Please share any questions raised by this book and any
other thoughts you have. While I hope you learned a lot about pragmatism, I am
particularly interested in how the book served to get you thinking about the
nature of knowledge, what there is to know and how all of this relates to
educational research.
Although I do not affiliate my beliefs with a singular theoretical perspective, there are numerous components to pragmatism in which I am in agreement. For example, pragmatism emphasizes the reflection of human thought throughout the meaning making process, it views truth as meaningless without consideration to the human factor and social contexts, and it perceives knowledge as a means to living, working, and acting throughout our communities. As I agree with each of these major points, they also have important implications for my future education research. Firstly, not considering the human factor in education inquiry is a dangerous action, especially in terms of research generalizability and ethics when utilizing human participants in a given project. In order to increase generalizability and ethics, Dewey suggests that practitioners take active, meaningful roles throughout the research process. In addition, pragmatism also stresses the need for shared experiences. When applying this to education research, it is important to make research public in order to understand researchers’ warranted assertions, apply these assertions in new situations, build upon them with new inquiry, and use them for dealing with new problems.
ReplyDeleteA final question raised by this book involves the philosophical interpretations of modern science and religion. Pragmatism argues that all knowledge and “truths” are constructed by humans, and thus, we can only perceive scientific “facts” as things (as they are) that are influenced by the human factor. Considering this philosophical interpretation of modern science, my question is: if scientific facts are merely human constructions applied to specific social contexts, then how is science any different, or more powerful, than religion? How then could Dewey argue that religion is not closer to “reality” than humanly constructed scientific “truths”?
Katie
Those are two really great questions Katie! I would bet that a religious studies scholar would argue that science isn't more powerful than religion. And in fact, I have heard many religious people argue this very thing, that scientists are humans who are making assumptions based on "evidence" that has been interpreted a certain way. As a person with a science background, I have struggled with science/faith questions a lot, and I continue to wrestle with how they fit and coexist.
DeleteMy experience in reading this text made me question several of my built-in and already formalized understandings and explanations of the occurrences of my social world. Although at the beginning of the book I did not expect to agree with Dewey's assertions and philosophy, I found myself agreeing with some if not all. In the final chapter, he mentions that although educational research should not be thought of as a process to "perfect" education practices, I do believe that educational practices can and should be improved using educational research. When several practitioners repeatedly encounter challenging situations and practices across geographies or genders, and within socio-economic strata or races, educational research has the potential to, if not eradicate, minimize problems or improve practices.
ReplyDeleteFurther, the author also suggests that it is highly unlikely that educational reality will remain stable over time (p. 111), and I could not agree more. If the nature of challenges faced by teachers in the past has changed, so should the appropriate "solutions". For example, for several years, it was considered acceptable for teachers to use physical means to force children into compliance, but in the last decade or so, increasing number of parents, teachers and students have spoken up against these practices. As a result, educational research has seen a hike in studies focusing on making practices more efficacious and effective. Whilst I agree with the author's position that the "research agenda" should include aims, ends and purposes, I believe it is crucial that researchers find ways to improve and build on existing practices. Not only is this likely to be more financially viable compared to starting from scratch to develop new practices, it is also ensures a sense of familiarity in teachers with respect to the use and experience with these practices.
Finally, the question Dewey raised in my mind involves his assertion about truth being a social virtue, with its opposite being a lie and not an error. When truth is seen from the lens of a social construct, a lie may be considered the opposite but when one makes a calculation mistake in a long and complex mathematical question and does not get the "true" response, is that a lie or simply an error? Like truth, lie seems more like a social construct with an intention to deceive whereas errors seem like unintentional mistakes not designed for deception or harm.
Toshna Pandey
Hello Toshna,
DeleteI agree with the authors as well that educational reality will not remain stable. Like you I have also seen many teaching practices change over the years but I sometimes wonder like we saw when we examined 'regression to the mean' if new practices/results from research will not over the next few decades revert to what was done in the past or what is being done now depending on how you look at it.
