University of Winchester

Education Studies (Early Childhood Studies)

ES 2307 Theorising Progressive Education

Week 9: Dewey’s arguments about Progressivism (1)

Return to module list.

Last updated 22.11.11.  

Brief summary (look back at your week 1 notes for more detail)

Didactic Education:

·        Assumes a universal methodology which transcends the particularities of the individual (teacher and student)

·        Teaching methods designed to impress a body of knowledge onto the pupil

·        Requires teacher to have secure knowledge of subject

·        Once ‘correct’ method is identified, possible to transfer knowledge from teacher to student efficiently and effectively without being dependent upon the natural attributes and abilities of individual teachers

·        Effective transmission of knowledge requires detailed planning of structured lessons, taught in the appropriate sequence

Progressive Education and Experience

Progressive approaches to teaching and learning arose in response to the rigid structure characterised by didactic methods of education.  In the forward to Emile, Rousseau said that it was written to free children ‘from the traditional academic shackles which had oppressed them’ (Rousseau, 2000: p. xli).

There are many terms used to describe educational philosophies which prioritise the learners’ experience over the requirements of the curriculum. These terms include ‘experiential’, ‘discovery’, ‘child-centred’, ‘informal’ and ‘progressive’ (to name a few).  All of these philosophies share the belief that the learner is at the heart of education and therefore the emphasis in the teaching and learning process should be on the experience of the learner, with an emphasis upon:

·        active participation

·        enjoyment of discovery and the moment of recognition

·        the present

Jean-Jacques Rousseau is usually credited with the first comprehensive argument for experiential education.  Emile offers an explicit statement of experiential ideals in which the child is placed at the forefront of the educational process.  The ‘tutor’ merely supports and nurtures Emile’s development as he matures, whilst appreciating that it is the child’s experience of nature and things that will be his real teacher.  Rousseau’s experiential stance is made explicit in his subsequent demand of Emile’s tutor ‘Do not forget it is rarely your business to suggest what he [the child] ought to learn’ (Rousseau, 1993: p. 170).

However, Rousseau did not put these ideals into practice.  It was John Dewey (1859-1952) who put many of the experiential ideals into practice into the mainstream classroom and was responsible for bringing such arguments to a wider audience: playing a very prominent role in American debates about ‘appropriate’ and ‘effective’ schooling in the 20th Century.  Of experiential education he said ‘…its methods are humane in comparison with the harshness so often attending the policies of the traditional school.’ (Dewey, 1938: p. 24).   

The antagonism between didactic and progressive education is centred on their differing interpretations of the quality and status of the learning they engender.  The proponents of didactic education believe that knowledge can be placed (and retained) in the learner’s memory by a process of instruction that is planned and implemented by the teacher, who, it is assumed, knows what the student needs to learn, and how best to encourage that learning.  Dewey (1963) states that while traditional education is characterised by a notion of the formation of the learner by an external authority, progressive education is characterised by the notion of the development of the learner from within. So, in a didactic system, education is presumed to be essentially a process of imposing a very narrow interpretation of knowledge, and unsurprisingly, many progressivists are unhappy with how, in this context, the teacher exerts control over students. Remember the arguments of A. S. Neill, who wrote ‘The function of the child is to live his own life’ (Neill, 1968: p. 27).        

Arguing for the intellectual and moral superiority of experiential learning over didactic methods Dewey stated,  

‘To imposition from above is opposed expression and cultivation of individuality; to external discipline is opposed to free activity; to learning from texts and teachers, learning through experience; to acquisition of isolated skills and techniques by drill, is opposed acquisition of them as a means of attaining ends which make direct vital appeal; to preparation for a more or less remote future is opposed making the most of the opportunities of present life; to static aims and materials is opposed acquaintance with a changing world.’ (Dewey, 1963: pp.19-20)

Progressivists believe that the child’s natural inquisitive nature will only be thwarted by traditional methods. For example, Pestalozzi argued strongly that didactic education stifles the child’s natural curiosity with what can be disastrous results:

‘Ignorance is better than knowledge that is but a prejudice, a glass through which to view the world.  To arrive at knowledge slowly, by one’s own experience, is better than to learn by rote, in a hurry, facts that other people know, and then, glutted with worlds, to lose one’s free, observant and inquisitive ability to study.’ (Pestalozzi, 1900: p. 35) 

This emphasis upon providing the appropriate conditions and environment for the individual child to reach his or her full potential through exploration and active participation means that for progressivists, ‘teaching’ in the traditional sense has very little use in the educational process. Support for this can be found in Piaget, whose work was very influential in Britain in the 60’s and 70’s.  He argued that:

‘each time one prematurely teaches a child something he could have discovered for himself, that child is kept from inventing it and consequently from understanding it completely.’ (Piaget, 1969: p. 175).     

