In the math article, the authors write, "Dewey saw the development of mathematics as arising from the need to solve genuine human problems...our mathematics could be different if our lives demanded it" (p. 33). Looking at this alongside Mumford's ideas, I start to see how Dewey's work continues to be applicable today while Mumford's ideas are less relevant. Mumford longed for a return to the "golden age" of literature, but perhaps the kind of writing that he idealized by Hawthorne and Melville could not continue because "lives" after the Civil War no longer "needed" it. Dewey, however, with his ideas about experience being education, would always be relevant as long as humans experience things. Mumford's method of the regional survey seems like his most concrete contribution to education. If Dewey and Mumford had not been "enemies," I wonder if Dewey would have seen some of the problems of his time "solved," or certain questions asked or demanded, using this regional survey theory...?
Reading Dewey’s thoughts on the roles of schools in society and how children should be taught made me think of how our disconnected way of pouring knowledge into children has caused a whole set of problems that wouldn’t exist if we taught children the way Dewey suggests. Prior to the industrial revolution and the creation of formal schools as children gained strength and capacity they were gradually initiated into all the responsibilities that it took to live. Children felt a sense of worth and purpose because of their obligation to do something and produce something in the world. Self-efficacy, as we know it today, would likely have been a very small problem.
Some other thoughts that stood out to me… Dewey discusses how our way of teaching clearly fosters individualism at the expense of fostering community. “The mere absorbing of facts and truths is so exclusively individual an affair that it tends very naturally to pass into selfishness. There is no obvious social motive for the acquirement of mere learning, there is no clear social gain in success thereat.” If we taught as Dewey suggests, then “helping others, instead of being a form of charity which impoverishes the recipient, is simply an aid in setting free the powers and furthering the impulses of the one helped.” Seems to go hand in hand with a Freirian approach.
Dewey responds to those who argue that using occupations in the school is too materialistic, utilitarian or menial by stating that the traditional form of teaching creates the social conditions that prevent children’s natural intellectual interests from being adequately realized.
In “The School and the Life of the Child” Dewey provides examples of how his theories are realized in the classroom. In regard to teaching language he comments: “On the traditional method, the child must say something that he has merely learned. There is all the difference in the world between having something to say and having to say something.” This is a perfect example of why Dewey’s methods seem to make so much sense… and are thus pragmatic. As he asks: “Why are we so hard of heart and so slow to believe?”
Dewey describes the process of what learning should look like… He give the example of starting the students with raw materials and teaching them the processes as if they were going to work with it. The role of the school to be to prepare students for society. This makes me think of project-based learning. I’d try to do this as much as possible when I taught high school Spanish … the language needed to come alive for the students — verb conjugations are never a selling point! I really like the following quote, but I feel a bit of contention with it as well: "The aim is not the economic value of the products, but the development of social power and insight" (p. 16). Social power is important, but our society is economically driven. How would Dewey respond to that?
I really enjoyed the third chapter. “All waste is due to isolation” (p. 60). If we put schools into a bigger societal context, rather than try to keep it separated, there might be more success. I know we’ve said this in class before, but it’s kind of disheartening how this was written decades ago and yet still rings true today.
“Mumford, like Dewey, saw social pathologies emerging from the abstraction of school life. Both thinkers saw an overly bookish and abstract schooling as leading to many problems, from students’ lacking interest in their studies, to a lack of connection between school and daily life.” This quote sums up where education is today. There may continuing disagreement about how to address these problems, but there’s no denying that Mumford and Dewey’s concerns have come to pass. Too much of the standard based curriculum is far removed from students experiences and interests. As a math teacher I can’t tell you how many times students asked, “When are we ever going to use this in life?” When we studied a unit that was relevant to students’ lives such as tax, tip and discount, where we could bring in shopping ads or restaurant menus, it was much easier to design relevant activities that they found engaging.
I agree with Mike that the example Dewey provided in School and Society of students working with cotton and wool is what we today call project-based learning. In “Waste in Education” Dewey says that, “all studies arise from aspects of the one earth…we do not have a series of stratified earths…all studies grow out of relations in the one great common world.” Schools can’t abandon their standard-based curricula but they could design cross-curricular projects which integrate several standards into a meaningful learning activity. This concept could work in grades K-8 because elementary school students usually have the same teacher for all core subjects and many middle schools use a “team concept” in which groups of students have the same core teachers. Projects would be much more engaging for students and teachers. Dewey and others have commented on students listening passively to teachers and becoming disconnected. Well it sucks for the teacher too! In both Dewey’s example of the textile project and the weighted formulae activity in the “Dewey, Democracy, and Mathematics Education” (e.g. rating popular songs), it’s easy to imagine the rich dialogue between the teacher and students as they brainstorm ideas, test theories and work through problems that arise. Unfortunately, these days project based learning is looked at as a luxury in schools that don’t have to “worry about test scores” or something to save until “after spring testing is over.” It’s time to look at how it can be used in ALL schools to get students excited about their learning.
