John Dewey: A Critical Analysis
John Dewey:
A Critical Analysis of Dewey’s Ideas and How They Relate
to Current Education Practices
Ian Coleman
EDCT 585
Professor Marker
December 10, 2008
1
John Dewey: A Critical Analysis
2
Exploring a Curriculum Theorist – John Dewey

Brief Biography of John Dewey

Basic Tenants of Dewey’s philosophy

Critical Analysis of Dewey’s philosophy’s Strengths and Weaknesses

Where and How is this Philosophy Currently Being Implemented

Interview via email of a Special Educator/Scholar, who has written and been
published on Dewey’s Continued Influence.

What I Learned from this Project

Additional Criteria – an Interpretation of Uses of Technology in Special
Education as viewed through a Deweyan Lens.
Biography
John Dewey is a highly influential and important 20th century American
philosopher, whose ideas still ruminate around the world in both philosophical circles and
in everyday life. As one of the founders of the pragmatic philosophy movement, a highly
esteemed scholar, and proponent for educative democracy in which each individual is
given equal opportunity to develop into their own special and unique person, Dewey has
earned a lasting place as one of the great minds of the 20th century.
Born in Burlington, Vermont, on October 20th, 1859, to well off middle class
parents who were small business owners, Dewey is said to have learned an early
John Dewey: A Critical Analysis
3
appreciation for his station and was very compassionate for those less privileged citizens
(Strathern, 2002). As a large lumber depot, Burlington developed into thriving economic
hub, which attracted many poor immigrants, including French-Canadians and the Irish.
While John’s father, Archibold Sprague Dewey, was a mid 19th century American upstart
businessman without formal education or a real taste for religion, John Dewey’s mother,
Lucina, exposed him to philanthropic work within the community as part of her
charitable Christian work (Martin, 2002). This, coupled with John’s upbringing in the
evangelical Christian school was highly influential on his moral view and sympathetic
outlook regarding social issues throughout his life (Strathern, 2002).
After graduating from the University of Vermont, and then working as a
schoolteacher in Oil City, Pennsylvania for three years, Dewey enrolled at the John
Hopkins University of Baltimore in advanced study of philosophy. The university had
one of the best philosophy programs in the United States, and was considered the only
U.S. program that offered the same quality of study as some of the more highly esteemed
European Universities (Strathern, 2002).
During John Dewey’s time at John Hopkins he developed as a philosopher. Much
of John’s early philosophical ideas were influenced by the neo-Hegelian outlook, which
was professed and supported by doctor Sylvester Morris. The ideas of Georg Wilhelm
Friederich Hegel were highly influential at the time and allowed John to explain the
existence of dualities such as his comfortable upbringing juxtaposed with less fortunate
social classes (Strathern, 2002). After completion of studies at the university, John begins
teaching at the University of Michigan in 1884. He marries Alice Chipman who had been
John Dewey: A Critical Analysis
4
a schoolteacher before coming to study at the university of Michigan, and begins to
develop his theories on education.
John had the idea that the education system was not right in the United States
based on his own experience as well as Alice’s experiences. During the next ten years, as
professor at the University of Michigan, John Dewey developed an educational theory
that could be used in real life situations, and real people, versus the more abstract
rhetorical analytical style of the traditional philosophies (Strathern, 2002).
In 1894 John begins teaching at the newly founded University of Chicago during
which time he publishes, The Child and the Curriculum (1902), among other writings.
This article outlined John’s philosophy on education and curriculum.
John was a prolific academic, writer, philosopher who went on to teach at
Columbia University, publish numerous articles and books which discussed classic topics
of philosophy from pragmatic point of view. According to Paul Strathern (2002), John’s
philosophy of pragmatism, or instrumentalism or experimentalism as he preferred to call
it, is “essentially a scientific view of the world. As such, its tendency was to be down to
earth and commonsensical” (p.26). At a time when the scientific method and Darwin’s
theory of evolution had begun to take a firm hold on the foundations of the social,
educational, and political systems for the world, Dewey’s pragmatism allowed for change
and adaptation as the years went by and new scientific discoveries upset the base of
“absolute” knowledge. This is one of the reasons why John Dewey’s philosophy is still
relevant and influential today, in the 21st century. The inherent ability to adapt and
address real life situations as they unfold is something many philosophies had been
lacking.
