Experience and Education (Dewey) Chapter Reflection

The central thesis Dewey presented was that education should be primarily based on

lived experiences to best benefit each learner. Traditional school practices have failed to provide

students with a holistic learning experience. It primarily focused on promoting obedience and

regurgitation of knowledge from the curriculum. It offers little opportunities for students to

showcase their growth, learning and interests. While Dewey tries to not explicitly side with the

New schools of teaching, there is a clear lean in that direction since progressive education

philosophies tend to prioritize student interest, and learning through experience. Past, present,

and future experiences allow students to contextualize their learning and grow from their current

state of existence. In Chapter 2, Dewey states that, “experience and experiment are not

self-explanatory ideas. Rather, their meaning is part of the problem to be explored.” Meaning

that it is not a strictly linear process from experience to knowledge. Rather that experiences and

experimentation intermingle with the acquisition of knowledge and promote growth. Dewey goes

as far as to say that not all growth is equally educative and some experimentation can actually

end up being miseducative. Newer schools of thinking about education philosophies should aim

to determine best practices to ensure to the best of their ability that the quality of any experience

is actually a positive force in knowledge acquisition. He refers to this idea as the continuity of

experience or the experiential continuum. As a result, educators have to be very intentional about

the planning, instructional practices, and management as to not cultivate experiences that may

have damaging effects on the growth and development that was to be acquired from the

experience.

Since progressivist movements in education were relatively new at the time of

publishing, Dewey is blunt to point out that the movement is not yet as specific as it may need to
be to be successful. Progressive does not inherently mean correct or effective but I would say he

sees it as a step in the right direction.

Discussion Reflection

“The first object of any act of learning, over and above any pleasure it may give, is that it

should serve us in the future. Learning should not only take us somewhere; it should allow us

later to go further more easily (Jerome Bruner, The Process of Education, p.17).”

John Dewey (1939) has spoken of the possibility of educational plans being at the "mercy

of any intellectual breeze that happens to blow." Often teachers feel subjected to many breezes

that blow through the curriculum in schools. Some teachers hunker down and hope the storm will

pass, others try to cope. Coping and survival are not, in my estimation, appropriate ways to

conduct instruction. but how can teachers use the "winds of change" to their advantage. How do

curricular changes make it possible for teachers to go "further more easily"? Or, do they?

Since I am new to teaching, even understanding the existing curriculum feels like I’m

coping and surviving most of the time. My main issue within my Reading instructions is that we

are expected to use the stories from our main curriculum but supplement the actual standard

teaching from outside sources since Readygen is organized in a more spiral manner. My

grade-level team mainly uses the iReady lessons to supplement specific standard instruction but

that is not required which makes it difficult for all classes to be on the same page with

instructions and how to cover individual sub standards. Sometimes it feels like iReady is our

main curriculum tool since we use it for small group groupings, formative assessments, and

whole group instruction. From my interactions with other grade level teachers, it seems like they

do some combination of the two resources. For Mathematics, we follow the curriculum pretty
strictly. It is interesting to see what pieces are followed more intensely than others and how that

is decided on an individual level.

At the beginning of the year, we were presented with a new science curriculum. We did

not have one last year so I thought this was going to be a great opportunity to be more structured

and pace better as a grade level. However, we also received a new class schedule that only allows

us to teach Science on Fridays for about 40 minutes. The curriculum suggests that we have

science instruction at least 2 to 3 times a week in order to cover all topics in a timely manner. It

can be very confusing when lesson planning when there are conflicting expectations from the

school, the curriculum, and district pacing. I question why we are given curriculums that don’t

align with the pacing and requirements. Our math curriculum can not be covered in full before

SBAC testing even when you follow district pacing down to the week. As a new teacher, I am

still wondering how you reconcile with feeling like you are being set up to fail sometimes.

I guess as you gain more experience, you can more confidently focus on key learning

targets for your grade level and make sure our students have a good grasp on those concepts.

According to the text, curriculum standards are the driver of instruction." (Gordon, Taylor, &

Olivia 2019). I am hopeful that as I become more comfortable with the standards and

expectations, I can utilize the offered curriculum to provide my students with the most important

pieces to master grade level learning goals.

 Work Cited

Gordon ll, W. R., , R. T., Oliva, P. F. (2019). Developing the curriculum: Improved

outcomes through systems approaches, 9th Ed. Pearson Education, INC.