Ask a question about Dewey/pragmatism. Ask another question that
the chapter provoked related educational research. Comment on someone else’s
question.
My inquiry regarding Dewey’s pragmatism pinpoints the segment that notes, “...this does not mean that reality simply reveals itself to the organism. 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.” I’m curious what constitutes worthwhile “doings” as indicated here; I wonder at what age or level of experience one’s actions, behaviors, and responses ought to be considered a valid “doing” and why and also what implications must be considered or cannot be quantified or objectively examined. As a teacher, I believe that the respective realities for many of my adolescent and teenage students are simply revealed by the everpresent norms of their lives until emotional maturity and worldly curiosity/exploration nudges them to consider the presence and possibilities of other realities their conscious and intentional choices.
Question that the chapter provoked relating to educational research:
What role does fallibilism hold in not only my dissertation, but in my work as a doctoral student and as a professional? If my goal is to use my dissertation and current studies as a means to contribute to a body of applicable knowledge (and if I’m considered an expert based on time and experience in my field), then where is the line between professional expectations of mastery and transparency in the uncertainty of my work?
Your question on fallibilism makes me think about the comments on humility in the first class. While we know, it is necessary to acknowledge that we won't always know or know it all. The instability of our environment means that fallibilism is a huge possibility, one that we must constantly be aware of.
Sandy, I was intrigued by the idea of “doing” as well, but for a slightly different reason. I found the statement “we undergo the consequences of our doings, and try to adjust ourselves accordingly” interesting. It made me think about all the times we keep doing the same things over and over again even though we get the same results. I think that philosophically we may think or attest that we do this, but I’m not sure that we, as fallible humans, do this as often as we would like to think. I think education falls into this trap a lot. We know certain things don’t work, especially for certain populations, yet we keep repeating them.
Hi Sandy, I love that you brought up the idea of fallibility and the potential conflict between mastery and transparency. I agree with Emiola that this ties in to the concept of humility. I believe transparency (and humility) are important facets of research, and are instrumental at arriving at the truth you are seeking.
It seems as though most educational research today is geared toward solving a problem: determining if a specific teaching method or program is effective, how to increase student achievement, ways to quantify and measure student learning, etc. Even though Dewey was invested in research and “action” I wonder how Dewey would feel about educational research today. I wonder if perhaps he would feel we are too concerned with the application of research? Also, there was a question I kept coming back to while reading: if we each construct our own individual world, which has meaning for us (p. 12 of chapter) what does this mean for our ability to generalize research findings? Joy
Your question regarding constructing our individual contexts and how it influences our ability to generalize research findings also appeared as a persistent question during my reading. As I responded to a classmate in the MW section, I mentioned that our individualized experiences adhere unique values, meanings, and attachments bound by time, context, and environment; thus, I wonder the degree to which these influences affect one's ability to shift perspective and maintain objectivity and fluidity to generalize findings so that they equal parts broad yet still effective. I think this is where it helps to maintain a healthy community of peers and professionals from an extensive range of backgrounds and perspectives in order for others to pinpoint what I cannot from their vantage points.
I also had the same thought about how much Dewey focused on the 'individual' and what this means for educational research. I allude to this in one of my questions as well.
If Dewey was around today, I think he would question why more research is not being done on the types of teaching/learning that improve students critical thinking or problem solving skills so that they can contribute positively to their environments. I think he would be more interested in educational research that aims to find solutions to current issues in the society.
“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). However, all habits are not necessarily good, and not all bad habits lead to bad consequences especially if such habits have become a societal norm. For example, gender treatment of girls like giving girls an earlier curfew than boys to ‘protect’ them which many people find acceptable but this may not necessarily be right. My question is how does pragmatism/Dewey account for how such habits shape transactions with the environment?
The chapter highlights how pragmatism establishes the link between the mind and the environment. Dewey refers to this as our experience. But since environments/experiences differ both nationally and internationally, how does this play out with regards to educational research and sharing across environments? Or should educational research conducted in one environment not be beneficial to educators and those being educated in another environment or with different experiences?
Hi Emiola, thank you for your thought-provoking response. I think it is hard for one, even Dewey, to account for the wide-ranging ethical beliefs and cultural norms across societies. However, I too wonder how Dewey would respond to your initial question. As for your second question, the chapter discusses how pragmatists, like Dewey, believe that statements cannot provide individual truths, and thus, interpretations are made based off of shared experiences. If no educational research could ever be generalized, then there is no point to conducting research at the very start! We conduct research for education, not about education (as stated in the chapter), and thus, practical implications must be considered. Although the effectiveness of different practices will vary across environments, we must use what we know and make adaptations, as necessary, in order to continuously better the field. :) Katie
Emiola, I love that you brought up how this perspective would fit with differing national and international perceptions and schools of thought. That idea made me think about how most of our predominant philosophical perspectives are based on Western philosophy, and how that might not mesh with other non-western perspectives.
Hi Emiola, Thank you for sharing your thoughts. I agree with Katie's response. Dewey has continually asserted that our experiences and interactions with our environment shape our versions of truth, and so, to answer your second question, what works for one nation, or one district or even one school or classroom may not work for another. With the possibility of enormous diversity in these education sub-units, children, teachers, staff and principals potentially come from different backgrounds and with differing versions of truth and reality. This is where research becomes essential- to find what works for different people, circumstances (race, SES, gender), and locations. Drawing on my experiences of having completed most of my education in India, it is highly likely that the teaching methods, classrooms settings and even school hours would not work in a country like the US. All these factors are so deeply influenced by lifestyles, climates (weather changes), values, transportation, etc., that the possibility of one universal education research outcome seems like a far-fetched idea.
