ERIC EJ1135095: Realizing a Democratic Community of Teachers: John Dewey and the Idea of a Science of Education PDF
Preview ERIC EJ1135095: Realizing a Democratic Community of Teachers: John Dewey and the Idea of a Science of Education
education sciences Article Realizing a Democratic Community of Teachers: John Dewey and the Idea of a Science of Education JeffFrank EducationDepartment,St.LawrenceUniversity,23AtwoodHall,Canton,NY13617,USA;[email protected] AcademicEditors:PaulStandishandSunInnYun Received:20September2016;Accepted:3January2017;Published:5January2017 Abstract: Inthispaper,ImakethecasethatJohnDewey’sphilosophyofeducationaimstobring aboutademocraticcommunityofteacherscapableofcreatingascienceofteaching. Tomakethiscase, Iwilldoathreethings. First,IwilldiscussSourcesofaScienceofEducationandarguethatthisworkis deeplyconnectedtoaworkwrittenataboutthesametime,IndividualismOldandNew. AsIwillshow, thecreationofascienceofeducationisacomplexendeavorthatispremisedonanabilitytocreatea democraticcommunitythatreconstructsoutmodednotionsofindividuality. Second,Iwillarguethat thepositionputforwardmostdirectlyintheselaterworksisnotadeviationfromDewey’soverall educationalphilosophybyofferingareadingDemocracyandEducation. IwillarguethatDewey’s thinkingonascienceofeducationisheldnascentwithinDemocracyandEducation,especiallyinhis discussionofindividualismanddemocracy. Finally,Iwillassesswhetherandhowcurrentworkin teachereducationisconsonantwithDewey’sphilosophicalproject,anddrawoutimplicationsfor philosophersofeducation. Keywords: JohnDewey;DemocracyandEducation;SourcesofaScienceofEducation;teachereducation; philosophyofeducation;teachercollaboration;educationalpolicy;corepractices JohnDewey’sSourcesofaScienceofEducation[1]hasbeenreceivingrenewedattentionfromteacher educatorsinrecentyears[2]. Inparticular,teachereducatorsareinterestedinmakingtheattemptto find“corepractices”thatformthebasisofeffectiveteachingand—oncelocated—moreeffectively teachthesepracticestofutureteachers[3–5]. ThoughteachereducatorshavereturnedtoDeweyin ordertorealizethepromiseofascienceofeducation,philosophersofeducationhavenotyetengaged withwhathasbecomeoneofthemostprominentdiscoursesinteachereducationorDewey’swork oncreatingascienceofeducation. WhilephilosophersofeducationarequicktonotehowDewey stressestheuncertainnatureofteaching[6–8],lessattentionispaidtoDewey’sconstructiveproject ofcreatingascienceofteaching. Intuitively—ormaybeinitially—somethingfeelsphilosophically suspect about creating a science for something as complicated, context-based and personal as the work of teaching[9,10]. As such, it seems problematic to connect the work of Dewey with recent developments in teacher education aimed to do something like this [11]. In this paper, I hope to show that our intuitive—or initial—feeling may be off base. My goal is to demonstrate that Dewey—whilerecognizingthecomplexitiesanduncertaintiesofteaching—thoughtitwasimportant tomaketheefforttocreateascienceofeducation. To make this case, I will do three things. First, I discuss Sources of a Science of Education and argue that this work is deeply connected to a work written at about the same time, Individualism Old and New [12]. As we will see, the creation of a science of education is a complex endeavorthatispremisedonanabilitytocreateademocraticcommunitythatreconstructsoutmoded notionsofindividuality. Second, Iarguethatthepositionputforwardmostdirectlyintheselater worksisnotadeviationfromDewey’soveralleducationalphilosophybybringingourattentiontocore passagesfromDemocracyandEducation[13]. IwillmakethecasethatDewey’sthinkingonascienceof Educ.Sci.2017,7,11;doi:10.3390/educsci7010011 www.mdpi.com/journal/education Educ.Sci.2017,7,11 2of10 educationisheldnascentwithinDemocracyandEducation,especiallyinhisdiscussionofindividualism anddemocracy. Finally,Iassesswhetherandhowcurrentworkinteachereducationisconsonantwith Dewey’sphilosophicalproject,anddrawoutimplicationsforphilosophersofeducation. 1. IndividualismandtheWorkofTeaching AsDanLortieobservedinhisclassicsociologicalstudySchoolteacher[14],theworkofteachingis generallymarkedbyindividualism. Teachersworkinisolationfromeachother,and—infact—seemto berewardedfornotcollaborating[15]. Thoughstrideshavebeenmadeinthedirectionofteacher collaborationsinceLortiewrote[16,17],itishardtoarguethatDewey’sthinkinginhis1929Sources ofaScienceofEducationdoesnotremainrelevant. Deweyworriedthatwefocusontheexceptional individualteachertothedetrimentofteaching. Insteadofworkingtomaketeachingbetter—andso thelivesofthelargestpossiblenumberofstudentsbetter—theobjectionismadethatifweworked on teaching (in general), we would lose, or level down, what is unique and special about those individual teachers who touch the lives of the students who experience the exceptional teacher’s presence. However,Deweynotes: