John Dewey: The Dialogical Shepherd for Educators in the 21st Century
Saved in:
| Title: | John Dewey: The Dialogical Shepherd for Educators in the 21st Century |
|---|---|
| Language: | English |
| Authors: | Nicholas Vasiliades, Audrey Cohan (ORCID |
| Source: | Educational Studies: Journal of the American Educational Studies Association. 2025 61(1):111-124. |
| Availability: | Routledge. Available from: Taylor & Francis, Ltd. 530 Walnut Street Suite 850, Philadelphia, PA 19106. Tel: 800-354-1420; Tel: 215-625-8900; Fax: 215-207-0050; Web site: http://www.tandf.co.uk/journals |
| Peer Reviewed: | Y |
| Page Count: | 14 |
| Publication Date: | 2025 |
| Document Type: | Journal Articles Reports - Descriptive |
| Descriptors: | Educational Philosophy, Thinking Skills, Critical Thinking, Skill Development, Role of Education, Empathy, Teacher Role, Democracy, Problem Solving, Cooperation |
| DOI: | 10.1080/00131946.2025.2481570 |
| ISSN: | 0013-1946 1532-6993 |
| Abstract: | Very few of today's forums (both physical and virtual) are appreciative environments for generative discourse, complicating the efforts and recognition of "public intellectuals" who are interested in elevating discourse for the public good. Instead of expecting regulatory action from institutions to set standards of communication (top-down) or a cohort of public intellectuals to provide dialogical direction, there should be more of a focus on ensuring that the next generation will have skills instilled in them to reinforce these norms for themselves (bottom-up). The authors assert that we need not look very far in viewing educators as the ideal liaisons in carrying out this endeavor as they are already well-positioned to model critical thinking, expression, and engagement to an uninitiated population. John Dewey's learning process is offered as a helpful "roadmap" for educators committed to modeling constructive discourse under the tenets of "empathy, humility, and a willingness to learn" within their classrooms. Teachers willing to follow the example of one of the 20th century's most influential educators and public intellectuals can now become the new vanguard of dialogical shepherds in the current millennium. |
| Abstractor: | As Provided |
| Entry Date: | 2026 |
| Accession Number: | EJ1497664 |
| Database: | ERIC |
|
Full text is not displayed to guests.
Login for full access.
|
|
| FullText | Links: – Type: pdflink Url: https://content.ebscohost.com/cds/retrieve?content=AQICAHj0k_4E0hTGH8RJwT4gCJyBsGNe_WN95AvKlDbXJGqwxwF5e1kmQ-_bx3y7CMYMX9KyAAAA4zCB4AYJKoZIhvcNAQcGoIHSMIHPAgEAMIHJBgkqhkiG9w0BBwEwHgYJYIZIAWUDBAEuMBEEDFu5UnZ2ggdSi1OhXwIBEICBm1r-_gil-8rUBC5eIyzh4g7UDO37-ZnBqFURaioeFrzLZkzQ8D4MytYp_-U2wutwqB444kCQkkbR6_5jkea1P3YtGOe99DV_x3EgGs3gTw3X_ORtpbvtIsURuRwdOHw0m5LOqBNS18UpPdTqqlSRtvJzWQRWnnz4QffE0_wLqQ76Kz4XeqXmPaZXmX5LCI4Le61xEXgWZJgNhB82 Text: Availability: 1 Value: <anid>AN0184594636;27m01jan.25;2025Apr22.02:19;v2.2.500</anid> <title id="AN0184594636-1">John Dewey: The Dialogical Shepherd for Educators in the 21st Century </title> <sbt id="AN0184594636-2">Introduction</sbt> <p>Very few of today's forums (both physical and virtual) are appreciative environments for generative discourse, complicating the efforts and recognition of "public intellectuals" who are interested in elevating discourse for the public good. Instead of expecting regulatory action from institutions to set standards of communication (top-down) or a cohort of public intellectuals to provide dialogical direction, there should be more of a focus on ensuring that the next generation will have skills instilled in them to reinforce these norms for themselves (bottom-up). The authors assert that we need not look very far in viewing educators as the ideal liaisons in carrying out this endeavor as they are already well-positioned to model critical thinking, expression, and engagement to an uninitiated population. John Dewey's learning process is offered as a helpful "roadmap" for educators committed to modeling constructive discourse under the tenets of "empathy, humility, and a willingness to learn" within their classrooms. Teachers willing to follow the example of one of the 20th century's most influential educators and public intellectuals can now become the new vanguard of dialogical shepherds in the current millennium.</p> <p>The recent events in Eastern Europe have certainly raised important questions on <emph>where</emph> and <emph>how</emph> Americans ought to engage in critical discourse. Take, for example, the Russian war on Ukraine. As the war is now in its third year, questions continue to mount as to why this war reinforces the need to spend more time exploring how the diverse peoples of the world have understood legitimate civic ordering as a pathway toward building a more just and peaceful world. Universities have been thrust into the headlines, trying to walk a fine line between providing open spaces in the name of dissent and protests and protecting all of its charges, including those who may feel threatened by these dissenting opinions and demonstrations.</p> <p>Such a dilemma poses several serious questions for educators today. Who should be the custodians of what should be known and how it should be understood? Is it incumbent upon thinkers, in particular, to speak out and provide guidance when distinguishing between what is believed or ought to be believed—fact versus fiction? How can educators at all levels cultivate an environment that provides open spaces for civil debate and mutual understanding when faced with the reality that society can now communicate across a litany of forums, many of which are primarily driven by social media? More importantly, who ought to ensure that the skills needed for responsible and informed opinion, based on the knowledge learned and acquired, are promoted and protected for future generations? Finally, is there still a viable role for public intellectuals within the field of education despite scholar Richard Posner's (Posner, [<reflink idref="bib30" id="ref1">30</reflink>]) lamentation that they have largely declined in importance?</p> <p>To set the stage for our position, the authors argue few of today's forums (both physical and virtual) are appreciative environments for generative discourse, complicating the efforts and recognition of "public intellectuals" interested in elevating discourse (Sowell, [<reflink idref="bib32" id="ref2">32</reflink>]). Instead of expecting regulatory action from institutions to set standards of communication (top-down) or a cohort of public intellectuals to provide dialogical direction, there should be more of a focus on ensuring that the next generation will have skills instilled in them to reinforce these norms for themselves (bottom-up). The authors assert that we need not look very far in viewing educators as the ideal liaisons in carrying out this endeavor as they are already well-positioned to model critical thinking, expression, and engagement to an uninitiated population. Moreover, John Dewey's learning process is offered as a helpful "roadmap" for educators committed to modeling constructive discourse based on empathy, humility, and curiosity within their classrooms.</p> <hd id="AN0184594636-3">The folly of forums and patchy paths for public intellectuals</hd> <p>Most of our notions concerning the theoretical value and socio-political function of public forums in the modern era come from Jurgen Habermas' (Habermas, [<reflink idref="bib20" id="ref3">20</reflink>]) work on developing "public spheres." In his book, <emph>The Structural Transformation of the Public Sphere,</emph> Habermas marks the birth of modern discourse within the European salons of the 18th century, where a coalition of aristocrats, artists, and academics had gathered to "mediate" between the absolutist monarchical "state" and "society." He noted that these spaces transcended beyond mere social interaction by placing greater merit on ideas specifically concerning public interest. He defined these spaces as:</p> <p>[a] sphere of private people come together as a public ... to engage in a debate over the general rules governing relation in the basically privatized but publicly relevant sphere of commodity and exchange and social labor. (p. 27)</p> <p>Habermas further argued that public spheres demanded a greater commitment to rational deliberation over rank or status, which in turn, transformed these gatherings into institutional nodes for critical public opinion that could inform state policy. Habermas concluded that this bourgeoisie model was incompatible with the emergence of a "welfare state mass democracy" and later called for the development of a robust public sphere designed to meet the needs of society in the late 20th century.