The Use and Abuses of Emulation as a Pedagogical Practice
Saved in:
| Title: | The Use and Abuses of Emulation as a Pedagogical Practice |
|---|---|
| Language: | English |
| Authors: | Jonas, Mark E., Chambers, Drew W. |
| Source: | Educational Theory. Jun 2017 67(3):241-263. |
| Availability: | Wiley-Blackwell. 350 Main Street, Malden, MA 02148. Tel: 800-835-6770; Tel: 781-388-8598; Fax: 781-388-8232; e-mail: cs-journals@wiley.com; Web site: http://www.wiley.com/WileyCDA |
| Peer Reviewed: | Y |
| Page Count: | 23 |
| Publication Date: | 2017 |
| Document Type: | Journal Articles Reports - Evaluative |
| Descriptors: | Imitation, Learning Processes, Teaching Methods, Learning Theories, Educational Benefits |
| DOI: | 10.1111/edth.12246 |
| ISSN: | 0013-2004 |
| Abstract: | From the late eighteenth through the end of the nineteenth century, educational philosophers and practitioners debated the benefits and shortcomings of the use of emulation in schools. During this period, "emulation" referred to a pedagogy that leveraged comparisons between students as a tool to motivate them to higher achievement. Many educationists praised emulation as a necessary and effective motivator. Other educationists condemned it for its tendency to foster invidious competition between students and to devalue learning. Ultimately, by the late nineteenth century emulation as a specific pedagogical practice had disappeared in American educational culture. In this article, Mark Jonas and Drew Chambers ask whether the disappearance of emulation is something to be celebrated or lamented. To answer this question they examine the historical concept of educational emulation and analyze the bases on which proponents and opponents argued. Parties on both sides of the debate framed their arguments in close relation to the way emulation was being used at that time, which prioritized actual competitions and prizes. In that context, the opponents made a better case, which presumably contributed to emulation's disappearance in schools afterwards. However, as earlier proponents of emulation argued, emulation need not be restricted to competitions and prizes. Instead, these proponents offered a philosophically and psychologically rich defense of emulation, but these were not carried through to an appropriate degree. The authors conclude that, construed appropriately, emulation not only had tremendous educational potential then, but still does today. With intentional effort on the part of teachers, emulation can greatly enrich students' lives and act as a powerful learning motivator. |
| Abstractor: | As Provided |
| Entry Date: | 2017 |
| Accession Number: | EJ1165050 |
| Database: | ERIC |
|
Full text is not displayed to guests.
Login for full access.
|
|
| FullText | Links: – Type: pdflink Url: https://content.ebscohost.com/cds/retrieve?content=AQICAHj0k_4E0hTGH8RJwT4gCJyBsGNe_WN95AvKlDbXJGqwxwFlxABwJ2yg1ythqCuPSrg3AAAA4zCB4AYJKoZIhvcNAQcGoIHSMIHPAgEAMIHJBgkqhkiG9w0BBwEwHgYJYIZIAWUDBAEuMBEEDCOWhhnHCljkMP0t8wIBEICBmyXe199AuIcQUxLW0oAeqvUXEGmNjqbse9IppGh4Yi5Zn24wkK4C5z7j_VNcBNf1sNckc13Y-0ditJwjTB-elptn1EdA9wT9u0JXneUZzcSH-0EF1L13qyHKijeX0sZH3OgEFkAmlAFyDYysoRrCS3Bf4PelGDVItT_9FG-KIauW1wXc1iOTexV2H2RGpP5UY1D87iwFhf3oKJya Text: Availability: 1 Value: <anid>AN0127042892;ety01jun.17;2018Jul02.13:46;v2.2.500</anid> <title id="AN0127042892-1">The Use and Abuses of Emulation as a Pedagogical Practice. </title> <p>From the late eighteenth through the end of the nineteenth century, educational philosophers and practitioners debated the benefits and shortcomings of the use of emulation in schools. During this period, “emulation” referred to a pedagogy that leveraged comparisons between students as a tool to motivate them to higher achievement. Many educationists praised emulation as a necessary and effective motivator. Other educationists condemned it for its tendency to foster invidious competition between students and to devalue learning. Ultimately, by the late nineteenth century emulation as a specific pedagogical practice had disappeared in American educational culture. In this article, Mark Jonas and Drew Chambers ask whether the disappearance of emulation is something to be celebrated or lamented. To answer this question they examine the historical concept of educational emulation and analyze the bases on which proponents and opponents argued. Parties on both sides of the debate framed their arguments in close relation to the way emulation was being used at that time, which prioritized actual competitions and prizes. In that context, the opponents made a better case, which presumably contributed to emulation's disappearance in schools afterwards. However, as earlier proponents of emulation argued, emulation need not be restricted to competitions and prizes. Instead, these proponents offered a philosophically and psychologically rich defense of emulation, but these were not carried through to an appropriate degree. The authors conclude that, construed appropriately, emulation not only had tremendous educational potential then, but still does today. With intentional effort on the part of teachers, emulation can greatly enrich students' lives and act as a powerful learning motivator.</p> <p>From the late eighteenth through the end of the nineteenth century, educational philosophers and practitioners around the world publicly debated the benefits and shortcomings of the use of “emulation” in schools.[<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref1">1</reflink>] During this period, “emulation” referred to a specific pedagogical practice in which students compared their academic achievements with one another to determine who had attained the highest level of achievement. Emulation in an educational context encompassed multiple forms of peer‐to‐peer comparison; however, its most common use was found in public contests that awarded prizes to the best‐performing students. Many educationists praised emulation for its ability to motivate students to want to achieve at higher levels.[<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref2">2</reflink>] Other educationists condemned it for its tendency to foster invidious competition, which created artificial distinctions between students and promoted envy (in those who achieved at lower levels) or vanity (in those who achieved at higher levels). Moreover, the critics of emulation claimed that it used extrinsic motivation for learning and did little to foster intrinsic motivation. One of the most vocal and influential American critics of emulation was Horace Mann, the superintendent of the Massachusetts Common Schools, who considered its use to be pernicious.[<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref3">3</reflink>] Like other detractors, Mann thought the potential pitfalls far outweighed the potential benefits. There is a certain intuitive plausibility to Mann's concerns — it is easy to imagine students becoming depressed, anxious, jealous, arrogant, or contemptuous of others depending on the individual or group of individuals to whom they are comparing themselves. Mann described the results of academic comparison as a “tendency … to engender alienation, uncharitableness and envy among” students now conceived of as “rivals.”[<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref4">4</reflink>] However, Mann was widely criticized for his views on emulation — so much so that he privately expressed despondence about the virulence of the censure.[<reflink idref="bib5" id="ref5">5</reflink>] Nevertheless, although he tempered his criticism somewhat, he continued to decry the use of emulation for the remainder of his tenure as the leader of the Massachusetts Common Schools.</p> <p>Ultimately, Mann and the other opponents won the debate, and emulation as a pedagogical practice waned in the late 1800s and had all but disappeared by the early twentieth century. On the face of it, this was a welcome turn of events. As the critics rightly claimed, educational emulation, as it was customarily used, fostered invidious competition and did little to increase internal motivation for learning. Its disappearance came at a price, however; in spite of its shortcomings, emulation had been an effective academic motivator for many students. The public, peer‐to‐peer contests that were the basis of emulation fueled many students' sense of competition, which, much like athletic contests, led to intense application. The desire to outperform their peers, and the fear of being outperformed themselves, led them to attempt to master the material.</p> <p>Today, this form of competitive “emulation” is no longer used. The word “emulation” has lost its specific educational connotation and now means something closer to modeling one's life upon another person, usually a person one admires. To emulate a person means to attempt to embody many of their actions, attitudes, or other character traits. It is not quite imitation, which is more literally doing what someone else does, but it is a very close cousin.</p> <p>The question we seek to answer in this article is whether the disappearance of all forms of educational emulation as a form of peer‐to‐peer comparison is something to be celebrated or lamented. Ultimately, we agree with Mann and others that the forms of emulation that used public competitions and prizes were a harmful presence in the classroom. We disagree, however, that all forms of peer‐to‐peer comparison are harmful. Put succinctly, there are certain forms of teacher‐supported comparison that can be academically and psychologically beneficial to students. Unfortunately, these forms of comparison are sometimes eschewed in classrooms for fear that they will lead to the negative forms of peer‐to‐peer comparison that are at the root of invidious competition. The logic goes something like this: if peer‐to‐peer comparisons often lead to (spoken or unspoken) peer‐to‐peer competition, then teachers would be wise to minimize comparisons. If these comparisons can be minimized then the invidious effects of competition can also be minimized. While on the face of it this logic seems to make sense, it neglects the fact that peer‐to‐peer comparisons are inevitable and that eliminating teacher‐supported comparisons leaves students to make comparisons on their own, which often leads to the competition that the teacher is rightly trying to avoid. We argue that a better approach is for teachers to encourage beneficial forms of peer‐to‐peer comparison as a way to counteract negative ones. In this article, we outline a form of teacher‐supported peer‐to‐peer comparison that we believe has the potential to encourage academic and social growth in students.</p> <p>To make our case, we examine the historical concept of educational emulation and analyze both why its proponents thought it was a beneficial practice and why its opponents thought that it was not. For the most part, both sides of the educational debate framed their arguments in close connection with the way emulation was primarily being used in classrooms at that time, when actual competitions and prizes were used. The opponents of emulation argued that the pernicious educational reward structure of prizes and the psychological reward structure of desiring to outdo others led to undesirable educational and social results. The majority of the proponents argued that the prizes were essential to keep motivation high and thought the only reason to restructure the prize system was to eliminate the social evils that came along with it. In this context, the opponents of emulation made a better case, which presumably contributed to its disappearance in schools by the twentieth century. There were other voices among the proponents, however, who articulated a vision of emulation that eschewed prizes in favor of a greater focus on self‐improvement. Had these voices been properly considered, the debate might have gone differently, and emulation might still be a powerful educational practice. After considering these minority voices, we turn to the question of whether or not there is a way to draw attention to academic differences in the classroom in a manner that could have beneficial results, without the negative side effects that worried Mann. We believe that, properly construed, there is the potential for teacher‐supported peer‐to‐peer comparisons to have a positive psychological and academic impact on students.