whatisoverlookedbytheobjectoristhatthesuccessesofsuchindividualstendtobeborn andtodiewiththem: beneficialconsequencesextendtothosepupilswhohavepersonal contactwithsuchgiftedteachers. Noonecanmeasurethatwasteandlossthathavecome fromthefactthatthecontributionsofsuchmenandwomeninthepasthavebeenthus confined,andtheonlywaybywhichwecanpreventsuchwasteinthefutureisbymethods which enable us to make an analysis of what the gifted teacher does intuitively, so that something accruing from his work can be communicated to others. Even in the things conventionallyrecognizedassciences,theinsightsofunusualpersonremainimportant andthereisnolevelingdowntoauniformprocedure. Buttheexistenceofsciencegives commonefficacytotheexperiencesofthegenius; itmakesitpossiblefortheresultsof special power to become part of the working equipment of other inquirers, instead of perishingastheyarose[1](pp. 4–5). Thisisalongquote,butit—inmanyways—getstotheheartofDewey’sargument. Deweyis concernedwithanumberofthingsinthispassage,mostnotablywaste. Thereisfartoomuchwaste ineducationwhenweleaveittoindividualteacherstofigureouttheartofteaching. Whilesome teachersdo—indeed—figurethisartout(sometimeswithouttheaidofteachereducation),whatabout alloftheother(non-exceptional)teachers,andwhataboutthelegacyoftheseexceptionalteachers? Theinsightoftheseteacherslivesanddieswiththem(or,asweshallseemomentarily,canhavea perniciouseffect). Deweywouldliketoanalyzehowtheseteachersdowhattheydointuitivelyso thatotherteacherscanlearnfromtheirexperience. Initsmostsimpleform,thisiswhatImeaninthis paperbyDewey’sthinkingonascienceofteaching. ThoughDeweyalsomentionstheimportanceof educationalpsychologyforlearning,andsociologyforschools,heisalsoveryinterestedinhowtheart ofteachingcan—throughphilosophicalwork[1](pp. 26–27)—developintothedemocraticcommon inheritanceofasmanyteachersaspossible. Expectinganobjectiontothisaspiration,Deweyisquickto pointoutthatthisprocessisnotmeanttoleveldownexceptionalteacherstosomecommonstandard, buttogive“commonefficacytotheexperienceofgenius”. Thisisastrikingline: wewanttotakethe exceptionalandmakeitpartofourcommonpossession. Adeeplydemocraticconcept—aswewill seemoreexplicitlyinthenextsection—Deweywantseveryteachertoshareinthatwhichexceptional teachers discover intuitively in practice. Again, the goal is not to set a uniform standard, but to continuallyraisethelevelofourcommonresourcesandtocontinuetolearnfromthoseexceptional teacherswhowillalsobenefitfromagreaterandmorerobustsharedwisdomofteaching. Asnotedabove,Deweyisnotonlyworriedaboutthewastethatoccurswhenwefailtomake commonwhatexceptionalteachersdo,theveryideaoftheexceptionalteachercanhaveapernicious effect. Deweynotes,inanotherratherlongpassage: Educ.Sci.2017,7,11 3of10 Theexistenceofscientificmethodprotectsusalsofromadangerthatattendstheoperations of men of unusual power; dangers of slavish imitation partisanship, and such jealous devotiontothemandtheirworkastogetinthewayoffurtherprogress. Anybodycan notice today that the effect of an original and powerful teacher is not all to the good. Thoseinfluencedbyhimoftenshowaone-sidedinterest;theytendtoformschools,andto becomeimpervioustootherproblemsandtruths;theyinclinetoswearbythewordsof theirmasterandtogoonrepeatinghisthoughtsafterhim,andoftenwithoutthespiritand insightthatoriginallymadethemsignificant[1](p. 5). Instead of science, we create sects, take sides. Instead of learning from what the exceptional teacherfindsandmakeitcommontoteaching,theexceptionalteacherisreveredandfollowersbecome lockedinimitation;animitationthatlacks“thespiritandinsight”thatmadetheexceptionalteacher’s worknoteworthy[18]. Sadly,Deweyseemstobeontosomethingimportanthere. Weavoidascience forfearoflevelingtheprofessiontoitslowestcommondenominator,butthisfearoftencausesus to fall into an equally flawed stance: we offer a second-rate imitation of a great teacher and fight withotherssothat“ourway”ofteaching—ormore,“ourteacher”—isseenasbetterthananyother. Insteadofcollaborationandcommonality,wegetcompetition;insteadofinsightthatpushesthework ofteachingforward,weget“slavishimitation”. Thisisakeypoint. Theexceptionalteacherobjection toascienceofeducationnotonlyleadstogreatwaste,itleadstoanunhelpfulpartisanship. Fearing theriskofconformitythatmaycomeaboutthroughthecreationofascienceofteaching,wefallintoan evenworse—becauseoftenblind—conformitytotheexceptionalteacherandapartisanshipthatkeeps usfromimprovingteaching,andsorealizingthatwhichis“worthyofthenameeducation”[19](p. 62). ThisisonereasonwhyIseeIndividualismOldandNewassomethingofacompanionpieceto ScienceofEducation.ThougheducationisnotthecentralfocusofIndividualism,Deweyanalyses—inthis work—howoutmodedinheritednotionsofindividualismthatdonotfitthepresentdaykeepusfrom creatingthetypesofsciencethatwillallowforsocialandpersonalprogress. Tostart,Deweymakes