Piece de Resistance

Allison N. Pyle

Personal Theory of Curriculum submitted forCI 702 Curriculum Theory

at Marshall Universityin partial fulfillment of the requirements

for the degree of

Doctor of Educationin

Curriculum and Instruction

Dr. Elizabeth Campbell, ProfessorGraduate School of Education and Professional Development

South Charleston, West Virginia2013

Keywords: curriculum theory, humanism, Reggio-Emilia, progressivism, social constructionism, Carl Rogers, Nel Noddings, Abraham Maslow, Herbert Spencer, Loris

Malaguzzi, John Dewey, Lev Vygotsky, Albert BanduraCopyright 2013 Allison Pyle

i

Abstract

Piece de resistance

Allison Pyle

Politicians, scholars, and reformists have been looking for more than a century to a solution to the educational woes plaguing society. Unfortunately there is no recipe that will satisfy the appetites of the various parties involved. Throughout the ages, we have progressed through a series of educational reform efforts spearheaded by humanists, developmentalists, progressivists, transformationists, and a succession of other “ists”. As the educational pendulum swings old ideas are recycled and tweaked to fit a new set of goals and expectations. Just as a recipe for stew, pot pie, or ratatouille may not fit the needs of every family, there is no curricular recipe that will meet the needs of all schools or all students. Due to the changing nature of schools and society, I have created my own “recipe” of who I am by taking a little from some theories, a lot from others, and adding in a few ingredients of my own.

Table of Contents

Abstract................................................................................................................................iiIntroduction: The Ingredients..............................................................................................1Literature Review: Half-baked or Over Done?...................................................................2

Humanism........................................................................................................................2Abraham Maslow.........................................................................................................4

Carl Rogers..................................................................................................................5

Jim Harris.....................................................................................................................6

Nel Noddings...............................................................................................................8

Social Constructivism......................................................................................................9Lev Vygotsky.............................................................................................................10

Albert Bandura...........................................................................................................12

Reggio-Emilia Approach...............................................................................................13Loris Malaguzzi.........................................................................................................15

Progressivism.................................................................................................................17Herbert Spencer.........................................................................................................18

John Dewey...............................................................................................................19

Who Am I?........................................................................................................................21References..........................................................................................................................24

iii

Piece de Resistance

Introduction: The Ingredients

Nel Noddings, Carl Rogers, and Jim Harris have educational philosophies that

closely relate to my own theory of educational leadership and curriculum development.

All three approach education from a humanistic perspective, focusing on caring for the

whole person by creating an environment that provides acceptance, genuineness, and

empathy.

Like Vygotsky and Malaguzzi, I agree that the social aspect of education cannot

be ignored. Students and teachers both bring unique perspectives and experiences to the

educational environment, and this diversity when embraced can enrich the learning of

everyone involved. Malaguzzi also stressed the importance of forming an educational

community including parents, teachers, students, and the larger society. The shared goals

and values of this learning community contribute to an environment that encourages

active participation and exploration, and fostering an intrinsic motivation for learning.

Like John Dewey and the progressive theorists, I believe that education should

utilize personal interests and experiences to prepare students for life and effect social

change; however, I don’t share Dewey’s concern that personalized instruction will foster

egocentricity. Unlike Dewey, Malaguzzi and the Reggio-Emilia educators believed that

personalized instruction in a genuine collaborative environment was the vehicle that

encouraged children to become co-investors in their own education. I believe that this

personalization will provide students with a meaningful education in which they can take

ownership.

1

Literature Review: Half-baked or Over Done?

Humanism

Humanism reemerged as a popular educational trend in the 1970s, primarily as a

response to the previous focus on behaviorism. Proponents of humanistic education

believed that the American school system was too impersonal, and teachers thwarted

students’ abilities to learn and grow (Power, 2008). Humanists believed that educators

should promote teaching students things like conflict resolution, problem-solving,

cooperation, compassion, honesty, and self-knowledge in addition to the academic basics

(Power, 2008). Humanism, as an educational theory, ignited both interest and criticism;

it came to encompass many different ideas. In general, when educators described

humanistic education, they meant one of three things:

teaching a variety of skills including both the basics (language arts and math) as

well as skills necessary for personal and social development (communication,

problem-solving, and self-knowledge)

a compassionate approach to education in which students were taught with

kindness and understanding and teachers fostered a pervasive attitude of respect

dealing primarily with issues of human concern (knowledge acquisition, personal

growth, and finding meaning in one’s existence) (Power, 2008).

