document resume ea 005 351 macdonald, james b.; and … · 2014-01-02 · model, james ii....

ED 082 288

AUTHORTITLEINSTITUTION

REPORT NOPUB DATENOTEAVAILABLE FROM

EDE:_7 PRICEDESCRIPTORS

IDENTIFIERS

ABSTRACT

DOCUMENT RESUME

EA 005 351

Macdonald, James B.; And OthersReschooling Society; x Conceptual Model.Association for Supervision and CurriculumDevelopment, Washington, D.C.ASCD--179507346p.Association for Supervision and CurriculumDevelopment, 1201 Sixteenth Street, N.W., Washington,D.C. 20036 (Stock Number 17950, $2.00)

MF$0.65 HC Not Available from EDRS.*Educational Change; *Educational Philosophy; EthicalValues; Futures (of Society); *Humanization; *Models;*Open Education; Self Actualization*Educational Alternatives

Three professors of education examine constructivelythe kinds of environments, relationships, concepts of content andcurriculums, evaluations, and settings for learning that the strugglefor humane educational change requires. They propose c.n alternativemodel of education tl,; emphasizes values and processes consistentwith a commitment to an explicit humanistic ethical concept. Theauthors contend that learning is the exploring, integrating, andtranscending of the immediate experience. Therefore, the learningenvironment should provide a wide range of options for students andteachers alike; opportunities for action and direct participation bystudents and teacAlers at all levels of decisionmaking; and forradically differerA, individually defined, emerging directions. Theschooling model offered here as an alternative to the behavioralobjectives model is rooted in explicit value choices and inconsistently derived interpretations of the present cultural milieu.(Author/MLF)

coCo

(-NJCCO1-0

US DEPARTMENT CIF HEALTH.EDUCATION & WELFARENATIONAL INSTITUTE OF

EDUCATIONTHIS DOCUMENT HAS BEEN REPRO

DUCED EXACTLY AS RECEIVED FROM

THE PERSON OR ORGANIZATION ORIGINATING IT POINTS 01 VIEW OR OPINIONSSTATED DO NOT NECESSARILY REPRESENT OFF IC IAL NATIONAL INSTITUTE OFEDUCATION POSITION OR POLICY

pERMISSION TO frEPRODU( E THIS

COPYRIGHTED MATERIAL BY MICRO,FICHE ONLY HAS BEEN GRANTED BY

TO ERIC AND ORGANIZAI IONS OPERAT

INC, UNDER ACRE( MINTS WITH THE NA

TinNA1 INSTITUTE 01. EDUCATIONFURTHER REPRODUCTION OUTSIDE

THE ERIC SYSTEM RE01:RESSIGN I THE cOpYR;c,HT OWNER

A ConceptualModel

By

James B. Macdonald

Bernice J. Wolfson

Esther Zaret

Foreword by

Harold G. Shane

Association for Supervisionand Curriculum Development1201 Sixteenth Street, N.W.Washington, D.C. 20036

Copyright © 1973 by theAssociation for Supervision andCurriculum Develupment

All rights reserved. No part of this publication maybe reproduced or transmitted in any form or by anymeans, electronic or mechanical, including photo-copy, recording, or any information storage andretrieval system, without permission in writing fromthe publisher.

Price: 32.00Stock Number: 17950

The materials printed herein are the eXpressions ofthe writers and not necessarily a statement of policyof the Association.

Library of Congress catalog card number: 73-84221

CONTENTS

FOREWORD v

SOCIOCULTURAL DIMENSIONS 4

PSYCHOLOGICAL DIMENSIONS 7

The humanistic-existential personalmodel of learning 10

Implications of this model 12

Developing a learning environment 14

TRANSACTIONAL DIMENSIONS 15

The learning environment 17

The teacher-student relationship 19

The content of learning 20

The meaning of "curriculum" 22

The meaning of "evaluation" 26

The physical structure and setting 29

DEVELOPMENTS 30

APPENDICES 33

iii

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

FINAL EDITING of the manuscript and produc-tion of this booklet were the responsibilityof Robert R. Leeper, Associate Secretary andEditor, ASCD publications. Technical produc-tion was handled by Nancy Olson, Lana Pipes,and Teo la T. Jones, with Mary Albert O'Neillas production manager.

FOREWORD

FOR AT LEAST five decades there has been afundamental, widening split in the ranks ofpersons concerned with U.S. education; a splitthat. has profoundly affected trends in boththeory and practice. The schism first becameapparent in the 1920's when the so.rcalledScientific Movement in education began toemphasize content, minimum essentials, anda reliance on normative type tests. From thebeginning, this testing movement (as it wassometimes called) came into direct conflictwith the more humanistic ideas which wereembodied in the tenets of the Progressive Edu-cation Association.

Whatever labels have been applied to theopposing factions over the years, one maysomewhat simplistically characterize them bysaying that one group emphasized a commandof selected responses and a mastery of pre-determined content as a goal for schooling.The other group saw a need for education toplace greater stress on human development,self-realization, and social reconstruction as

desirable ends. In fairness, one must recognizethat each ideological camp sometimes pre-sented the worst features of their opponents'ideas as typical of their proposals for educa-tional change!

Particularly since the early 1960's therehave been a number of educators who haveadvocated a narrow concept of educational ob-jectives and practices which involve "efficient"school programs based on behavioral objec-tives, performance contracts, or competency-based instruction. These ideas have come intodirect ideological conflict with humanistic-ethical concepts which seek to support ahuman needs curriculum from early childhood

Reschooling Svc iet,

through the later veil of post-secondary edu-cation..

In Rexchoi iiig Society: A ConceptualModel, James II. Macdonald, Bernice J. Wolf-son Ind Esther Zaret have pooled their sub-stantial talents to examine cons:, uctively thekinds of environments, relationships, conceptsof content and curricula, evaluations, andsettings for learning that the struggle forhumane educational change requires. Theymake a strong case for their position.

Inevitably, readers will respond differentlyand vehemently to the provocative models withwhich this monograph concludes. I suspectthat there will be a co siderable replay ofprejudices of various kinds a perhaps even atendency to choose sides for Armageddon asthe ideas for alternatives to present dimensionsof schooling, learning, and evaluation soak in.If so, so much the better. The times are ripefor important decisions lest our schools becomeirrevocably linked together by chains madeof the punch cards to which an unwise useof programming and behavioral objectivescould lead.

The thoughtful, temperate, and carefullymeasured approach taken in ReschoolingSociety motivates me to recommend it warmlyto all who are seriously interested in our alter-native educational futures. The decisions wemust make by the mid-1980's with respect tosociety and its educational components requirethe kind of input that Professors Macdonald,Wolfson, and Zaret have striven successfullyto provide.

Harold G. Shane, President 1973-74Associaticn for Supervision andCurriculum Development

James B. MacdonaldProfessor of EducationUniversity of North Carolina-Greensboro

Bernice 1. WolfsonProfessor and ChairpersonDepartment of Educational PsychologyUniversity of Wisconsin-Milwaukee

Esther ZaretAssociate Professor of EducationMarquette University, Milwaukee

RESCHOOLING SOCIETY:A CONCEPTUAL MODEL*

THE PURPOSE of this monograph is to presentan alternative to the currently dominant modelof schooling, a model we reject as oppressiveto human beings, both students and teachers.The emphases of the present systemon pro-duction of narrow predetermined ends, orefficiency as a primary value criterion, and onobjectives predetermined by curriculum ex-perts, written guides, and/or teachersallcombine into a design which is totally un-satisfactory. We favor a model which empha-sizes values and processes that are consistentwith a commitment to an explicit huinank.'cethical concept. This commitment is in ir c-oncilable opposition to the current tecnnit.dproduction focus of schooling.

