It's not even in Hittite!

The Tech Tools in Use Presentation that stands out the most for me was the Padlet one. Padlet seems like it will be the most flexible and useful. I just opened up the one I made in class that day. There it is. Pretty cool I'd say. It is the one thing out of all the Tech Tools in Use presentations that I walked away from with something I could use tomorrow. It's a matching quiz on different kinds of media, from cuneiform tablets to floppy disks. You can make quizzes on Socrative, but I don't think you could make I quiz like this. I for sure couldn't. When I made this I was thinking about a lecture I suggested I to the Senior Humanities team at Huron—teachers of Literature (my mentor), History, and Art. I was thinking about the fragility of knowledge. The seniors have read some Gilgamesh, some Homer, some Virgil (some Plato and Thucydides) and seen and heard about all kinds of buildings, mosaics, statues and pottery. I think as far as the art goes the students have a fair idea what a crap shoot our artistic inheritance from past cultures has been. Mr. Benedict has told them about Goths hacking out faces on the sculptural relief of the Arch of Titus, how arms and legs go missing on classical sculptures, how a few canon balls seemed much preferable to some lost wax Olympian. And so on. But it takes quite a bit more abstraction, I think, to imagine that the raggedy paperback in your hands from the Pioneer book depository was originally a single surviving manuscript. Or a bunch of clay tablets dug up in Iraq from three thousand years ago. That's what I want to talk about. That floppy disc, too. Nobody can read it these days. And not because what's on it is in Hittite. 

Hittite sphinx from Tell Alaf, Syria. Photo: Charles & Josette Lenars/Corbis.

 

I may even use a padlet for my presentation. Why not? I also like the notion of using Padlet as a planning tool. Having all my (virtual) stuff right there in front of me! That way I wouldn't keep loosing stuff.

Chill about Tech

The assignment was called "Tech in My Placement." It meant doing a survey of the teaching and learning technology at your placement school. I'm neutral about what I found, neither surprised nor impressed, not disappointed. There are labs. There are carts. There are document projectors. And so on. I could work with what they have. I'd like to think I could work with whatever technology I find in the school where I'll teach. Because I'll have to. It was interesting to do the survey and see what there was. It's almost like Jeff and Rory kinda want to suggest that we do this at the school where we get our first job. Cosmic!

I found it very interesting to read the responses of the two other MACers at Pioneer: my peers Betsy and Branden. Betsy was depressed. Her disaffection, it seems, had a lot to do with her mentor not having a document camera at the start of school. My mentor did not experience this. If she had, things would have been much different, because this is the one piece of technology always in use in her classroom.

Aside from people liking or not liking the level of technological sophistication at their placements, one of the themes I find from reading others' posts about the Tech in My Placement assignment is the notion that resources are often not exploited fully or properly. Broken, missing equipment. Confusion about how things work. Unused equipment and features. Unreachable IT specialists. This is troubling.

The reason is not hard to find, of course. Grants and budget lines go to buying stuff. Impressive, high-tech, expensive stuff. Spend the money you get for technology, and spend it all, or next year they won't give it because, “the school doesn't need it.” It also means stuff that can be bragged about, “Our school has 50 of this, the latest that, plus some of these, and we're the only school in the district to have one of those.” Looks good on the brochure. Impresses parents who are shopping for a school. Kind of like what's happening these days with colleges, “Come to Fleece U, we have a Michelin four-star dining hall and a rock-climbing wall!”

Then maybe sometimes after the stuff is brought into the school there's not enough money for the people to run, fix, explain and help with the technology. People are expensive for districts. Who needs them! We've got gadgets! Cool gadgets. So there is one IT person, or two. I'd bet they are overworked. I'd bet that is an understatement. And not everyone who is good with technology can maintain patience with a techno-phobe like yours truly. But I'd say that people, the right kind of technology people, are as crucial as the stuff itself. People who can not just fix and troubleshoot, who can deliver equipment and keep it working, but who can talk about features. People with either some imagination about how to use stuff, or the qualities of a salesman.

It's our job as teachers to figure out how to use technology as educational tools, of course. And I wouldn't expect this from IT specialists. What would be nice to see however, is PD about using technology, sharing ideas, having a human talk about all the things you can do with this or that. Especially for teachers who did not have the advantage of such a great Teaching with Technology sequence. (Thanks Jeff and Rory).