I found it interesting that the terms “practical” and “pragmatic” are considered largely opposing concepts to theorists like Kant and Dewey, although they are often synonymous in everyday language. As defined in the chapter, pragmatic situations are those where knowledge and action are closely connected, whereas practical situations are those where knowledge and action are definitively separate. In fact, their distinction is the reason for Dewey’s original decision to refer to his theoretical lens as “pragmatism” rather than “practicalism” or “practicism.” However, given the principles of pragmatism, with its heavy emphasis on consequences, scientific practice, and practical implications, I was inclined to conduct an online search to find more concrete distinctions between “pragmatic” and “practical,” not having been satisfied with the ones provided in the chapter. My search led me to find that “pragmatic” predominately refers to a way of thinking, in contrast to “practical,” which refers to people, concepts, objects, etc. (for instance, one would not claim “that girl pulled a pragmatic joke;” rather, one would say “that girl pulled a practical joke”). However, I still do not understand why Dewey would not name his theory an -ism related to the term “practical,” when developing his own philosophy in the first place? Would there have been potential backlash from other researchers that led Dewey to such a purposeful and careful language selection?
Dewey’s theoretical perspective also provides a different approach to understanding knowledge within educational research. In his perspective, Dewey acknowledges the interaction between the organism and its environment, as well as the knowledge that is produced from their transactional relationship. In viewing education from this lens, I think about the recent push for inclusion for students with disabilities into general education settings. Education professionals in support of inclusion largely argue that students with disabilities are more likely to increase their social skills in inclusive settings. Given this understanding (in combination with Dewey’s belief that knowledge is socially constructed from the interaction between organisms and their environments), I am curious if Dewey would be a supporter of inclusion today or if the historical norms of his era, in regards to disability, would overshadow his own beliefs?
Hi Katie...I have spent some time contemplating your questions about inclusion. I think in his historical time period it would have been quite a radical approach to include students with disabilities in the general learning environments. However, I do believe, based on the reading of this chapter and the idea of knowledge is constructed through interaction, that Dewey would applaud today's educators' efforts to provide an inclusive environment for all students, especially those with special needs. These special education students gain knowledge daily from interactions and their own actions reveal this. I think he was a broad thinker and would have wanted to see this environment in action!
Katie, First off thank you for your thoughtful questions. After completing the reading and acknowledging our lens, special education, I too contemplated the same question. He discusses in such great detail and length the relationship between the organism and its environment; thus, my original thought would be to believe that he would support inclusion. Furthermore, like you stated above inclusion allows students with disabilities to interact with an environment which will allow them to grow and develop better social skills. However, after thinking about the second part to your question referencing his time period I stopped to think and play devils advocate for the other side. For example, because inclusion would have been an extremely radical movement for that time would Dewey have seen it from the side of students without disabilities; what would he say about typically developing students and their environment or the interaction of students without disabilities and students with disabilities and how this interaction impacts the environment? I would like to believe he would support inclusion as my belief see the relationship between a student with disabilities and an inclusive classroom as positive; however, due to his time it is challenging to say that he would see it this way. Thank you for this question as it has led me into thinking about many more questions and about the history of education. Kindly, Erin Stehle
Dewey's position on individuals creating their own versions of the truth, reality and the world seems to be in direct conflict with his more complex assumption that individuals are capable of "communicating" by acting together in order to achieve a shared goal. He posits that this can be done by adjusting individual approaches, perspectives and patterns of action in such a way that it coordinates and creates an intersubjective, shared world. I wonder if individual perspectives and worldviews are so flexible as to be molded to conform to or be so highly related to another person's perspectives and worldviews. Or, is the drive for intersubjective worlds and shared goals so high that individuals are willing to disown their subjectivities in order to create a shared goal and/or environment?
Modern science has "stripped the world of the qualities which made it beautiful and congenial to men." (p.17). Dewey asserts that scientific worldview has drastically changed our view of the modern world due to its rigorous methodology and heavy reliance on hard facts. He discusses two equally unattractive options: the inhuman rationality of modern science and the human irrationality of social science or common sense. As a doctoral student in the field of education, it is highly disheartening to imagine these two as the only options. With our ever-growing passion to bring about positive and practical changes in the education system, governing policies and practice, as education researchers, I assume we are striving to find the optimal balance between these two extremes. As practice guides theory in the form of continual contextual revisions and theory guiding practice in the form of a framework, is there no middle ground for such an action driven field to be able to conduct research using commonsensical parameters like experiences through environmental interactions in order to inform practice using rigorous and objective methodologies?
