriate you can function in society...children join society as a result of being educated...education teaches you what society deems appropriate" - it seems to be like the same handful of ideas are each repeated several times using different wording
The intention of this paragraph was to talk about different aspects of socialization. One aspect is that people acquire certain skills to fulfill their daily needs. Another is that people learn norms, values, and social expectations. I tried to streamline this paragraph a little more but please let me know if further adjustments are needed. Phlsph7 (talk) 13:24, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The first sentence of paragraph 2 goes back to "education allows you to be a member of society" which I feel was covered in paragraph 1
This paragraph expands on the second point of the first sentence of the first paragraph: Education plays various roles in society, including in social, economic, and personal fields. I reformulated the first sentence of the second paragraph to make this clearer. You are right that these different aspects of education overlap and there is no tidy way to present them in isolation of each other. Phlsph7 (talk) 13:24, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"fostering a questioning mind" → could this wording be simplified? Are we talking about curiosity or skepticism or a combination of the two?
I think it's more about curiosity and thinking for oneself rather than a full-blown skepticism. I reformulated the passage to clarify the point. Phlsph7 (talk) 13:46, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"While education is of high relevance in childhood, it does not end at adulthood and continues throughout life" → This is already discussed at length in the previous section
"The year 1970 was declared International Education Year" → by who? Also, remove italics from "International Education Year" and consider switching from passive to active voice
"They interact both with each other and with other stakeholders, such as parents, local communities, and religious groups. Further stakeholders are Non-governmental organizations, professionals in healthcare, law enforcement, media platforms, and political leaders." → Sentence is split for no reason
"Many people are directly involved in the education sector. They include students, teachers, and school principals as well as school nurses and curriculum developers." → combine into one sentence
"International organizations also play a key role in education. For instance, UNESCO is an intergovernmental" → "UNESCO" is linked previously in the article so it can be delinked here
"Several factors influence educational achievement. They include psychological factors, which concern the student as an individual, and sociological factors, which pertain to the student's social environment." → no need to split these sentences
"Intelligence is often primarily associated with the so-called IQ, a standardized numerical metric for assessing intelligence." → redundant sentence, all this says is "intelligence is associated with the metric that measures intelligence", which goes without saying
IQ is only one metric and does not encompass all the factors relevant to education. I feel that the original passage did not make this point clear enough so I reformulated it. Phlsph7 (talk) 09:53, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"However, it has been argued that there different types of intelligences pertaining" → missing word
"They include socioeconomic status, ethnicity, and cultural background, as well as gender." → why break the list format and then have to add gender on to the end? To me this sounds better as "socioeconomic status, ethnicity, cultural background, and gender"
"Education studies encompasses various subfields like philosophy..." → reads as though there is a missing "the" after "like" here; also I would recommend reordering the sentence to avoid having so many instances of "... of education" in a list. Perhaps something like "...various subfields like pedagogy, comparative education, and the philosophy, psychology, sociology, economics, and history of education"
"social factors influence education and how it leads to socialization" → I'm assuming "it" here refers to "education", but it sounds a little ambiguous as written
"Influential theories are behaviorism, cognitivism, and constructivism. Behaviorism understands" → move behaviorism link to first mention in prior sentence
"There are many teaching methods available. Which one is most efficient in a case depends on various factors, like the subject matter as well as the learner's age and competence level" → first sentence sounds a little choppy, recommend combining these 2
"Starting in the 4th millennium BCE and the following millennia" → sort of sounds like you're saying "starting in these multiple millennia" which doesn't really make sense; assuming you're shooting for something closer to "starting in the 4th millennium BCE and continuing through the following millennia..."