</p> <p>Universities seem like the natural alternative to salons as spaces for discourse. These institutions have a legacy of transmitting valuable technical knowledge and inculcating ideas, and it would make sense that they would come to embody the modern public sphere. Indeed, Robert Maynard Hutchins ([<reflink idref="bib24" id="ref4">24</reflink>]) in response to the specter of totalitarian regimes threatening freedom of expression in Europe remarked that: "the only hope of securing a university ... is to see to it that it becomes the home of independent intellectual work. The university cannot make its contribution to democracy on any other terms" (p. 5). This was also echoed by Peter Singer ([<reflink idref="bib31" id="ref5">31</reflink>]), who argued that the only way individuals can discover their beliefs to be true or false is through the forum of free debate on controversial issues. Debate is crucial to university life, and maintaining open spaces is essential to its existence. There has been a tremendous expectation for faculty to debate with their students to discover what those truths are—it is part and parcel of universities furthering the dialogue for social improvement.</p> <p>Yet universities also hold various and, at times, contradictory purposes for society, rendering them an incomplete refuge for critical thought that is not devoid of entangling interests. Although universities critically elevate the consciousness of their members, they also maintain the practical function as sites for research and development—making advancements in areas of national importance (military, energy, medicine, environment, economic infrastructures, etc.). The duality of being both the cradle for critical discourse while serving the needs of the state came to a head by the late 1960s, when faculty and students began questioning their institution's complacency throughout the turbulence of the Vietnam War by participating in "teach-ins" (Howlett, [<reflink idref="bib23" id="ref6">23</reflink>]; Menashe &amp; Radosh, [<reflink idref="bib27" id="ref7">27</reflink>]). Since then, as Lawrence Veysey ([<reflink idref="bib37" id="ref8">37</reflink>]) noted: "American universities remained predominantly cautious institutions, concerned primarily with maintaining a sober posture of respectability" (p. 417), thus evading the full designation of the modern public sphere.</p> <p>Today, more people have an accessible path to higher education than they ever did, hoping their degrees will make them more marketable in the workforce. Given this new demand, many colleges and universities (except those with the luxury of an endowment) are pressured to operate more like businesses eager to boost enrollment than schools concerned with elevating empathy, inquiry, and nuance. Aronowitz ([<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref9">1</reflink>]) observed in <emph>The Knowledge Factory: Dismantling the Corporate University and Creating True Higher Education,</emph> that colleges had become enterprises emphasizing what he termed "vocationalism" at the expense of developing critical thinking skills through vigorous debate. One only needs to look at the decline of tenured faculty, the disbandment of the humanities, the silo-ing of academic fields, and fierce competition over grants among scholars to see how fostering critical discourse for its own sake is rarely the main priority in these institutions (Bergland, [<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref10">4</reflink>]; Tight, [<reflink idref="bib36" id="ref11">36</reflink>]). As such, universities never have completely emerged as the ideal public sphere that Habermas envisioned.</p> <p>Restricting the public sphere within academic environments is not only limiting, but it also challenges the essential need for alternative open spaces of thoughtful and meaningful dialogue. In <emph>Rethinking the Public Sphere</emph>, Nancy Fraser ([<reflink idref="bib17" id="ref12">17</reflink>]) attempted to situate Habermas' work in our socio-political context by underscoring the hegemonic assumptions underlying the feasibility of a monolithic public sphere and offered a more nuanced model composed of a "multiplicity of publics." Fraser argued that Habermas' utopian vision of the public sphere evolving beyond its bourgeoisie origins was untenable. According to her, the public sphere was, by nature, exclusionary and designed to serve the interests of the dominant class and gender. Despite this critique, Fraser maintained measured optimism about the potential for democratic engagement within a stratified society. She argued that the best way to approximate such an ideal would be to embrace, and not reject, a "multiplicity of publics" in dialogue with one another and even called for "strong publics" to hold varying degrees of power to legitimize the public opinion derived from such a multi-faceted discourse.</p> <p>Fraser's thoughts are particularly prescient in the age of social media, where public forums have multiplied or deinstitutionalized due to expanded access to information and communication. The concept of a "public sphere," once understood as an entity governed by the laws of geography, consistent interpersonal exchanges, and a relatively monolithic ethos enforced within traditional spaces in academia, has now been extended to include several other associations of individuals from anywhere on the planet who have elected to engage with one another exclusively based on mutual interest via the internet.</p> <p>This new arrangement of human interaction has certainly yielded many benefits for the marginalized as Fraser ([<reflink idref="bib17" id="ref13">17</reflink>]) had remarked in her work, particularly from those who have been historically excluded from shaping public opinion. The idiosyncratic features of these communities have also posed serious challenges to effectively engaging in discourse amidst the current ideologically diverse landscape, potentially rendering such activity a zero-sum game where one "community" ultimately seeks to overpower another, usually during heavily contested election cycles.</p> <p>However, Fraser ([<reflink idref="bib17" id="ref14">17</reflink>]) had noted that "contestation" was not only the preferred mode of discourse among a multiplicity of publics but she believed that such an environment would increase "participatory parity" necessary for democratic exchange:</p> <p>In my view, the concept of a counterpublic militates in the long run against separatism because it assumes an orientation that is <emph>publicist</emph>. Insofar as these arenas are <emph>publics</emph> they are by definition not enclaves .... After all, to interact discursively as a member of a public—subaltern or otherwise—is to disseminate one's discourse into ever widening arenas. Habermas captures well this aspect of the meaning of publicity when he notes that however limited a public may be in it empirical manifestation at any given time, its members understand themselves as part of a potentially wider public, that indeterminate, empirically counterfactual body we call "the public at large." (p. 67)</p> <p>Considering a growing decline of faith in liberal democracy, Fraser's insistence on an "orientation that is publicist" can no longer be taken for granted. Although we should celebrate the proliferation of "subaltern counterpublics" as a key element to democratic discourse, we must recognize that they are only as effective as the members who inhabit them. This poses a significant challenge for public intellectuals interested in expanding dialogical activity.