[<reflink idref="bib6" id="ref6">6</reflink>]</p> <hd id="AN0127042892-2">Debating Emulation in the Nineteenth Century: The Opponents</hd> <p>In the United States, the distinct pedagogical practice of competitive emulation began as early as the late seventeenth century and continued through at least the mid‐ to late nineteenth century.[<reflink idref="bib7" id="ref7">7</reflink>] Its use died out in the early twentieth century. In these contexts, emulation was usually tied to specific, scored competitions between students (on examinations and other forms of assessment) or public rankings and honorary distinctions. Both methods usually included publicly awarded prizes.[<reflink idref="bib8" id="ref8">8</reflink>] Not surprisingly, the competitive component of these comparisons proved to be, generally speaking, a successful incentive. Much like athletic contests, competitive emulation brought out the competitive spirit in many students, and teachers witnessed marked academic improvement.[<reflink idref="bib9" id="ref9">9</reflink>] The problem is that it was not at all clear that the academic improvement that was gained through this form of emulation was sufficient to offset the social and psychological problems that were engendered by it: problems such as invidious competition, arrogance, envy, embarrassment, strife, and so on. Moreover, competitive emulation explicitly relied on leveraging external motivation in students rather than aiming to foster genuine (that is, intrinsic) motivation for academic excellence in and of itself. In light of the potential benefits and potential pitfalls, a significant debate arose among educational theorists regarding the use of competitive emulation as a pedagogical practice. Lectures, writing contests, and debates on emulation took place across the country and internationally.</p> <p>Among the opponents of emulation, the most famous was Horace Mann. Mann was the primary architect of the Massachusetts Common Schools through his service as the Secretary of the Massachusetts Board of Education from 1837 to 1848. During his tenure Mann produced annual reports concerning the condition of primary and secondary education in Massachusetts. As the foundation of his educational philosophy, Mann believed that common schools would “obliterate factitious distinctions in society,” famously stating in his Twelfth Annual Report that education, “beyond all other devices of human origin, is the great equalizer of the conditions of men.”[<reflink idref="bib10" id="ref10">10</reflink>] It is unsurprising, then, to find that Mann stands vehemently opposed to the notion of competitive emulation, which explicitly affirms and promotes differences in talent and achievement among students. Mann argues that</p> <p>[Emulation] tends to withdraw the mind from a love of knowledge for its own sake, to the desire of a conspicuous position and of ostentatious displays … knowledge acquired under this stimulus, will be less thorough and less permanent. … its tendency is to engender alienation, uncharitableness and envy among rivals; and … under the system of emulation as practised in our schools, those unhallowed passions of cupidity and of ambition will be nursed into strength, which … will corrupt the mercantile community … and desolate the political one.[<reflink idref="bib11" id="ref11">11</reflink>]</p> <p>In this passage, Mann offers two related reasons for his opposition to emulation. The first is that the competition associated with emulation encourages students to be motivated not by a “love of knowledge for its own sake,” but only by a desire to outdo others. Put differently, competitive emulation leverages the external motivation of winning a competition, rather than leveraging the internal motivation of growing in intelligence and knowledge. Mann argues that external motivations produce learning that is “less thorough and less permanent.” Like Dewey half a century later,[<reflink idref="bib12" id="ref12">12</reflink>] Mann recognizes that a student's desire to win an academic competition does not produce genuine interest in the actual academic subject matter, which Mann argues is necessary for the highest level of learning to take place. Instead the student's interest is only in winning the prize, which diminishes the learning of the subject matter itself.</p> <p>The second reason for Mann's opposition to competitive emulation is that it creates discord and alienation among students, which leads to negative psychological consequences. According to Mann, what students learn from these competitions is to see other members of their community as their opponents and enemies; that is, individuals to be defeated rather than individuals with whom one can cooperatively grow alongside. Mann argues that emulation not only breeds antagonism in the classroom, but also that it leads to further and more damaging antagonism in society. When students are trained to be motivated primarily by competition as youngsters, they will very likely continue to be motivated by competition as adults, which, according to Mann, will lead to the corruption of business and, ultimately, the corruption of politics. Classrooms that emphasize the successes and failures of individual students would produce only the “pride of success” and the “ambition of winning … approval,” leading “at first, to slight departures from decorum, ingenuousness, or rectitude, and, afterwards, to great delinquencies.”[<reflink idref="bib13" id="ref13">13</reflink>] Mann believed that there was no greater “intellectual injury” than for “the pride of a superiority” to be created in a student, either accidentally or intentionally.[<reflink idref="bib14" id="ref14">14</reflink>] For Mann, to promote such behaviors was to teach vice in the schools. Mann was a moral educator through and through, and saw the Common Schools as a vehicle for promoting the virtues of character. Mann refers to the formation of Christian character and habits as the “great idea of education.”[<reflink idref="bib15" id="ref15">15</reflink>] From Mann's perspective, teachers ought to “mould the manners of the whole rising generation into decorum and propriety” and “cast away … every unseemly habit.”[<reflink idref="bib16" id="ref16">16</reflink>] Because the pride of superiority was clearly an “unseemly habit,” it makes sense that Mann would not want to support a pedagogical practice that encouraged it.</p> <p>This is not to say that Mann rejects all forms of comparison, however. In fact, while Mann believes that all forms of the comparison of one's peers are pernicious, the comparison of oneself to one's teachers, pastors, parents, and so on is beneficial. Mann hoped that, by witnessing their teachers' excellence, students would “be led to emulate” the qualities observed in him or her.[<reflink idref="bib17" id="ref17">17</reflink>] Mann also recognizes the importance of teaching the biographies of “great and good men” so that students might admire and seek to imitate them.[<reflink idref="bib18" id="ref18">18</reflink>] These influences are positive, according to Mann, because they do not rely on peer‐to‐peer comparisons or the “puerile ambition” of correctly displaying knowledge (such as solving an equation correctly, or knowing the correct root of a given word). Mann claims that he hopes students will find great examples to imitate or be inspired by, as long as the examples are removed from the same plane as the students themselves. Teachers are figures of authority and are typically not in competition with the students; a student usually does not hope to outdo his or her teacher, because the roles they play are different. Of course, a student hopes to impress his or her teacher, but only insofar as he or she acknowledges the teacher's position of authority and expertise. Likewise, historical or famous figures (whether Plato or Maya Angelou) are so far removed from the student that no student fosters legitimate ambitions of outdoing one of them in competition in the realm of the classroom. These heroes can be admired and can generate ambition, but are rarely recognized as direct competitors. Even though Mann recognizes that the emulation of teachers can improve moral education, he still maintains that it is virtually impossible among one's peers.</p> <p>Mann was not alone in his condemnation of competitive emulation. Other influential educationists of the nineteenth century articulated similar concerns. J. L. Parkhurst, for example, decries the pernicious consequences of competitive emulation because they connote “the desire for surpassing others, for the sake of the gratification which arises from surpassing them.”[<reflink idref="bib19" id="ref19">19</reflink>] In essence, emulation for Parkhurst is a vain pursuit that results only in pride. Ultimately, Parkhurst concludes that: “Emulation … appears very harmless in theory; but I suspect it will be found otherwise in practice.”[<reflink idref="bib20" id="ref20">20</reflink>]</p> <p>Parkhurst begins his argument against emulation by attempting to define the proper meaning of the term “emulation.” According to Parkhurst, because at the time he was writing the majority of writers and teachers defined the word in the same competitive terms used to describe the negative psychological effects of competitive emulation, that definition must be correct. Parkhurst believed that this popular definition of emulation created a dangerous emphasis on individualistic competition. In responding to a proponent of emulation that defined the term positively, Parkhurst replied that his opponent is in the minority, and that since Parkhurst had “already named several distinguished teachers and careful observers, whose experience is quite the reverse of [his opponent's],”[<reflink idref="bib21" id="ref21">21</reflink>] there is no point in altering Parkhurst's understanding of emulation. Of course, this was not a wholly justified response: while prior linguistic usage may justify continued linguistic usage, it does not answer the question at hand, namely, whether or not there is a form of emulation that is psychologically and educationally beneficial, which is the question Parkhurst was supposedly trying to answer.</p> <p>Parkhurst acknowledges a negative form of educational emulation (competitive emulation) and, therefore, reasonably concludes that students that are a part of the system will generally exhibit negative psychological traits. Parkhurst does not offer summative or comprehensive conclusions as they extend to all forms of comparison, however. While competitive emulation may lead to undesirable results, some proponents of emulation argue that it is much less true for inspirational emulation. They claim that the most important factor at stake is whether or not the vices are the result of human nature or of a specific system of emulation. If the vices result from human nature, then it would be the duty of an educator to attempt to avoid any general method of peer‐to‐peer comparison. If the negative psychological traits that are found in students are the product of competitive emulation, and not of other forms of emulation, then other forms of emulation should not be summarily rejected. Parkhurst does not consider these other forms of emulation, however, and so his conclusion to eliminate emulation should not be considered comprehensive.