Because the level and use of technology in a school does not, I think, entirely depend on just the amount and newness of the technology. It depends also on the level of the people who are able to exploit it effectively for maximal pedagogical effect. And not just one or two teachers. The average level and quality of technology use is probably what most matters in school. What makes the biggest difference.

How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love SAMR.

Ruben R. Puentedura is the “edu-bloger” behind the SAMR model cited by Tom Ward in class a few weeks ago. SAMR stands for the “levels of technology integration,” going from “'substitution” to “augmentation,” which he classifies at the “enhancement” level, and on to “modification” and finally, “redefinition.” In these last two levels “transformation” is happening. Puentedura talks about using the SAMR model for teaching Macbeth. Here's the pdf for it. If you, dear reader, have looked at this blog at all, you can imagine what my reaction is going to be. But I'm really going to try to be fair and not take any cheap shots. At least not any REALLY cheap shots. No really, read to the end (read Puentedura, too) and then let me know if I have haven't been fair.

Here's what he says about the first level, substitution.

And at this level, a teacher could say well, I'm going to use NoteShare and I'm going to drag and drop different links from the web of which correspond to things like the original text of Macbeth. I could also drag in critical commentary. I could also drag in some books about the Shakespearian stage and finally I could look at YouTube and find some of the classic performances of Macbeth on film and drag those links in. Now this is at the substitution level. What I have here is the equivalent of what we use to do by putting together a library list or a reading list, using paper and using the library. It's very nice that all of these resources are available for free on the net and it's great and very convenient for this list to be available to students with all the links already built in. But it's clear that it is a direct substitution for the traditional form. In other words, at this point, we are using the technology just to substitute for what we would have done before with the library and with a type written list.

OK, this is alright I guess. There's nothing so bad about this. I don't much like the idea of reading anything very long or serious on a screen (which is pretty much everything beyond tweets and FB, especially Shakespeare). Ah, you will say, but it IS Shakespeare's SHORTEST PLAY. That it is, dear reader, that it is... And I especially don't want to encourage this practice in teens. No, wait, it's fine, teens will read Macbeth on their phones... I'm OK with that. Really.

But I'm not even close to embracing SAMR, because all this has been only SUBSTITUTION. Come with me as we move,

[T]o the augmentation level, there's only one very small change that's needed. And that is to add to the list of these resources some materials that do not fall within the scope of what would be in a traditional library. But instead make use of the unique possibilities that the Internet offers as a social environment. So here for instance I've included a link to the Flicker Shakespeare group. So students can see how the people visualize Shakespeare in photos. And these aren't by the way, just photos of straight performances; they're photos that represent different people's artistic approach to Shakespeare.

A link to the Flicker Shakespeare group? We would seem to be valorizing that visual over the verbal. And I don't like that. Shakespeare was all about the verbal. He didn't have any scenery! Go back and read one of his plays or check out a performance. There are SO MANY WORDS! They just TALK AND TALK AND TALK!

Then Puentedura talks about blogs: “blogs allow for more interaction by the students so they can enter into a dialogue with Shakespearian play directors, Shakespearian scholars.” OK, I'm OK with that too. Then we're on to MODIFICATION. In a complex play like Macbeth, he says,  

Meaning is encoded in words and sequences of words. And we now have via sites such as IBM MiniEyes, access to tools that allows us to visualization just that, just those sequences of words, the frequency of word occurrence. So for instance, here are the 100 most frequent words that appear in Macbeth . And if you look at this list closely, you'll find that the word 'blood', which is frequently mentioned in critical analyses are being essential to the meaning of Macbeth , is indeed one of the words that appears frequently. But also note that the word 'time' appears much more frequently as does the word 'fear'. Now this is very interesting because when we look at different stagings of the play, some have chosen to prioritize blood as the running motif, some have chosen to prioritize fear as the running motif. So this is a tool that significantly modifies what the students can do with the material, how they can understand what's going on in Macbeth.

This I think, is one of those “digital humanities” things: use a computer to count words and phrases in a way a human never could in a text and use that to get an insight on the text. Counting words. Really? So we get one of those cool word visualizations with some words bigger (the important ones) and some words smaller... I don't like this because it sounds like a crappy shortcut to reading, pondering, and allowing for inspiration to happen. Who's to say, maybe the most important word in the play occurs only once? One time, fifty times, it's up to YOU, dear reader, not the computer, to decide what to make of a word, a notion, a theme, a feeling...You get these insights when you unplug, not when you let a computer tell you what is important. Turns out, Mindlessness Can Be Just as Productive as Mindfulness). So this approach MIGHT work if you read the play carefully, mull over it, let it speak to you, come up with an idea about it, and then use IBM MiniEyes to support your intuition. Not the other way around.