</p> <p>Historically, the term <emph>public intellectual</emph> has been defined as a specialist in a particular field of study who expresses views or ideas that evoke critical consideration of established paradigms to potentially advance the general interests of society. These figures were generally well regarded by the public and were expected to foster generative inter-public coordination to solve large existential issues (i.e., climate change, rise in authoritarianism). Curiously, social media has eroded the barriers that have excluded certain members in society from articulating new ideas thereby obfuscating the need for a select group of public intellectuals amidst a range of ideological exchanges. Moreover, even if such public intellectuals were discernible among various "pundits," "strategists," and "analysts," they would not find much room for constructive dialogue with information being packaged into consumable "sound bites" for our fast-paced world.</p> <p>Unfortunately, even when intellectuals seek to create more spaces for deliberate discourse the way in which information is becoming commodified also poses a real challenge. Indeed, free public access to the internet is still in question amid debate over net neutrality and subsequent FCC regulations on internet service providers, where reputable media outlets are adapting to the new digital economy through sponsored content or subscription plans. Even alternative platforms such as "Substack" that boast an environment of intellectual freedom rely mostly on paid (as well as educated) viewership. Moreover, Aronowitz and Giroux ([<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref15">2</reflink>]) have warned about "the ubiquity of electronically mediated culture" as it has led to the devaluation of literary and philosophical appreciation to the true nature of our culture creating a dilemma for public intellectuals (p. 154). Information on the internet has been curated more for the purposes of consumption rather than for communal interaction—no one dares enter the dreaded "comment section" of a webpage or thread and expects a thoughtful exchange of ideas. In this space, it becomes very hard for intellectuals to posit new ideas in a constructive setting.</p> <hd id="AN0184594636-4">Dewey the dialogical shepherd</hd> <p>Public intellectuals are no longer discernible not only because of the current state of public forums but also from our apprehension of honoring any individual to be acknowledged as one in this world. It appears that anyone and, at the same time, no one can seriously lay claim to being a public intellectual with full unanimity. Trying to identify public intellectuals might be an exercise in futility within our contemporary context. Instead, we should focus more on inviting educators to actively share the duty originally only posed on those recognized as public intellectuals. As noted previously, educators are well positioned for the task.</p> <p>Granted, many educators may feel unprepared to carry out such a lofty task while doing a litany of responsibilities laid upon them. However, modeling effective discussion is just as integral as promoting literacy or computation and could be integrated into their instructional practices without much alteration. Moreover, the importance of this new skill in education is underscored by the recent genesis of digital literacy standards and civics curricula promoted by state governments and learning organizations. Yet educators may need support in guiding them through their own praxis before they are expected to help the next generation of our learners.</p> <p>Scholars such as Dewey, Freire, Giroux, and Aronowitz have long argued for elevating the role of educators as drivers of socio-political change in our society. Dewey ([<reflink idref="bib9" id="ref16">9</reflink>]) was one of the earliest thinkers to emphasize experiential education as a vehicle for democratic deliberation, and Freire ([<reflink idref="bib18" id="ref17">18</reflink>]) expanded upon this idea by inviting teachers to initiate praxis in their classrooms and resist the "banking model" of education. In <emph>Teachers as Intellectuals</emph> Henry Giroux ([<reflink idref="bib19" id="ref18">19</reflink>]) continued in the spirit of Freire by encouraging educators to recognize their role not as mere "technicians" implementing prescribed curricula but as intellectuals critical to shaping a more just and equitable society. Adding to this body of work, Aronowitz and Giroux ([<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref19">2</reflink>]) further insisted on the need for space to critically analyze and demystify the entrenched role of schools as dispensers of moral and political regulation. According to them, school curricula ought to be organized around cultural politics that would enable an understanding of schools as sites of critical learning and social empowerment.</p> <p>Given this dearth of scholarship, it's fruitful to explore the potential degree to which such widespread professional orientation for educators could be actualized. However, there may need to be a more practical framework for educators to achieve such a transformation, as Giroux opined. That is why the authors contend that John Dewey's life and approach to public discourse offer a helpful framework for educators to build dialogical skills in the 21st century based on three key elements of his philosophy:</p> <p></p> <ulist> <item> Dewey's commitment to instrumentalism and problem-solving offers greater flexibility to negotiate between many conflicting viewpoints and/or solutions that idealogues might otherwise reject.</item> <p></p> <item> Dewey's vision of democracy refreshingly encourages "participatory parity" in public discourse.</item> <p></p> <item> Dewey's epistemological humility serves as a model for not only intellectual growth but the foundation for a more collaborative environment in public discourse.</item> </ulist> <p>While history continues to mark the legacies of many prolific thinkers, there may not be one who can better define the need for critical discourse in the modern era than John Dewey. Apart from his extensive writings on philosophy and pedagogy, Dewey ([<reflink idref="bib13" id="ref20">13</reflink>]) particularly stressed the importance of discourse as reflected in his lectures at Kenyon College in 1926 and published the following year as <emph>The Public and Its Problems</emph>:</p> <p>[T]he essential need, in other words, is the improvement of the methods and conditions of debate, discussion and persuasion. That is the problem of the public. We have asserted that this improvement depends essentially upon freeing and perfecting the processes of inquiry and of dissemination of their conclusions. (p. 208)</p> <p>Yet, it may be his own personal process of inquiry that functions as a guiding blueprint among the cacophony of viral information.</p> <p>Of course, many consider Dewey one of the icons in 20th-century educational circles but he was not immune from critics, especially educational conservatives. His alleged indifference to discipline in the classroom, apparent lack of respect for intellectual tradition, and what many consider his greatest flaw, placing greater emphasis on a child's social skills as opposed to character development (obedience and respect for authority), did affect his reputation. However, as a philosopher of education, he expanded his role to the public sphere as a forward-looking thinker, inviting dialogues addressing major issues that affected the way Americans lived at that time. As an educator and public intellectual, he sought clarity and reasons for what might not be what it is.