My Reaction to Readings for July 9

Regarding “Dewey: Significant Contributor to the Field of Educational Technology”
I’m not sure that the piece really puts it all together. Dewey died well before the personal technology explosion (Pong, IBM PC, Mac, right on up to the Internet, Kindle, IPods, etc.). Yes, he promoted a “linking science,” but is this what he would have imagined? It could be, I suppose, but I’m not sure how well the article makes the case. One thing is for sure, however, and that is that Dewey would have taken great exception to what has happened in some classrooms in the last couple of decades, where the computers got plopped down in front of the kids and they were told “okay, now use ‘em.” I’m sure that is somewhat of an exaggeration, but in some instances, it probably is not to far off. Rightly, Dewey required the presence and well-timed instruction of the teacher. I agree with him that there is a balance to be struck between the freedom of the student to explore and the guidance of the instructor. All in all, I am not sure I am totally comfortable with the degree to which this piece reveres the man. I think I need more information about him, especially regarding the Humanist Manifesto.

Regarding Dewey’s Pedagogic Creed
There is enough here for one to write several books to cover it all. In sum, I find Dewey somewhat inscrutable. I agree with him strongly, at times, such as when he speaks of interest being an indicator of growing power within the student, and that the instructor must watch that interest in an ongoing way in order to understand the student’s capacities. I know exactly what he means. My overarching feelings with regard to him, however, are an unease with the degree to which he deemphasizes the individual and promotes the social, going as far as saying that any attempt at education away from the social sphere is pretty much useless. I wonder what he made of Isaac Newton, who, as I understand it, basically devised Newtonian calculus on his own and kept it secret for years. How did he learn it in the first place, if all real learning is social?

I think I am most uncomfortable when he indicates that the schools are our only hope for real social reform and reorganization: "I believe it is the business of every one interested in education to insist upon the school as the primary and most effective instrument of social progress and reform in order that society may be awakened to realize what the school stands for, and aroused to the necessity of endowing the educator with sufficient equipment properly to perform his task” (Article Five).

Our schools are now controlled largely by government, and increasingly by the Federal government (NCLB, Race to the Top). Most teachers are government employees. Do we want government being the instrument of change that reforms itself, and worse yet, the people, or do we want the people to reform the government, meaning both school and traditional forms of government?

"We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union,
establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense,
promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves
and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United
States of America" (Preamble, U.S. Constitution).

It looks to me like “We the People” are supposed to be in the driver’s seat. How do we do all of the things the preamble says we do? We elect legislators to pass law. What does Dewey think about law?

"I believe that all reforms which rest simply upon the enactment of law, or the
threatening of certain penalties, or upon changes in mechanical or outward
arrangements, are transitory and futile" (Article Five).

"I believe that the community's duty to education is, therefore, its paramount
moral duty. By law and punishment, by social agitation and discussion, society
can regulate and form itself in a more or less haphazard and chance way. But
through education society can formulate its own purposes, can organize its own
means and resources, and thus shape itself with definiteness and economy in the
direction in which it wishes to move" (Article Five).

I think I will stick with the Constitution here, and, well, pretty much everywhere else, too.

Regarding “Google and Wikipedia: Friends or Foes”
Great chapter of Teaching Generation M. I thought it was particularly interesting that Gen M, because of its socially networked learning style, is naturally drawn to Google and Wikipedia (see pages 171-2), which they can easily access and share with their social networks. Talk about social learning! I guess Dewey would have to embrace this, eh?

Bottom line: as article points out on page 173, “…Google and Wikipedia are not going away anytime soon…” I have long felt that we must “place them in the proper context”, as the article argues in the next section. The cautions and recommendations at the end sort well with my thinking. We cannot demonize these resources; there is too much of use in them. We must acknowledge them, but with reservation.