Construyendo educación de calidad desde la pedagogía

Sophia 32: 2022. © Universidad Politécnica Salesiana del Ecuador https://doi.org/10.17163/soph.n32.2022.01 building quality eduCation froM pedagogy Construyendo educación de calidad desde la pedagogía* José Manuel Touriñán lópez** Universidad de Santiago de Compostela, España [email protected] Orcid number: http://orcid.org/0000-0002-7553-4483 Abstract Building quality education supposes distinguishing conceptually quality of education and quality in education. Both meanings converge in the expression quality education. This work focuses its reflection on the knowledge of education and common activity, which is about and from which the educational relationship is intervened to achieve quality education. There is no quality education in the educational relationship, the common activity. Knowledge of education makes it possible to build fields of education with cultural areas, transforming information into knowledge and knowledge into education, adjusting it to the meaning of educating. It is necessary to educate ‘with’ the cultural area and this requires exercising the pedagogical function with competence, establishing an educational relationship in which that quality education it is achieved. Mastery of the function is what makes the pedagogue an expert. In the educational relationship the necessary medium to achieve a quality education is the internal and external common activity. Only by means of common activity it can be achieved the concordance between feelings and educational values; this concordance is a necessary condition to move from knowledge to educational action, and besides, quality education becomes effective by adjusting to the meaning of educating, which means to make effective what is valuable in terms of education. Keywords Knowledge, education, educational relationship, quality, pedagogical intervention, expert pedagogue. Suggested citation: Touriñán López, José Manuel (2022). Building quality education from pedagogy. Sophia, colección de Filosofía de la Educación, 32, pp. 41-89. * Part of the content of the article has been presented in the editorial section of the Revista Boletín Redipe, Vol. 7, No. 1. The significance of educational knowledge and its problem-solving capacity: foundations from pedagogical knowledge, published in January 2018. ** PhD and Bachelor in Pedagogy, with extraordinary award in both cases. Professor of Theory of Education at the University de Santiago de Compostela. Associate Editor of the Journal Sophia: Collection of Philosophy of Education. Coordinator of the RIPEME network (International Network of Mesoaxiological Pedagogy) and of the Third Generation research group (TeXe). International Educa-Redipe Award 2019 (Professional career). 42 Sophia 32: 2022. © Universidad Politécnica Salesiana del Ecuador Print ISSN:1390-3861 / Electronic ISSN: 1390-8626, pp. 41-89. Building quality education from pedagogy Construyendo educación de calidad desde la pedagogía Resumen Construir educación de calidad supone distinguir conceptualmente calidad de la educación y calidad en la educación. Ambos significados convergen en la expresión educación de calidad. El presente trabajo centra su reflexión en el conocimiento de la educación y la actividad común, que es sobre y desde la que se interviene en la relación educativa para lograr educación de calidad. No hay educación de calidad si no se trabaja en la relación educativa, la actividad común. El conocimiento de la educación hace posible la construcción de ámbitos de educación con las áreas culturales, transformando la información en conocimiento y el conocimiento en educación, ajustándolo al significado de educar. Hay que educar ‘con’ el área cultural y esto exige ejercer la función pedagógica con competencia, estableciendo una relación educativa en la que se logre esa educación de calidad. El dominio de la función es lo que hace experto al pedagogo. Y el medio necesario en la relación educativa, para lograr una educación de calidad, es la actividad común interna y externa. Solo por medio de la actividad común se logra la concordancia entre valores educativos y sentimientos que es necesaria para pasar del conocimiento a la acción educativa y, al ajustarse al significado de educar, se hace efectiva la educación de calidad, lo que es valioso en términos de educación. Palabras clave Conocimiento, educación, relación educativa, calidad, intervención pedagógica, experto pedagogo. Introduction Professor Pérez Juste published an article in 2005 in the Journal of Education entitled Quality of education, quality in education. Toward their necessary integration. In this article he states the following thesis: The traditional concern and contributions of educators and thinkers of education about the nature, meaning and essence of education, i.e., the quality of education, can and must be compatible with movements, proposals and actions of our time in relation to quality, where approaches related to quality management can be placed in frameworks, such as those of total quality, ISO or EFQM, evaluation, certification or accreditation. In this sense, the concepts of quality of and in education are analyzed and formulated and an integration proposal is formalized, in which the quality of education is linked to the mission of the institutions and their educational projects, and the quality in education is integrated with the medium, which is relevant and effective (Pérez Juste, 2005, p. 11). There are many studies on quality ‘of ’ education (meaning) and on quality ‘in’ education (processes) and it is an assumed principle that looks for the convergence of both analyzes when talking about quality education. Some authors prefer to use quality of education, thinking about its meaning and purpose, and others prefer to build discourse on quality in education, thinking about the processes and procedures to achieve quality standards. But for me, in this work, I will use as a starting point the 43 Sophia 32: 2022. © Universidad Politécnica Salesiana del Ecuador Print ISSN:1390-3861 / Electronic ISSN: 1390-8626, pp. 41-89. José Manuel Touriñán lópez convergence of quality “of” and “in” to achieve quality education. Thus, I assume that quality education requires understanding the concept and using processes oriented toward the achievement of its defining traits. As Professor López Cubino has summarized, a quality management model is a permanent reference and an effective instrument in the process of any organization to improve the products or services it offers. The model promotes understanding the most relevant dimensions of an organization, as well as establishing criteria for comparing them with other organizations and the exchange of experiences. As López Cubino (2001) states, the use of a reference model is based on the fact that: • It avoids having to create indicators because they are defined in the model. • It provides a complete conceptual framework. • It provides the same goals and standards for everyone, in many cases well-proven. • It determines a consistent organization of improvement activities. • It enables to measure with the same criteria over time, so it is easy to detect the right direction. There are several models which can be used in education prior their adaptation. The most widely used total quality management models are the Deming model created in 1951, the Malcolm Baldrige model in 1987 and the European Quality Management Model, EFQM. None of them nullifies the necessary reference to quality as a concept (Touriñán & Soto, 1999). On the subject of quality education, I have always considered as a reference point in our formative educational context the book of 1981, derived from the seminar held in La Granda (Avilés-Principado de Asturias) under the patronage of the Asturian School of Hispanic Studies (EAEH, 1981). Seeing quality education as the degree of adequacy, coherence, efficiency and integration of the elements of the structure, process and product of education with what is considered valuable (with what it means) education is a conclusive proposal of that Seminar that I continue to assume (EAEH, 1981). I am also aware that, as Professor Municio (1993) said, the difficulty of building up a general definition of the quality of education is that “it represents the positive social image of education, and each cultural model describes it through different components. Each component is a quality indicator that does not represent itself, but makes sense to the extent that it can be integrated into a coherent set such as a cultural model” 44 Sophia 32: 2022. © Universidad Politécnica Salesiana del Ecuador Print ISSN:1390-3861 / Electronic ISSN: 1390-8626, pp. 41-89. Building quality education from pedagogy Construyendo educación de calidad desde la pedagogía (p. 18). The socio-cultural suitability of the educational offer, due to the legitimate territorial condition (temporary space) of the educational action, does not nullify the necessary reference to the traits of meaning in everything that we use as quality educational processes, according to the standards of each moment (Order, 1988; García Garrido, 2005). Obviously, if two educational institutions with different values and cultures are considered to have high quality, this quality cannot be linked to the specific characteristics (values, goals, objectives, programs, teacher training, etc) of each institution, but, on the contrary, the quality must be in the relationships between the elements that make them up more than in those specific characteristics, respecting the temporary formative orientation, which does not nullify the logical adjustment of the actions to the meaning of educating (Vega Miranda, 1998; Touriñán, 2015). The temporary formative orientation for the human condition is the model or educational pattern of that society (the type of people we want to educate with the formation we give them at a certain historical moment). Through intervention, we transform the knowledge of cultural areas into education, in each field of education we build (Touriñán, 2014). The temporary formative orientation integrates the content of education and allows to concretize and differentiate the corresponding educational response in each territory to central and complementary issues of the concept of education, with respect to what is permanent and what changes, the essential and the existential, the structural and the functional, what corresponds to the being or the becoming of education at each specific socio-historical moment and that is reflected in the curricular architecture and in the fields of education that we build from the pedagogy. Any temporary formative orientation combines tradition and innovation, the cultivation of the personal and the commitment to the vision, because that is the framework of education that stems from social expectations directed to the system. Tradition and innovation (sometimes masked in terms of modernity and progress) are combined, not for the pure, particular whim of the politicians in charge, but because by assuming the character of shared responsibility in education, everyone understands that when defining the human we want to educate, neither everything in tradition is rejected, nor just innovations respond to the knowledge that must be preserved. The cultivation of the personal and the greatness of the vision are combined because education, understood in its full sense, does not achieve its objective when developing a man capable of fending himself (Touriañán, 2015). 