“It is through what we do in and with the world that we read its meaning and measure its value”. Dewey’s ideas that school and education should result in a meaningful experience for students, one that gives every student the opportunity to relate what they are learning to the “bigger picture” of life around them and prepare them to be a part of the society in which they live instantly brought to mind initiatives such as service learning, project based learning, collaborative learning, 21st century skills development and STEM. I feel that although these initiatives are based on student centered learning and creativity – giving the appearance that meaningful connections are the end goal, I equally think they are often just used as rhetoric…these things “look good” but ultimately, it still comes down to the individual student’s test scores. The “unspoken” rule is that its great to do a project that connects students to the “real world” outside of the classroom, but only if you can do that in addition to the “rote memorization” required to pass the test! Dewey states “Indeed, almost the only measure for success is a competitive one, in the bad sense of that term—a comparison of results in the recitation or in the examination to see which child has succeeded in getting ahead of others in storing up, in accumulating, the maximum of information”. This undercurrent of “success” and competition in education is still pervasive, overshadowing the transformation that could occur were we to truly focus on what is best for the student and best for society. I also found interesting Dewey’s statements regarding “liberal” versus “technical” education and class barriers – i.e. the cultured and the worker. I have some questions regarding this that I will save for class! Last note: I really enjoyed the Mumford/Dewey article and I hope we spend some time in class discussing it. I was left wondering how much progress (not just in education but in a broad range of areas) has been stifled due to interpersonal conflict and/or competition! If Mumford and Dewey had not engaged in the “conflict”, where would education be today? I think perhaps, in a better place!
As they did for Amanda, these readings had me thinking of service-learning (as most things do these days). Dewey talks about the importance of both connecting education to the real world ("to do things with a real motive behind and a real outcome ahead") and to society ("the school itself shall be made a genuine form of active community life, instead of a place set apart in which to learn lessons), both of which are accomplished by well-executed service-learning. Unfortunately, while many (most?) educators recognize the value in this type of learning, we continue to (be forced to?) use the banking model of education in the interest of higher test scores. Dewey stated the "knowledge is no longer an immobile solid; it has been liquefied. It is actively moving in all currents of society itself." That has never been more true than it is today, and yet we continue with our short-sighted, myopic, one-size fits all approach to education. How can we change the current system to better meet the needs of our students?
In the math article, the authors write, "Dewey saw the development of mathematics as arising from the need to solve genuine human problems...our mathematics could be different if our lives demanded it" (p. 33). Looking at this alongside Mumford's ideas, I start to see how Dewey's work continues to be applicable today while Mumford's ideas are less relevant. Mumford longed for a return to the "golden age" of literature, but perhaps the kind of writing that he idealized by Hawthorne and Melville could not continue because "lives" after the Civil War no longer "needed" it. Dewey, however, with his ideas about experience being education, would always be relevant as long as humans experience things. Mumford's method of the regional survey seems like his most concrete contribution to education. If Dewey and Mumford had not been "enemies," I wonder if Dewey would have seen some of the problems of his time "solved," or certain questions asked or demanded, using this regional survey theory...?
ReplyDeleteGinger
Reading Dewey’s thoughts on the roles of schools in society and how children should be taught made me think of how our disconnected way of pouring knowledge into children has caused a whole set of problems that wouldn’t exist if we taught children the way Dewey suggests. Prior to the industrial revolution and the creation of formal schools as children gained strength and capacity they were gradually initiated into all the responsibilities that it took to live. Children felt a sense of worth and purpose because of their obligation to do something and produce something in the world. Self-efficacy, as we know it today, would likely have been a very small problem.
ReplyDeleteSome other thoughts that stood out to me…
Dewey discusses how our way of teaching clearly fosters individualism at the expense of fostering community. “The mere absorbing of facts and truths is so exclusively individual an affair that it tends very naturally to pass into selfishness. There is no obvious social motive for the acquirement of mere learning, there is no clear social gain in success thereat.” If we taught as Dewey suggests, then “helping others, instead of being a form of charity which impoverishes the recipient, is simply an aid in setting free the powers and furthering the impulses of the one helped.” Seems to go hand in hand with a Freirian approach.
Dewey responds to those who argue that using occupations in the school is too materialistic, utilitarian or menial by stating that the traditional form of teaching creates the social conditions that prevent children’s natural intellectual interests from being adequately realized.
In “The School and the Life of the Child” Dewey provides examples of how his theories are realized in the classroom. In regard to teaching language he comments: “On the traditional method, the child must say something that he has merely learned. There is all the difference in the world between having something to say and having to say something.” This is a perfect example of why Dewey’s methods seem to make so much sense… and are thus pragmatic. As he asks: “Why are we so hard of heart and so slow to believe?”
