Ask a question about Dewey/pragmatism. Ask another question that
the chapter provoked related to educational research. Comment on someone else’s
question.
It is stated in the reading, “...Members of the discipline of education, should be produced by introducing students of education directly to the experience of teaching.” With that said, do you feel as though educational study students should partake in a more extensive teacher prep program, such as a teacher residency program?
Also stated is the following, “The only possible distinction that could then be made between education and other disciplines would b one of theory and application, with education always identified as the latter.” Do you believe that you can be a strong educator with solely focusing on practice and not theory? Do you think that is how teachers should be trained?
You bring up some interesting questions about teacher training, theory and application. I would hope that theory would inform practice, even if the theory is not known and put into language. Dewey talks a lot about learning by action and I feel like teachers in training do need a lot of time to see how theories actually play out in real situations; however, theory allows teachers to make holistic and thoughtful plans and in-the-moment decisions.
I do believe that prospective teachers should participate more extensively in residency type programs. I agree with Dewey's notion that experience is a great teacher. However, I do not believe it is always the best teacher. As mentioned in the reading, life is continuously changing (environments, students, education, etc.). A teacher residency program would supply good experience, but may not fully prepare teachers for what is to come from their future experience with a career in education.
To your second question, I believe that practice and theory must work together as a cohesive whole. I would not want my child being "practiced" on without the appropriate background knowledge of what has been attempted before (i.e. what works vs. what doesn't).
I'm intrigued with the introduction of language and other symbolic forms of representing knowledge. The text states "that knowledge lives first 'in the muscles'--and not in the mind. The fact that we know something reveals itself initially on the level of action and only later in symbolic forms (like language)" (p. 11). Does this mean that in this view we cannot learn through reading or have new ideas and knowledge as a result of reading?
If "knowledge and action, fact and value" are indeed inseparable, how can educational research acknowledge action and values while attempting to share knowledge and facts? To me, this makes educational research look a lot more like action research and classroom teaching than manuscripts in journals.
To your first question - I think the writers were getting at the idea that experience is how we acquire much of our knowledge and insight. To your point, things like reading, in my opinion would also be a form of experience. Our muscles are malleable and can grow with time and conditioning. In terms of pragmatism, its our experiences that lead us to grow as individuals. From the pragmatist perspective, that experience can be put to good use as educational researchers and practitioners. Either that, or I've misinterpreted the metaphor.
Throughout the reading, there seems to be this comfort with pragmatism being identified or known as the “first American philosophical movement.” Yet, there is a clear denouncing of pragmatism’s characterization as an expression of a “typical” American mentality exemplifying many things specifically a “lack of historical consciousness.” What is it about this characterization that seems to be most troubling for those who believe in pragmatism as a theory of knowledge?
The reading identifies education as a human practice wherein the “how” is inseparable from the “why and what for”. Oftentimes in education practice the “how”, the “why”, and the “what for” are completely separated and/or one or more facets are not addressed. In educational research what are some reasons as to why these ideas are inseparable. As an educational researcher, what needs to happen to support research that addresses all three facets?
A hallmark of pragmatism is that any research, and in our cases, educational research be practical. The outcomes and recommendations of educational researchers, should, according to pragmatists, should be useful to practitioners. During a lecture in another course, a comment was made by a peer in response to the instructor’s remarks regarding research and practice… “...that’s the difference between a researcher and a practitioner,” this person said. I agree with this comment and wish this view was less widely held. Experience often reminds me that teachers are resistant to educational research and educational researchers can be disconnected from classroom experience. My question is, how do we as educational researchers bridge this gap? How can pragmatism be used to unify theory and practice?
While Dewey does not reject the analytical and mathematical approaches of the scientific method, he does favor “experience” and “rationality” for educational research. Biesta and Burbules (2003) stated that “education is a thoroughly human practice.” From only being in the program for a few months, it seems that educational research is dominated by quantitative approaches yet so much of it cannot be duplicated. With this in mind, and with Dewey’s ideas surrounding pragmatism, should we place more emphasis on qualitative methods and case studies? Certainly they take more time and money and have limited numbers of participants, but would we gain more useful knowledge from such longitudinal research?