As with most theories and educational approaches, there are different viewpoints

encompassed under the umbrella of humanism. There are two main branches associated

with humanism: religious and secular (Huitt, 2009). Religious humanists trace their roots

back to Plato and St. Augustine in addition to other religious scholars and subscribe to the

idea that although human beings are distinct from other animal species, God or a

2

Supreme Being is the center of existence for the human race (Huitt, 2009). Secular

humanists have been accused of being atheistic due to the fact that they believe that the

individual has all that is necessary to grow and develop within him or herself (Huitt,

2009). It is due to this atheistic association that humanism received such criticism as an

educational philosophy.

Although humanistic theories may mean different things to different factions of

people, they all tend to focus on the individual being, giving primacy to human needs and

interests. According to Huitt (2009), humanists believed that it was important to study the

person as a whole, especially the manner in which an individual grows and changes over

his lifespan, paying special attention to self- motivation and goal-setting. This focus on

the individual was also highly criticized, citing a lack of attention to necessary skills.

The purpose of humanistic education is to provide a foundation for personal

growth and development so that learning will continue throughout life in a self-directed

manner (DeCarvalho, 1991). Toward this end, Gage and Berliner (1991) describe five

objectives of a humanistic education: 1) promote independence and self-direction; 2)

develop responsibility of knowledge acquisition; 3) advance creativity; 4) cultivate

curiosity; and 5) spark an interest in the arts.

Humanists believe that individuals have an innate drive to learn in order to reach

self-actualization (Cunningham, Gannon, Kavanaugh, Greene, Reddy, & Whitson, 2004).

The student chooses his or her own learning path based on goals that are specific to

individual needs; the teacher’s role is to create a non-threatening environment that

encourages self-exploration. The teacher facilitates the learning experiences; however,

3

the students are empowered and have control over the learning process (Cunningham,

et.al, 2004).

Abraham Maslow

Abraham Maslow is best known for his hierarchy of needs that includes five

levels ranging from basic needs to self-actualization. In looking at Maslow’s hierarchy,

one seeks to move up the pyramid as basic needs are met in order to fulfill the higher

level growth needs such as social and esteem needs. Maslow believes that one must fulfill

the lower needs before self-actualization, the highest level of motivation, can be met;

however, the stages are not fixed, and one may digress to lower levels throughout life as

challenges and setbacks occur (Maslow, 1943).

After the birth of his child, Maslow began to reject the ideas of behaviorism, as he

realized that he wasn’t in control of this tiny being; he believed that anyone who had a

baby couldn’t possibly be a behaviorist (Goble, 1970). Disagreeing with the behavioral

premise behind the study of human behavior by looking at animal studies and the over

generalizing of human behavior, Maslow moved toward a more humanistic approach

(Goble, 1970). Maslow felt that a comprehensive theory of human behavior must include

both the intrinsic determinants of behavior as well as the extrinsic environmental factors

(Goble, 1970). Moving away from Freudian and Behaviorist philosophies, Maslow

thought a comprehensive, multi-disciplinary approach was necessary to study the whole

being. Maslow began his study on what he termed “self-actualized” persons. Maslow

found that not all productive, talented, successful people met the criteria of being self-

actualized as many of them were psychologically unhealthy; however, he began to define

self-actualization as an active, dynamic process rather than a fixed or final stage of being

4

(Goble, 1970). Maslow’s hierarchy, and specifically his work regarding self-

actualization, although criticized by countless other psychologists, became an important

cornerstone for other humanist theorists.

Carl Rogers

Carl Rogers viewed the facilitation of learning as the aim of education. The

initiation of learning, therefore does not rest in the skills of the teacher, curricular

planning, textbooks, lectures, or other resources, it resides in the relationship between the

learner and the teacher (Zimring, 1999). In order to facilitate learning successfully,

Rogers asserts that there are three core attitudinal qualities that must be evident:

genuineness, positive regard, and empathetic understanding (Zimring, 1999).

Genuineness is a self-explanatory concept in which the teacher is a real person,

not a “faceless embodiment of a curricular requirement” (Zimring, 1999, p. 3). The

teacher is able to enter into the educational experience without presenting a façade, and in

doing so, is able to accept his feelings without imposing them on his students. Judgment

can then be placed on a student product without objectifying the student as being good or

bad (Zimring, 1999).

Carl Rogers developed the idea of congruence in order to reach self-actualization.

Rogers states that in order for a person to reach the highest level of Maslow’s hierarchy

of needs, a person’s ideal self, or who he or she would like to be, must be congruent with

his or her actual behavior (McLeod, 2007). Rogers also believes that childhood

experiences have the greatest impact on an adult’s likelihood to become self-actualized.

Rogers also articulated the idea of positive regard. He stated that there are two

types of positive regard: conditional and unconditional. Unconditional positive regard is

5

where significant others accept and love a person for who he or she is, and it is not

revoked when someone makes a mistake. Conditional positive regard is where praise and

acceptance rely on the behavior of the person. In a situation of conditional positive

regard, the person is not truly loved or valued for who he is, but rather on the condition

that he behaves in a specific way (McLeod, 2007).