I was trying to allude to the idea that the changes started in different places at different times. But given that we just talk about a general major shift, I think your suggestion is better so I implemented it. Phlsph7 (talk) 08:33, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"In the Arab world, the newly founded religion of Islam spread rapidly" → "newly-spread"
"In 1970, 28% of all primary-school-age children worldwide did not attend school; in 2015, this number dropped to 9%." → Assuming that the drop from 28% to 9% did not happen all of a sudden in 2015, recommend changing "in 2015" to "by 2015"
That's all the comments I have, and I believe that, while sometimes a little choppy, the prose does meet FAC standards and is readable and understandable for basically all readers. Well done, happy to support. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 19:43, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Very impressive article but there's something wrong with this citation: {{cite book |last1=Tillman |first1=Daniel A. |last2=An |first2=Song A. |last3=Robertson |first3=William H. |editor1-last=Mora |editor1-first=Javier Calvo de |editor1-link=Kennedy |title=Schools and Informal Learning in a Knowledge-Based World |date=19 September 2019 |publisher=Routledge |isbn=978-0-429-66619-3 |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=esyxDwAAQBAJ&pg=PA63 |archive-url=Kerry J. |language=en |chapter=The Relationship Between Formal and Informal Learning}}
Why is the editor link piped to "Kennedy"? (And there's an error message pointing out that archive-date is required). Colonies Chris (talk) 11:25, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Colonies Chris and thanks for pointing this out, I'm not sure how that came to pass. Those two fields were supposed to be editor2-last and editor2-first rather than editor1-link and archive-url. I fixed it. Phlsph7 (talk) 11:56, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Are the wikilinks to experiences, conscious, obedience really helpful? These are just fairly ordinary dictionary words used in their normal sense, not technical terms.
But yes, I'm happy to support the nomination.[[User:*Hi [[User:|]], I was wondering if you felt in a position to either support or oppose this nomination? Obviously, neither is obligatory. Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:35, 29 December 2023 (UTC)|Colonies Chris]] (talk) 10:40, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Kudos for your work on this highly important topic. The article is well supported, but I see important issues with coverage and prose.
Coverage
Several areas seem underrepresented or missing: cost of education (with worldwide comparison map), sports and athletic education, sex education, expanded discussion of the various modes of digital learning, especially any recent studies of ai and education.
I've added a short paragraph on the cost of primary, secondary, and tertiary education in a global comparison. I couldn't find a worldwide comparison map on wikicommons but if you know of one, that would be a valuable addition. The article already mentions physical education and I added sex education. I also added a sentence on the potentials and risks of artificial intelligence in education to the subsection on technology. Phlsph7 (talk) 09:36, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The third paragraph of the lead starts “Many factors influence whether education is successful.” The article discusses a variety of these factors, but could do more to explore what “success” means, both in specific contexts such as within a specialty as well as in a broader context such in society at large. I think it’s hard because there is disagreement in the field, but I think example studies will help to anchor the reader to one definition of success, at least for some study. It will make learning about the various factors easier to grasp because we’ll know, roughly, what measures we should care about. For example, “A meta-analysis by Engin Karadağ et al. concludes that, compared to other influences, factors related to the school and the teacher have the biggest impact on educational success.” This could be expanded to explain the meta study and what their measures were.
I still have a ton of questions after reading the article. Some of these may be out of scope (apologies for those)… How does education impact (and vice versa) major world shifts like the Industrial Revolution, population growth (especially in developing nations), and climate change. How does it impact war and vice versa? National security? What is the role of peers / classmates in educational success? “Education also has positive effects on health and well-being.” This sounds huge, and could be expanded. What role does education play in genocide? What percentage of students cheat? What constitutes cheating in the various systems? How is it handled? Who are some prominent educators worldwide? Who are some prominent activists for women’s and girls’ education? How does education influence birth rate? What educational opportunities are available in prisons? What schools are considered to be the best in the world? What types of content have been censored or legislated out of a curriculum? What role do organizations such as PTA play in shaping curriculum and/or daily school life? What is education like in North Korea? What do experts say about the future of education?