John Dewey: A Critical Analysis
5
John Dewey, lived to the ripe old age of ninety-two. After observing and
sometimes advising on the education systems of Japan, China, and Russia, heading a
commission to question Leon Trotsky, the exiled communist leader, and continuing to
publish, including works on his theories of Logic and Inquiry, John Dewey died in 1952
in New York. His ideas have been interpreted and employed in the United States of
America’s system of education, in the past as well as present. Viewing current curricular
and pedagogical choices in our schools through a Deweyan lens enables present day
educators to more readily understand his continued influence.
Basic Tenants of Philosophy
Basic tenants of John Dewey’s pragmatism philosophy arise from Dewey’s belief
that education is an ongoing process that is organic, and closely related to familial and
societal needs. According to Dewey, pragmatism emphasizes the interconnectedness of
the individual with society, and supports the belief that education which focuses on only
one or the other of these will fail, as individuals depend on society, and without the
individual, society becomes “only an inert and lifeless mass” (Flinders & Thornton,
2004).
Dewey felt that school should be an extension of the home and community, and
therefore the curriculum should consist of instruction in skills used and needed in these
settings, including the workplace. But it wasn’t learning certain skills that Dewey was
interested in. Instead, he felt that it was the duty of the education system to guide students
to a place where they would be able to think critically, and learn whatever skills became
John Dewey: A Critical Analysis
6
necessary for them to contribute to society, family, community, etc. They would be able
to do so because they had been taught, through a mode of inquiry, to pursue knowledge
and skills that they were interested in and adept at. Through this process the individual
would be able to reach their full potential and make contributions to society accordingly
(Durant, 1926; Strathern, 2002).
In addition to the school being an extension of the community, another basic
tenant of Dewey’s philosophy regarding the school’s role in education is that learning
should be self-directed and include various forms of cooperation in which, the learner
continues the types of interactions that are occurring in the larger world, yet is given the
added benefit of a teacher, or guide, to help them understand the processes and benefits
behind these cooperative interactions (Ornstein & Hunkins, 1988).
Dewey did not believe in teaching set body of knowledge, as he viewed the world
as ever changing and he felt that an appropriate system of education should help teach
individuals to meet new challenges as they arise, rather than relying on just one set of
skills that could easily be outdated or outmoded when new technological advances
occurred. This is idea gets to the heart of Dewey’s philosophy in that pragmatic, or
practical learning, is an ongoing process, and one is never done with education (Martin,
2002).
Critical Analysis of Strengths and Weaknesses of Dewey’s Philosophy
John Dewey’s pragmatism is associated with the progressivism education
movement. These educational philosophies placed a great deal of emphasis on a
democratic form of education in which learning is always taking place, and schools are
John Dewey: A Critical Analysis
7
meant to reflect the types of experiences one is having in their own lives and society and
act as a continuation of that social experience (Bernstein, 1966). Dewey believed that the
teacher played a unique role in the education of the individual. Much as a gardener
cultivates the garden by giving plants the necessary nutrients for their individual needs, a
teacher who is implementing a Deweyan form of education, must “pay close attention to
the particularities, to the individual students and their environmental influences, so that
every instructional strategy can be adjusted in light of these” (Seltzer-Kelly, 2008, p.299).
This can viewed as either strength or a weakness in a pragmatic approach to education,
depending upon the actual implementation. If a teacher is motivated and capable of
staying adequately informed of all of the particularities of an individual student while
adjusting the educational program accordingly, then that student may benefit greatly.
However, a lack of time or care, or implementation of this individualized curriculum
could leave the learner stranded on what is essentially an educational desert island in the
middle of the ocean, isolated from the larger picture or learning process and therefore
deficient in their own progress as a contributing member of society.
