J. CURRICULUM STUDIES,
2000,
VOL .
32,
NO .
3, 453 ±466
ESSAY REVIEW
T he resurgence of Dewey: are his educational ideas
still relevant?
KAT HY HYT T EN
Describing his pedagogical beliefs over a century ago, John Dewey
oers a powerful statement about the critical role of education in society.
He writes (Dewey 1975: 94) that `the community’s duty to education . . . is
its paramount moral duty . . . through education society can formulate its
own purposes, can organize its own means and resources, and thus shape
itself with de®niteness and economy in the direction in which it wishes to
move’. Dewey grants education a central role in constructing and shaping
society. T his is an important and profound idea, yet one that has rarely
been at the forefront of educational thinking. In the rhetoric that surrounds
educational reform, we hear much talk of increasingly rigorous academic
standards, more sophisticated and frequent assessments, and heightened
security and discipline. While surely these are important, like so many
school reform eorts, we approach them in fragmented and piecemeal
ways. T hey remain disconnected from a larger vision of education’s social
and moral purpose and, hence, our eorts in these areas are often shallow.
Dewey’s approach to education oers us something dierent. Out of his
rich collection of writings emerges a comprehensive, thoughtful, and
coherent philosophy of education ; one that attends fundamentally to
`why’ questions (e.g. Why set up schools, curricula, and classrooms in
T he books reviewed here are Harriet K. Cuaro, Experimenting with the W orld: John Dewey
and Early Childhood Education (New York: T eachers College Press, 1994) , 144 pp. , $32.00
(hbk) , ISBN 0-8077-3372-5, $16.95 (pbk) , ISBN 0-8077-3371-7 ; Stephen M. Fishman and
Lucille P. McCarthy, John Dewey and the Challenge of Classroom Practice (New York:
T eachers College Press, 1998) , 260 pp. , $46.00 (hbk) , ISBN 0-8077-3727-5, $20.95 (pbk),
ISBN 0-8077-3726 -7; and Laurel N. T anner, Dewey’s L aboratory S chool: L essons for T oday
(New York: T eachers College Press, 1997) , 216 pp. , $46.00 (hbk), ISBN 0-8077-3619-8,
$21.95 (pbk), ISBN 0-8077-3618-X.
Kathy Hytten is an assistant professor in the Department of Educational Administration
and Higher Education at Southern Illinois University at Carbondale, Carbondale, IL
62901-4606 , USA. Her research interests are in philosophy of education, pragmatism,
critical pedagogy, and cultural studies. She has published papers recently in Educational
S tudies, Educational Foundation s and Philosophica l S tudies in Education.
Journa l of Curriculum S tudies ISSN 0022±0272 print/ISSN 1366±5839 online # 2000 T aylor & Francis Ltd
http://www.tandf .co.uk/journals
454
K. HYTTEN
certain ways? Why emphasize particular ideas and knowledges? Why use
some teaching strategies and not others?). Despite the fact that Dewey
wrote the bulk of his work in the ®rst half of this century, his educational
ideas remain timely, relevant, and largely untested in US schools. As we
continually seek ways to revitalize and reform the education we provide for
children, Dewey remains an invaluable resource.
It is dicult to assess the overall impact Dewey has had on US
education. Most US teachers have some passing familiarity with his
ideas, yet attention to Dewey in teacher education seems less and less
common. He is frequently hailed as the father of progressive education and
lauded by those who favour more student involvement and hands-on
learning. At the same time, he is also often targeted by US conservatives
for supposedly watering down academic rigor in schools and for encouraging relativism. Addressing the overall impact of Dewey’s ideas, Noddings
(1995: 24) argues that we have no good way to assess how much his
thoughts have ever in¯uenced practice. At dierent times he has been
`revered, castigated, admired, and ridiculed’. T here are several reasons for
this mixed reaction to Dewey and his ideas. Foremost, he wrote extensively
and widely. His collected works span 37 volumes. In such a large corpus of
writing, without careful and broad reading, it is easy to misunderstand
Dewey ; taking statements and claims out of context and, thereby, altering
his meanings and intentions. T he density of so many of his writings is
equally challenging. Commenting on the struggles of reading and understanding Dewey, Westbrook (1991: xiii) asserts that `knowing a lot about
what his beliefs were is a dicult task, for precision and clarity often
escaped him’. Fishman and McCarthy (1998: 6) concur, adding that
`Dewey presents his educational philosophy in such vague terms that it
takes considerable eort to feel that one has captured the spirit of his work’.
Despite these diculties, the renaissance in interest in his work in the past
decade suggests that rethinking Dewey’s ideas at the present time is,
nonetheless, a worthwhile and fruitful task.
