We are all different. You and I are not the same.

“Responsibility for selecting objective conditions carries with it, then, the responsibility for understanding the needs and capacities of the individuals who are learning at a given time. It is not enough that certain materials and methods have proved effective with other individuals at other times. There must be a reason for thinking that they will function in generating an experience that has educative quality with particular individuals at a particular time” (45-46).

I was waiting for this point to be brought up in Dewey’s writings, and sure enough I just had to be patient. Given what has been stated over and over again (sorry, Elee) about individuals carrying with themselves their own “composition of experience” distinct from that of any other individual in the world, we must not assume that one answer fits all when we speak of education. As Dewey asserts, “the principle of interaction makes it clear that failure of adaptation of material to needs and capacities of individuals may cause an experience to be non-educative quite as much as failure of an individual to adapt himself to the materials” (46-47). I think this concept deserves some investigation.

One of Dewey’s major criticisms of traditional education is the fact that it assumes that there are some subjects or methods of teaching that inherently possess a certain educational value, thus leading to the condensing of information into pre-packaged, or “digested materials” (46). In this scenario, what the educators are forgetting is that their ability to mold the learning environment of their students is not the only variable at play; the students carry with them several variables that have an effect on how educational an experience is. Therefore, does it not make sense that in order for this process of education to fully take place to its maximum influence that the individuality of the student is emphasized—meaning that we come to know the individuals we serve and then serve them according to their needs? Undoubtedly, we cannot view every scenario in the same way, for the environmental factors of influence and the individuals involved are different across varying situations.

Having been in museums for a little while now, I have seen how the principles relating to traditional education have translated over to this setting. Many times program plans are based off a template that is a) out-dated b) does not take into account the individuality of the visitor. I have long been an advocate of the visitor, not only in terms of ability but in terms of potential. First, we need to have faith in the visitor. Then, we need to understand them and articulate their needs. Lastly, we must find ways to educate them in ways that fit their needs, and we must continue this cyclical progress as time progresses and our students needs inevitably change. This requires extra effort on the part of the educator. But, let’s think about this. If we are not customizing the education we are providing to those that we teach, can we even say we are educating? All would then be in vain.