Matt, I like your first question and often think about that myself. I think some of the disconnect comes in because there are not many people that have experience with both. I wonder how often researchers immerse themselves in the practice of the research they are exploring. I would imagine this to be a fine line where researchers want to ensure that they do not have any bias. Another way to help bridge the gap may be to allow practitioners more of an inside look into the research. Have them feel a part of the process. This sense of transparency could help practitioners see the reasons for the research.
What are your thoughts about the acceptability of pragmatism by philosophers from other countries? Do you think the American traits/components (pioneering spirit, etc.) affect its acceptability?
I was unfamiliar with the concept of "crisis of rationality" prior to reading this book chapter. I never truly considered the dichotomy of rationalities posed by modern science and common sense as described by Biesta and Burbules. According to the author's interpretation, science possesses "inhuman rationality" and common sense has "human irrationality". Did you have any initial thoughts about this statement?
Your second question was a piece of our reading that did stand out to me. The fact that our "inhuman rationality" is based on the idea that we only listen to the "hard facts," and the idea of how that interacts with human irrationality which led to the idea of the crisis of rationality. I think there is a way that we can accept modern science which doesn't pose a threat to our values. In some situations humans do not have to place those two ideas in to two completely separate "pots." Maybe we are still trying to accept the idea that science and everyday life can be a more defined and inseparable relationship.
A statement, “One of the key ideas of Dewey’s pragmatism (consistent with Peirce’s theory of meaning) is that reality only ‘reveals’ itself as a result of the activities – the ‘doings’ – of the organism” (Biesta & Burbules, p. 10) caught my attention. In the scientific sense, observation is definitely an action, but I am not seeing the possible connection of simple observation in Dewey’s theory. In an observation, one simply observes to collect information and gain knowledge. No manipulation occurs and no tangible action is taken in response to observed activities. Do you believe that Dewey would consider the act of observation as a “doing” or an action? Would this conflict with a portion of his theory?
“Peirce argued that when we call a thing hard this means nothing more than that it will not be scratched by many other substances. He also claimed that since the whole conception of this quality lies in its conceived effects, there is no difference between a hard thing and a soft thing so long as they are not brought to the test, so long, that is, if we don’t do anything with them” (Biesta & Burbules, p. 6). If there turns out to be a difference between two things after testing specific attributes, did this difference not exist beforehand? Or does this difference only exist because it was conceptualized and tested?
In thinking about your second question, I think that the difference does exist beforehand, but the difference can only conceptualized once it has been tested. So, testing is a method to conceptualize differences.
What do you think is the relationship between knowledge and action as described by Dewey?
The book mentions the idea that educational research doesn't just apply findings of research but asks the how, why and what for in regards to the research. How do you think we, as educational researchers, continue to keep in mind the how, why and what for?
Allison, according to Dewey the two are inseparable, hence the reason he turned to modern science where knowledge and action are already connected. I agree with this concept that one feeds into the other and that it continues in this circular pattern where one without the other is an ineffective and incomplete.
Recent developments in educational research used to study teachers and their students include the use of narrative inquiry and self-study. Both seem to be where research and practice intersect. What do you think Dewey would say? Based on our reading do think he would approve of these types of research?
In reading about Sleeper’s discussion of Dewey’s transactional realism, I came across an article by Jim Garrison from Virginia Tech entitled, Deweyan Pragmatism and Educational Research. In it Garrison suggests that democracy is “the best way to do research. If we would include more voices in the educational research conversation, for example, more women, ethnic groups, races, as well as the teachers and students we tend to do our research ON rather than WITH, and if we were to LISTEN to them better, the problems we identify, the solutions we seek, and the facts themselves, would change.” This seems to me to elevate the practitioner voice in research. What do you think about Garrison’s idea? Do you think Dewey would agree?
Jamey-- Thanks for sharing, I will definitely look this article up! I like Garrison's implication that research, in order to be more successful, needs to be more democratic. I think that Dewey would agree with the value of increasing the number and type of voices in ed. research, and I think he would see the long-term implications as being ultimately transformative.