“We're not talking about getting rid of the traditional analysis,” Puentedura writes. I appreciate this. This one line is the most important sentence I've ever read about SAMR. Yes. IF the ELA teacher remembers what is important and integrates technology to support real, hard-core reading, writing, and thinking.

I'll let you check out what he says for the REDEFINITION level. Here's the link again

(page 5). Quickly, though, because this post is already too long. The Second Life Macbeth Flyover movie has me shaking my head. Watch it and tell me if you think this looks like serious engagement with the play and its ideas. I might show this, as a reward, if students had worked hard and there was measurable learning. But as a student final project? Let's just say for an English class the grade would not be very high. For a computer animation class, on the other hand...

Upstage, however, could be a serious tool, if scaffolded, if used correctly... Yes, I can see it being an important component, even a crucial component of a unit. Using something like this, doing it right, scaffolding for it, making sure it was aligned with a full apparatus of objectives, would be a risky step for a teacher to try. But big rewards come from big risks. Maybe that's how I need to think about SAMR.

Musings Prompted by Tom Ward's Talk

I have mixed feelings about Tom Ward's message. Tom himself is nice fellow and it was great he came and shared his ideas and experiences with us.

Ward cites the SAMR (Substitution Augmentation Modification Redefinition) model for enhancing technology integration as the theory behind his approach to using technology. This model was developed by Dr. Ruben Puentedura. Puentedura runs a consulting firm focused on IT in education. Here is the site. I plan to consider SAMR in a separate post. For now I will say that while the materials look comprehensive and persuasive, it also appears to be a case of backwards design, i.e., that the goal of using as much “technology” as possible in the classroom is stated at the beginning with all subsequent work being geared towards justifying this outcome.

It's not a bad direction in terms of popularity, job security, attention, “buzz”... Who wouldn't like it? Philanthropists will, investors (especially those who sell educational technology and software products), principals, parents, even teachers will jump on the bandwagon so as not to seem out of touch. Students of course will love it. Students are all about gadgets. We are all about gadgets. We love our gadgets. So anything that makes us feel our gadgets are wonderful, that there is nothing wrong with all the time we spend staring at screens, makes us feel wonderful about ourselves. This is what bothers me.

I do not blithely dismiss educational technology altogether. The notion of Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge (TPACK), for instance, is a serious framework for understanding how to do learning + technology. But I keep going back to my first class in Teaching with Technology, where we learned about the history of technology in education—the way radio, film, you name it, was supposed to “transform” education but never quite lived up to what its proponents declared for it.

I attended to Ward's presentation trying to keep an open mind. But my skepticism could not be overcome. I found myself wondering about Vine and Viddy and other formats and the growing tendency to reduce everything to 8 seconds or 30 seconds or 140 characters, this notion that everything worthwhile can be expressed in 30 seconds or 140 characters. I agree with Ward that the ability to be concise, to strip away everything but what is essential, is a useful skill. “Imagine the depth of understanding at which students would need to know something to convey it is six seconds,” he remarked. There are some things, however, that are not containable in six seconds. There are some things that if you put them into 8 seconds, thirty seconds, or 140 characters will be destroyed or at least transformed (usually mutilated) completely. There are ideas and conversations, creations and collaborations that will never happen if the time and space for them to develop is cut short or limited.

I think as teachers, as adults, we should be trying to foster increased attention not decreased attention. We should encourage thoughtfulness, rumination, patience, and serenity. These and other thinking dispositions promote intellectual character. 

The grounds of Aleksander Pushkin's hereditary estate in Boldino, where the quite, contemplative atmosphere helped him create some of the most enduring works in Russian Literature.

I do not think that our students need any help going faster... here I pause, check my email and see the subject line “Life's Inhuman Pace,‏” today's update from The Chronicle Review: “Speed Kills: Fast is never fast enough,” by Mark C. Taylor, which begins:

 "Sleeker. Faster. More Intuitive" (The New York Times); "Welcome to a world where speed is everything" (Verizon FiOS); "Speed is God, and time is the devil" (chief of Hitachi’s portable-computer division). In "real" time, life speeds up until time itself seems to disappear—fast is never fast enough, everything has to be done now, instantly. To pause, delay, stop, slow down is to miss an opportunity and to give an edge to a competitor. Speed has become the measure of success—faster chips, faster computers, faster networks, faster connectivity, faster news, faster communications, faster transactions, faster deals, faster delivery, faster product cycles, faster brains, faster kids. Why are we so obsessed with speed, and why can’t we break its spell?...

