As everyone who knows me surely knows (and is probably sick of hearing about it), I am absolutely and completely enamored with psychology. One of the reasons I love psychology so much is because of its relevance to EVERYTHING and this is certainly the case with education. Ever since I started on my path to becoming a teacher, I have been interested in using psychology to increase effective teaching. Additionally, I think developmental psychology can be used to address what I believe to be the other aspect of education outside of content- the social aspect. So when I came across John Dewey and his philosophy of education, I was excited! While Dewey's views are very much idealistic, his philosophy demands consideration.
My favorite thing about Dewey's philosophy is that it challenges the idea that factual knowledge is the sole purpose or goal of education. Instead, Dewey takes a multidimensional approach to education Essentially, Dewey believes that the educational process has two components - psychological and sociological. He goes on to say that "neither [component] can be subordinated to the other or neglected without evil results following." Dewey elaborates on this point and suggests that the psychological component is the students' instincts/motivation/dispositions and that this is the basis, but it in itself cannot equate learning. These instincts must be useful and able to adapt in social contexts. In my own words, students need guidance to learn how to apply the the knowledge, skills, and dispositions they already possess and think critically about the world around them.
I also like Dewey's assertion that "education is the fundamental method of social progress and reform." Furthermore, he states "that education is a regulation of the process of coming to share in the social consciousness." These two ideas helped me see where both the psychological and sociological components of education come into play and intertwine. It is my belief that studying psychology (i.e. how the mind works, how people process information, how people interact, etc.) might make us more aware of our thoughts and actions; hence more socially conscious. I think this social consciousness has the potential to bring about social progress and reform - but it all starts with education! I realize this is a highly idealistic notion, but I think there is something to the idea.
A brief note on Dewey's philosophy and how it relates to student's bringing their own technology in the classroom. I would assume that since Dewey advocated for a sociological aspect to education, he would then support technology in the classroom. This way students could learn with technology and develop the skills to work with technology in school that they can then apply in other contexts. I can definitely begin to see how this Dewey approach to incorporating technology in the classroom could be beneficial, but I also have some reservations about it. If students are allowed to bring their own devices to utilize in class, it is inevitable that not every student will bring the same device. My concern, then, is that this could lead to a type of inequity in the classroom that would exacerbate SES differences. For instance, some students would be able to afford the latest technology, others may have the standard grade technology, and still some students may not be able to afford technology at all. The question this leaves me with is the following: Would there be a way to implement bring your own device policies in school without creating inequities among students?
I loved reading about what your favorite part of his creed was. That was also my favorite part because bringing the social and psychological pieces together is critical in the classroom. I think that Dewey was extremely progressive for his time indicating that factual knowledge is not the only thing that we need to be worried about. I think during the time he was writing, people just assumed punishment and negative consequences would teach students how to become a positive part of society. Somehow, this worked for a time, but in our day in age, we can definitely point out who was educated a long time ago (and not just by looks!). My question to you is how would Dewey view the educational system today and what would he like and dislike about it?
ReplyDeleteGrace, I think you bring up an interesting question. To try to answer this question I'm going to zero in on Scarlett middle school because as we are all learning every school is different and will put different qualities of education first. I truly believe that if John Dewey walked into Scarlett he would be pleasantly surprised. While Scarlett still puts an emphasis on content in the classroom, it also tries to bring social concepts in as well. For example, in the mornings we do our Circle of Power and Respect (CPR). The main focus of a CPR is to work on students' social skills. I feel that Dewey would absolutely love CPRs. He would also love how much group work they do at Scarlett. Scarlett tries to put a focus on working as a team compared to individually which helps students to continue improving their social skills.
DeleteKim, I enjoy hearing your thoughts on class readings because you bring a unique approach to these topics that sometimes help me understand them better. I also thought that one of Dewey's most important ideas was bringing the social and psychological pieces together in the classroom. I believe that the more that we work at Scarlett, the more that I can see how relevant this idea is, despite being written so long ago. I would like to believe that education is still a primary method of bringing about social progress and reform but like you mentioned in your post, it is a very idealistic notion. My hope is that as new teachers, we all become advocates for positive social change and employ some of Dewey's ideas in our own teaching.