Pragmatism is a perspective that I developed an affinity for when I first studied it in EDUS 702. The first four chapters of Biesta and Burbules (2003) put a bit of a dampener on my developing relationship with it but this fifth chapter rekindled the alliance! My experience from working in a sector that sought to bridge the gap between policy and practice taught me to often ask, ‘why implement certain activities if they do not work or have not been tried and tested in the environment they are being introduced into?’ Paraphrasing a favourite quote, “salt that has lost its saltiness is of no use to anyone”. When Biesta and Burbules (2003) say “Dewey’s point was that inquiry into ends, aims, and purposes of education can be nothing but an integral part of inquiry into the means and techniques of education” p. 109, I believe they were re-emphasizing that there can be no real distinction between educational research and practice. The two are intimately interwoven and should inform each other. But the only way this can truly happen is through collaboration and relationship building; making research and practice a participatory process.
ReplyDeleteBiesta and Burbules (2003), highlight the fact that knowledge is not static. The pragmatist view (Dewey’s pragmatism) is that it results from experience and action, a continuous transaction that leaves both the knower and the known changed. Through this process, Dewey says we make warranted assertions about reality. For me this means that my knowledge of the world and about the world I exist in should influence the type of educational research I engage in. I need to think critically about the world as I know it, what past research shows and predicts about the future. And most essential for me is that the purpose of the educational research should be as important as the research itself. Where the purpose of the research is problem-solving, as all research should be, it becomes a direct indicator to its usefulness and value, keeping in mind that change is continually happening and my research should, while answering questions, also raise questions for future inquiry.
However, while the pragmatic approach to educational research provides a start point from which I can begin to understand my inquiry process, at this point, I am not sure that on its own it is enough to interrogate the type of questions I am looking to answer. As my interests include issues related to citizenship, community partnerships, power and belonging, I think I may need to combine it with another perspective such as critical theory/critical race theory or race, ethnicity and gender. For me, pragmatism is lacking as a lens through which I can examine these issues.
Emiola, I can see how the text provided you with insight into your pursuit to bridge the gap between policy and practice. In this sense, pragmatism is a breath of fresh air because the interconnectedness of the two concepts is permissible. Therefore, it allows us to understand that knowledge can change and past patterned resolutions to problems are not always guaranteed to be consistent for future problems.
DeleteLike Emiolia, pragmatism is a perspective that resonates with me (as well as Critical Theory). I truly appreciated getting a deeper perspective on both the theory and John Dewey's approach to knowledge acquisition. I am not sure I have questions, but I think it was an important exercise for us to consider knowledge and how we make meaning. Rejecting dualism and focusing instead on the transaction and interaction makes sense to me as this conforms with my preconceived ideas that knowledge is not some rigid, static entity to be acquired. Instead, it is contextual and we are always interacting with our environment and reassessing the knowledge that we create.
ReplyDeleteHow does this relate to educational research or my role as a researcher? I hold the view that knowledge is contextual and constructed, that is the result of action and interaction. It follows then that reality is the same. As researchers the truths we seek are contextual and ever changing. What we felt was "true" in education sixty years ago differs in many regards in the present time.
Biesta and Burbules (2003) highlight that pragmatism offers another way to consider the role of theory and practice. Rather than having two rigid structures, both ends of the spectrum should "inform each other" (p. 108). Just as knowledge is transactional, theory and practice should be, as well. This allows the field, and our understanding to evolve and grow.