Didactic education here then, is considered not only ineffective, but also morally unacceptable.

Defining Characteristics of Progressive Education

A progressive approach to teaching and learning is founded in the belief that the individual should be at the centre of the learning process and that, rather than shape the individual to ‘fit’ the ‘correct’ universal methodology of education, education must ‘fit’ the needs of the individual child/student, with an emphasis on:

·        Independence

·        Freedom

·        Difference

·        Empowerment

Progressive education is concerned with the present and the future: therefore, education must be for the child in the present, both in terms of individual development and also in terms of the changing world in which we live. Dora Russell of Beacon Hill, an early progressive school tells us that,

‘The aim of teaching should not be to possess or project ourselves upon he younger generation, nor to teach them dogma, but rather to seek to set them free so that they may – in very truth – create themselves and their opinions and, in time to come, shape their own future and that of the world which will belong no longer to us, but to them.’ (Russell, 1981: p.37).  

The concern for the progressive teacher is to ensure that children engage actively with the world rather than observe it or be instructed about it.  Rousseau justified this position with his argument that children should be encouraged to think for themselves rather than be reliant on the ideas and traditions of society and the adults around them (Rousseau, 1993: p. 156).

As with didactic approaches to teaching and learning, progressive education also has a vision for life-long learning.  But whereas the life-long learning in didactic education involves a universal methodology of teacher-centred instruction, the progressive approach advocates an education that is organised in such a way that the development, of the whole individual (intellectual, physical, social, spiritual and moral) is paramount. The freedom to develop naturally at the child’s own pace is central to the progressive philosophy. Here, Froebel makes the analogy with the need to allow plants to grow and develop in their own way (Froebel, 1985: p. 8) .

Experiential theories of teaching and learning assert that didactic teaching promotes unacceptable levels of imposed passivity and diminished individuality on the part of the learner, which will have a destructive impact upon his or her educational development.  In contrast to this progressivists emphasise the importance of each individual learner’s immediate and authentic experience of learning in an environment which recognises that students learn in different ways and at different rates, and for different reasons.

·        Styles

·        Preferences

·        Experiences

As you know, progressive education became popular in UK state education in the 1960’s.  The notorious Plowden Report of 1967 affirmed the value of discovery methods already being used by many primary practitioners, and most famously concluded that ‘Finding out has proved to be better for children than being told.’ (CACE, 1967: para.123).  We can see a direct connection here with Rousseau’s viewpoint in Emile.

In advocating progressive education its proponents focus not on the details of teaching methods but on the principles they believe should inform the progressive educator’s work.  These include the notion of the learner’s freedom (Rousseau, 1993; Dewey, 1963) the centrality of active learning and in particular, personal discovery (Bruner, 1966) and the significance of the relationship between the teacher and the learner (Rogers, 1969). 

These theorists even, at times, go so far as to ridicule educational theorists and practitioners whose work focuses on the detail of teaching techniques at the expense of discussing the more fundamental principles of education.  Rogers for example states: ‘Teaching is, for me, a relatively unimportant and vastly overvalued activity…’ (Rogers, cited in Entwistle, 1988: p. 229).  Instead, Rogers argues that educators should be concerned with promoting students ability to ‘learn how to learn’ and adapt in a rapidly changing world. 

This is echoed by Dewey’s belief that children can only learn to think for themselves when they experience things as solutions to problems, which is an issue we will consider in more detail in next week’s session. 

Rousseau argued that the didactic teacher nourishes the germ of artificiality in his pupil because ‘he teaches him everything except self-knowledge and self-control and the arts of life and happiness’ (Rousseau, 1993: p.18).   Other promoters of experiential education criticise the static and pre-determined content of didactic education as restrictive upon the individual’s ability to reach his or her full potential.

Dewey referred in a lecture given in 1899 to the ‘harmonious development of all the powers of the individual’ as a member of his/her community (Dewey, 1966: p.34), and more recently, Smith (2005) argues that the ideals of informal education include a commitment to:

1.      Work for the well-being of all

2.      Respect the unique value and dignity of each human being

3.      Dialogue

4.      Equality and justice

5.      Democracy and the active involvement of people in the issues that affect their lives

(Smith (2005) cited at www.infed.org/i-intro.htm)

Dewey asserts that didactic education:

‘… exaggerates beyond reason the possibilities of consciously formulated and used methods, and underestimates the role of vital, unconscious attitudes.  It insists on the old, the past, and passes lightly over the operation of the genuinely novel and unforeseeable.  It takes, in brief, everything educational into account save its essence, - vital energy seeking opportunity for effective exercise.’ (Dewey, 1985: p.77) 

Experiential Methods in Practice

While experiential education emphases the freedom and independence of the learner, this does not equate with license for any (or no) activity on the part of the teacher.  As Dewey said,

‘Just because traditional education [is] a matter of routine […] it does not follow that progressive education is a matter of planless improvisation.’ (Dewey, 1938: p.18).     