45 Sophia 32: 2022. © Universidad Politécnica Salesiana del Ecuador Print ISSN:1390-3861 / Electronic ISSN: 1390-8626, pp. 41-89. José Manuel Touriñán lópez The different ways of approaching education from the perspective of pedagogical knowledge allow to refer to it as a chosen value for educational purposes. From the intervention point of view, education is committed to extrinsic purposes or educational goals and to intrinsic purposes or pedagogical goals to achieve the fulfillment of logical requirements of the meaning of education that determine and qualify skills, habits, attitudes, knowledge and competencies as components of recognized educational value to educate oneself, and therefore to become increasingly author and not just actor of one´s projects (SI(e)TE, 2012). The temporary formative orientation is based on the uniqueness of situations, the knowledge of education generated, the advancement of cultural areas and the relevance of existing values within a given society. The school subjects are grouped in the curricular design, taking into account the levels of the educational system, respecting the criteria and traits of real definition of education. From cultural, current, consolidated and transformed areas of education, the temporary formative orientation for the human condition offers the pattern or model for educational design and derived pedagogical intervention. Through school subjects, formative guidance is applied and completed from strata of thought, derived from diverse cultural areas and varied status, ranging from humanism to communitarianism, from nationalism to individualism, from ethics to esthetics, from morality to religion, from philosophy to science, from anthropological to cultural and so on. Education is not necessarily confused, nor identified with these strata, because the meaning of education is specific and different from that field of reality. Education will have temporary formative orientation in the educational policy of socialism, humanism, secularism, confessional profile, community, etc., depending on the historical moment and taking into account the greater or lesser meaning of a certain type of citizen mentality; these are the philosophical senses of education linked to social expectations (Pring, 2014; Carr, 2014, 2006). But, moreover, in all such cases education maintains—it must maintain, on the penalty of losing its own status—consistency with the meaning of education, with the character and sense traits that are inherent in the meaning of ‘education’. Thus educational action will not cease to be education and will not become a propagandistic vehicle of the political ideas of the dominant group (Touriñán, 2014; Touriñán & Longueira, 2018). And this is so, because education is a process that involves realizing the meaning of education in any educational setting, developing the general dimensions of intervention and appropriate competencies, 46 Sophia 32: 2022. © Universidad Politécnica Salesiana del Ecuador Print ISSN:1390-3861 / Electronic ISSN: 1390-8626, pp. 41-89. Building quality education from pedagogy Construyendo educación de calidad desde la pedagogía the fundamental habits of development, the specific capacities and basic provisions of each individual educator for the achievement of education and the guiding values derived therefrom. Once achieved, we guide the processes in a quality educational project. Professor Teófilo Rodríguez Neira has been concerned with the quality of education and has written down texts from the perspective of the bits in the school and the gaps in the school that should always be avoided if we seek quality education (Neira, 2010, 2011, 2018, 2019). In line with that commitment, I must also mention in this introduction, that in 1987 I published a book on pedagogical function (Touriñán, 1987b). In that book and the one published in 2020 titled Pedagogy, Technical Competence and Transfer of Knowledge (Touriñán, 2020a), I have various works on the pedagogical function, the social image of pedagogy and quality education. In all of them I have argued on the thesis of that first book of 1987 that I can now mention in the following terms: • The quality of education depends to a large extent on the quality of education professionals, and at the same time the quality of education professionals depends mostly on the knowledge of the education they have received in their training (Touriñán, 1987b). • The knowledge of the education provided by the pedagogy makes possible the mental representation of the educational action and develops in the professor the critical vision of its method and acts in each intervention, making possible the transition from knowledge to action (Touriñán, 2016). • Estimating education (knowledge area) does not mean estimating knowledge of the field (pedagogy as a discipline of knowledge of education and derived activity) and does not always mean a positive estimate of the professor (person practicing the profession) or the career studied to be a professor. In all areas where there is double condition of knowledge and action, this possible difference of estimation occurs: regarding health, I consider medicine as knowledge and action, and whether or not I consider doctors who are subject to the interests of pharmacists with regard to prescription drugs (Touriñán, 2017). • Pedagogy is a necessary condition (logical necessity) to satisfy a need (social, cultural, economic, personal, etc.: education), in which society is in urgent need of quality response. Pedagogy will remain in a pure academic knowledge that some teach for others to learn if it is not related to the achievement of quality education (Touriñán, 2019c). 47 Sophia 32: 2022. © Universidad Politécnica Salesiana del Ecuador Print ISSN:1390-3861 / Electronic ISSN: 1390-8626, pp. 41-89. José Manuel Touriñán lópez • We must relate social image and response to a social need with the quality of education through pedagogy, in such a way it is understood that quality education is not achieved without developing in education professionals the competence derived from the quality of the knowledge of education they have to receive in their career (Touriñán, 2020a). Because of the latter, in this paper I will focus my reflection on the knowledge of education and common activity, which is about and from which we intervene in the educational relationship to achieve quality education. Paying attention to common activity is a necessary condition for quality education. There is no quality education if we do not work the common activity in the educational relationship, and there is no quality education if we do not conform to what is valuable in terms of education and therefore explicitly determined in its meaning. Knowledge of education has grown over time (O’Connor, 1971; Novak, 1977; Broudy, 1977; Berliner, 1986; Carr & Kemmis, 1988; Touriñán, 1987a, 1989, 2018b, 2019b, 2020c; Schulman, 1986; Biesta et al., 2014; Vázquez, 1980, 1981; Colom, 2018; SI(e)TE, 2018). It has become a specialized knowledge (Touriñán, 2016, 2017, 2020a; SI(e)TE, 2020). This paper addresses the distinction between the specialized knowledge of each cultural area being taught and the specific knowledge of the study of education as an object of knowledge. The objective is to understand, on the one hand, that knowledge of education makes possible the construction of educational fields with cultural areas, transforming information into knowledge and knowledge into education (adjusting it to the meaning of education). We must educate “with” the cultural area and this requires, on the other hand, to exercise the pedagogical function with competence, establishing an educational relationship in which the common internal and external activity is the necessary means: we all form ourselves and have to use common activity to educate and educate ourselves and without it, it is not possible to achieve it (Touriñán, 2019e, 2019b, 2020b). Without common activity, it is not possible to educate, nor is it possible to conduct the educational relationship. Only through common activity, in the educational relationship, do we achieve the concordance between feelings and educational values that are necessary to move from knowledge to educational action. Since in the educational relationship the common activity must conform to the meaning of educating in order for the relationship to be educational, the common activity, adjusted to the meaning 48 Sophia 32: 2022. © Universidad Politécnica Salesiana del Ecuador Print ISSN:1390-3861 / Electronic ISSN: 1390-8626, pp. 41-89. Building quality education from pedagogy Construyendo educación de calidad desde la pedagogía of educating, makes quality education effective. In this way, it can be said that common activity is also a necessary condition for quality education. And this is what I argued in this text using the following postulates: • Knowledge of education determines the concept of education over knowledge of cultural areas. • Knowledge of education and pedagogical knowledge do not mean the same. • Expert status is linked to knowledge of education in education professionals. • The starting point for the real definition of education is in the common use of the term and in the activities that are carried out. • The pedagogical function generates intervention from the common activities. • The transition from knowledge to action happens in the educational relationship, making the concordance between educational values and feelings in each pedagogical intervention through the common activity, so that quality education becomes effective in every interaction. Knowledge of education determines the concept of education scope over knowledge of cultural areas The level of current pedagogical research allows to state that there are sufficient reasons to distinguish and not confuse technical language (Touriñán, 2013a and 2014): knowledge of education, and knowledge of cultural areas. It is true that, from an anthropological point of view, education is culture and, therefore, it makes sense to say that the role of the education professional is to transmit culture. But if we also say that educational terms lack of their own content, the knowledge of the various cultural areas becomes the backbone of any pedagogical activity to the extent that the same education professionals would have to accept that their formation relies on the knowledge of those cultural areas and that knowing, teaching and educating would be the same thing. For me, by principle of meaning, to know a cultural area is not to teach, because knowledge can be separated from action and to teach is not to educate, because we can affirm that there are teachings acts that do not educate based on the proper meaning of those terms (Touriñán, 2016, 2017; SI(e)TE, 2016, 2018, 2020; Touriñán & Longueira, 2016, 2018). 