One of Dewey’s thoughts about knowledge incorporates the idea that knowledge and action are working together, that knowledge is not just created for thoughtfulness sake, but rather the knowledge derived should be applied through some type of action on the part of the researcher (p. 9). In class last week, we talked briefly about “action research.” I believe Joy mentioned the idea as it relates to her role as a librarian, and I can certainly agree as a reading specialist. I am doing action research daily, using the knowledge I have gained through formative assessment and taking action in how students are instructed. Would Dewey subscribe to the idea of action research, based on his extensive ideas of pragmatism? (educ.research) Is this an example of what he calls “practical intersubjectivity” (p.13)? (Dewey/pragmatism)
Does Dewey believe that knowledge can eventually get us not only closer to reality but fully understand the reality? Based on my superficial understanding of this chapter, I felt Dewey did not believe that we could fully understand the reality because it is one person's view or experience and the knowledge is constructed and can transform over time. What do you think?
2nd Q on educational research: ...Dewey provide us with a new way to think about knowing and acting, but that this philosophical account is ultimately motivated by an attempt to restore rationality, agency, and responsibility to the sphere of human action. We believe that this perspective is of crucial importance for education and educational research today... Education is a thoroughly human practice in which questions about "how" are inseparable from questions about "why" and "what for." (p.22) For me, I agree with this passage, because it aligns with my idea of what a research would achieve not just knowing why or knowing how, but also have an impact (what for) on the issue that I care deeply. However, if I design an educational research around these three elements, does it become a positivistic research that focuses only on causal relationship?
Hi Zoey. I too am under the impression that Dewey believes that the understanding of reality is a journey that is never truly accomplished. However, it is a constant pursuit that is continuously changing dependent upon what is currently taking place in a person's life.
Hey Zoey, I get what you are saying. As a teacher practitioner I assess and reassess. What is "real" and "works" with the students sometimes changes daily. Dewey's ideas of constant interaction make sense to me, especially in the world of exceptional education. I feel that general education teachers would probably agree as well. There are just some many factors at work in education it is impossible to find a "truth" that works the same way for all.
Angela Allen here... Dewey argues that the intersubjective world is the tool through which individuals adjust their approaches to create a coordinated response (Biesta and Burbles, 2003). However, it is difficult to imagine how social interactions can take place without the transfer of information. How then can practical intersubjectivity only be considered the result of actions versus the combination of actions and transfer of information?
Pragmatists view schools as an education system where students receive experiences of how they will act in the real world. Yet, there are students who excel socially and/or academically in disadvantaged schools and grow older to achieve significant gains in society. How can this transactional realism be used to explain how certain students can social and academically excel in the most disadvantaged and impoverished schools?
According to Biesta and Burbules (2003) one of Dewey's prominent beliefs is the interaction and relationship between the acquisition of knowledge and action. Dewey further explains this and provides a label, transaction, which defines the relationship between an organism (person) and and its natural environment. He believes this transaction is an adaptive process in which the person is continuous maintaining (putting forth action) balance in order to keep afloat in an ever changing environment. It is also noted that Dewey believes that the human is always in touch with reality; however, reality is not just within the human but rather within the human's actions. Therefore this leads me into my questions; 1. What do you believe Dewey includes in the term " environment" ? For example, does the environment include interactions between organism and organism or is it merely an organism and the organism's experiences with its surroundings? It appears to me that transactional pragmatism is based in experiences between how an organism interacts with the world and furthermore, the actions the organisms completes forms that humans' reality and also the acquisition of knowledge to occur in this space. I too believe that knowledge occurs from experience and interactions. How else do you think we acquire knowledge? Can receiving and listening to another human teach be considered an experience or is Dewey mostly referring to a personal interaction between the human and the world (e.g., learning from ones mistakes; speeding and getting into an accident; thus, teaches one not to speed).
2. After completing chapter one numerous questions floated through my mind in regard to educational research and transaction pragmatism. Would Dewey believe more in a learn by doing school rather than traditional lecture? For example, STEM and interactive projects versus professional lecture? Would our students succeed and obtain higher levels of knowledge if we allowed them more time to form their own relationship with their environment (e.g., more time outside)? Look forward to our discussion in class tonight! Kindly, Erin S.
I too wondered if organism and organism interactions were included in Dewey's pragmatism. I am not sure, but I tend to think that our interactions with other people would have to be included as I do not think our realities form apart from those interactions.
I do think that Dewey would argue for more student-centered and interactive learning. It does make me wonder when he would think it was appropriate for teachers to step in in order to provide that "just in time" type instruction to help their students. Where would the line be drawn between teaching students about current science and allowing them to construct their own knowledge?
Erin my mind was in the same place as yours for question two! I’m feeling that Dewey would appreciate experiential learning over strict lecture, but I’m not sure. I think this will be a great question to keep in mind as we read the rest of the book!
As a current practitioner I agree with Dewey when he states that philosophy should be a method, cultivated by philosophers, to deal with the problems of men. I think the act of researching education alone falls flat and only when this knowledge discovered is applied to practice is the power of educational research truly realized. Last week we talked about how action research, which important, is considered lower in the research hierarchy. Would Dewey agree with this placement in the hierarchy? Would he advocate the importantace action research plays in education? Would he even think that it was important?
I spend my research time in the field of maker-centered learning and its implications on the field of education. I wonder if Dewey would be interested in this field of education, since this give the students the opportunity to put their learning into action.
Hey, Matt! I totally concur with your views. The idea that research and knowledge expansion has no (or should have no) direct bearing on practice has always seemed ridiculous to me. Think back to Labaree and his duality in thinking (which Dewey apparently explicitly rejects) and how easily he divides research from practice and how easily he dismisses practitioners who are the ultimate consumer of his work product. I think this duality creates barriers that actually inhibit progress, especially when those who do the research have such a dismissive view of those who implement their work.