</p> <p>Another detractor of emulation was David Perkins Page, the author of Theory and Practice of Teaching, which was arguably the most popular American education textbook of the era. Page describes the results of competitive emulation as often leading to a situation in which students are gratified by their peers' failures (as a result of a vicious competitive spirit). Claiming that ambition plagues students, Page likens them to Napoleon, “who sought a throne for himself, though he waded through the blood of millions to obtain it.”[<reflink idref="bib22" id="ref22">22</reflink>] Ultimately, Page surmises that those students who are spurred by competitive emulation are “even more injured” than those who are indifferent to it. Thus, Page holds the opinion that the wisest teachers will rely on an alternative motivator.</p> <p>These are not the only anti‐emulationists of the nineteenth century, but they are some of the most influential. They all share a concern that the competitive element of emulation leads to pernicious psychological consequences and that the external motivation utilized impedes genuine learning. Despite the compelling reasons for denouncing it offered by these anti‐emulationists, there were many proponents of emulation who spoke out publicly in favor of it.</p> <hd id="AN0127042892-3">Debating Emulation in the Nineteenth Century: The Late Proponents (1844–1852)</hd> <p>There were two significant campaigns led by proponents of emulation in the early to mid‐nineteenth century. The early campaign (1834–1837) focused on advocating for the potential positive psychological effects in students, whereas the later campaign (1844–1852) focused on advocating for emulation as a distinct existing pedagogical technique. In this manner, the later proponents more directly engaged the opponents of competitive emulation on the terms set by the opponents; they did not argue for inspirational emulation or the capacity for positive psychological effects but rather defended competitive emulation. For some reason, these later proponents did not refer back to the early proponents of inspirational emulation to any significant degree, and in failing to do so, made their position weaker than it might have been. We will first address this later campaign because of its tendency to offer a direct refutation to the opponents rather than expand the terms of the debate by advocating for inspirational emulation.</p> <p>When considering the later proponents of emulation we find an interesting phenomenon: for anti‐emulationists like Mann, competitive emulation was negative insofar as it utilized competition; for pro‐emulationists in the mid‐1800s, it is emulation's competitive nature that made it effective. Anti‐emulationists viewed the results of competitive emulation as vices of human nature and therefore suggested that they should be suppressed in favor of virtues; pro‐emulationists agreed that the results stemmed from human nature, but argued that they should be utilized. In sum, for all of the rhetoric that condemned the use of competition to encourage emulation (and perhaps wisely so), there was an equally strong rhetoric that praised it.</p> <p>Alpheus Crosby, for instance, who was a professor at Dartmouth and a pupil of Parkhurst, acknowledges that competitive emulation created a sense of competition and a desire to outdo others, but, through the influence of a fellow teacher, he came to regard these psychological states as desirable motivators in schools. Crosby's colleague, referred to as J. W. H., was a teacher in a school that had attempted to remove all elements of emulation from its classrooms; this largely meant removing noticeable competition and markers of personal competency. J. W. H. observed that, after removing student competitions, the zest of the school began to deplete, and after a few weeks of the emulation‐free environment, schoolwork had become drudgery to the students. In a seeming air of inspiration, J. W. H. observed the enjoyment that his students took from schoolyard games and aimed to utilize the “associated competition” as a method in his classroom. J. W. H. argued that the primary issue with emulation as it existed in schools was not its competitive character, but rather its individualist character. Schoolyard games exhibit the presence of competition, but only in the context of teams.[<reflink idref="bib23" id="ref23">23</reflink>]</p> <p>J. W. H. then developed a pedagogical system in his classroom that relied on associated competition, in which two students were democratically elected leaders of two separate teams and then, as in a game of playground kickball, selected their peers, privately or publicly, one by one to join their team. After the selection occurred, each team existed for a week and recorded its errors and corrections across various academic assignments and then compared the balance (corrections minus errors) against each other. J. W. H. finds multiple advantages to this system, saying that his method “furnishes a more healthful and efficient stimulant” than mere individual competition, yet still permits (even encourages) students to be incredibly mindful of his or her own individual reputation in hopes of being elected leader or being selected quickly. Furthermore, J. W. H. delights at the fact that each student has a vigor for recitation and learning, and pores over the material so that he or she may never be shamed for not knowing the answer and, conversely, be able to outdo others at posing questions that they may be unable to answer.</p> <p>Crosby and J. W. H.'s conception of emulation is laudable in many aspects. For one, it is rooted in Crosby's claim that competitive emulation on the individual level leads to negative psychological results. As such, Crosby and J. W. H. seek to create contexts in which students are a part of a greater community (a team). This has the benefit of motivating students to individual excellence on the basis of team support, which is certainly praiseworthy for its capacity to elevate students beyond petty prize‐pursuit. However, Crosby and J. W. H.'s emulation should still be considered competitive emulation for two primary reasons. First, Crosby and J. W. H. do not provide answers to the problem of the consequences of competitive emulation when the team context is removed. Even if the team context elevates students into a more virtuous state, the classroom cannot perpetually exist as teams. Second, Crosby and J. W. H.'s emulation maintains issues that Mann and other anti‐emulationists are concerned with. Namely, the team context relies on a zero‐sum game to motivate students, rather than individual excellence for the sake of growth. Even in team contexts, teams of students earn artificial points at the cost of the other team and, at the end of the game, one team wins and one team loses. Students may be motivated for the sake of their team, but the team context provides the ultimate goal of defeating the other team and earning the prize (be it a literal award or simply the satisfaction of winning). In this sense, while Crosby and J. W. H. provide some answers, they do not provide answers that would satisfy the anti‐emulationists.</p> <p>Crosby and J. W. H. were not alone in their promotion of competitive emulation. In addition to them, there was the famous case of the Boston schoolmasters who vociferously rebutted Mann's criticism of emulation.[<reflink idref="bib24" id="ref24">24</reflink>] The Boston schoolmasters were using competitive emulation themselves and saw Mann's attack as a threat to their own reputation and practices. The schoolmasters responded to his criticisms of emulation by explaining that comparisons happen between individuals whether it is desired or not. They argued that Mann was naïve to think that such comparisons can simply be brushed aside. Rather than attempting to do away with the human desire to compare oneself to others, they claimed it must be transformed into psychological effects that “may fire the genius … without inflaming the passions or corrupting the heart.” Unfortunately, the schoolmasters never explained how this is done. They simply asserted that if comparisons are used correctly, they could lead to positive educational results:</p> <p>The conclusion then to which we come is — that it is not a question whether emulation is to be admitted into schools, for it will exist there whether we will or no … that since nature has admitted its existence we are to allow it; but always to apply it where most needed and to endeavor to combine it with higher principles. Finally, to direct it only to worthy objects, and teach it to submit to the regulations of a sagacious justice. In a public school, every boy has a share of reputation, which can be measured out to him with almost mathematic certainty; let him take it and therewith be content. Within these bounds emulation may fire the genius … without inflaming the passions or corrupting the heart.[<reflink idref="bib25" id="ref25">25</reflink>]</p> <p>In this passage the schoolmasters hope to repudiate Mann's claims that competitive emulation will corrupt both the emotions and the learning of students. They argue that (<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref26">1</reflink>) comparisons between students are natural and happen whether teachers want them to or not; and (<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref27">2</reflink>) that these comparisons can be wisely guided so as to “fire the genius without inflaming the passions and corrupting the heart.” While these two points are pregnant with possibilities, they are not sufficiently explained. For example, what do the schoolmasters mean that “[emulation] will exist whether we will or no”? Do they mean that a desire to defeat others in academic competition will exist? Or merely a desire to compete with others will exist? And what is the nature of the competition? Is it founded on respect for others or jealousy of others? Is the ultimate goal competition with oneself that is rooted in a desire to maximize one's abilities? Or is it a competition with oneself that is rooted in insecurity and a fear of inadequacy? The answers to these questions mean a great deal. In order to determine how we might “fire the genius without inflaming the passions” we must first understand the educational and psychological definition of “emulation.” Unfortunately, the schoolmasters do not offer answers to any of these questions and therefore their promotion of emulation remains dubious.</p> <p>This is why Parkhurst attempts to establish a “definition” of “emulation” in his criticisms of it. He recognizes that, depending on how one conceptualizes emulation, its helpfulness or harmfulness is much easier to establish. Because Parkhurst sees competitive emulation as a pedagogically unwise practice, he defines emulation in terms of invidious competition. He justifies this definition on the grounds that it is how it was primarily being used at that time. The Boston schoolmasters neither repudiate this definition nor offer an alternative. Indeed, they seem to think that the competitions could continue just as they were and yet somehow their use could be made acceptable. As a result, their arguments come across as naïve. It is no surprise, therefore, that their promotion of emulation did not win the historical debate. Had they focused more on establishing a different conception of emulation (such as inspirational emulation), rather than starting from its current use, they might have generated more support. Put differently, they should have focused on a repudiation of Parkhurst's definition of “emulation.” As such, the problem with emulation is not psychological, but structural. In order for it to fire the genius without increasing unwanted emotions, the educational use of emulation and the way it was promoted would need to be altered. When emulation is framed in terms of competitions, contests, and prizes, it breeds the wrong kind of comparisons and leads to detrimental psychological and educational outcomes. We now turn to earlier proponents of emulation that offered a different way of conceptualizing it. Had the Boston schoolmasters drawn more significantly on these proponents, the debate with Mann might have gone differently.