49 Sophia 32: 2022. © Universidad Politécnica Salesiana del Ecuador Print ISSN:1390-3861 / Electronic ISSN: 1390-8626, pp. 41-89. José Manuel Touriñán lópez In relation to cultural areas, it is true that knowledge of the cultural area is a component of educational action, but knowledge of the cultural area has a different role when we talk about ‘knowing a cultural area’, ‘teaching a cultural area’ and ‘educating with a cultural area’. This is obvious if we think of a specific case, because it is not the same ‘to know History’, than ‘to teach History’ than ‘to educate with History’, and so on with each area of experience constituted in the object of teaching and field of education. From the point of view of the knowledge of education, the one who teaches is required a certain level of training relative to the knowledge of the area that will be the object of the teaching (area of experience and forms of expression appropriate to the area), but teaching an area is not knowing that area and educating is simply teaching the content of the area. It is undeniable, given the current development of knowledge of education that all teachers do not require the same level of expertise in the cultural area of experience they teach (it varies according to their level of placement in the educational system), and that all teachers should not have the same pedagogical knowledge, because this depends on the level of the educational system on which they work. Knowing, in the broad sense of performance identified with the expressions ‘I know what, I know how and do’, is not confused with teaching. Skills and competencies to know and to teach do not subsume each other, nor do both of them hesitate to relate the expression ‘educate with’ a cultural area. Careful analysis of the pedagogical context creates a debate that knowledge of cultural areas is not knowledge of education and that it makes sense to distinguish knowing, teaching and educating (Touriñán, 2015, 2019c, 2018a, 2020d): a) While it is true that a large part of the objectives of education have something to do with the contents of cultural areas in teaching, the scope of the objectives is not exhausted in the fields of cultural areas, not even in teaching. The pedagogical function, referring to teaching, is not exhausted in knowing the cultural information corresponding to a topic of a cultural area in a class; rather, the pedagogical function is revealed when it is known that types of skills, habits, attitudes, etc., of the various domains that point to taxonomies are being enhanced by working in a special way on that topic. The question, in teaching, is not to know as much about an area as the specialist, but to know what knowledge objectives are achieved and how they are achieved by teaching an area topic and what skills, habits, attitudes, knowledge and competencies we are developing by teaching that topic. 56 Sophia 32: 2022. © Universidad Politécnica Salesiana del Ecuador Print ISSN:1390-3861 / Electronic ISSN: 1390-8626, pp. 41-89. Building quality education from pedagogy Construyendo educación de calidad desde la pedagogía On the other hand, the distinction between knowledge of cultural areas and knowledge of education also places us in a special position to establish the distinction between extrinsic aims of education (educational goals) and intrinsic aims of education (pedagogical goals). It makes sense to establish this distinction within the social system and for the ‘education’ subsystem because the intrinsic purposes are specific to the subsystem, as they derive from the knowledge of the education subsystem (knowledge of education) and, in turn, the extrinsic purposes are also characteristic of the subsystem, but because they are incorporated into it once chosen (end = chosen value) for the subsystem because they are compatible with it, although they do not originate from knowledge of education. Thus, we can say that theoretical, technological and praxis knowledge (of Literature, History, Philosophy, Life Experience, Morals, Customs, etc.) of the various cultural areas that are constituted in the objective of knowledge of teaching are not created by the professionals of the education with their specialized knowledge (knowledge of the education), but it is the specialists in each of these areas who create them and ‘turn’ them into socially and morally legitimate goals in that society; for this reason they are candidates for the goal of education, especially if being socially and morally legitimate, becoming an effective extrinsic purpose. On the other hand, the intrinsic aims are those that are decided in the system and their content is knowledge of education. The validity of their statements does not occur without their social and morally desirable character, or without their validity in a cultural area, but rather of the specific tests of the field, i.e., from the meaning granted to the statements from the conceptual system elaborated with the knowledge of education. This same discourse requires understanding that there are certain type of goals (extrinsic) that have a historical and variable character subjected to the evolution of what is socially desirable and to the growth of the concrete cultural area to which it belongs (today we do not teach mathematics as years ago, nor are they given the same value within the school curriculum; today professors do not teach the same ‘customs’ as years ago, etc.). We speak here of knowledge of the disciplines that are part of education. In addition, there are other intrinsic purposes which have a historical and variable character subjected to the evolution of knowledge of education. We speak of the knowledge of education derived from education as an object of knowledge. 57 Sophia 32: 2022. © Universidad Politécnica Salesiana del Ecuador Print ISSN:1390-3861 / Electronic ISSN: 1390-8626, pp. 41-89. José Manuel Touriñán lópez Both types of purposes are subjected to historical character. But the answer is very different – because of the kind of speech that justifies it –, when we say that man must know History to be considered literate (extrinsic purpose) and we must develop critical sense because man cannot be educated (intrinsic purpose) without it. In the first case, man will be more or less educated; in the second, man may or may not be educated (logical necessity). Therefore, it seems that a significant difference between intrinsic and extrinsic purposes derives from the distinction between logical need for something and psychological needs of the sociocultural level where things happen (what is the educated man of each time?). If our discourse is correct, as we said at the beginning of this paragraph, it is possible to speak and distinguish knowledge from cultural areas and knowledge of education. But, moreover, as has been mentioned throughout this section, knowing, teaching and educating have different meanings, the logic of knowing is not the logic of explaining and there are teaching processes that do not educate. Therefore, it is important to distinguish between education as an object of knowledge (knowledge of education; education knowledge) and knowledge as an object of education (knowledge of education; our knowledge, the educability of our knowledge; the educability of our knowledge; knowledge education or cognitive education), if we can use the expression (Touriñán, 2013b). It is clear to us that: • Talking about educational knowledge (knowledge about education; educational knowledge; education knowledge) is the same as talking about the set of theoretical, technological, and practical knowledge that research is consolidating about the reality of education. They are knowledge of a cultural area. But, in this case, the specific cultural area; that of education, becomes an object of knowledge (education as an object of knowledge, as a knowable object). • Talking about knowledge of cultural areas is to speak of the theoretical, technological and practical knowledge that the specialists in each area —mathematicians, physicists, psychologists, doctors, etc.— have been consolidating with their research. • Speaking about knowledge as an object of education (the educability of our knowledge; knowledge education or cognitive education) is to speak of a certain area of knowledge of education, which allows us to improve our way of knowing. 58 Sophia 32: 2022. © Universidad Politécnica Salesiana del Ecuador Print ISSN:1390-3861 / Electronic ISSN: 1390-8626, pp. 41-89. Building quality education from pedagogy Construyendo educación de calidad desde la pedagogía Talking about knowledge of education does not imply questioning directly about the knowledge of cultural areas. When we talk about “knowledge of education,” it is more appropriate to ask why certain knowledge is a goal or instrument of educational action or why the cognitive dimension of man is educable. As well as the knowledge of each cultural area, the historian, the geographer, the mathematician, the physicist, could speak to us according to the case about art critic, etc., because they are specialists in each of these cultural areas; there is no doubt that responding adequately to a content requires questioning about education as an object of knowledge. In the first instance, knowledge of cultural areas—history, mathematics, physics, etc.