Michigan Reading Journal Michigan Reading Journal

Volume 45 Issue 1 Article 5

January 2012

Should Students Learn to Be Literate in Democracy? The Goals of Should Students Learn to Be Literate in Democracy? The Goals of

John Dewey's Progressive Education and Its Practical John Dewey's Progressive Education and Its Practical

Implementation Implementation

Yeaton Clifton

Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarworks.gvsu.edu/mrj

Recommended Citation Recommended Citation Clifton, Yeaton (2012) "Should Students Learn to Be Literate in Democracy? The Goals of John Dewey's Progressive Education and Its Practical Implementation," Michigan Reading Journal: Vol. 45 : Iss. 1 , Article 5. Available at: https://scholarworks.gvsu.edu/mrj/vol45/iss1/5

From The Teachers & Writers Guide to Classic American Literature, edited by Christopher Edgar and Gary Lenhart, 2001, New York, NY: Teachers & Writers Collaborative. Copyright 2001 by Teachers & Writers Collaborative. Reprinted with permission.

This work is brought to you for free and open access by ScholarWorks@GVSU. It has been accepted for inclusion in Michigan Reading Journal by an authorized editor of ScholarWorks@GVSU. For more information, please contact scholarworks@gvsu.edu.

8

Should Students Learn to Be Literate in Democracy? The Goals of John Dewey's Progressive Education and Its Practical Implementation BY YEATON CLIFTON

I've never seen a child who didn't want to build something out of blocks, or learn something new or try the next task, and I suppose if adults are different it is because they were sent to schools and other oppressive institutions. (Chomsky & Foucault, 2006, p. 60).

In the above quote from the The Chomsky-Foucault Debate: On Human Nature (Chomsky & Foucault, 2006), Noam Chomsky asserted that schools could be reformed to promote the enjoyment of learning. Chomsky specifically advocates John Dewey's methods of teaching (Chomsky & Macedo, 2000), which are not understood by a large number of instructors. This paper describes John Dewey's radical vision of how students should be prepared for a democratic society by contrasting the Deweyan model of education with a traditional model of education that is deeply ingrained in our society. This paper intends to explore Dewey's concept of education: why he objected to "the relatively undemocratic organization of the school, as it affects the mind of both teacher and pupil" (Dewey, 1903, p. 193) and the limited capacity of students to function in a truly democratic society, and why he argued that school should teach students to think through problems to improve decision making capacity. While Google Scholar yielded 9,801 scholarly citations for Democracy in Education (Dewey, 1916), it should not be inferred that these papers advance his concept of democratic and authentic forms of education. It is not sufficient to discuss specific ideas from Dewey without considering the traditional ideas he intended to alter and the uncommon practices he would have implemented.

The traditional view of education is enumerated in a large number of sources, but it is often described as if no alternative existed. Those who espouse it suppose that schooling is only relevant to earning money in the future and that students should not be able to modify the curriculum to be relevant to their present lives. Lack of student interest in what might earn them money in the future is deemed a character flaw that should be taught out of them. For example, Redish, Saul and Steinber (1998) address

the concern that basic science students will find the curriculum irrelevant, but do not discuss the concept of permitting students to modify topics to make the lessons relevant to the students. Like most mainstream educators, they assume that certain topics should be taught only in science classes. Related material that is assumed to be part of another subject is to be omitted from the basic science class. They do not suggest asking students if they want projects connected to subjects such as auto repair or karate, topics that may interest some of the students and may be connected to their lives outside of school.

When scholars comment on the curriculum, they commonly discount the lack of connection between the students' interests and the curriculum or criticize students' lack of interest in earning money in the distant future. For example, Schere (2006) laments that students find math and science odious even though they are told subjects have potential to improve future earnings. He does not consider the idea of making the subjects relevant to the students' present lives. Instead Scherer (2006) suggests that instructors should educate students to be more concerned about future profits and less concerned about the students' current condition. As Correa (1995) explains in his review of capitalist theories of education, policy analysts generally assume that the goal of students is to maximize future earnings. Correa (1995) extends his assumption to include future instructors who are motivated by the desire for future earnings. Graubard (1971) makes the point that the system focuses on future earnings, which serves the capitalist system because it "instills the ethic that will make for better pilots to bomb Laotian peasants and better salesmen of unnecessary and ecologically damaging products to maintain high profits for large corporations" (p. 196). Currently,

MICHIGAN READING JoURNAL

education produces pilots who fly Predator drones in Pakistan, but the essential conception of education remains the same: students are prepared to earn money for corporations, and the students' interests and concerns about the present are not valued. Westbrook (1991, pp. 443) explains why Dewey (like Graubard) believed that certain business interests control state-operated institutions, including public schools. Of course, the motivations of corporations are complex, and the study of the rhetoric corporations use to justify affecting public education is a topic for a future paper, but it is unambiguous that they do influence education. Emery and Ohanian (2004) document that corporations, rather than parents, teachers, or universities, too often instigated education reform.

