Moral Principles in Education

by John Dewey, Dr. Sidney Hook Ph.D. (Preface)

Professor John Dewey (1859-1952) was an American philosopher, psychologist, and educational reformer, whose thoughts and ideas have been greatly influential in the United States and around the world. He, along with Charles Sanders Peirce and William James, is recognized as one of the founders of the philosophical school of Pragmatism. He is also known as the father of functional psychology; he was a leading representative of the progressive movement in U. S. schooling during the first half of the 20th century. Along with the historian Charles Beard, economists Thorstein Veblen and James Harvey Robinson, Dewey is one of the founders of The New School for Social Research. Dewey's most significant writings were The Reflex Arc Concept in Psychology (1896), a critique of a standard psychological concept and the basis of all his further work; Human Nature and Conduct (1922), a study of the role of habit in human behaviour; The Public and its Problems (1927), a defense of democracy; Experience and Nature (1925), Dewey's most "metaphysical" statement; Art as Experience (1934), Dewey's major work on aesthetics and A Common Faith (1934), a humanistic study of religion.

Genres: Education, Philosophy, Nonfiction, Psychology, Society

80 pages, Paperback

First published January 1, 1909

About the author

John Dewey was an American philosopher, psychologist and educational reformer whose ideas have been influential in education and social reform. Dewey, along with Charles Sanders Peirce and William James, is recognized as one of the founders of the philosophy of pragmatism and of functional psychology. He was a major representative of the progressive and progressive populist philosophies of schooling during the first half of the 20th century in the USA.

In 1859, educator and philosopher John Dewey was born in Burlington, Vermont. He earned his doctorate at Johns Hopkins University in 1884. After teaching philosophy at the University of Michigan, he joined the University of Chicago as head of a department in philosophy, psychology and education, influenced by Darwin, Freud and a scientific outlook. He joined the faculty of Columbia University in 1904. Dewey's special concern was reform of education. He promoted learning by doing rather than learning by rote. Dewey conducted international research on education, winning many academic honors worldwide. Of more than 40 books, many of his most influential concerned education, including My Pedagogic Creed (1897), Democracy and Education (1902) and Experience and Education (1938). He was one of the founders of the philosophy of pragmatism. A humanitarian, he was a trustee of Jane Addams' Hull House, supported labor and racial equality, and was at one time active in campaigning for a third political party. He chaired a commission convened in Mexico City in 1937 inquiring into charges made against Leon Trotsky during the Moscow trials. Raised by an evangelical mother, Dewey had rejected faith by his 30s. Although he disavowed being a "militant" atheist, when his mother complained that he should be sending his children to Sunday school, he replied that he had gone to Sunday School enough to make up for any truancy by his children. As a pragmatist, he judged ideas by the results they produced. As a philosopher, he eschewed an allegiance to fixed and changeless dogma and superstition. He belonged to humanist societies, including the American Humanist Association. D. 1952.

Reviews

[Nguyên Trang · Rating 2 out of 5]