—is the scientific object of study. In the two cases of the second scenario, the transmission and the improvement of the capacity to know become a specific object of scientific reflection in the form of Didactics and Cognitive Pedagogy. Thus, knowledge as an object of education requires research education, i.e., it requires education to become an object of knowledge, either as cognitive pedagogy or as didactics, respectively; but, in addition to responding to why a particular educational event occurred and how a particular educational event can be achieved, we must also respond to how this event is justified as an educational event and this is a question that is only answered from the knowledge we have of the concept of education, and the meaning of ‘education’ is built from the Pedagogy. This is the question from Pedagogy, not for improving our way of knowing, nor for improving our way of teaching but to question education from concepts with intrinsic (autochthonous) significance to the area of knowledge ‘education’. To know a cultural area is not to teach, because, as we have just seen, the competencies required in each case are different and to teach is not to educate, because we can affirm that there are teachings processes that do not educate, based on the proper meaning of those terms. It must be assumed that pedagogy is knowledge of education and it is obtained in various ways, but ultimately that knowledge is only valid if it serves to educate; i.e., to transform information into knowledge and education from concepts with intrinsic significance to the field of education. On the one hand, we need to have a broad sense of the term (I know what, I know how and do it); on the other hand, we need to teach (which involves another kind of knowledge than knowing areas of cultural experience; teaching involves making others know) and we must also educate, which implies not only knowing and teaching, but also mastering the character and meaning of the meaning of ‘education’ to apply the cultural 59 Sophia 32: 2022. © Universidad Politécnica Salesiana del Ecuador Print ISSN:1390-3861 / Electronic ISSN: 1390-8626, pp. 41-89. José Manuel Touriñán lópez experience to each area. When we interpret the area of cultural experience from the specific pedagogic mentality and from the specialized pedagogic gaze1, our intellectual concern allows us to distinguish between ‘Knowledge of History’, ‘Teaching History’ and ‘Educating with History’, It is understood as a subject of cultural area that is part of the curriculum along with others and is part of Pedagogy in the field of education. The ‘field of education’, as used in this context, is not a physical space but a concept derived from the educational assessment of the area of experience that we use as an instrument and goal of education. The field of education is the result of the educational evaluation of the experience we use to educate and, therefore, from the Pedagogy, the concept of the field of education integrates the meaning of education, the processes of intervention, the dimensions of intervention, the areas of experience and the forms of expression. The ‘field of education’, which is always an expression of the cultural area valued as an object and instrument of education, includes the following components: ‘area of experience’ used to educate, ‘forms of expression’ suitable to educate with that area, ‘criteria of meaning of education’ reflected in traits of character and sense inherent in the meaning of education, ‘general dimensions of intervention’ that we will use in education, ‘education processes’ to be followed and ‘technical scope’. Integrating these components is what education knowledge does with each cultural area to speak with concepts of educating ‘with’ a cultural area as a concept other than ‘teaching’ a cultural area and ‘knowing’ a cultural area that is part of the curriculum. If we do not confuse knowledge of cultural areas and knowledge of education, neither is it true that the teacher is an apprentice of the cultural areas he/she teaches, nor is it true that necessarily the one who knows the most is the one who teaches it the best, it is not true that the one who best dominates a skill is the one who best teaches another to master it, unless if saying say that the skill he/she dominates is that of teaching nor is it true that when he/she teaches we are always using cultural content as an instrument for achieving the character and meaning of education, because teaching is not educating. The objective of pedagogy is to transform information into knowledge and knowledge into education, valuing each medium used as education and creating educational fields from the various cultural areas: It is the mesoaxiological perspective of Pedagogy2 (Touriñán, 2020e, p. 50). It is for this reason that we can say that it is up to Pedagogy to value each cultural area as education and build it as an ‘area of education’ (Touriñán, 2017). 60 Sophia 32: 2022. © Universidad Politécnica Salesiana del Ecuador Print ISSN:1390-3861 / Electronic ISSN: 1390-8626, pp. 41-89. Building quality education from pedagogy Construyendo educación de calidad desde la pedagogía For us, the cultural area contemplated from the perspective of educational scope is not only education ‘for’ a cultural area (vocational development and professional career), focused on the area as theoretical knowledge, research area and creative activity whose technical domain and practical execution can be taught. The cultural area is also education ‘by’ the cultural area (general scope of education and general education), general scope of education that allows the focus of pedagogical intervention in the cultural area on the development of the character and proper sense of education, -as should be done with mathematics, language, geography, or any basic general education curriculum discipline- and a general education field in which competencies are acquired for the use and construction of valuable experience on the conceptual sense of the area, which can be assumed as a common acquis for all learners as part of their integral development. We can know a cultural area, we can teach an area and we can educate ‘with’ the cultural area, either to develop the character and sense inherent in the meaning of education in the learners, or to develop the conceptual sense of the area within the general formation of each learner, or to contribute to the formation of specialists in the cultural area from a vocational or professional perspective (Touriñán, 2015; Longueira et al., 2019). This is because each of these activities requires different competencies and skills for their mastery, and practice and perfection in one does not automatically generate mastery of the other. It must be accepted that knowledge of education is therefore a specialized knowledge that allows the pedagogue to explain, interpret and decide the pedagogical intervention appropriate to the cultural area, which is the object of teaching and education. In short, the specialized character of knowledge of education makes it possible to affirm that the pedagogical function is a specific activity socially recognized to meet certain social needs; a specific activity based on specialized knowledge of education, which allows to establish and generate pedagogical facts and decisions. The competence of an expert in pedagogical functions comes from the knowledge of education: it is observed in the mastery of the appropriate competencies to educate and in the possession of a specific pedagogical mentality; it is exercised with a pedagogical perspective specialized in the structural elements of the intervention; it is diversified into professions already known today as teacher, director, inspector, social educator, labor pedagogue, family pedagogue, psychopedagogue, pedagogue, etc. All of these are logical demands that take on professionalization and professionalism from Pedagogy to achieve quality education. 61 Sophia 32: 2022. © Universidad Politécnica Salesiana del Ecuador Print ISSN:1390-3861 / Electronic ISSN: 1390-8626, pp. 41-89. José Manuel Touriñán lópez Knowledge of education and pedagogical knowledge do not mean the same After these steps, it seems clear that asking what knowledge of education is requires a broader response that is not restricted to the knowledge of education that provides one of the streams. Depending on the type of problems we are raising, we will need autonomous or marginal knowledge. Sometimes we will need science of education (we will need ‘substantive theories’ of education to explain and understand education in own, autochthonous concepts, making rules and norms derived from the process); sometimes we will need scientific studies of education, practical theories and interpretive theories (rules for given purposes and orientations of action toward certain effects that justify interpretative theory; to orient the intervention toward socially prescribed purposes or to understand the educational intervention in terms validated by other consolidated disciplines, such as Psychology, Sociology, etc.). Finally, we will need philosophical studies of education, when we want to make phenomenology of an end in itself, to study the internal logic of the end within the conceptual system of Education or to know the consequences that arise for the education of a particular conception of life. We will need ‘philosophical theories’ (in plural) of education, which focus on knowing the consequences that arise for the education of a particular conception of life and, sometimes, we will need ‘philosophical theory’ (in singular) of education that focuses on making phenomenological, dialectical analysis, critical-hermeneutical or linguistic of an end itself, study the internal logic of the end within the conceptual system of ‘education’, etc. (Touriñán, 2019b, 202020c; Gil Cantero, 2011; Carr, 2006, 2014). Knowledge of education comes from many different forms of knowledge and generates many different disciplines. There are disciplines derived from philosophies, there are disciplines derived from interpretive theories, there are disciplines derived from practical theories, and there are disciplines derived from substantive theories. The conceptual structure of education knowledge is different in each. Pedagogy as science, interdisciplinary studies of education, and philosophical studies of education do not get confused, although all are knowledge of education and all are part of the studies of Pedagogy as a career (Touriñán, 2014, 2016; Pring, 2014; Rodríguez, 2006; Sáez, 2007). Different ways of understanding knowledge of education have generated a necessary diversity of theoretical knowledge of education, depending on the type of problems being analyzed. And, if this is the case, just as we can say that not all knowledge of education is Pedagogy in 62 Sophia 32: 2022. © Universidad Politécnica Salesiana del Ecuador Print ISSN:1390-3861 / Electronic ISSN: 1390-8626, pp. 41-89. Building quality education from pedagogy Construyendo educación de calidad desde la pedagogía the sense of pedagogy