It is not traditional to give students a chance to modify the workings of the school. While Graubard (1971, p. 112) discusses schools that are governed by a democratic process, which permits students to vote, mainstream policy commentators usually neglect discussion of this possibility. This mainstream model of education is not taught to students of education explicitly. Education students typically do not learn in a practical sense how teaching could differ, and some graduate with a degree in education unaware of more democratic options.

In addition to advocating for more democratic systems of governance in schools, Dewey supported authentic instruction centered on practical projects (Dewey, 1959). He believed that students and teachers needed to develop reflective thinking beyond what is typical in our society (Dewey, 1998a). Dewey described the system of government that dominates our culture as a '"bourgoise' democracy" (Dewey, 1998b, p. 337). Dewey's progressive reform of education was intended to promote a transformation of mind, so the individual better participates in a progressive society (Tilman, 1984, p.748). As part of his worldview, Dewey (1997) advocated transfer of control of business and factories to democratically elected unions and education for democracy that developed decision-making skills. This paper intends to describe this literacy in democracy and how Dewey would have this literacy taught.

Part of this discussion will describe the mental skills Dewey intended to teach and address how progressive schools have implemented this program. To explain the essentials of Dewey's method, it will explore Dewey's philosophy of education, his concept

CLIFTON

of reflective intelligence, the value of giving students decisions in their educational process, and how, in practical terms, progressive education has been implemented.

Dewey's Philosophy John Dewey was a philosopher in the tradition of American pragmatism. Dewey (1925) viewed pragmatism in terms of Peirce's conception of using a scientific thought process to solve practical problems. He saw scientific reasoning as encompassing both qualitative and quantitative forms of evidence (Dewey, 1930). Although rooted in this pragmatic tradition, Dewey had an unusual philosophy. Dewey was a socialist who believed the way that philosophers typically go about their business had negative implications for the distribution of power as explained below:

Dewey believed that philosophers had created an invidious distinction between knowing and doing, a distinction that had the intellectually pernicious effect of producing a series of pseudoproblems about the relationship of the mind and reality that had the effect of elevating a leisure class of speculative thinkers above the world's workers and doers. (Menand, 1997, p. xxiii)

Westbrook (1991, p. xiii) explains that while Dewey's take on philosophy was unusual, like many philosophers, he was hard to understand, which may explain why he is frequently misrepresented. To gain a better understanding of his philosophy, it is important to examine his life's work as much as his writing. In the 1890s, Dewey's praxis took the form of participation in Hull House activities and establishing the principles of the experimental school run by the University of Chicago. But as Tilman (1984, p. 755) explains, by the 1920s Dewey was an aggressive activist in favor of socialism, and his activism increased in the 1930s. Dewey believed that unions would evolve into institutions able to create participatory democracy and a socialist redistribution of power (Westbrook, 1991, p. 491).

Reform of education proved hard, and by 1935 Dewey had acknowledged that it was difficult to make schools into instruments of social reform (Westbrook, 1991, p. 514). However, Dewey continued to see teachers as valuable agents for social change. In 1941, Dewey (2008) advocated the empowerment of teachers

FALL 2012, VoL. 45, No.1 9

DEMOCRATIC LITERACY

through unions because he saw democratically elected teachers' unions as a strong force for positive change. So Dewey's philosophy differed from typical academic philosophy in that he hoped to transform the world rather than to answer philosophical questions. In its earlier form, Dewey's philosophy of education was focused on transforming society, and, even in its later form, was focused on transforming students in a way that is not typical in schools.

A potential misreading of Dewey's democratic philosophy would be that he supported a complete lack of restriction on children's conduct by giving them a say in how the school is run and giving them input into the curriculum. In fact, Dewey suggested that the advocates of natural learning and other progressive educators often supported the wrong kind of freedom for children when they removed too many restrictions. This included a number of people in the Progressive Education Association (Westbrook, 1991, pp. 500-512).