Think carefully about who benefits from a speedy world: Big business. Multinationals. Forces wanting to sell us things, wanting us to never slow down to enjoy what we have. We give them our money and then throw away our time. Instead of enjoyment and satisfaction, all we can do is feed our addiction to speed and novelty.

And what about the forces who watch us? They like nothing better than see us all leave our digital footprints everywhere and at all times. Makes us that much easier to track, to control...

What are we becoming?

Ward turned things around at the very end, I though. His final reflections were perceptive when he critiqued his students' notion of, “the video is proof, why do we need the talking?” As an ELA teacher, I will make sure my students understand why they “need the talking,” and the writing, and the reading.

"I greet you, deserted corner of the earth. You are a calm refuge for labors and inspiration, a place Where the invisible rush of my days Streams through your lap of happiness and oblivion. […] I am yours. I love this dark garden, Its cool shade, its flowers, This meadow piled with fragrant haystacks. Where radiant brooks murmur in the shrubs..."

Pushkin, A. (1982) "The Countryside," (D. M. Thomas, Trans.),  

The bronze horseman: selected poems of Alexander Pushkin, 

Secker & Warburg. (original: 1819).

 

ДЕРЕВНЯ

Приветствую тебя, пустынный уголок,
Приют спокойствия, трудов и вдохновенья,
Где льется дней моих невидимый поток
На лоне счастья и забвенья.
[...]

Я твой: люблю сей темный сад
С его прохладой и цветами,
Сей луг, уставленный душистыми скирдами,
Где светлые ручьи в кустарниках шумят...

@ Jayant Trewn, Caitlin Donnelly, & Jennifer Nao. Reflections on your Connections Across the Disciplines assignment

Bravo for challenging the assignment! You made a coherent, logical, and, most importantly, compassionate case in your Preamble for why BYOD in your discipline (math) is not a good idea. This compassion is evident when you speak of, “social competition,” “dissonance between who’s [sic] device can perform which task,” and how, “students working individually on their devices would only be distracting and disruptive.” I appreciate your candor and bravery to say this.

I think what you argue holds true for all disciplines, not just math. The inequality inherent in BYOD does not depend on the discipline.

I also appreciate the flexibility you try to incorporate with regard to instructional strategies. Accommodating this reality means more work for the teacher. If this stance became a reflex, though, it would start to be less difficult, less time consuming. And in addition to striving to accommodate different learners with different strategies, a variety of instructional approaches for the same content/lesson ought to result in more students making stronger connections with the material: using computers and technology AND covering the same concept or skill without them; lecturing AND offering opportunities to learn through application or in groups.

Your assignment is thoughtful and well done. I like the addition of a social studies component (ideally there would be some concurrent curricular connections with their SS lesson...). And I really like you including a writing assignment.

The only thing I think might be missing is some attempt to “problematize.” I envision this as a discussion at the end of the lesson, with perhaps something to write about, that gets students to reflect on how social issues and their solutions are complicated. A ratio, in other words, is a ratio, but liquor stores per square mile is only one factor, one that could be mitigated or aggravated by may other conditions, such as, perhaps, the ratio of churches in the same neighborhood. I wouldn't dwell on it, but some small effort in this direction would be a good move, one that may not necessarily improve students' scores on the standardized tests, but which would help them become better thinkers, problem solvers. and citizens. And that's not a bad outcome, eh?

My Comments on The History of Written Communication lesson plan by Elliot, Muneer and Samantha

Overall I think having students compare examples of Old, Middle, early modern, contemporary and “post-modern” English is a fun, instructive idea. It seems to fit the convention/change/contested competency well, the contested-usage one a little less so. There are great ideas and activities here, but I think they'd need to be fleshed-out a bit more for an actual lesson. I tried to think through how I would do that and came up with some ideas I will share. First I thought about the Work Period section—putting texts on a timeline—and wondered what the blendspace images actually looked like. Beowulf, Chaucer and Shakespeare for instance, are these modern, edited, critical texts, albeit with special characters and original punctuation? Or are they images of manuscripts (or first editions in the case of Shakespeare?). There are advantages to both. For the specific exercise of the timeline, I think the former would be more useful, i.e., MS folia would give too much away, making it too easy. However, after students had done that activity, having them consider the paleographic evidence, as it were, would offer new opportunities for questioning, thinking and learning. What kind of activity would suit a consideration of scribal/typographical moves?