At one point in the chapter, the author says, “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” (pg. 11). I think that this is a pretty good summation of pragmatism, but it also brings up some questions. Specifically, if truth is a mix of reality and construction, where is the line drawn? What I mean by this is when can we know if our reality is in fact constructed or a true reality? Can we know? Should we know? Does Dewey advocate that we can never truly know and should always seek out evidence of more accurate realities? I realize that was many more than one question! Sorry! :-)
Question about educational research:
Would Dewey be happy with the current state of educational research? Specifically, would he be disappointed with the lack of dissemination of research due to the pressures of tenured jobs in academia, and would he advocate for there to be more public intellectuals?
I would agree with Brooke that Dewey probably would be disappointed with the lack of dissemination of research due to the pressures of tenured jobs in academia. Moreover, he would be disappointed with some of the quantitative research that tweak the data set because they care more about the statistical reference of p-values than what the results actually mean to educational practices.
Brooke, you pose a great question about Dewey's perception of academe if he were presence. I choose to believe that he would be quite concerned about the pressures that exist and the limiting affect that it can have on research. At the same time, I do wonder if Dewey would view the response of academicians as appropriate because they are adjusting to the expectations of the current academic settings.
Dewey's belief that the uncertainty of knowledge "stems from the fact that we can never be certain that the patterns of action that we have developed in the past will be appropriate for the problems of the future" (p. 13) are especially applicable in present day. When we consider the applicability of research across diverse classrooms, populations, and even countries, it is easy to see the difficulties in arriving at truth or solutions in our modern context.
Because our world is in flux, how do we, as researchers, begin to apply a pragmatic approach? When we consider our very recent issue of "fake news" or information, how do we know what to trust. I found it curious that Dewey decried the lack of modern science in his era, and wonder what his response would be today's devaluation of empiricism.
Question: WWDD - What would Dewey Do? What would he make of the increasingly diverse world we live in?
Hi Vania...I took a similar stance as you regarding about the uncertainty and skepticism that questions the past patterns and their relevance to present-day issues. I think we can even take a look back and see that what was perceived as appropriate practice in the past may not have been as accurate. What I gathered in the previous page (12) is that it takes open-mindedness to establish an intersubjectivity perspective to engage in communication that can critique applicability of arriving at truths and solutions.
Question re: Dewey/Pragmatism I found the premise that Western philosophy diverged into a dichotomy during the Classical Greek period to be interesting. “Dewey’s main point in his reading of the development of Western philosophy was to make clear that the distinction between mind and matter, between the subjective and the objective, and between facts and values is not the inevitable or necessary point of departure for all philosophy” (Biesta and Burbules, p. 20). It seems to be simply the way humans function – everything is either/or, with no true gradations, but has Western thought truly lumbered along for almost 3,000 years without someone at some point challenging this dichotomy prior to Dewey?
Question re: Educational Research This chapter’s take on the union of the “how,” “why,” and “what for” (Biesta and Burbules, p. 22) presents a stark contrast to Labaree’s views. It seems much more efficient for “rationality, agency, and responsibility” (Biesta and Burbules, p. 22) to be part of human action, but have they truly been divorced from human action (as implemented by practitioners) or is this simply the macro view educational “philosophers” (researchers) have toward a practice (education) that they might not have truly experienced except vicariously through the subjects they study?
Dewey’s transactional reality as it related to the subjectivity vs objectivity perspective about knowledge construction was most salient. The author described the belief of either subjectivism/relativism or objective realities/truth derives from a dualistic perspective. Therefore, from a Dewey/pragmatism lens both perspectives fail to take into account how organisms and environments interact which determines their response to reality? Does this mean that pragmatism is an amalgamation of both perspectives? I ask because the author later goes on to state that our experiences occur through our temporal senses or “level of action” before we later develop the language or symbolic forms to express transactions. Immediately, I think about my 14-month-old son and how he interacts with his environment and his lack of language to express how he is feeling about me reading and typing before class. Due to my focus on typing, I missed his regularly cute baby “stuff” which he would normally get a response. In response to the change he cried and began throwing my cell phone across the living room. The author states “what is constructed-over and over again-is the dynamic balance of organism and environment which manifests itself both in specific changes in the environment and specific changes in the patterns of action of the organism.” Regarding educational research, this appears to be an attempt to quantify knowledge from a pure/hard perspective that measures behavior in response to the environment. In theory, I think this would better prepare clinicians and educators with helping students that are in trouble. However, what are some of the practical implications for how this perspective could work in an educational K-12 setting?
I found Dewey’s premise that people find “lines of action’” and practice different forms of this until they use one that is deemed “appropriate.” My question is should we not have a stated qualifier as to what constitutes “appropriate?” Many responses can be reinforced but may not be generally appropriate to most. What is deemed appropriate in not only culturally and socially constructed by formed by the mind. Does Dewey consider the unhealthy mind?