Reflective Intelligence In his 1897 essay on teaching methods, Dewey (1959) emphasized the need for students to learn to think through problems as if they were artists or scientists. Dewey (1998c) placed a high value on students developing this capacity, which he called reflective intelligence. Dewey (1998d) explains that the individual would first develop essentially unconscious methods of thinking and then develop methods of thinking that are habitual but not truly reflective. This reflective intelligence would extend beyond the more common forms of habitual reasoning. As Whipple (2004) explains, this intelligence would involve degrees of development of the "bedrock of reflective agency: critical curiosity, thoughtfulness, and tolerance" (p. 162) as opposed to relying on habitual agency. Art as Experience (Dewey, 1934) defines Dewey's philosophy of how we learn art and literature. The book is concerned with such questions as how we experience and remember art, how an artist creates, and how critics evaluate. Dewey (1934) sought to develop reflective thinking-reflective intelligence. This reflective intelligence concept predates modern ideas of critical pedagogy and modern cognitive psychology.

While Dewey (1934) focused on artistic appreciation in general, Rosenblatt's (1938) book Literature as Exploration was devoted to applying Dewey's theory to the specifics of teaching English literature. The Progressive Education Association published

Rosenblatt's (1938) book, which explains, "The reflective process is a prelude to life itself. Professor Dewey has reminded us that in life constructive thinking usually starts as a result of conflict or discomfort when habitual behavior is impeded" (Rosenblatt, 1938, p.267). Rosenblatt (1938) provides useful instructions on developing this reflective process.

The Reader the Text and the Poem: The Transactional Theory of the Literary Work (Rosenblatt, 1978) developed this concept of reflective thinking in greater detail by describing the process of the reader reflecting on her or his own feelings about a work of literature as an aesthetic stance. By contrast, an efferent stance would be reading the literature to find the correct answer or the answer that the instructor wants. Rosenblatt (1978) asked us to "reflect more the dynamics of reading" (p. 149) than try to identify a preexisting meaning to the text. Rosenblatt (1978) cites a range of psychological theories, but grounds her theory of reflection in texts by Dewey and James.

Rosenblatt (1978) describes how to teach reflective thinking while (with the benefit of cognitive psychology) Stanovitch (2009) postulates a reflective process-corresponding to Dewey's reflective intelligence-that permits extremely rational decisions. He believes that it is a distinct part of the brain concerned with a specific type of conscious thought. He further believes that an algorithmic region of the brain controls most conscious thinking and that there are autonomous brain functions that are not a part of consciousness. Stanovitch (2009) bases his conclusions on quantitative data and on computer simulations. However, Stanovitch (2009) does not develop a theory of teaching these reflective processes in the classroom.

Critical discourse analysis and critical pedagogy also understand the difference between habitual thinking and reflective intelligence, although the methods of observation that critical pedagogues use are different from those of cognitive psychologists or of the methods used by John Dewey. Stevens (2011) comments that the sort of reflection advocated by many mainstream experts in education, "which hegemonically positions itself as the lone practitioner reflecting to modify practices, not necessarily to better understand ideologies that are at play in the classroom" (p.200). The former type of reflection is what Dewey would consider habitual thinking,

10 MICHIGAN READING JoURNAL

whereas what would shed light on the ideologies requires real reflective intelligence. Giroux (2005) makes a case that critical thinking is necessary to overcome the overwhelming influences of corporate power on government.

The habitual process should not be considered completely inferior, however. Writing a critical discourse analysis, Gee (2007, p.126) describes the need to develop transfer of a skill, which could be called reflective learning, whereas the development of the skill itself could be called habitual learning. The habitual learning should precede the reflective learning, in such cases. Likewise, Dewey (1998d) described this habitual process, as the typical way that people think, this did not mean it was an unimportant form of learning. Instead Dewey ( 1998d) implied that there were limits on understanding that could not be achieved without developing reflective intelligence.

Critical pedagogy, much like Dewey's philosophy (1998b), seeks to make schools much less authoritarian (Blackmore & Kenway, 1995, p. 248), and it rejects the distinctions between ends and means (Blackmore & Kenway, 1995, p. 240), a dualism that Dewey (1922) also attempted to dissolve. Critical pedagogy seeks to incite reflection on the specifically authoritarian nature of education. Giroux (2004) advocated schools that develop a truly democratic society, and Aronowitz and Giroux (1991, p. 46) acknowledge the strengths of Dewey's unified approach to a curriculum that abolishes distinctions between memorization and practical skill.