</p> <hd id="AN0127042892-4">Debating “Emulation” in the Nineteenth Century: The Early Proponents ...</hd> <p>As we have seen, Crosby, J. W. H., and the Boston schoolmasters did not interrogate emulation at the psychological and educational level. Instead, they took for granted the practice of competitive emulation at the school level, and, in the case of the schoolmasters, the negative effects at the psychological level. If they had more thoroughly referenced the philosophically and psychologically richer arguments of the proponents of emulation from the 1830s, they may have found more compelling arguments with which to justify their position.[<reflink idref="bib26" id="ref28">26</reflink>]</p> <p>In the 1830s there were two particularly articulate defenders of emulation, Joseph Emerson and Elihu Baldwin. Emerson gives a public and passionate defense of emulation in which he paints a vivid picture of the psychological and educational benefits that accrued from his experiences with emulation.[<reflink idref="bib27" id="ref29">27</reflink>] He claims that, as an adolescent, he “never indulged in hating a rival; no, nor for an hour; nor had occasion to strive against it. If, for a moment, I ever felt the stir of envy, in consequence of sudden and grievous discomfiture, it was but for a moment.… Nay, my rivals have been among my dearest friends.”[<reflink idref="bib28" id="ref30">28</reflink>] He goes on to say that his greatest rival became his dearest friend and that he considers this rivalry to be one of the supreme benefits in his life:</p> <p>The stimulating influence of such a friend and rival, I consider one of the greatest blessings I have enjoyed. To be seated continually at his side, sometimes above him, though more frequently below him, to see his intense application, his untiring patience, his vigorous efforts for improvement, his unexceptional morals, and propriety of conduct — could not but be favorable to my progress.[<reflink idref="bib29" id="ref31">29</reflink>]</p> <p>There are two aspects of Emerson's experience that should be highlighted. The first is that the invidious competition and comparison between rivals emphasized by the opponents of competitive emulation appear to be absent in Emerson. Rather than creating artificial distinctions in which more successful individuals become arrogant and less successful individuals become envious, Emerson claims that emulation results in friendship and mutual respect. The second is that what Emerson emulates is not merely the technical academic achievement (getting the answers right, for example) but also the moral qualities of his rival's character. Unlike the opponents of competitive emulation, who narrowly consider the “academic” comparisons between students, Emerson has a much richer conception that includes virtues such as patience and perseverance. We will return to this second aspect shortly.</p> <p>The persuasiveness of Emerson's defense intensifies when he discusses the effects of emulation on him as a college student. He describes what might be called a community of scholars who all inspired each other to be the best they could be because they were in a kind of inspirational relation with each other:</p> <p>My chosen, my dearest associates were almost wholly from among those, from whom alone, as rivals, I had anything to fear — with whom I delighted to reciprocate instruction to the very utmost. I never grieved, I always rejoiced, to hear their correct and ready answers, their fine translations, their commanding eloquence, their thrilling rhetoric, and every performance suited to awaken in the teachers the glad well done [sic].[<reflink idref="bib30" id="ref32">30</reflink>]</p> <p>The tone of genuine admiration in this passage is unmistakable, as is the almost palpable sense of energy and camaraderie. It is clear that, if we can trust his psychological self‐report, Emerson's experience of emulation was wholly positive and would be one that many teachers would welcome in their students. Ultimately, Emerson concludes that without emulation his learning would have been severely impeded, as would his industriousness and zeal for genuine learning.[<reflink idref="bib31" id="ref33">31</reflink>]</p> <p>While Emerson paints a compelling picture of emulation from the point of view of personal experience, the educational philosophy that underlies his experience, and the pedagogical methods that helped to create it, are left implicit. Fortunately, Baldwin fills in some of these missing components in his more discursive account of the benefits of emulation.</p> <p>To begin with, Baldwin, like Parkhurst, offers a definition of “emulation.” It is not clear whether he is referring directly to Parkhurst (although he very well may be), but Baldwin offers a very different definition, in which he disputes Parkhurst's supposedly “universally recognized” definition, and claims that the proper use of the term has not been settled:[<reflink idref="bib32" id="ref34">32</reflink>]</p> <p>By some very recent and sensible writers on the subject of education, the practical question involved in our theme, would seem to be disposed of without much difficulty. They consider the term emulation as synonymous with ambition and designating one of the modifications of selfishness. Now the desire of acquisition, which is found altogether in the love of having the preeminence, is doubtless inseparable from an envious spirit or from vanity, and ought to be rigidly discountenanced. It is a misanthropic desire and ungenerous, fraught with incalculable evils to the community. But this application of the term, emulation, has not obtained universally, if it has, in general, with the most accurate and discriminating writers.[<reflink idref="bib33" id="ref35">33</reflink>]</p> <p>Baldwin's point is that, when he uses the word “emulation,” he will not be using it in the negative sense that Parkhurst and others attribute to it. He is perfectly willing to agree that, on their definition of the term, emulation and its effects should be excluded from schools; but on Baldwin's definition, the positive psychological results of inspirational emulation should be permitted in schools, and further, not just permitted but encouraged. What is his definition? Drawing from Buck's Theological Dictionary, Baldwin defines “emulation” as “a generous ardor, kindled by the praiseworthy examples of others, which impels us to imitate, to rival, and, if possible, to excel them; a passion which involves in it, esteem of the person whose attainments or conduct we emulate, of the qualities and actions in which we emulate him, and a desire of resemblance, together with a joy springing from a hope of success.”[<reflink idref="bib34" id="ref36">34</reflink>] This definition is consistent with Emerson's experience and represents a combination of inspirational emulation and its positive effects. For Baldwin, when one goes to a school where inspirational emulation is used, the result is a positive psychological state.</p> <p>It is important to note that Baldwin is in complete agreement with Parkhurst, Mann, and other opponents of selfish ambition when they say that the negative effects of emulation should not be encouraged in the classroom. Parkhurst and Mann argue that competitions and comparisons that breed a desire to outdo others should not be admitted into the classroom, even though these motivate students to learn the material. Baldwin agrees that these forms of competition are pernicious and that, even if they appear to improve motivation, they should be assiduously avoided in the classroom:</p> <p>Who has not heard of “a laudable and necessary ambition?” This is the principle, which recent writers have actually confounded with emulation; and through which it has been formally assailed, as though it were accountable for envy and hatred and moral strife. Ambition is however the thing, which, in the similitude and very garb of a generous propensity, does really overlook all right, and laughs at the claim of charity. It aims indeed at excelling, but for an inferior and selfish object, and often from the worst of motives.[<reflink idref="bib35" id="ref37">35</reflink>]</p> <p>The primary difference between competitive emulation and inspirational emulation is the reliance on or rejection of zero‐sum competition, respectively. It is true that both methods use contexts and externalities to provide results, but the object of the motivation is decidedly different in each case. In competitive emulation, instructors leverage selfish ambition in students by placing them in zero‐sum contexts. Whether it is a classroom competition for a physical award, or a team game in which one group loses and the other wins, the object of motivation is external to the students; a student in this context is encouraged to learn for the sake of prize acquisition. In this sense, competitive emulation relies on motivation through external objects such as cash, trophies, or the defeat of external individuals or groups. Moreover, competitive emulation is only effective in a zero‐sum context; if all students are inevitable winners, then ambition cannot be leveraged because it has no effect on the outcome. As such, learning occurs at the expense of others (be it all other classmates, or only the classmates on an opposing team), as it is the very prospect of others losing that cultivates the requisite motivation.</p> <p>On the other hand, inspirational emulation is able to reject zero‐sum games because the object of motivation is, in important respects, not extrinsic, but rather intrinsic. In the context of inspirational emulation, students do not seek to acquire that which is external (a prize or recognition), but rather to experience internal transformation and growth. The main motivator is simultaneously one's current state and one's potential future state, or, in other words, the possibility of attaining new heights of personal excellence relative to one's current state of achievement. Of course, in inspirational emulation, excellence is showcased externally through exemplars. In this sense, one might say that inspirational emulation relies on external motivation just as competitive emulation does; however, this would be a misunderstanding of the object of motivation on which inspirational emulation actually relies. All learning occurs in environments with various stimuli and, as such, any conscious evaluation and decision is the result of externalities. Yet, the key difference between the negative and positive emulations is, as stated, the object of motivation. The student subject to inspirational emulation does not seek to outdo the exemplars themselves, or to rob the exemplars of their attributes, but rather seeks to become like them. In this way, students subject to inspirational emulation do not aim to outdo something external, but rather aim to outdo their own present self; the motivation arises from an internal evaluation of oneself and is rooted in the intrinsic prospect of becoming a greater version of one's self. The motivation, then, is becoming, not acquiring; it is thus intrinsic, not extrinsic.</p> <p>The question is whether negative psychological consequences are the inevitable result of all types of comparisons in the classroom, whether they result from competitive emulation or inspirational emulation. For Mann, Parkhurst, and others, the answer is yes. But clearly this cannot be absolutely correct, because at least one person, Emerson, compared himself with his peers and it did not lead to negative ambition. Instead, it led to respect and admiration for those who were more academically successful than Emerson and also for those who were less academically successful. Baldwin makes this fact explicit when he claims that students must be taught to regard comparisons and competitions in the correct manner: not as opportunities to outdo others, but as opportunities to strive to reach one's highest potential and to rejoice when others reach their highest potential, even if they reach higher than oneself has reached:</p> <p>The young should be made to understand the difference [between selfish ambition and mutual inspiration]; and that true emulation terminates, where envy and hatred of rivals or vanity in success, begins.