I wonder if Dewey were alive today if he would still consider himself a Pragmatist. (I feel like he might shift toward a more Critical Theory perspective.)
Hi Amy! I was wondering the same! Being in the special education field, I wonder what he would think of the educational research done students with significant support needs, perhaps children who weren't really surviving during his time, and see if the his idea of research and the "scientific method" has changed.
In thinking about Dewey as an "ameliorist" who salvages useful parts of perspectives without completely rejecting them, how do you think he would engage with critical theory in philosophy, which might require him to heavily critique or reject previous perspectives that are not as reflective in terms of assessing things like culture?
Biesta & Burbules (2003) state, "Although Dewey's transactional realism does assert that knowledge is a construction, it is not a construction of the human mind, but a construction that is located in the organism-environment transaction itself....Dewey's transactional realism, in other words, is also a 'transactional constructivism' because it can be argued that our knowledge is at the very same time a construction and based on reality" (p. 11). How can transactional realism be used with critical theories, which often look at these organism-environment transactions, in educational research?
So, I think that when assessing things like culture or more broader concepts, Dewey would have looked at transactional constructivism. Everybody has their own ideas and beliefs as to how things should be. However, Dewey argued that individuals must act together to achieve a common goal. People will need to "transform" their individual perspectives and actions for a common goal.
I wonder how Dewey would feel about single case studies. I wonder if he would feel positively because it is more individual focused and relative to an individuals experience? Or?
I am struggling to understand why Dewey would disagree with generalization? I understand that he wouldn't agree with the answer being a "yes, this skill is learned" because thats finite. I don't understand why a researcher wouldn't at least want to try and test generalization, while accepting that the answer is not definitive, knowledge depends on context.
I think pragmatism is lesson we can all grapple with in our personal research and in the materials we use to think about education. Dewey's position, which seems to be an uncertain opinion challenges how I look at the quest for knowledge. His construction of and action toward knowledge challenges the future I see for my own research. I would ask Dewey, how he would like future educators to leverage his theories in the day to day classroom work? Perhaps he could speak to the practicality of his methods for teachers specifically. In this instance I consider teachers as researchers. I think it is important to name that skill.
Chapter 1 also brings up for me, when pragmatism might be least helpful in our thinking? Are their times when it is least helpful in framing our research? The opposite of this, would suggest that it should always be considered as theoretical practice.
Today's class started to answer some of this for me. I read and studied Dewey in masters program. I will send random articles that I think the class might care to read.
On page 11, Biesta and Burbules describe Dewey’s transactional approach “knowledge manifests itself first of all in the way in which organisms transact with and respond to changes in their environment. This is the import of Dewey’s claim that knowledge lives first ‘in the muscles’—and not in the mind.” This implies that we first experience something on a physical, perhaps even visceral, level prior to it being filtered or shaped “later in symbolic forms (like language).” What are some examples of how Dewey’s transactional approach plays out in our daily lives? Are there ways in which this approach is limiting?
Speaking from a racial and gendered perspective, I think Dewey's transactional approach manifests itself in the moments when minority groups first experience oppression on a personal level. Due the pervasiveness of dominant culture, I think racially and culturally diverse people may move through life accepting "what is" until something specific happens to them/ us and it shifts their/ our awareness and knowledge of oppressive systems. I think this view is very reactionary and in some ways positions the person who experiences things as a victim.
Normally I would panic over the thought of missing a deadline/ assignment but I am thankful that missing the deadline gave me another chance to read through chapter one and to think a little more deeply about the text thus far. I still have a ton of questions about pragmatism, most of them being clarifying in nature but, one deeper question that came to mind was, "What is the relevance of pragmatism in a multicultural world?" I ask this question because the text made a point to emphasize the fact that pragmatism is rooted in traditional Euro/ American perspectives. During the time that pragmatism developed as a school of thought, knowledge and the acquisition of it was restricted (and viewed as) something accessible to a specific group of people. Along with that, I also question if Dewey would still be an avid pragmatist in 2019 or if he would see more value in approaching research in more critical ways?