I have come away from this book with three main understandings of Dewey’s pragmatism. First, Dewey wanted to “demystify” the idea of knowledge and knowing that had evolved from modern (mostly-Western) philosophy. He wanted to get away from this idea that there is Knowledge out there that is separate from and more correct than human ways of knowing. Second, while Dewey values science, he also wanted to take it down a peg. While science is useful and good, it is not the only way to know things, or the right way, greater than human experiences and ways of experiencing the world. Instead, science is one way of knowing and experiencing the world that humans can use to help them think about their experiences. Third, Dewey wanted to do away with the dualistic nature of philosophy, such as the subjectivism vs. objectivism, idealism vs. realism, etc. I think Dewey wanted to take a more moderate view, recognizing that both are important in their own way and each one enhances the understanding of the other.
ReplyDeleteThese three ideas leave me with the following questions about educational research as I move forward. How can I use my research to help uncover new knowledge that is practical and helpful? While I appreciate and may use scientific methods in my research, how can I also account for the differing perceptions of the individuals in my research, and who are affected by my research? Finally, I will strive to stay moderate in my research, and try not to get locked into one method of research, perspective of research, or in the questions that I ask.
Joy: I appreciate the three main understandings that you gained from the text. I particularly like your view of Dewey's approach as a more modernistic view. It is this horizontal approach that places the concepts of the natural and the social on similar platforms.
DeleteBefore reading this book, I thought that knowledge came after reading, discussion, practice, etc. Some action had to take place before knowledge could be gained or change created. But I’ve learned and understand from Dewey’s pragmatic point of view that they can work in tandem, that that one does not have to precede the other. The action could lead to the knowledge, or the knowledge could lead to the action. This point leads the educational researcher to think of the practical implications of the nature of the knowledge: the experiences and actions that lead to reflection or new thinking. I couldn’t help but wonder-with this being such a practical application, why aren’t more educational researchers pragmatists? And what about literacy? How does this impact literacy research? Digging deeper, I discovered that there are many connections between Dewey’s ideas of making meaning from language and inquiry learning. This is a big a-ha for me, as I recall Joy’s comments about school library standards and inquiry in a recent blog post, as well as a conversation I recently had with the lead librarian at my school about guided inquiry design. Next year, we will collaborate to develop a series of lessons that guide students through this inquiry process, but what she’s found in previous lessons using guided inquiry process. For my participation in the “Grab Bag” section, I’m including a link to an article about the Guided Inquiry Design published by Rutgers that outlines the process. What would Dewey say about this process of inquiry to develop knowledge in a collaborative, thoughtful way? http://wp.comminfo.rutgers.edu/ckuhlthau/guided-inquiry-design/ PS You might consider this helpful in the research you are conducting for your discipline paper!
ReplyDeleteThank you for the resource, Julie!
DeleteReading Biesta and Burbules (2003) allowed me to perform a closer examination of the pragmatic paradigm introduced in EDUS 702. I appreciated the careful reading required to work through the text and have a better understanding of critical components related to the ontology and epistemology of the discipline. The constant reinforcement and attempt to clarify terms were beneficial. The text also provided considerations for the idea that knowledge cannot be objective because it is the product of the human mind. “Knowing” is constructed based on the transactions that we experience with our environment and can always be changed based on the context of our inquiry. The authors introduce the term fallibilism to suggest that “we can never be completely certain about our knowledge” (Biesta and Burbules, 2003, p. 13). We can approach problems based on past information, but we can not be entirely sure that the results will be identical to earlier occurrences.
ReplyDeleteI find myself revisiting the interconnectedness of knowledge and action during class discussions and readings. In conducting educational research, we follow sequential steps that are taught and modeled in research. Considering the value placed on publishing contributions to the field of academic research, we learn the required patterns that will land a researcher a published article in an esteemed journal. A significant part of the preparation for this research component is the literature review. This exploratory process provides the researcher with information on existing research that can be used to consider avenues for future consideration. The effort to identify gaps in the literature is where I found the text most thought provoking. In examining the literature for my discipline paper, I am referring back to the pragmatic approach that emphasizes knowledge as a subjective experience. The reinforcement of knowledge as subjective has encouraged me to look more closely at items that I may have previously discounted because I viewed them as objective truths. I have been able to generate more questions for consideration for future research. An increase in questioning was an unintended result of the readings that have indeed been helpful.