We recognize that any model of school-ing must concern itself with certain elementsor variables. These are necessary to the veryexistence of schooling as a formal social in,ti-tution. Thus a conception of schooli..._; mistproject goals or purposes which are soc.aljustification for existence; it must hive '- Tiepattern of organization; it must have somenotion of desired relationships among andbetween persons and things; and it must havesome idea of how to assess the status of itsactivities.

These fundamental variables are analo-gous to individual human activity, which mayalso be said to be goal directed with con-comitant feedback from the environment; tohave pattern and orderliness (that is, personalmeaning and significance); and to be created

We vish to thank Charity James for the idea forour title, "reschooting society."

1

2 Reschooling Society

in the transactions of selves, other people, andthings.

Recognition of these fundamental con-cerns has been explicitly stated in educationalliterature for many years. The most prevailingmodel for thinking about schooling is theTyler rationale.' The crux of this position is

captured in the four questions identified byTyler as basic for decisions about schooling.These are:

1. What educational purposes should theschool seek to attain?

2. What educational experiences can heprovided That are likely to attain these purposes?

:3. How can these educational experiencesbe effectively organized?

4. How can we determine whether thesepurposes are being attained?

To answer these questions, Mager,Popham, and others have proposed that allgoals should he stated in behavioral terms.2Once goals are stated in this manner, alterna-tive activities can be scanned and a selectionmade of those activities expected to elicit thedesired behavioral objectives. Decisions oforganization (scope and sequence) follow.Finally, evaluation is carriea out. This recom-mended sequence is a highly technical pro-cedure which, when carried to its logicalconclusion, provides a preplanned program ofbehavioral objectives closely tied to subse-quent evaluation.

In recent years some educators (includingthe authors) have become increasingly disen--

I Ralph W. Tyler. Principles of Curriculum andInstruction. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1950.

.2 See, for example: R. F. Mager. Preparing Ob-jectives for Programmed Instruction. Palo Alto, Cali-fornia: Fearon Publishers, Inc., 1962; and W. J. Popham."Objectives and Instruction." Instructional Objectives.AERA Monograph Series on Curriculum and Evaluation,No. 3. Chicago: Rand McNally & Company, 1969.

A Conceptual Model 3

chanted with the rationale of behavioral ob-jectives. There are many reasons for thisdisenchantment 3for example, its failure tocome to grips with the problem of values in afundamental manner, and its violation of N' hatwe believe is the essential nature of learlingand developmental processes.

It is our intention to describe an orcm-ended model for thinking about schoolingbased on a humanistic ethical commitmentwhich we will make 'explicit. When .we firststarted to develop our model, we thought wewould use Tyler's framework of questions aboutschooling in order to maintain historical con-tinuity. We thought it would be possible toask Tyler's questions and, using our valuebase, to arrive at different answers. However,we soon discovered that we had really raiseda different set of highly interrelated questionsencompassing broader sOciocuitural issues.

In rejecting the implicit value position ofthe behavioral objectives' approach (technicalcontrol) and explicating instead a humanistic-liberating stance, we found we had to dealwith a different level of concerns. In additionto asking "What educational purposes shouldthe school seek to attain?" we asked: Whatare our value commitments, and what is ourview of the nature of man?

See: James B. Macdonald and Bernice J. Wolfson."A Case Against Behavioral Objectives." The ElementarySchool Journal 71 13): 119-27; December 1970. Also:Herbert M. Kliebard. "The Tyler Rationale." SchoolReview 78 {2): 259-72; February 1970; Donald Arnstine."The Language and Values of Programmed Instruction."Educational Forum 28: 337-46; January-March 1964;William E. Doll, Jr. "A Methodology of Experience: AnAlternative to Behavioral Objectives." Paper presented atAERA annual meeting, February 1971. 33 pp. Mimeo-graphed; Arthur W. Combs. Educational Accountability:Beyond Behavioral Objectives. Washington, D.C.: Asso-ciation for Supervision and Curriculum Development,1972. 40 pp.

4 Reschooling society

In searching for our direction, we asked:What are the sociocultural forces now oper-ating in our society that we would choose tomaximize or perpetuate?

We also sought to clarify our psychologi-cal position: What are our conceptions oflearning? What is the nature of human experi-ence in general, and how is it related tolearning?

Events, in school and out, occur in spe-cific contexts, planned or unplanned. Whatwould happen in our model of schooling?What do we mean by instruction? The trans-actions that we would plan for in our model ofschooling are derived from our philosophicaland psychological position and our interpreta-tion of "teaching" within this framework.(Charts outlining our position can be found inthe appendices.)

The model that emerges from thesechoices is a clear alternative to the behavioralobjectives model which for too long has dom-inated our thinking about schooling. Ourmodel of schooling is rooted in explicit valuechoices and in consistently derived interpreta-tions of the present cultural milieu. Reschoolingsociety demands attention to the sociophilo-sophical assumptions of schooling; these con-siderations require a model that expands thedimensions of schooling.

SOCIOCULTURAL DIMENSIONS

WE BEGIN with the need to choose thosesociocultural forces now operating in oursociety that we desire to maximize or per-petuate. It is precisely at the point of makingthese choices that the educational value gaunt-let is thrown down. Education is a moral enter-prise. This means that questions answered anddecisions made in education are mostly

Sociocultural Dimensions 5

"should" questions and decisions rather thandescriptke "is" questions and decisions. Wetend to prescribe activity according to ourassessment of its worth as compared to otherpossible activities. Our decisions reflect valuecommitments and ethical choices. Thus educa-tion is not only not value free, it is (along withpolitics) the most value laden of human activi-ties. The important questions, therefore, are inwhat directions are we headed, and in whatdirections should we be headed. We answeredthe "should" question by choosing GibsonWinter's .' statement of the fundamental con-cepts necessary today for intelligent socialdecision making:

LiberationPluralism

Participation

As we look at the present world about us,at our growing consciousness of the nature ,-)fprejudice, injustice, domination, and violence,we see a commonality among the struggles othe third world of have -not nations, our ownBlack, Indian, and Spanish-speaking minorities,our women's liberation groups, and variouscounterculture groups. As Winter suggests, thedesire for liberation, participation, and accep-tance of cultural pluralism are basic thrustscommon to all groups struggling to emerge asequal sharers in human society. We interpretthese thrusts as significant 'aHe directions,and we find them to be far more satisfying asa guide for establishing educational directionsthan is the usual preoccupation with predeter-mined ends. Winter's concepts suggest to usthe following guidelines for developing analternative model of schooling.

Liberation. The purpose of schooling

4 Gibson Winter. Being Free. New York: TheMacmillan Company, 1970.

Reschooling Society

.should be to encourage the continuing cl,vel-opment of each individual's potential (te idlerand student) through both the liberating en-counter with the totality of history and ciitureand the ongoing process of choosing anddirecting one's own activity. (Compare-Athisgoal with that of the more prevalent technicalmodel: achieving skills and knowledge rieter-mined in advance, by the teacher or tomeother authority, with emphasis upon ell,.:iencyand effectiveness as primary values.) 1,1,/ pro-pose that schooling be liberating in contrastto controlling; that the basic goal he the de-velopment of autonomous, valch[ig humanbeings, not the development of role-orientedskills..