A strength of Dewey’s philosophy on education is found in the method of inquiry
through which students are expected to pursue knowledge. By allowing the students
interests and strengths to guide the education process in real life sequences, they are more
likely to remain engaged in the process rather than become bored or disillusioned at
learning “stuff” that does not even relate to real, present day, life. According to Dewey,
“education which does not occur through forms of life, forms that are worth living for
their own sake, is always a poor substitute for the genuine reality, and tends to cramp and
to deaden” (Flinders & Thornton, 2004).
John Dewey: A Critical Analysis
8
Dewey’s belief in the importance of guiding students through the learning process
based in real life experiences was in contrast with much of the teaching of his day, which
was based on traditional philosophies, such as perennialism, and methods of obtaining
knowledge, in which a teacher disseminates a set body of knowledge to the student who
receives the information as a vessel waiting to be filled (Ornstein & Hunkins, 1988;
Strathern, 2002). A benefit of a pragmatic approach to education lies in its inherent
adaptability to new ideas, changes in industry, social pressures, technology, etc.
According to Scot Danforth (2008), Dewey’s ideas allowed for adaptability, and “given
the rapidly changing nature of society, schools must support the widest diversity of
intellectual and practical development for all students so that they might prepare
themselves for the many possible life activities” (p. 50).
Progressivism, and pragmatism garnered much support in the early to mid 20th
century, before a gradual decline of popularity due to its “inability to outline a uniform
theory of the purpose of schooling, or even to establish a set of principles” (Ornstein,
Hunkins, 1988). This “weakness”, or inability to establish a specific criteria for or
purpose of schools, made it difficult for schools to measure progress of students, left
many teachers wondering what exactly they were supposed to teach and ultimately gave
way to more specific or traditional curriculum which was more readily established or
concretely implemented in America’s schools. In addition to this lack of “uniform
theory”, Dewey’s ideas were often misrepresented in progressive schools and therefore
lent his name to many controversies (Martin, 2002).
John Dewey: A Critical Analysis
9
According to Ornstein and Hunkins, many of the basic tenants or ideas of
progressivism and pragmatism were continued for a time in the philosophies behind the
relevant curriculum, the humanistic curriculum, and radical school reform movements.
These ideas are still being put into practice in the present day, with the creation of
educational institutions that base their practices off of Dewey’s ideas of inquiry, such as
the High Tech High, which is part of the San Diego Unified School (Neumann, 2008),
and Technology High at Sonoma State University Campus in which curriculum is
delivered in a more student centered way to meet current societal demands.
Discussion of Where and How Dewey’s philosophy is Currently Being Implemented
Dewey’s ideas regarding education are being implemented sporadically
throughout the world, and have for the most part, given way to the more traditional
philosophy of education, perennialism. As much of the United State’s public education
system is rapidly moving towards a system of national and state standards of education,
which is something Dewey would have most likely abhorred (Vinson, 1998), we need to
look to private schools, public “experimental” schools, colleges within and outside of
universities, as well as in other countries to find examples of Dewey’s philosophy being
implemented on a large scale.
On a small scale, one can see elements of Dewey’s pragmatic philosophy
anywhere that a learner is engaged in problem solving as a way to gain knowledge in an
ever changing environment (Ornstein & Hunkins, 1988). Classrooms, home schools,
apprenticeships, and any other everyday life experience could meet this definition at any
given time. Dewey felt that schools should be a mini democratic society in which
John Dewey: A Critical Analysis
10
students learn based on a method of inquiry rather than simply memorizing a prescribed
set of knowledge.
On a larger scale, Dewey’s methods can be more easily recognized in the
progressive form of education taught in many special educator training programs, and
implemented in school district special education programs. Dewey’s belief that everyone
should be given the chance to reach their full potential so that they may make their own
individual contribution to society (Strathern, 2002) is one of the basic tenants of special
education. As Scot Danforth points out, there is disagreement in special education circles,
whether or not Dewey would be in support of “segregated schooling of students with
intellectual disabilities” with Danforth claiming Dewey would not be in support.
