Changes

Jump to navigation Jump to search
17 bytes removed ,  22:14, June 19, 2009
m
Reverted edits by Marlowe (Talk) to last version by RJJensen
Line 27: Line 27:  
By 1900 the reduction in average family size, new gender roles in middle-class families, and the softening of religious orthodoxy were the social context of Progressive education that led to a new appreciation of childhood. The writings of European educators [[Johann Pestalozzi]] and [[Friedrich Froebel]] drew readers who had bad experiences with traditional schools that valued discipline and memorization at the expense of individuality. Educational practitioners who claimed to follow the views of Pestalozzi and Froebel added their own variations and disagreed among themselves. Nevertheless, Dewey and the advocates of the new education shared and accomplished a new way of thinking about the child, the curriculum, and the purposes of schools.
 
By 1900 the reduction in average family size, new gender roles in middle-class families, and the softening of religious orthodoxy were the social context of Progressive education that led to a new appreciation of childhood. The writings of European educators [[Johann Pestalozzi]] and [[Friedrich Froebel]] drew readers who had bad experiences with traditional schools that valued discipline and memorization at the expense of individuality. Educational practitioners who claimed to follow the views of Pestalozzi and Froebel added their own variations and disagreed among themselves. Nevertheless, Dewey and the advocates of the new education shared and accomplished a new way of thinking about the child, the curriculum, and the purposes of schools.
   −
Diane Racitch posits that progressive educators encountered a highly bureaucratic system of school administration that in general was not receptive to new methods of education. The failure of Dewey's ideas can be attributed to his assumption that schools exist to promote learning by students, she claims.<ref> William J. Reese, "The Origins of Progressive Education," ''History of Education Quarterly'' 2001 41(1): 1-24. 0018-2680; Diane Ravitch, ''Left Back: A Century of Failed School Reforms'' (2000). </ref>  
+
The problem is that the progressive educators encountered a highly bureaucratic system of school administration that in general was not receptive to new methods. education. The failure of Dewey's ideas can be attributed to his assumption that schools exist to promote learning by students.<ref> William J. Reese, "The Origins of Progressive Education," ''History of Education Quarterly'' 2001 41(1): 1-24. 0018-2680; Diane Ravitch, ''Left Back: A Century of Failed School Reforms'' (2000). </ref>  
    
   
 
   
 
===Favors local control of schools===
 
===Favors local control of schools===
 
Invited in 1924 by the new republican government in Turkey to draw up a report on the country's educational system, Dewey warned about the dangers of centralization and the removal of local control. The Turkish "Law of Unification of Instruction", however, precluded the implementation of his recommendations, mandating instead the use of education to enforce the ideology of the new state and creating a Ministry of Education which was a centralized bureaucracy rather than merely an intellectual guide in the way that Dewey envisaged.<ref> Selahattin Turan, "John Dewey's Report of 1924 and His Recommendations on the Turkish Educational System Revisited," ''History Of Education'' 2000 29(6): 543-555. </ref>
 
Invited in 1924 by the new republican government in Turkey to draw up a report on the country's educational system, Dewey warned about the dangers of centralization and the removal of local control. The Turkish "Law of Unification of Instruction", however, precluded the implementation of his recommendations, mandating instead the use of education to enforce the ideology of the new state and creating a Ministry of Education which was a centralized bureaucracy rather than merely an intellectual guide in the way that Dewey envisaged.<ref> Selahattin Turan, "John Dewey's Report of 1924 and His Recommendations on the Turkish Educational System Revisited," ''History Of Education'' 2000 29(6): 543-555. </ref>
−
   
==Impact on China ==
 
==Impact on China ==
 
Just before the [[May Fourth movement]] of 1919, Dewey was invited to China by members of China's new intellectual circles. In the following two years, Dewey toured and lectured in many cities in China and systematically propagated pragmatism. Pragmatism caught on wildly, prevailing throughout intellectual and educational circles. At the same time, because his theories fitted in with the needs of the May Fourth movement's ideological emancipation and China's economic development and educational reform, Dewey became the focus of the media and a favorite foreign thinker and educator in intellectual circles in China. Many scholars absorbed pragmatism's positivist spirit and developed Chinese modern positivist philosophy and historical studies. In the meantime, Dewey's educational theory also became the soul of the new educational system of China through its influence on the key links in the reforms and on the standards and curricula of the new educational system. Pragmatism was replaced by Marxism after 1949, but Dewey's reputation has been revived since the fall of Mao.
 
Just before the [[May Fourth movement]] of 1919, Dewey was invited to China by members of China's new intellectual circles. In the following two years, Dewey toured and lectured in many cities in China and systematically propagated pragmatism. Pragmatism caught on wildly, prevailing throughout intellectual and educational circles. At the same time, because his theories fitted in with the needs of the May Fourth movement's ideological emancipation and China's economic development and educational reform, Dewey became the focus of the media and a favorite foreign thinker and educator in intellectual circles in China. Many scholars absorbed pragmatism's positivist spirit and developed Chinese modern positivist philosophy and historical studies. In the meantime, Dewey's educational theory also became the soul of the new educational system of China through its influence on the key links in the reforms and on the standards and curricula of the new educational system. Pragmatism was replaced by Marxism after 1949, but Dewey's reputation has been revived since the fall of Mao.
17,394

edits

Navigation menu