Pluralism. No subject matter, organiza-tion, or methodology is appropriate for ail (oreven perhaps for any two individuals; at anygiven time. We accept, and must implementin curricular terms, the concept of personaliza-tion as the keynote for pluralistic curricula,with the explicit understanding that no twostudents will or should explore an identicalcurriculum during their school experience.(Contrast this conception with the standardiza-tion of process and content found in the tech-nical model. Although allowances may bemade in the technical model for different ratesof learning, the individual choice of goals isseldom permitted, and the means of achievingthe determined goals are usually prescribed.)The need to accept cultural differences in so-ciety must be broadeneci to include the accep-tance of differences in cultural learnings inschool on the part of individuals. We proposethat schooling be personalized, in contrast tostandadized; that schools reflect and cherishpluralistic life styles and cultures.

Participation. All persons who must livewith decisions should have a significant voice

Psychological Dimensions 7

in the making of those decisions. This is a

commitment to human rights. Thus parents,students, and staff members are to participatefully in decisions about schooling. Power mustbe shared and available to all through a systemof participation at significant levels of decisionmaking. This approach is, of course, in directcontrast to the hierarchical process of decisionmaking which generally pervades our schools.)We propose that decision making in schoolingbe participatory rather than dominated byauthority; that students, parents, and teachersshare in all decisions which affect them.

Given these value directives, let us turnour attention to the psychological and trans-actional dimensions of our model.

PSYCHOLOGICAL DIMENSIONS

OUR PRIMARY concern in this area was toidentity and synthesize related currents of con-temporary thought which rest on a humanisticconception of man. Both humanistic psychol-ogy and humanistic-existential philosophy haveethical assumptions consistent with the socio-cultural thrust for participation, liberation, andpluralism. From these two sources we havedeveloped a set of significant ideas as a guidein deriving a consistent psychological model oflearning and schooling. Each of the followingstatements is a crucial facet of the total psycho-logical framework. Each statement is also anethical commitment to action.

A humanistic-existential conception ofman is that of a dynamic and active organismfunctioning holistically in a transactional rela-tionship with his environment.

Man experiences holistically; his physio-logical, intellectual, social, and emotional de-


velopmenC occurs and is experienced totallyrather than discretely.

Although researchers separate these as-pects of man for measurement and study, weshould recognize that such findings may notgive us any insight into the holistic functioningand experiencing of human beings. Analo-gously, studying the human heart on the dis-secting table gives us limited informationabout its functioning in the living system.

"Learning" emerges in the flow andcontinuity of man's total experiencing andgrowing; growth is not a static process, norcan there be static outcomes of "learning."

In a healthy, fully functioning person,experiencingbeing--learning is a totalitythat is dichotomized into this and that onlyafter the fact.

The notions of affective versus cognitivedomains, and preconscious versus consciousexperiencing, are irrelevant and misleadingconcepts when we are dealing with the livingprocess.

The process of qevelopment is, by defi-nition, personal, unique, and not standardized.

".. . Thinking is something that cannotbe taught. Under ideal circumstances, memoryand thinking are carried on neither consciouslynor unconsciously but in the preconsciousstream of automatic mentation, vd,ich proceedsat phenomenal speed. Of this swift stream,conscious processes provide us with tentativesummaries and fragmentary samples. Forthis, there is abundant clinical and experimen-tal evidence, the crucial implications of whichhave been largely neglected by education.What we need is to learn how to avoid inter-

5 When we refer to manes development through-out our discussion, we mean all these various aspects ininterrelationships, in a whole system.


fering with this inherent preconscious capacityof the human mind. ""

Man's commitments and his reality areexpressed in action; man has the freedom andresponsibility for defining and creating himselfthrough the choices he makes.

Man creates and defines his uniquenessthrough the quality of his existence.

This concept implies that the quality ofthe educational environment and the processof experiencing must supersede questions ofquantity and end products of behavior.

The paradox of responsibility and free-dom that is inherent in any situation is com-pounded in an educational situation. No mat-ter how openly structured or free it may be,the educational institution is inevitably influ-encing or creating the situational limits of thelearners' choices.'

Ultimately, the educational establish-ment must deal with the responsibility-freedomparadox of education through the kinds of edu-cational environm.mts provided. Educationalenvironments can be structured to face up tothe inherent educa ional paradox by promotingawareness, commitment, and flexible choicesof action ..for both teachers and students.Typically, howev(r, educational environmentsare structured to turn defensively away fromthe paradox b' providing a series of prede-termined and prescribed teaching and learning

6 Lawrence S. Kubie. "Research on Protecting Pre-conscious Functions in Education," Paper presented at

Association for Supervision and Curriculum Developmentmeeting, Washington, D.C., 1961.

Hazel E. Barnes. An Existentialist Ethic, NewYork: Alfred A. Knopf, Inc., 1967. pp. 289-90.

' Esther Zaret. "Differentiating Teaching Behaviorfrom a Humanist Existential Perspective." Unpublisheddissertation, University of Wisconsin, Madison, 1967.


We have used these ideas in two ways:first, to develop a model of learning that is

humanistic, existential, and personal; and sec-ond, to identifi the kinds of educational activi-ties and experiences that will support thehumanistic conception of human development.

The humanistic-existential personal modelof learning

The model of learning which we areproposing is a derived model. It leans mostheavily on recent writings of humanistic psy-chologists (Rogers, Al Iport, Maslow, Combs,and Snygg). However, in the spirit of plural-ism, participation, liberation, we haveattempted our own synthesis to illustrate andemphasize our own conceptions and commit-ments.

The substance of the proposed model isan ongoing tlow of experiencing involvingthree interacting facets: exploring, integrating,and transcending the immediate experience;then further cycles of exploring, integrating,and transcending from new levels of conscious-ness. These aspects of learning are not seenas discrete stages in a hierarchy; there is acontinu;ng back and forth flow from one facetto anoth( r. At a given time, one or more mayhe occurring. The three facets, in interaction,comprise a highly individualized process ofcreating personal meanings through actingupon and transforming tentative patterns of"knowing" into personal knowledge.

Exploring is the swift flow of processingof all that the individual is experiencing. Ex-

periencing and interacting with sensed datainvolve both preconscious and consciousmodes of processing. The content of the flowof experiencing is both rational and nonrationaldata. Some small fraction of this processingand reorganization may be expressed in ob-


servable patterns of behavior as symbolic(cognitive) knowing. But this conscious, veri-fiable component has been described by Kubieas only a weighted and fragmentary sampleof the continuous stream of preconsciousprocessing of data." Our model conceives ofthis preliminary processing as an initial, ex-ploring facet 'n which the individual interactsfreely and intuitively with all the exciting dataof a rich environment.

Explorng requires time and opportunitiesfor mucking about, messing around, gettinginto things, trying out, feeling, fantasizing,probing, and sensing. The processes of "ex-ploring" are internally experienced: they can-not be defined externally; they cannot beprovided for a student; and they are .not neces-sarily apparent to an observer. In other words,while I am touching, dreaming, tasting, think-ing, or feeling, you may see me as idling orgoofing off. Whitehead's conception of "TheRomance Stage" in learning captures the tenta-tiveness and joy that mar!: the individual'sexpanding awareness of the world.

Integrating is the preliminary structuringof some of the data being processed by theindividual. The integrating of presymbolic andsymbolic data may be expressed in tentativepatterns of intellectual and personal relation-ships: feelings, attitudes, values, perceptions,information, skills, and performance. Thoughverifiable by others, these patternings are ten-.tative and preliminary closures; they are notyet fully integrated by the individual. The con-tinuing process of patterning and integratinginvolves time and opportunities for sorting outone's tentative "knowing": for restructuringpatterns, filling in holes, reconciling senseddifferences, and resolving paradoxes.