Creating an environment that is conducive to self-initiated, experiential learning

also requires empathetic understanding. This empathetic understanding stems from the

teacher’s ability to understand the student’s reactions from the inside and is sensitive to

the process of education and learning as it appears to the student (Zimring, 1999). When

these three core conditions are met, Rogers believes that the likelihood of significant

learning is increased.

Jim Harris

Jim Harris’s work was greatly influenced by Carl Rogers and other humanistic

theorists. Although not well-known, Harris has created a list of ten things one needs to

know about children. The last four rules can be widely applied as tenets of working with

all people. These rules are simple, yet have profound effects: first, the relationship is

key; second, people want to matter; third, the spoken rule versus the real rule; and fourth,

if you want it, teach it (J. Harris, live presentation, Oct. 21, 2010). Harris believes, and

his ideas are reiterated by Rogers and Noddings, that relationships are the key to

successfully working with people. It doesn’t matter how intelligent the population of the

system becomes, if the students we teach are not able to form relationships and interact

positively with others in society, they are not being educated successfully.

6

Jim Harris’s second rule supports creating and maintaining positive lasting

relationships. He states that people want to matter, and in order to help create these

feelings of significance, in children or adults, the teacher needs to create situations in

which students can build confidence in tasks and be proud of their accomplishments (J.

Harris, live presentation, Oct. 21, 2010). Teachers, administrators, and parents in the

educational realm, as well as managers and co-workers in the business sector need to

make a conscious effort to create situations where others can feel significant and

valuable. People need to be contributors- to the class, to the team, to the family, and to

society in general. Some people seek out these opportunities, however, for others; these

opportunities must be fostered in an atmosphere that builds confidence.

Harris’s third rule, again is simple in concept, however, it is easy to break this

rule. The spoken rule versus the real rule is really a test of integrity. Being a man or

woman of your word is really the essence. Harris articulates the importance of saying

what you are going to do and then sticking to it. The spoken rule is what we tell people-

or the persona we put forth for others, the ideal self, according to Rogers. The real rule is

what we actually do- our expectations and how we enforce the rules. In order to be an

honorable person, an honest and ethical leader, the spoken rule and the real rule need to

be the same, or as close as possible.

Harris’s last rule: if you want it, teach it- is really common sense. We cannot

expect others to intrinsically know how to perform or act in a specific way without

articulating those expectations and then teaching people how to meet them. Jim Harris

tells us to be what we want others to be. If we want patience, we must be patient; if we

7

want hard workers, we must work hard; if we want others to be loving, caring

individuals, we must love and care for them.

Nel Noddings

Nel Noddings (1995) is a feminist philosopher, associated with the humanist

movement, who believes that we should nurture children to be competent, caring, loving,

and lovable people. She states that moral life should be embraced as the main goal of

education because such an aim does not work against intellectual development or

academic achievement, but rather, it supplies a firm foundation for both (Noddings,

1995).

Noddings argues that although creating an ethic of caring should not be the only

aim of education, it should be the first (Noddings, 1984). Although both the social-

emotional domain and the intellectual-academic domain are of utmost importance to

human development, it has generally been accepted that their nurturance should be

handled by separate organizations (Noddings, 1984). Typically, schools have been

entrusted with the advancement of the intellectual domain while churches and parents

have been responsible for the child’s moral development. Noddings aptly argues that

“questions concerning the ethical arise in every aspect of human life, and nurturance of

the ethical ideal cannot be assigned to any one or two institutions. All must accept

responsibility” (Noddings, 1984, p. 173).

In her book, Happiness and Education, Noddings (2003) discusses the aim of

education, both as it presently is, rife with focus on standardization and assessment, and

as she believes it should be. In direct opposition to the standardization of education,

Noddings believes that education should promote happiness in whatever occupational

8

path is chosen and should focus on educating students for personal life (Noddings, 2003).

Specifically, she stresses the importance of looking at the aim of education and having

reflective discussions about why we, as a system, promote certain goals in schooling.

Social Constructivism

Social constructivism is a theory that focuses on the social nature of learning.

Learning occurs in a social environment where knowledge is constructed based on the

experiences of the learner. Social constructivism is based on three main assumptions

dealing with reality, knowledge, and learning. Reality is constructed through human

activity and experiences as society invents the properties of the world; therefore, reality

cannot be discovered for it does not truly exist until it is created by human experience

(Kim, 2001). Social constructivists also believe that knowledge is socially and culturally

constructed through interactions among and between humans and their environment

(Kim, 2001). In the final assumption regarding learning, social constructivists believe that

learning is a social process that occurs when individuals are engaged in meaningful

interactions with others (Kim, 2001). Individual experiences and the unique perspectives

gained offer value to the social learning process.

