.jpg)
So ... continuing our line of thought into a third day: why is this idea of individually specific concept acquisition (about "dog" or "life-bearing planets" or whatever) important for the philosophy of education?
The answer is that it emphasizes that educators have to meet a child where he is -- where, conceptually, he lives. The temptation, given the old Baconian view of concepts, might be to fill a child's mind with facts and then start showing him how to draw inferences from these facts, in effect drawing up a chart of similarities and differences.
Dewey gives an example from geography, "The first thing to do" on a Baconian view, may be to give a definition of geography itself. Then to define "the various abstract terms ... pole, equator, ecliptic, zone -- from the simpler units to the more complex which are formed out of them; then the more concrete elements are taken in similar series: continent, island, coast, promontory, cape...."
That would all involve giving a child a "cut and dried copy of the logic of an adult," a very inapt and inept way of trying to create those logical adults.
A better approach? Again, not one of Dewey's examples but ... have them watch a couple of episodes of Where in the World in Carmen Sandiego? See the gal enjoying some cosplay in the photo above? She probably knows some geography.
More generally: start where the child is. With his dog Fido. "The direct interest in carpentering or shop work should yield organically and gradually an increase in geometric and mechanical problems. The interest in cooking should grow into an interest in chemical experimentation and in the physiology and hygiene of bodily growth. The making of pictures should pass to an increase in the technique of representation and the esthetics of appreciation, and so on." Trips to grandma's house may plant the seed of interest in geography.
You may all have heard the usual thought cliches about what a disaster Deweyite or "progressive" education has been.
Frankly, what Dewey said about education makes sense to me. Did someone turn it into something disastrous? Maybe. But is there a terrible destructive message in the above line of thought? I don't see it.
I have read some of Dewey, though not on this subject. Some years ago, I also read of Jean Piaget's theory of childrens' development, ie, pre-operational; formal operational and concrete operational stages, etc. The idea(s) expressed by these two individuals might not be considered mutually inclusive in the sense of mutual inclusion, but they have, seems to me, foundation(s) in attainment of experience and education. I don't know if these educators/researchers were contemporaries in any way or for any time period. Their thinking appears to have been similar, even parallel in some respect.
ReplyDeleteYou raise an interesting question. Both men lived long lives and were roughly contemporaries. Dewey, 1859 - 1952. Piaget, 1896 - 1980. Piaget was obviously the younger of them. But they were both world famous in their over-lapping fields of research by 1936, when Piaget received an [honorary] doctorate at Harvard. So that leaves 16 years of overlapping work years when they must both have known of each other. Did they have any contact or mutual influence? I don't know, but it is worth thinking about.
DeleteThank you. I try to connect dots; follow bread crumbs. Origins of thought and action fascinate me. Must be a latent interest in anthropology. Or, something.
ReplyDelete