papers  |  home  |  scholarships  |  me

Experience and Education

John Dewey’s Experience and Education is an incredibly succinct summation of his philosophy of education, which was drawn out previously in Democracy and Education and lived out in his Chicago Laboratory Schools experiment. It encapsulates the application of pragmatism to education, for the principles laid out are those Dewey had already empirically found to "work" (Spring 2001). In this capacity, it makes a great introduction to pedagogical praxis. Experience and Education also serves as a primer on part of the "culture wars" of Dewey’s own time.

Dewey contrasts the dominant opposing educational viewpoints of his day, which he labels "traditional" and "progressive." Traditional education, in a phrase, is top-down. Teachers create a highly structured environment and pass on accepted wisdom and rote information to docile and obedient students. Progressive education, on the other hand, is bottom-up. Students largely control their own learning process, as teachers merely facilitate their discovery and growth in a changing world. Whereas traditionalists emphasize the past, progressives focus solely on the present. Tradition means discipline, drill, and control; progressivism means individuality, creativity and freedom.

Dewey does not place himself within either camp. Although he soundly rejects traditional formalism, he also recognizes the limitations and practical difficulties of extreme progressivism. Since it is largely a reaction to traditional philosophy and not a positive construction, it rejects out of hand aspects of traditional education--discipline, structure, external authority--that are not inherently wrong, but rather misapplied or misconstrued. In other words, it does not possess its own coherent philosophy.

Dewey’s next task, therefore, is to outline the basis of a proper philosophy of experience. The two essential components are what he terms "continuity" and "interaction." The principle of continuity is somewhat self-explanatory: experience is based on events following after one another and building upon each other. Continuity is a neutral term; simply because events concatenate does not mean that the events have produced "growth." (Dewey’s examples of the practiced burglar and the spoilt child demonstrate this concretely.) The second principle, interaction, means that experiences are not formed in a vacuum or merely inside a person’s head, but involve both social and physical environments. Continuity and interaction, therefore, are intertwining concepts that "provide the measure of the educative significance and value of an experience" (p. 45).

Dewey does not stop with the abstract, though. Moving from theory to praxis, he sets about explaining how to properly integrate discipline, authority, and structure into a system of experience-based education. The keys to Dewey’s system are careful observation and planning. The teacher

...must survey the capacities and needs of the particular set of individuals with whom he [sic] is dealing and must at the same time arrange the conditions which provide the subject-matter or content for experiences that satisfy those needs and develop those capacities. The planning must be flexible enough to permit free play for individuality of experience and yet firm enough to give direction towards continuous development of power (p. 58). Such care to ascertain the needs of students as individuals precludes the cookie-cutter homogeneity of traditional education, while the use of planning prevents the chaos of a free-for-all progressive education. Furthermore, the teacher should not be afraid to draw upon his or her experience in order to guide the learning process, as long as a dictatorial style is avoided. Discipline and manners can be created and maintained through the social process rather than by impositional methods. The "ideal aim of education," after all, "is creation of power of self-control" (p. 64).

Perhaps the only possible criticism of Dewey’s work (other than relatively minor instances of cultural elitism--see p. 39) is that it elucidates a philosophy that is difficult to implement. By contrast, traditional and progressive forms of education are easy to carry out, simply because they require so little intelligent thought on the part of the instructor (although for entirely different reasons--the first because everything is set in stone, the second because nothing is). Dewey’s empirical method requires constant self-criticism and planning, as well as the ability to balance history and progress, order and spontaneity, and authority and freedom.

Although certainly not impossible--the experiences of the Central Park East Secondary School in Democratic Schools (Apple and Beane, eds.) a telling example--the difficulty of Dewey’s philosophy may have been the cause of its oversimplification and watering-down by subsequent educators to "learning by doing" (Spring 2001). Dewey challenges educators to become more sensitive to the relationships among the learner, the learning process, and the learning environment.

References

Apple, Michael and James Beane, eds. (1995). Democratic Schools. Alexandria, VA: ASCD.

Dewey, John (1938). Experience and Education. New York: Collier Books.

Spring, Joel (2001). The American School. Boston: McGraw Hill.

papers  |  home  |  scholarships  |  me