Social constructivism is generally thought of in terms of face-to-face interactions;

however, social constructivists recognize a wide range of phenomena including cultural,

political, and historical influences that impact the social construct of learning (Au, 1998).

In looking at student achievement and the gap between students from different

backgrounds, social constructivists believe that research should view the “societal

conditions that led to its creation and sustain it over time through students’ daily

interactions and experiences in school” (Au, 1998, p. 301). Therefore, the political,

9

historical, and cultural influences on each student may contribute to the cycle of high

levels of educational attainment or low student achievement.

Although humanism tends to look at the individual as the focus, morality and

ethics cannot be ignored. It is in this sense that humanism can be tied to social

constructivism. The shared nature of learning in the view of social constructivism can be

closely linked to the ideas presented by Rogers, Harris, and Noddings that focus on the

relationship between individuals. Acceptance, genuineness, and empathy are key

components of humanist philosophy; however, they are just as important in building the

relationships that are necessary for learning under the social constructivist ideals.

Lev Vygotsky

Lev Vygotsky is perhaps one of the most influential social constructivists of all

time. Vygotsky believed that individual cognitive development was limited to a certain

range, and the only way to reach full development was to engage in social interaction

(Cunningham, et.al, 2004). This idea gave rise to a learning theory of what became

known as the zone of proximal development. The zone of proximal development was the

area of cognition between what the learner was able to accomplish independently and

what he or she could accomplish with scaffolding from a more knowledgeable other

(Clark, Griffin, & Turner, 2007).

Vygotsky described two basic types of activity: reproductive and creative. He

claimed that reproductive activities are those that are closely linked with memory and

consist of reproducing or repeating a behavior that has already been developed or

mastered (Sharpe, 2004). He proclaims the importance of this type of activity by

10

discussing the importance of human ability to adapt based on these reproductive

behaviors. In describing the complexity of the human brain, Vygotsky states,

Our brain proves to be an organ that retains our previous

experience and facilitates the reproduction of this experience.

However, if the brain’s activity were limited merely to retaining

previous experience, a human being would be a creature who could

adapt primarily to familiar, stable conditions of the environment.

All new or unexpected changes in the environment not

encountered in his previous experience would fail to induce the

appropriate adaptive reactions in humans. (Sharpe, 2004, p. 8)

The second type of basic activity that Vygotsky discussed was concerned with

creative or combination behaviors. In addition to the brain’s ability to reproduce previous

behaviors and adapt to new situations, the brain is also able to combine and creatively

reimagine past experiences to form new ideas and behaviors (Sharpe, 2004). Without the

creative activity, Vygotsky argues that humans would be unable to plan, imagine, or

adjust to an unforeseen future, and would therefore; remain in a stagnant present state.

Vygotsky sought to explain human behavior based on the idea of the brain’s

ability to take reproductive activities and use them to evolve into something more

complex. He determined that human behavior can only be fully explained by taking into

account innate responses, conditional reflexes, historical and social experiences, and

“doubled” experience (Van der Veer & Valsiner, 1991). The concept of doubled

experience was important in Vygotsky’s research because it distinguished internal and

external events. Specifically, organisms react twice to an event, first to the external

11

stimuli or event, and then again to the internal reaction or reflection (Van der Veer &

Valsiner, 1991). Keeping with the theme of reflection, Vygotsky believed that teachers

should arrange the learning environment so that students could learn from their own

activities and reactions rather than become passive recipients of knowledge (Van der

Veer & Valsiner, 1991).

In addition to Vygotsky’s contributions to cognitive development, he was a

pioneer in the field of early childhood education. Vygotsky articulated the importance of

play in the development of preschool children. Through play, Vygotsky explains that

children begin to recognize their own actions and equate objects with meaning;

additionally, he argues that imaginary play is a form of abstract thought (Vygotsky,

1966).

Albert Bandura

Albert Bandura is well known for his research regarding social learning,

modeling, and human motivation. Bandura’s initial research on human behavior and

modeling was focused primarily on aggression and the inclination of children and adults

to imitate others’ behavior (Sims & Manz, 1982). In response to a time dominated by

behaviorism, Bandura sought to explain the nature of human behavior based on the

relationship between human behavior, the external environment, and personal factors

rather than focusing on behavior controlled by external factors (Bandura, 1986). This

work, like that of Rogers and Maslow, led him to focus on self-efficacy and its role in

human behavior.