</p> <hd id="AN0184594636-5">Dewey's commitment to instrumentalism</hd> <p>John Dewey's early experience as a public intellectual slowly matured throughout an era of long-standing political and social degradation in the United States. Born at the brink of the U.S Civil War in 1859, John Dewey's formative years happened amidst the backdrop of Radical Reconstruction ultimately made ineffectual by the reemergence of Jim Crow as well as the subsequent rise of corporate monopolies that stymied democracy in the late 19th century. By the time Dewey ascended into prominence within the realm of academia, the corruptive practices of the "Gilded Age" made its mark on several political, economic, and social institutions in American society, ultimately prompting a wave of reform from individuals known as the Progressives. Unlike their predecessors who championed privatized contributions to the downtrodden during the Social Gospel Movement, a coalition of feminists, social workers, and Protestant clergymen critical of an expanding industrial/urban society's materialistic pursuits, these reformers sought to solve the nation's problems wholesale by using empirically tested strategies initiated by local, state, or national government. The ethos of civic engagement, a core element to the Progressive Movement, helped shape Dewey's philosophy on knowledge, cognition, and education.</p> <p>Prior to moving to the University of Chicago in 1894, Dewey had already established himself as a leading scholar in the field of philosophy. He had published two works, <emph>Psychology</emph>, which was published in 1886 (Dewey, [<reflink idref="bib6" id="ref21">6</reflink>]), and the <emph>Outlines of a Critical Theory of Ethics,</emph> published in 1891. Yet Dewey's gradual movement away from Hegelianism to instrumentalism can be reflected in his publication entitled <emph>Outlines</emph> (Dewey, [<reflink idref="bib8" id="ref22">8</reflink>]). In <emph>Outlines</emph>, Dewey emphasized the important role intelligence can play in social organization. The role of intelligence, Dewey noted, must become practical. It must not remain merely an academic discipline. Its function is to guide the individual's attempt to adjust to his physical, social, and cultural environment: "The duty of the present is the socializing of intelligence—the realization of its bearing upon social practice." The role of intelligence, moreover, is to establish the end of moral community, which recognizes the rights and satisfactions of others:</p> <p>There is to be found not only the satisfaction of self, but also the satisfaction of the entire moral order, the furthering of the community in which one lives. All moral conduct is based upon such a faith; and moral theory must recognize this as the postulate upon which it rests. (pp. 127, 129–130)</p> <p>In terms of Dewey's own intellectual growth, it is readily apparent that the practical aspects of logic and thought took precedence over the Hegelian conception of divine order. The shift from providential rule to human control was a new development in Dewey's philosophical thought. It is in <emph>Outlines</emph> that the interrelationship and utilization of intelligence, morality, and science as instruments for human capability finally align. It is also in <emph>Outlines</emph> that Dewey adopted the philosophy of pragmatism—a philosophy based on a combination of inquiry and values—which he preferred to call instrumentalism.</p> <p>Undertaking the task of facilitating generative political discourse in the modern era would require educators to tap into a Deweyan line of thinking by reconsidering <emph>how</emph> they identify and express political issues affecting members within their own school community. Dewey's agnosticism to any particular ideology freed him to explore reality (as he saw it) to help humanity. Indeed, Dewey once "advised his fellow philosophers that they should study the problems of humanity rather than the problems of philosophy" (Tanner, [<reflink idref="bib35" id="ref23">35</reflink>], p. 78). The current paradigms such as the will to power or relativity are philosophical orientations that have not helped solve world issues. Both imply either an antagonism or an apathy to consensus that is required for a democratic society. By contrast, Dewey argued in his essay, "The Need for a Recovery of Philosophy," that the "pragmatic theory of intelligence means that the function of the mind is to ... free experience from routine and from caprice" (Dewey, [<reflink idref="bib11" id="ref24">11</reflink>], p. 63). Rather than adopt one particular narrative over another and fall into the trap of defending its merits over others, Dewey's instrumentalism proves to be a useful and adaptable framework that seems to rise above abstraction.</p> <p>At the very heart of his philosophy of pragmatism was for educators to become public intellectuals by adopting an experimental approach to social affairs. Educators can establish their curricula to orient around exploring the messiness of solving multi-faceted societal issues and having students see the folly in maintaining inflexible positions on topics simply based on fear of "losing" to their opponent in the contest of wills. Indeed, there already has been some promising scholarship about how youth participatory action research has led to greater consciousness, solidarity, and empowerment among students to engage with real-world problems. This, of course, would need to be supported by the articulation and defense of a shared vision for pursuing such ends. This is one way for furthering the public dialogue—both in the classroom and beyond as an example of what teachers can do for the public good.</p> <hd id="AN0184594636-6">Dewey's vision of democracy and education</hd> <p>Adherence to instrumentalism invariably led him to contemplate the indelible link between sustainable democratic progress and the system of education. In his book titled <emph>Democracy and Education</emph> in 1916, Dewey posited that schools should ideally function as forums where children should not only learn concepts or skills but also become problem-solvers within their own contexts. He believed that self-actualization was conducive to the genuine autonomy of the individual and essential to political activity within a well-functioning democracy. In fact, he spent a large part of his career articulating the sacred relationship between democracy and education:</p> <p>Democracy is the faith that the process of experience is more important than any special result attained, so that special results achieved are of ultimate value only as they are used to enrich and order the ongoing process. Since the process of experience is capable of being educative, faith in democracy is all one with faith in experience and education. (Dewey, [<reflink idref="bib15" id="ref25">15</reflink>], p. 229)</p> <p>For this level of awareness to occur, however, educators need to shed their proclivity for direct instruction that renders children passive recipients of information (Dewey, [<reflink idref="bib12" id="ref26">12</reflink>]). Authentic learning opportunities instead would come from participating in the dynamic process of real-world problem solving, as well as subsequent discussion and reflection about a shared material world. While much of his thoughts concerning democracy were informed by his pedagogy, Dewey's egalitarian vision of broadening public discourse to the masses was particularly evident in his own discourse with journalist Walter Lippmann in the late 1920s.