… Emulation is kind and charitable, and magnanimous; and finds only regret in the mistakes, the deficiencies and disappointments of others; while she sincerely rejoices in their highest attainments and most splendid success. He that is truly emulous of others, would not, were it in his power, turn them back, nor for one moment retard their progress, in the race of improvement. He only strives to excel them, and will admire and love them the more for their superiority, which may render that impossible.[<reflink idref="bib36" id="ref38">36</reflink>]</p> <p>Clearly, Baldwin believes that students can be trained to know the difference between competitive emulation, which can lead to vanity, contempt, envy, or resentment, and inspirational emulation, which can lead to love, admiration, and respect. He believes it is the teacher's job to help the students eschew the former and pursue the latter. Unfortunately, while he claims this “can easily be taught,”[<reflink idref="bib37" id="ref39">37</reflink>] he does not provide any direction on how teachers should go about teaching students to avoid the one while pursuing the other.[<reflink idref="bib38" id="ref40">38</reflink>] It is to this question that we turn in our conclusion.</p> <p>Mann, Parkhurst, and other anti‐emulationists correctly acknowledge a negative system of competitive emulation and therefore conclude that students that are a part of such a system will generally exhibit negative qualities; but rather than placing full blame on the system itself, the anti‐emulationists blame human nature. In essence, they argue that, as long as students are educated with a method that utilizes comparison between them, they will succumb to various vices. However, both Emerson and Baldwin give weight to the notion that there are alternative systems of comparison that exist along a spectrum. Baldwin asserts that the system of competitive emulation, which Parkhurst and Mann correctly condemn, is not actually emulation, but rather “ambition.” In this sense, both emulation and ambition, along with imitation, mimicry, and plagiarism, exist along a spectrum of comparison. If all forms of comparison ignite human nature to produce vices in students, then the only logical conclusion of an educator would be to reject the entire spectrum. If, however, the vices do not result from human nature, but rather from a specific mode of comparison — namely, competitive emulation — then the appropriate conclusion would be to evaluate alternate modes of comparison. Furthermore, if one does not acknowledge a spectrum of modes of comparison and only perceives one mode (typically whichever is culturally predominant), then one will only be left to wholly accept or wholly condemn the entirety of comparison as a pedagogical or transformational method. From the vantage point of an entire spectrum of modes of comparison, one can simultaneously reject and support comparison, but in different forms (that is, reject competitive emulation, but accept inspirational emulation).</p> <hd id="AN0127042892-5">Restoring True Peer‐Emulation as a Pedagogical Technique</hd> <p>Understanding the historical conceptualizations of emulation is important, but only for its capacity to illuminate contemporary pedagogical practice. Tina Kindeberg points out that it is clear that formal educational emulation has been lost as a pedagogical technique, even though it is probably impossible to determine “when exactly [it] disappeared as a pedagogical concept in its original meaning.”[<reflink idref="bib39" id="ref41">39</reflink>] It is our view that something significant has been lost in the disappearance of emulation as a pedagogical practice. Some may argue that competitive emulation persists in schools today in the form of grades, testing, and so on.[<reflink idref="bib40" id="ref42">40</reflink>] The logic goes something like this: students know their own grades and the grades of their peers, which produces feelings of arrogance and envy, and this therefore suggests that competitive emulation persists in schools today. While it is true that such comparisons do happen, these do not constitute competitive emulation because the comparisons do not include school‐endorsed publicity or intentionality. In other words, schools do not intend to encourage such comparisons, let alone leverage them as a pedagogical technique. The reasons they do not encourage competitive comparisons are (<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref43">1</reflink>) the Family and Educational Rights and Privacy Act requires schools to keep grades, ranks, and scores private; and (<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref44">2</reflink>) schools are generally aware of the negative psychological effects of these types of comparison. In reality, there is a dramatic distance between the pedagogical techniques that Mann and others decried and the pedagogical techniques used today. In the same fashion, some might argue that inspirational emulation exists in schools today in the form of teachers' compliments and exhortations to model the behavior of others. As with competitive emulation, such methods are not consistent with inspirational emulation because they are typically not public, and are also not academic in nature. Teachers may feel comfortable recognizing exemplary work in students, but may only do so in private contexts. Moreover, when a teacher encourages a student to model another student, the teacher is often doing so to offer an explanation about a given task or to attempt to modify an unruly student's behavior. In both instances, these exhortations are far less about the public creation of an exemplar than they are about encouraging students to adhere to a teacher's wishes. Today's compliments and exhortations, then, model inspirational emulation very little.</p> <p>In reality, schools have, for some time, been concerned about the dangers of the negative psychological effects of competitive emulation.[<reflink idref="bib41" id="ref45">41</reflink>] Schools claim to want to enable all students to succeed, rather than endorse academic games and contests. In the absence of educational emulation, however, the vices of competitive emulation are not actually avoided, only redirected. Comparisons between students are rife in school, from the clothes they wear to the grades they receive. Ironically, the absence of educational emulation has not necessarily promoted a decrease in such vices, but rather only allowed them to exist without school sanction or regulation. Schools may not directly produce the vices through particular pedagogical techniques, but, as long as markers of comparison exist, students will inevitably seek to compare themselves on the basis of such markers, resulting in the pernicious psychological consequences that Mann and others rightly aimed to eliminate. From this perspective, inspirational emulation might not only improve learning, but also offer more productive outlets for the kinds of comparison that happen naturally between students. Rather than ignoring the inevitable comparisons and letting them fester, teachers could use inspirational emulation to harness the desire for comparison into a healthier, more virtuous form. In this way, inspirational emulation could enable instructors to empower students and to create environments that encourage inspiration but discourage greed, arrogance, shame, insecurity, and a host of other malevolent psychological consequences of unchecked comparison. The question now becomes: what conditions would be necessary for emulation to become a pedagogical force capable of cultivating the psychological and educational benefits found in Emerson, while avoiding the psychological and educational pitfalls outlined by Mann and others? While it is beyond the scope of this article to offer a systematic treatment of how a classroom teacher could implement inspirational emulation, we offer seven practical criteria that must be considered if a teacher is going to successfully implement emulation in the classroom.</p> <p>The first criterion may be so obvious that it does not need to be stated: the teacher who wants to utilize inspirational emulation must believe that all students have the potential to regard themselves and their peers the way Emerson regarded himself and his peers. Clearly, Mann, Parkhurst, and others did not believe that all students could come to share Emerson's perspective. Parkhurst, for example, acknowledges that certain individuals “can make frequent comparisons of [their] talents, attainments, and success with those of others, without exciting any selfish desire … [or] pleasure,” but he writes off such experiences by saying that “with men in general, the case is very different.”[<reflink idref="bib42" id="ref46">42</reflink>] Parkhurst believes that only exceptional individuals can rise above feelings of pride, vanity, jealousy, envy, and so on, but the average student cannot. This type of belief would, from our point of view, undermine the potential success of emulation in the classroom, even if the proper pedagogical structure were in place. If a teacher believes that certain students are incapable — either by natural disposition or by their upbringing and former education — of being inspired by the achievement of their peers, then the teacher should not use emulation in the classroom.</p> <p>Connected to the first criterion, and perhaps equally obvious, is the second: the teacher must himself or herself seek to experience feelings of admiration and inspiration when he or she recognizes accomplishment or beauty in his or her peers; and he or she must primarily experience feelings of humility toward his or her own accomplishments and magnanimity toward peers who are less far along in their progress toward becoming their best selves. We claim that humility is the proper emotion to feel when one achieves a level of greatness because one recognizes how much further effort would be required to go beyond those accomplishments. If teachers do not experience these emotions themselves they will not be able to suitably model them for their students. The teacher's ability to model appropriate emulation is essential if we are to see students embody appropriate emulation.</p> <p>The third criterion is that the explicit promotion of emulation must be woven into the fabric of the classroom. It is not enough for the teacher to model inspirational emulation. He or she must create a classroom culture that fosters emulation throughout. Whatever subject is being taught, the teacher should continually emphasize both how important it is to cultivate one's highest self and how students can be inspired in this pursuit by witnessing distinction in others. There must be reference to the specific exceptional traits and accomplishments of individuals and how those traits and accomplishments can be inspirational. This must include the reminder that comparisons are not zero‐sum games and that the comparisons with others are not a competition with them, but a competition with oneself in order to achieve at the highest level possible.