ABSTRACT
A Danish textbook on pedagogy defines pedagogical theory in the following way: “Roughly speaking, the concept of pedagogical theory is determined on the one hand by goals for upbringing … and on the other hand by psychological ideas” (Bisgaard 1998, p. 8). Pedagogy may be briefly summarized as a product of the ends of our activities on the one hand (Where do we wish to go with our practices of education and upbringing?) and the means for the most effective realization of the ends on the other (How do we get there?). If this definition is valid, then it is appropriate to treat Dewey’s pedagogy and educational philosophy as an extension of the foregoing chapters on psychology (means) and ethics (ends). Dewey would surely approve of the idea that pedagogy necessarily involves a discussion of goals for human development, but, as we have seen, he would deny that one could differentiate in an absolute sense between ends and means. Psychological theories and tools can never simply be tools or means, for our tools inevitably influence our goals—and indeed often become ends in themselves. And vice versa: goals are rarely absolute; rather, they often arise in human experience as means to further ends. 1
