‘Fun and Adventure’ as a way of learning

I’m currently having to examine how 2 articles ‘view’ education for my ‘Education and the Social Sciences’ Module.

The two I chose are by Messer & Wolter (Swiss, writing in 2007) and Stronkhorst (Dutch, writing in 2005). They both take largely quantitative looks at the impact of exchanges abroad. The former concludes it has no impact on earnings or likelihood of future studies, the latter concludes it only has minimal impact on the academic development and learning outcomes of the students.

Not good news for me both as someone who spent a year in France and as a researcher with the belief that time spent overseas is benefitial for the development of the individual and their academic career.

Both articles concede that there is an element of personal development. But both articles separate this from educational development. But they also dismiss the ‘fun and adventure’ aspects (their words, not mine) of living overseas in the development of an individual. So where does the personal start and the educational end?

If we take a developmental look at education (which the likes of Froebel started), this only applies to the Primary and Early Childhood phases of life. If we truly believe in lifelong learning surely the experiential, gradual learning through new experiences is just as valid. Else, not only the year abroad but much of the development which happens through this PhD is a waste of time. And not to acknowledge that sort of learning would be a shame.

Do I Really want to be a constrained academic?

So it is Friday, Day 7 of my 9 day holiday in Provence. I have successfully done an hour’s work each day and have the essay planned, the essay is coming on though the article is a little way off and as for the chapters of the thesis that is quite a way off even finger tip touching key board as yet.
Though I am clear on what is required for master’s level study and what I need to be asking of my academics. But what is required for a PhD level study and a career in academia leaves me a little unsure.
The thing is that the current form of academia relies on me copying the ways and means of those before me and lacks individual personality. At times the creativity which many people have (and I mentioned this in a previous post) seems to be stifled. I have been told off for trying to be gently witty or engaging rather what I find as a dull style. There seems to be a lack of personality.
So much of the work seems to focus on basic definitions of words which we all know and accept rather than thinking how we can make this world better. This may simply be me being bored of what I am doing at the moment but that is not unusual!!

The ultimate answer is of course, yes I do want to be an academic and help to shape a newer form of academia and thinking going forward.  For now, I have play by the rules - and try not to be overly socialised.