</p> <p>The fourth criterion is that both the emulation of academic achievement and the emulation of character traits should be emphasized. As we have seen, competitive emulation was generally based on the acquisition of correct answers or high grades. The genuine beauty, creativity, or insight of the work produced, and the admirable character traits that made such work possible, were not emphasized. If inspirational emulation is to exist, students must learn both to emulate artistically, intellectually, and morally meaningful achievements and to emulate the dispositions and attitudes that made such achievements possible. A teacher should therefore highlight both the meaningful work produced and the admirable student qualities that help to produce it. This creates not only an environment in which prizes are de‐emphasized, as we will touch on again momentarily, but also one in which any student can be the object of admiration. In this way, the laudable egalitarian beliefs that all should have equal opportunity to succeed and that all are capable of succeeding can be appropriately balanced with the emulation of exemplary performance. For example, students can be praised and emulated for their rigorous attempt to produce their highest quality work, regardless of their level of academic or artistic achievement. Indeed, in this sense, character traits are, in an important respect, more relevant than the quality of work, since every subject matter requires hard work, perseverance, creativity, focus, collegiality, and so on. This does not mean that all individuals will be “just as good as everybody else.” Rather, all individuals that embody admirable character traits can be proud of their exemplary character, even if their academic achievements are not as technically advanced as others.</p> <p>The fifth criterion is that in order to sufficiently highlight competition with one's self rather than competition with others, the use of explicit prizes should be eliminated. To a certain extent, prizes are inescapable in most contemporary schools. As we have seen, the reliance on a grading system itself creates rewards (in the form of A grades, for example), as do class rankings, scholarships, awards, standardized test scores, honor societies, extracurricular distinctions, and so on. In order to avoid systems of petty competition (that lead to negative psychological effects), teachers must actively seek to devalue such artificial rewards and rather, as said above, appropriately value internal motivators. At first glance, this may appear dishonest, but in reality it is a truer valuation than the alternative. Left alone, students will shape their own economy in which academically dubious honors are typically the highest valued currency, and enclaves will exist in which the opposite is true, but with the explicit and careful guidance of a teacher an alternate school economy can be created in which students seek to accumulate character and knowledge as the most valuable assets.</p> <p>The sixth criterion is that while prizes must be eschewed, recognizing academic and dispositional achievement should be a public affair. Emulation requires being able to identify the positive attainments, whether academic or dispositional, of others. A classroom that seeks to cultivate positive peer emulation should create instances in which students can see the achievement of their peers. As far as academic excellence goes, it is important to publicly commend such excellence, because doing so can help create genuine interest in the material. If a teacher highlights the beauty, elegance, or creativity of the achievement of one particular student, other students are better able to appreciate the beauty, elegance, or creativity for themselves, and thereby may be inspired to work harder on their own academic excellence. By the same token, laudable attitudes and dispositions should be on display equally because they have the potential to inspire others to exhibit similar qualities of character. Thus, for emulation to be successful in the math class, science class, English class, and so on, it must include praiseworthy examples of outstanding excellence at the levels of both subject matter and disposition.</p> <p>Finally, while the teacher must be primarily responsible for determining which artifacts and which character traits are to be highlighted and praised in the early stages of developing a community of emulation, the seventh criterion is that the teacher must eventually transfer much of that responsibility to his or her students. If emulation is to be successful in individual instances, a culture of emulation must pervade the classroom, so that all students are praising one another's work and characters. It should become a common (perhaps daily) practice in the classroom for one student to spontaneously express admiration at another student's academic or dispositional successes and to want to draw other students' attention to it. Moreover, it should be a common practice for one student to ask another student how he or she might improve her academic skills or character traits. Ultimately, it should be the goal of the teacher to help students to internalize a desire for positive emulation and to see others' success not as a threat to one's own self‐esteem or personal identity but as inspiration to improve. In order for this to happen, teachers need to make themselves less and less of the focal point in promoting emulation.</p> <hd id="AN0127042892-6">Conclusion</hd> <p>As many educationists have claimed in their discourses on emulation, comparison is inevitable among students. Unprovoked, comparison can surface negatively or positively, but oftentimes it manifests in the form of envy, arrogance, despair, and so on. Ironically enough, by refusing to acknowledge comparison in students (as many anti‐emulationists recommended), there stands a significant chance that natural comparisons will surface among students, leading to the development of an illicit hierarchy of status. In this sense, the Boston schoolmasters were reasonable when they recognized the certainty that students would shallowly assess the worth of their peers. Left unrecognized, these comparisons can fester in the hearts of students and thus risk developing into the vices that anti‐emulationists fear. As such, it is essential for the teacher to create a classroom environment that fosters an explicit, beneficial system of comparison, in which students recognize the excellences of others and are inspired to improve themselves as a consequence. Were emulation in this sense to be implemented in schools, we might see an improvement of genuine self‐esteem, greater intellectual camaraderie, and higher academic achievement.</p> <ref id="AN0127042892-7"> <title>Footnotes</title> <blist> <bibl id="bib1" idref="ref1" type="bt">1</bibl> <bibtext>While the use of emulation was a worldwide phenomenon, we focus on the debates surrounding it in America during the nineteenth century. For details on the European uses of emulation and the debates surrounding those, see Martin S. Staum, “The Enlightenment Transformed: The Institute Prize Contests,” Eighteenth‐Century Studies 19, no. 2 (1985): 163–179; and Joseph F. Kett, Merit: The History of a Founding Ideal from the American Revolution to the Twenty‐First Century (Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 2013). </bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib2" idref="ref2" type="bt">2</bibl> <bibtext>Staum, “The Enlightenment Transformed”; and Kett, Merit, 94. Staum asserts that “almost all eighteenth‐century educators…recommended competition to stimulate learning or held classroom prize contests” (163). In general, the public debate about the true value of emulation began at the turn of the century as nineteenth‐century philosophers turned to address the socioeconomic factors at play in the pedagogy. One of the earliest formal instances of debate on the topic occurred in France in 1800, when the French Academy held an essay contest on whether or not emulation was “a good means of education.” Staum writes that many pro‐emulationists found the practice of emulation to be valuable, as it was an appropriate means of taming self‐interest by socializing it into a desire to achieve the esteem of others. Anti‐emulationists found the practice to be an open assault on equality and worried that such a practice would initiate haughtiness (and loath of hard work) in the highest achieving students (165). Additionally, Kett writes: “Starting in the 1820s writers in many fields began to complain about ‘emulation’ as a national disease” (94). Kett focuses more on the opponents of emulation than the proponents, asserting that the opponents “equated emulation with the desire for ‘personal superiority’ over a competitor, and they alleged it bred envy and discord” (94). Kett purports that no sudden change in definition accounted for this widespread condemnation of the concept, but that in the period from the early to mid‐nineteenth century many educationists fastened on the negative connotation. </bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib3" idref="ref3" type="bt">3</bibl> <bibtext>Bob P. Taylor, Horace Mann's Troubling Legacy (Lawrence: University Press of Kansas, 2010). In his important work on the life and legacy of Horace Mann, Taylor writes that Mann “strongly opposed all [pedagogical] practices that would create intellectual or moral competition among and between students” (12). Taylor continually emphasizes Mann's zealous egalitarianism and rigid anti‐emulation stance throughout his book, saying that Mann believed the rejection of the practice of emulation was a great structural requirement for appropriate education: “Students should not be encouraged to compare their educational attainments to those of others” (55). Taylor highlights the sum of Mann's opposition to emulation as follows: it “cannot help but make learning superficial and inflame the egoistic instincts moral education is aiming to repress” (55). </bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib4" idref="ref4" type="bt">4</bibl> <bibtext>Horace Mann, Fifth Annual Report of the Board of Education, Together with the Fifth Annual Report of the Secretary of the Board (Boston: Dutton and Wentworth, 1842), 58–59. </bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib5" idref="ref5" type="bt">5</bibl> <bibtext>Mary Tyler Peabody Mann and Horace Mann, Life and Works of Horace Mann (Boston: Lee and Shepard, 1891), 237, 244–245; and Edward L. Pierce and Charles Sumner, Memoir and Letters of Charles Sumner (Boston: Roberts Brothers, 1877), 319. Mann's critique of emulation in his Seventh Annual Report of the Board of Education prompted a harsh response from more than thirty of Boston's schoolmasters who used competitive emulation in their schools (Horace Mann, Seventh Annual Report of the Board of Education, Together with the Seventh Annual Report of the Secretary of the Board [Boston: Dutton and Wentworth, 1844]). This conflict will be discussed later in the article, with a detailed account of how the altercation affected Mann provided in note 24. </bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib6" idref="ref6" type="bt">6</bibl> <bibtext>Although educationists in the emulation debate referred to multiple meanings of emulation, we will refer to two types of emulation in this article. The first sense of emulation is the educational practice of using competition and prizes to motivate students. We will call this competitive emulation. The second sense of emulation is the educational practice that encourages academic comparisons between students but does not use competition as a method or prizes as rewards. We will call this inspirational emulation. In this way, we will seek to examine the historical discourse on competitive emulation and inspirational emulation and to understand the strengths and weaknesses of each. The normative thesis of this article is that, although it was lost in the late nineteenth century, inspirational emulation, and the positive effects that result from it, has the potential to be a productive educational force in the twenty‐first century. </bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib7" idref="ref7" type="bt">7</bibl> <bibtext>Staum, “The Enlightenment Transformed,” 178. </bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib8" idref="ref8" type="bt">8</bibl> <bibtext>For a more lengthy examination of various specific