Table Of ContentPOSITIVE EDUCATION
by
Poster McMurray
This dissertation has been approved for final examination by
the student's Dissertation. Sponsor whose w ritten approval
is on file in the Advanced School.
D issertation Sponsor!
R. Bruce Raup
Submitted in partial fulfillm ent of the
requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy
in the Paculty of Philosophy, Columbia University
T A B L E OF C O N T E N T S
Chapter Page
I. EDUCATION AS PREPARATION............................................................. 1
1. The Need for New D irection..................................................... 1
2. The Meaning of "Preparation"................................................. 9
3* Is Formal Education Preparatory? ........................................ 22
II. THE ESSENTIALS................................................................................... 36
b. Needs, Problem-Solving and Anti-Eeeentialiem . . . . 59
3. Cultural Heritage as the Field of Choice...................... 57
6. The Eeeentlale for Individual Growth and Social
Reconstruction .................................................................. 67
III. PSYCHOLOGIC PRIORITY OF SUBJECT-MATTER............................... 79
7. The Psychologic Order of L earn in g ................................... 6l
6. Psychologic Essentials .............................................................. 90
IV. LOGIC Alffi SUBJECT-MATTER............................................................. 9'o
9. The Educative Control of T h in k in g ................................... 96
10. Self-Conscious Awareness of Logical Norms .................. 113
V. SOCIETY AND SUBJECT-MATTER..............................................................123
11. The Selective Transmission of Our Better Cultural
H e rita g e ....................................................................................J2b
12. Education as Construction and Reconstruction of
C onunon Sense . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1^0
VI. COMMUNICATION AND LEARNING BY EXPERIENCE................................179
13. Understanding............................................................................................It2
lb. B e l i e f .................................................................................................195
15 • Knowledge.............................................................................................211
iv
VII. THE THEORY OF PROBLEMATIC INSTRUCTION . . ...........................251
lb. Problems and. Their O rigin..........................................................253
17 • The Resolution of a Problem.................................................299
BIBLIOGRAPHY.............................................................................................*2*
CHAPTER I
EDUCATION AS PREPARATION
ProgreeBive education in its better forms is constructive
of the intellect. It emphasizes the central role of reflective
thinking in learning. In ite weakened and its radical forms, pro
gressive education disperees the intellect and minimizes the role of
deliberation and ideation. It is anti-intellectual.
This is a strange situation. A single nub of doctrine sup
ports activities geared to opposite results. To an impartial ob
server it might eeem antecedently impossible that a movement original
ly designed to encourage learning by thinking, and only learning by
thinking, should harbor within itself a counter-movement which de
liberately derogates the activities of intellect. For it must be
granted that the originators of progressivism do not sanction the
anti-intellectualiem which eome of their followers manifest. The
original doctrine is cleaz’ly intended to encourage a greater respect
for ideas as ideas than has ever been true of education before. But
the bare presence of anti-intellectuals in the camp of the progres
sives is sufficient indication that there is something in the nature
of progressivism which tolerates, if not encourages, the outrageous
misconstructions which now characterize the administrative mind.
1. The Need for New Direction
Progressivism and Negativism. Let me suggest that the mis-educative
or intellectually dispersive strands in modern education, granted
1
that they are the product of unfortunate misinterpretation, are
caused by a prominent feature of progressive education even in ite
better forms. This feature might properly be called "negativism."
The doctrines of progressive education have been expreseed quite
freely in terms of what progressiviem is against.
To some extent negativism was inevitable. A new movement
cannot gain foothold except by making clear its newness, which means
its differences from what had gone before. But the progressives seem
to have rested content, more often than not, with saying that modem
education is opposed to this, that, and the other characteristic of
traditional education, and the vigor and enthusiasm which marked
their attacks created the impression of a positive program. So strong
was the impression that as the activities of the newer school unfolded,
they were only later on observed to be nothing more than the simplest
opposites of what had been done traditionally. Because the tx*aditional
school favored organization of subject-matter, for example, the modem
school must do away with organized subject-matter. The traditional
school emphasized the value of beliefs inherited from the paetj there
fore the new school must ignore the past. By extension of this nega
tive approach, contemporary educators now stand firmly oppoeed to a l
most every conceivable characteristic of traditional education. They
are oppoeed to the conception of education as preparation for the
future, and equally opposed to the related conception of education as
the transmission of cultureJ they are opposed to learning from books
and from teachers; opposed to the doctrine that eome parts of the cul
ture are essential, opposed to the deliberate presentation of intel
lectual problems by the teacher to his pupils, opposed to systematic
knowledge organized in disciplines. And as a further consequence of
so much opposition, they are sometimes opposed to learning iteelf,
if learning is to be defined as an intellectual act. It stands to
reason that if educational activity is restricted to extemporized
action within the immediate present, cut off from future and past,
from accumulated culture and from rational system, then the outer
most extreme of anti-intellectualism has been achieved. It is small
consolation to remember that the original intent of the pi'ogressives
was to encourage learning by thinking.