Question on Dewey/pragmatism:
ReplyDeleteMy inquiry regarding Dewey’s pragmatism pinpoints the segment that notes, “...this does not mean that reality simply reveals itself to the organism. 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.” I’m curious what constitutes worthwhile “doings” as indicated here; I wonder at what age or level of experience one’s actions, behaviors, and responses ought to be considered a valid “doing” and why and also what implications must be considered or cannot be quantified or objectively examined. As a teacher, I believe that the respective realities for many of my adolescent and teenage students are simply revealed by the everpresent norms of their lives until emotional maturity and worldly curiosity/exploration nudges them to consider the presence and possibilities of other realities their conscious and intentional choices.
Question that the chapter provoked relating to educational research:
What role does fallibilism hold in not only my dissertation, but in my work as a doctoral student and as a professional? If my goal is to use my dissertation and current studies as a means to contribute to a body of applicable knowledge (and if I’m considered an expert based on time and experience in my field), then where is the line between professional expectations of mastery and transparency in the uncertainty of my work?
Your question on fallibilism makes me think about the comments on humility in the first class. While we know, it is necessary to acknowledge that we won't always know or know it all. The instability of our environment means that fallibilism is a huge possibility, one that we must constantly be aware of.
DeleteSandy, I was intrigued by the idea of “doing” as well, but for a slightly different reason. I found the statement “we undergo the consequences of our doings, and try to adjust ourselves accordingly” interesting. It made me think about all the times we keep doing the same things over and over again even though we get the same results. I think that philosophically we may think or attest that we do this, but I’m not sure that we, as fallible humans, do this as often as we would like to think. I think education falls into this trap a lot. We know certain things don’t work, especially for certain populations, yet we keep repeating them.
DeleteHi Sandy,
DeleteI love that you brought up the idea of fallibility and the potential conflict between mastery and transparency. I agree with Emiola that this ties in to the concept of humility. I believe transparency (and humility) are important facets of research, and are instrumental at arriving at the truth you are seeking.
It seems as though most educational research today is geared toward solving a problem: determining if a specific teaching method or program is effective, how to increase student achievement, ways to quantify and measure student learning, etc. Even though Dewey was invested in research and “action” I wonder how Dewey would feel about educational research today. I wonder if perhaps he would feel we are too concerned with the application of research? Also, there was a question I kept coming back to while reading: if we each construct our own individual world, which has meaning for us (p. 12 of chapter) what does this mean for our ability to generalize research findings?
ReplyDeleteJoy
Your question regarding constructing our individual contexts and how it influences our ability to generalize research findings also appeared as a persistent question during my reading. As I responded to a classmate in the MW section, I mentioned that our individualized experiences adhere unique values, meanings, and attachments bound by time, context, and environment; thus, I wonder the degree to which these influences affect one's ability to shift perspective and maintain objectivity and fluidity to generalize findings so that they equal parts broad yet still effective. I think this is where it helps to maintain a healthy community of peers and professionals from an extensive range of backgrounds and perspectives in order for others to pinpoint what I cannot from their vantage points.
DeleteI also had the same thought about how much Dewey focused on the 'individual' and what this means for educational research. I allude to this in one of my questions as well.
DeleteIf Dewey was around today, I think he would question why more research is not being done on the types of teaching/learning that improve students critical thinking or problem solving skills so that they can contribute positively to their environments. I think he would be more interested in educational research that aims to find solutions to current issues in the society.
“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). However, all habits are not necessarily good, and not all bad habits lead to bad consequences especially if such habits have become a societal norm. For example, gender treatment of girls like giving girls an earlier curfew than boys to ‘protect’ them which many people find acceptable but this may not necessarily be right. My question is how does pragmatism/Dewey account for how such habits shape transactions with the environment?
ReplyDeleteThe chapter highlights how pragmatism establishes the link between the mind and the environment. Dewey refers to this as our experience. But since environments/experiences differ both nationally and internationally, how does this play out with regards to educational research and sharing across environments? Or should educational research conducted in one environment not be beneficial to educators and those being educated in another environment or with different experiences?
Hi Emiola, thank you for your thought-provoking response. I think it is hard for one, even Dewey, to account for the wide-ranging ethical beliefs and cultural norms across societies. However, I too wonder how Dewey would respond to your initial question. As for your second question, the chapter discusses how pragmatists, like Dewey, believe that statements cannot provide individual truths, and thus, interpretations are made based off of shared experiences. If no educational research could ever be generalized, then there is no point to conducting research at the very start! We conduct research for education, not about education (as stated in the chapter), and thus, practical implications must be considered. Although the effectiveness of different practices will vary across environments, we must use what we know and make adaptations, as necessary, in order to continuously better the field.
Delete:) Katie
Emiola,
DeleteI love that you brought up how this perspective would fit with differing national and international perceptions and schools of thought. That idea made me think about how most of our predominant philosophical perspectives are based on Western philosophy, and how that might not mesh with other non-western perspectives.
This comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteHi Emiola,
DeleteThank you for sharing your thoughts. I agree with Katie's response. Dewey has continually asserted that our experiences and interactions with our environment shape our versions of truth, and so, to answer your second question, what works for one nation, or one district or even one school or classroom may not work for another. With the possibility of enormous diversity in these education sub-units, children, teachers, staff and principals potentially come from different backgrounds and with differing versions of truth and reality. This is where research becomes essential- to find what works for different people, circumstances (race, SES, gender), and locations. Drawing on my experiences of having completed most of my education in India, it is highly likely that the teaching methods, classrooms settings and even school hours would not work in a country like the US. All these factors are so deeply influenced by lifestyles, climates (weather changes), values, transportation, etc., that the possibility of one universal education research outcome seems like a far-fetched idea.