thecasethatthepresenteraisdifferentfromthepast;itisindustrialized,corporate,interconnected. Thisshouldleadtotherealizationthat“theproblemofconstructinganewindividualityconsonant withtheobjectiveconditionsunderwhichweliveisthedeepestproblemofourtimes”[12](p. 56). However,itishardtocreatethisindividualitybecauseourmoralimaginationshavenotkeptpace withtheworldwearelivingin. AsDeweynotes: Ourmaterialculture,asanthropologistswouldcallit,isverginguponthecollectiveandthe corporate. Ourmoralculture,alongwithourideology,is,ontheotherhand,stillsaturated withidealsandvaluesofanindividualismderivedfromthepre-scientific,pre-technological age. Itsspiritualrootsarefoundinmedievalreligion,whichassertedtheultimatenatureof theindividualsoulandcenteredthedramaoflifeaboutthedestinyofthatsoul[12](p. 77). ThoughDeweyisnotwritingaboutteachingdirectlyhere,itiseasytoseehowitcanapplyto much teaching that occurs today. Though the world around us is becoming more interconnected andmorecollaborative,themorallifeofteachingtendstobeboundupwiththemedievaldramaof individualsalvation. Thatis,insteadofgroupsofteachersworkingtogethertoimprovetheworkof teaching[17],teacherstendtoseekindividualexcellenceintheirownclassroom. Ateacheroftenseeks personalsalvation—orpersonalexcellence—andnotthegoodofteaching(asawhole)orthegood oftheschoolshefindsherselfin. Therearemanyreasonsforthis,andascollaborativeasIcanbeat times,Iknowapictureofindividualsalvationholdsmecaptiveinmanyways[20]. So,thepointhere isnotblame,buttothinkwithDeweyabouttheramificationsofholdingontoavisionofindividuality thatmaynotfitthetimeswearelivingin. Itisimportanttoconsiderifbeliefsthatwereonceuseful—morally,personallyandsocially—inan ageverydifferentfromtheonewearelivinginnowstillhavepracticalvalue[21]. Deweyisdirect inhisassessment: “Traditionalideasaremorethanirrelevant. Theyareanencumbrance; theyare thechiefobstacletotheformationofanewindividuality”[12](p. 86). NoteherethatDeweyisnot Educ.Sci.2017,7,11 4of10 againstindividuality,heisinterestedinforminganindividualitythatisconsonantwiththetimeswe arelivingin. Holdingontothedramaofsalvation;oftheisolatedindividualbootstrappingawayto goodness,giventhetimewearelivingin,justdoesnotmakesense. More,thesevisionsareactually harmful,becausetheykeepusfrommakingprogress. Deweyagainremarksthat“progresswillnot beinitiateduntilweceaseopposingthesociallycorporatetotheindividual,anduntilwedevelopa constructivelyimaginativeobservationoftheroleofscienceandtechnologyinactualsociety”[12] (p. 89). Scienceingeneral—likeascienceofeducationdiscussedaboveandthescienceofteaching Iamadvocatingfor—comesaboutwhenweareinterestedinlearningfromtheadvancesmadeby individuals, and making them a part of our collective wisdom and store of resources. When done well—accordingtoDewey—itishardtoseewheretheindividualscientistandtheworkofscience beginsandends. Thescientistdrawsonwhatisknown,andasnewdiscoveriesaremade,theyare thenbroughtintothefoldofadvancingknowledgesothatnewdiscoveriescanbemade. Personal discovery becomes public good [13] (esp. Chapter 10). The medieval notion of private salvation becomesastumblingblocktothisvisionofindividualsworkingoutofinterestinatypeofworkthat is both personally rewarding and collectively valuable [13] (esp. p. 361). We must—according to Dewey—overcomeoutmodedvisionsofindividuality,andembraceafuturewhereweworktogether toturnthesuccessesofindividualsintoacommon,public,good. Fear,though,standsintheway. Themindthatishamperedbyfearlestsomethingoldandpreciousbedestroyedisthe mindthatexperiencesfearofscience. Hewhohasthisfearcannotfindrewardandpeace inthediscoveryofnewtruthsandtheprojectionofnewideals. Hedoesnotwalktheearth freely,becauseheisobsessedbytheneedofprotectingsomeprivatepossessionofbelief andtaste. Fortheloveofprivatepossessionsisnotconfinedtomaterialgoods[12](p. 118). Ifindthis—again—aninterestingconnectiontoSourcesofaScienceofEducation.Thereissomething seductiveaboutbeingthegoodteacher;thebestteacherinaschool,orthebestinacertaingrade-level or the best in a certain subject. However, where does this type of feeling lead? Though we may remainthebestteacheraswedefineit,whatabouttheexperiencestudentshavewithotherteachers? Mightwebecomebetterifwehumblysharewhatseemstoworkforuswhilealsolisteningtothe insightsofthosewhomaynotinitiallyappeartobeascompellingasweare? Dowefearcreating a science of teaching because of all we may have to learn; because we may find it hard to accept that salvation—or excellence—comes about through collaboration, and not through competition or pridefully holding onto our current stage of development in the face of what could become throughendlessprogress? Competitionandcomplacencyhavenoplaceineducation[22]. AsDewey writes, “There is a subterranean partnership between those who employ the existing economic orderforselfishpecuniarygainandthosewhoturntheirbacksuponitintheinterestofpersonal complacency,privatedignity,andirresponsibility”[12](p. 117). Thisisajarringremindertoallof usteacherswhochooseourpresentstateofexcellenceinsteadofseekingthebetter—personallyand socially—throughcollaboration. AsIwillshowinthenextsection,thisisnotapositionthatDewey onlyespousesinhislaterwork,itfindsapowerfulexpressioninDemocracyandEducation. 