Đầu tiên phải nói là bản dịch cực kỳ tệ hại. Thế nên nếu không quá tha thiết thì tốt nhất không nên đọc cuốn này.
Còn về nội dung sách, sau nỗ lực đọc hiểu thì theo mình thấy sách cũng có một vài điểm sáng tuy có lẽ vì viết lâu rồi nên không quá cách mạng lắm. Nhưng nếu nhìn vào nền giáo dục của chúng ta hiện tại thì lại thấy chúng ta sai 100% =))) Tức là giáo dục của chúng ta hiện tại chỉ toàn tạo nên những cái xấu.
Nietzsche ngày xưa đã chia việc dạy thành 2 loại: loại cố gắng phát triển mọi hướng (toán lý hóa văn sử địa...) và loại tập trung vào điểm mạnh thôi. Loại 1 chính là chúng ta và rất bị phê phán.
Tới Dewey, ông chỉ trích loại giáo dục giáo điều, chỉ thúc đẩy tính ganh đua, vị kỷ, háo danh và cực kỳ thiếu ứng dụng (chính y chúng ta). Nôm na là giáo dục điểm chác, học không ứng dụng, không liện hệ với thực tế nên kém hấp dẫn, dễ quên ngay... Tuy nhiên có một điểm ở Dewey mình không đồng ý đấy là đề cao quá mức tính ứng dụng. Một cách mơ hồ nào đó thì Dewey có quan điểm khá giống Tolstoy, tức là chỉ chú trọng về đạo đức, xã hội. Nhưng kiến thức không làm nên đạo đức đều vứt cả, tức là ta vứt hết vật lý hạt nhân, khoa học vũ trụ...
Lâu nay tôi cũng tự thấy mình thật may mắn vì ngày xưa mông muội nên mới sống qua nổi 12 năm đi học. Chứ như bây giờ sao chịu nổi. Và nếu có con cái, phải nuôi dạy nó sao trong môi trường giáo dục mà mình khinh ghét? Nói không quá hão huyền vì nhiều quốc gia đã thay đổi cách dạy sang không điểm chác thi đua và nhắm tới thế mạnh thôi. Dù rất khó nhưng không phải là không thể. Ngay tết vừa qua, tôi có gặp một gia đình có chị vợ là giáo viên cấp 3 trường điểm ở Hà Nội. Hai vợ chồng rất tự mãn, nói rằng cấp 3 quan trọng hơn đại học bởi nó chỉ có 1 lần, và nó là cái mác tự hào của bố mẹ hơn nhưng cũng là của con cái sau này, tức là cái mác arms-er, Chu Văn An-er. Khốn khổ thay cho những đứa trẻ.

[Motahareh Nabavi · Rating 5 out of 5]

unbelievable to imagine that this was written in 1909 and yet majority of the things he says are still applicable to today's society and school system

[Arno Mosikyan · Rating 5 out of 5]

QUOTES

The business of the educator—whether parent or teacher—is to see to it that the greatest possible number of ideas acquired by children and youth are acquired in such a vital way that they become moving ideas, motive-forces in the guidance of conduct.

There cannot be two sets of ethical principles, one for life in the school, and the other for life outside of the school. As conduct is one, so also the principles of conduct are one.

The social work of the school is often limited to training for citizenship, and citizenship is then interpreted in a narrow sense as meaning capacity to vote intelligently, disposition to obey laws, etc. But it is futile to contract and cramp the ethical responsibility of the school in this way. The child is one, and he must either live his social life as an integral unified being, or suffer loss and create friction. To pick out one of the many social relations which the child bears, and to define the work of the school by that alone, is like instituting a vast and complicated system of physical exercise which would have for its object simply the development of the lungs and the power of breathing, independent of other organs and functions. The child is an organic whole, intellectually, socially, and morally, as well as physically. We must take the child as a member of society in the broadest sense, and demand for and from the schools whatever is necessary to enable the child intelligently to recognize all his social relations and take his part in sustaining them.

For example, the end of education is said to be the harmonious development of all the powers of the individual.

[Rara Rizal · Rating 4 out of 5]

"New inventions, new machines, new methods of transportation and intercourse are making over the whole scene of action year by year. It is an absolute impossibility to educate the child for any fixed station in life. So far as education is conducted unconsciously or consciously on this basis, it results in fitting the future citizen for no station in life, but makes him a drone, a hanger-on, or an actual retarding influence in the onward movement. Instead of caring for himself and for others, he becomes one who has himself to be cared for. Here, too, the ethical responsibility of the school on the social side must be interpreted in the broadest and freest spirit; it is equivalent to that training of the child which will give him such possession of himself that he may take charge of himself; may not only adapt himself to the changes that are going on, but have the power to shape and direct them."

[Trung Nguyen · Rating 4 out of 5]

One good read.