as a scientific discipline with functional autonomy, we can also affirm that a certain pedagogical knowledge is derived from all knowledge of education, because pedagogical knowledge originates from the study of intervention, i.e., from the study of the theory-prac- tice relationship; and a different knowledge of intervention is generated by its way of understanding the knowledge of education: in some cases knowledge is experiential, in others it is practical theory and, in others, specific technology (Belth, 1971; Touriñán & Sáez, 2015, Dewey, 1998; García Aretio et al., 2009; Gil Cantero, 2018, Rabazas, 2014; Martínez et al., 2016; Jover & Thoilliez, 2010). Knowledge of education has its most genuine manifestation in pedagogical knowledge, which determines professional action in each pedagogical function. Pedagogical knowledge originates from the study of intervention through the educational relationship that promotes the path from knowledge to action, combining theory and practice (Touriñán & Rodríguez, 1993; Touriñán, 2017), and a certain consideration or recommendation for intervention is derived since all knowledge of education originates through the theory-practice relationship. For the same reason, we can say that any educational intervention is, to a certain extent, a pedagogical intervention, because there is a component of pedagogical knowledge in every educational intervention which originates from the study of the theory-practice relationship and does not always have the same level of technical elaboration in its manifestation. Therefore, there is an experiential pedagogical knowledge in a certain type of educational intervention, in another, there is pedagogical knowledge of practical theory and, in another, and there is pedagogical knowledge of specific technology (Table 2). Being an education professional expert is linked to specialized knowledge Knowledge of education is a specialized knowledge that allows the specialist to explain, interpret and decide on the pedagogical intervention of the function for which it is enabled, either a teaching function, or a support function for the educational system, or a research function (Touriñán & Sáez, 2015). In all of these cases, the status of expert happens by possessing various competencies that enable the person for the theoretical, technological and practical knowledge of education in his/her area of action to practice as an education technician and to control the practice as an education specialist. 63 Sophia 32: 2022. © Universidad Politécnica Salesiana del Ecuador Print ISSN:1390-3861 / Electronic ISSN: 1390-8626, pp. 41-89. José Manuel Touriñán lópez Table 2 Derivation of pedagogical knowledge according to currents Discriminatorcriteria Type of knowledge to obtain to knowledge of education How to solve the intervention act What is the origin of the pedagogical knowledge component of each intervention Marginal current Philosophical studies Cosmovision Ends of life and justification of ends. Consequences of education from Socio visional philosophical theories From the problem-solving capacity for the intervention with the theory-practice relationship in the marginal current Using the experience of the concrete act of intervention Subalternation current Interdisciplinary interpretive studies Autonomous current Pedagogical studies as a discipline with functional autonomy Means for given ends, linking conditions and effects to an event from theories or Applied Research Using rules and norms derived from Practical Theories and technical applications Aims and means derived from the pedagogical intervention process, linked to Substantial theories Creating rules and norms linked from Specific technologies From the problemsolving capacity for the intervention with the theorypractice relationship in the subaltern current From the problemsolving capacity for the intervention with the theorypractice relationship in the autonomous current Source: Touriñán, 2016, p. 112. As an expert, it is possible to speak of education professionals and pedagogical professions without contradicting the fact that not everyone who educates is an education professional, because education professionals occupy a defined workplace that is compatible with the performance of other professionals in the education system and with other education agents. But it is precisely the specialized knowledge of education that gives the expertise of the pedagogical functions (Wynen, 1985; Fraser & Dunstan, 2010; Berliner, 1986, 2002; (SI(e)TE, 2020): • The education expert (graduate or postgraduate) is a specialist in a field of reality of education (physical education, education, civic education, or others) from the point of view of the performance of functions of teaching, research or support for the intervention in the educational system. 64 Sophia 32: 2022. © Universidad Politécnica Salesiana del Ecuador Print ISSN:1390-3861 / Electronic ISSN: 1390-8626, pp. 41-89. Building quality education from pedagogy Construyendo educación de calidad desde la pedagogía • Training as an expert in educational activities enables to intervene in the educational activity: to teach, organize and direct centers, to evaluate and control educational activities, etc. They are different functions that in certain cases form the activity of a profession. • Expert training enables to achieve with a master’s degree not only epistemological (theoretical, technological and practical) knowledge about education research, teaching and educational intervention, but also skill and experience in the exercise or practice of that activity • The educational expert, where appropriate, has to master the cultural area that is constituted in the field of education (object and goal of his/her work) at a level that is sufficient to carry out the pedagogical function (artistic education, physical education, literary education, etc.). However, the importance of differentiating ‘practice’ as a repeated training or exercise of an activity, and ‘practice’ as an epistemological level of knowledge (application of knowledge to the specific case) must be emphasized, as well as the importance of accurately distinguishing between knowing an activity, investigating it, teaching it, practicing it as a technician and practicing it as a person or as a specialist. The skills and abilities required in each case are different, and while in pure mental hypothesis they could all occur in the same person, it is normal that this does not happen and does not reduce success in each case (Perrenoud, 2004a, 2008, 2004b). The specialist in the sciences of the educational activity practices in the epistemological field (applies his/her knowledge to the specific case and actions the sequence of intervention). In addition, he/she practices or trains or exercises in the skills of a technician of the educational activity (as a coach, as an administrator or director of educational institutions, etc.). It is normal that a person who prepares others for the educational activity, knows it, investigates it and works as a technician of that activity, practices education. Moreover, there is nothing strange in accepting that, in certain types of activity, such as teaching, advocacy, medicine, education, etc., the practice of the activity helps the expert and forms part of his/her training. It is especially true in all areas of experience that require practical skill exercise, such as sport, education, art or surgery. For this reason, the one who knows the most is who teaches it the best, or who leaps the most is who trains the best. Using an analogy with the doctor- 65 Sophia 32: 2022. © Universidad Politécnica Salesiana del Ecuador Print ISSN:1390-3861 / Electronic ISSN: 1390-8626, pp. 41-89. José Manuel Touriñán lópez surgeon, it can be said that the person who best achieves the goal of doing medical-surgeons is not necessarily the best surgeon. The best surgeon dominates the theory, technology, and practice of clinical intervention; in addition, he ‘practices’, i.e., exercises clinical intervention. But because he is a good surgeon, he is not a good “coach” of surgeons, because what he needs to master the coach is the technique of teaching surgery, even if he is not an expert of the clinical intervention. This distinction between knowing, investigating, teaching an activity or intervention (sport, medical, artistic, etc.), practicing as a technical specialist of an activity or intervention (doctor, artist, sportsman), practicing the activity at the epistemological level and practicing (training the activity as a technical specialist or as a private person), allows us to understand certain careers in relation to practice. These relationships should not be confused, because the practice of those who teach a sport or art is, first and foremost, the practice of teaching not the practice of sport or art itself. This difference is essential to clarifying issues of professionalism and in no way nullifies the importance of training and learning in the domain of skills. From education, the teacher is required to have a certain level of skills related to the area (artistic experience and expression), but it is not clear that he cannot work as an educator in that area of educational experience without the teacher being also a practicing expert in that area of experience. For us, it is not the same to educate as to act politely; it is not the same to heal someone as to live healthily, it is not the same to teach an art or a sport as to be the athlete or the artist. So it is true that efficiency in teaching means that no more level of technical competence is required than the necessary to perform. For this reason, teachers do not need the same level of expertise in the cultural area of experience they teach, depending on their level in the educational system nor should they have the same pedagogical knowledge, depending on the level of the education system at which they work, not all students are prepared to be professionals in a determined area of education. This difference between skills to practice and skills to know, teach, and research as a technician also allows us to understand why the health specialist is not the healthiest person, even if it is the one that is more prepared to control and optimize the instruments and health conditions. For the same reason, the technician in physical-sports activities is not the one who performs more and better physical-sports activity, although it is the one who is in the best condition to control and optimize the skills 72 Sophia 32: 2022. © Universidad Politécnica Salesiana del Ecuador Print ISSN:1390-3861 / Electronic ISSN: 1390-8626, pp. 41-89. Building quality education from pedagogy