2. DemocracyandTeaching Teachers resist collaboration in the creation of a science of education not only because of the outmodedmoralitythatputspersonalsalvationfirst;teachersresistcollaborationforpoliticaland othermoralreasons. AsWilliamJamesrecognizedwelloveronehundredyearsago[23]teachers arebombardedwithfads. Itisoftenmorepedagogicallysensibletoclosetheclassroomdooranddo one’sworkthanattendin-servicemeetingswhereschoolleaderspromotethenextthingpedaledby educationalconsultantsandso-callededupreneurs;especiallywhenteachersarethenexpectedtoadopt thesepractices,eventhoughtheygoagainstwhatteachersknow—withjustification—aboutteaching andwhatworksforstudents[24]. Inadditiontopracticalconcernsabouteducationalfads,teachers oftenhavepoliticalreasonstoresistcollaborationaroundtop-downreformefforts[25]. Asreforms Educ.Sci.2017,7,11 5of10 seem to change every few years, it is easy to imagine why a veteran teacher would not want to collaboratetocreateanewcurriculumaroundareformideathatmaybecomeobsoleteinamatter ofyears. Again,insteadofseekingcollaboration,teacherscanbecomedemoralizedgiventhepace and—often—disrespectfultonethatmanyreformeffortstaketowardteachers[26]. Finally,theideaof ascienceofteachingcanbecalledintoquestionbyteachersastheyseewavesof“evidence-based” practicescomeandgowithlittlenoticeablepositiveimpactonthelivesofstudentsorschools[27]. As such, the usage of the language of evidence-based practice can feel like little more than a smokescreenforpoliticalandideologicalagendas. This—inturn—canmaketheideaofascienceof educationseemlikemoreofthesame;certainlynotsomethingworthateacher’stime. Deweyrecognizedtheseasproblems,andDemocracyandEducationmakesitclearthatdemocracy isthekeytoprogress;itisimpossibletocreateascienceofeducation—orgrowaspeopleandasa society—withoutdemocracy. JustasDeweywarnsthatthe“exceptionalteacher”paradigmstands inthewayofprogress,sotoodoestop-down,non-collaborativeapproachestoimprovingteaching. Teachingwillnotimprovewithoutthepresenceofastrongdemocracy. Thispointismadefromthe beginningofDemocracyandEducation[13](esp.pp. 8–12),butitreceivesitsfullesttreatmentinChapter 7,“TheDemocraticConceptioninEducation”. Inthissection,Iwilllookcloselyattwomainpassages fromthischapter,trackitsdevelopmentinotherkeypassagesfromDemocracyandEducation,andthen concludebyshowingthatDewey’spositioninhislaterworksSourcesofaScienceofEducationand IndividualismOldandNewareclearlynotdeviationsfromtheworkstartedinDemocracyandEducation, butimportantstepsinmakingnascentthemesmoreexplicit. InSourcesofaScienceofEducation,Deweyisconcernedwithcreatingsomethingthatiscommonto teachers;notsomethingthatisthesolepossessionoftheexceptionalteacher.InDemocracyandEducation, Deweyhasthesameconcern,butonthelargestpossiblescale. Asocietywherewedonotholdthings in common is really no society at all. As Dewey notes, “We are thus compelled to recognize that withineventhemostsocialgrouptherearemanyrelationswhicharenotasyetsocial”[13](p. 8). Thisthoughtgetsdeveloped—atlength—inthefirstquoteIwillconsiderfromChapter7. Inordertohavealargenumberofvaluesincommon,allthemembersofthegroupmust haveanequableopportunitytoreceiveandtotakefromothers. Theremustbealarge varietyofsharedundertakingsandexperiences. Otherwise,theinfluenceswhicheducate some into masters, educate others into slaves. And the experience of each party loses in meaning, when the free interchange of varying modes of life-experience is arrested. Aseparationintoaprivilegedandasubject-classpreventssocialendosmosis[13](p. 90). While Dewey’s concern here is society at large, I want to bring this quote back into teaching. There are at least two levels at which this quote can be appreciated. The first is the policy level. Teachersoftenfeelasiftheyhavenovoiceinpolicyconversations;thereisnotan“equableopportunity toreceiveandtakefromothers”. Assuch,theexperienceofeachpartylosesmeaning: policy-makers loseoutontheinsightsofteachers;teachersloseoutontheinsightsofpolicy-makers.Thoughresistance tofadsandideologywrappedupasevidence-basedpracticeisimportant,itisequallyimportantto remainopentoadvancesmadebyresearchanddistilledintopolicies. Becausetherearenotequable opportunitiestosharewhatisknown,socialendosmosisresults. This,though,isnotthefocusofmy essay; Iwanttostartalittlesmaller. Iwanttostartattheleveloftheschool,orthedistrict,orthe county. Wehavetowonderhowmanyvaluesteachersatthislevelholdincommon. Thoughlesson