Transcending is insightful knowingthecreating of personal meanings by an individual

-I? Rechooling Society

as he acts on, tests out, and transcends histentative understandings of personal and intel-lectual relationships. This is a crucial aspectof the learning process. It can be a painfuland lonely struggle to resolve conflicts in un-derstandings, to make personal commitments,to clarify purposes, to acknowledge desires andfantasies, to risk failure by acting on tentativeinsights. It can also be a rich and rewardingprocess. The heightened sense of experiencing,the expanding awareness of what is and whatcan be are expressed in openness to furtherexperiencing, further learning, further aware-ness of problems, further conflict and struggle,further disappointments and satisfacion, anda special joy in having acted on one'.:: under-standings and commitments. Thus the con-tinuing integration of intellectual and insightfullevels of knowing is expressed by the indi-vidual in higher levels of self-esteem, com-mitment, responsibility, freedom, and anever-expanding awareness of the world helives in.

Implications of this model

The three facets of the modelexploring,integ,ating, and transcending--are dynamicinteractive processes; they may be occurringsimultaneously or they may be occurring ihcycles of varying dominance and emphasis, butthe full cycle of the learning process encom-passes each aspect to some degree. The circu-larity of the model expresses the inherent unityof the conceptualized process. Initial aware-ness is transcended through the student'sactivity in testing out the validity and appro-priateness of his tentative patterns of knowing.Action is crucial to every aspect of the learningcycle. Acting on his knowing in a challenging,confronting, clarifying, yet accepting environ-ment helps to focus the student's development


and bring him to an expanded awareness.Transcending tentative knowing permits theindividual to be more open to his environment.

It is likely that developing an expandedand refined awareness may precede the stu-dent's ability to symbolize and communicatehis understandings to others. Yet he mayattempt some incomplete communication ofi)ersonal meanings that will be perceives' indifferent ways depending on the receptivitythe responsivenessof the environment, par-ticularly the teacher. Educational environ-ments, then, must be explicitly designed tolegitimate, value, and nurture all facets of thelearning process.

In practice, however, our schools ignorethe exploring facet, exploit the Integratingfacet, and work in opposition to the tran-scending facet. Most school emphasis is in thegeneral area of the integrati;.g aspect, com-prising presymbolic and symbolic patterninga tentative kind of knowing. Although thesetentative patternngs of it tellectual and per-sonal relationships may be communicated andverified by others, the individual is still experi-encing only tentative and intellectualized"knowing."

In our schools today integrating (tentative.knowing) is treated as an end product, foreverbeing subjected to testing, measuring, evalu-ating, assessing, researching, etc. This pressurefor premature structuringsuch as asking foranswers to controlling questions, imposingpredetermined stimuli, and demanding thatstudents work toward ends specified externallycan short-circuit the entire learning process.Furthermore, if the student feels threatened inthe learning situation, he may himself effectpremature closure, aborting the breadth of thefull learning process. The environment canthus limit rather than extend the students'opportunities to learn.

14 Reschoolin,,, Society

Developing a learning envirGnmer

We see the ci:sirable sdiool as a struc-tured learning environment that can supportthe full range of the learning process. Thequestion we want to ask is: How can learningenvironments be structured to be rich in op-portunities for exploring, nurturing of sup-portive relationships, and at the same ,timeenhance an individual's efforts to transcend hisexperiences and create personal meanings?What will be important in such an environmentis not just the availability of certain kinds ofexperiences, but a consistent approach in con-ception, organization, and evaluation thatviews experiences themselves as educationallyvalid rather than as a means to predeterminedends.

Our own emphasis is on the conditionsand the quality of the environment in whichexperiences develop, rather than on preselec-tion of learning activities to yield prespecifiedend products. In our view, educative experi-ences emerge in the dialectic of free interplaybetween the responding student, other per-sons, and a purposefully structured learningenvironment. Such an environment includesvaried and provocative opportunities to inter-act with people, things, places, and ideas. Theinterplay of individual and environment is a

reciprocal and emerging process. Teachers,too, are considered to be continuing and in-volved "students."

In this conception, educztive experiencescannot be prescribed nor even prestated. How-ever, criteria can be provided fc,r selecting andorganizing a range of activities and experiencesthat will support and promote the full range ofthe learning process as we have described it.These criteria ire derived from our prestatedethical commitment to support the emergingcounterthrust for a more humanistic society by

Transactional Dimensions 15

implementing the humanistic-existential con-ception of man's development.

In general, we would demand the satis-faction of one global criterion for every educa-tional experience, activity, or interpersonalrelationship: Does it promote, value, and sup-port authentic personal responses by bothteacher and student to the reality of the on-going experience? If yes, the experience is

potentially open (or "opening"), permittingthe individual to explore, validate, and/ormodify his developing conceptions of realitiesand relationships in the real world of the"school."

More specifically: to meet the criterionof pluralism, he learning environment mustprovide a wide range of options" for studentsand teachers alike, including opportunitiesfor varied and highly individual patterns of(Aperiencing and functioning; to meet thecriterion of participation, the learning environ-ment must provide opportunities for actionand direct participation by students andteachers at all levels of decision making; tomeet the criterion of liberation, the learningenvironment must provide for radically differ-ent, individually defined, emerging directionsrather than predetermined ends for both stu-dents and teachers. And most important, wemust (and we can) provide a school environ-ment which nourishes the .quality and intentof the reconceptualized learning process.

TRANSACTIONAL DIMENSIONS

THE CONCEPT of transaction is basic to ourvie';e6f what transpires in our model of school-

Options in any society are necessarily limited.We believe that the value commitments of this modelshould provide guidance for defining limits in a givencontext. (There are, of course, other models.)

keschooling Society

ing. Transaction refers to the dynamic inter-relations between persons, between a personand ideas, and between a person and thingsin any specific context. In an educational set-ting the entry point for a transaction lies in theexperiences children are having in school.Experiences emerge in the free interplay be-tween a person and a purposefully structurededucational environment. Educational activi-ties create experiences (which are by definitionpersonal) and are in themselves validly educa-tive rather than a means to predetermined edu-cational goals.

Purposes arise out of the transaction ofthe subjective and objective conditions of ex-perience. A purpose which arises out of atransaction could come to resemble what maybe called an objective, though not necessarilyso. In contrast, predefined objectives are pro-jected into situations and used as bases forshaping the roles of individuals in relation tothings, ideas, and other people. Such an ob-jective is exactly what it says: it stands outfrom the subject and has no necessary relation-ship to any subject in a specific situation.Purposes, however, arise from a subject who,it is implied, intentionally seeks some directOnor end. Purposes by this definition cannot ariseoutside the situation and, therefore, cannot bepredetermined.

Our model is transaction-oriented inrequiring that programs and curricula andpeople be flexible enough to allow for per-sonal responses to the reality of the ongoingexperiences. Traditional schools are role-oriented and experiences are monitored byplans, ideas, rules, etc., that are projectedinto the situation but do not arise out of thesituation.

It should be made clear that the conceptproposed here is in no way related to an un-planned curriculum. The very concept of

Tr.insactional Dimensions 17

transaction means action arising through therelationship of inner subjective qualities ofpersons with outer cultural realities withinsome social context, a context that has a pasthistory and a future orientation. These trans-actions require the continuous examination ofvalues and commitments by each person in-volved in the process.