</p> <p>Famously known as the "Dewey-Lippmann debates," it was more of a long-standing public conversation that spanned several years between the two scholars who wanted to address the existential challenges facing democratic societies (Bender, [<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref27">3</reflink>]) amid the popular rise of alternative political ideologies such as Marxism and fascism in Europe. In <emph>Public Opinion</emph> (Lippmann, [<reflink idref="bib25" id="ref28">25</reflink>]), Lippmann questioned the sustainability of democracy by positing that the economic, political, and social elements of modern life have expanded into such a complex labyrinth of human activity that citizens were no longer capable of acquiring knowledge in a manner suitable to make informed decisions. Lippmann did not put any faith in media outlets to bridge this gap either, as World War I revealed the extent to which journalism could easily become a propaganda arm for factional interest groups. He, therefore, proposed that social scientists or "experts" be given the role of analyzing complex data to assist a cohort of managers, administrators, and officials in shaping public policy for the common good. He further elaborated on his thesis in <emph>Phantom Public</emph> (Lippmann, [<reflink idref="bib26" id="ref29">26</reflink>]) and relegated the citizenry to the role of spectators who occasionally determine who ought to be "in" or "out" of power (Howlett &amp; Cohan, [<reflink idref="bib22" id="ref30">22</reflink>]).</p> <p>Lippman's cynical observation is counter-intuitive when analyzed in a contemporary context. Information became more complex and unintelligible in the aggregate, but the situation hasn't led to a technocracy readily endorsed by the public. Indeed, there has been a noticeable rise in conspiratorial thinking—ushering instead a movement of widespread rejection of expert opinion labeled as "the establishment" with nefarious intentions. Given the context of public distrust in expertise, Lippmann's prescription for technocrats being the custodian of knowledge seems to be untenable and impedes upon developing an appreciation for "empathy, humility, and a willingness to learn."</p> <p>Dewey agreed with Lippmann's assessment of public ignorance but objected to his solution. He believed that excluding the decision-making process to only a small cohort of specialized individuals would invariably create an elite technocracy and perpetuate the special interests that Lippmann warned about in his published works. Instead, Dewey offered a different understanding of the interplay between knowledge, communication, and civic responsibility. He did not believe that the public needed to be "omnicompetent" as Lippmann described nor was knowledge a commodity to be coveted by an individual (Dewey, [<reflink idref="bib14" id="ref31">14</reflink>]; Howlett &amp; Cohan, [<reflink idref="bib22" id="ref32">22</reflink>]). Knowledge acquisition was a social enterprise to be facilitated through the guidance of public intellectuals. As long as humans commit themselves to the collective accumulation of knowledge through dialogue and collaborative inquiry (aided, of course, by a robust educational system), then democracy can flourish in the modern era. Dewey's sentiments of "social inquiry" are neatly summarized by Midtgarden ([<reflink idref="bib28" id="ref33">28</reflink>]):</p> <p>Dewey's model of inquiry generally requires, firstly, that expert inquirers engage lay citizens through "a subtle, delicate, vivid and responsive art of communication" and by implementing "methods of discussion, consultation and persuasion." While division of cognitive labour between experts and lay people would be involved, participation on part of affected groups is required to adequately inform problem understanding and to anticipate relevant solutions. Secondly, research findings and proposed solutions should be distributed to inform and justify relevant policies, as well as to enable and inform citizens' participation in public policy discussions. (p. 14)</p> <p>Fortunately, Dewey did not believe that citizens had to be all knowing; they just needed to genuinely work together to figure it out. Far from being a set of esoteric principles relegated to the halls of academia, Dewey sought to live by the ideas he promoted. In the 1920s and early 1930s he extended his outreach in support of the progressive workers education movement, especially the nation's most famous residential labor college, Brookwood of Katonah, N.Y. (Howlett, [<reflink idref="bib21" id="ref34">21</reflink>]). In this endeavor, he engaged in public forums and provided pedagogical ideas, which called for the organized union movement to welcome into its ranks unskilled workers as an example of democracy at work. Many of these student workers ultimately played a vital role in helping to establish the powerful Congress of Industrial Organizations that would later merge with the American Federation of Labor in 1955.</p> <p>His own practical efforts in the formation of the <emph>People's Lobby</emph> during the Great Depression of the 1930s, moreover, underscore his practical commitment to transcend discourse into egalitarian pursuits (Midtgarden, [<reflink idref="bib28" id="ref35">28</reflink>]). Dewey, as president of this political organization, stood by its slogan: "We fight for the people. We get and give the facts." During the early years of the economic catastrophe, the Lobby called for massive increases in relief funds for the unemployed, farmers, and children. It also lobbied for federal unemployment funds, reconstruction of the tax system, and a redistribution of wealth, a popular reform championed by millions in rural agricultural districts. The People's Lobby even went so far as to call for the government ownership of "the basic agencies upon which industry and commerce depend" (Westbrook, [<reflink idref="bib38" id="ref36">38</reflink>], p. 445–446).</p> <p>By inheriting Dewey's vision for democracy, the public intellectual at work, educators can organize their pedagogy around an alluring set of principles and offer students a compelling reason to be active participants in their own learning. Far from being passive consumers of content awaiting the repercussions of policy made by an unnamed cabal of powerbrokers, teachers can inspire students' sense of worth and place in society beyond just their mere participation in the marketplace or workforce. Educators in this age would do well to keep this in mind while pursuing discourse in their pedagogies.</p> <hd id="AN0184594636-7">Dewey's epistemological humility &amp; love of collaboration</hd> <p>Once educators reconsider <emph>how</emph> and <emph>why</emph> they address societal dilemmas in their classrooms, they can think about how to express their understanding with epistemological humility. Modeling epistemological humility to students is a paradigm shift necessary for constructive discourse. This quality comes with much practice and a willingness to be vulnerable. Indeed, one could even say that Dewey's own philosophy was borne and informed by his meandering pursuit in understanding an ever-changing world and through his interactions with others—something that educators already naturally do throughout their professional careers.</p> <p>For example, Dewey's two-year excursion in China from 1919 to 1921 at the height of the May 4th movement altered his understanding of democracy applied in a foreign context; he later identified the phenomenon as driven by communal efforts of intellects rather than by public institutions. This movement was largely inspired by young university students seeking greater social change, and many were enamored with communist ideas spurned from the outgrowth of the Bolshevik movement in Russia in 1917 which Dewey greatly feared. Arising from this experience, democracy, Dewey concluded, was a social ideal and ethic, transcending beyond a simple form of government or political process:</p> <p>To say that democracy is only a form of government is like saying home is a more or less geometrical arrangement of bricks and mortar; that the church is a building with pews, pulpit and spire. It is true; they certainly are so much. But it is false; they are so infinitely more. (Dewey, [<reflink idref="bib7" id="ref37">7</reflink>], p. 240)</p> <p>Dewey's thoughts were also challenged during intense geo-political events such as World War I and World War II. Initially in favor of the "War to End All Wars," Dewey became more prolific—some might say more radical—as he tried to influence others in his conception of peace. He became the leading spokesperson for the 1920s Outlawry of War Crusade that called for the renunciation of war as an instrument of national policy and later applied to prosecute Nazi officials for crimes against humanity at the Nuremberg Trials after World War II. His writings in <emph>The Public and Its Problems</emph> (Dewey 1954) highlighted the term "The Great Community," focusing on the "importance of a new social order to address the problems of modern society" (Howlett &amp; Cohan, [<reflink idref="bib22" id="ref38">22</reflink>], p. xiv) and possibly derived from Graham Wallas's writing on the Great Society.