Experience is not simply ‘sensational’ (Dewey, 1985), it is entwined with thought – experience stimulates thought as thought stimulates experience.  Experience is a complicated process that involves the continual interaction between incoming information, reflection and thinking. From an experiential perspective, didactic education holds the danger of reifying the past.  Dewey characterised the education in twentieth century America as retrospective and conservative, and responded to this restrictive environment by asserting:

‘…an individual can only live in the present.  The present is not just something which comes after the past; much less something produced by it.  […] the mistake of making the records and remains of the past the main material of education is that it cuts the vital connection of present and past, and tends to make the past a rival of the present and the present a more or less futile imitation of the past.  Under such circumstances, culture becomes an ornament and solace; a refuge and an asylum.’ (Dewey, 1985: p.81).

For Dewey, schools are institutions of a democratic society and should enable each individual not only to develop to their full potential but also to live and work co-operatively with each other.  Thus Dewey’s vision of education was prospective and progressive, with the intention of using the past as a resource for developing the future. 

Experience, for Dewey, is the mechanism by which learning is achieved.  It has passive and active elements, which, when ‘peculiarly combined’ extend and enhance our understanding of the world.  The passive function is the undergoing or reception of experience, and the active function is the initiation of activity.  Dewey is clear that mere activity alone does not constitute the type of experience he is referring to here, because ‘there is no before or after to such experience.’ (Dewey, 1985: p.146).  In other words, such activities do not contribute to the cumulative growth of the individual.  However, when an experience impacts upon the individual and changes them in some way, learning can be said to have occurred.  Dewey argues that learning from experience involves making retrospective and prospective mental connections between actions, their antecedents and their consequences, and states:

‘When we do something to the thing and then it does something to us in return: such is the peculiar combination.’ (Dewey, 1985: p. 146).   

This argument has important consequences for educational practice because it emphases the crucial role that experience plays in cognitive development, thereby highlighting the misguided nature of education that treats pupils as ‘theoretical spectators’ possessing minds ‘which appropriate knowledge by direct energy of intellect’ (Dewey, 1985: p.147) and where ‘Words  […] are  easily taken for ideas’ (Dewey, 1985: pp. 150-1)      

Dewey observes that the assumed separation of mind and body in the didactic approach to education mistakenly perceives bodily activity as an intrusion upon the distraction from, the ‘real’ business of education.  This in turn leads to an abnormal situation where bodily activity becomes divorced from the perception of meaning.  But intellectual development cannot be separated from activity, learners cannot be ‘theoretical spectators’ – to learn, they have to be involved.

Consequently Dewey proposes that the practice of education would be more effective if it was designed to support the development of the learners’ reflective experience.  He states that ‘All thinking involves a risk.  Certainty cannot be guaranteed in advance’. (Dewey, 1985: p.155) and seeks to embrace the perplexity, confusion and doubt that (he argued) didactic education undertakes to eradicate.  In so doing, he wishes to promote the interconnectedness of experience and thinking by stating that experience stimulates thought and that in turn, thinking becomes an experience because it has real significance for the learner. 

Moreover, he proposes a method for promoting and supporting this process.  It starts with the presentation of a problem to the learner(s).  Their initial response is one of ‘conjectural anticipation’ where they make a tentative interpretation of the given elements.  They then proceed to survey all the relevant information systematically so that they can clarify the problem, generate a hypothesis and devise a strategy with which to test it.  They then repeat this process until a satisfactory resolution is attained.  Dewey argues that these procedural steps in responding to a problem that has personal resonance for the learner ensures simultaneously that experience stimulates thought and that thinking itself is turned into an activity. (Dewey, 1985).

This model of educational practice reflects Dewey’s belief that the acquisition of knowledge should not be perceived as an end in itself.  However, this is neither a wholesale rejection on thinking nor a relegation of thinking in relation to action, as Dewey stated:

‘It does not imply that action is higher and better than knowledge and practice inherently superior to thought.  Constant and effective interaction of knowledge and practice is something quite different from an exaltation of activity, for its own sake.’ (Dewey, 1929: p. 37). 