Planning, in the. alternative model, isviewed in terms of the dynamic potential in-herent in students in a given environment. Itis the structuring of a liVing situation with awide range of educative alternatives. The trans-actions that take place within this structurecannot be planned in the .traditional manner.They are more in the nature of "planned acci-dents" and have somewhat the quality of a"happening" to them. The curriculum is thecultural environment which has been selectedas a set of possibilities for learning transactions.

In summary, we are proposing a model ofa school in our culture for our time whichwould- ;embody and support the increasingthrust for liberation, participation, and plural-ism for all participants. To bring such a schoolinto being we have to make decisions aboutvarious interrelated aspects of a holistic design.The following decisions are those we believenecessary to enhance the major direction wehave already reviewed.

The learning environment

Our emphasis is on the conditions andthe quality of the environment in which ex-periences develop rather than on preselectionof learning activities to yield prespecified endproducts. A humanistic educational environ-ment must provide:

Real options for teachers and studentsalike. "Real options" means having choices,


making decisions, and taking responsibility forthe consequences of one's own activity.

Varied opportunities for each studentto explore the environment in his own indi-vidual way.

Opportunities for each teacher, too, toexplore different ways of interacting as personand teacher; to experience himself as a grow-ing person; to test and affirm his purposes andcommitments; to assume responsibility formaking professional decisions consistent withhis ethical commitments.

Opportunities for each individual tocontinue his "romance" with ideas, things,people, and places though others in his envi-ronment may no longer be interested.

Opportunities and services available toboth teacher and student for consulting, interacting with others, challenging, sharing, con-fronting, accepting, clarifying, and caring aseach begins to integrate pattern, of relation-ships as "tentative knowing."

Suspension of predetermined and/orsocietal criteria of judgment as the individualbegins to sort out, restructure, fill in holes,reconcile sensed differences, and resolve para-doxes in his expanding awareness of hisenvironment.

Active, responsive support for studentand teacher as each struggles to define andact on his evolving insights and generalizationsin moving to higher levels of awareness. Mov-ing in the direction of a higher level of aware-ness implies opportunities for the individual todevelop and test out his evolving' sense ofpurpose anri commitment, to express his de-sires and fantasies, to attempt continuously todiscriminate and synthesize.

Opportu, for each teacher and stu-dent to assume respors:ibility for evaluating his


own purposes and setting new goals at anytime, with or without consultation

Participation by the teacher as a sup-portive facilitating resource person. That is,

the teacher must have the personal and pro-fessional skills to respond sensitively to variousindividuals in a variety of flexible ways insteadof on the basis of predetermined teacher-stu-dent roles. This implies that the teacher ishimself a continuing learner, constantly clarify-ing and expanding his own personal-profes-sicnal values, commitments, resources, andskills.

Activities, and opportunities or inter-personal relationships, that are "educatiocial,"open, and self-renewing. This means thatwhether an activity is dropped or continuedby an individual, the experience will havebrought him to an awareness of limitations orfurther possibilities in the activity he is cur-ret!tly involved in. In the view projected here,educational experiences cannot be predeter-mined, nor "provided" for any stu-dent. We can, however, provide learningenvironments offering a rich range of oppor-tunities for the interplay of students with otherpeople, things, places, and ideas.

The teacher-student relationship

The crucial element of the projectedlearning environment is a relationship of mu-tual respect and trust shared by teacher andstudents. In any school the teacher serves asa model. He is looked to for intellectual lead-ership and attitudes about human beings andour culture. In our view, the teacher must bean active, caring, and responsible adult dem-onstrating respect for our pluralistic culturalheritage. The intellectually able teacher willcommunicate his excitement and joy in learn-ing to his students. He is able to take a stand,

ZO Reschooling Society

communicate a position, and permit the stu-dents to develop and validate their own pointsof view.

The teacher responds to students on apersonal level, as a real person rather thanas someone playing the role of teacher. Themost critical aspects of the teacher's successfulfunctioning in this model are the kinds of per-sonal relationships he establishes, his attitudetoward intellectual and creative activities, andhis ability to deal constructively with the reali-ties of the teaching/learning situation.

The teacher, in this model, may be char-acterized as an aware decision maker, with theimmediate responsibility for structuring andbeing part of a responsive and evocative edu-cational environment. As a major agent ofinfluence in the learning environment, theteacher communicates flexible expectations tothe students. The teacher is continually guidedby an acute awareness of himself as person-teacher-decision maker, a responsive attentive-ness to the students as persons, and a thoroughunderstanding .of alternatives available in anyinstructional context. The teacher does notfunction as the authority or the final source ofknowledge and decision making. Instead, theteacher, too, is a continuing student, constantlyclarifying and expanding his own personal-professional values, commitments, resources,and skills.

The content of learning

All cultural content can be viewed as astart or stimulation for individual explorationand development. Substantive goals will emergefrom individual interactions with and process-ing of data in the environment.

Traditional emphasis on the so-called"basic skills" for making it in our society (read-ing, writing, arithmetic) implies that these skills


can he separated out both from the largercultural c,)ntext in which 'hey are to becomeoperative and from the personal-holistic con-text of human development. In practice, basicskills have become the primary objectives ofschooling in our society. Such a skewed em-phasis assumes that if these skills are not taughtdirectly, systematically, intensively, and exten-sively, either they will not be learned at all orthere will be widespread inability to read,compute, and write.

However viewed, the prevailing approachhas not been meeting its aims. Volumes ofcurrent critiques on the status of educationattest to its failure. Yet the fragmented focuson isolated 'learning of skills" is continued innew waves of intensive "teaching" that canonly be terrorizing to young children and self-defeating in the long run. This fragmentedapproach exemplifies the fragmented concep-tions of men and schooling shaping ourschools today.

The nature of the intellectual aspect ofhuman development is a crucial concern ofour model. Our focus, however, is holistic,reflecting our holistic conceptions and com-mitments. We believe that skills, both intel-lectual and social, are inextricably enmeshedin the cultural milieu and will be continuouslydeveloped by the student as he learns to dealwith ideas and decisions within the broad con-text of his envii_mment.

In this view the task of education is

threefold:

To stimulate students' awarenessTo respond to students' growing aware-

ness with help, suggestions, and resources, asappropriate

To initiate suggestions and opportuni-ties designed to stimulate and support students'learning in areas they have selected.


The meaning of "curriculum"'

As Dewey once remarked, the curriculumis a contrived environment. In our view, "cur-riculum" is the cultural enviro:Iment which hasbeen purposefully selected as a set of possibili-ties for facilitating educative transactions.

The realities of the cultural milieux in apluralistic society (see Appendix A) are seen asthe content which will facilitate the tran-scendent and liberating experiences of eachindividual. Each individual will participate inthe selection of relevant content, and eachindividual's "curriculum" will be unique. How-ever, a basic resource framework is necessaryfor looking at the kinds of cultural data avail-able, the major cultural avenues for processingthese data, and the ba',ic human ways of actingwith data. This framewOrk would include, forexample such material as our present concep-tions of political, social, economic, psychologi-cal, and physical structures. Further, it wouldinclude awareness of and experience with thosemetaphysical, aesthetic, and technological ra-tio.ialities and forms of expression that areunique to subcultures as well as those of thedominant culture of our society. These datasources and furriamental ways of processingwould further be tapped in relation to suchsocial needs and processes as communication,work, and leisure activity.

All these eata, processes, and social usesare fundamentally of importance for humanaction. The curriculum as environment thenwould encompass (a) political and social ac-tions (social and cultural maintenance andchange); (b) personal actions (moral andethical choices); and (c) cultural actions (crea-tion of new cultural meanings).