study[17]andpracticessuchasdescriptivereview[28]encourageteacherstocollaboratewitheach other,theswayofthe“exceptionalteachermodel”seemstodominantmanyotherschoolsettings. Thatis,teachersisolatethemselvesfromeachother,andthisarrests“thefreeinterchangeofvarying modesoflife-experience”. Whenthishappens,divisionsharden—thegoodteachers,thelessgood teachers—andpossibilitiesfordevelopingcommonknowledgeareforeclosed. Ifthisiswhathappens withinaschooloracounty,howmuchmoresodoesthishappenacrossthepracticeofteachingas awhole[11]? Theimmediatelessonofthisquote, then, seemsrelativelysimple: withouteffective communication and a willingness to build something we can share in common, everyone suffers. Educ.Sci.2017,7,11 6of10 Dewey writes, “Lack of the free and equitable intercourse which springs from a variety of shared interestsmakesintellectualstimulationunbalanced[13](p. 90). Unbalancedintellectualstimulation leadssometofeellike“masters”andothers“slaves”. Thoughthismaynotbethewaywewouldlike tothinkofteacherdynamicswithinaschool,itisinterestingtothinkwithDeweyonjustthispoint. If Dewey is on to something here, if a failure to communicate leads to division, we have to look at all of the consequences. Not only does it keep us from creating shared resources [29] and commonknowledgethatwecanallgrowfromandcontributeto,“isolationmakesforrigidityand formal institutionalizing of life, for static and selfish ideals within the group” [13] (p. 92). I hear immediateechoesofthissentimentinDewey’slaterworkdiscussedinthesectionabove. Whenwefail tocollaborate,wefallintosectsandconflictsthathaveperniciouseffects. Insteadofseekinggrowth througheducativecommunication,weholdtobeliefsthatarrestpersonalandsocialdevelopment. Whenweseekisolation—inanyform—weinvitestasis,andthiswillnotleadtotheimprovementof teachingorlearning. Theonlyantidotetothisstateisdemocracy. Deweywrites: Ademocracyismorethanaformofgovernment;itisprimarilyamodeofassociatedliving, ofconjointcommunicatedexperience. Theextensioninspaceofthenumberofindividuals who participate in an interest so that each has to refer his own action to that of others, andtoconsidertheactionofotherstogivepointanddirectiontohisown,isequivalentto thebreakingdownofthosebarriersofclass,race,andnationalterritorywhichkeptmen fromperceivingthefullimportoftheiractivity. Thesemorenumerousandmorevaried pointsofcontactdenoteagreaterdiversityofstimulitowhichanindividualhastorespond; theyconsequentlyputapremiumonvariationinhisaction. Theysecurealiberationof powerswhichremainsuppressedaslongastheincitationstoactionarepartial,asthey mustbeinagroupwhichinitsexclusivenessshutsoutmanyinterests[13](p. 93). This is a well-known quotation from Democracy and Education, and I hope that putting it in conversationwithDewey’slaterworkonteachingcastssomenewlightonitsimplications. Re-reading thisquotethroughthelensofteachingmakesmethinkofallofthewaysinwhichteachingisnot yet as democratic as it could be. There is not enough collaboration in teaching, and because of this, nascent powers are not liberated; while a teacher may be good—even excellent—in isolation from his or her peers, so long as she remains isolated, she foregoes possibility. A diversity of stimuli—good,bad,neutral—representopportunities-in-action. Interestinrespondingwelltothe varietythatexistswithinaschoolshouldbeateacher’saim. Whilewhatateachercurrentlydoesmay work,Deweywantsustoappreciatetheunforeseenpossiblethatonlycomesaboutbydiversifyingthe contactsoflifethatweinviteandrespondto. Onceweseethis,thenitbecomesamoralimperativetoseekoutdiversity: tocommunicateacross differencesothatourexperienceischanged,andtolistenacrossdifferencesoourstoreofresources expandsanddevelops. AsDeweyfamouslyclosesDemocracyandEducation: “Alleducationwhich developspowertoshareeffectivelyinsociallifeismoral. Itformsacharacterwhichnotonlydoes theparticulardeedsociallynecessarybutonewhichisinterestedinthatcontinuousreadjustment whichisessentialtogrowth. Interestinlearningfromallthecontactsoflifeistheessentialmoral interest” [13] (p. 370). I cannot imagine a better credo for a teacher. Note, it is not that Dewey is claimingthatwewillindeedlearnfromallofthecontactsoflife,butwehavetobeopentothem: wehavetotakeaninterestinlearningfromallthecontactsoflife. Teachinginisolationkeepsthis fromhappening. Whatisneedfulisacommunityofteachers,acommunityforateacherthatextends far outside of the school, a community that allows each teacher to test her beliefs and practices and—whennecessary—readjustthesesothatsheiscontinuouslygrowing. More,thisgrowthcannot remainherprivatepossession: itmustbecommunicated,andthroughtheprocessofcommunication, expandedandbroughtintowhatweholdincommonasteachers. Thisisclearlyanidealisticvision, anditisonethatisoftennotpromoted—oreventhwarted—byshort-sightededucationalpolicies[30]. Asimportantaspolicyandpoliticsare,Dewey—inDemocracyandEducation—returnsustothemoral