Construyendo educación de calidad desde la pedagogía of different ways of behavior, taking into account not only criteria of use and purpose, but also understanding the activity as a common state and capacity that makes it possible for someone to be educated and also to attend to criteria of intrinsic (autochthonous) meaning to the concept of education itself so that principles of education and pedagogical intervention can be built through knowledge of education. In short, we have to build the idea that allows us to justify that the educational activity is ‘educational’, because: 1) it meets the use criteria of the term, 2) it fulfills the purpose of educating in its activities and 3) it conforms to the real meaning of that action, i.e., it conforms to the character and sense traits that are characteristic of it, just as any other entity that is defined and understandable (Zubiri, 1978). But in order to say that something is truly educational and is education, we have to ask ourselves (Longueira et al., 2019): • What do we do with all the activities to be considered as education? • What do we do to make an artistic activity as educational? • What do we do to transform a particular cultural content from information to knowledge and knowledge to education? • What do we do so that, in some cases, we teach a cultural area and, in other cases, we educate with the cultural area. • What do we do to transform an area of cultural experience into an educational field? • What do we do to build an educational environment integrated into the curriculum? We have to move from knowing the aspect to defining the characteristics of education and to understanding them in its functioning, because knowing what education is requires to discern, define and understand. All specified educations (mathematical, environmental, intellectual, physical, affective, professional, virtual, etc.), are educations because they are all generically education, and that means that they have in common the traits that determine and qualify an action as education, and in each case it is implemented as a concrete and programed educational action that takes into account each and every structural element of the pedagogical intervention. From the point of view of the current definition, ‘educating’ requires speaking of education, taking into account distinctive features of the character of education and the sense of education that determine and qualify its real meaning in each educational act. To educate is to act upon the meaning of education in any educational setting, developing the 73 Sophia 32: 2022. © Universidad Politécnica Salesiana del Ecuador Print ISSN:1390-3861 / Electronic ISSN: 1390-8626, pp. 41-89. José Manuel Touriñán lópez general intervention dimensions and the appropriate competencies, the specific capacities and the basic needs of each learner for the attainment of knowledge, attitudes and skills-abilities-habits related to the aims of education and the guiding values derived from them in each internal and external activity of the education, using the internal and external means of each activity, according to the opportunities (Touriñán, 2021). From the point of view of the current definition of education, we have to advance in the knowledge of all these distinctive traits and it is logical to ask where education is and how do we get to the knowledge of its distinctive traits, because we have to go beyond etymology, synonymy and the purpose in order to achieve the real meaning and to establish principles of education linked to the character and the sense inherent in the meaning of education and intervention principles linked to the structural elements of the intervention, taking into account the activity. Principles of education and principles of pedagogical intervention are not the same. The principles of pedagogical intervention come from the structural elements of the intervention (knowledge of education, role and pedagogical profession, educational relationship, agents of education, processes, products and means). The principles of education are related to the character and meaning that are inherent in the meaning of ‘education’. The character of the meaning of ‘education’ comes from the complexity of ‘education’ and the objectionable complexity, which arises from the diversity of human activity in educational action and it can be systematized from the axes that determine the traits of education. The meaning, which belongs to the meaning of ‘education’, is inferred from the relation between the self, the other and the other in each educational act, taking into account conceptual categories of space, time, gender and specific difference. From character and sense, it is said that all educational action is axiological, personal, patrimonial, integral, gnoseological and spiritual (internal common activity) and is playful, constructive, preparer and relator (external common activity), and that all educational action has a territorial, durable, cultural and formative sense, because a conceptual system in education can be developed based on its real definition. Pedagogy develops principles of education, adjusted to the characteristics of character and sense of education, and principles of intervention, adjusted to the structural elements of intervention. The principles of education, derived from the character and meaning of education, underpin educational purposes. The principles of intervention underpin the action. Both principles have their own place in the performance of controlled educational action (Touriñán, 2016). 74 Sophia 32: 2022. © Universidad Politécnica Salesiana del Ecuador Print ISSN:1390-3861 / Electronic ISSN: 1390-8626, pp. 41-89. Building quality education from pedagogy Construyendo educación de calidad desde la pedagogía This reasoning presents a challenge of going beyond the nominal definition and the activity with purpose: in addition to discerning (knowing the aspect), we must define the characteristics of education and we must understand their functioning, and this requires going beyond the criterion of common use of the term and the criterion of activity as a purpose to focus on what the activity has in common as its capacity to educate and on the distinctive features of the character of education and the meaning of education that they really qualify and determine in each educational act. Two issues must be addressed to move on this challenge: 1) the analysis of activity as a capacity, from the perspective of the pedagogical function and 2) the systematization of the character and sense traits of education that determine and qualify its meaning. Regarding the second question related to the concept of education, I have devoted time and reflection in several books (Touriñán, 2015, 2016, 2017). In this work I will concentrate on the first issue and approach the issue of the meaning of educating from the educational relationship as an interaction of identities that promotes the passage of knowledge to action through the relation between values and feelings in each performance. The pedagogical function generates intervention from the common internal and external activity Many actions are carried out in education in order to influence the education and achieve the educational result, which are always mediated actions of one subject to another or of a subject to itself. All these actions, which have to respect the status of the student, provoke the ‘activity’ of the student. In its most common use, ‘activity’ is understood as an activity state, which is the state in which any animal, person or thing that moves, works, or executes an action at the time it is doing it (we say: this child is thinking). This use also refers to the ‘ability’ we have to act in that activity and for that reason we say that a child has lost activity (thinks less, has had a downfall). As the most common use of the term ‘activity’ as a state and capacity, we call it ‘common activity’ and it occurs in all people because there is activity as a state and as a capacity to do (Touriñán, 2014, 2019a). Regarding the joint activity, current investigation distinguishes between actions carried out to obtain a result and actions whose result is the action itself. Thus, for example, solving a problem results in something “external” to action: getting a solution (studying results in mas- 75 Sophia 32: 2022. © Universidad Politécnica Salesiana del Ecuador Print ISSN:1390-3861 / Electronic ISSN: 1390-8626, pp. 41-89. José Manuel Touriñán lópez tering a topic). In all of these cases, you cannot solve the problem and have it resolved. However, I cannot feel without feeling, think without thinking, project without projecting, etc. The first are ‘external activities’ and the second are ‘internal activities’. From now on, we will talk about education, about ‘common activity’ (state activity and capacity) ‘internal’ (result is the action itself: think, feel, want, operate, project and create) and ‘external’ (state activity and capacity, whose result is external to one’s own action, but conceptually linked to the activity itself: I have a playful capacity, I have a capacity to study, I have a capacity to work, to intervene, to research-explore and I have a capacity to relate). From the perspective of the internal common activity we can make a taxonomy of the activities taking the student as reference. We all agree that when we educate ourselves, whether self or hetero-education, our human condition allows us to perform the following ‘common internal activities’: to think, to feel affectively (to have feelings), to want objects or subjects of any condition, to operate (to choose-do things by processing means and ends), project (decide-act on internal and external reality by orienting) and create (build something from something, not from nothing, symbolizing the notation of signs: realize something -note- and give it meaning -mean-, building symbols of our culture). No one is educated without thinking, feeling, wanting, etc. Educating is always improving that common internal activity and knowing how to use it for specific instrumental activities that make us increasingly able to decide and carry out our projects. We also agree that, when we educate ourselves, our human condition allows us to perform the following ‘external common activities’: play, work, study, intervene, explore and have relationship (friend, family, couple, social, etc.). These are common activities (state and capacity), because I have the ability to study, play, work, explore, intervene and have relationships. Also, they are common external activities, because they necessarily have a result to obtain that is external to the activity itself, but that