Curriculum in our alternative model isnecessarily viewed in general process and con-tent forms. Decisions about curriculum are


determinations of directional goals which pro-vide the necessary boundaries for becomingimmersed in our culture. These curriculumdecisions will be expected to foster and reflectthe fundamental social and cultural values wehold to be essential fo- humane development.What kinds of decisions need to be made andwho will make them? For clarity and contrastwe will present our views within the historicframework of organization, structure, andsyntax.

Organization. The problem of organiza-tion is in many ways a question of how we areto "package" the environment. This is not ascommercial or crass as it sounds because, asnoted earlier, the environment will be thereanyway and the real' question is: In what man-ner will persons and social conditions inter-vene to shape this environment?

The traditional approach has been to be-gin with an analysis of the knowledge andskills necessary for persons to function ade-quately, then break these down into manage-able time units and adjust the specifics to thegeneral capabilities of students at various agelevels in our culture. The subject matter ispreformed in terms of the adult-organizedbodies of knowledge and skills which are con-sidered necessary for learning within thesedisciplines. It is precisely this approach whichstructures a closed school:

In contrast, we believe that the cur-riculum should be organized according toselected areas of investigation. These areasmay take many forms and would probably belocated geographically in many places in andout of the "school." The essential ingredient,whatever form curriculum takes, is that it beembodied in areas that lend themselves to stu-dent interest and social investigation. "School"may well take the form of in- and out-of-


school interest centers developed aroundcommon concerns of our culture (such as

mathematics, physical science, technology,business, social studies, language, and arts).More appropriately, in our view, curriculumcan be conceptualized in terms of interdisci-plinary areas of .investigation which coalesce anumber of cultural concerts under one the-matic idea (for exampl,,. Communication,World of Work, Culture, Pollution, Systems, orPoverty). Students will have opportunities toinitiate and choose specific areas of investiga-tion.

Structure. In thinking about structure, orsequence which flows from the structure, thereis dramatic contrast between prevailing viewsand our alternative curricula. For us, the struc-ture of a discipline is a possible end point ofeducational experience. For the traditionalist,it is the beginning point. Bruner's '° statementto the effect that anything worth teaching canbe tau3ht in some intellectually honest way atany level implies that the structure of what iFtaught is preformed by adults and unknown bychildren. Dewey, however, might well haveargued that to begin with concrete experienceswhich arise out of social living is the most in-tellectually honest way of beginning withyoung children.

It should be clear that we are proposingthat the primary and only legitimate sourcefrom which sequence emerges is the individu-al's developing interests and purposes, whetherin the context of expanding social experiencesor not. (We are not, however, espousing an"incidental curriculum." Most advocates of anincidental curriculum do not require a changein the traditional subject matter base; they

" Jerome S. Bruner. Toward a Theory of Instruc-tion. Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard UniversityPress, 1966.


emphasize instead a change in the manner andmethods of interpreting and operating withinthe subject matter framework.)

Syntax. The syntax of the disciplines istheir emphasis upon inquiry. Dewey, Kil-patrick, and others believed that problem solv-ing was the basis of intellectual activity in rela-tion to subject matter. Problem solving as aprocess was the activity that integrated childand subject matter.

Today, modes of inquiry are more com-monly interpreted as highly specific processesor rules for relating to the subject matter underconsideration. Although inquiry is defined asstarting with a discrepancy or a curiosity andseems to suggest that the student will he ex-ploring and investigating to satisf,' his ':uri-osity, in practice "modes cf inquiry," az- a

process, has become a series of preset goalsand activities which have to be followed inpredetermined sequence prior to engaging inany independent inquiry.

Our orientation de-emphasizes the con-cern with disciplines and their syntax; we areconcerned with facilitating the student's freeexperiencing of his environment in a playful,self-expressive way as an initial aspect of thelearning process. This approach is called either"fooling around," by its critics, or "exploringideas" by its supporters.

It is crucial to our point of view to clarifydistinctions between personalized instructionand individualized instruction. Our moralconcerns are grounded in a form of personal-ism in a social context. Our alternative modelhas no rationale for existence unless one seesanother as a whole person. If there is noarticle of faith in the worth, dignity, integrity,and uniqueness of each person, then there isno need for an alternative model.

Yet even the concern for the individual

26 Reschoang Society

can be misleading. Our child developmentheritage is connected with the general growthof behavioristic psychology in many ways.When people speak of individual differencesthey often violate the concept of "the one,""the unity," and in some way fragment theindividual. By manipulating psychological con-cepts and tools we have become adept atobjectifying the inner substance of individualsand selecting out traits or characteristics toutilize in the manipulation of the person. Ithas even been suggested that we should striveto describe the inner qualities of individuals,relate these qualities to specific tasks, andprocess individuals through these tasks effi-ciently and effectively. Were we in fact able todo this, we would have a completely individu-alized yet predetermined and prescribed cur-riculum. What would look "open" on thesurface would be completely closed for theindividual.

In our proposed .nodel, however, schoolmust not only be committed to whole persons,but r ,List be functionally open in the percep-tions and actions of participants, not simply inthe eyes of the observer. "Individualizing" or"personalizing" must deal with the whole per-son, his goals, his interests, and his percep-tions, in interaction with the environment.

The meaning of "evaluation"

Different questions about evaluation mustbe raised when we reject the traditional as-sumption that schools should be purposeful interms of predetermined ii tellectual and socialends. We are assuming that schools should becenters which provide a varied and supportiveenvironment for expanding each student'sawareness and inquiry in the context of hispresent life. We believe that such an aestheticand intellectual approach to the present is


more desirable than attempting to shape hu-man beings to some imagined future goal.Evaluation consistent with these assumptionstakes place on two distinct but interrelatedlevels:

Level One: Educational Evaluation takesplace within the school and is concerned pri-marily with the quality of the environment andstudents' (and teachers') development andlearning.

Level Two: Social Accountability takesplace primarily outside the school and is con-cerned with whether the school and individu-als within the school are moving towardmutually agreed-upon directions and purposes.

Differentiating these two levels of evalua-tion may help to clarify the distinction be-tween evaluation in schooling directed towardunpredictable and emerging goals and evalua-tion for social accountability.

Educational evaluation would be carriedout by staff members and students. It wouldinclude self-evaluations by students, self-eval-uations by teachers, and cooperative evalua-tions by staff and students. The focus of thisevaluation process is twofold: (a) evaluation ofthe total educational environment, and (b)self-evaluations by students and teachers.

In evaluating the total educational envi-ronment we would ask broad evaluative ques-tions concerning the variety, responsiveness,and quality of the educational setting: Does itsupport diversity? Is it liberating? Are theresufficient resources available? Does it promoteself-direction and commitment? Does it func-tion flexibly? How do individuals perceive thelearning environment? The evidence for thisevaluation should be obtained from observingand questioning teachers, students, andparents.


Examples of more specific questions are:Do students discuss their work with eachother? Do they discover relationships amongthe things they are exploring? Is it possiblefor a student to pursue a viewpoint unpopularwith the teacher? Do students give each otherassistance? "

In accepting the values of diversity, self-direction, and commitment, we can no longerlook to normative tests for evaluation of stu-dents. Standardized tests compare studentswith each other on the assumptions that thereare common learnings and standards at eachage level. Evaluation questions about studentproductions are also irrelevant when learningis viewed as a continuing process.