Bandura advocated four approaches to develop self-efficacy. He argues that the

most effective method of attaining a high degree of self-efficacy is through successful

12

mastery experiences (Bandura, 1994). The next two approaches relate closely to social

constructivism as they both deal directly with social experiences. Social modeling can

provide efficacy through indirect exposure to success as the observer believes that he or

she possesses the capacity to achieve similar results by imitating models that are

comparable in stature or skill (Bandura, 1994). Likewise, social persuasion is an effective

means of building efficacy in an individual because verbal encouragement will often

motivate one to give greater effort and persist when self-doubt begins to surface

(Bandura, 1994). Stress management and the ability to control negative emotions also

increase one’s likelihood to have a positive self-regard and a high degree of efficacy

(Bandura, 1994).

Reggio-Emilia Approach

Similar to social construction and the humanist approach to education, the

Reggio-Emilia approach focuses on human interaction, exploration, observation, and

reflection, building on student interests, and working closely with parents and the

community to foster an engaging, connected learning environment. The Reggio-Emilia

approach to education was established in Reggio Emilia, Italy as a part of post-war

reconstruction effort; it was built primarily at the hands of parents, and thus parental

involvement is still a predominant influence under this approach (Hewett, 2001). The

main principle of Reggio-Emilia is in the view of the child; he or she has rights and

should be viewed as competent, creative, valuable, ambitious, and full of potential

(Hewett, 2001). The Reggio-Emilia approach fosters child development by encouraging

children to explore their environment and express themselves creatively through

13

whichever medium they are most comfortable: movement, words, painting, building,

acting, sculpture, music, etc. (Edwards & Gandini, 1998).

Much like the humanistic approach or that of social constructivism, the Reggio-

Emilia approach promotes environments that support collaboration and problem-solving

in which education is seen as a communal event with joint exploration and discussion

between children and adults (Edwards & Gandini, 1998). The Reggio-Emilia approach is

concerned with the child, the teacher, the environment, and the nature of knowledge to be

learned.

The role of the child in the Reggio-Emilia approach is complex, as he or she is

seen as a researcher, a social being, a constructor of knowledge, a communicator, a

collaborator, and a protagonist. Children are one of the three leaders, along with teachers

and parents, and they are seen as strong and capable, able to maneuver and negotiate the

problems posed by their environment (Cadwell, 1997). Children as collaborators operate

on the premise of social constructivism, as they are expected to work in small groups

rather than in isolation, as knowledge is constructed through interactions with others, the

environment, and symbols (Cadwell, 1997). Communication is a key component under

Reggio-Emilia; children are given freedom to choose their method of expression sharing

what they know, understand, question, imagine, and feel (Cadwell, 1997). As an active

constructor of knowledge, children fulfill their innate desire to discover, learn, and make

sense of the world as they take on the role of author in their educational story (Hewett,

2001). The primary form of instruction under the Reggio-Emilia approach integrates

projects where students become the researcher, hypothesizing, questioning, seeking

solutions, experimenting, predicting, and reflecting (Hewett, 2001). Modeled after

14

Vygotsky’s ideas, the Reggio-Emilia approach emphasizes communication and language,

both with adults and other children.

The role of the teacher, under the Reggio-Emilia approach, is unique in that she is

viewed as a co-learner and collaborator. The teacher is a nurturer, guide, facilitator,

researcher, and reflective practitioner. In order to plan appropriate learning environments,

the teacher must carefully observe and listen to children, questioning them, discovering

their interests and needs and then providing open-ended exploration (Cadwell, 1997). The

teacher’s role as a researcher is complex, he or she must use inquiry, observation, and

data to ascertain critical knowledge of student development and learning while designing

environments that pique curiosity and build on children’s interests (Hewett, 2001).

Unique to the Reggio-Emilia approach, teachers acting as reflective practitioners must

constantly evolve and change taking into consideration the influence and ideas of

colleagues, parents, community members, and the children (Hewett, 2001).

Under the Reggio-Emilia approach, the environment is seen as a third teacher.

Every aspect of the learning environment must be carefully planned to maximize the

potential for communication, exploration, and relationship building (Cadwell, 1997).

“Every corner of every space has an identity and a purpose, is rich in potential to engage

and to communicate, and is valued and cared for by children and adults” (Cadwell, 1997,

p. 5).

Loris Malaguzzi

As a teacher and the founder of the Reggio-Emilia approach, Loris Malaguzzi’s

ideas about children and learning are evident, as they are the tenets around which Reggio

education was formed. Specifically, Malaguzzi thought the image of the child was a

15

critical piece; he viewed children as intelligent, strong, ambitious, imaginative, and

curious. He thought that children should be treated with full rights of citizenship and

society, but he argued that many schools have a picture of the child that is much different,

one that is fragile, weak, and incomplete (Malaguzzi, 1993). His view of children and the

role they should play in their own educational experience ties closely with social

constructivist and humanist theory, and it is this view that is the basis of the Reggio-

Emilia approach to education.