In the past decade, a `new scholarship’ on Dewey has emerged among
academic philosophers (Garrison 1995). Concurrently, scholars in a wide
variety of academic disciplines, from history to sociology, literary criticism
to feminist theory, have also been drawing from , and building upon,
Dewey’s pragmatist thought (e.g. Gunn 1992, Joas 1993, Diggins 1994,
Seigfried 1996). L argely, this new scholarship has focused on his philosophical and theoretical writings, with less attention speci®cally to his
educational work (though this distinction is certainly a tenuous one).
T hree overlapping themes help to characterize contemporary Dewey
scholarship. First, several rich historical accounts of Dewey’s life and his
work have recently been published, including Westbrook’s (1991) intellectual biography, John D ewey and A merican D emocracy and Boisvert’s (1997)
John D ewey: Rethinking Our T ime. Secondly, there is renewed attention to
his social and political thought, and its relevance to contemporary democracy. Arguably, West’s (1989) work has been the most in¯uential in
revitalizing this strand of Dewey’s ideas, suggesting that his call for
intellectuals to be actively engaged in the a airs of the world and in the
construction of a critical democracy is still crucial. Ryan’s (1995) John
THE RESURGENCE OF DEWEY
455
D ewey and the High T ide of A merican L iberalism and Campbell’s (1995)
Understanding John D ewey also focus heavily on Dewey’s political and
social vision. T hirdly, Dewey’s aesthetics have been emphasized by a
number of scholars, in such works as Cherryholmes’ (1999) Reading
Pragmatism, Jackson’s (1998) John D ewey and the L essons of A rt, and
Garrison’s (1997) D ewey and Eros: W isdom and Desire in the A rt of
T eaching.
Perhaps inspired by this interdisciplinary scholarly attention to
Dewey’s ideas, there has also been a renewed, and seemingly still growing,
interest in Dewey’s educational thought. For those of us in education, this
is a fortuitous occurrence, especially as it is critical to ensuring that the new
scholarship on Dewey gains practical relevance. T he idea that philosophy
should make a dierence in how we live our daily lives is fundamental in
Dewey’s thought. He argues that it should help men and women deal with
the problems of their day and create a more harmonious and ful®lling
future. For him, education provides the arena in which to test out the value
of philosophical ideas. He writes (1985: 338, 341) that `education oers a
vantage ground from which to penetrate to the human . . . signi®cance of
philosophical discussions’ , adding that `the reconstruction of philosophy,
education, and of social ideals and methods thus go hand in hand’. T oo
often, in works about Dewey, the central role of education in his thought is
underexplored. Several new books on Dewey help to alter this trend. In
arguing for the importance of their recent book on Dewey’s educational
practice, Fishman and McCarthy (1998: 2±3) suggest that, in spite of the
`current revival of Dewey scholarship’ , few practical studies of Deweyan
theory in actual classrooms have appeared since the 1930s. T hey oer their
book, John D ewey and the Challenge of Classroom Practice (1998) , in
response. T he goals of two other new volumes on Dewey seem similar:
Cuaro’s (1995) Experimenting W ith T he W orld: John D ewey and the Early
Childhood Classroom, and T anner’s (1997) D ewey’s L aboratory S chool:
L essons for T oday. T aken together, these three books oer a powerful
vision of how Dewey’s ideas can help us to rethink our educational reform
eorts so as to bring about enriched educational experiences for children, as
well as a more democratic social order.
T he purpose of this essay is to explore the current value of Dewey’s
thinking in educational reform eorts at the close of the 20 th century. I do
this through an examination of the overriding themes that link the current
educational works on Dewey, drawing speci®cally from Cuaro, T anner,
and Fishman and McCarthy’s new texts. First, I brie¯y describe each of
these books and characterize their areas of focus. Secondly, I develop four
themes in Dewey’s thought, implicitly and explicitly detailed in these texts,
that have preeminent importance to contemporary educational reform.
T hese are the need for a clear philosophy of education and schooling as a
guide for practice, an experimental and experiential approach to education,
curriculum continuity, and a democratic social and moral vision for
schools. T hirdly, I close with a summative assessment of these three new
texts and a brief concluding discussion of the current value of Dewey’s
insights.
456
K. HYTTEN
Con te m p orary De w e y sc h olarsh ip
Each of the three texts discussed in this essay review deal speci®cally with
Dewey’s relevance to contemporary educational practice. T hey touch on all
academic levels, from the early childhood classroom to the university
setting. T heir shared agenda is to show how `Deweyan theory can be
fruitfully applied in ordinary school situations’ (Fishman and McCarthy
1998: 5). In working toward this goal, T anner takes a historical approach.