Also, how about having students try to read the documents aloud? From a critical edition? From a manuscript? How would they do with Chaucer? With a gloss on Old English's obsolete characters could they make anything out of Beowulf? Maybe playing a recording of an expert reading Old and Middle English would be fun. This would expand the consideration of language evolution beyond print/reading into speech/listening.

RE the closing: “Are we in a postmodern language period?” I wasn't sure about the usefulness of this part. What are the criteria for labeling something “postmodern?” Has there been a definition/discussion of what postmodern means? Or are you just letting kids think/explore based on what they imagine “postmodern” means. There's nothing wrong with that. It could generate some productive engagement with the material... so forgive me for being such a pedant!

Finally, I love the OED activity. Did you know that there's such a thing as the OED online? It's a great resource. Why not have students use it? The only problem is that the school may not want to pay for the subscription.

Screencasting as a Teaching Tool

My experience Organizing my Online Life was interesting. I used Screencast-o-matic to record my voice. When you use this program (or the similar product called MS Office Mix) it records what you see on your screen and your voice together. I think the challenge word is SYNCHRONOUSLY. And I got it to work! I made a recording of me talking about Evernote and how to use it.

I'm sure you've seen these kinds of presentations before. If done well, they could be a great teaching tool: something you can do once and play again and again. That is, you can show it 1st hour, and again 2nd hour, you get the idea.

I think there could be lots of applications for this kind of tool in teaching, not just giving a tutorial on using a software product. I bet one could even make a lesson or part of a lesson on practically anything. I don't think it will be like Azimov's Mechanical Teacher from “The Fun They Had,” at least I don't plan for it to be like that in my classroom... But I'm starting to think of it as something for my toolbox, something to record teaching performances that can be finessed and rehearsed and then recorded.

One thing that is really neat is that there is a pause button. So if you're not ready for the show to continue, you just stop for a while and think about what comes next.

John

The game's the thing

I am not the best person to ask to comment on computer games. I appreciate what others find in them. But for me...

My generation had the first Atari consoles in elementary school. Pong! We grew up with the Video Arcade at the mall. Asteroids! PacMan! We watched games on computers take off...

Now I know that “video” games and games on the computer are not one and the same. But there is some overlap. I wonder how the two have informed each other over the years...

I remember playing video games at my friends' houses. As the kid with poor hand-eye coordination, I did not enjoy it much. Here's how it always went down: it would happen at a friend's house (never at mine, I never had any consoles or game systems. Never asked for one, I think). My turn to play: I would die. My friend's turn to play (It was their game; they played all the time): “here I am doing this; watch me do this; this spot is tricky; O, that was a close one.” I got to watch. I had not much incentive to watch and learn what happens on level X because I would never get beyond level 1)...

For this reason and a few others, I have never cared much for electronic games. I see people tuned out to other (real, non-virtual people) engrossed in their computers, tables, phones, and devices doing social media, this or that 'game” (and saying they're “working” usually!) I see my kids not playing outside or reading, I see my wife doing FB on her phone all evening... what does this have to do with educational games? Enough for me; I don't draw a very fine line. It's all staring at a screen...

Yes, I'm woefully backwards, uncool, a Luddite, a square (and whatever my teen-aged daughter can think up to call me). I don't get it. But I did try some games. The one I liked is called Topropa. It's a geography game. I kill at geography, so there is most of the attraction. And there's not much to learn (good for someone with an abysmally low frustration threshold when it comes to technology). Just match the river, or the city, or the battle, or whatever on the map and find out immediately if you're right. It is very probable that the reason I like it would also be the same reason most people would not...

So what about people who like computer games? (That's everybody but me, right?) I'm glad for them. This is the golden age of computer games, by all appearances. I'm glad there are some good games, some educational games. I'm glad to talk to people about games and why they think they are good. Tell me stories about a game! I will listen. Tell me if you think there is a place for your game in my classroom. Just don't ask me to play. Or to watch you play it for too long.