Malaguzzi also highly regarded the environment, personal experience and

interaction, and observation and reflection as key components in education. He argued

that one cannot view a child in the abstract because he or she is connected to a certain

reality, one that cannot be separated (Malaguzzi, 1993). Just as a teacher brings his or her

perceptions, biases, hopes, dreams, pleasures, and sadness into the educational

environment, each child also brings in his past, experiences, thoughts, feelings, and

relationships (Malaguzzi, 1993). It is foolish to think that we are able to separate

ourselves from these biases when we teach, instead we must recognize and embrace

them, for that is what makes each individual’s learning experience unique. It is often the

unplanned learning experiences that grow out of conversations and reflections that spark

an interest in our children.

Malaguzzi offers caution to adults. In the learning environment, both adults and

children need to feel important, both need to be active participants. For in the rewards of

their efforts and activity they are valued and strengthened, planting the seeds of the joy of

learning (Malaguzzi, 1993). When adults over-engage in the learning environment,

children become passive and lose power of their own learning. He suggests that adults

16

intervene as little as possible, giving children situations and resources in which they learn

for themselves. He says not to teach children something they can learn for themselves,

instead, what we want to do is “activate within children the desire and will and great

pleasure that comes from being the authors of their own learning” (Malaguzzi, 1993, p.

3).

Progressivism

Progressivism began to take hold as an educational philosophy in response to the

traditional curriculum that prepared students for academic endeavors at universities. It

has been associated in conjunction with several well-known philosophers such as John

Locke, Jean-Jacques Rousseau, Johann Pestalozzi, and John Dewey (Hayes, 2007).

Lester Frank Ward challenged the status quo of social Darwinism in the early part of the

twentieth century when he asserted that the so called natural distribution of wealth and

power in human affairs could be changed, thus giving rise to a new era of reform (Pinar,

Reynolds, Slattery, & Taubman, 2004). Ward was credited as providing the theoretical

underpinnings of Progressivism by bridging school and society (Pinar, et. al, 2004).

John Dewey, in criticizing the routinization, memorization, and recitation that

characterized the classical curriculum, argued that the relationship between experience

and education was complex, yet integral (Dewey, 1938). Similar to the social

constructivists, Dewey also stressed the importance of connecting schooling and society;

like Ward, Dewey believed that students should deliberate, organize, and influence social

change (Pinar, et. al, 2004). Although Dewey’s ideas were grossly misunderstood, he

believed that schools should emulate the goals of the society for which their students

would be a part (Pinar, et. al, 2004). His notion of active experience and free

17

communication of ideas was the type of democracy that he thought was essential for both

educational and societal reform (Pinar, et. al, 2004).

The goals of progressive education were complex and often misunderstood.

Dewey’s idea of active occupations was often misconstrued and narrowly associated with

technical skill acquisition (Pinar, et. al, 2004). Although experiential learning was

emphasized, subject matter was integrated and entrepreneurial goals and activities were

incorporated into the curriculum. The Gary Plan, an experimental school community, in

which platoons of students were trained in formal school subjects for part of the day and

actively engaged in practical activities for the other part is one such example (Pinar, et.

al, 2004). Other progressive experiments included the Denver project which focused on

the significance of teachers’ collaborating in the development of curriculum, the

Winnetka plan which attempted to individualize instruction by allowing students to work

on projects or units as long as necessary to attain mastery, and the Lincoln school which

allowed students to go on trips to explore social and economic conditions firsthand as

part of the core curriculum (Pinar, et. al, 2004). The thesis of progressive education can

then be declared as a focus on understanding and action rather than rote memorization

and subordination that characterized classical education.

Herbert Spencer

Although less popular than some other Progressives, Herbert Spencer influenced

both the educational system and other prominent thinkers in many ways. In the late

1800s, Spencer accused the common ideas that people held regarding the world and

humankind’s place in it were fundamentally mistaken; specifically those related to

education (Egan, 2004). He argued that education had been an attempt to force irrelevant

18

information into the minds of children using nearly inhumane methods; instead, he

believed that education should be directly relevant to the lives the students would actually

lead (Egan, 2004).

Spencer articulated a set of developmental principles to help guide educators. He

believed that the laws that should shape learning and development were similar to the

natural laws of the cosmos. First, he believed that the cosmic principle of simple to

complex plays out in all aspects of life, from the evolution of species, the development of

advanced civilizations, and from the changes of the human mind from childhood to adult

(Egan, 2004). Likewise, his other principles are closely related to this idea. He believed

in the principle of the definite to the indefinite, from the concrete to the abstract, and

from the empirical to the rational (Egan, 2004). Educationally, Spencer’s principles also

posed important questions that were deeply rooted in his philosophy of learning. Spencer

believed that education should be a process of self-development and that it should be

pleasurable. Children should be left to explore and discover, rather than be told; they are

not to be passive recipients of knowledge handed to them by teachers. This tenet was a

cornerstone of new pedagogical influences (Egan, 2004).