She not only describes Dewey’s educational ideas, but shows how he
translated them into practice. In her preface, she comments on the
rediscovery of Dewey, lamenting that `many of us already knew about
Dewey and rediscovery was not necessary. What we do need, particularly if
we are teachers or teacher educators, is to know more about the workings of
his experimental school (1896 ±1904)’ (T anner 1997: xi). T anner’s logic is
that, through studying what Dewey did in his own school, we can see how
he bridged theory and practice, and thereby uncover valuable lessons for
today. Her strategy is to explore the daily operations of the school, to look
at its organizational and administrative structure, to analyse the curriculum , and to listen to the voices of the teachers in tracing `what we can learn
from Dewey and his sta as we wrestle with the same problems that they
worked out’ (T anner 1997: xiii). In each of the chapters she oers `lessons
unlearned’ from Dewey’s school: the need to examine deeply educational
innovations in controlled settings, the importance of beginning education
with activities familiar to children, the need to recognize children as
individuals, and the necessity of common planning time and shared
decision making among teachers. T he culmination of the book is a list of
25 elements that would be found in a school implementing Dewey’s vision.
Cuaro and Fishman and McCarthy take a dierent approach to
Dewey, that is, they elucidate how they have individually struggled with,
made sense of , and put Dewey’s ideas into their own practice. In some
ways, they appear to build from the type of lessons that T anner articulates
as they detail their own teaching. Cuaro’s focus is the early childhood
classroom. In her text, she alternates between theoretical chapters explicating important concepts from Dewey, particularly his notions of experience
and the social individual, and practice-oriented chapters centring on
anecdotes from actual classrooms that involve children’s activities with
blocks. She opens by discussing how she came to Dewey after leaving the
classroom and how he helped her to make sense of her own educational
approach: `what I found in this ®rst reading of Dewey was not answers but
a way of thinking about teaching that enlarged purpose’ (Cuaro 1994: 7).
Her book builds toward the conclusion that Dewey remains a powerful
guide for current practice, oering `principles, guidance, a view of human
nature, of learning and growth, and a broad vision of a democratic society
that connected with my preferred possibilities’ (Cuaro 1994: 101).
Fishman and McCarthy’s text also deals with using Dewey in practice,
yet is further unique in that it involves a collaborative, Deweyan approach
to research. Fishman is a professor of philosophy who enlists the help of
McCarthy, a qualitative researcher and composition teacher, in order to
study his own eorts at incorporating a Deweyan approach to teaching in
THE RESURGENCE OF DEWEY
457
his `Introduction to Philosophy’ course. T he ®rst half of the book is
devoted to an exploration of key themes from Dewey’s educational writings, most notably what Fishman calls `nested dualisms’: individual and
group, continuity and interaction, construction and criticism, and interest
and eort (Fishman and McCarthy 1998: 16). After working out how he
perceives Dewey reconciling these dualisms, Part two of the book is a
qualitative study of a semester in Fishman’s teaching. With McCarthy’s
help, they interview students, tape and transcribe class sessions, examine
students’ work, and elicit student feedback on classroom activities and
exercises. T hroughout the portrait of Fishman’s practice, we see him
labouring to connect students’ lives and experiences meaningfully to the
curriculum, to de®ne their own goals for understanding the classroom
material, and to develop habits and dispositions towards future learning.
T heir project is truly a collaborative eort, as they co-write all of the
chapters in Part two and display in their partnership `the very sort of cooperative, intelligent inquiry which Dewey urges us to teach to our
students’ (Fishman and McCarthy 1998: 222). Underlying their eorts is
a belief that our educational practice should be guided by a philosophical
vision that helps us to make sense of what we do in the classroom and why.
T his theme of the need for a philosophy of education is, perhaps, the
strongest link that connects the three books under review.
Ph ilo so ph y of e d u c ation
It is not common that teachers are asked to articulate their philosophy of
education, or even to have one. US teacher education programmes tend to
eschew deep questions about the purposes of education in a democratic
society and about why we do what we do in schools. Instead, they seem to
focus `on a how-to mentality, the acquisition of techniques, and the
meeting of certi®cation requirements’ (Cuaro 1994: 9). T he need to
ground our practices in a well-conceived philosophy of education is a
central theme in Dewey’s educational thought. He (Dewey 1985: 338 ±339)
criticizes educators for somewhat blindly following tradition, suggesting
that `the business of schooling tends to become a routine empirical a air
unless its aims and methods are animated by such a broad and sympathetic
survey of its place in contemporary life as it is the business of philosophy to
provide’. T his need to more ®rmly ground education in a coherent,
articulate, and comprehensive philosophy of education is echoed by contemporary educational critics. For example, Postman (1995) usefully
distinguishes between two types of problems educators need to solve:
engineering ones and metaphysical ones. Engineering questions centre on
how to best do something while metaphysical ones are ultimately more
concerned with why questions. He bemoans the fact that the US seems to
be a nation obsessed with engineering questions (e.g. how to construct the
best tests, lesson plans, organizational schemes) , to the near exclusion of
considering metaphysical ones. Knowing how to do something pro®ciently
is not the same as knowing why to do it in the ®rst place. Without a clear
sense purpose, a philosophy of education, or what Postman (1995: 7) calls a
458
K. HYTTEN
`narrative, life has no meaning. Without meaning, learning has no purpose.