Dewey describes the process of what learning should look like… He give the example of starting the students with raw materials and teaching them the processes as if they were going to work with it. The role of the school to be to prepare students for society.
ReplyDeleteThis makes me think of project-based learning. I’d try to do this as much as possible when I taught high school Spanish … the language needed to come alive for the students — verb conjugations are never a selling point! I really like the following quote, but I feel a bit of contention with it as well: "The aim is not the economic value of the products, but the development of social power and insight" (p. 16). Social power is important, but our society is economically driven. How would Dewey respond to that?
I really enjoyed the third chapter. “All waste is due to isolation” (p. 60). If we put schools into a bigger societal context, rather than try to keep it separated, there might be more success. I know we’ve said this in class before, but it’s kind of disheartening how this was written decades ago and yet still rings true today.
“Mumford, like Dewey, saw social pathologies emerging from the abstraction of school life. Both thinkers saw an overly bookish and abstract schooling as leading to many problems, from students’ lacking interest in their studies, to a lack of connection between school and daily life.” This quote sums up where education is today. There may continuing disagreement about how to address these problems, but there’s no denying that Mumford and Dewey’s concerns have come to pass. Too much of the standard based curriculum is far removed from students experiences and interests. As a math teacher I can’t tell you how many times students asked, “When are we ever going to use this in life?” When we studied a unit that was relevant to students’ lives such as tax, tip and discount, where we could bring in shopping ads or restaurant menus, it was much easier to design relevant activities that they found engaging.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Mike that the example Dewey provided in School and Society of students working with cotton and wool is what we today call project-based learning. In “Waste in Education” Dewey says that, “all studies arise from aspects of the one earth…we do not have a series of stratified earths…all studies grow out of relations in the one great common world.” Schools can’t abandon their standard-based curricula but they could design cross-curricular projects which integrate several standards into a meaningful learning activity. This concept could work in grades K-8 because elementary school students usually have the same teacher for all core subjects and many middle schools use a “team concept” in which groups of students have the same core teachers. Projects would be much more engaging for students and teachers. Dewey and others have commented on students listening passively to teachers and becoming disconnected. Well it sucks for the teacher too! In both Dewey’s example of the textile project and the weighted formulae activity in the “Dewey, Democracy, and Mathematics Education” (e.g. rating popular songs), it’s easy to imagine the rich dialogue between the teacher and students as they brainstorm ideas, test theories and work through problems that arise. Unfortunately, these days project based learning is looked at as a luxury in schools that don’t have to “worry about test scores” or something to save until “after spring testing is over.” It’s time to look at how it can be used in ALL schools to get students excited about their learning.
“It is through what we do in and with the world that we read its meaning and measure its value”. Dewey’s ideas that school and education should result in a meaningful experience for students, one that gives every student the opportunity to relate what they are learning to the “bigger picture” of life around them and prepare them to be a part of the society in which they live instantly brought to mind initiatives such as service learning, project based learning, collaborative learning, 21st century skills development and STEM. I feel that although these initiatives are based on student centered learning and creativity – giving the appearance that meaningful connections are the end goal, I equally think they are often just used as rhetoric…these things “look good” but ultimately, it still comes down to the individual student’s test scores. The “unspoken” rule is that its great to do a project that connects students to the “real world” outside of the classroom, but only if you can do that in addition to the “rote memorization” required to pass the test! Dewey states “Indeed, almost the only measure for success is a competitive one, in the bad sense of that term—a comparison of results in the recitation or in the examination to see which child has succeeded in getting ahead of others in storing up, in accumulating, the maximum of information”. This undercurrent of “success” and competition in education is still pervasive, overshadowing the transformation that could occur were we to truly focus on what is best for the student and best for society.
ReplyDeleteI also found interesting Dewey’s statements regarding “liberal” versus “technical” education and class barriers – i.e. the cultured and the worker. I have some questions regarding this that I will save for class!
Last note: I really enjoyed the Mumford/Dewey article and I hope we spend some time in class discussing it. I was left wondering how much progress (not just in education but in a broad range of areas) has been stifled due to interpersonal conflict and/or competition! If Mumford and Dewey had not engaged in the “conflict”, where would education be today? I think perhaps, in a better place!
As they did for Amanda, these readings had me thinking of service-learning (as most things do these days). Dewey talks about the importance of both connecting education to the real world ("to do things with a real motive behind and a real outcome ahead") and to society ("the school itself shall be made a genuine form of active community life, instead of a place set apart in which to learn lessons), both of which are accomplished by well-executed service-learning. Unfortunately, while many (most?) educators recognize the value in this type of learning, we continue to (be forced to?) use the banking model of education in the interest of higher test scores. Dewey stated the "knowledge is no longer an immobile solid; it has been liquefied. It is actively moving in all currents of society itself." That has never been more true than it is today, and yet we continue with our short-sighted, myopic, one-size fits all approach to education. How can we change the current system to better meet the needs of our students?
ReplyDelete