This blog is currently
critiquing the construct that more than any other is dominant in defining what governance
and politics are for most Americans – that being the natural rights view. In general, the critique centers on natural
rights’ diminution of community. That
is, it presents politics as a consumer-based activity with little to no communal
or common concerns.
Along
this line, educators have adopted certain concepts and paradigms that further this
bias by compounding the prevailing individualism, anti-intellectualism, and
temporal view of the American people and what they are about. They have been poorly instructed about the
historical turns and forces that led to the current state of affairs.
These forces, in part, met their loosely “scientific”
foundation in the psychology of humanistic learning theory, a theoretical base
highly in tune with the elements of the natural rights perspective in that it
focuses on individual perceptions and emotions.
Humanistic learning theory is grounded in
the philosophy of humanistic theories of psychology, including person-centered
theory … Primary contributors to humanistic learning theory include Arthur
Combs, Carl Rogers, and Malcolm Knowles, all of whom believed the goal of
education is to facilitate students’ development and self-actualization …
Therefore, humanist educators have an unwavering trust in the individual’s
growth capacity and view self-directed learning as most facilitative of growth …
Additionally, humanistic theorists hold a phenomenological view of humans in
that they believe each person’s view of the world is reality for that person
and that learning is motivated by personal need based on one’s internal frame
of reference … For example, a student with low self-efficacy might not attempt
difficult projects because of a belief that “I am not capable,” whereas a
student with a high level of self-trust can go beyond the direct instructions
of an assignment to tailor the assignment to fit their learning needs. Highly
self-actualized individuals view themselves as dynamic beings who are
constantly growing and changing …[1]
To summarize:
what the concerned parties have had is a history that glorified
individuals in their quest to obtain economic well-being. A national philosophy has taken hold that
demeans thought and reflection and has made the here and now all
important. Add to this mix a generally
accepted psychological school of thought that leads to the idea that all of
these biases are natural and lodged in the nature of humans.
Basing
their propositions on studies basically done with clinical patients, adherents
to this perceptional-ist psychology apply clinical techniques to helping
services such as education. Relying on
the ideas of two leading humanistic learning theorists, Carl Rogers[2]
and Arthur Combs,[3] their
main argument is that behavior is a product of perception; that dysfunctional
people in the US society act that way because they have low self-regard for
themselves.
Health
for these people is a product of, first, freeing themselves of social definitions
about who they are or what they should be about, and, second, to get them to define
their own standards of what is good and proper.
What is important in treating these people is not so much their
psychological background, but their immediate behaviors and feelings they
express. Humanistic learning advocates
then, in applying this line of reason to schools, advocate a curriculum that:
1. Is characterized by a warm atmosphere in which
the teacher is helper, communicating a warm positive acceptance, and
demonstrating empathetic understanding;
2. Never communicates that a student cannot
accomplish the objectives set forth (making evaluation very problematic);
3. Provides problems that are relevant to the
student (preferably identified by the student); and
4. Encourages the student to define his or her own
sense of morality (they speak of responsible choices, but this does not seem to
be defined).
Of late, the self-esteem movement in American
schools is a direct product of the humanistic learning psychology. While the viability of this bias varies over
time, it has held a central commitment to date.
So, whatever can be wrong with this mode or approach to
teaching? Only a Grinch can object to
such an approach. Before this blogger
attempts to get into the negative aspects of this view, he wishes to express a
tempered support for its prescribed educational claims and advocacies. Yes, it is good to treat students with
dignity, justice, and an upbeat approach that is encouraging of their
efforts.
But in all that, teachers need to be honest and
respectful for the legitimate demands of the society in which they ply their
trade. And in that, humanistic learning
theory tends to cut some corners. And in
conducting their interactions with students, effective teachers should not
portray to their students false messaging that might sound more acceptable to
their students, but in sum will not be beneficial. The next posting will expound on these
concerns.
[1] Katherine E. Purswell, “Humanistic Learning Theory in
Counselor Education,” The Professional Counselor, 9, 4 (2019), 358-368,
359, accessed February 27, 2023, https://tpcjournal.nbcc.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/12/Pages_358-368-Purswell-Humanistic_Learning_Theory_in_Counselor_Education.pdf.
[2] Carl Rogers, “Learning to Be Free,” in Readings in
Curriculum, edited by Glen Hass, Kimball Wiles, and Joseph Bondi (Boston,
MA: Allyn and Bacon, Inc., 1970),
219-239.
[3] Arthur W. Combs, “Seeing Is Behaving,” in Readings
in Curriculum, edited by Glen Hass, Kimball Wiles, and Joseph Bondi
(Boston, MA: Allyn and Bacon, Inc.,
1970), 210-219.
No comments:
Post a Comment