Without a purpose, schools are houses of detention, not attention’.
Both Cuaro and Fishman recognize the need for a philosophy which
can help them to make sense of , and at the same time continually improve,
their teaching practice. Signi®cantly, both came to this realization after
they were already seasoned teachers. In fact, Cuaro opens her book
highlighting this idea:
A basic assumption of this book is my belief that it is essential in teaching
that practice be grounded in a consciously held, critically examined philosophical framework created by the teacher. A philosophy of education
represents the choices, values, knowledge, and beliefs of teachers as well as
their aspirations , intentions and aims. It serves to guide and inspire and
contributes to determining the detail of the everyday life in the classroom
(Cuaro 1994: 1).
She goes on to discuss her own teaching experience ; struggling to ®nd her
way in a public school system where `there was not an articulated
philosophy with which to contend, but regulations, rules that were
seldom open to discussion’ (Cuaro 1994: 4). It was only after she left
teaching for an academic position that she could see Dewey’s ideas bringing
meaning to her eorts in the classroom , helping her to connect `the what of
curriculum with the what for of curriculum’ (Cuaro 1994: 6). Fishman’s
experience was similar. After several decades of university teaching, Fishman altered his teaching approach to be more in line with Dewey’s ideas,
despite the fact that he had been compelled by them for a long time. He
aimed, in particular, to better integrate students’ experiences and the
curriculum through more indirect pedagogical activities. What he found
in Dewey work is `a set of lenses through which to view our classes’
(Fishman and McCarthy 1998: 2) , as well as `a large canvas of educational
guidelines rather than a hardened tablet of teaching techniques and rules’
(Fishman and McCarthy 1998: 67). T aken together, these guidelines
amount to a philosophy of education and a vision of the reasons for using
some strategies and activities and not others.
T he need for a philosophy of education comes out equally in T anner’s
exploration of Dewey’s L aboratory School. In fact, her book provides a
clear vision of Dewey’s philosophy in practice and the lesson that extracts
from his ideas is that teachers must have a clear sense of purpose to guide
their pedagogy. She writes from experience that `teachers are often
expected to master the instructional approaches without any understanding
of the reasons behind them. T his is certain death for school reform’
(T anner 1997: 168). Without an overriding purpose in which to contextualize the curriculum, we are likely to jump from one innovation or fad to
another, typically abandoning them in favour of traditionÐwhich is usually
perceived as good enough. T he primary lesson that Dewey teaches us, and
this lesson is infused throughout these texts, is that teachers and teacher
educators need to pay much more attention to the importance of philosophical purposes. Educators need a deep sense of why before we ask them to
master particular methods or techniques. So, what is Dewey’s philosophy
of education? While clearly there is not the space to outline it in detail here,
THE RESURGENCE OF DEWEY
459
the texts emphasize three key, emblematic features: the need for an
experimental and experiential approach to education ; the importance of
curriculum continuity ; and the necessity of a social and moral vision for
schools. In explicating these elements of Dewey’s philosophy, his contemporary relevance will hopefully be obvious.
Expe rim e n talism an d e xpe rie n c e
Dewey’s attitude toward education, and toward philosophy in general, is an
experimental one. As a pragmatist, he wants us to test out our ideas in
practice, so that we can see their consequences in action and modify them in
order to bring about better results. He created the Laboratory School as an
experimental ground to try out his pedagogical ideas. In this setting, the
teachers could make new discoveries, discard practices that were ineective, and further enhance ideas that worked. When talking about his school,
T anner claims `it had but one purpose: to make discoveries about the
education of the child by putting theory into practice in an experimental
setting and modifying theory by what was learned’ (T anner 1997: 19). She
adds that this experimental approach to education is a lesson not learned in
today’s schools, which are often `shackled by tradition’ and unwilling to
seriously attempt innovations in controlled settings (T anner 1997: 21).
An experimental attitude permeates Cuaro and Fishman and
McCarthy’s relationships with Dewey’s ideas as well. In her work with
early childhood students, Cuaro stresses the educational value of play in
encouraging activity, imagination, creativity, and experimentation. She
argues for providing students with enough uninterrupted time to develop
in-depth involvement with their activities and creations. She describes, for
example, a variety of lessons learned from an experience in which children
constructed a village with blocks and then had to negotiate how to respond
to their classmates racing cars around and through the buildings. Fishman
and McCarthy’s partnership in studying Fishman’s class is itself a paradigmatic example of an experimental approach. Fishman wanted to better
reach and educate his students, so he developed a series of new pedagogical
activities and studied how they worked over the course of a semester.