While re-reading this chapter, I found myself asking more questions about the text and digging a little deeper. One thing that I found myself thinking about was the part about the crisis in culture that includes 'modern science.' Humans and tools in education have evolved so rapidly and influences so many things in everyday life. It continues to change how we view the world and in turn changes how reality is viewed. I wonder how Dewey would have reacted to the constant change in modern science and how the problem of "common sense" has changed. Are we able to find a solution that doesn't pose any threat to values?
“Through our constant transactions with our environment, through our continuous attempts to maintain a dynamic balance with our environment, we develop patterns of possible action, which Dewey called habits” (Biesta and Burbules 2003, p. 11) Dewey describes an interaction that is similar to Social Cognitive Theory. Specifically, the part of SCT that also describes the balance of reciprocal interaction of the person, environment, and behavior. I wonder if SCT is inspired by Dewey's pragmatism or line of thought when Bandura developed the theory.
Being in the Special Education Track, I am always taking every reading and seeing how it applies to the population of students and educators I work with. During my Masters, I have been taught that we learn in three different ways, incidental learning (which is through observations), secondary learning (which is having something be explained to you) and direct learning (which is actual hands-on experience). Working with students with combined vision and hearing loss, we were taught that children who are normal developing learn mostly through observing the world around them or incidental learning and the least amount of learning occurs through direct hands-on learning. It is the complete opposite for children with sensory loss. They learn about 80% of their concepts, knowledge and skill through direct hands-on learning. I compared this to Dewey’s idea of the scientific method and how “knowledge and skill” are connected (p. 16) because I feel that he is talking about direct learning and that educational research is basically direct learning. Thinking about learning through this lens, I would love to know what he thinks about what scientific research is now.
One thing in this class that has stood out to me is that plot we created of “hard” versus “soft” and “applied” versus “pure”. This chapter mentioned words like “scientific method” and “hard facts” and based on that graph, I would really love to know where Dewey feels educational research lands on there.
It is stated in the reading, “...Members of the discipline of education, should be produced by introducing students of education directly to the experience of teaching.” With that said, do you feel as though educational study students should partake in a more extensive teacher prep program, such as a teacher residency program?
ReplyDeleteAlso stated is the following, “The only possible distinction that could then be made between education and other disciplines would b one of theory and application, with education always identified as the latter.” Do you believe that you can be a strong educator with solely focusing on practice and not theory? Do you think that is how teachers should be trained?
You bring up some interesting questions about teacher training, theory and application. I would hope that theory would inform practice, even if the theory is not known and put into language. Dewey talks a lot about learning by action and I feel like teachers in training do need a lot of time to see how theories actually play out in real situations; however, theory allows teachers to make holistic and thoughtful plans and in-the-moment decisions.
DeleteI do believe that prospective teachers should participate more extensively in residency type programs. I agree with Dewey's notion that experience is a great teacher. However, I do not believe it is always the best teacher. As mentioned in the reading, life is continuously changing (environments, students, education, etc.). A teacher residency program would supply good experience, but may not fully prepare teachers for what is to come from their future experience with a career in education.
DeleteTo your second question, I believe that practice and theory must work together as a cohesive whole. I would not want my child being "practiced" on without the appropriate background knowledge of what has been attempted before (i.e. what works vs. what doesn't).
I'm intrigued with the introduction of language and other symbolic forms of representing knowledge. The text states "that knowledge lives first 'in the muscles'--and not in the mind. The fact that we know something reveals itself initially on the level of action and only later in symbolic forms (like language)" (p. 11). Does this mean that in this view we cannot learn through reading or have new ideas and knowledge as a result of reading?
ReplyDeleteIf "knowledge and action, fact and value" are indeed inseparable, how can educational research acknowledge action and values while attempting to share knowledge and facts? To me, this makes educational research look a lot more like action research and classroom teaching than manuscripts in journals.
To your first question - I think the writers were getting at the idea that experience is how we acquire much of our knowledge and insight. To your point, things like reading, in my opinion would also be a form of experience. Our muscles are malleable and can grow with time and conditioning. In terms of pragmatism, its our experiences that lead us to grow as individuals. From the pragmatist perspective, that experience can be put to good use as educational researchers and practitioners. Either that, or I've misinterpreted the metaphor.
