Experience & Education

There is a solid argument that can be made that Experience & Education, written by John Dewey, is an attempt at a resolution in what some people have viewed a progressive-conservative-controversy. This so-called controversy, largely pertaining to teaching methodology, speaks to both the way we receive an education and the way students connect with that education. Interestingly both conservatives and progressives educational reformer Dewey as a leading figure in the study of educational methodology and implementation.

There is indication some academics have considered certain radical tenets practiced by progressive educators had not found just cause within Dewey’s writing; therefore, were probably not subject to his approval. For some people, Dewey has apparently not drawn a definitive line in the sand. There is no clearly defined statement indicating where Dewey would draw a line between progressives and conservatives.

Dewey attempts to find a middle ground, a Goldilocks zone if you will, were moderation is a key principle in both theory and application. Many academics have sought to resolve the educational issues Dewey addresses in his work. Few have accomplished anywhere near the level of success Dewey has.

Based on the reading, Dewey is somewhat suspicious of what he refers to as the “either-or” approach to stating and discussing issues. The professor tries to look to the deeper innate problems than merely focus superficial surface issues. In doing so, Dewey attempts the creation of a doctrine, comprehensive in scope, which addresses the truths and errors of both theories: progressive and conservative. In an effort to find a middle ground, Dewey expressly illustrates the extremes of both approaches.

From a reactionary perspective, Dewey indicates major portions relate to an imposition from above. There is an externalised form of discipline at work. Much of, if not all, the learning done by students is either from textbooks or the teachers themselves. Dewey argues that the acquiring isolated skills is insufficient. This approach can only lead the individual student to not only an isolationist future, but also what could possibly be stagnant aims. Progressives look to cultivate a freer approach.

Learning through experience, as Dewey is advocating in his work, lends itself to a more personable approach to education. What is the point of having skills if the person that possess them has no clear way of putting those skills into practice? In this model, students are presented with problems and the resolution to those problems is sought by practical means. This is essentially the appeal of the progressive approach to learning. As a fellow graduate student often states, the best way of learning is doing. As it is with the conservative approach, progressives have somehow been unable to account for certain fundamental educational features. Dewey draws attention to this oversight.

Dewey highlights a need for “continuity of experience,” a concept the professor repeatedly addresses throughout his work. This is coupled with a need to present material in an organised fashion. He is not enthusiastic about the notion, with the abundance of experience the teacher has, plays no direct part in guiding what it is pupils learn. The usage of the word pupils, not exactly American in origin, indicates a more Euro-centric mid-nineteenth century approach to academia where children are taught by the teacher rather than study for themselves. The distinction is that, when referenced as pupils, the children have no direct input into what it is they are required to learn. Dewey does not agree with the idea what we know of the past, being acquainted with prior times, plays little or no part in the educational experience. Regardless of this, Dewey shows the presence of academic freedoms for the children does not automatically mean the absence of either control or direction by the teacher.

The aim Dewey is trying to arrive at with his work is not necessarily the formation of an acceptable working educational doctrine. The professor is attempting to address the fundamental basis, in both theoretical and philosophical terms, an “organic connection between education and personal experience” (p. 12). The establishment of an “education in order to accomplish its ends both for the individual learner and for society must be based upon experience-which is always the actual life-experience of some individual” (p. II3) is highly coveted.

Does this form the basis for discriminating between what is good and what is bad about the educational system? Is there such a thing as good and bad education? Recent evidence, based on a recent survey published by the National Science Foundation, there is such a thing as bad education. According to the survey, 26 percent of Americans surveyed believe the sun orbits the Earth. Whilst it is true Americans fared better than Europeans did with the same basic astronomy question, the survey Europeans took was in 2005. The survey Americans took was significantly more recent. I digress…

Is there a clearly defined distinction between good and bad education? Dewey writes, “It is a great mistake to suppose, even tacitly, that the traditional school- room was not a place where pupils had experiences” (p. 14). The professor also writes, “Experiences which were had, by pupils and teachers alike, were largely of a wrong kind” (p. 15). This is highly plausible. The fact a child is experiencing is not exactly a good measure of either the pupil’s experiences or the educational establishment.

Does Dewey fully articulate what he means by good and bad education? Good education to one person may not be that good to someone else. It is the difference between what is desirable and what is undesirable. Conceptually speaking, it is the same. Nevertheless, Dewey relies upon the quality of the education for much of his response. Does Dewey expand upon where he obtained the criteria for either good and or bad education? Not really. At least, not clearly. Dewey references experience, the nature thereof, but this in itself does not directly pertain to a concrete basis for making a vivid distinction between marking one as good and the other as bad. Experience is such an ambiguous term. It could pertain to anything and it typically does. We are more than the sum of our individual experiences.

It would be unwise to not examine the merits of what Dewey has proposed. One needs to examine the specifics, the details in precise exactitude, before one can smoother every aspect of education in the enormity of a single term: experience. If everything we do can be considered a contribution to our experience, it must follow that all education is experience. We are unable to distinguish between one kind of education and another simply because one is more desirable than another. Desire, in itself, is subjective. We must apply criteria which will aid us in distinguishing between a good experience and a bad experience.

Is there practicality in the judgments Dewey makes? Is there one true definitive shibboleth we can apply to experience and education? There is no doubt, what Dewey has contributed to academia, has pathed the way for generations. Dewey, scientifically accurate in his approach, is merely the one leading us to the water. Unfortunately, not everyone will drink.

Reference

Dewey, J.  (1938). Experience and education.  New York: Collier.