Relating the method he and McCarthy use in the book to Dewey’s ideas,
they assert `our study implements his notion that school reform rests upon
practitioners capable of experimentation and change’ (Fishman and
McCarthy 1998: 5). For Fishman, this meant moving away from a direct,
lecture-style pedagogy to using more group work, co-operative activities,
discussion, and a variety of writing assignments connected to students’
backgrounds and needs. Ultimately, his exploration meant attending to,
and building upon, students’ experiences.
T he cornerstone of Dewey’s philosophy of education is the importance
of experience. T hus, he (Dewey 1991: 61) writes `that education, in order to
accomplish its ends for both the individual learner and for society, must be
based upon experience’ and, moreover, that he is `con®dent of the potentialities of education when it is treated as an intelligently directed development of possibilities inherent in ordinary experience’. All three of these
460
K. HYTTEN
books attend to the centrality of experience in Dewey’s thought. T hey
build upon his idea that learning is a natural phenomenon that proceeds
from an individual’s engagements with the world. We learn from doing,
interacting, and experimenting with ideas, not from passive reception of
them. Fishman captures this idea concisely, drawing upon Dewey’s statement that `we cannot hand ideas to students as if they were bricks’
(Fishman and McCarthy 1998: 20). What Dewey meant by experience as
the anchor for education is perhaps best seen in his own model school. T he
curriculum in his school was developed around activities with which
students had experience, and moulded into subjects related to real life.
He chose a `civilisational theme’ for his school, intending students to study
and engage in the fundamental activities that comprise a civilisationÐ
gathering resources, cooking, making shelter and clothes, developing
industry, etc. T his curriculum theme emerged from watching children
and, as T anner (1997: 58) suggests, `noting that much of children’s play is
haphazard eorts in miniature to reproduce social occupations’.
Dewey believed that children’s impulses and experiences are tremendously valuable resources for education. Our role as teachers is to build
upon these experiences and to create an environment where students can
make connections to other experiences, construct personal meaning out of
what they are learning, and become open to new possibilities for growth.
Describing the essential importance of experience, Cuaro (1994: 56) oers
that `meaning is not out there, ®xed, outside of self , waiting to be
discovered or delivered. Like mind and self it is achieved, attained, through
action and within a context’. If we understand the importance of experience
correctly, we see that it implies that we have to know our students well and
be open to experimenting with assignments and activities. Cuaro (1994:
43) writes that `we cannot depend on stock responses ; we cannot function
with standardized expectations. We cannot plan exactly how something will
turn out’. For education to be meaningful to students, their experiences
need to be taken seriously, and woven integrally into the curriculum.
Dewey argued emphatically that there must exist a continuity between
the child and the curriculum in order for learning and growth to occur.
T hey must feel vested in their learning and seek knowledge that matters to
them. T his means, as Fishman puts it, that `teachers must encourage
students to ®nd genuine problems which excite their interest, problems
which can be explored and ameliorated by engagements with the curriculum’ (Fishman and McCarthy 1998: 19). T his theme of curriculum
continuity is critical in Dewey’s thought.
Cu rric u lu m c on tin u ity
A common goal in Dewey’s philosophical approach is to reconcile dualisms, that is, to expose the intrinsic connections between things that at ®rst
glance seem separate and distinct. He writes extensively about one such
dualism in education, that between the child and the curriculum. On the
one hand there is an immature, narrowly experienced child and, on the
other, are established bodies of knowledge, grouped into academic subjects.
THE RESURGENCE OF DEWEY
461
It is not uncommon for teachers to see their role as `giving’ this knowledge
to students, often in the form of lectures or textbook-activities. T he
students’ role is then to receive this knowledge, and to display it on
demand, for example, when tested. T he older children get, the more
commonly this banking method of education (Freire 1994) is practised.
Yet, Dewey argues that we must see the student and the curriculum as
integrated for any eective learning to occur. L earning, for him, can never
be a passive a air. It must involve activity and interaction, and allow for
students to make connections between the classroom and the real world. He
(Dewey 1976: 278) writes that curriculum must involve `continuous
reconstruction, moving from the child’s present experience out into that
represented by the organized bodies of truth that we call studies’. T he
relationship between students and the curriculum must be ¯uid, dynamic,
and continuous. Fishman argues that `as Dewey sees it, educational
theorists have neglected the co-dependence of students and curriculum in
their desire to stress either one or the other. It is the educational dualism
which Dewey works hardest to overcome’ (Fishman and McCarthy 1998:
20) .