However, it is likely based on Dewey’s belief in a democratic learning environment that
he would support the current mainstreaming special education movement which has
students with disabilities enrolled in general education classes, therefore providing
“students with and without disabilities ample opportunities to interact, develop relations,
and learn together” (Danforth, 2008, p62).
Aside from private schools, which are based on pedagogical and philosophical
models that share similarities with Dewey’s teachings, such as Montessori and Waldorf
schools, there are schools inside and outside of public school districts, which cite Dewey
as their biggest pedagogical influence. One such successful school, that has in turn
become an influence for other similar programs, is High Tech High of the San Diego
Unified School District. Although the name has lead to “considerable misunderstanding”
about the schools program, in which many in the community thought the curriculum was
strictly technology based, the school is “actually a ‘liberal arts school in disguise’ that
John Dewey: A Critical Analysis
11
promotes students’ use of technology in their real world, interdisciplinary, project-based
inquiries related to traditional academic disciplines (Neumann, 2008, p.63). According to
Neumann (2008), the schools physical and aesthetic makeup, which appears to be a high
tech firm, or other similarly suited office environment, communicates to the students that
“the school may provide learning experiences that relate to life outside school, and
improve one’s opportunity in life” (p. 55). High Tech High (HTH) is a modern example
of John Dewey’s philosophy of education in action. Neumann (2008) states that although
visitors to the school would not see any of his writings on the wall or in pamphlets, HTH
is “clearly an exemplar of John Dewey-inspired approaches to teaching and
learning”(p.62) and the “project method of learning” employed at HTH is “the most
distinguishing pedagogical feature of the HTH model” (p.62). High Tech High has been
a model for other schools in the San Diego area (Neumann, 2008).
In Sonoma county, located on the Sonoma state University Campus, is Tech High
of Rancho Cotati Unified School District. Whether or not the program’s philosophy is
based on Dewey’s pragmatism their methods of instruction include a project based
learning approach (http://www.crpusd.org/tech_plan.html).
Added Criteria – An Examination of Technology as viewed through a Deweyan
Lens.
Technology has many uses in education and as I narrow this examination into the special
education realm those applications of technology become even more specific and
widespread in practice. Uses of technology in special education classroom are disability
specific and often, but not always, require specialized training for the teacher to utilize
John Dewey: A Critical Analysis
12
the equipment correctly. Types of technology or adaptive technology in use in special
education programs currently include unmodified desktop computers or laptops with or
without voice recognition software, writing devices such as word processors, visual aids
such as overhead projectors, multimedia projectors, calculators, wheelchairs, lifts for
immobile individuals, braillers and other visual devices for the site impaired, hearing
aides for the hearing impaired, etc. Dewey was a proponent for democratic education, in
which individuals should be given the opportunity to inquire about and then develop
skills that are of interest and capability to themselves (Flinders & Thornton, 2002), and
he felt that “the growth and learning of each student, regardless of ability, is understood
within a collaborative or shared experience of value and achievement among the group”
(Danforth, 2008). This position supports the idea that Dewey would be in support of
technological uses within the classroom and outside of the classroom as the technology
assists the individual in reaching their full potential.
Technology in special education or general education for that matter comes in the
form of an electronic field trip (EFT) when the means (money, time, space, etc.) are not
there to physically travel to a location. Cassady and Mullen examine “Dewey’s (1943)
framework for natural learning impulses for children” to describe the “potential
pedagogical benefits of electronic field trips (EFTs) (p.1) and examine how EFT allow
for inquiry based education as students and teachers are allowed to explore virtually,
online, increasing their experiences. Dewey’s impulses of children, which include
inquiry, communication, construction, and expression, are a perfect implement or model
for use in tapping the “innate inclinations of learners” (Cassady & Mullen, 2006, p. 153)
so that they may utilize appropriate strategies to harness technology in the classroom.