From John Marshall:
ReplyDeletePage 114, Biesta and Burbules argue that Dewey’s pragmatism is not a prescription or a set of recipes for the ed researcher, and not even a way of thinking, but a way of “un-thinking false dichotomies” that might be a part of conventional wisdom with regard to research in the educational field. As a thought exercise at the end of this book, I thought I’d use this post to try to list and describe those dualisms that Dewey would want me to “un-think” after reading this text:
1. The dichotomy between the researcher and the practitioner. As someone with a foot in both fields currently, I have felt tension from these two groups that I felt were considered separate by those around me. In an effort to remove the barriers between these two educational actors those in an academic institution seemed to think that the relationship should be one of advisor, where the researcher uses the superior scientifically-gained knowledge to enlighten the teacher or school official. As we have stated, Dewey’s pragmatism wants us to un-think this view.
2. The division of everything into the sphere of ideas and the physical world. Dewey blends these two worlds, using action or the interaction of humans (with all their ideas) with the physical world. Pragmatism rejects and Dewey wants us to move past this platonic separation of worlds.
3. The difference between rational thought and human feelings. This one doesn’t show up much, but I believe that Dewey rejects the notion that these are completely separate, as we seem too have made them in our world, leaving science to deal with one and spirituality the other. This seems to be related to the Deweyian belief that scientific thought is only a another degree of thinking, not a completely separate type of thinking.
4. The sharp division between realism and relativism. Dewey rejects that we have to make a choice between believing either that all reality is merely a construction inside our brains (is the spoon even there?) or that it reality is fixed and that there is a capital-R-Reality. He blends the two, stating that reality is related to interaction and how a thing acts or is used. We don’t have to make a choice when we viewed the picked of paper in class as a soccer ball between YES, everything is one, and NO, it isn’t one. We can decide, based on the situation and the interaction with that object, if it is one in that circumstance.
What other dichotomies or conventional ways of thinking is Dewey trying to get us to “un-think?”
Dewey’s perspective to pragmatism changed my understanding of knowledge on many levels. Before this class, I believed knowledge was socially constructed and information was used as a tool to support or debunk what was believed to be true. However, according to Dewey, the assumption that knowledge provides the information to help inform reality perpetuates the belief that there is a single reality and furthermore one way to act which is dualistic in a sense. Knowledge is related to the actions of people and new knowledge is formed or “opens up new and unforeseen possibilities”. Therefore, this debunks the idea that there is one single way of knowing. Knowledge through this lens informs my approach to research because I formerly believed that focusing on romantic relationships were somehow intrinsically connected to the life trajectory of children from historically marginalized group. Dewey’s perspective of knowledge conveys that with a “transactional approach, knowledge manifests itself first of all in the way in which organisms transact with and respond to changes in their environment”. Therefore, the problem I intend to solve relates to the environment and how people respond to that environment. In addition, there are many elements in that environment that affect the organism or people that will need to be considered to inform new knowledge.
ReplyDeleteDewey’s definition of inference also influenced the way I think about research. He conveys that inference is not bounded by time, space and is distant or even transcendent. Furthermore, we inform what we know by “taking up an attitude of response to an absent thing as if it were present”. Tolerating ambiguity can help us to see outside of our present lens and context which is necessary to create new knowledge. In the field of counselor education regarding social justice, we consider the social problems different populations face, however, physical health and life expectancy are also socially caused. In the literature, there is a dearth of knowledge regarding this aspect of social justice. Therefore, tolerating that ambiguity and even learning to embrace it has helped me approach these issues from a holistic lens.
After completing chapter 5, the first question that struck me was structural: Why didn’t the authors lead with this chapter? It does an excellent job of succinctly presenting Dewey and pragmatism, and it would serve as an effective introductory chapter for the text.