</p> <p>Perhaps the greatest example of Dewey's epistemological humility is his abandonment of his previous conception of race. Many scholars have charged Dewey with not significantly considering how race informed democratic relations during his time, making his relentless appeal for discourse buoyed by experiential education to appear either shallow or based on ethnocentric premises. Indeed, Fallace ([<reflink idref="bib16" id="ref39">16</reflink>]) points out that prior to the 1920s, it is fair to categorize Dewey as an ethnocentrist because he considered Americans of color to be biologically equal to Caucasians but socially deficient. Even though Dewey did not tie skin color to cultural development, he was guilty, like most of his contemporaries, for ignoring the cultural contributions of non-White societies.</p> <p>However, that changed dramatically in the early 1920s as he would no longer make "reference to the psychological and/or sociological stages of development." He further went on forcefully developing the argument that racism is a "social disease." In light of these developments, his dialogue about race, in particular, continued to evolve and demonstrated his willingness to connect his classroom practices and research on current situations affecting human attitudes. In his 1916 article, "Nationalizing Education," Dewey praised the importance of multicultural education, throughout the postwar decade. Moreover, Fallace ([<reflink idref="bib16" id="ref40">16</reflink>]) also notes that Dewey stressed the importance of scholars to maintain a "a pluralistic appreciation of cultures as different, equally valid ways of looking at the world" (p. 476). Instead of standing on a pantheon proclaiming to be the sole possessor of knowledge, he publicly acknowledged that his earlier views on culture were in need of significant "knowledge revision."</p> <p>Dewey's willingness to speak out and write about the social and political issues of the day certainly earned him critics but it also demonstrates a commitment in using knowledge and acquired experience to foster a public dialogue—not bound by emotions, acrimony, or partisanship—but by introspection. Teachers can take a page from Dewey by embodying a pedagogy that emphasizes transparency in the cognitive process such as identifying gaps in knowledge or asking probing questions that lead to a comprehensive ideological adaptation or closure. Unless educators are willing to continually display their own personal ideological growth to their students and show them the value it holds for themselves and for society as a whole, it is very unlikely students will have the opportunity to consistently practice it anywhere else.</p> <p>"Knowledge revision" cannot be done in a vacuum, however. Dewey's notions of Collaboration was an integral component to Dewey's notion of "democratic deliberation" as clarified by Pappas ([<reflink idref="bib29" id="ref41">29</reflink>]):</p> <p>Much has been made of cooperation to describe Dewey's conception of democratic deliberation, but there are cooperative discussions that can fall short of the ideal envisioned by him .... Taking a part in a discussion where we imaginatively enter into the experience of the other requires more than that we meet each other halfway. What we want is a deeper interaction ... where members reexamine their values and interests in light of all others. (p. 233)</p> <p>Other scholars, such as Stitzlein ([<reflink idref="bib34" id="ref42">34</reflink>]), went further in specifically outlining the characteristics of Deweyan <emph>habits of democracy: citizenship as a shared fate</emph>, <emph>collaboration and compromise</emph>, <emph>deliberation</emph>, <emph>analysis and critique</emph>, and <emph>hope</emph>.</p> <p>It is important to note that Dewey was not always collaborative in his dialogical exchange with his contemporaries. One only needs to study the feud between him and Lewis Mumford to recognize how the folly of this quarrel limited both men from potential synthesis or closure of their ideas (Stemhagen &amp; Waddington, [<reflink idref="bib33" id="ref43">33</reflink>]). Yet his insistence of instrumentalism and faith in democracy fueled by collaboration provided a worldview that approximates toward the inter-public coordination envisioned by Fraser ([<reflink idref="bib17" id="ref44">17</reflink>]). Having people learn how to collaborate effectively on a broader scale requires practice and reinforcement. Educators already see the value of cooperative learning in their classrooms and have constructed their curricula around collaborative dialogue, meta-reflection of learning, and proposing solutions to real-world problems of today. Ensuring that these habits are reinforced continuously would be the best way to get the public to engage in critical discourse within their "multiplicity of publics."</p> <hd id="AN0184594636-8">Conclusion</hd> <p>Dewey maintained that "the school is the instrument by which a new society can be built, and through which the unworthy features of the existing society can be modified" (Clopton &amp; Ou, [<reflink idref="bib5" id="ref45">5</reflink>], p. 213). As educators, we recognize that those in our profession are already great agents of change in the classroom. However, by becoming dialogical shepherds to our students, we have the potential to strongly instill the sentiment that democratic communities are the "sole way of living" for all citizens. Since Dewey believed that democracy was an internally active social organism in which the individual citizen defined his objectives regarding the social welfare of all its members, we can shape our classrooms as organic communities based on shared ideals and cooperative experimentation. For Dewey, an informed citizen is one capable of contributing to others in a reciprocal fashion—using your discipline to instill in students the willingness to share the fruits of society as part of the public good. He also maintained that educators need to reach out to the public and foster a dialogue whereby their charges will "want to fulfil their duties to society, not from compulsion, but by curiosity and willingness, and out of love for their fellow men" (Clopton &amp; Ou, [<reflink idref="bib5" id="ref46">5</reflink>], p. 210). We are integral in revitalizing discourse in the public sphere (wherever it may be) and can use our classroom as experimental laboratories that promote critical understanding and cooperation. Fostering this shared experience, Dewey maintained, could only be achieved through the educational process.</p> <p>What we assert is that educators are already primed to emulate elements of Dewey, as many consider it necessary to focus on the behavioral aspects of the here and now to foster the kind of intelligent conduct that generates social progress. It begins in the classroom. Dewey insisted that the whole child must be educated, not just his or her intellect (mind). He encouraged a comprehensive, interdisciplinary curriculum, which was activity-based with respect to experience. Simply put, he considered the school the engine of democracy, one emphasizing the value of shared experience and one integrating values, outcomes, and solving problems that solidify the people as a democratic nation. His mission was encouraging students to practice it in a low-stakes environment with teachers who already care about them enough to stress the importance of practicing empathy, inquiry, and nuance in today's world.