DeleteThroughout the reading, there seems to be this comfort with pragmatism being identified or known as the “first American philosophical movement.” Yet, there is a clear denouncing of pragmatism’s characterization as an expression of a “typical” American mentality exemplifying many things specifically a “lack of historical consciousness.” What is it about this characterization that seems to be most troubling for those who believe in pragmatism as a theory of knowledge?
ReplyDeleteThe reading identifies education as a human practice wherein the “how” is inseparable from the “why and what for”. Oftentimes in education practice the “how”, the “why”, and the “what for” are completely separated and/or one or more facets are not addressed. In educational research what are some reasons as to why these ideas are inseparable. As an educational researcher, what needs to happen to support research that addresses all three facets?
A hallmark of pragmatism is that any research, and in our cases, educational research be practical. The outcomes and recommendations of educational researchers, should, according to pragmatists, should be useful to practitioners. During a lecture in another course, a comment was made by a peer in response to the instructor’s remarks regarding research and practice… “...that’s the difference between a researcher and a practitioner,” this person said. I agree with this comment and wish this view was less widely held. Experience often reminds me that teachers are resistant to educational research and educational researchers can be disconnected from classroom experience. My question is, how do we as educational researchers bridge this gap? How can pragmatism be used to unify theory and practice?
ReplyDeleteWhile Dewey does not reject the analytical and mathematical approaches of the scientific method, he does favor “experience” and “rationality” for educational research. Biesta and Burbules (2003) stated that “education is a thoroughly human practice.” From only being in the program for a few months, it seems that educational research is dominated by quantitative approaches yet so much of it cannot be duplicated. With this in mind, and with Dewey’s ideas surrounding pragmatism, should we place more emphasis on qualitative methods and case studies? Certainly they take more time and money and have limited numbers of participants, but would we gain more useful knowledge from such longitudinal research?
Matt, I like your first question and often think about that myself. I think some of the disconnect comes in because there are not many people that have experience with both. I wonder how often researchers immerse themselves in the practice of the research they are exploring. I would imagine this to be a fine line where researchers want to ensure that they do not have any bias. Another way to help bridge the gap may be to allow practitioners more of an inside look into the research. Have them feel a part of the process. This sense of transparency could help practitioners see the reasons for the research.
ReplyDeleteWhat are your thoughts about the acceptability of pragmatism by philosophers from other countries? Do you think the American traits/components (pioneering spirit, etc.) affect its acceptability?
ReplyDeleteI was unfamiliar with the concept of "crisis of rationality" prior to reading this book chapter. I never truly considered the dichotomy of rationalities posed by modern science and common sense as described by Biesta and Burbules. According to the author's interpretation, science possesses "inhuman rationality" and common sense has "human irrationality". Did you have any initial thoughts about this statement?
Your second question was a piece of our reading that did stand out to me. The fact that our "inhuman rationality" is based on the idea that we only listen to the "hard facts," and the idea of how that interacts with human irrationality which led to the idea of the crisis of rationality. I think there is a way that we can accept modern science which doesn't pose a threat to our values. In some situations humans do not have to place those two ideas in to two completely separate "pots." Maybe we are still trying to accept the idea that science and everyday life can be a more defined and inseparable relationship.
DeleteA statement, “One of the key ideas of Dewey’s pragmatism (consistent with Peirce’s theory of meaning) is that reality only ‘reveals’ itself as a result of the activities – the ‘doings’ – of the organism” (Biesta & Burbules, p. 10) caught my attention. In the scientific sense, observation is definitely an action, but I am not seeing the possible connection of simple observation in Dewey’s theory. In an observation, one simply observes to collect information and gain knowledge. No manipulation occurs and no tangible action is taken in response to observed activities. Do you believe that Dewey would consider the act of observation as a “doing” or an action? Would this conflict with a portion of his theory?