ReplyDeleteA more substantive question revolves around pragmatism and educational practice: Have we abandoned pragmatism for utilitarianism? The current state of educational practice stands at odds to Dewey’s pragmatism. As a reflective, intelligent (or so I tell myself) practitioner in a secondary English classroom, I question the “best practices” that administrators and central office staff impose on classroom teachers. The imposition of these practices from well-meaning but unknowledgeable educational leaders, who are far too common in public education, drive classroom instruction in a quest to achieve higher standardized test scores and graduation rates; reduced absenteeism and disciplinary referrals; and improved school culture and climate. This apparent disconnect between pragmatism and practice leads me to the authors’ interpretation of Dewey’s transactional approach, which contradicts what actually happens in educational settings. They write: “One of the most significant and characteristic implications of Dewey’s transactional approach is that educational research will not result in rules for educational action. Educational research can only ever show us what has been possible in a specific situation – even if that situation was the specific situation of something called a ‘representative sample’ – but it can never tell us once and for all what to do. Educational knowledge, the ‘product’ of educational inquiry, reveals possible connections between actions and consequences” (p. 110). This passage captures an important “truth” (yes, I went there) about the purpose of educational research – the exploration of possibilities to introduce new knowledge to practitioners, which they can add to their “tool box” of resources for possible use in educational settings. I want to emphasize “possible use,” because no single approach will have universal application; however, a new approach might inspire practitioners to develop variations or adaptations that will serve their students in their classrooms. The authors note this as well: “[the] only way in which we can use the knowledge we have is to direct our observations and inquiries and to suggest possible lines of action” (p. 110). But why do we have such disconnect and division between theory (research) and practice? Pragmatism recognizes the dynamic, ever-changing characteristics of knowledge, the importance of action wedded to reflection, the interconnected, overlapping nature of theory and practice, and the communal approach to problem solving. But when educational research trickles down to school divisions, it undergoes strange mutations at the hands of administrators and central office staff who weigh it down with mandated political, economic, and social goals before it finally reaches practitioners and classrooms in a form almost unrecognizable to the theorists who coaxed it into being.
And so here we are, ignoring the guiding principles that pragmatism offers, unaware that “un-thinking certain false dichotomies, certain assumptions, certain traditional practices and ways of doing things…can open up new possibilities for thought” (p. 114). Perhaps the first thing we should do, badly paraphrasing Shakespeare, would be to fire all the educational leaders and erase the boundaries between researchers and practitioners. In practical terms, such a solution could never be implemented. But what could restore intelligence and reflection to educational practice? Must we be slaves to utilitarianism? Should “best practices” and school quality profiles dictate the approaches employed in classrooms? And what can we, as educational researchers, do to put the tools in the hands of the practitioners to help them become the reflective, intelligent practitioners that Dewey and pragmatism envision?
Pete Willis
As I finished reading the Biesta and Burbules text I found myself thinking about the differences between the pragmatic way of thinking and my experiences as a teacher in public education. While turning the pages in the final chapter I was nodding in agreement with what the authors stated as the purpose of educational research, as well as the collaboration that must occur been research and practice in our field. I agree that educational research should not search out a method of instruction, learning, knowing, or anything you would like to substitute here, that should be applied to all situations to all teachers and students. This is not what is seen in the world of educational practice. I am more removed from my previous role as a third-grade teacher, and this thinking is more aligned to my current role. However, thinking to my time in the classroom and how professional development, or even curriculum, was advertised I think to myself...wow. Many practitioners with whom I worked were critical of these new programs sold as, "the next big thing." Admin, or even instructional coaches, did not appear as critical. These programs are often labeled as something that was coming to fix declining standardized scores (because it worked in ____ district), or something that could finally be the answer to the quest for maximum student engagement. My question is not one that can be answered in a blog post, and that's fine, but when will school systems realize that just because something worked in one classroom in one school district that we cannot simply apply this technique to everyone? Utilizing educational research is something that is happening in my school system right now, but it is critical that it is not used as a band-aid fix for larger educational issues.