is conceptually linked as a goal to the activity and characterizes it as an identity trait. Hence, we say that studying is to have and organize written information ‘for’ the domain (to master or know the subject of study); the knowledge-domain of the subject of study is the external result of the activity and that result is the purpose that identifies the study, regardless of whether I can use the activity to make a friend, to help another person, to steal better, etc., which are uses of the activity as instrumental specifications of it (Touriñán, 2016). As a common external activity, studying, for example, has a specific purpose linked to that activity in a conceptual and logical way (the 76 Sophia 32: 2022. © Universidad Politécnica Salesiana del Ecuador Print ISSN:1390-3861 / Electronic ISSN: 1390-8626, pp. 41-89. Building quality education from pedagogy Construyendo educación de calidad desde la pedagogía purpose of studying is to master-know what is being studied: an information, a content or the study technique itself). But, in addition, as a common external activity, studying can become instrumental activity specific for other purposes. They are specified purposes and external to the activity itself, but linked to the activity of studying in an empirical or experiential way (studying becomes specific instrumental activity, because we can study to steal, to make friends, to help another person, to educate oneself, etc.) (Touriñán, 2020b). It is a fact that common activities are used for educational purposes, but they can also be used for other purposes. Common activities can be used to perform specific instrumental activities and have pedagogical value; they are preparatory for something else. And this is so, on the one hand, because everything we use as a medium in a means-end relationship acquires the proper condition of the means in the relationship (the means is what we do to achieve the end and the end is a chosen value as the goal in the means-ends relation) and, on the other hand, the medium shows its pedagogical value in their own conditions, adjusting the medium to the agent, to the educational purpose and to the action in each circumstance (Touriñán, 2021). From the perspective of internal common activity we can say that activity is the principle of education, because no one is educated without thinking, feeling, wanting, etc. From the point of view of external common activity we can say that we do many activities whose purpose is to ‘educate’. From the perspective of the principle of activity as the guiding axis of education: we educate with activity respecting the agent status (Touriñán, 2015). If this is the case, the means have to adjust to the subject’s activity and the meaning of education. They are means for a specific subject that thinks, feels, wants, operates, projects and creates. They are means of doing activity, playing, working, studying, investigating, intervening and relating. But the agent does these activities to educate himself: he does not think in any way, but of what is being built to educate himself and to act politely, and so on with all the activities. Therefore, any means is not ‘the means’ for a particular subject; in educational action, the subject acts with the internal and external means. All of these means are only educational means that serve to educate that subject. The means are not exactly the same, whether I want to form the critical sense, or whether I want to educate the will to produce strength of mind. For this reason, the tendency to focus on the specific and particular means of an action is explained, forgetting the common and shared means with other educational activities (Touriñán, 2020d). 77 Sophia 32: 2022. © Universidad Politécnica Salesiana del Ecuador Print ISSN:1390-3861 / Electronic ISSN: 1390-8626, pp. 41-89. José Manuel Touriñán lópez The activity is present in all education: from one perspective, as a principle of intervention and, from another, as a principle of education. For this reason, ‘activity becomes the backbone of education’ and it represents the real sense of education as an activity aimed at the use and construction of valuable experience to generate educated activity. We use common activity to educate, educate the appropriate competencies of common activity, and expect to obtain educated activity. In short, ‘we use activity in a controlled way to achieve educated activity and educate the activity through the right skills’ (Touriñán, 2016). The principle of activity is neither passivity nor activism; it is the use of activity in a controlled manner to act politely. And in this way, activity and control are principles of pedagogical intervention, derived from the agent condition that has to build itself and recognize with the other in a diverse cultural environment of interaction, through the values that has to choose, commit, decide and perform, executing through concrete action what is understood and interpreted from the means-end relationship, expressing it according to opportunities. This is so, because, by principle of activity, education cannot occur without thinking, feeling, wanting, operating, projecting and interpreting symbols of our culture creatively. We educate ourselves with internal common activity. But, in addition, we educate ourselves through external common activity (studying, playing, working, researching-exploring, intervening and relating to the self, and the other), because by exercising a particular external common activity we activate the internal common capacities, train them, exercise them and improve them to perform effectively every external common activity. The external common activity, by principle of activity, activates the internal common activity in each specific execution of the external common activity, whether it is playing, studying, working, investigating, intervening or relating. By executing the common external activity, we improve and train the internal activitiescapabilities: without the activity it is impossible to educate, and thanks to the activity it is possible for the student to be actor and increasingly better agent of his own projects and acts. The principle of activity allows to affirm that external common activity in Pedagogy (e.g., play) activates the internal common activity of thinking, feeling, wanting, operating, projecting and creating, but that does not mean falling into activism: activity for activity does not educate; thinking in any way is not a reflection of education, educating, at the very least, requires that, when thinking, the habit and the way of thinking improve. 78 Sophia 32: 2022. © Universidad Politécnica Salesiana del Ecuador Print ISSN:1390-3861 / Electronic ISSN: 1390-8626, pp. 41-89. Building quality education from pedagogy Construyendo educación de calidad desde la pedagogía From the perspective of common activity, education is a problem for all and we all contribute to it, because we all educate ourselves and have to use common activity to educate and educate ourselves and, without it, it is neither possible to do so nor is it possible to achieve it. The educational relationship requires agreement between values and feelings in the move from knowledge to action through common activity I see the educational relationship as an interaction of identities to educate and that involves moving from knowledge to action in each interaction (Touriñán, 2016). I can choose to do something, I can commit myself to do that something and I can decide to integrate that something as part of my projects, but then I have to do it, I have to move from thought to action, I have to move from done value to effective performance. This implies, in every execution of the action, interpretation, understanding and expression. There is no education without affectivity, i.e., without facing the problem of generating experience of courage. For this reason, we need operative, volitional, projective, affective, cognitive and creative habits. Effective action requires operative, volitional and projective habits, but we also need affective, cognitive and creative habits. Only in that way do we come to the conduction of the action that always involves the execution of the action, taking into account the understanding, interpretation and expression (we attend to the cognitive, creative and affective integration). Through feeling, we express the mood that has taken place for meeting or not meeting our expectations in action; we express and expect ‘recognition’ of our choice; we express and expect ‘acceptance’ of our voluntary commitment; we express and expect ‘reception’ of our projects and we express ‘commitment’ to them. Choosing, committing, deciding and realizing a value has its affective manifestation of attachment in attitudes of ‘recognition’, ‘acceptance’, ‘reception’ and ‘commitment to action’. The fact that characterizes the attitude is its condition of significant learning experience originated from the affective evaluation of the positive or negative results of a particular behavior. It happens in the form of complex internal common value-activity relationship of education, agreeing values and feelings in the passage of knowledge to action (Table 4): There is a concrete conduction of a value counting on opportunities, but we always have to have operational, volitive, projective, affective, 79 Sophia 32: 2022. © Universidad Politécnica Salesiana del Ecuador Print ISSN:1390-3861 / Electronic ISSN: 1390-8626, pp. 41-89. José Manuel Touriñán lópez and intellectual habits and notative-significant, creator habits every time we do something we think, feel, want, choose to do, decide projects and create with symbols. Only in that way do we come to the concrete performance of something that always implies to choose processes, to oblige (to commit itself voluntarily), to decide goals and projects (according to opportunities and in each circumstance), to feel (to integrate affectively, to express), to think (to integrate cognitively, to understand) and to create culture (to integrate creatively, to interpret, to give meaning by symbols). Table 4 Value-feeling convergence in the shift from knowledge to action| Thought and believed values: cognitive integration From thought to action: Operational, volitional and projective habits CHOOSE COMMITMENT DECIDE PERFORM Conducted values Considerable value PERFORM VALUES Execution: Interpretation Expression Comprehension Notative values (meanings and notations): Creative integration From thought to action: Affective, intellectual, and creative habits Affective-expressive, cognitive-understanding, and creative-interpretative integration ATTITUDE TO RECOGNIZE ATTITUDE OF COMMITTING TO THE VALUES ATTITUDE