ReplyDelete“Peirce argued that when we call a thing hard this means nothing more than that it will not be scratched by many other substances. He also claimed that since the whole conception of this quality lies in its conceived effects, there is no difference between a hard thing and a soft thing so long as they are not brought to the test, so long, that is, if we don’t do anything with them” (Biesta & Burbules, p. 6). If there turns out to be a difference between two things after testing specific attributes, did this difference not exist beforehand? Or does this difference only exist because it was conceptualized and tested?
In thinking about your second question, I think that the difference does exist beforehand, but the difference can only conceptualized once it has been tested. So, testing is a method to conceptualize differences.
DeleteWhat do you think is the relationship between knowledge and action as described by Dewey?
ReplyDeleteThe book mentions the idea that educational research doesn't just apply findings of research but asks the how, why and what for in regards to the research. How do you think we, as educational researchers, continue to keep in mind the how, why and what for?
Allison, according to Dewey the two are inseparable, hence the reason he turned to modern science where knowledge and action are already connected. I agree with this concept that one feeds into the other and that it continues in this circular pattern where one without the other is an ineffective and incomplete.
DeleteRecent developments in educational research used to study teachers and their students include the use of narrative inquiry and self-study. Both seem to be where research and practice intersect. What do you think Dewey would say? Based on our reading do think he would approve of these types of research?
ReplyDeleteIn reading about Sleeper’s discussion of Dewey’s transactional realism, I came across an article by Jim Garrison from Virginia Tech entitled, Deweyan Pragmatism and Educational Research. In it Garrison suggests that democracy is “the best way to do research. If we would include more voices in the educational research conversation, for example, more women, ethnic groups, races, as well as the teachers and students we tend to do our research ON rather than WITH, and if we were to LISTEN to them better, the problems we identify, the solutions we seek, and the facts themselves, would change.” This seems to me to elevate the practitioner voice in research. What do you think about Garrison’s idea? Do you think Dewey would agree?
Jamey--
DeleteThanks for sharing, I will definitely look this article up! I like Garrison's implication that research, in order to be more successful, needs to be more democratic. I think that Dewey would agree with the value of increasing the number and type of voices in ed. research, and I think he would see the long-term implications as being ultimately transformative.
I wonder if Dewey were alive today if he would still consider himself a Pragmatist. (I feel like he might shift toward a more Critical Theory perspective.)
ReplyDeleteHi Amy! I was wondering the same! Being in the special education field, I wonder what he would think of the educational research done students with significant support needs, perhaps children who weren't really surviving during his time, and see if the his idea of research and the "scientific method" has changed.
DeleteIn thinking about Dewey as an "ameliorist" who salvages useful parts of perspectives without completely rejecting them, how do you think he would engage with critical theory in philosophy, which might require him to heavily critique or reject previous perspectives that are not as reflective in terms of assessing things like culture?
ReplyDeleteBiesta & Burbules (2003) state, "Although Dewey's transactional realism does assert that knowledge is a construction, it is not a construction of the human mind, but a construction that is located in the organism-environment transaction itself....Dewey's transactional realism, in other words, is also a 'transactional constructivism' because it can be argued that our knowledge is at the very same time a construction and based on reality" (p. 11). How can transactional realism be used with critical theories, which often look at these organism-environment transactions, in educational research?
So, I think that when assessing things like culture or more broader concepts, Dewey would have looked at transactional constructivism. Everybody has their own ideas and beliefs as to how things should be. However, Dewey argued that individuals must act together to achieve a common goal. People will need to "transform" their individual perspectives and actions for a common goal.
DeleteI wonder how Dewey would feel about single case studies. I wonder if he would feel positively because it is more individual focused and relative to an individuals experience? Or?
ReplyDeleteI am struggling to understand why Dewey would disagree with generalization? I understand that he wouldn't agree with the answer being a "yes, this skill is learned" because thats finite. I don't understand why a researcher wouldn't at least want to try and test generalization, while accepting that the answer is not definitive, knowledge depends on context.
I think pragmatism is lesson we can all grapple with in our personal research and in the materials we use to think about education. Dewey's position, which seems to be an uncertain opinion challenges how I look at the quest for knowledge. His construction of and action toward knowledge challenges the future I see for my own research. I would ask Dewey, how he would like future educators to leverage his theories in the day to day classroom work? Perhaps he could speak to the practicality of his methods for teachers specifically. In this instance I consider teachers as researchers. I think it is important to name that skill.