dimensionsofteaching[31]whicharewithinateacher’scontrol. HereishowDeweyputsit: Educ.Sci.2017,7,11 7of10 the idea of perfecting an “inner” personality is a sure sign of social divisions. What is calledinnerissimplythatwhichdoesnotconnectwithothers—whichisnotcapableof free and full communication. What is termed spiritual culture has usually been futile, withsomethingrottenaboutit,justbecauseithasbeenconceivedasathingwhichaman might have internally—and therefore exclusively. What one is as a person is what one isasassociatedwithothers,inafreegiveandtakeofintercourse. Thistranscendsboth theefficiencywhichconsistsinsupplyingproductstoothersandtheculturewhichisan exclusiverefinementandpolish... Thereisnogreatertragedythanthatsomuchofthe professedlyspiritualandreligiousthoughtoftheworldhasemphasizedthetwoidealsof self-sacrificeandspiritualself-perfectinginsteadofthrowingitsweightagainstthisdualism oflife.Thedualismistoodeeplyestablishedtobeeasilyoverthrown;forthatreason,itisthe particulartaskofeducationatthepresenttimetostruggleinbehalfofanaiminwhichsocial efficiencyandpersonalculturearesynonymsinsteadofantagonists[13](pp.129–130). IseethisasakeytounderstandingDewey’sthinkingbothinDemocracyandEducationandinhis laterworkdiscussedabove. Thoughwemaynotexplicitlyidentifyasadherentsofaspiritualculture, ourmoralsareoftenstillcontrolledbybeliefsthatanimatethatculture:thedramaofpersonalsalvation DeweyexecratesinIndividualismOldandNew. Deweycouldnotbeanystronger: spiritualculture (divorcedfromcollaborative,democraticsocialaction)hassomethingrottenaboutit. Furthermore, though we might not identify our actions as driven by this culture, when we do not seek out the contacts of life with diligence, when we feel complacent with our current state of development, then—Iworry—wearenotlivinguptothepromiseofDewey’sphilosophyofeducation. Insteadof seekingindividualsalvationinisolation,weneedtoworkforademocraticcommunityofteachers. Thissentenceisintendedtocutinmanyways:teachersneedtocollaboratewithteachers,philosophers ofeducation—asteachersthemselves—needtofindwaystocollaborateandlearnfromeachotheras teachersanduniversityprofessors,andphilosophersofeducationcandomoretocollaboratewith teacherstobringaboutsomethinglikethescienceofteachingthatDeweyenvisionedandhopedto bringintoexistence. 3. TowardaDemocraticCommunityofTeachers? In light of the foregoing analysis, I think that Dewey would welcome current reform efforts to develop teaching and core practices of teaching rather than working to cultivate exceptional teachers[2–4,11,17,28,29]. Though there is some risk in uniformity when one develops practices of teaching that are meant to be held common by all teachers, Dewey is quite clear that the risks of going at teaching alone as individuals far outweigh the benefits of working collaboratively—democratically—to improve the practice of teaching. To return to the quotation thatopensthisessay,“Eveninthethingsconventionallyrecognizedassciences,theinsightsofunusual person remain important and there is no leveling down to a uniform procedure ... the existence of science gives common efficacy to the experiences of the genius”. This is the hope. Without a science of education, there is waste and partisanship; when we hold the practice of teaching in common, exceptional teachers are not leveled down. However, there is the expectation that these exceptionalteacherswillseektocommunicatetheirexperiencesothatthisexperienceisbroadenedand reconstructedfortheindividual,asitalsobecomespartofourcommonknowledge. Saying this, Sharon Feiman-Nemser, in an excellent essay on Democracy and Education that directly addresses some of the forms of teacher education that I endorse above [32], is concerned thatphilosophicalaimsmightgetneglectedwhenweteachfutureteachersthosepracticesthatare foundtoworkmosteffectivelyintheclassroom. Theconcernisthatascienceofeducationwilltreat philosophiesofeducationasirrelevantorlackingsufficientutility. Thoughthisisariskthatwewould havetoassessinpractice,beforeshuttingdowntheveryideaofthistypeofproject,wehavetoholdin mindthatDeweywouldneverendorsetheabandonmentofphilosophyintheeducationofteachers. Instead, Dewey wants both: he wants a science of teaching where philosophies of education play Educ.Sci.2017,7,11 8of10 importantroles. However,ifphilosophyofeducationistoplayaroleinthedevelopmentofascience ofeducation,therolemustbeacollaborativedemocraticone. Philosophersofeducationneedtotake aninterestinlearningfromwhatishappeninginclassrooms,andtaketheriskofenactingideasand aimsinthedifficultworldthatisthepracticeofteaching[33]. DeweyputsitthiswayinSourcesofa ScienceofEducation: Itisnotenoughtocriticizethenarrowlimitationsofacceptedendsandvalues.Thisneedful taskisbutthenegativesideofthefunctionofsuggestingnewends,newmethods,new