I managed to mention a few of them, including birth rates and cheating. I also expanded on the relation between education and health. Some of the other points are touched by the article but I feel that a more detailed discussion would lead too far and include many details in this article that are better left to articles covering more specific topics. If there are some points you feel strongly about then let me know and I'll see if they can be integrated. Phlsph7 (talk) 09:20, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Prose
The first paragraph offers a sensible way to slice up the topic of education, but it could be more engaging to start with something like the importance of eduction, how widespread it is among humans and throughout the animal kingdom (is it right to say that animals “educate” their young?) In other words, the reader will appreciate knowing what scope they’re getting into before diving into its various divisions or categories within that scope.
While it's true that, at least for some animals, parents teach their children, the term "education" is usually only used for humans. The importance of education in terms of the effects it has on society is currently discussed in the 2nd lead paragraph. There are different approaches to arranging the different topics and there is probably no ideal or universally accepted approach. The current approach goes from general to specific by starting with the definition and then continuing to the types, the effects, the relevant factors, the field of inquiry, and the history. Part of this outline was already discussed in Anarchyte's review, which emphasized the importance of having the discussion of types in the first paragraph. Phlsph7 (talk) 09:35, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The prose puts a lot of focus on classification which can be distracting. To this reader, it’s less important that I learn the hierarchical structure of the field of education and how the topic can be organized than it is to learn what education is at its core or essence, how the values, practices, and metrics compare across countries and demographics, etc. Both are important for the article, the former especially for academics, but I think the balance leans too far toward classifications and definitions. In this case I think it runs the risk of feeling like too much like a table of contents of the various other education-related articles. I’m hoping for more facts, examples, numbers, graphs, quotes, and world maps of educational metrics, to complement an expanded prose.
We have a whole article on the Definitions of education, which could be used to expand the discussion of the essence of education. The difficulty here is that there are significant disagreements, which makes this topic more difficult to discuss since, for the most part, we can't say "education is X" but have to say something like "According to Y, education is X". My impression is that the current definition section covers the main points and that the details are better left for this child article. We run into a similar difficulty with the values guiding education. The article currently presents the main points but there are many more points that could be discussed, see the more detailed discussion at Philosophy of education#Aims of education. If there are some specific points about the essence and aims of education or about particular facts and metrics then we can see how to fit them in. I usually try to add examples to make or illustrate a point and not for their own sake. With this type of overview article, it's very easy to lose sight of the main points and get lost in the details. Phlsph7 (talk) 10:00, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
In short I think what’s here is well written and supported, but the article is in need of expansion to cover some important gaps. It’s possible that I’ve understood the overall scope of the article incorrectly, in which case feel free to discard those parts of my comments. Thanks again for your impressive work on this huge and important topic. GuineaPigC77 (𒅗𒌤) ☕13:58, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hello GuineaPigC77 and thanks for the many and detailed suggestions. Education is a very wide topic that has countless types, intersects with many social processes, covers various disciplines, and stretches over several millenia. One of the main challenges of writing this type of overview article is to decide what to mention and in what level of detail to discuss it. The article currently stands at 9122 words readable prose size. I think this length is acceptable given the scope of the article but it is already at the upper limit of WP:SIZERULE so I don't think it should be expanded much further. I share your frustration that many interesting subtopics do not get a more detailed discussion but I'm not sure how much we can do about it except for ensuring that the article at least covers all the main points. I'll see how I can implement your suggestions without bloating the article too much and I'll ping you once I think I have addressed all the main points. Phlsph7 (talk) 17:46, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@GuineaPigC77: I implemented many of your ideas. I tried to follow a minimalist approach to keep the article size in check and only focus on the main points. Please let me know if you feel that I overlooked some important ideas so we may figure out how they may be integrated as well. Phlsph7 (talk) 10:07, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I lean towards oppose for the reasons above, with an asterisk that I’m a first time reviewer here. Per the FA Criteria, I think it runs into issues on 1a (the prose is definitely written to a professional standard but needs to be more engaging), and 1b (important questions are glossed over). Regarding the updates, my sense is that adding mention of missing aspects isn’t really enough to cover them to the reader’s satisfaction. Given the length constraints, one concrete suggestion would be to remove some depth from some sections to make room for juicer topics that the reader will surely want to learn about, increasing coverage and engagement. One section could be the Definitions section, where material could be shortened / relegated to the Definitions of education article, but I see potentially others as well. I think these issues are fixable but pervasive. For these reasons I think some rewriting is needed. Nevertheless I’d be interested to see if we get any further comments on coverage that we haven’t heard yet. GuineaPigC77 (𒅗𒌤) ☕10:30, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for taking the time to clarify your position. I tried to implement your suggestions as best as I could, but some concerns kept me from implementing all of them.