ReplyDeleteChapter 1 also brings up for me, when pragmatism might be least helpful in our thinking? Are their times when it is least helpful in framing our research? The opposite of this, would suggest that it should always be considered as theoretical practice.
Today's class started to answer some of this for me. I read and studied Dewey in masters program. I will send random articles that I think the class might care to read.
On page 11, Biesta and Burbules describe Dewey’s transactional approach “knowledge manifests itself first of all in the way in which organisms transact with and respond to changes in their environment. This is the import of Dewey’s claim that knowledge lives first ‘in the muscles’—and not in the mind.” This implies that we first experience something on a physical, perhaps even visceral, level prior to it being filtered or shaped “later in symbolic forms (like language).” What are some examples of how Dewey’s transactional approach plays out in our daily lives? Are there ways in which this approach is limiting?
ReplyDeleteSpeaking from a racial and gendered perspective, I think Dewey's transactional approach manifests itself in the moments when minority groups first experience oppression on a personal level. Due the pervasiveness of dominant culture, I think racially and culturally diverse people may move through life accepting "what is" until something specific happens to them/ us and it shifts their/ our awareness and knowledge of oppressive systems. I think this view is very reactionary and in some ways positions the person who experiences things as a victim.
DeleteNormally I would panic over the thought of missing a deadline/ assignment but I am thankful that missing the deadline gave me another chance to read through chapter one and to think a little more deeply about the text thus far. I still have a ton of questions about pragmatism, most of them being clarifying in nature but, one deeper question that came to mind was, "What is the relevance of pragmatism in a multicultural world?" I ask this question because the text made a point to emphasize the fact that pragmatism is rooted in traditional Euro/ American perspectives. During the time that pragmatism developed as a school of thought, knowledge and the acquisition of it was restricted (and viewed as) something accessible to a specific group of people. Along with that, I also question if Dewey would still be an avid pragmatist in 2019 or if he would see more value in approaching research in more critical ways?
ReplyDeleteWhile re-reading this chapter, I found myself asking more questions about the text and digging a little deeper. One thing that I found myself thinking about was the part about the crisis in culture that includes 'modern science.' Humans and tools in education have evolved so rapidly and influences so many things in everyday life. It continues to change how we view the world and in turn changes how reality is viewed. I wonder how Dewey would have reacted to the constant change in modern science and how the problem of "common sense" has changed. Are we able to find a solution that doesn't pose any threat to values?
ReplyDeleteAshley M.
Delete“Through our constant transactions with our environment, through our continuous attempts to maintain a dynamic balance with our environment, we develop patterns of possible action, which Dewey called habits” (Biesta and Burbules 2003, p. 11) Dewey describes an interaction that is similar to Social Cognitive Theory. Specifically, the part of SCT that also describes the balance of reciprocal interaction of the person, environment, and behavior. I wonder if SCT is inspired by Dewey's pragmatism or line of thought when Bandura developed the theory.
ReplyDeleteBeing in the Special Education Track, I am always taking every reading and seeing how it applies to the population of students and educators I work with. During my Masters, I have been taught that we learn in three different ways, incidental learning (which is through observations), secondary learning (which is having something be explained to you) and direct learning (which is actual hands-on experience). Working with students with combined vision and hearing loss, we were taught that children who are normal developing learn mostly through observing the world around them or incidental learning and the least amount of learning occurs through direct hands-on learning. It is the complete opposite for children with sensory loss. They learn about 80% of their concepts, knowledge and skill through direct hands-on learning. I compared this to Dewey’s idea of the scientific method and how “knowledge and skill” are connected (p. 16) because I feel that he is talking about direct learning and that educational research is basically direct learning. Thinking about learning through this lens, I would love to know what he thinks about what scientific research is now.
ReplyDeleteOne thing in this class that has stood out to me is that plot we created of “hard” versus “soft” and “applied” versus “pure”. This chapter mentioned words like “scientific method” and “hard facts” and based on that graph, I would really love to know where Dewey feels educational research lands on there.