materials. Inperformingthisoffice,provisionofscopeofestimateandliberationofmind comestoahead. Asfarasthephilosophyofeducationeffectsanythingimportant,this is what it accomplishes for those who study it. Ideas are ideas, that is, suggestions for activitiestobeundertaken,forexperimentstobetried[1](p.30). Here is where democratic collaboration becomes exceedingly important for philosophers of education. Itisnotenoughtocriticizeexistingapproachestoteachingorteachereducation;onecando thisrelativelyeffectivelyfromtheoutside,ataremovefromtheworkofschools. Totesteducational experiments, one must have partners willing to undertake those experiments. One cannot dictate thesefromabove;teachers—asnotedabove—aretiredofbeingtoldwhattodo;theyareusedtothis un-democraticprocess. Whatisnecessaryisconversation;ademocraticconversationthateducates eachpartyinvolved. IseeamajoropeningforthisconversationinMaryKennedy’srecentwork,“ParsingthePractice ofTeaching”[5]. Kennedy—likecomplementaryapproachestocreatingascienceofteachingbased oncorepracticesthateveryteacherneedstoenactintheclassroom—listsfivethingsthateffective teachersdointheclassroom: • Theyportraycurriculumcontentinawaythatrendersitcomprehensibletonaïveminds; • Forstudentswhoarenotnecessarilyinterestedinlearning; • Andwhosegraspofthecontentisnotreadilyvisibletotheteacher; • Andwhoarerestlessandeasilydistracted; • Inawaythatsatisfiestheteachers’personalneeds[5](p. 13). However,shegoesonestepfarther. Shearguesthatateachercannotdoallofthesethingsequally wellandatalltimes. Whileeveryteacherneedstobeabletodothesefivethings:sometimesmanaging restless and distracted behavior will be paramount; at others, sparking interest is more important thancontrol,andsoon. Astheliteratureonteachinghasdemonstrated,teachersfacedilemmasthat cannotbe“solved”;theycanonlybemanagedinbetterandworseways[34]. Inadditiontohelping teachersthinkthroughthesedilemmasphilosophically[35],philosophersofeducationcanstudythe newpracticesthatmayemergewhendilemmasaremanagedinwaysthatfeelmore—ratherthan less—successful. Thesepracticescanthenbecomepartofthestoreofknowledgethatwecanteach futureteachers,justlikethefivecomponentsKennedylistsabove. WedonotwantthewastethatDewey’sdescribesinSourcesofaScienceofEducation. Ifteachers findwaystosuccessfullymanagethedilemmaspresentintheclassroom, thiswisdomshouldnot liveanddiewiththem. Rather, philosophersofeducationcandevelopanddeepenconversations with teacher educators, advocating core practices that have yet to be theorized and integrated into teacher education programs. To do this, though, philosophers of education need to see the development of a science of teaching as something worthwhile to create, and think about what it wouldmeantobeademocraticpartnerinitsdevelopment. Iwanttoclosebymakingtwosuggestions. First—andprobablymostsimple—philosophersofeducationcanbegintoengagemorefullywith developmentsinteachereducation,developments—asIhopetohavedemonstratedhere—Dewey wouldbeheartenedby. Theverytitle“Teaching,RatherthanTeachers,AsaPathTowardImproving Classroom Instruction” [11] would—I feel—be intriguing to Dewey. The second—and here more difficult—thingthatphilosophersofeducationcandoistotesthowdemocraticourownworkisand Educ.Sci.2017,7,11 9of10 canbeasteachers. Whenitcomestobelievingintheimportanceoftheexceptionalteacher,wheredo westand? Arewesomeofthegreatestadherentsandaspirants? Ifso,whatmightwelearnbymaking theattempttoseeourworkasdemocraticandnotindividualisticinthesensecriticizedbyDewey? Canwecollaboratedemocraticallywithsecondaryandelementaryteachersifwefindittremendously difficult to even begin collaborating—around teaching and teaching practices—with each other? ThecalltocreateademocraticcommunityofteachersisnotonethatIseeDeweyaskingustofacilitate onthesidelines,asitwere.Itissomethingthathecallsustodotogether,now,asteachingphilosophers ofeducation. Allthisleadstowhatmaybethemostimportantimplicationofthispaper. Ifwehaveahardtime imaginingteachingasademocraticandnotindividualact,thenIthinkweareleftinaninteresting position. We are in a position where we can push past our initial unease and work toward the democraticcommunityofteachersthatDeweyhopestobringintobeing,orwemightfindourselves inthepositionofwonderingjusthowmuchweagreewithDeweywhenitcomestoteachingand teachereducation. Ifmypaperhasdoneanything,Ihopethatithasprovokedthoughtonjustthis point. Thatis,ifmyinterpretationofDeweyiscorrectwhenitcomestowhathehopesforwhenit comestoteaching,thenIthinkthatweshouldeitherworktowardthisvisionorofferthestrongest possiblecriticismofit. Notjustforthesakeofliteratureinourfield,butasameansofspeakingback todominantdiscoursesintheteachereducationliterature. RevisitingDemocracyandEducationthrough thelensofteachingoffersusopportunitiestoenactchangeinthedirectionofDewey’shopeanditalso opensnewavenuesforcriticism. Itismymodesthopethatthecurrentpaperencouragesthiswork, regardlessofthedirectionittakes,becauseIfeelthatitisasimportant,nowasever,thatphilosophers ofeducationhaveavoiceinconversationsaboutteachingandteachereducation. ConflictsofInterest:Theauthordeclaresnoconflictofinterest. References 1. Dewey,J.SourcesofaScienceofEducation.InTheLaterWorksofJohnDewey,Volume5;UniversityofSouthern IllinoisPress:Carbondale,IL,USA,2008. 