The constant expansion of negative doctrine at the expense
of positive program was a self-perpetuating process. Once begun, it
could not be stopped short of educational nihilism, and for a reason
which ought to be obvious to us now, granted the benefits of hind
sight: we had rejected the essential definitions of education and the
educative process. We had deprived ourselves of a basic vocabulary
for thinking and talking about education; not deliberately, of course,
but by accident, as a by-product of our efforts to get rid of outmoded
ideas and practices. Because older ideas about educational methods
and purposes had been expressed in the normal language of educators,
we had identified the linguistic agents with the poorer results which
these agents had been used to serve. And so we attacked the vocabulary
k
of education along with the uses to which the terras had been put,
apparently unaware that the language itself is neutral and harmless,
and may be made to do whatever we wish.
What does it mean, more specifically, to say that the nega-
tiviein of modern doctrines has destroyed the vocabulary of education?
Does it mean that the words themselves, by which we refer to objects
and processes, have been given up? Not at a ll. We continue to use
the words--words like "pupil," "learning," "curriculum," "subject"
and so on. But we are using the words as atomistic units, and we are
using them almost grudgingly, or else desperately hoping that they
will denotate merely, and not connote more than the minimum of con
nection with other terms in discourse. This hope that words will
operate as nearly as possible like discrete units, with only the
leaet and barest of meanings, is self-defeating. Terms in discourse
are capable of carrying meaning only by virtue of (loosely) systematic
connections of meaning. The meaning of any statement is not the bare
addition of meanings from the individual words which comprise it.
Therefore when it is charged that the radical progressives have de
stroyed the normal vocabulary by which we think and talk about the
problems of education, what is meant is that the connections of mean
ing among terms applicable to education have been severed.
A single example will suffice to clarify the charge. In
recent literature it is rarely the case that the word "education" is
modified by the adjective "formal." We hesitate to talk about education
5
as formal becauee we don't like the connotation of formality and
stiffness which seems to accompany the word. Perhaps we believe
that school-room learning should avoid artificiality ; we believe
that school-room learning ought to be as nearly like as possible
to learning as it occurs in the normal rounds of daily living.
Therefore we refuse to speak of formal education. But there is no
reason for believing that formal education means artificial educa
tion. Modesty demands recognition of the fact that the processes
of education are not peculiar to thoee institutions which make a
business of education. When thinking about the problems of educa
tion, we are usually intending to limit our attention to the problems
of formal education. To achieve precision in ideas, we ought to re
mind ourselves that we are not thinking about the sort of education
which occure naturally and spontaneously as the unintended accompani
ment of activities designed for an entirely different purpose. But
we cannot remind ourselves of everything that we are not talking
about, and therefore we reepect the limits of a universe of discourse
by using the selecting phraees of a professional vocabulary.
The Need for a New Vocabulary. To deprive ourselves of a professional
vocabulary is to deprive ourselves of the tools for controlled think
ing. Unable to think clearly, we cannot develop a positive program.
With or without a program, we continue to operate our formal schools,
but in lieu of a professional language, we take our direction from
Blogane. Because the emptiness of slogans is quickly revealed, we
change our slogans frequently, and because our slogans are changing
frequently, we seem to be moving along at a vigorous clip. With
each new slogan, the original emphasis upon intellectual processes
is pushed farther into the background. This process might continue
indefinitely, but it cannot continue forever. Sooner or later one
of two things mu6t happen. Either the schools will become complete
ly authoritarian, dominated by the newly self-styled Leaders (for
merly administrators) or else we shall restore a meaningful vocabu
lary and a positive program.
The re-founding of a vocabulary is both difficult and
risky. It is difficult because it means bringing back into circula
tion a series of meaninge which have been rejected with vehemence.
It is risky because the restoration of meaninge is a charged opera
tion. To restore a set of meaninge is to restore a part of tradition,
and thereby to invite more of tradition than intended.
But these hazards are surmountable, for the simple reason
that we cannot restore a professional vocabulary as an isolated act.
We cannot propose a series of meanings in the manner of a lexicographer
offering a new dictionary, nor can we sell a new language by recommend
ing it as a useful but neutral set of tools for anyone's use. A pro
fessional language is a tool rather than a doctrine, but it is not a
tool apart from its functioning. As functioning tools, a set of mean
ings is explored and developed in the act of thinking, and in this
case, of thinking about the problems of education. To realize the
continued relevance of meaninge which are now out of fashion ie to
realize that they play a new and different role in the contemporary
scene. To propose that we discard the negativism of older pro-
greesivism means in part to restore something that had been rejected
needlessly. But we restore older meanings by using them in the de
velopment of something new and positive.
In the pages and chapters to follow, meanings now out of
fashion will be used again, but used in the development of a positive
program that is quite new. The reader is urged to re-admit many
ideas which had been a part of traditional theory, but to re-admit
them with a difference, and to realize a connection of meaninge which
maintains its continuity, not with older traditions, but rather with
the rapidly diminishing core of positive progressive theory.
The Positive Core of Modern Theory. To have chosen a certain part
from widely-scattered modern doctrines and to claim that this part
represents the positive core of progressivism is not a neutral act.
It represents a selection based upon prior convictions, and these
prior convictions are not themselves the subject-matter of this study.
They must be presupposed without proof simply because it is necessary
to begin somewhere, but for the sake of intellectual responsibility,
such presuppositions as are unavoidable might be stated dogmatically.
It seems to me that an educational doctrine is rightly called