Critical pedagogues argue that liberation of students begins by liberating teachers. In their view, developing critical thinking will help an instructor better respond to situations, such as one described by Rodgers (2002), where a team of instructors discusses the decision to place a student in special education. Rodgers (2002) described the instructors as being unable to understand the parents' wishes. Rodgers (2002) thought the criterion of the educators ignored many of the student's strengths and the student's race and class might have influenced their decision. If the instructors were more reflective about the genuine concerns of the parent, they might not have channeled the student into special education. Developing reflective thinking, however, is not a priority of traditional education as taught in schools of education.

CLIFTON

Demetrion (2001) points out that unlike Dewey, Giroux and other critical pedagogues advocate highly utopian education that cannot be realized in the near future. This prevents them from discussing specific plans for the transformation of schools. Dewey made specific connections between the art of teaching and the principles of reflection. Thus scholars with different perspectives seem to perceive a process of reflection that is commonly underdeveloped. Developing the skill of reflecting on ideologies and power structures could be viewed as developing reflective intelligence. Dewey (1930) would suggest reconfiguring classroom practices so as to alter the balance of power to encourage such reflection. He suggests that art and science projects should involve active reflection and original thinking by students.

The idea that reflecting on personal experience is essential to the development of a democratic society derived from the experience of Jane Addams as a teacher in the Hull House settlement (Sigfried, 1990). Sigfried (1990) notes that Addams idealized both the thinking of qualitative biologists like Huxley and Darwin and the romanticism of writers like Emerson. Halburton (1997) observes that as his theory of democracy evolved, Dewey placed a high value on Emerson's critical thinking about society as a philosophy of democracy. Understanding the value of instilling students with the kind of reflection practiced by Emerson is essential to understanding Dewey's concept of education for democracy.

Dewey had conviction that students are able to develop reflective intelligence. This intelligence would develop when students learn to think like scientists and artists. Developing this ability would be valuable to the creation of a democratic society and existence of the ability is supported by modern psychology and discourse analysis.

Active Decision Making in the Classroom This paper opened with a quote from Chomsky, which implied interest in education could be improved if schools ceased to be "oppressive institutions" (Chomsky & Foucault, 2006, p. 60). If less oppressive means giving more freedom-more choices-to students, then this is an empirical proposition that can be explored from sources that are not concerned with progressive education in a broader sense. The data is limited, but Morgan (2006) reviewed

FALL 2012, VoL. 45, No.1 11

DEMOCRATIC LITERACY

the effects of choice-making and preference on the engagement of emotionally impaired students, while Von Mizener and Williams (2009) reviewed studies of student choice effects on academic performance and interest in learning.

Morgan's (2006) review dealt with either giving choices to an emotionally impaired student or formally assessing preferences and assigning the student the preferred activity. The general results were positive, although the formal assessment of preference led to better results than the simple choice of activities. The assessments of preference are normed tests that help instructors determine what the student really prefers. This implies that there is a means of engaging students who are in great need of improvement­emotionally impaired students. The predictive validity of preference assessments is encouraging because it suggests that science is improving methods of engagement.

Von Mizener and Williams' (2009) review of giving choices to students discussed a number of papers concerned with developing interest in education and improving academic performance. They found five papers on the effects of choice on interest and engagement. Of those, four found that interest increased if students are given choices. Addressing a different topic, Von Mizener and Williams (2009) found that four of five studies that dealt with special education students noted an increase in academic performance when students were given more choices, but there was no such improvement noted with college students or with general education students.

The evidence available suggests that it is possible to improve student interest in learning if there is an active attempt to determine preferred learning activities. A genuine advocate of progressive education should foster "interest in knowledge, in scholarship, in truth for its own sake, unhampered and unmixed with any alien idea" (Dewey, 1903, p.204), and the above research implies that it can be done.

Progressive Education The previous two sections made the case that it is possible to teach students reflective thinking skills and to teach them to enjoy learning. The remaining question is whether it is possible to facilitate a democratic school not governed by central authority, where students can learn by engaging in cooperative learning projects. Such schools have existed. Their

democratic nature helped students understand democratic principles.

