Reflections from Dewey-- Chapter 5

Chapter 5: The Nature of Freedom

Here Dewey contrasts the "problem of social control" with the nature of freedom.  Already, in the first paragraph, I was intrigued because, as teachers, we spend so much time trying to control kids-- sit down, follow the rules, behave, turn this in, don't you want to go to college...-- but we never really think of the kids' freedom.  Not that I think school should be anarchy, but students' freedom is an important thought and should be part of the conversation, if only because it changes the way I think about controlling students. 

"The only freedom that is of enduring importance is freedom of intelligence, that is to say, freesom of observation adn of juedment exercised in behalf of purposes taht are intrinsically worth while."

"The commonest mistake made about freedom is, I think, to identify it with freedom of movement, or with the external or physical side of activity."

I can't help but think of King's "Letters from a Birmingham Jail" or Nelson Mandela or even St. Paul-- anyone who was imprisoned physically, but intellectual or spiritually free.  Dewey, though, talks about it in the classroom-sense, that the we think the typical schoolroom's fixed physical nature puts restrictions on students' behavior.  (If they are sitting neatly in orderly rows, then they must be thinking neat thoughts or behaving in orderly ways.) 

"But the fact still remains that an increased measure of freedom of outer movement is a means, not an end.  The educational problem is not solved when the aspect of freedom is obtained."

I have so much to say about this. YES!  Just because you put organize your room in an unstructured, non traditional way, doesn't mean you are escaping from the bounds of traditional schooling.  You can put kids in groups and they can still be doing a worksheet. And even if you give your kids free reign to explore whatever they want (moving in a progressive direction), they won't necessarily learn anything or obtain intellectual freedom.  I think Dewey is very artfully again pitting the downsides of traditional education against the downsides of progressive education. Anything that teachers do without a critical lens behind it, anything that is rejectionist, is just a means.  And what is important is the end, what is done with the added liberty (or the rearranged chairs).

Dewey goes on to talk about the so-called advantages of limiting freedom in a classroom: kids appear to be listening and attentive; there is uniformity and control.  And many people who are new to PBL will ask, "What if my kids don't learn everything that I would have taught them in my lecture?"  There's two points to that-- one, just because you lecture on something, doesn't mean that your kids are learning.  At any given time, how many kids do you think are not listening?  And then of those listening, how many will actually retain it?  Two, you don't have to completely give up lecture.  There is a time and a place for lecture in a PBL classroom-- it's just not the focus.  There will be some things you that aren't covered in students' projects and you can use explicit instruction, even lectures to fill in those gaps or to support what they are discovering on their own.  Lecture just isn't the primary source of learning.  There is room for intellectual freedom!

"The other important advantage of increased outward freedom is found in the very nature of the learning process. That the older methods set a premium upon passivity and receptivity has been pointed out... The only escape from them in the standardized school is an activity which is irregular and perhaps disobedience."

It's not kids' natures to be quiet and still all day.  Dewey points out that times of quiet and reflection are important but that they should be "brief intervals... of genuine reflection" followed after periods of more overt action.  It shouldn't be any surprise that kids act up or goof off in class when they are expected to go against their nature for eight hours a day. 

I think about the things that I know a lot about.  I didn't learn that much of them in school.  I think quilting is a good example-- I was interested so I started reading up on the internet.  I talked to my mom and grandmother and had them demonstrate some things for me.   Then I found this great blogging community online and used them as inspiration and resources.  Finally, I took a class at a local quilting shop.  And amidst all of this, I was quilting: making mistakes and learning step-by-step, gaining confidence and then getting frustrated, learning things from others and figuring a lot out by myself.   It all happened so naturally and organically.  That is how learning should be.   And I think PBL has the potential for kids to learn like that in school. 

"There can be no greater mistake, however, than to treat such freedom as an end itself.  It then tends to be destructive of the shared cooperative activities which are the normal source of order."

Now that I've read over halfway into this book, I could have predicted that Dewey would say something like this and I so appreciate how he never lets the proverbial pendulum ever swing too far in one direction.  Of course giving kids total freedom is not educative.  That's one of my reservations about unschooling.  It is important for teachers to facilitate learning, and it's equally important for students to have structure in working with others.