A more accurate interpretation of Dewey’s position on intellectual activity is that it is a complex interaction between two complimentary elements: experience and thought.  He considered that thinking arises out of practical needs, and that it is only through the active, reflective process described above that meaningful knowledge is acquired and progress is made possible.  So, he asserted that in the Dewey school, Life itself should provide the basic experiences that form the education of the child, because this is the only means to achieve a democratic education that secures the safety and dignity of the individual, and ensures the progress of the society.            

This antagonism towards the ‘other’ approach is mutual.  In the 1971 Black Paper dismissal of progressive education it was argued that:

‘…an educated man must have a certain minimum of general knowledge.  Even if he knows very little about science and cannot add or subtract, he must have heard of Mendel and Kepler.  Even if he is tone deaf he must know something about Debussy and Verdi… But I have come across cases in which these names, or their equivalents, have been unknown to undergraduates... It is not a question of useless or obsolete knowledge learnt by rote but of, at lowest, reference points without which it is impossible to navigate the seas of our culture’ (Conquest 1971 cited in Tubbs, 1996: p.41).

It seems then that for every argument we can make for experiential education we can find a counter argument for the didactic and visa versa. 

Are then, the two perspectives genuinely as mutually exclusive as their supporters propose?  Noel Entwistle,  who was until he retiresd Professor of Educaitonal SPychology at Edinburgh University, asserts that this notion of an either/or approach is inaccurate and misleading, and he wishes to present an argument for greater recognition of the potential for compatibility between the two approaches.  He reiterates Ausubel’s argument that didactic methods which lead to reception learning are effective and states that this does not necessarily imply passivity on the part of the learner, because sitting still and listening does not rule out thinking.  While this point is irrefutable it can also be misleading and justify complacency on the part of the teacher, because while the didactic approach does not rule out thinking, it does not inevitably lead to thinking.  As Dewey says, it is also possible (perhaps for Dewey probable) that:

‘Learning here means acquisition of what already is incorporated in books and in the heads of elders.  Moreover, that which is taught is thought of as essentially static.  It is taught as a finished product, with little regard either to the ways in which it was originally built up or to changes that will surely occur in the future.’ (Dewey, 1963: p. 19). 

You should be aware by now that this is a never-ending argument, and that Entwistle is probably mistaken to suggest that the two approaches, certainly in their most extreme interpretations, are anything other than fundamentally opposed. However, his second argument is more powerful, that is that no teacher uses one approach exclusively.

‘…in real classrooms there are few teachers who use all the methods associated with formal teaching, or all the ways in which pupil freedom and initiative can be fostered.’ (Entwistle, 1978: p. 233)

Furthermore, he wants to dismiss the ‘either/or’ dualisms presented by the ongoing tensions between didactic and experiential educators.  He states that the most effective teaching approaches for enabling learners to think logically and speculatively, holistically and in detail, curiously and critically ‘may be those which use the styles in alternation, in a way which best suits the specific situation.’ (Entwistle, 1988: p. 221). This leads him to conclude:

 ‘Versatility in teaching is essential... It is likely that teachers will have to alternate between structure and freedom, providing an overall structure but allowing enough individual choice for the more autonomous pupils... The message which has come through repeatedly is that no extreme style of teaching can be expected to be suitable for the majority of pupils.’

(Entwistle, 1988: 242)

de Guimps, R. (1900) ‘Pestalozzi’s elementary method’ Life of Pestalozzi (2nd Edition) London: Swan Sonnenschein Ltd. Ch. XXI

Dewey, J. (1916) Democracy and Education New York: Macmillan and Co

Dewey, J. (1933) How we Think, Boston: D. C. Heath and Co

Dewey, J. (1929) The Quest for Certainty New York: Minton, Balch and Co

Dewey, J. (1933) How we Think, Boston: D. C. Heath and CoDewey, J. (1938) Experience and Education New York: Collier Books

Dewey, J. (1985) ‘Experience and Thinking’ Democracy and Education 1916. The Middle Works 1899-1924 Volume 4 (ed. J. Boydston) Carbondale and Edwardsville: Southern Illinois Press

Entwistle, N. (2000) Styles of Learning and Teaching  

Froebel, F. (1885) The Education of Man London: D. Appleton-Century Co

Neill, A.S.(1968) Summerhill London: Penguin

Piaget, J. and Inhelder, B. (1969) The Psychology of the Child London: Routledge and Kegan Paul

Rogers, C. (1969) Freedom to Learn New York: Harper and Row

Rousseau, J-J (1993) Emile London: Dent

Rousseau, J. (2000) Emile London: Everyman

Russell, D. (1981) The Tamarisk Tree 2 London: Virago

Tubbs, N. (1996) The New Teacher: an introduction to teaching in comprehensive education, London: David Fulton