John Dewey: A Critical Analysis
13
Interview/email correspondence with Dr. Scot Danforth: School of Teaching and
Learning – The Ohio State University
In a recent correspondence with Scot Danforth, author of John Dewey’s
Contributions to an Educational Philosophy of Intellectual Disability (2008), I posed two
questions to him for insight and asked for further clarification of his thoughts based on
his expressed position in is article, my current work towards my Masters in Special
Education, and our Dewey connection. I asked about Dewey's ideas and how they are
currently being employed in education as well as an interpretation of how Dewey might
have viewed technology in special education classrooms.
The first question was as follows:
I feel that Dewey would agree with the aims that drive special education (too great to
discuss here), although he would probably be more in support of mainstreaming
individuals with disabilities rather than pull out or special day class models. What are
your thoughts on Dewey and mainstreaming?
Dr. Danforth’s response:
“This was where I really had to restrain myself in writing that article. My personal
desire was to place Dewey in a pro-inclusion camp. He was always a progressive. He was
a strong supporter of unions, one of the founders of the NEA, the NAACP, and bunch of
other progressive acronym groups. But I kept reminding myself that you don't ask
Thomas Jefferson if he is for Obama's green energy policy. You can't pull someone out of
John Dewey: A Critical Analysis
14
history to ask him about an issue we are facing today. The most we can do is ask whether
current day inclusive educators would find Dewey's ideas useful to their cause. Or,
conversely, if critics of inclusion would find much ammo for their cause in Dewey's
philosophy. I think that the inclusive educators would find more to their liking in Dewey.
He was a strong believer in what we now call 'diversity,' the natural differences that exist
from child to child. He criticized schools for assuming that all kids were alike.
I do wonder, though, what Dewey would think of the disability constructs that we
use. Do they help us understand individuals? Or are they thin stereotypes focused on
what kids (supposedly) can't do? Concepts of deficit or lacking did not interest Dewey.
Too often we tend to assume that LD (for example) means that the child is inherently
different from (less than) the non-LD student. Dewey did not view natural differences on
the intellectual hierarchy we tend to use, a top (smartest, ablest) to bottom (least smart,
least able) scale. He viewed differences on a horizontal scheme, variations lacking moral
notions of 'better' or 'worse.' To make a crude metaphor, he viewed natural differences in
growing children more like how we view flavors available at an ice cream shop. Yes,
vanilla and pistachio are not the same, but there is no sense in which one is universally
better or higher than the other. (I made up that bad metaphor, not Dewey, but it fits his
'moral equality' idea.)” (S. Danforth, Personal Email, December 7 2008).
The second question was as follows:
John Dewey: A Critical Analysis
15
Do you have any insight for me regarding a possible Deweyan interpretation of uses of
technology in special education or education in general?
Dr. S. Danforth’s response“Again we have to watch out for pulling Dewey out of his historical position.
But...in his time, he was a strong advocate for preparing students for the mechanical and
technological activities of the day. Education had to be relevant, in touch with what was
going on in society at the time. Check out a cool book he wrote called Schools for
Tomorrow. He gives a very readable example of what he thought schools should be
teaching, and it involved lots of what he called industrial skills. In his day, advances in
industry and engineering were moving quickly. But the schools were plugging away at
the old-fashioned 3 R's of the 1800's. Dewey wanted rich academics and lots of activities
building, designing, using the latest machines. When vocational schooling was first
introduced with wood shops and machine shops (his era's version of today's
technologies), he called for all schools and all students to work in both academics and
vocational training. Prepare fully for what society has to offer. Plus he did not want to
split schools into academic training for upper classes and machine training for lower. He
lost out on that debate. But his position can be seen fully in Schools for Tomorrow.
So....can technology educators find support in Dewey's ideas for the use of the
most cutting edge technologies in the schools? I would say a resounding yes. He would
be annoyed to see mechanical and technological developments taking place in society
John Dewey: A Critical Analysis
16
without a strong and real experience for students in those areas in the schools” (S.
Danforth, Personal email, December 7, 2008).