TO ACCEPT ATTITUDE TO RECEIVE Moving from knowledge to educational action: nerate manifestations of attachment, positively relating the value of what is conducted or what can be conducted with one or more specific feelings to achieve felt experience of value: AFFECTIVE HABIT Source: Touriñán, 2014, p. 356. Only in this way can an action be carried out as an author agent, according to the opportunities and in each circumstance. The effective performance of the action requires interpretation, understanding and expression in the execution of the action. Conduction requires expressing what is understood and interpreted. In addition to making an ‘affective integration’ (expression), because we express ourselves with the feelings we have in each specific situation and we link affectively through positive attachment, we need to do ‘cognitive integration’ (understanding of thought and belief), relating ideas and beliefs to our expectations and 80 Sophia 32: 2022. © Universidad Politécnica Salesiana del Ecuador Print ISSN:1390-3861 / Electronic ISSN: 1390-8626, pp. 41-89. Building quality education from pedagogy Construyendo educación de calidad desde la pedagogía convictions, so that we can articulate thought and believed values with reality, because our action is explicitly based from rationality to knowledge. But we also need to do a ‘creative integration’ (symbolic-creative interpretation); in other words, we must give meaning to our acts by means of symbols that interpret each act, because every act we perform requires an interpretation of the situation as a whole and in the whole of our actions and projects within our cultural context. ‘Creative integration’ articulates values and creations, linking the physical and the mental to build culture (Touriñán, 2019e). If our reasoning is correct, the dual condition of knowledge and action places us in the holistic view of the complexity of action. The operative habit, the volitive habit and the projective habit demand, in order to perform the action, the affective habit that is derived from the valuefeeling relationship in each action performed and allows to obtain, in the performance, the felt experience of value. The conduction of value is not possible in its concrete execution if we do not do an affective, cognitive and creative integration in each action according to the opportunities and in each circumstance. Therefore, the educational relationship is interaction to educate and this implies taking on the complexity of education itself, and the demands derived from the traits of the meaning of educating, which must be observed in each intervention through the common activity, thus making quality education effective, adjusting to what is valuable in terms of education (Touriñán, 2016; Naval et al., 2021; Ibáñez-Martín & Fuentes, 2021; Perines, 2018). We intervene to establish an educational relationship that achieves education and for this reason we use the activity of the student and the teacher. The educational relationship is the focus of the education function in which the interaction between myself and the other occurs. For this reason, from the perspective of the educational relationship, the interaction of identities (the relationship with the other) is a defining component in education. Regarding ourselves and others in the processes of self-education and hetero-education, we have to achieve the shift of knowledge to action in the educational relationship and this requires achieving a setting in which the concordance of educational values-feel- ings occur: choosing, committing, deciding, and performing must have their correspondence in concrete action, observed in attitudes of recognition, acceptance, welcome and dedication to the task and achievement of what is valuable in education. That task and achievement make quality education explicit. 81 Sophia 32: 2022. © Universidad Politécnica Salesiana del Ecuador Print ISSN:1390-3861 / Electronic ISSN: 1390-8626, pp. 41-89. José Manuel Touriñán lópez Conclusions: A relationship of necessity between knowledge of education, common activity and competence in the intervention for the achievement of quality education In the educational relationship, we seek the concordance values-feelings in each interaction and we choose (to operate), we commit (to want), we decide (project) and perform what was decided (perform). In order to perform, we execute what is understood and interpreted through action by expressing it (integration of thinking by understanding, feeling by expressing it affectively and creating by interpreting symbols). Performance requires execution through action, and that action, in addition to the internal common activity of the subject, uses the external common activity of education. We perform through play, work, study, inquiry-exploration, intervention in each act and the relationship that is established between the self and the things used in each interaction, which is always defined as the I-the other relationship. All this is implemented by the teacher in the educational relationship to build, through the common activity, quality education, adjusted to the meaning of education. The knowledge of education is now an expert knowledge that gives competence to exercise the pedagogical function with specific pedagogical mentality and specialized pedagogical look. We are able to make mental representation of the action of educating, taking into account the theory-practice relationship and are able to make mental representation of our performance as teachers, acting with a critical vision of our method and our professional acts. Knowledge of education makes it possible to build areas of education with cultural areas, transforming information into knowledge and knowledge into education, adjusting it to the meaning of education. Education must be “with” the cultural area and this requires exercising the pedagogical function with competence, establishing an educational relationship in which quality education is achieved, and the necessary means to achieve quality education in the educational relationship is the common internal and external activity. It is not possible to educate without common activity, nor is it possible to perform the educational relationship. And there is no quality education without adjusting to what is valuable in terms of education and outcomes. Therefore, since only through common activity, in the educational relationship, we achieve the concordance between educational feelings and values necessary to move from knowledge to educational action, and since in the educational relationship the common activity must conform to the meaning of educa- 88 Sophia 32: 2022. © Universidad Politécnica Salesiana del Ecuador Print ISSN:1390-3861 / Electronic ISSN: 1390-8626, pp. 41-89. Building quality education from pedagogy Construyendo educación de calidad desde la pedagogía educar. Tendencias Pedagógicas, (34), 93-115. https://doi.org/10.15366/ tp2019.34.008 2019f ¿Qué estamos haciendo mal? Una reflexión desde la Pedagogía. En A. de la Herrán, J. M. Valle y J. L. Villena (Coords.), ¿Qué estamos haciendo mal en la educación? Reflexiones pedagógicas para la investigación, la enseñanza y la formación (pp. 287-330). Barcelona: Octaedro. 2020a Pedagogía, competencia técnica y transferencia de conocimiento . La perspectiva mesoaxiológica de la Pedagogía . Santiago de Compostela: Andavira. 2020b Los medios y su valor pedagógico en la relación educativa. En A. Medina, A. de la Herrán y M.ª C. Domínguez, Hacia una Didáctica humanista (pp. 199-268) . Colombia-Madrid: Redipe (Bowker Books in print)-UNED. 2020c Alcance de ‘Teoría de la Educación’ en la carrera de Pedagogía. Revista Boletín Redipe, 9(4), abril, 25-89. https://doi.org/10.36260/rbr.v9i4.947 2020d Relación teoría-práctica y actividad común como focos para resolver problemas de educación: la significación del conocimiento de la educación no ampara el modelo dual. Revista de Investigación en Educación, 18(3), 160- 209. https://doi.org/10.35869/reined.v18i3.3265 2020e Importancia de la Filosofía de la educación en Pedagogía. Revista Boletín Redipe, 9(12), 28-58. https://doi.org/10.36260/rbr.v9i12.1132 2021 El concepto de educación: la confluencia de criterios de definición, orientación formativa temporal y actividad común como núcleo de contenido de su significado. Revista Boletín Redipe, 10(6), 33-64. https://doi.org/10.36260/ rbr.v10i6.1312 TOURIÑÁN LÓPEZ, José M. & LONGUEIRA, Silvana (Coords.) 2016 Pedagogía y construcción de ámbitos de educación . La función de educar. Colombia, Cali: REDIPE-RIPEME. 2018 La construcción de ámbitos de educación . Pedagogía general y aplicada. Santiago de Compostela: Andavira. TOURIÑÁN LÓPEZ, José M. & RODRÍGUEZ, Antonio 1993 Significación del conocimiento de la educación. Revista de Educación, (302), 165-192. http://hdl.handle.net/11162/70433 TOURIÑÁN LÓPEZ, José M. & SÁEZ, Rafael 2015 La mirada pedagógica. Teoría de la educación, metodología y focalizaciones . Santiago de Compostela: Andavira. TOURIÑÁN LÓPEZ, José M. & SOTO, Jorge 1999 La calidad de la educación. En J. M. Touriñán (Dir.), Educación y sociedad de la información . Cuestiones estratégicas para el desarrollo de propuestas pedagógicas (pp. 117-126) . Santiago de Compostela: ICE de la Universidad de Santiago de Compostela. VÁZQUEZ, Gonzalo 1980 Unidad, autonomía y normatividad en la investigación pedagógica. Consecuencias para la formación de profesores. En Sociedad Española de Pedagogía, La investigación pedagógica y la formación de profesores (pp. 39-61). Madrid: C.S.I.C. 1981 Apuntes bibliográficos de la ciencia pedagógica. Revista Española de Pedagogía, 39(153), 9-36. 2018 La Pedagogía en el mosaico de las ciencias. En Grupo SI(e)TE. Educación, La pedagogía, hoy (cap. 3). Santiago de Compostela: Andavira. 89 Sophia 32: 2022. © Universidad Politécnica Salesiana del Ecuador Print ISSN:1390-3861 / Electronic ISSN: 1390-8626, pp. 41-89. José Manuel Touriñán lópez VEGA MIRANDA, Alexander 1998 Calidad de la educación universitaria y los retos del siglo XXI. Documento Internet. WALTON, John 1971 Introduction to Education: A Substantive Discipline. Waltham, Massachusetts: Xerox College Press. 1974 A Confusion of Contexts. The Interdisciplinary Study of Education. Educational Theory, 24(3), 219-229. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1741-5446.1974. tb00639.x WYNEN, André. 1985 ¿Medicina sin médicos? Madrid: Consejo General de Colegios Médicos. ZUBIRI, Xavier 1978 Naturaleza, Historia, Dios . Madrid: Editora Nacional, 7ª ed. Document reception date: July 15, 2021 Document review date: September 15, 2021 Document approval date: October 15, 2021 Document publication date: January 15, 2022