Self-evaluations should be carried outwith the help of various members of the edu-cational community and in terms of theemerging goals the student is dealing with atany point in time. Documentation in the formof diaries, logs, examples of work, and recordsof activities is useful for answering self-evalua-tive queries. The questions each person shouldbe asking are ones such as: Am I moving in adirection I desire? Am I making progress inthe ''skills" I want to develop? Where *do I

want to go from here? Self-evaluation wouldnecessarily be engaged in frequently as a basisfor planning and revising learning activities.'2

Social accountability in our model is

based on two assumptions: first, that theschool, as an institution that serves a particularcommunity, is completely open and accessibleto that community; and second, that processes

1 For additional suggestions, see: Joseph Turner.Making New Schools: The Liberation of Learning. NewYork: David McKay Company, Inc., 1971.

12 See also: Alvin Hertzberg and Edward Stone.Schools Are for Children: An American Approach to theOpen Classroom. New York: Schocken Books, Inc., 1971.

Transactional Diniensions 29

have been mutually established for all con-eerie(' persons.tri consider together, negotia;edifferences, and arrive at agreed-upon gerx6raldirections and purposes of schooling fir thatcommunity. Some of the processe;Vand op-portunities that would have to by 'available toparents and other residents oche immediatecommunity (and, to some rtent, other inter-ested educators) include,

1. OpportunitiP(for participation in seri-ous levels of decision making about overalldirections and purposes

2. Opportunities for unrestricted obser-vations of ongoing programs

3. Access to data gathered through in-school educational evaluation procedures.

The physical structure and setting

The physical setting could be viewedmore as a learning and expressive center than

a "school." A materials center, includingbooks and other media, would be an appro-priate focus for our alternative model. Insteadof organizing material by grade level, it wouldbe, more suitable to distinguish beginning, in-termediate, and advanced materials. Studentscould explore and make use of whatever suitstheir interests and purposes.

Other area designations might be artworkshops, media and communications work-shops, science laboratories, nonstructuredworkrooms, small discussion rooms, largermeeting rooms.

Our model would maximize opportuni-ties to select from a wide variety of activities.Areas may be designated for certain activitiesand the appropriate information, materials,and people could be found there. Opportuni-ties and information should be organized inways that facilitate awareness, access, and

3U Reschoo ling Society

selection. Some other possible area designa-tions might be: (a) centers for inquiry in vari-ous fields related to broad themes andpersonal interests; (b) centers for communica-tion and expression, for example, arts, humani-ties, and drama; (c) construction laboratory, forexample, crafts, woodwork, and metal.

Our model requires maximum oppor-tunity for open communication among partici-pants. Information about resources should beeasily located, and "consultants" would beavailable to help students locate or createnew resources.

By allowing choice and encouraging self-direction in the pursuit of learr'ng, this modelbrings into play the unique motivation of eachlearner. The teacher and other students arepart of a responsive environment, bringingtheir real questions and feelings to the trans-actions which occur.

The community and "the school" shouldbe highly interrelated. Students might par-ticipate in various activities in the largercommunity, and community members wouldbe welcome to become part of in-school ac-tivities. Inthistry, commerce, arts, politics, andgovernment are examples of areas in whichopportunities for experiential learning can befound within the community.

DEVELOPMENTS

RECENT ATTEMPTS to implement alternativemodels of schooling reveal a greater emphasison self-direction on the part of the student,and the development of various alternativesto traditional courses. The Milwaukee Inde-pendent School and the Berkeley CommunityHigh School are examples at the high schoollevel. The Experimental College at the Uni-versity of Minnesota, the Institute in Education

Developments 31

at the University of Wiscor. inMilwaukee,and the University Without Wails have a sim-ilar emphasis at the college level.

Each of these innovative programs is dif-ferent, and each exists in a different setting.However, all provide for more variety of op-tions and more self-determination by thestudents than traditional schools allow. Itseems to us that any of these examples of moreopen education could indeed become a modelof the kind of education we are projecting ifit were further developed to meet the criteriawe are proposing. The problem with thecurrent schools that have been moving in thisdirection is that they are pressured by theprevailing value system and its conception ofeducation to fall back to traditional goals,!e..oniques, and demands for standardizedevaluation, and they have not clarified theirbasic orientation sufficiently to withstand thesepressures.

Certainly it has been difficult in the faceof the prevailing value emphases in our cultureto move even as far as these schools have gonetoward more open education. Nevertheless, afull commitment to the values and criteria ofa humanistic ethic, as we have defined it, re-quires a more radical change than can befound in any of the structures presently pro-vided for education. Undoubtedly, a numberof different models will emerge to fit our con-ception.. It is likely that such models will con-tinue to,be in a state of change. What they willhave in common, however, 's a clear commit-ment and continuing thrust toward expressionof the humanistic ethic.

A vital aspect of the struggle for educa-tional change in the direction we would likeis the political requirement for survival. Sup-porters of change must deal with the legisla-tures and educational bureaucracies that pushfor increasing controls on teachers and learn-


ers and for establishing predetermined ends.To fight this entrenched power, supporters ofmore open models (parents, teachers, and chit-dien) must demand their right to alternativeoptions and must band together to put forwardtheir specific values and requirements for neweducational opportunities for children. Tr, thisend, efforts to clarify the philosophical, social,and educational directions of an alternativemodel are a necessary and ongoing activity.

APPENDICES

A. Creating an Alternate Conception ofEducation (Dimensions of Schooling) 34

Contrasting Models of Learning DenotingAlternate Conceptions of Education 36

C. Comparison of Criteria for EvaluatingEducational Environments 38

Tyl

er Q

uest

ions

AP

PE

ND

IX A

Cre

atin

g an

Alte

rnat

e C

once

ptio

n of

Edu

catio

n (D

imen

sion

s of

Sch

oolin

g)

Our

Val

ue C

omm

itmen

ts =

Our

Dire

ctio

nan

d P

urpo

ses

Cul

tura

l Mea

ns o

f Im

plem

enta

tion

I Wha

.S

ocia

l and

cul

tura

l1.

Lib

erat

ion

Rea

litie

s of

e.g.

1. P

oliti

cal,

econ

omic

, sci

entif

icE

duca

tiona

lva

lues

2. P

lura

lism

the

cultu

ral

stru

ctur

est..

..).P

.P

urpo

ses?

3. P

artic

ipat

ion

mili

eu(x

)2.

Aes

thet

ic, m

etap

hysi

cal,

tech

nolo

gica

l rat

iona

les

and

Eth

ical

com

mitm

ent

1. F

reed

omex

pres

sion

(per

sona

l and

gro

up)

2. C

hoic

es3.

Com

mun

icat

ion

med

ia(t

each

ers

and

stud

ents

)3.

Dec

isio

n m

akin

gP

artic

ipat

ion

1. C

omm

unic

atio

n: r

eadi

ng,

and

actio

npr

oces

ses

for

writ

ing,

com

putin

g, e

tc.

crea

ting

new

2. W

ork

and

leis

ure

activ

ities

cultu

ral m

eani

ngs

3. P

oliti

cal a

nd p

erso

nal a

ctio

n

II W

hat

Hum

anis

tic1.

Exp

lorin

gP

roce

sses

: exp

eri-

e.g.

1. E

xplo

ring

Edu

catio

nal

conc

eptio

n of

2. In

tegr

atin

gen

ced

inte

rnal

lyP

robi

rgE

xper

ienc

es?

lear

ning

3. T

rans

cend

ing

=(n

ot v

erifi

able

by

Fee

ling

and

sens

ing

crea

ting

pers

onal

obse

rvat

ion)

mea

ning

s

Sor

ting

out

Res

truc

turin

gR

esol

ving

par

adox

es3.