Concerning the definition/essence of education: you state that the article should have more material on what education is at its core or essence. You also state that the definitions section, which addresses exactly this point, has too much material and its material could be shortened. Maybe there is a misunderstanding on my side since I'm not sure how I can implement those two suggestions at the same time.
Regarding comprehensiveness: a key policy here is WP:PROPORTION: which states that An article should not give undue weight to minor aspects of its subject but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight proportional to its treatment in the body of reliable, published material on the subject. For example, you stated that the article should include material on What educational opportunities are available in prisons and What is education like in North Korea. I consulted a few comprehensive high-quality overview sources on education in general ([13], [14], [15], [16]) and, as far as I can tell, none of them discuss these topics in any detail (or mention them at all). This gives me the impression that, while these topics are clearly related to education, they are not important enough to merit a detailed discussion in a concise overview article. If you know of high-quality overview sources on education in general that give major importance to these topics then I would interested in reading them and adjusting the article accordingly. But from the sources that I'm aware of, following these suggestions would violate WP:PROPORTION.
Concerning the part of engaging prose: this is an encyclopedic article so the main point is to convey information. It's great if the reader can be entertained at the same time but this should not come at the expense of encyclopedic value. The article currently starts with a definition, and you suggested that it should start instead by discussing the importance of eduction and how widespread it is among humans and throughout the animal kingdom. Maybe you are right that the article would be more engaging this way. However, MOS:LEADSENTENCE clearly states that articles should start with a definition. Following this guideline is probably more important than making the article more engaging. Something similar may be true for your suggested additions: the article might be more entertaining if it contained juicer topics like a detailed discussion of education in North Korea but this should not be our primary reason for including them. Phlsph7 (talk) 12:48, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comprehensiveness and WP:PROPORTION. Fair points. If the article is giving weight that mirrors that of the comprehensive sources then I can’t / won't complain further about this.
Entertainment is not the goal of course. Also true that while engagement is indeed a goal, it shouldn't get in the way of the encyclopedic nature or tone of the article or create an imbalance in emphasis. But I see places where the prose could be simplified and made much more engaging without these sacrifices. I see a small changes that could add up to a meaningful improvement. For example,
“The precise definition of education is disputed" could become "Definitions of education vary.”
“A further influence on contemporary education was the emergence of new educational technologies” -> “Emerging educational technologies are shaping contemporary education.”
"Early childhood education, also known as preschool education or nursery education, is the stage of education that begins with birth and lasts until the start of primary school.” -> "Early childhood education, also known as preschool education or nursery education, begins with birth and lasts until the start of primary school.”
“Secondary education is the stage of education following primary education and usually covers the ages of 12 to 18 years.” -> “Secondary education follows primary education and usually covers the ages of 12 to 18 years."
Modifications such as these, wherever they don’t change the meaning of the material, could make the prose much easier to digest and more engaging, and probably slightly shorter too. As a generalization, a good deal of sentences use the verb "is" or its variations, which makes the prose feel flat. So in a lot of cases, an easy fix is just use the more interesting verb that is already in the sentence. If suggestions along these lines are helpful / acceptable, I can make a longer list.
Thanks, these suggestions are helpful, I implemented most of them with a slight variation in some cases. The main remaining concern of some reviewers is that the prose in a few parts needs to be improved. Chances are that you have a better eye for spotting these types of changes than me so more suggestions would be most welcome. Phlsph7 (talk) 12:52, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Definitions section. It may just come down to the fact when I get to thick and thin definitions, it feels like I’m getting too much into the weeds and learning about *how* to define things. I lose engagement here. But again, if the length of this section represents the weight given to definitions of education in the relevant sources, then it’s just me.