Toshna
I found it interesting that the terms “practical” and “pragmatic” are considered largely opposing concepts to theorists like Kant and Dewey, although they are often synonymous in everyday language. As defined in the chapter, pragmatic situations are those where knowledge and action are closely connected, whereas practical situations are those where knowledge and action are definitively separate. In fact, their distinction is the reason for Dewey’s original decision to refer to his theoretical lens as “pragmatism” rather than “practicalism” or “practicism.” However, given the principles of pragmatism, with its heavy emphasis on consequences, scientific practice, and practical implications, I was inclined to conduct an online search to find more concrete distinctions between “pragmatic” and “practical,” not having been satisfied with the ones provided in the chapter. My search led me to find that “pragmatic” predominately refers to a way of thinking, in contrast to “practical,” which refers to people, concepts, objects, etc. (for instance, one would not claim “that girl pulled a pragmatic joke;” rather, one would say “that girl pulled a practical joke”). However, I still do not understand why Dewey would not name his theory an -ism related to the term “practical,” when developing his own philosophy in the first place? Would there have been potential backlash from other researchers that led Dewey to such a purposeful and careful language selection?
ReplyDeleteDewey’s theoretical perspective also provides a different approach to understanding knowledge within educational research. In his perspective, Dewey acknowledges the interaction between the organism and its environment, as well as the knowledge that is produced from their transactional relationship. In viewing education from this lens, I think about the recent push for inclusion for students with disabilities into general education settings. Education professionals in support of inclusion largely argue that students with disabilities are more likely to increase their social skills in inclusive settings. Given this understanding (in combination with Dewey’s belief that knowledge is socially constructed from the interaction between organisms and their environments), I am curious if Dewey would be a supporter of inclusion today or if the historical norms of his era, in regards to disability, would overshadow his own beliefs?
Katie B.
Hi Katie...I have spent some time contemplating your questions about inclusion. I think in his historical time period it would have been quite a radical approach to include students with disabilities in the general learning environments. However, I do believe, based on the reading of this chapter and the idea of knowledge is constructed through interaction, that Dewey would applaud today's educators' efforts to provide an inclusive environment for all students, especially those with special needs. These special education students gain knowledge daily from interactions and their own actions reveal this. I think he was a broad thinker and would have wanted to see this environment in action!
DeleteKatie,
DeleteFirst off thank you for your thoughtful questions. After completing the reading and acknowledging our lens, special education, I too contemplated the same question. He discusses in such great detail and length the relationship between the organism and its environment; thus, my original thought would be to believe that he would support inclusion. Furthermore, like you stated above inclusion allows students with disabilities to interact with an environment which will allow them to grow and develop better social skills. However, after thinking about the second part to your question referencing his time period I stopped to think and play devils advocate for the other side. For example, because inclusion would have been an extremely radical movement for that time would Dewey have seen it from the side of students without disabilities; what would he say about typically developing students and their environment or the interaction of students without disabilities and students with disabilities and how this interaction impacts the environment? I would like to believe he would support inclusion as my belief see the relationship between a student with disabilities and an inclusive classroom as positive; however, due to his time it is challenging to say that he would see it this way.
Thank you for this question as it has led me into thinking about many more questions and about the history of education.
Kindly,
Erin Stehle
Dewey's position on individuals creating their own versions of the truth, reality and the world seems to be in direct conflict with his more complex assumption that individuals are capable of "communicating" by acting together in order to achieve a shared goal. He posits that this can be done by adjusting individual approaches, perspectives and patterns of action in such a way that it coordinates and creates an intersubjective, shared world. I wonder if individual perspectives and worldviews are so flexible as to be molded to conform to or be so highly related to another person's perspectives and worldviews. Or, is the drive for intersubjective worlds and shared goals so high that individuals are willing to disown their subjectivities in order to create a shared goal and/or environment?
ReplyDeleteModern science has "stripped the world of the qualities which made it beautiful and congenial to men." (p.17). Dewey asserts that scientific worldview has drastically changed our view of the modern world due to its rigorous methodology and heavy reliance on hard facts. He discusses two equally unattractive options: the inhuman rationality of modern science and the human irrationality of social science or common sense. As a doctoral student in the field of education, it is highly disheartening to imagine these two as the only options. With our ever-growing passion to bring about positive and practical changes in the education system, governing policies and practice, as education researchers, I assume we are striving to find the optimal balance between these two extremes. As practice guides theory in the form of continual contextual revisions and theory guiding practice in the form of a framework, is there no middle ground for such an action driven field to be able to conduct research using commonsensical parameters like experiences through environmental interactions in order to inform practice using rigorous and objective methodologies?
Toshna Pandey
One of Dewey’s thoughts about knowledge incorporates the idea that knowledge and action are working together, that knowledge is not just created for thoughtfulness sake, but rather the knowledge derived should be applied through some type of action on the part of the researcher (p. 9). In class last week, we talked briefly about “action research.” I believe Joy mentioned the idea as it relates to her role as a librarian, and I can certainly agree as a reading specialist. I am doing action research daily, using the knowledge I have gained through formative assessment and taking action in how students are instructed. Would Dewey subscribe to the idea of action research, based on his extensive ideas of pragmatism? (educ.research) Is this an example of what he calls “practical intersubjectivity” (p.13)? (Dewey/pragmatism)
ReplyDeleteDoes Dewey believe that knowledge can eventually get us not only closer to reality but fully understand the reality? Based on my superficial understanding of this chapter, I felt Dewey did not believe that we could fully understand the reality because it is one person's view or experience and the knowledge is constructed and can transform over time. What do you think?