Computerized testing

Yes, I have some thoughts on the topic, informed by some knowledge and experience. My first experience with Smarter Balanced was at a local school where I worked last year. This school was one of just a few given the chance to test the test. The students had already done their MEAP testing. And there was NWEA testing. A normal person would think that would probably be about enough testing, right? Enter Smarter Balanced.

“Smarter Balance is coming next year,' we were told. (Although maybe it's not...)

http://www.mlive.com/lansing-news/index.ssf/2014/06/meap_changes_what_to_expect.html

But while SB was still the future back in May we gave it to the kids at my school. “You are lucky to get a chance to try this. Not many schools get to test it. So you will have an advantage when you take it for real next year, since you'll be used to it,” the students were told. What goes through students' heads at any given time? I'm sure I cannot say. But I bet more than a few were thinking, “it doesn't count? I'm not going to take it seriously.”

The day of the test was hot. The testing room was hot. There was lots of confusion about the codes to get the students signed in. It took over half an hour before the last student was finally testing. It was a reading test. I walked the room, trying to keep students on task. Some were on task, some were not. No different than any other days. The test made no accommodation for students with special needs. Staff is not allowed to read for those kids for reading tests, so there was not much I could do for those students, other than encourage them to keep at it and try to finish.

The test itself seemed to test scrolling as much as it measured reading comprehension. A research article I read recently, Mangen, et al (2013), about the effects on reading comprehension of paper versus computer screen, informs my thinking about testing, especially reading testing, on a screen. I like the article because it confirms my bias against reading on a computer. Yes, I am biased, and I hate reading on computer. A lovely study would be to have half take the test on the computer and half on paper and see who did better.

So I am skeptical. I doubt that standardized testing helps kids learn. I lament the instructional time lost to administer a third standardized test in the same year. I wish the authorities could make up their minds about which core—common, uncommon, or otherwise—they want, and which test. And I am not impressed with an entirely computerized test. What makes it so special?

Mangen, A., Walgermo, B. R., & Brønnick, K. (2013). Reading linear texts on paper versus 

      computer screen: Effects on reading comprehension. International Journal of Educational 

      Research, 58, 61-68

The following are my initial thoughts on John Dewey' s My Pedagogic Creed

Dewey conceives of being educated—I say “being educated” because I think he would embrace the ambiguity of the phrase as both process and the product—as participating in one's community, having a sense of social responsibility. This sense of social responsibility is not so much “knowing of” as “knowing how.” Dewey writes, “I believe that the only way to make the child conscious of his social heritage is to enable him to perform those fundamental types of activity which makes civilization what it is.” In other words, doing is the key. His belief that “...all education proceeds by the participation of the individual in the social consciousness of the race,” suggests not just sharing ideas and ideals in a passive, contemplative sense, but as action. We should understand this participation as the compunction to contribute to the commonweal, rather than merely going along for the ride, hoping on board the the social “bus” to get to a place of personal enrichment. Indeed, the educated—again process and product—conceives, “of himself from the standpoint of the welfare of the group to which he belongs.”

If a sense of belonging, of connectedness to community is the first step in education, and a concern for the community's welfare is the second, the third, as I read Dewey, is an awareness of how one fits in. This awareness of how comes from being able to make distinctions. Dewey speaks of the, “gradual differentiation out of the primitive unconscious unity of social life.” The process of moving past this “unconscious unity” involves making distinctions. The most important of these distinctions involve developing a sense of one's place in society.

...all questions of the grading of the child and his promotion should be determined by reference to the same standard. Examinations are of use only so far as they test the child's fitness for social life and reveal the place in which he can be of most service and where he can receive the most help.

Thus assessment should primarily be about measuring how far and how well this awareness has progressed in each individual.

I think this notion is at odds with the values that most of us in education today professes to one degree or another. We are all about letting the child find herself, not preempting self-discovery, as if this were the purpose of education. Dewey wanted advancement in school to be tied to knowing oneself not for the idle purpose of self-discovery, but rather to make sure that self-knowledge would not proceed independently of a concern for “the welfare of the group.” Implicit in any real, meaningful commitment to the welfare of the group is the willingness give up one's personal gain if it conflicts with the group's betterment.

Our “civilization,” as I read Dewey, is not just what we profess and value as words and beliefs, but what we do, what kind of work we choose to perform, our individual vocations that collectively make our communities function and thrive.

John Dewey, J. (1897), My pedagogic creed. School Journal, 54 (January), 77-80.