ReplyDeleteAt the beginning of this book I could have easily stated that pragmatism was not a view that I felt I followed very closely. The majority of my interests and life's work lie in behaviorism. However, after reading through this book I have gained a different and impactful perspective, one of which I believe will benefit my research.
ReplyDeleteBelow I list the ideas that have shifted my perspective and will benefit my future research:
1. Pragmatism is not a solution or a prescription for education, no theory is. We continue to try and find one overlying solution to change/ better our educational systems; however, we need to look at the problems on a more individual basis. Furthermore, education will never be perfect, which is ok.
2. The direction of a relationship and its similarities and differences do not really matter. For example, we should not be spending our time researching the differences in theory and practice. Instead we should be examining how they work together.
3. Knowledge is formed between the cycle of actions and consequences, which is something I find very useful to acknowledge. Knowledge is obtained when we put something into action. For example, if you are sitting in a lecture and learn material but so not act on this material or content than it will not become true knowledge. Also, I find it truthful we learn from consequences positive, negative, or neutral. However, this is not talking about when you are sitting in class day dreaming as this does not equate to knowing/knowledge or action.
4. Bring science down to a more common, everyday understanding. Science is important; I too believe this. However, I believe that we should utilize science is a way that is more commonplace and that more people and communities can comprehend and use.
I have also walked away from this book with several questions, some of which I have listed below.
1. If Dewey believes in actions and consequences, how is pragmatism so far from behaviorism?
2. Its hard not to think after reading this book; what is the point? What are we striving for in educational research? It really makes you address your research and see if what you are doing is actually beneficial.
3. Would Dewey want educational research to be more practitioner friendly and research journals to be more widely assessed? Would he believe that every state, district, and school needs a different form of research/ system?
4. What would Dewey's thoughts be on the development of specialized charter schools?
Look forward to seeing everyone in class.
Kindly,
Erin
As someone who minored in Philosophy in undergrad (and had both classes that I loved and classes that made me question my decision!), Dewey’s pragmatism resonated with me. I always struggled with the necessity of knowing what was “truly real” if we could never really actually know. If we can only be sure of our own reality and couldn’t know if we had dreamed it or if it truly existed, why waste the time trying to figure it out? Dewey’s pragmatism would agree with me in that sentiment. I appreciated Dewey’s “shooting the gap” mentality of subjectivity and reality. While there are obviously constructions that we must share, such as laws or rules, each person has experienced the world differently, so it makes sense that all realities would be somewhat different for them. At the same time, I agree with Dewey in that I cannot side on the anything goes mentality of true subjectivity.
ReplyDeleteI think adopting Dewey’s views on educational research could be extremely productive in the current research culture. I don’t think that practitioner or scholar really appreciate or respect each other at this point, and it is truly detrimental to the education system. Heightened humility on both sides and accepting each other as equals could lead to some great and useful research! The current educational culture is certainly not conducive to this. Unfortunately, teachers are so on edge because they have been made to feel that their jobs are always on the line and, often times, that their ideas are not worthy of being listened to. This creates a defensiveness against scholars or professional developers who come in and tell them how to do their jobs “better.” Immediately, teachers respond with, “Well, you aren’t in the classroom. That won’t work for my students.” I think Dewey would argue that, many times, this is true. We cannot expect research to be perfect and generalizable to all students, but we can take it as an aid to help us find what may work for some students and then try to improve upon it. Scholars could also be more open to this idea that their findings are not set in stone and should be subject to change and interpretation based on the needs of specific classrooms. Understanding that there is no one way and no one “expert” on educational matters could help us all be more open to working together for the betterment of each child.