T he strong emphasis which Dewey places on curriculum continuity is
manifest in the operations of his Laboratory School. As suggested earlier,
he based the school’s curriculum design on activities with which students
were familiar, such as occupations and domestic a airs, and built connections from these to established knowledge bases. According to T anner
(1997: 39) , `what Dewey was saying was that if subjects are related to real
lifeÐwhich is their origin and purpose to begin withÐcurriculum correlation unavoidably results’. Both Cuaro and Fishman aim at exactly this
type of curricular continuity in their practice. In fact, one of the most
valuable aspects of their books is their detailed descriptions of how they
experimented in their own classrooms with establishing clear connections
between students’ lives and interests and curriculum material. In Cuaro’s
early childhood classroom, she continually tried to push children to deeper
insights and connections in their play, and to identify both real problems
and viable solutions. In one extended anecdote, she describes a variety of
social studies learning rooted in a children’s drama around islands. On their
own initiative, the children in the class created imaginary islands on the
classroom ¯oor, on which they constructed schools, hospitals, and businesses. With Cuaro’s questioning, genuine interest, and subtle in¯uence
on their play, they learned, among other things, about geography, travel,
economics, and community-building.
T eachers of older children and adults are able to draw more speci®c
ideas from Fishman and McCarthy’s eorts at achieving Dewey-like curriculum continuity in his college-level Introduction to Philosophy course.
Fishman writes in detail of his eorts at integrating students and curriculum , ®rst failing to involve students’ interests and experiences in the
curriculum, and then tilting the scales too far in the other direction to the
point where students seemed to perceive the sharing of personal, narrative
accounts of their experiences as an end in itself , disconnected from
engagement with course material. He ®nally settled on a pedagogical
strategy more closely aligned with Dewey’s philosophy, what he terms
462
K. HYTTEN
`indirect teaching’. Among the activities he has students engage in are
class-re¯ection logs (where he asks students to respond to class discussions
and activities, and to relate the materials to their lives) , letter-writing
assignments (where students write and respond to letters written by their
classmates about individual struggles they are having with, and/or questions they have about, the readings) , and a ®nal project asking them to write
a philosophical essay about a real personal dilemma they faced. While they
were introduced to a range of traditional and contemporary philosophical
writings throughout the course, learning that material was never simply for
mastery of others ideas. Rather, Fishman wanted them to `employ the
curriculum for their own purposes’ (Fishman and McCarthy 1998: 167). In
so doing, they were able to use classroom material to make sense of , and
thus better deal with, issues in their lives. Dewey would see this as a natural
outcome of curriculum continuity. Moreover, Fishman’s strategy allowed
students to develop important habits and dispositions for future learning,
for example, openness to new ideas, co-operation with peers, and wholehearted re¯ective thinking. T hese types of dispositions are the ones that
Dewey thinks schools should be aiming to develop, particularly as part of a
larger social and moral vision for education. Ultimately, Dewey felt `the
formation of enduring attitudes, which he termed ``collateral learnings’’ is
often the more important learning gained in schools rather than the speci®c
lessons of subject matter’ (Cuaro 1994: 40).
Soc ial an d m oral v ision
In Dewey’s thinking, the actual material that students were learning was
not generally as important as the process they were engaged in while
learning. He feels that perhaps the most important thing that schooling
can do for children is to help them to develop the habits of heart and mind
essential for democratic citizenship. T hese include a willingness to cooperate, to engage new ideas, to think deeply and re¯ectively, to share
decision-making, to work perseveringly, and to serve the community. In
How W e T hink (Dewey 1989: 134 ±139) he talks about the importance of
cultivating the attitudes of open-mindedness, whole-heartedness, and
responsibility in students, for these dispositions allow them to consider
content material, and the world around them, in thoughtful ways. For
Dewey, these are not simply the habits or attitudes of re¯ective thinkers but
also of democratic citizens. He refused to separate what occurs in the
classroom with a larger social and moral vision for schools, arguing that it is
through education that we can reform and recreate society.
T he importance of developing the habits and dispositions necessary to
participate in school and society is a theme that comes up in all three of the
works under review. For example, T anner describes the Laboratory School
as an embryonic community, imbued with a spirit of service, consistent
with his belief that `working together in close association with others on an
activity meant that one’s own work contributed to a common purpose and
could build lifelong habits’ (T anner 1997: 4). McCarthy ®nds Fishman
most successful in helping students develop dispositions towards future
THE RESURGENCE OF DEWEY
463
learning: the ability to work fruitfully with their peers, to tolerate ambiguity and dierence, and to work with integrity and self-discipline. Cuaro
models the development of democratic community in her classroom,
creating an atmosphere that is conducive to communication, the sharing
of ideas, and the welcoming of diversity.