</p> <hd id="AN0184594636-9">Disclosure statement</hd> <p>No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).</p> <ref id="AN0184594636-10"> <title> References </title> <blist> <bibl id="bib1" idref="ref9" type="bt">1</bibl> <bibtext> Aronowitz, S. (2000). The knowledge factory: Dismantling the corporate university and creating true higher education. Beacon Press.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib2" idref="ref15" type="bt">2</bibl> <bibtext> Aronowitz, S., &amp; Giroux, H. (1991). Post-modern education: Politics, culture, and social criticism. University of Minnesota Press.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib3" idref="ref27" type="bt">3</bibl> <bibtext> Bender, T. (1987). New York intellect: A history of intellectual life in New York City, from 1750 to the beginnings of our own time. The Johns Hopkins University Press.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib4" idref="ref10" type="bt">4</bibl> <bibtext> Bergland, B. (2018). The incompatibility of neoliberal university structures and interdisciplinary knowledge: A feminist slow scholarship critique. Educational Philosophy and Theory, 50 (11), 1031 – 1036. https://doi.org/10.1080/00131857.2017.1341297</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib5" idref="ref45" type="bt">5</bibl> <bibtext> Clopton, R. W., &amp; Ou, T. -C (1973). John Dewey, lectures in China, 1919–1920. University of Hawaii Press.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib6" idref="ref21" type="bt">6</bibl> <bibtext> Dewey, J. (1886). Psychology. Harper &amp; Bros.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib7" idref="ref37" type="bt">7</bibl> <bibtext> Dewey, J. (1888). The ethics of democracy. Andrews &amp; Co.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib8" idref="ref22" type="bt">8</bibl> <bibtext> Dewey, J. (1891). Outlines of a critical theory of ethics. Bibliolife.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib9" idref="ref16" type="bt">9</bibl> <bibtext> Dewey, J. (1916). Democracy and education. Macmillan.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Dewey, J. (1916). Nationalizing education. The Elementary School Journal, 16 (7), 449 – 466.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Dewey, J. (1917). The need for a recovery of philosophy. In Creative intelligence: Essays in the pragmatic attitude (pp. 3–69). Henry Holt &amp; Co.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Dewey, J. (1923). The school as a means of developing social consciousness and social ideals in children. Journal of Social Forces, 1 (5), 513 – 517. https://doi.org/10.2307/3005121</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Dewey, J. (1927). The public and its problems. Henry Holt &amp; Co. (Reprinted by Alan Swallow in 1954).</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Dewey, J. (1941). The basic values and loyalties of democracy. In J. A. Boydston (Ed.), John Dewey: The latter works, 1925–1953 (Vol. 14, pp. 275 – 277). Southern Illinois University Press.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Dewey, J. (1976). Creative democracy: The task before us. In J. Boydston (Ed.), John Dewey: The later works, 1925–1953 (Vol. 14, pp. 224 – 230). Southern Illinois University Press. (Original work published 1939).</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Fallace, T. D. (2010). Was John Dewey ethnocentric? Reevaluating the philosopher's early views on culture and race. Educational Researcher, 39 (6), 471 – 477. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X10379047</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Fraser, N. (1990). Rethinking the public sphere: A contribution to the critique of actually existing democracy. Social Text, (25/26), 56 – 80. https://doi.org/10.2307/466240</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Freire, P. (1970). Pedagogy of the oppressed. Penguin Education.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Giroux, H. (1988). Teachers as intellectuals: Toward a critical pedagogy of learning. Bergin &amp; Garvey Publishers, Inc.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Habermas, J. (1962). The structural transformation of the public sphere: An inquiry into a category of bourgeois society. Polity Press.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Howlett, C. F. (1993). Brookwood labor college and the struggle for peace and social justice in America. Mellen Press.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Howlett, C. F., &amp; Cohan, A. (2016). John Dewey: America's peace-minded educator. Southern Illinois University Press.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Howlett, C. F. (2021). The Vietnam War comes to Marist, the 1966 Teach-In: A personal-historical account. Hudson Valley River Institute. https://.Marist_1996_Teach-in.HRVI.1</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Hutchins, R. (1936). The higher learning in America. Yale University Press.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Lippmann, W. (1922). Public opinion. Harcourt, Brace &amp; Co.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Lippmann, W. (1927). The phantom public. Macmillan.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Menashe, L., &amp; Radosh, R. (Eds.) (1967). Teach-ins: USA. Praeger.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Midtgarden, T. (2019). Dewey's conceptualization of the public as polity contextualized: The struggle for democratic control over natural resources and technology. Contemporary Pragmatism, 16 (1), 104 – 131. https://doi.org/10.1163/18758185-0161122</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Pappas, G. (2008). John Dewey's ethics: Democracy as experience (American Philosophy). Indiana University Press.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Posner, R. A. (2003). Public intellectuals: A study of decline. Harvard University Press.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Singer, P. (2023). Have a controversial idea? Good. Here's why you should. Big Think. https://bigthink.com/series/devils-advocate/controversial-ideas-peter-singer/</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Sowell, T. (2009). Intellectuals and society. Basic Books.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Stemhagen, K., &amp; Waddington, D. (2011). Beyond the "Pragmatic Acquiescence" controversy: Reconciling the educational thought of Lewis Mumford and John Dewey. Educational Studies, 47 (5), 469 – 489. https://doi.org/10.1080/00131946.2011.602150</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Stitzlein, S. M. (2014). Habits of democracy: A Deweyan approach to citizenship education in America today. Education and Culture, 30 (2), 61 – 86. https://doi.org/10.1353/eac.2014.0012</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Tanner, D. (1997). Dewey's laboratory school: Lessons for today. Teachers College Press.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Tight, M. (2019). The neoliberal turn in higher education. Higher Education Quarterly, 73 (3), 273 – 284. https://doi.org/10.1111/hequ.12197</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Veysey, L. R. (1965). The emergence of the American University. University of Chicago.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Westbrook, R. (1991). John Dewey and American democracy. Cornell University Press.