I enjoyed reading this book. It has not only helped me to confirm some of my thoughts about how to do research, but it has also provided me a novel perspective in looking at research and its relationship with reality and knowledge. What Dewey wanted us to do is very similar to Chinese philosophy of Taoism, except Taoism focuses more on duality. Nevertheless, the transactions or the interactions between the yin and yang are very much similar to Dewey's explanation about what we know, because in Taoist philosophy, the interaction between yin and yang can bring life, change, and new perspective, and thus, there is no death or ending. There is always life and new things to discover. This concept resonates well with Dewey's idea about transaction, knowledge, and what is real, because our research is just a mean or tool for us to get closer to reality, but we can never have a holistic understanding about everything since every issue is so intertwined and convoluted with other issues.
ReplyDeleteMoreover, it balances the relationship between education researchers and education practitioners. Researchers' findings are not authorities and should not have power over teachers' practices. Dewey would also argue that those finds might be interpreted differently by practitioners, therefore, outcomes and how research findings have been carried out might be differently as well.
Despite all these differences that people have about the meaning of education, I think it is critical for these differences to find a common ground and establish some core and firm foundations about what education means to citizens prior to the departure of doing all these these awesome research.
Finally, I think what is science and common sense also provides a humble view about how we interpret expertise and authority. Therefore, this is not just about researchers need to be humble about how we do research, but it is also teaching educators who work with kids and politicians who create those policies to be relevant and respectful. What children bring their day-to-day experience into classes might be equally important to the knowledge that school wants the children to learn. Therefore, heavy testing or SOL tests should not be the sole factor in defining a student's success. Politicians should put lesser effort in promoting those testings, but creating policies that would integrate school knowledge with daily or common knowledge to prepare children for their future. What I want to say is that we need more Deweyan pragmatists in these fields to innovate the education system.
I am concerned about the meaning of education. Is it to produce healthy, happy, productive citizens who are equipped for forge forward? Or is it to teach "test taking"? I believe in accountability. I am just not sure what that should look like. What I do know is that I look around at all the very stressed out children taking and retaking standardized tests, I know there has to be a better way.
DeleteDewey provides an insightful and useful framework for education. His view that educational research and educational practice should be intimately connected is vital to the field if we are to hope for good outcomes. We cannot separate the two. To do so would hinder progress. I like the way he connects science to human interaction and perhaps this was necessary to legitimize his ideas for others. It is interesting to note that when I tell people I am a teacher I get either “teachers are special” or “I don’t know how you do it!” If I tell people I am in a doctoral program I am automatically elevated to a higher realm. I am seen as “smarter.” I am rarely asked what I am studying. I find that interesting and telling. This illustrates the difference in status that we have discussed in class. I can see the separation at work.
ReplyDeleteDewey’s framework makes practical sense to me also in terms of my own education. I learn better through reading, discussing and practical application throughout the process. The old method which I was exposed to in the public school system and even during my undergraduate years consisted of reading, lectures and then….after you have your degree…..going out into the world and applying what you spent all those years learning. Education is a much more hands on process today. I feel that we attempt to use research effectively but there is still such a disconnect. Researchers and educators have not yet forged that collaborative relationship which we need. Things are better. At least we are talking about it. Hopefully, the two groups will form the union we need to better serve our kids. Education is in such turmoil today that we cannot afford to NOT have all hands on deck.
Pragmatism is an approach that assesses the meaning of theories or beliefs in terms of the success of their practical application, focusing on effects and reflecting on meaningful consequences. Pragmatists seek meaning as they relate observable effects to their thinking. The perspective of pragmatism is always real-world practice oriented and problem-centered. My question about pragmatism is that educational psychology studies theories and explores post-positivism a lot. How can we implement pragmatism in a practical way in the educational practice? For example, students’ learning style is proved not valid in ed psych studies, but many instructors are still taking this strategy, which is not right in the view of researchers. I appreciate that the idea that “the improvement of education through educational research cannot be thought of as a process in which educational research provides educational practice with recipes so that educational practice can be “perfected.” I feel we are all in the process of making the practice perfect.
ReplyDelete