T he importance Dewey places on the development of habits
underscores a more fundamental belief , that is that education is a social
and moral undertaking. He maintains that a moral vision and perspective
should not be in `addition to the existing curriculum but intrinsic to, and
growing out of , classroom life’ (Cuaro 1994: 53). Such a vision should
guide our choice of curriculum material, pedagogical activities, and organizational strategies. In his own school, students were given ample opportunity to work on projects that were of interest to them , and `to think
critically and act on their judgements’ (T anner 1997: 34). A number of
features of Dewey’s school re¯ect his social and moral vision for education:
a community setting, small classes where students are well known, consistent attention to the social signi®cance of subjects, hands-on activity,
genuine problem-solving, shared decision-making, collaborative activity,
and connections to the community outside of the school (T anner 1997:
177 ±178). It is these features of Dewey’s approach that Cuaro and
Fishman model in their pedagogy. What Cuaro established in her
classroom was a miniature democratic society, `built on communication,
participation, and association’ , welcoming of plurality and diversity, and
rejecting of `barriers that divide and exclude’ (Cuaro 1994: 103). T his
type of democratic atmosphere permeated Fishman’s classroom as well,
where students learned to depend on each other, to take responsibility for
helping their classmates to learn, and to integrate the curriculum and
their lives.
One of the things that these books implementing Dewey’s ideas do well
is to give examples of Dewey’s moral vision translated into practice in
particular situations. T hey do not provide blueprints for school reform , nor
a step-by-step approach to integrating Dewey’s ideas into schools. T his
would be inconsistent with his belief that local context matters, and that
there is not one right or best way to do things in schools. What Dewey
oers us instead are broad guidelines and principles, coupled with a clear
sense of educational purpose, not a recipe for success or change. Even his
own Laboratory School was positioned simply as a model or example, not
as the model that should be followed by all schools. Yet, there are shared
features of the educational portraits oered in all three books that bear the
imprint of Dewey’s signature, features which speak to the moral work of
schools. T anner summarizes these well, suggesting that his school was
based on the following overriding ideas:
(1) the school as a social community, which by its nature provides experience
in community life; (2) formation of positive habits of perseverance , precision,
co-operation, and service to the community (instead of emphasis on wrongdoing) ; and (3) teaching each and every subject in a way that brings out and
makes central how people are a ected by it. T here is emotion involved here
as well as intellect (T anner 1997: 169).
464
K. HYTTEN
T here are lessons to be learned here by all educators who want to reach
their students better, to engage them in meaningful activities, and to ensure
that learning leads to growth beyond the classroom walls. In this respect,
the three books point us in the direction of possibilities, providing a rich
source of ideas for improving educational practice. T hey also display the
ongoing relevance and merit of Dewey’s ideas.
De w e y an d c on te m porary e d u c ation al re form
T aken together, T anner, Cuaro, and Fishman and McCarthy provide us
with valuable portraits of teachers experimenting with Dewey’s ideas. In
this goal, they are successful. In each, the reader can walk away with images
of Deweyan pedagogy, as well as some accessible summaries of several of
his relevant philosophical ideas. T he strengths of each are foremost in the
rich descriptions of educational practices provided. T aken individually,
however, their audiences and appeal are more limited. T anner’s depiction
of Dewey’s Laboratory School, interwoven with lessons for today, speaks
largely to elementary school practitioners. While her descriptions of the
curricular continuity Dewey enacted are illustrative, we cannot underestimate the tremendous undertaking it would be to attempt to overhaul
elementary curriculum to establish the kind of continuity and coherence
Dewey imagined. T hough perhaps worthwhile, Dewey’s civilizational
unifying theme would be dicult to translate in a fragmented and postindustrial society. Abating competition, individualism, and the division of
children into grades and classes, all aspects of the L aboratory School,
would be equally dicult. T anner alludes to these diculties when she
suggests that curriculum reconstruction at an existing school is certainly
harder than starting from square one and developing a curriculum that is
developmental and uni®ed at a new school (T anner 1997: 70). T he list of
elements in a Dewey-inspired school that T anner concludes with is a good
summary of key aspects of his educational vision, though readers are likely
to be left wondering how we get from where we are at now to that vision.
T anner does not provide us with answers, only reasons why we should
undertake the challenge of reform, and a vision of what could be.
In her book, Cuaro spends a fair amount of time translating complex
ideas from Dewey’s writings into two important guiding themes: the social
individual and the importance of experience. She explains these well. Her
classroom anecdotes are of very young children typically engaged in
spontaneous play. T eachers of this age-group will ®nd much value in her
discussion of how she culled wide-ranging lessons out of her students’
activities. It is important to note that this takes a very special type of
teacher, one who is experienced and possessing of `sucient knowledge in a
variety of areas so that one may successfully ask the questions that push
children to probe further and deeper’ (Cuaro 1994: 83). Yet, like T anner,
she does not tell us how to cultivate this ability, or speci®cally how to move
early childhood classrooms in this direction. Moreover, teachers of older
children and adults may ®nd it dicult to relate to the early childhood
THE RESURGENCE OF DEWEY
465
classroom , where so much more freedom and experimentation seem
permissible, as there are fewer curriculum guidelines and expectations.