I made a first attempt to shorten it without removing too many ideas. I agree that this is probably the most challenging part for the readers but these disputes are really a big topic in the academic literature, and we only barely touched the surface in these few paragraphs. Phlsph7 (talk) 12:52, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
All the changes look good.
“This implies that its meaning varies depending on the situation in which it is used.” Consider removing this sentence?
“Another classification includes different levels of education based on factors like the student's age and the complexity of the content.” “different” -> “distinct”
“Like formal education, it is organized, systematic, and carried out with a clear purpose, like tutoring, fitness classes, and the scouting movement.” This implies tutoring etc. are the purpose. Maybe: “Like formal education, it is organized, systematic, and carried out with a clear purpose. Examples include tutoring, fitness classes, and the scouting movement.”
I implemented your idea but I used a different formulation since some of the other reviewers criticized sentences starting with "Examples include" as leading to choppy prose. Phlsph7 (talk) 09:45, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
“Non-formal and informal education are closely linked to intrinsic motivation because the learning itself is enjoyed.” -> “In non-formal and informal education, enjoyment of the learning process provides intrinsic motivation.” Or something like that.
“Formal education plays a central role in modern civilization, though in primitive cultures, most of the education happened on the informal level.” “though” -> “whereas” This paragraph is structured oddly?
You are right, I restructured the paragraph so it talks first about informal education in primitive cultures and then about the increased focus on formal education. Phlsph7 (talk) 09:45, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
“Today, primary education is compulsory in almost all countries, and over 90% of all primary-school-age children worldwide attend primary school.” Could this sentence or a variation make its way into the lead?
“Many other types of education are discussed in the academic literature, like the distinction between traditional and alternative education.” This implies that a distinction is a type of education. Maybe: “The academic literature distinguishes between traditional and alternative education.”
“Alternative education is an umbrella term for forms of schooling that differ from the mainstream traditional approach. They may use a different learning environment, teach different subjects, or promote a different teacher-student relationship.” -> “Alternative education differs from the mainstream traditional approach. Differences may include learning environment, subjects, or the teacher-student relationship.”
Done. I kept the first part about it being an umbrella terms to make it clear to the reader that there is no one standard alternative education. Phlsph7 (talk) 10:12, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
“Unconscious education occurs on its own without being consciously planned or guided.” Remove “consciously”?
“Its goal is to maximize the effectiveness of educational practices and policies. This is achieved by ensuring that they are informed by the best available empirical evidence.” -> “Its goal is to maximize the effectiveness of educational practices and policies by ensuring that they are informed by the best available empirical evidence.”
“Various aspects of formal education are regulated by the policies of governmental institutions. They determine…” -> “Various aspects of formal education are regulated by the policies of governmental institutions. These policies determine…”
“Educational technology can also make information easier to understand by presenting it using graphics and videos rather than through mere text.” Add sound/audio?
Remaining concerns with the prose are more subtle, and changes may not be required to fulfill the FA Criteria 1a. The prose could swap more instances of “to be” for other verbs, and there seems to be a heavy emphasis on structure. This is probably just word choice, but it permeates. Eg, topic sentences in the Others section:
“Alternative education is an umbrella term…”
“Other distinctions…”
“Some classifications…”
“Forms of education can also be categorized…”
“A further distinction…”
Sentences like these could be re-worked so the prose flows more naturally. But these issues are minor and shouldn’t prevent this from passing 1a. GuineaPigC77 (𒅗𒌤) ☕01:30, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for breaking these points down. Personally, I like topic sentence to introduce the general idea before getting into the details. I may have a tendency to overuse them and thereby break the flow. I made a few more adjustment to reduce their frequency. Phlsph7 (talk) 13:39, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I appreciate your challenges to the article and the many insightful and actionable suggestions. Would you tend to support the nomination? Phlsph7 (talk) 09:12, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Some pagenumbers are followed by dots and others aren't.