The interview/email correspondence with Dr, Danforth was enriching and useful
in giving me yet more ideas to think about regarding Dewey’s influence on education. To
Dr. Danforth’s credit, I started the interview/email very casually, told him about my lack
of sleep due to being a new daddy and with another one on the way and much of my
cognitive capacity focused on this upcoming arrival my thoughts and sleep depravity
might be playing in to any misinterpretation of his work. I found his responses in kind,
casual, yet insightful, and humorous which makes for engaging food for thought.
What did I learn from this experience?
This experience has given me a more clear understanding of Dewey’s
philosophies, specifically on education, progressivism and pragmatism, a different
perspective on special education, as well as an improved ability to conduct research and
correspond with working professionals or experts on given subject matter. As stated
previously the interview was an extremely valuable part of the project and I have
continued correspondence with Dr. Danforth to let him know where my research has
taken me and to thank him for his time and advice.
I also learned of multiple schools around the United States that approach
education with progressive, Dewey influenced ideas. I am currently gathering more
research on these schools as I work towards my Masters in Special Education. These
John Dewey: A Critical Analysis
17
schools include the Nova Project in Seattle, Washington, and the Central Park East
Schools created by Deborah Meier (R. Neumann, Personal Email, December 7, 2008).
In conclusion, John Dewey’s influence, although not overarching in present day
public school educational pedagogy, has been highly influential in educational circles for
nearly 100 years. His belief that learning is an ongoing process, and that schools should
represent a miniature democratic community in which students can explore ideas through
a method of inquiry is one that resonates with many contemporary educators and can be
found in varied educational settings around the world.
John Dewey: A Critical Analysis
18
References
Bernstein, R. J. (1966). Great American Thinkers: John Dewey. New York: Washington Square Press, Inc.
Cassady, J., & Mullen, L. (2006, June). Reconceptualizing electronic field trips: a Deweyian perspective. Learning,
Media, & Technology, 31(2), 149-161.
Cotati Rohnert Park Unified School District Website. http://www.crpusd.org/tech_plan.html Retrieved from website
December 8, 2008.
Danforth, S. (2008, February). John Dewey’s Contributions to an Educational Philosophy of Intellectual Disability.
Educational Theory, 58(1), 45-62.
Durant, W. (1933). The Story of Philosophy: The Lives and Opinions of the Greater Philosophers. New York: Simon
and Shuster.
Flinders, D.J., & Thornton S. J. (2004).The Curriculum Studies Reader: Second Edition. New York, NY: Routledge
Falmer.
Januszewski, A., & Pearson, R. (1999, February 1). Problem-Based Learning: A Historical Analysis. (ERIC Document
Reproduction Service No. ED436165) Retrieved December 1, 2008, from ERIC database.
Martin, J. (2002). The Education of John Dewey: A Biography. New York: Columbia University Press.
Neumann, R. (2008, Summer2008). Charter Schools and Innovation: THE HIGH TECH HIGH MODEL. American
Secondary Education, 36(3), 51-69.
Ornstein, A.C., Hunkins, F.P. (1988). Philosophical Foundation of Curriculum, Curriculum: Foundations Principles
and Issues, Upper Saddle River, New Jersey: Prentice Hall pp.25-51
Seltzer-Kelly, D. (2008, August). Deweyan Darwinism for the Twenty-First Century: Toward an Educational Method
for Critical Democratic Engagement in the Era of the Institute of Education Sciences. Educational Theory,
58(3), 289-304.
Strathern, P. (2002). Dewey in 90 Minutes. Chicago: Ivan R. Dee.
Vinson, K. (1999, January 1). National Curriculum Standards and Social Studies Education: Dewey, Freire, Foucault,
and the Construction of a Radical Critique. Theory and Research in Social Education, 27(3), 296-328.
Wirth, A. (1981, Winter81). An Alternative Image of ‘School and Society’ and the Deweyan Tradition (1950-1980): A
Reply to Merle Borrowman. Educational Studies, 11(4), 393.
John Dewey: A Critical Analysis
19