Within the American paradigm, John Dewey perhaps remains one of the most influential theorists of education. In so far as Dewey, above all in his classic work Education and Experience, stresses the value of what he terms “progressive education” models, which highlight the individual experiences in learning and development, this places him in a foundational role for progressive theories of education which take into account individual needs. Dewey himself expresses his approach in contrast to classical theories of education, such as the Platonic model in his text “The Democratic Conception in Education”, whereby he further develops the individual characteristics of his approach.
Accordingly, theorists such as Terzi (2005), who advocates a “capability approach” to education, can be seen as radicalizations of the experiential approach of Dewey, where indiviudal capabilities, such as those individuals defined by physical disabilities, become even more important when thinking about education. Zuriff (1996) argues an even stronger variation of this thesis, suggesting that the entire concept of learning disabilities should be eliminated, and education should be focused on individuals. In the following essay, I will address how Dewey would respond to the developments suggested by theorists such as Terzi and Zuriff, as well as considering, from the reverse perspective, how someone who appears to stand outside of what can be called the “individualist” stream, Plato, would in turn critique Dewey.
Use your promo and get a custom paper on
"Application of Dewey’s Philosophy".
In his classic work Education and Experience, John Dewey sets out his own philosophy of education against the backdrop of two claims, which he construes as designating the extreme poles of educational theory. On the one hand, there lies the “traditional” view, whereby the knowledge and skills that are deemed relevant for the younger generation are already established, such that the aim of educational processes is to communicate these knowledge and skills. Dewey summarizes this position as follows: “The subject- matter of education consists of bodies of information and of skills that have been worked out in the past; therefore, the chief business of the school is to transmit them to the new generation.” (p. 5) On the other hand, however, what Dewey (????) designates as the newer and progressive approach to education, critiques this approach in so far it overlooks the “intimate and necessary relation between the processes of actual experience and education.” (p. 6)
In other words, the former approach is construed by the latter as too hierarchical: it essentially, to paraphrase Dewey, looks at the student from the position of an adult, but overlooks the key point that the student precisely has not reached the status of an adult and therefore the aims set out for the education system fail to account for factors such as individual experience and development towards this goal. Dewey’s approach, in this sense, can be considered to be a synthesis of these two positions. The former position omits the complicated process of growth from the position of student to that of adult. The latter position overemphasizes the notion of individual experience and such the power of transmitting valuable knowledge to the student is lost.
This synthesis, in short, is summarized by Dewey (????) in the following lines: “the belief that all general education comes about through experience does not mean that all experiences are genuinely or equally educative. Experience and education cannot be directly equated to each other. For some experiences are miseducative.” (p. 8) In this sense, the entire thrust of Dewey’s approach to education can be summarized as an attempt to foster valuable forms of experience, experiences that contribute to the growth of the individual in a positive direction.
In response to Terzi, in this regard, Dewey would perhaps critique Terzi’s emphasis on a capability approach. Terzi (2006) defines the core of the capability concept as follows: “capabilities amount to the substantive freedom a person has, or the real alternatives available to the person herself to achieve well-being.” (p. 302) In this sense, Terzi’s model is even more individualistic than that of Dewey: there does not seem to be the distinction, so clear in Dewey, between positive and negative experiences.
Rather, there exists a sense of social and other factors that establish the potential experiecnes of the individual, the limits to his or her freedom: whereas the goal of capability theory is that of social justice and that ultimately one must aim for a society where capabilities are all the same, in the interim one must address this discrepancy and tailor educational programs accordingly, that is, according to the available freedoms and possibilites of the indiviudal. Dewey, however, is quite explicit in what he considers a worthwhile freedom to be: “the only freedom that is of enduring importance is freedom of intelligence, that is to say, freedom of observation and of judgment exercised in behalf of purposes that are intrinsically worthwhile.” Thus, against Terzi, not all capacities or freedoms should be encouraged, but only those of a certain type of critical thinking tied to a theory of value.
Zuriff also argues for a form of individualism, but one that is paradoxically coupled to a designation of certain students as learning disabled. Classifying a group of students as learning disabled eliminates the individuality of each student”s particular problem: thus, for Zuriff (2006) the better approach is the provocative thesis that “all children experience learning problems” (p. 297), and therefore then we should start from the individuality of each student. In one sense, this supports Dewey’s emphasis on individuality. But in another respect, it also overlooks Dewey’s crucial distinction between positive and negative experiences. We still must classify in the progressive model positive and negative features: Zuriff’s position, from Dewey’s point of view, is simply too radical to account for the type of objective values and aims that are to be pursued in education.
In contrast, Plato would also critique Dewey’s system. Dewey summarizes Plato’s position as one in which the talents of individuals should be nurtured according to their inherent abilities, but the problem was, in Dewey’s eyes, that is too classified and regimented, as Plato saw abilities inherently to three classes of human beings. (Dewey, 2006, p. 49) Plato, in this regard, would respond that despite the apparently restrictive number of his three classes, they are ultimately sufficient to explain what is required from education for the benefit of society: the classes refer to the broader working calss, and at the top of this hieararchy an elite ruling class. For Dewey (2006), this is radically “undemocratic.” (p. 49) But for Plato in essence the mobility of all citizens within this model would be crucial: nothing would prevent one from joining the philosophical elite class if he had the ability on an individual level. In this sense, Plato’s rejoinder to Dewey would entail that his system is entirely based on individual experience as well as capability, but also tied to the necessary benefit of society as a whole.