This was because I combined harvnb-templates (which don't end with a dot) with sfn-templates (which do). I changed it to use only harvnb templates. Phlsph7 (talk) 12:15, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
In the sources section, it seems like most inconsistencies are due to different sources having different information.
I tried to address this point by ensuring that the publisher names are used consistently and by removing the page numbers since they are already given in the short citations. I already removed those page numbers two months ago but then a bot came by and automatically restored most of them. Phlsph7 (talk) 12:34, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It seems like Aron, Laudan Y. is reasonably commonly cited.
Sage is sometimes given as Sage Publications and sometimes as Sage.
I notice the preponderance of Western publications - are there so few Asian/African/Latin American ones?
The situation with this topic is not as bad as with philosophy but it is similar: most high-quality academic sources written in the English language have publishers whose main seat is in a Western country. For example, in my research I often came across English books by Indian publishers for which I couldn't find much information other than the publisher's own website to assess whether they fulfill the FA requirements for high-quality sources. Phlsph7 (talk) 12:49, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I had another look through the sources and added several books from non-Western publishers. We are still far from parity but I think this would be an unrealistic goal. Phlsph7 (talk) 09:29, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
What makes www.mckinsey.com. a reliable source? Also these citations should probably be rewritten so that they don't have the domain sitting out there.
Why is https://www.education.gov.in/about-moe being singled out specifically - is it because AFAIK India has the largest number of people in school in the world?
That part was added in response to review suggestions. The idea was to include examples from the Global South and given the number of children affected by the decisions of the Indian ministry of education, this seems a good choice. In terms of sheer numbers, it could be that India is ahead of China but I'm not sure. Phlsph7 (talk) 17:19, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You are right, I removed it. It was needed earlier but the sentence in our article has changed since then is supported by the other sources. Phlsph7 (talk) 17:23, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The use of "How the Pandemic Is Reshaping Education" from 2021 might need to be updated with more recent sources.
I'm really glad to see this broad-concept, level-2 vital article getting the attention it deserves and being put up at FAC here! At the moment, all I have time for is a skim, so I'm just going to note things I observe, rather than doing a full review that would lead to a formal support !vote. I focused mainly on the lead section, given that it's the most-read portion of the article.
Overall, I like the collage, which abides by pertinent best practices such as showcasing various facets of the topic and including geographic diversity (also true of the other images throughout the article). The upper right image seems the weakest of the bunch — it doesn't have any faces visible, making it overall just not that visually compelling. It could be swapped out if we can find something better, but it's not terrible. {{u|Sdkb}}talk20:21, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This image was suggested by asilvering in their review. To fit in with the other images in terms of themes, age groups, and regional diversity, we would need an image of formal secondary or tertiary education in Africa. What about one of the following? Personally, I would go with the first or the second. Phlsph7 (talk) 12:44, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I notice that non-formal education is linked but formal education is not, being a redirect to the levels section here but tagged with possibilities. Converting that to an article is beyond the scope here, but given that it affects how this article is laid out, I'm interested to know whether you think it ought to be an article or the possibilities tag is erroneous. {{u|Sdkb}}talk20:21, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
People often use the term "education" to mean "formal education" and formal education is at the center of the academic discourse on education. I had more or less the same problem with Logic and Formal logic. I'm not fully decided on how to best tackle this issue. On the one hand, formal education deserves to have its own article. On the other hand, it would be to difficult to avoid too much overlap with this article. If there is a way to avoid that overlap then it would be a good idea to have a separate article. Phlsph7 (talk) 12:55, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
History sections generally go early in an article, so it's odd to see it at the end here (both of the lead and of the article). What's your reasoning for that organization? At first glance I'd lean toward trying to move it up in both places. Additionally, in the lead, it seems shoehorned into the paragraph about education studies rather than being given its own paragraph. {{u|Sdkb}}talk20:21, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This issue was discussed in some of the other reviews and opinions among editors are divided. Personally, I think there are 2 good places for a history section: the beginning and the end. Where it goes depends on how much emphasis the academic literature gives to history in comparison to other topics. Currently, the prime spot (after the definition) is reserved for the types of education. I tend to agree that this is more important but I don't feel very strongly about it.