John Dewey

John Dewey is arguably one of the most recognized theorists associated with the

Progressive movement. In his book Democracy and education, Dewey (1916) describes

the necessity of education in sustaining life. He claims that by transmission, life is

renewed; however, physical maturation and the mastery of skills necessary for

subsistence will not guarantee the lifeblood of the social group (Dewey, 1916). Dewey

promotes communication as the key to promoting expectations and requirements of the

19

social group; however, he believes that these social communities are not built on chance

or proximity, but rather from a coming together of the minds. He says,

Men live in a community in virtue of the things which they have in

common; and communication is the way in which they come to

possess things in common. What they must have in common in

order to form a community or society are aims, beliefs, aspirations,

knowledge- a common understanding- (Dewey, 1916, p. 3).

Like the social constructivists, Dewey believed that education is not only a social

process, but should also serve as an agent for societal change.

In addition to describing how communication is used to perpetuate social aims,

Dewey discussed the importance of experience. He asserted that there were two elements

or phases of experience: action and consequence, importantly noted because he claims

that action alone does not constitute experience (Dewey, 1916). Learning does not occur

until one has faced the consequence of the action in an experience. In education, Dewey

applies this two-phased idea of experience by implying that learning cannot occur

through a transmission of knowledge. Knowledge can only be acquired when it has been

experienced; when one has acted on the subject and then reflected on the consequences,

forming a relationship between the action and the consequence. Dewey claimed that

teaching students to think should be a primary goal of education (Dewey, 1916).

Dewey professed his pedagogic creed, announcing his views on education,

schools, subject-matter, methods, and social progress. In this creed, he claimed that it was

impossible to prepare students for a precise future life, imparting specific skills to enable

him to be successful; therefore, he argued that education should be a means to train each

20

individual to have full command of himself and his capabilities (Dewey, 1897). Dewey

then argued that the schools, as a social institution, should be to bring a child to “share in

the inherited resources of the race, and to use his own powers for social ends” (Dewey,

1897, p. 77).

Who Am I?

A little bit of BAM!

As a person, I am inherently branded with a strong set of values and beliefs. There

are certain tenets to which I subscribe wholeheartedly, unchanging; however, I see myself

wearing different apparel depending on my life phase or specific situation. I don’t see this

changing of costume as duplicitousness to my inner self but rather as an accessory to

showcase who I am at a particular moment in my life.

At my core, I believe that as human beings we have a moral obligation to care for

one another and to teach children empathy. I believe that children are competent, capable

beings who should be treated with love and respect. I believe that the environment is a

key aspect to learning and that the teacher should be a facilitator in designing an

environment that encourages exploration and reflection. I also think that communication

and collaboration between parents, teachers, students, and the community provides a

cohesion that connects learning and experience, affects social change, and gives meaning

to student learning.

I think that children are natural explorers and have a desire to learn; as educators,

I think that it is our responsibility to foster this natural love of learning rather than stifle it

by imposing a rigid, static curriculum on them. Although I subscribe to the idea of

21

individualized learning experiences, I believe that there is a core set of knowledge that all

people should know in order to be successful. I also believe that in this core knowledge

base, some information is best learned through traditional transmission methods rather

than through self-exploration.

Like in the Reggio-Emilia approach, I believe that it is important to build

opportunities for learning based on student interests. Keen observation skills and

reflection are important in recognizing these interests. As students mature, I think that it

is important to afford them multiple and varied opportunities to explore careers and

occupations. Unlike with traditional tracking, I think that students should be given the

chance to explore many traditional and progressive options rather than being “locked in”

to a specific path.

Unlike the picture that many people have of humanist and progressive education,

I don’t think that student led learning, individualized experiences, and exploration will

create egocentric individuals or chaotic classrooms. I think that these experiences will

provide students with a sense of accomplishment and pride while feeding the intrinsic

desire to learn. With careful planning and facilitation, clear expectations and guidance,

and honest communication, I believe that the environment can be one that is open and

conducive to exploration rather than limiting and disordered.

With a sprinkle of progressivism, a shake of humanism, and a dash of social

constructivism, my core beliefs are solidified. I believe that as children grow and mature

their needs change and the level of needed teacher support and guidance varies. However,

regardless of age or maturation level, I firmly subscribe to the idea of unconditional

regard. All students have worth, it is our job as educators to find and cultivate it, forming

22

relationships of trust that encourage our students to take risks and gain confidence to

accomplish goals they may have never thought they could achieve.