emulation techniques and prizes, see Kett, Merit, 104–106. Kett offers a historical look into the variety of prizes and awards used by educators in the nineteenth century, extending to various contexts such as rural versus urban classrooms. </bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib9" idref="ref9" type="bt">9</bibl> <bibtext>J. M. Opal, “Exciting Emulation: Academies and the Transformation of the Rural North, 1780s–1820s,” Journal of American History 91, no. 2 (2005): 445–470. Opal finds that American colleges, including Yale and Harvard, began to use emulation (prizes or honor given to students at “public examinations and exhibitions”) in the mid‐eighteenth century as an alternative to corporal punishment, a practice used previously as a motivator for learning (455). Private academy founders towards the late eighteenth century then began to formulate their schools around emulation to model what they themselves had experienced in their higher education and to emphasize their understanding of a gentleman's place in democratic society (a place underscored by “the drive for distinction”). </bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib10" idref="ref10" type="bt">10</bibl> <bibtext>Horace Mann, Twelfth Annual Report of the Board of Education, Together with the Twelfth Annual Report of the Secretary of the Board (Boston: Dutton and Wentworth, 1848), 59–60. </bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib11" idref="ref11" type="bt">11</bibl> <bibtext>Mann, Fifth Annual Report of the Board of Education, 58–59. </bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib12" idref="ref12" type="bt">12</bibl> <bibtext>John Dewey, Democracy and Education (New York: The Free Press, 1916); John Dewey, “Interest in Relation to the Training of the Will,” in the Philosophy of John Dewey: The Lived Experience, ed. John J. McDermott (New York: Capricorn Books, 1973), 421–441. </bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib13" idref="ref13" type="bt">13</bibl> <bibtext>Horace Mann, Fourth Annual Report of the Board of Education, Together with the Fourth Annual Report of the Secretary of the Board (Boston: Dutton and Wentworth, 1841), 91. </bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib14" idref="ref14" type="bt">14</bibl> <bibtext>Ibid., 42. </bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib15" idref="ref15" type="bt">15</bibl> <bibtext>Mann, Seventh Annual Report of the Board of Education, 165. </bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib16" idref="ref16" type="bt">16</bibl> <bibtext>Horace Mann, Ninth Annual Report of the Board of Education, Together with the Ninth Annual Report of the Secretary of the Board (Boston: Dutton and Wentworth, 1846), 30. </bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib17" idref="ref17" type="bt">17</bibl> <bibtext>Horace Mann, Third Annual Report of the Board of Education, Together with the Third Annual Report of the Secretary of the Board (Boston: Dutton and Wentworth, 1840), 60. </bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib18" idref="ref18" type="bt">18</bibl> <bibtext>Ibid., 90. </bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib19" idref="ref19" type="bt">19</bibl> <bibtext>John L. Parkhurst, “On Emulation,” in American Annals of Education and Instruction: Being a Continuation of the American Journal of Education, vol. 2, ed. William C. Woodbridge (Boston: Carter and Hendee, 1831), 541. </bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib20" idref="ref20" type="bt">20</bibl> <bibtext>Ibid., 546. </bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib21" idref="ref21" type="bt">21</bibl> <bibtext>Ibid. </bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib22" idref="ref22" type="bt">22</bibl> <bibtext>David P. Page, Theory and Practice of Teaching: or, the Motives and Methods of Good School‐Keeping (Syracuse, NY: Hall and Dickson, 1847), 122–123, 126–127. </bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib23" idref="ref23" type="bt">23</bibl> <bibtext>Alpheus Crosby, A Lecture on the Use and Abuse of Emulation as a Motive to Study Delivered before the Essex County Association of Teachers, at Newburyport, April 9, 1852 (Lynn, Massachusetts: Butterfield and Kellogg, 1852), 16–20, 24–25, 25–26. </bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib24" idref="ref24" type="bt">24</bibl> <bibtext>Mann and Mann, Life and Works of Horace Mann, 237, 244–245; Pierce and Sumner, Memoir and Letters of Charles Sumner, 319; Mann, Seventh Annual Report of the Board of Education; and Mann, Ninth Annual Report of the Board of Education, 138, 142–144. Mann entered into a public discussion with the schoolmasters after sharply criticizing emulation in his Seventh Annual Report, but the conflict left him suffering from substantial anxiety and stress. In addition, the dispute “saturat[ed] the minds of New York teachers with prejudice” against him. During the time after the initial response to his emulation critique, Mann was involved in creating “teacher's institutes” (seminars for the education of teachers on teaching methods), yet he was met with “contumely and bitterness,” “ridicule and opprobrium” from the teachers he was working with. In the midst of this conflict, Charles Sumner, Mann's friend, counseled Mann to moderate his arguments. Likely as a result of the schoolmasters' attack and the subsequent blows to Mann's reputation, his Ninth Annual Report displays the moderation suggested by Sumner. This report touches only briefly on the topic of “emulation.” Mann explicitly says that he means “to abstain, on this occasion, from touching upon the debatable ground which [emulation] covers.” After acknowledging that there are distinguished advocates on both sides of the issue, Mann attempts an even‐keeled look at emulation as a tool for motivating students. In essence, Mann provides a brief examination of a hypothetical classroom where emulation is used and the effects are “not only lawful, but laudable.” However, Mann cannot help but reveal his previously expressed thoughts on the issue, lapsing into scathing condemnations of emulation, which he attempts to disguise by bookending his condemnatory remarks with neutral statements. Mann reminds his audience that the most serious objection to emulation is concern regarding its effects on students' moral development (a most important issue for a moralizer like Mann) and also that Reverend Joseph Butler defines emulation as near synonymous with envy. Mann concludes his so‐called abstention of discussing “emulation” with an example of the practices of two teachers: The first teacher desires that each of his students be a great person, not a good one; that they should acquire wealth, not esteem; that they should master Latin, not their spirits; and that they should attain a high status, not exercise charity toward their neighbors. The second teacher desires that each of his students should be more humble than ambitious; that they prefer uprightness to wealth; and that they prefer charity to individual recognition. In no uncertain terms, Mann designates the first teacher as one who uses emulation and the second teacher as one who rejects it, and ends his comments by calling for a convergence of opinions on the matter of emulation with his colleagues. Thankfully for Mann, his ninth report did its job, as Mann writes in the July after its publication that the schoolmasters were “submissive, and it seem[ed] already certain that a great improvement over last year [had] been made.” </bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib25" idref="ref25" type="bt">25</bibl> <bibtext>This response by the schoolmasters is published in Mann, Seventh Annual Report of the Board of Education, 127. The long passage included here is actually a word‐for‐word quotation of Reverend Leonard Withington, who made the remarks before the American Institution of Instruction in 1833, but the schoolmasters explicitly say that the quotation (“from an able writer”) fully expresses their views on the subject of “emulation.” </bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib26" idref="ref28" type="bt">26</bibl> <bibtext>This is not to say that they were unaware of the earlier debates. In their writings both Crosby and the Boston schoolmasters refer to exponents of the debate that was happening in the 1830s. </bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib27" idref="ref29" type="bt">27</bibl> <bibtext>William Huntting Howell, “Spirits of Emulation: Readers, Samplers, and the Republican Girl, 1787–1810,” American Literature 81, no. 3 (2009): 499. It is interesting to note that Joseph Emerson was active in the push for women's education, especially since Howell finds that emulation was “the central pivot of the pedagogical apparatus designed to create female citizens of the new United States.” While there is little contemporary writing on emulation, Howell observes that the “‘spirit of emulation’… is an exceedingly common phrase in late‐eighteenth‐century texts about moral, literary, and political education.” Of course, Emerson speaks about emulation on the basis of his personal experiences, but perhaps his place among advocates for women's education influenced his understanding of emulation in an academic manner. </bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib28" idref="ref30" type="bt">28</bibl> <bibtext>Ralph Emerson, Life of Rev. Joseph Emerson, Pastor of the Third Congregational Church in Beverly, Ms., and Subsequently Principal of a Female Seminary (Boston: Crocker and Brewster, 1834), 27. </bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib29" idref="ref31" type="bt">29</bibl> <bibtext>Ibid. </bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib30" idref="ref32" type="bt">30</bibl> <bibtext>Ibid., 29. </bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib31" idref="ref33" type="bt">31</bibl> <bibtext>Ibid., 30–31. In thinking of inspirational emulation as a pedagogical technique, there appears to be a relation between that approach and the twentieth‐century practices of criterion‐referenced testing and norm‐referenced testing. Criterion‐referencing signifies using a fixed, predetermined standard by which to assess student achievement, while norm‐referencing signifies using student performance to establish a norm by which to assess student achievement (this can be thought of as comparing students to their classmates in order to determine performance using, for example, a typical bell curve). The question, then, is how emulation fits into this supposed dichotomy. In an ideal situation, a classroom that implements emulation will have an established criterion (or criteria) for what excellence means in relation to the subject matter or coursework. However, norm‐referencing comes into play as student achievement is highlighted (for its exhibition or approximation of the criterion) for the sake of peer motivation. In this way, it is not that student performance becomes the standard (as it does in a strictly norm‐referenced context), but that student performance illustrates the standard and can therefore be motivational to others. Emerson's experience demonstrates an example of how emulation can rest soundly on notions of both norm‐referencing and criterion‐referencing. Emerson speaks of “propriety,” “correct and ready answers,” and a teacher's “glad well done,” which indicates that Emerson had some sense of a standard of excellence in his teacher's classroom. He was motivated, however, by his peers' approximation of these standards, which spurred him not to beat his peers but to desire his own demonstration of excellence. In this way, Emerson provides an example of the appropriate medley of norm‐ and criterion‐referencing in the classroom that uses emulation. </bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib32" idref="ref34" type="bt">32</bibl> <bibtext>In general, Parkhurst's concern arises from uneasiness regarding the individualistic