"... Đạo đức được hiểu theo một cách quá đạo đức giả. Những động cơ và lực lượng đạo đức chủ yếu ít nhiều không thể hiện gì hơn khả năng hiểu biết xã hội - khả năng quan sát và lĩnh hội tình hình xã hội - và tài năng xã hội - những khả năng được rèn luyện về chỉ huy - trong hoạt động nhằm phục vụ lợi ích và những mục tiêu xa hội. "

Phải cho một người tự đưa ra khả năng đánh giá và phán đoán thông qua hành động, từ đó liên kết với các giá trị đạo đức của bản thân và trau dồi nó, không " tri thức " theo kiểu học vẹt hoặc chỉ để tăng khả năng ghi nhớ. Mặt khác, phải cho một người (trẻ) tiếp xúc với các cấu trúc xã hội ngay từ khi còn ở nhà trường (vì không có hai bộ đạo đức riêng biệt: trường học - xã hội), vì người đó cũng là một mảnh cấu thành nên xã hội

[Brian · Rating 3 out of 5]

Dewey's work brings about an important yet seemingly contradictory point to light: How does one go about teaching Personal Responsibility? Is that not a conception to be answered by oneself? The answer is to look in between. To mold students to evaluate the reality of what they are learning, not a narrative.

Dewey takes an almost Kantian view of the objective f educating a student, to provide a sense of duty and initiative to an individual. The most valuabe piece of this is to observe the process instead of the result, which I believe is the most valuable product to come out of any reading of Dewey. That being said one cannot escape that Deontological Imperitive implied in his work. To Dewey the student is to an extent rejuvinated but they are still a product of the society around them and must comply to them. It's less about self-mastery and working towards betterment then it is about molding complacent citizens. In this sense the error seems to be that personal responsibility should be best learned not through a social imperitive but rather a STRICTLY moral and personal one. Dewey tries to pull this direction but does not escape the grasp of the necessity of communal engagement.

[Phil J · Rating 4 out of 5]

Dewey was ahead of his time. It's refreshing to see that this book- written 107 years ago, and during a time when corporal punishment was commonplace- is so modern in its perspective. In a nutshell, schools should embody the principles they teach, and that these principles should include practical application of skills, judgement of correct action, and responsibility to others.

If you've attended a halfway decent school of education in the last quarter century, then none of this will surprise you. The only aspect the elicited an eyebrow-raise from me was the dogmatic bent on all skills as life skills. For example, math is for business transactions, and geography is for understanding society. Can't you just be interested in fjords because they're beautiful? Can't you just like pre-algebra because it's hide-and-seek with numbers?

Other than that, this book is accurate but not revelatory.

[Heath Kelly · Rating 5 out of 5]

This is a must read from one of the greatest philosophers of modern times. Dewey's views on education are a far cry from what our current situation is in the U.S., and Dewey's ideas are much more broad and progressive in my opinion, and necessarily result in the inclusion of more children and a better response to learning. This should be ready by any parent, teacher, or legislator.

[Elizabeth · Rating 3 out of 5]

Pretty good! I feel like it used a lot of words to not say much other than "kids should be taught morality by having an environment to use it in, not through curriculum." Very real, but Experience and Education seems sufficient if you're trying to get a scope of Dewey's education philosophy. He still has great lines, though! Quick read and not a waste of time

[Nicko Lou]

I want to read more this book for my report.

[Kevin Fulton · Rating 3 out of 5]

This book is fine and helps give an outline of what Dewey believes about education.

[Suzi · Rating 3 out of 5]

Considering this is over a century old, it has some good and relevant points in the broadest sense of education.

[Zac Cotronakis · Rating 5 out of 5]

One of my favorite reads to date. Dewey inspires me with his vision for the ideal product for the children in our school system.

[Heather · Rating 1 out of 5]

Having read more than half this book so far, I see that he CLEARLY is promoting Marxist views. I am appalled by our education system's acceptance of his radical theories. His ideas are absolutely contrary to life in a free society.

Message of the book:
1. Although citizens have the right to meddle with the public education system (since their taxes pay for it), they are not qualified to select curriculum nor to tell teachers how to do their jobs.

2. The focus of education should not be on the three R's, but on moral training. He proposes that the teacher lives out morality as he/she instructs in the various disciplines, but then seems to change his mind and promote the idea that teachers should bend all subjects to a social perspective and let kids "catch" the academic subjects through social interaction.

