No summary that I have within my capacity to produce would better serve its purpose than the one Dewey provided himself. For your convenience, I will include it here :
General or comprehensive aims are points of view for surveying the specific problems of education. Consequently it is a test of the value of the manner in which any large end is stated to see if it will translate readily and consistently into the procedures which are suggested by another. We have applied this test to three general aims: Development according to nature, social efficiency, and culture or personal mental enrichment. In each case we have seen that the aims when partially stated come into conflict with each other. The partial statement of natural development takes the primitive powers in an alleged spontaneous development as the end-all. From this point of view training which renders them useful to others is an abnormal constraint; one which profoundly modifies them through deliberate nurture is corrupting. But when we recognize that natural activities mean native activities which develop only through the uses in which they are nurtured, the conflict disappears. Similarly a social efficiency which is defined in terms of rendering external service to others is of necessity opposed to the aim of enriching the meaning of experience, while a culture which is taken to consist in an internal refinement of a mind is opposed to a socialized disposition. But social efficiency as an educational purpose should mean cultivation of power to join freely and fully in shared or common activities. This is impossible without culture, while it brings a reward in culture, because one cannot share in intercourse with others without learning -- without getting a broader point of view and perceiving things of which one would otherwise be ignorant. And there is perhaps no better definition of culture than that it is the capacity for constantly expanding the range and accuracy of one's perception of meanings.
Quick summary :
Dewey discusses what he views as the top cantidates for the title of aim of education within our(?) society; namely :
1. Natural Development about which he makes 3 key points :
a. "Natural development as an aim fixes attention upon the bodily organs
and the need of health and vigor."
b. "The aim of natural development translates into the aim of respect for
physical mobility."
c. "The general aim translates into the aim of regard for individual
differences among children."
2. Social efficiency about which he discusses 2 key points :
a. "Translated into specific aims, social efficiency indicates the
importance of industrial competency."
b. "Civic efficiency, or good citizenship."
3. Culture about which he defines as "at least something cultivated, something ripened; it is opposed to the raw and crude." In discussing culture as an aim, it seems that he assumes that it is inherently necessary and therefore spends that portion of his discussion pointing out the manners in which the other 2 interfere with it.
Questions:
This material was written 1916. Society sure has changed a lot since then (or has it???). How dated is this material? More specifically, how much of what he says about "current" society and education still hold true today? Which (if any) of the three systems is most prevalent in education today? Working under the assumption that we are moving forward (or moving in general), where are/should we be going?
How well can computers/software and technology in general play into each of the three scenarios? How and why would the utilizations vary?
Back to the datedness (or lack thereof) of the material. The three models seem to present entirely different models of society in general, let alone educational aims. . .do the social structures as coupled with their respective educational aims still "match up" in the modern world?
Is any of this TRULY feasible when everything is slated into a cause effect relationship (in terms of social ramifications based on any given change in configuration)? In an ideal scenario, how feasible would it be to use technology as a tool to sway education and in turn, society, in the direction of a particular aim (though not necessarily one of the ones discussed -- if there happen to be others)? If yes, how so and to what degree?
Rousseau's educational views were oft related to his religious views. In what fashions (if any) does religion directly effect the aims/means/etc. of education?
Enjoy. Hope this is something akin to sensical.
-- Ben