nature of emulation as it exists in his experience. However, the true structural issue with such emulation is not its emphasis on individual concern (though, of course, that is a requisite aspect of its threat), but rather its emphasis on competition and petty reward. Educationists like Parkhurst were worried over emulation's undesirable symptoms (such as pride, vanity, disloyalty, selfishness, and so on); yet, the underlying cause of these problems was not emulation itself but its implementation in a system that emphasized competition. Unfortunately, Parkhurst's reliance on the mainstream experience blinds him to legitimate discussion about the minority experience. Parkhurst's argument, meant to be philosophical in nature, is bogged down in the mire of his specific individual and cultural reality, and he is thus unable to consider any liberating possibilities. </bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib33" idref="ref35" type="bt">33</bibl> <bibtext>Elihu W. Baldwin, Address on the Encouragement of Emulation in the Education of Youth Delivered before the Education Convention of Indiana (Indianapolis: Douglass and Noel, 1837), 3. </bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib34" idref="ref36" type="bt">34</bibl> <bibtext>Ibid., 4, 6. </bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib35" idref="ref37" type="bt">35</bibl> <bibtext>Ibid., 6. </bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib36" idref="ref38" type="bt">36</bibl> <bibtext>Ibid. </bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib37" idref="ref39" type="bt">37</bibl> <bibtext>Ibid. </bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib38" idref="ref40" type="bt">38</bibl> <bibtext>Bryan R. Warnick, Imitation and Education: A Philosophical Inquiry into Learning by Example (Albany: State University of New York Press, 2008), 38, 44–45. Warnick points out that social processes and contexts serve to reject or create exemplars regardless of a teacher's will or effort. While it is true that teachers are beholden to systems outside of their control, a teacher can be instrumental in creating “a social group in which exemplification might take place” (45). Teachers are not in absolute control of all variables that might influence a student outside of the classroom; however, they are able to create a learning context that emphasizes distinctive educational and moral growth. In this way, in a new environment that is outside of the teacher's control, it can be hoped that students will bring what they have learned in the community created by their teacher back “home” with them. While this is not foolproof, it increases the prospect that some change could occur. Moreover, the student may grow to prefer the environment of the classroom and may choose to search for communities within his or her nonschool environments that are similar to the environment of the classroom. Thus we are concerned with the necessary elements for creating an environment in which positive psychological effects of inspirational emulation become normative. Warnick also highlights a second concern; namely, that a teacher cannot be certain that a given exemplar will “take” for any given student due to elements outside of the teacher's control, such as a student's psychology, social constructs, and so on. It may be that students find a given exemplar to be repulsive, uninspiring, or laughable. While it is true that exemplars become exemplars due to “social conventions” (44), the teacher can, as in the case above, create social conventions in a classroom that will make a chosen exemplar valuable to students as they become embedded in the social conventions surrounding the exemplar. Moreover, as Warnick points out, it is still critically important in the process of creating an exemplar that “somebody directs observers to pay attention” to the exemplary features of an individual or an individual's work (38). In this sense, even the simple act of directing students to so‐called exemplary features is important in creating exemplars and ensuring that they are accepted by students. </bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib39" idref="ref41" type="bt">39</bibl> <bibtext>Tina Kindeberg, “The Significance of Emulation in the Oral Interaction between Teacher and Students,” Journal of Philosophy of Education 47, no. 1 (2013): 102. </bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib40" idref="ref42" type="bt">40</bibl> <bibtext>Kett, Merit, 109–111. In reality, grades and the concept of graded classrooms (in which students were grouped into different tracks depending on their performance, which was kept private) were developed in the late nineteenth century as an explicit response to educational emulation. In its original form, grading relied on private grades with public scaffolding. Students would know their own grades, and not the grades of other students, but they would be aware of which student group they were in, thus there was always the incentive to improve grades in order to reach the higher grade‐average group. The rationale behind grading was that grading systems would result in slow, justified advancement (as opposed to immediate, quick prize‐giving, as in emulation) and each student would be ignorant of his or her standing relative to other students, thus “personal competition, the ‘worst passion’ of the heart, could be avoided.” Given this background, it is clear that the presence of grades, at least historically and normatively speaking, should not be considered to be an extension of educational emulation. </bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib41" idref="ref45" type="bt">41</bibl> <bibtext>For an examination of the effect of competition as a motivating pedagogical technique, see Gianni De Fraja and Pedro Landeras, “Could Do Better: The Effectiveness of Incentives and Competition in Schools,” Journal of Public Economics 90, nos. 1–2 (2006): 189–213. For a thorough analysis of the difference between intrinsic and extrinsic motivation (which competition as a motivator entails), see Edward L. Deci, Robert J. Vallerand, Luc G. Pelletier, and Richard M. Ryan, “Motivation and Education: The Self‐Determination Perspective,” Educational Psychologist 26, nos. 3–4 (1991): 325–346. </bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib42" idref="ref46" type="bt">42</bibl> <bibtext>Parkhurst, “On Emulation,” 546. </bibtext> </blist> </ref> <aug> <p>By Mark E. Jonas and Drew W. Chambers</p> <p></p> <p>MARK E. JONAS is Associate Professor in the Department of Education and in the Department of Philosophy (by courtesy) at Wheaton College, 501 College Avenue, Wheaton, IL 60187–5593; e‐mail. His primary areas of scholarship include the educational, political, and ethical philosophy of Nietzsche, Rousseau, and Plato.</p> <p>DREW W. CHAMBERS is an Upper School English Teacher in Waltham, MA; e‐mail. His primary areas of scholarship include critical pedagogy and the educational philosophies of Plato and Paulo Freire.</p> </aug> |
|---|---|
| Header | DbId: eric DbLabel: ERIC An: EJ1165050 AccessLevel: 3 PubType: Academic Journal PubTypeId: academicJournal PreciseRelevancyScore: 0 |
| IllustrationInfo | |
| Items | – Name: Title Label: Title Group: Ti Data: The Use and Abuses of Emulation as a Pedagogical Practice – Name: Language Label: Language Group: Lang Data: English – Name: Author Label: Authors Group: Au Data: <searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Jonas%2C+Mark+E%2E%22">Jonas, Mark E.</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Chambers%2C+Drew+W%2E%22">Chambers, Drew W.</searchLink> – Name: TitleSource Label: Source Group: Src Data: <searchLink fieldCode="SO" term="%22Educational+Theory%22"><i>Educational Theory</i></searchLink>. Jun 2017 67(3):241-263. – Name: Avail Label: Availability Group: Avail Data: Wiley-Blackwell. 350 Main Street, Malden, MA 02148. Tel: 800-835-6770; Tel: 781-388-8598; Fax: 781-388-8232; e-mail: cs-journals@wiley.com; Web site: http://www.wiley.com/WileyCDA – Name: PeerReviewed Label: Peer Reviewed Group: SrcInfo Data: Y – Name: Pages Label: Page Count Group: Src Data: 23 – Name: DatePubCY Label: Publication Date Group: Date Data: 2017 – Name: TypeDocument Label: Document Type Group: TypDoc Data: Journal Articles<br />Reports - Evaluative – Name: Subject Label: Descriptors Group: Su Data: <searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Imitation%22">Imitation</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Learning+Processes%22">Learning Processes</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Teaching+Methods%22">Teaching Methods</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Learning+Theories%22">Learning Theories</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Educational+Benefits%22">Educational Benefits</searchLink> – Name: DOI Label: DOI Group: ID Data: 10.1111/edth.12246 – Name: ISSN Label: ISSN Group: ISSN Data: 0013-2004 – Name: Abstract Label: Abstract Group: Ab Data: From the late eighteenth through the end of the nineteenth century, educational philosophers and practitioners debated the benefits and shortcomings of the use of emulation in schools. During this period, "emulation" referred to a pedagogy that leveraged comparisons between students as a tool to motivate them to higher achievement. Many educationists praised emulation as a necessary and effective motivator. Other educationists condemned it for its tendency to foster invidious competition between students and to devalue learning. Ultimately, by the late nineteenth century emulation as a specific pedagogical practice had disappeared in American educational culture. In this article, Mark Jonas and Drew Chambers ask whether the disappearance of emulation is something to be celebrated or lamented. To answer this question they examine the historical concept of educational emulation and analyze the bases on which proponents and opponents argued. Parties on both sides of the debate framed their arguments in close relation to the way emulation was being used at that time, which prioritized actual competitions and prizes. In that context, the opponents made a better case, which presumably contributed to emulation's disappearance in schools afterwards. However, as earlier proponents of emulation argued, emulation need not be restricted to competitions and prizes. Instead, these proponents offered a philosophically and psychologically rich defense of emulation, but these were not carried through to an appropriate degree. The authors conclude that, construed appropriately, emulation not only had tremendous educational potential then, but still does today. With intentional effort on the part of teachers, emulation can greatly enrich students' lives and act as a powerful learning motivator. – Name: AbstractInfo Label: Abstractor Group: Ab Data: As Provided – Name: DateEntry Label: Entry Date Group: Date Data: 2017 – Name: AN Label: Accession Number Group: ID Data: EJ1165050 |
| PLink | https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&site=eds-live&db=eric&AN=EJ1165050 |
| RecordInfo | BibRecord: BibEntity: Identifiers: – Type: doi Value: 10.1111/edth.12246 Languages: – Text: English PhysicalDescription: Pagination: PageCount: 23 StartPage: 241 Subjects: – SubjectFull: Imitation Type: general – SubjectFull: Learning Processes Type: general – SubjectFull: Teaching Methods Type: general – SubjectFull: Learning Theories Type: general – SubjectFull: Educational Benefits Type: general Titles: – TitleFull: The Use and Abuses of Emulation as a Pedagogical Practice Type: main BibRelationships: HasContributorRelationships: – PersonEntity: Name: NameFull: Jonas, Mark E. – PersonEntity: Name: NameFull: Chambers, Drew W. IsPartOfRelationships: – BibEntity: Dates: – D: 01 M: 06 Type: published Y: 2017 Identifiers: – Type: issn-print Value: 0013-2004 Numbering: – Type: volume Value: 67 – Type: issue Value: 3 Titles: – TitleFull: Educational Theory Type: main |
| ResultId | 1 |