ReplyDeleteKim, your passion for psychology is contagious and always allows me to want to listen (or in this case read) anything and everything you have to say. I want to thank you for kind of summarizing and generalizing Dewey's Creed. There were a lot of odd words (as I have pointed out in my blog), and seemingly tough critiques on education, but I didn't see it in the simple way you've outline it: psychological and sociological. I also never thought of bringing in what we've read from "A Taxonomy For Learning, Teaching, and Assessing." You make yet another valid point that he goes beyond factual knowledge. However, what knowledge(s) would you say he classifies is desirable? Based off of the idea I brought up in class this past week, Dewey is all about us "touching" education and being the present. I think this "touching" education relates to Conceptual and possibly Procedural Knowledges. I wonder if Metacognitive Knowledge can be a category as well from Deweys standpoint?
ReplyDeleteA harsh criticism though for your concern about the inequities with respect to BYOD. I remember in that article this was also one (of the many) concerns about BYOD that Gary S. Stager expressed too. I just find it hard to understand, in 2014, that this is an epidemic. I just think of Scarlett and the students from there and how everyone has an iPhone or some form of a gadget. Sure, I haven't student-taught in a low-end area like parts of Detroit, but something tells me even in those areas that may not be economically stable, technology is not an issue. A lot of technology, because of it's wide spread use and popularity, is becoming easily accessible. T-mobile has this "Zero down" plan where you LITERALLY PAY NOTHING for ANY phone, and can pay little sums every month to pay your bill and phone off. I see other businesses have similar types of "zero down" policies for technological devices, of course as to reel people in, but to get those devices out there. Furthermore, if schools like Scarlett Middle School could have 36 Mac Desktops (yes I counted) in one classroom, each Mac going for at least $1000, where is that money coming from? Someone gave it to that school. I don't know much about the economy, but I also remember on the recent PRE a chart about technology funds available to schools in Michigan. Somethings telling me there's a technology fund for schools to have technology devices available. What does this have to do with BTOD and inequities? Well if you cannot BYOD, the school will have D's to cover you from their technology fund. Case closed.
Anthony, I appreciate you taking the time to read my blog and you raise some good points in your comment. I feel as if some clarification is needed, though. I was neither advocating for or against the BYOD policy. I was simply suggesting that the policy deserves careful consideration (as does any decision regarding education) before being implemented in schools. In my example, I was trying to consider the policy from a different angle. I think there are both potential pros and potential cons to the policy.
DeleteI will briefly, however, play devil's advocate in response to the points raised in the second half of your comment. Indeed, some school may have funding available to supply students with technology that would bridge any SES gaps. I do not believe this would always be the case, though. For instance, I attended a private elementary and middle school that was ran solely by church donations. We did not receive government funding as we were not a public school. As a result, out school went without many resources and we certainly did not have the money for technology. I believe we had roughly two computers in the whole building. I can also assure you that there were students in my class who could not afford even cell phones as some struggled to even pay for food. This is only one example, but I doubt it is the only one. Again, this is not a denunciation of the BYOD policy, but an example that proves it could be problematic in some cases. My underscoring idea is simply that it should be considered carefully before being adopted.
Your posting sparked some really interesting conversation, Kim, so congratulations. I'll just touch briefly on the equity question that you and Anthony discussed and say, as we discussed in class, that the equity framing is used as both a justification for BYOD and a reason to resist it. In the former case, one argument holds that the technology that kids have available to them is often more robust than that which the schools have, and that the larger mission of preparing kids to engage more fully (and in what Dewey might call "educative ways") with their world demands that we utilize and leverage the technology they have. Of course, the other side raises the concern that you rightly raise, that worries about deepening existing inequities though well-meaning policies like BYOD. This dilemma recurs in many ways and places at school, and I strongly encourage all of you to look for those moments, and to see how schools and teachers respond to them. This is very important stuff, Kim and Anthony...thanks for the posts.
ReplyDelete