In the lead, we could split the last paragraph in two to have a separate paragraph for the history. This way, we would have 5 lead paragraphs with 3 rather short ones. I usually aim for 3-4 lead paragraphs for big articles. Phlsph7 (talk) 13:11, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds reasonable re placement. For the paragraph splits, the 3-4 paragraphs suggestion for leads is a proxy for length, but splitting wouldn't actually make the lead any longer. And I think it makes more semantic sense. {{u|Sdkb}}talk06:13, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The locations in image captions feel like they need some work. Why is the municipality in Colorado linked but Ziway, Ethiopia, is not? Why is Haiti linked but Ethiopia not? (I guess they perhaps fall on separate sides of the borderline major countries criterion in MOS:OVERLINK, so maybe that's alright.) Why is the specific municipality given for the Ziway picture but not the Japan one (and with the Russia one only implying through the university name)? I'm not so much asking for specific changes here as just that you think through this aspect and try to approach it consistently. {{u|Sdkb}}talk20:21, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Good point. I tried to make the image captions more consistent by mentioning the country name without municipalities. I also delinked Haiti so we don't need to worry how major it is compared to Ethiopia. Phlsph7 (talk) 13:21, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
For the "Role in society" section, perhaps we could illustrate it with an image of a highly specialized job, with a caption indicating that such jobs contribute a lot to the economy but require a lot of education? {{u|Sdkb}}talk20:21, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I added an image of a medical researcher. I'm not sure that the caption is ideal so feel free to tinker with it if you have better ideas. Phlsph7 (talk) 13:49, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
For the "Aims and ideologies" section, perhaps we could illustrate it with an illustration of propagandistic education? {{u|Sdkb}}talk20:21, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
In this context, ideology is not meant in a negative sense, it means more or less the same as "theory". Among other ideologies, the section also mentions authoritarian ideologies, but I'm not sure if there is a good way to illustrate them or if we should focus on them. Phlsph7 (talk) 16:55, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Given that images do not need to be comprehensive for their section, just a representative example, an image of authoritarian education seems like it would be fine. But that's all moot if we can't find one. {{u|Sdkb}}talk06:13, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The see also section for an article like this has the potential to be a massive bloat magnet, so I'd suggest adding a hidden comment there discouraging additions of anything but the most broad-concept articles, and requiring that potential additions receive affirmative consensus at talk before being added. Also, looking at the current entries, I question whether Bildung, being country-specific, should appear, and I wonder if we could incorporate Mixed-sex education into somewhere in the article body instead. {{u|Sdkb}}talk20:21, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That's all for now. Again, it looks like you've put some excellent work into this! This certainly isn't an easy topic to bring to FA status, particularly with regard to comprehensivity, so I applaud the effort and hope it gets past the finish line! Cheers, {{u|Sdkb}}talk20:21, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Excellent article. Commas seem to be a bit inconsistent, however. Some independent clauses don't have a comma where there should be one, such as: "The precise definition of education is disputed(,) and there are disagreements about what the aims of education are [...]". Nothing else to critique really. Wretchskull (talk) 12:06, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, but I haven't done a thorough enough review to be able to support. I just commented on something that I caught as I read bits here and there. Nothing strikes me as egregious though, so I'm not opposing. Wretchskull (talk) 10:43, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Coordinator note: At nearly two months, it does not look like there is consensus for promotion, with concerns regarding prose and comprehensiveness. Given how lengthy and PR-like this nomination has become, I think it's best to archive this now. I recommend that you work with the quasi-opposers and renominate once you receive positive feedback from them. The usual two-week wait before another nomination will apply. FrB.TG (talk) 18:55, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
.png)
.jpg)
_3.jpg)
.jpg)
![[12]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Reading_Wikipedia_in_the_Classroom_for_Secondary_School_Students_81.jpg){kind=link}