Fishman and McCarthy oer, perhaps, the most speci®c pedagogical
strategies that teachers at almost any level can borrow. T he speci®c
assignments, as well as students’ engagements with them , are characterized
in useful detail. Yet, despite the huge amount of eort Fishman put into his
class, one ends the book somewhat disappointed in that, by his own
admission, he wasn’t highly successful at getting students to link philosophy to their personal lives. Only a few of the students had outcomes he and
McCarthy had hoped for, which may make Dewey’s ideas less persuasive to
readers. With all the data they gathered, they only focus on a few students ;
one is left wondering if these student experiences are representative, and if
so, what they might have done dierently to better engage student learning.
On the other hand, what their book does allude to is the importance of
teaching students the habits of critical and re¯ective thinking early in their
academic careers, since it may be hard to break established patterns of
intellectual passivity and complacency.
On the whole, these three books argue persuasively for Dewey’s
contemporary educational relevanceÐand, thus, are useful resources.
T hey treat his ideas fairly, and invite readers to explore Dewey further.
In this sense, they would perhaps most fruitfully be read in conjunction
with reading Dewey himself. What they do best is to show that Dewey’s
works still have a lot to oer us today. What we can most draw from him is
the importance of having a clear philosophy and vision that guides our
eorts in schools, a willingness to experiment and to discontinue pedagogical practices which leave students passive and unresponsive, and a sense
of the necessary relationship between classroom learning, children’s lives,
and the construction of a better future. Dewey wants us to spend much
more time than we currently do in helping our students to become
interested, con®dent, and engaged in their own learning. T his is something
Americans tend to lose sight of in the call for increased standardization and
national goal-setting. If we can learn anything from Dewey that speaks to
our moment, it is the importance of cultivating the habits and dispositions
for life-long learning and of making classrooms places where children don’t
just have to go, but they want to.
Re fe re n c e s
BOISVERT, R. (1997) John Dewey: Rethinking Our T ime (Albany, NY: State University of
New York Press).
CAMPBELL, J. (1995) Understanding John Dewey: Nature and Cooperative Intelligence
(Chicago: Open Court Press).
CHERRYHOLMES, C. (1999) Reading Pragmatism (New York: T eachers College Press).
DEWEY, J. (1975) T he Early W orks, 1882 ±1889: V ol. 5: 1895±1898 , ed. J. A. Boydston
(Carbondale, IL: Southern Illinois University Press).
DEWEY, J. (1976) T he Middle W orks, 1899±1924: V ol. 2: 1902 ±1903, ed. J. A. Boydston
(Carbondale, IL: Southern Illinois University Press).
DEWEY, J. (1985) T he Middle W orks, 1899 ±1924: V ol. 9: 1916, ed. J. A. Boydston
(Carbondale, IL: Southern Illinois University Press).
466
K. HYTTEN
DEWEY, J. (1989) T he L ater W orks, 1925 ±1953: V ol. 8: 1933, ed. J. A. Boydston
(Carbondale, IL: Southern Illinois University Press).
DEWEY, J. (1991) , T he L ater W orks, 1925 ±1953: V ol. 13, ed. J. A. Boydston (Carbondale,
IL: Southern Illinois University Press).
DIGGINS, J. (1994) T he Promise of Pragmatism: Modernism and the Crisis of Knowledge and
Authority (Chicago: University of Chicago Press).
FREIRE, P. (1994) Pedagogy of the Oppressed (New York: Continuum).
GARRISON, J. (ed.) (1995) T he New S cholarship on Dewey (Dordrecht, T he Netherlands:
Kluwer).
GARRISON, J. W. (1997) Dewey and Eros: W isdom and Desire in the Art of T eaching (New
York: T eachers College Press).
GUNN, G. (1992) T hinking Across the American Grain: Ideology, Intellect, and the New
Pragmatism (Chicago: University of Chicago Press).
JACKSON, P. W. (1998) John Dewey and the L essons of Art (New Haven, CT : Yale University
Press).
JOAS, H. (1993) Pragmatism and S ocial T heory (Chicago: University of Chicago Press).
NODDINGS, N. (1995) Philosophy of Education (Boulder, CO: Westview Press).
POSTMAN, N. (1995) T he End of Education: Rede®ning the V alue of S chool (New York: Alfred
E. Knopf).
RYAN, A. (1995) John Dewey and the High T ide of American L iberalism (New York: W. W.
Norton).
SEIGFRIED, C. (1996) Reweaving the S ocial Fabric: Pragmatism and Feminism (Chicago:
University of Chicago Press).
WEST, C. (1989) T he American Evasion of Philosophy : A Genealogy of Pragmatism (Madison,
WI: University of Wisconsin Press).
WESTBROOK, R. B. (1991) John Dewey and American Democracy (Ithaca, NY: Cornell
University Press).