ReplyDelete2nd Q on educational research:
...Dewey provide us with a new way to think about knowing and acting, but that this philosophical account is ultimately motivated by an attempt to restore rationality, agency, and responsibility to the sphere of human action. We believe that this perspective is of crucial importance for education and educational research today... Education is a thoroughly human practice in which questions about "how" are inseparable from questions about "why" and "what for." (p.22)
For me, I agree with this passage, because it aligns with my idea of what a research would achieve not just knowing why or knowing how, but also have an impact (what for) on the issue that I care deeply. However, if I design an educational research around these three elements, does it become a positivistic research that focuses only on causal relationship?
Hi Zoey. I too am under the impression that Dewey believes that the understanding of reality is a journey that is never truly accomplished. However, it is a constant pursuit that is continuously changing dependent upon what is currently taking place in a person's life.
DeleteHey Zoey,
DeleteI get what you are saying. As a teacher practitioner I assess and reassess. What is "real" and "works" with the students sometimes changes daily. Dewey's ideas of constant interaction make sense to me, especially in the world of exceptional education. I feel that general education teachers would probably agree as well. There are just some many factors at work in education it is impossible to find a "truth" that works the same way for all.
Angela Allen here...
ReplyDeleteDewey argues that the intersubjective world is the tool through which individuals adjust their approaches to create a coordinated response (Biesta and Burbles, 2003). However, it is difficult to imagine how social interactions can take place without the transfer of information. How then can practical intersubjectivity only be considered the result of actions versus the combination of actions and transfer of information?
Pragmatists view schools as an education system where students receive experiences of how they will act in the real world. Yet, there are students who excel socially and/or academically in disadvantaged schools and grow older to achieve significant gains in society. How can this transactional realism be used to explain how certain students can social and academically excel in the most disadvantaged and impoverished schools?
According to Biesta and Burbules (2003) one of Dewey's prominent beliefs is the interaction and relationship between the acquisition of knowledge and action. Dewey further explains this and provides a label, transaction, which defines the relationship between an organism (person) and and its natural environment. He believes this transaction is an adaptive process in which the person is continuous maintaining (putting forth action) balance in order to keep afloat in an ever changing environment. It is also noted that Dewey believes that the human is always in touch with reality; however, reality is not just within the human but rather within the human's actions. Therefore this leads me into my questions;
ReplyDelete1. What do you believe Dewey includes in the term " environment" ? For example, does the environment include interactions between organism and organism or is it merely an organism and the organism's experiences with its surroundings? It appears to me that transactional pragmatism is based in experiences between how an organism interacts with the world and furthermore, the actions the organisms completes forms that humans' reality and also the acquisition of knowledge to occur in this space. I too believe that knowledge occurs from experience and interactions. How else do you think we acquire knowledge? Can receiving and listening to another human teach be considered an experience or is Dewey mostly referring to a personal interaction between the human and the world (e.g., learning from ones mistakes; speeding and getting into an accident; thus, teaches one not to speed).
2. After completing chapter one numerous questions floated through my mind in regard to educational research and transaction pragmatism. Would Dewey believe more in a learn by doing school rather than traditional lecture? For example, STEM and interactive projects versus professional lecture? Would our students succeed and obtain higher levels of knowledge if we allowed them more time to form their own relationship with their environment (e.g., more time outside)?
Look forward to our discussion in class tonight!
Kindly,
Erin S.
Hi Erin!
DeleteI too wondered if organism and organism interactions were included in Dewey's pragmatism. I am not sure, but I tend to think that our interactions with other people would have to be included as I do not think our realities form apart from those interactions.
I do think that Dewey would argue for more student-centered and interactive learning. It does make me wonder when he would think it was appropriate for teachers to step in in order to provide that "just in time" type instruction to help their students. Where would the line be drawn between teaching students about current science and allowing them to construct their own knowledge?
Erin my mind was in the same place as yours for question two! I’m feeling that Dewey would appreciate experiential learning over strict lecture, but I’m not sure. I think this will be a great question to keep in mind as we read the rest of the book!
DeleteAs a current practitioner I agree with Dewey when he states that philosophy should be a method, cultivated by philosophers, to deal with the problems of men. I think the act of researching education alone falls flat and only when this knowledge discovered is applied to practice is the power of educational research truly realized. Last week we talked about how action research, which important, is considered lower in the research hierarchy. Would Dewey agree with this placement in the hierarchy? Would he advocate the importantace action research plays in education? Would he even think that it was important?
ReplyDeleteI spend my research time in the field of maker-centered learning and its implications on the field of education. I wonder if Dewey would be interested in this field of education, since this give the students the opportunity to put their learning into action.