2. Green,E.BuildingaBetterTeacher;WWNorton:NewYork,NY,USA,2015. 3. Forzani,F.M.Understanding“CorePractices”and“Practice-Based”TeacherEducation:Learningfromthe Past.J.Teach.Educ.2014,65,357–368.[CrossRef] 4. Ghousseini,H.CorePracticesandProblemsofPracticeinLearningtoLeadClassDiscussions.Elem.Sch.J. 2015,115,334–357.[CrossRef] 5. Kennedy,M.M.ParsingthePracticeofTeaching.J.Teach.Educ.2016,67,6–17.[CrossRef] 6. D’Agnese,V.TheEssentialUncertaintyofThinking:EducationandSubjectinJohnDewey.J.Philos.Educ.2016. [CrossRef] 7. Burbules,N.;Hansen,D.TeachingandItsPredicaments;WestviewPress:Boulder,CO,USA,1997. 8. Floden,R.;Buchmann,M.BetweenRoutinesandAnarchy:PreparingTeachersforUncertainty.Oxf.Rev.Educ. 1993,19,373–382.[CrossRef] 9. Jackson,P.FacingOurIgnorance.Teach.Coll.Rec.1987,88,384–389. 10. Jackson,P.PracticeofTeaching;TeachersCollegePress:NewYork,NY,USA,1986. 11. Hiebert,J.;Morris,A.K.Teaching,RatherthanTeachers,AsaPathTowardImprovingClassroomInstruction. J.Teach.Educ.2012,63,92–102.[CrossRef] 12. Dewey,J.IndividualismOldandNew.InTheLaterWorksofJohnDewey,Volume5;UniversityofSouthern IllinoisPress:Carbondale,IL,USA,2008. 13. Dewey,J.DemocracyandEducation.InTheMiddleWorksofJohnDewey,Volume9;UniversityofSouthern IllinoisPress:Carbondale,IL,USA,1985. 14. Lortie,D.Schoolteacher:ASociologicalStudy;ChicagoUP:Chicago,IL,USA,1975. 15. Brewer, T.J.; Myers, P.S.; Zhang, M. Islands unto Themselves: How Merit Pay Schemes May UnderminePositiveTeacherCollaboration.Availableonline:http://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ1065822.pdf (accessedon6August2016). Educ.Sci.2017,7,11 10of10 16. Hargreaves,A.Presentism,Individualism,andConservatism:TheLegacyofDanLortie’sSchoolteacher: ASociologicalStudy.Curric.Inq.2010,40,143–154.[CrossRef] 17. Lewis,C.;Perry,R.;Murata,A.HowShouldResearchContributetoInstructionalImprovement?TheCase ofLessonStudy.Educ.Res.2006,35,3–14.[CrossRef] 18. Emerson,R.W.EssaysandLectures;LibraryofAmerica:NewYork,NY,USA,1983. 19. Dewey,J.ExperienceandEducation. InTheLaterWorksofJohnDewey,Volume13;UniversityofSouthern IllinoisPress:Carbondale,IL,USA,2008. 20. Wittgenstein,L.PhilosophicalInvestigations,4thed.;Blackwell:NewYork,NY,USA,2009. 21. James,W.Pragmatism.InPragmatismandtheMeaningofTruth;HarvardUniversityPress:Cambridge,MA, USA,1978. 22. Dewey,J.MoralPrinciplesinEducationinDemocracyandEducation. InTheMiddleWorksofJohnDewey, Volume4;UniversityofSouthernIllinoisPress:Carbondale,IL,USA,1985. 23. James,W.TalkstoTeachers. InWilliamJames: Writings1878–1899; LibraryofAmerica: NewYork, NY, USA,1992. 24. Doyle, W.; Ponder, G.A. The Practicality Ethic in Teacher Decision-Making. Interchange 1977, 8, 1–12. [CrossRef] 25. Gitlin,A.;Margonis,F.ThePoliticalAspectofReform:TeacherResistanceasGoodSense.Am.J.Educ.1995, 103,377–405.[CrossRef] 26. Santoro,D.A.GoodTeachinginDifficultTimes:DemoralizationinthePursuitofGoodWork.Am.J.Educ. 2011,118,1–23.[CrossRef] 27. Biesta, G. Why “What Works” Won’t Work: Evidence-Based Practice and the Democratic Deficit in EducationalResearch.Educ.Theory2007,57,1–22.[CrossRef] 28. Carini, P.F. Starting Strong: A Different Look at Children, Schools, and Standards; Teachers College Press: NewYork,NY,USA,2001. 29. Morris,A.K.;Hiebert,J.CreatingSharedInstructionalProducts: AnAlternativeApproachtoImproving Teaching.Educ.Res.2011,40,5–14.[CrossRef] 30. Santoro, D.A. Teaching’s Conscientious Objectors: Principled Leavers of High-Poverty Schools. Teach.Coll.Rec.2011,113,2670–2704. 31. Hansen,D.T.ExploringtheMoralHeartofTeaching;TeachersCollegePress:NewYork,NY,USA,2001. 32. Feiman-Nemser,S.ATeacherEducatorLooksatDemocracyandEducation.InJohnDeweyandOurEducational Prospect;Hansen,D.T.,Ed.;SUNYPress:Albany,NY,USA,2006;pp.129–146. 33. Kennedy, M.M. The Role of Preservice Teacher Education. In Teaching as the Learning Profession; Darling-Hammond,L.,Sykes,G.,Eds.;Jossey-Bass:SanFrancisco,CA,USA,1999;pp.54–86. 34. Lampert,M.HowdoTeachersManagetoTeach.Harv.Educ.Rev.1985,55,178–194.[CrossRef] 35. Levinson, M.; Fay, J. Dilemmas of Educational Ethics: Cases and Commentaries; Harvard Education Press: Cambridge,MA,USA,2016. ©2017bytheauthor; licenseeMDPI,Basel,Switzerland. Thisarticleisanopenaccess articledistributedunderthetermsandconditionsoftheCreativeCommonsAttribution (CC-BY)license(http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
The list of books you might like
