The type of education that Dewey envisioned, and that I too would like to see in classrooms around the world is an education based on experience. You might find it interesting that Dewey’s philosophy is largely inline with how the brain functions and well supported by scientific evidence. However, before we get down to the science, or in this case the neurophilosophy, it’s important to recognize a few key terms: situation, objective conditions, and internal conditions. 

For Dewey, a teacher’s main concern is with “situation in which interactions take place” (Dewey, 1938, L. 438). Now what exactly is a situation? That’s simple. A situation is the interaction of two components: 1. objective conditions and 2. internal conditions. Objective conditions are those that the teacher has control over, they consist of:

What is done by the educator and the way in which it is done, not only words spoken but the tone of voice in which they are spoken. It includes equipment books, apparatus, toys, games played. It includes the materials with which an individual interacts and, most important of all, the total social set-up of situations in which a person is engaged. (Dewey, 1938, L. 440)

Now internal conditions-this may seem obvious-are unique to each individual, they are background knowledge, past experiences, predispositions, likes/dislikes–whatever it is the student brings to the table when he/she enters the classroom. According to Dewey, it is the responsibility of the teacher to monitor both objective and internal conditions and adjust lesson plans to create situations appropriate for meeting the needs of each student.

Whereas with traditional education, “it was enough to regulate the quantity and difficulty of the materials provided, in a scheme of quantitative grading, from month to month and from year to year,” with Dewey’s theory of education is it clear that the responsibilities of the educator are far more extensive. A teacher must not only recognize and understand where a student is currently at on his/her educational journey but also effectively evaluate “where a given experience may lead” (Noddings, 2007, L. 475). According to Dewey teachers must:

Abandon the notion of subject-matter as something fixed and ready-made in itself, outside the child’s experiences; cease thinking of the child’s experiences as also something hard and fast; see it as something fluent, embryonic, vital; and…realize that the child and the curriculum are simply two limits which define a single process. (Dewey, 1915, L. 81).

Using Dewey’s philosophy of education, curriculum development will be more spur of the moment and depend on the teacher recognizing internal conditions and adjusting objective conditions to ensure the best possible learning experiences for their class. Yes, this will certainly destroy current methods of standardized, statewide testing, and make educators’ lives far more difficult as their careers will involve significantly more day-to-day planning and adjustments–out of the box curricula just won’t cut it.

This ‘new’ education is highly individualized and tailored to each student. This is where the neurophilosophy comes in…

Paul and Patricia Churchland, two neurophilosophers, have published numerous works developing philosophical and scientific explanations of human learning. They teach us that the structure and function of brain processes are central to successful learning and education. For the Churchlands, “learning and memory are at the dead center of cognition;” they are part of what define us as humans (Churchland, 1986, p. 150).

Scientifically speaking, learning is “the process of synaptic modification” (Churchland, 1995, 254). While many wrongly assume that knowledge is “stored” in our brain, in fact, information is “distributed across neurons” (Churchland, 2004, p. 46). As Patricia Churchland explained in her article How do neurons know?:

My knowing anything depends on my neurons—the cells of my brain. More precisely, what I know depends on the specific configuration of connections among my trillion neurons, on the neurochemical interactions between connected neurons, and on the response portfolio of different neuron types. (Churchland, 2004, p. 42)

Learning hinges on systems of massively interconnected neurons processing inputs. While fleeting facts are represented by “a fleeting configuration of activation levels in the brain’s many neurons, such as those in the retina and visual cortex”, long-term facts, skills, etc. that we learn are represented by systems of massively complex synaptic connections modeled by prototype vectors (Churchland, 1995, p. 6).

On this view, “experience” can be thought of in terms of inputs. All inputs have the potential to reinforce neuron pathways, forge new paths and additionally help to create prototype vectors. As we experience different situations, our brain receives inputs and we begin to develop recurrent network pathways that “sustain a rudimentary form of short-term memory” (Churchland 1995, p. 100). Recurrent networks “quickly fall into some stable cycle of activation vectors and then repeat the cycle endlessly, or at least until some new vector at the input layer jars them out of it” (Churchland, 1995, p. 101). This process is called a limit cycle and it represents “a direct extension of an idea already familiar to you” (Churchland, 1995, p. 102). The limit cycles in a neuronal network enable us to build upon knowledge we have previously acquired and strengthen existing synaptic connections.

Learning is essentially the process of strengthening our synaptic connections across the massively interconnected neuronal systems and sub- systems. According to Paul Churchland, “during learning, connection strengths, or “weights” as they are often called, are set to progressively more useful values” (Churchland, 1995, p. 5). The range of adjustment of these values is partially due to genetics, but mostly affected by “the unique experience that each child encounters (one’s nurture)”—our daily inputs (Churchland, 1995, pgs. 5-6). The increasing values of the connection strengths translates into our improved access to skills and/or information—the more experiences we have that reinforce the connection, the stronger connections are made. These strong connections can be represented by prototype vectors.

Prototype vectors represent something that we have learned. As we continue to receive inputs we continually update our prototype vectors and use the state spaces defined by them as a means to further learning.

To paraphrase, learning is the development and/or strengthening of synaptic connections. Learning depends on the inputs our brain receives and results in a variety of outputs ranging from our day-to-day actions and decisions to homework, research papers and social interactions. By employing experience- based learning in the classroom, teachers will promote the strengthening of synaptic connections, thereby helping students to learn better.

Now, I’m not a neuroscientist or a neurophilosopher, but this just makes sense. Think about what you remember most from your education. When I do, I think of experiences I had. I can’t tell you about facts I memorized or tests I took, but I can tell you about subjects that were related to the real world or my life, papers I wrote, projects I did, discussions I had, etc. When teachers took the time to make a subject come alive for me, I learned. I wish I had more teachers like that, and I wish that the ‘status quo’ for teaching wasn’t worksheets, or lectures, or test prep. It seems to me like there is pressure to take the easy way out: memorize, regurgitate, move-on up the education ladder. But, that’s not really what education is about and that’s definitely not genuine learning.

What this means is that society’s conception of education and learning needs to be altered. Perhaps there should be more interplay between neuroscientists and educators: if we know how the brain operates, then why not teach in a manner consistent with how children learn?

Sources:

Churchland, Patricia S. (2004). How do neurons know? Daedalus 133: 42-50.

Churchland, Patricia S. (1986). Neurophilosophy: Toward a Unified Science of the Mind-Brain. Cambridge: MIT Press.

Churchland, Paul M. (1995). The Engine of Reason, the Seat of the   Soul. Cambridge: MIT Press.

Dewey, John. (1938). Experience and Education. New York: Kappa Delta Pi. Kindle Edition.

Dewey, John. (1915). The Child and the Curriculum. Chicago: University of Chicago. Kindle Edition.

Noddings, Nel. (2007). Philosophy of Education. United States of America: Westview Press. Kindle Edition.