</bibtext> </blist> </ref> <aug> <p>By Nicholas Vasiliades; Audrey Cohan and Charles Howlett</p> <p>Reported by Author; Author; Author</p> </aug> <nolink nlid="nl1" bibid="bib30" firstref="ref1"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl2" bibid="bib32" firstref="ref2"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl3" bibid="bib20" firstref="ref3"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl4" bibid="bib24" firstref="ref4"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl5" bibid="bib31" firstref="ref5"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl6" bibid="bib23" firstref="ref6"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl7" bibid="bib27" firstref="ref7"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl8" bibid="bib37" firstref="ref8"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl9" bibid="bib36" firstref="ref11"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl10" bibid="bib17" firstref="ref12"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl11" bibid="bib18" firstref="ref17"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl12" bibid="bib19" firstref="ref18"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl13" bibid="bib13" firstref="ref20"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl14" bibid="bib35" firstref="ref23"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl15" bibid="bib11" firstref="ref24"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl16" bibid="bib15" firstref="ref25"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl17" bibid="bib12" firstref="ref26"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl18" bibid="bib25" firstref="ref28"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl19" bibid="bib26" firstref="ref29"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl20" bibid="bib22" firstref="ref30"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl21" bibid="bib14" firstref="ref31"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl22" bibid="bib28" firstref="ref33"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl23" bibid="bib21" firstref="ref34"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl24" bibid="bib38" firstref="ref36"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl25" bibid="bib16" firstref="ref39"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl26" bibid="bib29" firstref="ref41"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl27" bibid="bib34" firstref="ref42"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl28" bibid="bib33" firstref="ref43"></nolink> |
|---|---|
| Header | DbId: eric DbLabel: ERIC An: EJ1497664 AccessLevel: 3 PubType: Academic Journal PubTypeId: academicJournal PreciseRelevancyScore: 0 |
| IllustrationInfo | |
| Items | – Name: Title Label: Title Group: Ti Data: John Dewey: The Dialogical Shepherd for Educators in the 21st Century – Name: Language Label: Language Group: Lang Data: English – Name: Author Label: Authors Group: Au Data: <searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Nicholas+Vasiliades%22">Nicholas Vasiliades</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Audrey+Cohan%22">Audrey Cohan</searchLink> (ORCID <externalLink term="https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5740-575X">0000-0002-5740-575X</externalLink>)<br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Charles+Howlett%22">Charles Howlett</searchLink> – Name: TitleSource Label: Source Group: Src Data: <searchLink fieldCode="SO" term="%22Educational+Studies%3A+Journal+of+the+American+Educational+Studies+Association%22"><i>Educational Studies: Journal of the American Educational Studies Association</i></searchLink>. 2025 61(1):111-124. – Name: Avail Label: Availability Group: Avail Data: Routledge. Available from: Taylor & Francis, Ltd. 530 Walnut Street Suite 850, Philadelphia, PA 19106. Tel: 800-354-1420; Tel: 215-625-8900; Fax: 215-207-0050; Web site: http://www.tandf.co.uk/journals – Name: PeerReviewed Label: Peer Reviewed Group: SrcInfo Data: Y – Name: Pages Label: Page Count Group: Src Data: 14 – Name: DatePubCY Label: Publication Date Group: Date Data: 2025 – Name: TypeDocument Label: Document Type Group: TypDoc Data: Journal Articles<br />Reports - Descriptive – Name: Subject Label: Descriptors Group: Su Data: <searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Educational+Philosophy%22">Educational Philosophy</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Thinking+Skills%22">Thinking Skills</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Critical+Thinking%22">Critical Thinking</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Skill+Development%22">Skill Development</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Role+of+Education%22">Role of Education</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Empathy%22">Empathy</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Teacher+Role%22">Teacher Role</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Democracy%22">Democracy</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Problem+Solving%22">Problem Solving</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Cooperation%22">Cooperation</searchLink> – Name: DOI Label: DOI Group: ID Data: 10.1080/00131946.2025.2481570 – Name: ISSN Label: ISSN Group: ISSN Data: 0013-1946<br />1532-6993 – Name: Abstract Label: Abstract Group: Ab Data: Very few of today's forums (both physical and virtual) are appreciative environments for generative discourse, complicating the efforts and recognition of "public intellectuals" who are interested in elevating discourse for the public good. Instead of expecting regulatory action from institutions to set standards of communication (top-down) or a cohort of public intellectuals to provide dialogical direction, there should be more of a focus on ensuring that the next generation will have skills instilled in them to reinforce these norms for themselves (bottom-up). The authors assert that we need not look very far in viewing educators as the ideal liaisons in carrying out this endeavor as they are already well-positioned to model critical thinking, expression, and engagement to an uninitiated population. John Dewey's learning process is offered as a helpful "roadmap" for educators committed to modeling constructive discourse under the tenets of "empathy, humility, and a willingness to learn" within their classrooms. Teachers willing to follow the example of one of the 20th century's most influential educators and public intellectuals can now become the new vanguard of dialogical shepherds in the current millennium. – Name: AbstractInfo Label: Abstractor Group: Ab Data: As Provided – Name: DateEntry Label: Entry Date Group: Date Data: 2026 – Name: AN Label: Accession Number Group: ID Data: EJ1497664 |
| PLink | https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&site=eds-live&db=eric&AN=EJ1497664 |
| RecordInfo | BibRecord: BibEntity: Identifiers: – Type: doi Value: 10.1080/00131946.2025.2481570 Languages: – Text: English PhysicalDescription: Pagination: PageCount: 14 StartPage: 111 Subjects: – SubjectFull: Educational Philosophy Type: general – SubjectFull: Thinking Skills Type: general – SubjectFull: Critical Thinking Type: general – SubjectFull: Skill Development Type: general – SubjectFull: Role of Education Type: general – SubjectFull: Empathy Type: general – SubjectFull: Teacher Role Type: general – SubjectFull: Democracy Type: general – SubjectFull: Problem Solving Type: general – SubjectFull: Cooperation Type: general Titles: – TitleFull: John Dewey: The Dialogical Shepherd for Educators in the 21st Century Type: main BibRelationships: HasContributorRelationships: – PersonEntity: Name: NameFull: Nicholas Vasiliades – PersonEntity: Name: NameFull: Audrey Cohan – PersonEntity: Name: NameFull: Charles Howlett IsPartOfRelationships: – BibEntity: Dates: – D: 01 M: 01 Type: published Y: 2025 Identifiers: – Type: issn-print Value: 0013-1946 – Type: issn-electronic Value: 1532-6993 Numbering: – Type: volume Value: 61 – Type: issue Value: 1 Titles: – TitleFull: Educational Studies: Journal of the American Educational Studies Association Type: main |
| ResultId | 1 |
