“I assume that amid all uncertainties there is one permanent frame of reference: namely, the organic connection between education and personal experience; or, that the new philosophy of education is committed to some kind of empirical and experimental philosophy” (25).
As Dewey sees it, in the midst of this conflict between traditional and progressive forms of education, the key dynamic at play is one between education and experience. Dewey is quick to point out that experiences do not just occur in progressive forms of education. He emphasizes the fact that “young people in traditional schools do have experiences” and that “the trouble is not the absence of experiences, but their defective and wrong character—wrong and defective from the standpoint of connection with further experience” (27). In other words, for every experience to be an educational experience it must live on in future experiences. It is not just that true education requires experience but it is the fact that everything depends on the quality of one’s experiences, the most important of which is the ability for one experience to influence a later experience (27). In his own words, “any experience is mis-educative that has the effect of arresting or distorting growth of further experience” (25).
Having broadly defined what he means by experience, Dewey suggests that “education is a development within, by, and for experience” (28). Due to this relationship, the new education requires a philosophy of education based upon a philosophy of experience. I've mentioned this previously.
Despite Dewey’s articulation of the environment surrounding his theory of the importance of a certain type of experience within the framework of education, at this point in his text he has yet to fully describe what an “experience” is (other than that mentioned above). Keeping that in mind, I will analyze his writings based upon what he has covered thus far. Here we go…
I’m thoroughly interested in this idea that experiences can be “mis-educative.” Although I certainly recognize the fact that an experience that in some way influences future experiences in terms of a change in knowledge, skills, allegiances, emotions, behavior, etc. is educational, can’t one learn from an experience that does not produce these results? If such is the case, then what Dewey would consider mis-educative is actually educational in a different manner—a manner in which one learns from encountering a termination of growth and thus seeks a new direction for learning. The key point to investigate here is what Dewey considers to be educational.
Addressing education as a development "within, by and for experience," I love the immersion that Dewey is implying--the fact that to be educated is to submerge oneself within a given experience, to be educated is through experience, and to be educated is to learn for the sake of experiencing. Museums can certainly learn from this in terms of the environment they present to individuals. Are they a place to learn, or are they more than that? Are they places to experience, which experience leads to learning? I hope so, but I know that isn't the case. I see experience as running parallel to exploration. Once we get away from handing over knowledge and begin letting our audiences explore the information we present to them, then and only then can we be in the business of creating experiences of educational value.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
My reading of mis-educative fits with some things you've said in other posts; that is, the type of learning where we've been led to believe that we can only do something one way. Or, worse, that we've taken something from an experience that blocks our future or further interactions with the idea. I like the idea of places to experience, but I wonder if that is going far enough. I wonder if _through_ the place the visitor experiences and thus learns?
ReplyDelete