In 1895, Dewey created a school that was intended to be less authoritarian and more relevant to students: a school that developed reflective thinking through what we would now call project-based learning. In 1903, Mayhew and Edwards (1965) published an account of the school. The school did not divide learning along traditional departments lines. Children gained chemistry in connection with cooking and gained geometrical principles in connection with carpentry work and with sewing. Mayhew and Edwards (1965, p. 413) described how the school governance was democratic, giving students and instructors a vote.

In the late 1960s, there was strong drive (influenced by the civil rights and anti-war movements) to create this kind of progressive school (Graubard, 1971, pp. 40-42). In addition to commonly engaging students in discussions of economics and policy, these schools taught democracy by giving students and instructors input into the workings of the school. The process of teaching involved projects in such areas as cooking, auto repair, and filmmaking. Mutliculturalism was an additional and important part of the curriculum (Graubard, 1971, pp. 107-112). While such experiments are rare today, Graubard's sociological study did establish that a school could exist without many of the traditional lines of power and with the students playing an active role in curriculum decisions.

Discussion The methodology in this paper is historical. It does not provide a new experiment or a systematic review of the most recent literature. This paper presents various documents that shed light on how schools could develop democratic literacy dating back to the 1900s. The goal is to uncover insights that are absent from contemporary discussions of education.

The current debate in education seems to focus on whether the present educational system is adequately teaching basic reading, writing, and math. Those who claim it is not, tend to advocate more rigorous testing procedures and more rigid standards, while others advocate the conservation of the system exactly as it is. Dewey is more often cited by the status quo than by the so-called reformers. However, Dewey would say that the schools are already too rigid for students to learn democracy and would advocate change in a

12 MICHIGAN READING JoURNAL

direction that is seldom contemplated. Dewey would ask us to reflect on what sorts of reforms can exist in education and what is needed the most. As with the debate between capitalism and state control of industry, it takes reflection to understand ideas that do not lie on either side of the debate or somewhere in the center.

I pose the following questions: can a society that seems incapable of imagining more than two options be an informed electorate? What is the point of raising math scores when the most essential thing learned from the schools is to hate mathematics? Why improve reading scores if, when reading the text of our political system, the student can envision only possibilities that some political party or corporation wants her or him to see? Why not consider other possible ways to instruct? To do so, I would recommend returning to Dewey's vision of education.

Yeaton Clifton has a Ph.D, in biomedical physics from East Carolina University, and is working on a doctorate in reading and language arts at Oakland University. His dissertation research is focused on how instructors who teach literacy skills to students with autism spectrum disorders describe their work.

References Aronowitz, S., & Giroux, H.A. (1991). Postmodern

education: Politics, culture, and social criticism. Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press.

Blackmore, J., & Kenway, J. (1995). Changing schools, teachers, and curriculum: But what about the girls. In D. Corson (Ed.), Discourse and power in educational organizations (pp. 233- 256), Cresskill, NJ: Hampton Press.

Chomsky, N., & Macedo, D. P. (2000). Chomsky on miseducation. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers.

Chomsky, N. & Foucault, M. (2006) The Chomsky­Foucault debate: On human nature. New York: New Press.

Correa, H. (1995). Microeconomic theory of education. International Journal of Education Research, 22(5), 405-4 72.

Demetriou, G. (2001) Reading Giroux through a Deweyan lens: Pushing utopia to the outer edge. Educational Philosophy and Theory, 33(1), 57-76

Dewey, J. (1903). Democracy in education. The Elementary School Teacher, 4(4), 193-204.

CLIFTON

Dewey, J. (1916). Democracy in education. New York: MacMillan.

Dewey, J. (1998 b). Democracy is radical. In L. A. Hickman and T. M. Alexander (Eds.), The essential Dewey (vol. 1 pp. 337-339). Bloomington, IN: Indiana University press.

Dewey, J. (1925). The development of American pragmatism. In The Columbia University department of philosophy (Eds.), Studies in the History of Ideas (vol. 2, pp. 353-377), New York: Columbia University Press.

Dewey, J. (1998a). Education in relation to reform. In L.A. Hickman and T. M. Alexander (Eds.), The essential Dewey (vol. 1 pp. 274-277). Bloomington, IN: Indiana University press. (first published 1933)

Dewey, J. (1997). I believe, in L. Menand (Ed.), Pragmatism: A reader (pp. 265-271), New York: Vintage. (First published in 1939).

Dewey, J. (1998c). The need for a recovery of philosophy. In L.A. Hickman and T. M. Alexander (Eds.), The essential Dewey (vol. 1 pp. 46-69). Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press. (first published 1917)

Dewey, J. (1959). My pedagogic creed. In J. Dewey (Ed.) Dewey on education. (pp. 19-32). New York: Teachers College, Columbia University. (First published 1897 .)