23

References

Au, K. (1998). Social constructivism and the school literacy learning of students of

diverse backgrounds. Journal of literacy research, 30, 297-319. Retrieved from

http://jlr.sagepub.com/content/30/2/297

Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundations of thought and action: A social cognitive theory.

Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

Bandura, A. (1994). Self-efficacy. (In V.S. Ramachaudran (Ed.), Encyclopedia of human

behavior (Vol. 4, pp. 71-81). New York: Academic Press)

Cadwell, L. (1997). Bringing Reggio-Emilia home: An innovative approach to early

childhood education. New York: Teachers College Press.

Clark, B., Griffin, J., & Turner, D. (2007). Sorting out variations on the terms

“constructionism” and “constructivism”. In M. Orey (Ed.), Emerging perspectives

on learning, teaching, and technology. Retrieved from

http://projects.coe.uga.edu/epltt/

Cunningham, T., Gannon, J., Kavanagh, M., Greene, J., Reddy, L., & Whitson, L. (2004).

Theories of learning and curriculum design: Key positionalities and their

relationships. Retrieved from:

http://level3.dit.ie/html/issue5/tony_cunningham/cunningham.pdf

DeCarvalho, R. (1991). The humanistic paradigm in education. The Humanistic

Psychologist, 19(1), 88-104.

Dewey, J. (1897). My pedagogic creed. School Journal, 54, 77-80. Retrieved from:

http://dewey.pragmatism.org/creed.htm

Dewey, J. (1916). Democracy and education. Toledo, OH: Student Handouts, Inc.

24

Dewey, J. (1938). Experience and education. New York: Kappa Delta Pi.

Edwards, C., Gandini, L., & Forman, G. (1998). Hundred languages of children: The

Reggio-Emilia approach-Advanced reflections. Westport, CT: Ablex Publishing.

Egan, K. (2004). Getting it wrong from the beginning: Our Progressivist inheritance

from Herbert Spencer, John Dewey, and Jean Piaget. New York: Yale University

Press.

Gage, N., & Berliner, D. (1991). Educational psychology (5th ed.). Boston: Houghton,

Mifflin.

Goble, F. (1970). The third force: The psychology of Abraham Maslow. New York:

Grossman.

Harris, J. (2010). Live presentation, Oct. 21, 2010.

Hayes, W. (2007). Progressive education movement: Is it still a factor in today’s

schools? Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield Education.

Hewett, V. (2001). Examining the Reggio-Emilia approach to early childhood education.

Early childhood education journal, 29(2).

Huitt, W. (2009). Humanism and open education. Educational Psychology Interactive.

Valdosta, GA: Valdosta State University. Retrieved from

http://www.edpsycinteractive.org/topics/affect/humed.html

Kim, B. (2001). Social Constructivism. In M. Orey (Ed.), Emerging perspectives on

learning, teaching, and technology. Retrieved from

http://projects.coe.uga.edu/epltt/

25

Malaguzzi, L. (1993). Your image of the child: Where teaching begins. Seminar

presentation in Reggio-Emilia Italy. Translated by Baji Rankin, Leslie Morrow,

Lella Gandini.

Maslow, A. (1943). A theory of human motivation. Psychological Review, 50, 370-396.

Retrieved from http://psychclassics.yorku.ca/Maslow/motivation.htm

McLeod, S. (2007). Carl Rogers. Retrieved from

http://simplypsychology.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/carl-rogers.html

Noddings, Nel. (1984). Caring: A feminine approach to ethics and moral education. Los

Angeles: University of California Press.

Noddings, Nel. (1995). A morally defensible mission for schools in the 21st century.

(Reprinted from Clinchy, Evans, ed. Transforming public education: A new

course for America’s future. (New York: Teachers College Press, 1997, p. 27-37).

Noddings, Nel. (2003). Happiness and education. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University

Press.

Pinar, W., Reynolds, W., Slattery, P., & Taubman, P. (2004). Understanding curriculum.

New York: Peter Lang Publishing.

Power, F. (2008). Moral education: A handbook. West Port, CT: Praeger.

Sharpe, M. (2004). Imagination and creativity in childhood. Journal of Russian and East

European psychology, 42(1).

Sims, H. & Manz, C. (1982). Social learning theory. Journal of organizational behavior

management, 3(4).

Van der Veer, R. & Valsiner, J. (1991). Understanding Vygotsky: A quest for synthesis.

Cambridge, MA: Basil Blackwell Ltd.

26

Vygotsky, L. (1966) Play and its role in the mental development of the child. Soviet

Psychology 12(6).

Zimring, F. (1999). Carl Rogers (1902-1987). Prospects: The quarterly review of

comparative education. Paris: UNESCO International Bureau of Education.

Retrieved from http://www.ibe.unesco.org/publications/ThinkersPdf/rogerse.PDF

27