{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.018036072144288578, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0026720106880427524, 'mean_word_length': 5.064777327935222, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Educational Psychology and Social Reform in the Progressive Era

This paper seeks to determine, in effect, why educational psychology as it professionalized and assumed the mantle of “science” after 1905 rejected the social point of view that characterized the thought of so many of the period's educational reformers and practicing educators. The principal components of this social point of view were the efforts to broaden the concept of education from training in academic disciplines to education for life in the community; to see education as a part of a larger social process and to shape educational policy accordingly; and to see education in general and schooling in particular as engines for reforming American society. This cluster of attitudes —which I will group under the term socialized education, following Jane Addams, emerged in the progressive era as the foundation underlying both Dewey's efforts to ally the school and society and, to take a single example from the other side of the coin, David Snedden's commitment to using education to promote social efficiency. But the leading educational psychologists of our period did not share this expanded educational point of view; indeed they can be said to have reverted to the view that education was predominantly the teaching of academic disciplines in schools. The questions that occur to me are “why?” and “so what?” I have no sure answers to either question, but I do have some suggestions that I hope will be provocative.