Dewey, J. (1998d). The place of judgment in reflective activity. In L.A. Hickman & T.M. Alexander (Eds.), The essential Dewey (Vol. 2, pp. 145-150), Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press. (Original published in 1933)

Dewey, J. (1922). Valuation and experimental knowledge. Philosophical Journal, 31 (2), 325-351.

Dewey, J. (1930). Qualitative thought. Symposium, 1(1), 5-32.

Dewey, J. (2008). Why I am a member of a teachers union. In J.A. Boydston (Ed.), John Dewey: The later works (Vol. 3, pp. 269-275). Carbondale, IL: Southern Illinois University Press. (Originally published in 1928)

Emery, K., & Ohanian, S. (2004). Why is corporate America bashing our public schools? Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.

Gee, J.P. (2007). What video games have to teach us

FALL 2012, VoL. 45, No.1 13

DEMOCRATIC LITERACY

about learning and literacy (2nd ed.). New York: MacMillan.

Giroux H. A. (2004). Critical pedagogy and the postmodern/modern divide: Towards pedagogy of democratization. Teacher Education Quarterly, 31 (1), 17-4 7.

Giroux H. A. (2005). The terror of neoliberalism: Rethinking the significance of cultural politics. College Literature, 32(1), 1-19.

Graubard, A. (1971). Free the children: Radical reform and the free school movement. New York: Pantheon.

Halliburton, D. (1997). John Dewey: A voice that still speaks to us. Change, 29(1), 24-29.

Mayhew, K.C., & Edwards, A.C. (1965). The Dewey school: The laboratory school of the University of Chicago 1893-1903, New York: Atrion.

Meande, L. (1997). An introd~ction to pragmatism, in L. Menand (Ed.), Pragmatism: A reader (pp. xi-xxxiv), New York: Vintage.

Morgan, P.L. (2006). Increasing task engagement using preference or choice-making: Some behavioral and methodological factors affecting their efficacy as classroom interventions. Remedial and Special Education, 27(3), 176-187.

Redish, E. F., Saul, J.M., & Steinberg, R.N. (1998). Students expectations in introductory physics. The American Journal of Physics, 66(3), 212-224.

Rodgers, R. (2002). Through the eyes of the institution: A critical discourse analysis of decision making in two special education meetings. Anthropology and Education Quarterly, 33(2), 213-237.

Rosenblatt, L. (1938). Literature as exploration. New York: Appleton-Century-Croft.

Rosenblatt, L. (1978). The reader the text and the

poem: The transactional theory of the literary work. Carbondale, IL: Southern Illinois University Press.

Scherer, M. (2006) Perspectives/love and hate for math and science. Improving Achievements in Math and Science, 61(5), 5.

Seigfried, C. (1999). Socializing democracy: Jane Addams and John Dewey. Philosophy of the Social Sciences, 29(2), 207-230.

Snaza, N., & Lensmire, T.J., (2005). Abandon the voice? Pedagogy, the body and late capitalism. InterActions: UCLA Journal of Education and Information Studies, 2(2), Article 3. Retrieved from http://escholarship.org/uc/i tem/2 7k818wv

Stanovich, K. (2009). Distinguishing the reflective, algorithmic, and autonomous minds: Is it time for a tri-process theory? In J. S. T. B. Evans, Jonathan & K. Frankish, (Eds.). In two minds: Dual processes and beyond, (pp. 55-88). New York: Oxford University Press.

Stevens, L.P. (2011). The role of the critical discourse analyst. In R. Rodgers (Ed.), Critical discourse analysis in education (2nd ed. pp. 183-201). New York: Taylor and Francis.

Tilman, R. (1984). Dewey's Liberalism versus Veblen's Radicalism: A Reappraisal of the Unity of Progressive Social Thought. Journal of Economic Issues, 18(3), 745-769.

Von Mizener, B. H., & Williams, R. L. (2009). The effects of student choices on academic performance. Journal of Positive Behavior Interventions, 11(2), 110-128.

Westbrook, R.B. (1991). John Dewey and American democracy. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.

Whipple (2005). The Dewey-Lippmann debate today: Communication distortions, reflective agency, and participatory democracy. Sociological Theory, 5(2), 156-178.

14 MICHIGAN READING JOURNAL