I agree that it is improper to greatly interfere with a professional doing his/her job. One doesn't give his/her surgeon step-by-step instructions for performing surgery. One assumes the surgeon is a professional and knows his/her job. However, in most cases, one has the choice of whether or not to submit to said surgeon's knife. If a particular surgeon insists upon performing surgery without anesthetic, the patient has the right to refuse his services and choose another.

Now, I propose a solution to Dewey's supposed dilemma in the first point. Citizens should still interfere with the education system as a whole. If society wants publicly funded schools to focus on academics, then the schools should focus on academics. If society chooses to accept that the focus of education should be social, then the schools should focus on the social education of children.

The teacher should be left alone to teach what the citizens decide is important in the manner he/she is best suited to teach. It isn't just society that puts undue pressure on the teachers, it is also the asinine theories of John Dewey and his ilk.

[Jenna · Rating 5 out of 5]

Although it was written at the beginning of the 20th century, this book is still relevant to education today. John Dewey is probably most famous for his work in education at the University of Chicago and his founding of the University of Chicago Lab Schools. It is still necessary to teach 'morals' (not in the dogmatic sense) in order to cultivate the minds of all students. The teaching of morals (almost always indirect) helps to create a sense of community, integrity, knowledge, power, and personal satisfaction within a student. The student learns to cultivate his or her own beliefs about the world, the community, his peers, etc. I think, as Dewey touches on in the book, the sense of 'moral education' has been declining in America since the Depression; however, the moral aspect of education cannot be seperated from the mimetic aspect, so it seems detrimental to students to try and pull the two apart.

[Steven Fowler · Rating 5 out of 5]

This is a fantastic little book that is very easy to read though packed with philosophical claims and assumptions. In this book Dewey lays out what he sees as the problems of the concept and practice of primary education in the United States. Sadly the problems he addresses of standardization and the expectation of regurgitation of knowledge without any social or historical context have only become worse in the century since Dewey remarked on them. You don't have to be a philosopher to understand this text and it really should be a must read for all teachers, parents, policy makers and critics of the education system in America.

Also, if you are a more seasoned philosopher familiar with the ideas of Martin Heidegger, particularly in his work, Being and Time, you will recognize striking and uncanny similarities to Heidegger's revolutionary ideas.

[Sarah · Rating 4 out of 5]

First piece of philosophy I've picked up and finished in a long time. Just for that I like this book. But really, while I see the concerns some have with teachers teaching morals to their students, most kids (once they are in school full-time) spend more time with their teachers than they do their parents. While morals should begin at home, teaching without considering the wider implications and helping students relate what they are learning to how it impacts the world around them is irresponsible and short-sighted. John Dewey should be read and considered by anyone who wants to work with children.

[Lon Woodbury · Rating 3 out of 5]

He gets off to a rocky start (to me) by insisting that the public should not meddle in the details of a school, and that curriculum should be left to professional educators.

However, he recognizes that the learning of each child is a whole system, and dividing curriculum into arbitrary boundaries misses the point.

And, he seems to be recognizing that the child must be engaged before anything substantial can be learned, and thus the most effective education is that which responds to the individual curiosity and interests of the child.

All in all, he presents an interesting and helpful perspective, but the arrogance still gets to me.

[Carrie · Rating 5 out of 5]

John Dewey rocks it. His ideas ares kind of precursors to today concept of social justice teaching, which is my thing. "Ultimate moral motives and forces are nothing more or less than social intelligence-the power of observing and comprehending social situations,-and social power-trained capacities of control-at work in the service of social interest and aims."

[MJD · Rating 5 out of 5]

My favorite line: "The business of the educator - whether parent or teacher - is to see to it that the greatest possible number of ideas acquired by children and youth are acquired by children and youth are acquired in such a vital way that they become moving ideas, motive-forces in the guidance of conduct."

[Catharina Blaauwendraad · Rating 4 out of 5]

A must read, but not an easy read: although it hasn't lost any of its actuality, the language is rather old-fashioned and I had to read many sentences twice. This, of course, won't be an issue for native speakers. Besides, it's really worth the effort.

[David Yarde · Rating 3 out of 5]

While I agree that schools should play a bigger role in helping children be better moral citizens of society, I don't they should be totally responsible for doing so. The book touches on some good points but in many areas felt very opinionated.