Cla

rifyi

ng p

urpo

ses

Mak

ing

com

mitm

ents

Evo

lvin

g in

sigh

ts a

ndge

nera

lizat

ions

Ill W

hat

Org

aniz

atio

n?P

eopl

e us

ing

time,

spac

e, a

nd fa

cilit

ies

-

alon

e an

d w

ith o

ther

s

1. fl

exib

ility

2. V

arie

ty3.

Mov

emen

t

Ope

n "s

choo

ls"

e.g.

1. R

esou

rce

area

s2.

Lar

ge a

nd s

mal

l spa

ces

3. T

he la

rger

com

mun

ity

IV W

hat K

ind

ofE

valu

atio

n?E

valu

atio

n of

tota

led

ucat

iona

l env

ironm

ent,

for

exam

ple-

Is it

libe

r-at

ing?

Doe

s it

supp

ort

dive

rsity

? D

oes

it fu

nctio

nfle

xibl

y? D

oes

it pr

o-::t

ote

self-

dire

ctio

n an

dco

mm

itmen

t?

1. D

iver

sity

2. S

elf-

dire

ctio

n3.

Com

mitm

ent

Edu

catio

nal

Unp

redi

ctab

le e

mer

ging

goa

lsev

alua

tion

(sta

fft S

elf-

eval

uatio

n by

stu

dent

san

d st

uden

ts)

2. S

elf-

eval

uatio

n by

teac

hn;s

3. C

oope

rativ

e ev

alua

t:-.

byst

aff m

embe

rs a

nd s

tude

nts

Soc

ial a

ccou

ntab

ility

Agr

eed-

upon

dire

ctio

n an

d pu

rpos

6(p

aren

ts a

nd1.

Par

ticip

atic

n in

dec

isio

nin

tere

sted

oth

ers)

re d

irect

ion/

purp

oses

2. O

bser

vatio

n of

pro

gram

s3.

Acc

ess

to e

duca

tiona

lev

alua

tion

data

Ach

ievi

ng B

ehav

iora

lO

bjec

tives

Mod

el

AP

PE

ND

IX B

Con

tras

ting

Mod

els

of L

earn

ing

Den

otin

g A

ltern

ate

Con

cept

ions

of E

duca

tion

Sch

ool =

Ar.

env

ironm

ent S

peci

fical

lyS

truc

ture

d T

o P

rovi

de O

ppor

tuni

ties

for

Lear

ning

Hum

anis

tic-E

xist

entia

l Per

sona

lM

odel

1. A

cqui

sitio

n-st

age

Exp

lorin

g va

riety

Exp

lorin

gof

stim

uli

Mes

sing

aro

und

Ass

imila

ting

new

Muc

king

abo

utin

form

atio

nG

ettin

g in

to th

ings

Pra

ctic

ing

skill

sT

ryin

g ou

tF

eelin

gP

robi

ngS

ensi

ng

1. E

xplo

ring:

exp

andi

ng a

war

enes

s

2. T

rans

form

atio

n st

age

App

lyin

g sk

ills

orpr

inci

ples

in n

ewsi

tuat

ions

Sor

ting

out

Res

truc

turin

gF

illin

g in

hol

esR

econ

cilin

g se

nsed

diffe

renc

es

Res

olvi

ng p

arad

oxes

2. In

tegr

ati:

g: p

resy

mbo

licpa

ttern

ing

3. E

valu

atio

nC

heck

ing

whe

ther

the

Evo

lvin

g in

sigh

ts a

ndap

plic

atio

n of

ski

lls a

ndge

nera

lizat

ions

conc

epts

is a

dequ

ate

Dis

crim

inat

ing

for

a gi

ven

task

Val

uing

Syn

thes

izin

gM

akin

g co

mm

itmen

tsC

larif

ying

pur

pose

sE

xpre

ssin

g de

s:re

s an

dfa

ntas

ies

3. T

rans

cend

ing:

cre

atin

g pe

rson

alm

eani

ngs

Ach

ievi

ng B

ehav

iora

l Obj

ectiv

es M

odel

AP

PE

ND

IX C

Com

paris

on o

f Crit

eria

for

Eva

luat

ing

Edu

catio

nal E

nviro

nmen

ts Hum

anis

tic-E

xist

entia

l Per

sona

l Mod

el

1. A

cqui

sitio

nC

aref

ul d

evel

opm

ent a

ndsp

ecifi

catio

n of

pub

lic c

riter

iaas

to w

hat c

onst

itute

s ne

win

form

atio

n, a

nd d

esig

natio

n of

an a

ppro

pria

te r

ange

of s

timul

ifo

r gr

ade

leve

ls o

r ag

e gr

oups

in a

ll su

bjec

t fie

lds.

Det

erm

inat

ion

of s

peci

ficbe

havi

oral

obj

ectiv

es. T

each

ers

(som

etim

es s

tude

nts)

may

part

icip

ate.

Doe

s th

e st

ruct

ured

env

ironm

ent

prov

ide

each

stu

dent

with

ava

riety

of o

ppor

tuni

ties

toex

plor

e; i.

e., t

ouch

, dre

am, r

ead,

coun

t, ta

ste,

Clin

k, s

ense

, fee

l,te

ll, y

ell,

smel

l? W

hat s

houl

dbe

add

ed?

Wha

t is

supe

rflu

ous?

Do

stud

ents

hav

e op

port

uniti

Ps

to in

tera

ct w

ith O

ne a

noth

er;

with

adu

lts; b

e al

one?

1. E

xplo

ring:

exp

andi

ng a

war

enes

s

2. T

rans

form

atio

nE

xter

nal s

truc

turin

g pr

ovid

edfo

r st

uden

t; di

rect

s hi

s fo

cusi

ngon

pre

d,:ie

rmin

ed r

ange

of

stim

uli;

delim

its r

ange

of

info

rmat

ion

to b

e m

anip

ulat

ed.

!_-_

)ocs

the

1,,Ir

ning

env

ironm

ent

faci

litat

e at

tem

pts

of s

tude

nts

and

teac

hers

at s

truc

turin

g an

d

patte

rnin

g by

pro

vidi

ng th

ese

oppo

rtun

ities

and

ser

vice

s:co

nsul

ting:

inte

ract

ing:

chal

leng

ing;

sha

ring;

con

fron

t-in

g; a

ccep

ting;

cla

rifyi

ng; c

arin

g?

2. In

tegr

atin

g: p

resy

mbo

licpa

ttern

ing

3. E

valu

atio

nT

each

er-m

ade

test

s; e

rst

anda

rdiz

ed te

sts;

or

text

book

ques

tions

; may

be

essa

yob

ject

ive

item

s, d

esig

ned

toas

cert

ain

whe

ther

pre

dete

rmin

ed(b

ehav

iora

l) ob

ject

ives

hav

e be

enac

hiev

ed. S

tude

nt m

ay b

epe

rmitt

ed to

par

ticip

ate

inev

alua

ting

prog

ress

and

inse

tting

new

goa

ls.

Doe

s ea

ch s

tude

nt a

nd te

ache

r3.

Tra

nsce

ndin

g: c

reat

ing

pers

onal

assu

me

resp

onsi

bilit

y fo

rm

eani

ngs

eval

uatin

g hi

s pr

ogre

ss a

ndse

tting

new

goa

ls?

Phi

loso

phic

alcr

iteria

rat

her

than

soc

ieta

lcr

iteria

of j

udgm

ent.

The

onl

yac

cept

able

crit

eria

are

hum

anis

ticva

lues

for

indi

vidu

als

and

grou

ps.

document resume ea 005 351 macdonald, james b.; and … · 2014-01-02 · model, james ii....

Documents