Hey, Matt! I totally concur with your views. The idea that research and knowledge expansion has no (or should have no) direct bearing on practice has always seemed ridiculous to me. Think back to Labaree and his duality in thinking (which Dewey apparently explicitly rejects) and how easily he divides research from practice and how easily he dismisses practitioners who are the ultimate consumer of his work product. I think this duality creates barriers that actually inhibit progress, especially when those who do the research have such a dismissive view of those who implement their work.
DeletePeter W.
At one point in the chapter, the author says, “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” (pg. 11). I think that this is a pretty good summation of pragmatism, but it also brings up some questions. Specifically, if truth is a mix of reality and construction, where is the line drawn? What I mean by this is when can we know if our reality is in fact constructed or a true reality? Can we know? Should we know? Does Dewey advocate that we can never truly know and should always seek out evidence of more accurate realities? I realize that was many more than one question! Sorry! :-)
ReplyDeleteQuestion about educational research:
Would Dewey be happy with the current state of educational research? Specifically, would he be disappointed with the lack of dissemination of research due to the pressures of tenured jobs in academia, and would he advocate for there to be more public intellectuals?
I would agree with Brooke that Dewey probably would be disappointed with the lack of dissemination of research due to the pressures of tenured jobs in academia. Moreover, he would be disappointed with some of the quantitative research that tweak the data set because they care more about the statistical reference of p-values than what the results actually mean to educational practices.
DeleteBrooke, you pose a great question about Dewey's perception of academe if he were presence. I choose to believe that he would be quite concerned about the pressures that exist and the limiting affect that it can have on research. At the same time, I do wonder if Dewey would view the response of academicians as appropriate because they are adjusting to the expectations of the current academic settings.
DeleteDewey's belief that the uncertainty of knowledge "stems from the fact that we can never be certain that the patterns of action that we have developed in the past will be appropriate for the problems of the future" (p. 13) are especially applicable in present day. When we consider the applicability of research across diverse classrooms, populations, and even countries, it is easy to see the difficulties in arriving at truth or solutions in our modern context.
ReplyDeleteBecause our world is in flux, how do we, as researchers, begin to apply a pragmatic approach? When we consider our very recent issue of "fake news" or information, how do we know what to trust. I found it curious that Dewey decried the lack of modern science in his era, and wonder what his response would be today's devaluation of empiricism.
Question: WWDD - What would Dewey Do? What would he make of the increasingly diverse world we live in?
Hi Vania...I took a similar stance as you regarding about the uncertainty and skepticism that questions the past patterns and their relevance to present-day issues. I think we can even take a look back and see that what was perceived as appropriate practice in the past may not have been as accurate. What I gathered in the previous page (12) is that it takes open-mindedness to establish an intersubjectivity perspective to engage in communication that can critique applicability of arriving at truths and solutions.
DeleteQuestion re: Dewey/Pragmatism
ReplyDeleteI found the premise that Western philosophy diverged into a dichotomy during the Classical Greek period to be interesting. “Dewey’s main point in his reading of the development of Western philosophy was to make clear that the distinction between mind and matter, between the subjective and the objective, and between facts and values is not the inevitable or necessary point of departure for all philosophy” (Biesta and Burbules, p. 20). It seems to be simply the way humans function – everything is either/or, with no true gradations, but has Western thought truly lumbered along for almost 3,000 years without someone at some point challenging this dichotomy prior to Dewey?
Question re: Educational Research
This chapter’s take on the union of the “how,” “why,” and “what for” (Biesta and Burbules, p. 22) presents a stark contrast to Labaree’s views. It seems much more efficient for “rationality, agency, and responsibility” (Biesta and Burbules, p. 22) to be part of human action, but have they truly been divorced from human action (as implemented by practitioners) or is this simply the macro view educational “philosophers” (researchers) have toward a practice (education) that they might not have truly experienced except vicariously through the subjects they study?
Pete W.
Dewey’s transactional reality as it related to the subjectivity vs objectivity perspective about knowledge construction was most salient. The author described the belief of either subjectivism/relativism or objective realities/truth derives from a dualistic perspective. Therefore, from a Dewey/pragmatism lens both perspectives fail to take into account how organisms and environments interact which determines their response to reality? Does this mean that pragmatism is an amalgamation of both perspectives? I ask because the author later goes on to state that our experiences occur through our temporal senses or “level of action” before we later develop the language or symbolic forms to express transactions. Immediately, I think about my 14-month-old son and how he interacts with his environment and his lack of language to express how he is feeling about me reading and typing before class. Due to my focus on typing, I missed his regularly cute baby “stuff” which he would normally get a response. In response to the change he cried and began throwing my cell phone across the living room. The author states “what is constructed-over and over again-is the dynamic balance of organism and environment which manifests itself both in specific changes in the environment and specific changes in the patterns of action of the organism.” Regarding educational research, this appears to be an attempt to quantify knowledge from a pure/hard perspective that measures behavior in response to the environment. In theory, I think this would better prepare clinicians and educators with helping students that are in trouble. However, what are some of the practical implications for how this perspective could work in an educational K-12 setting?
ReplyDeleteI found Dewey’s premise that people find “lines of action’” and practice different forms of this until they use one that is deemed “appropriate.” My question is should we not have a stated qualifier as to what constitutes “appropriate?” Many responses can be reinforced but may not be generally appropriate to most. What is deemed appropriate in not only culturally and socially constructed by formed by the mind. Does Dewey consider the unhealthy mind?
ReplyDelete