Controversies Surrounding Utilitarian Learners and Their Learning Behaviours: Do Educators Know the Facts?

Abstract

Aims: The philosophy of Outcome-Based Education is grounded in a utilitarian perspective , equipping graduates with professional competencies. However, implementing utilitarian education leads to two debates: how utilitarian should the training be, and should educators tolerate utilitarian demeanours in learning? Methodology: We conducted a narrative review, synthesising diverse perspectives on utilitarian learners and their demeanours. “ Utilitarianism in education ” and “ utilitarian learner ” were keywords for literature searching. We then summarised findings, looked for controversies and analysed supporting strategies. Findings and Discussions: Educators distinguish two value-semantic forms of utilitarianism in education. Tactical utilitarianism focuses on learning and teaching applied sciences and emphasises the futility of foundational sciences, so it seems destructive. Strategic utilitarianism focuses on learning and teaching equally foundational and applied sciences and considers social and individual benefits, making it constructive. Philosophers distinguish two types of utilitarian learners. Act-utilitarians focus on tactical results, avoid spending time on sophisticated learning, act to get high exam grades at all prices, prioritise learning for themselves and deny working in a team. Rule-utilitarians , meanwhile, are likely to explore moral learning codes, adopt partial rules when building their utilitarian learning mode and accept working in a team but do not fully integrate into active learning. Some of our learners are sophisticates, while most are rule-utilitarians. The percentage of act-utilitarian is significant. The formation of learners’ personalities began at first contact with the society. Social influences consolidated the intrinsic psychological beliefs of the children, which determined their further personalities . Interactions between personality and extrinsic factors might affect learning demeanours. Educators should admit the existence of utilitarianism in education and react appropriately to learners’ demeanours, according to their personalities. It’d be better to provide act-utilitarians with potential personalised ways to satisfy their interests while respecting general rules. Educators should assist rule-utilitarians in self-creating a learning mode which provides the most benefits rather than criticising their behaviours. Conclusion: In vocational training, tactical utilitarianism is destructive. Meanwhile, educators should recognise the importance of strategic utilitarian approaches, explore and identify learners’ personalities and tolerate utilitarian learning demeanours. Appropriate and individualised counselling about learning modes is crucial in dealing with utilitarians and satisfying their interests.