Humanism: Humanism and Open Education
Humanism: Humanism and Open Education
Humanism: Humanism and Open Education
Citation: Huitt, W. (2009). Humanism and open education. Educational Psychology Interactive. Valdosta,
GA: Valdosta State University. Retrieved [date],
from http://www.edpsycinteractive.org/topics/affect/humed.html
Humanism is a school of thought that believes human beings are different from
other species and possess capacities not found in animals (Edwords, 1989).
Humanists, therefore, give primacy to the study of human needs and interests. A
central assumption is that human beings behave out of intentionality and values
(Kurtz, 2000). This is in contrast to the beliefs of operant conditioning
theorists who believe that all behavior is the result of the application of
consequences or to the beliefs of cognitive psychologists who hold that the
discovery of concepts or processing of information is a primary factor in human
learning. Humanists also believe that it is necessary to study the person as a
whole, especially as an individual grows and develops over the lifespan. The
study of the self, motivation, and goal-setting are also areas of special interest.
There are two branches within this view: secular and religious. Advocates of
a secular humanism believe that an individual human being has within him- or
herself all that is necessary to grow and develop that person’s unique
capacities. Religious humanists, on the other hand, believe that religion is an
important influence on human development and advocate a communal aspect of
their approach, albeit an atheistic one.
A small, but important, group within humanism disagrees with the atheistic
thesis. They trace their roots to Plato, St. Augustine, as well as various other
religious scholars and believe that, while humanity is a distinct species, existing
separate and apart from all animal species, God or a Supreme Being is the center
of humankind’s existence. Maritain (1936/1996, 1952) and de Chardin (1955,
1973) are two of the primary advocates of this theocentric (or God-centered)
approach. Advocates of this approach believe that a human being is both material
and spiritual, a reasoning, intellectual being endowed with free will. From this
perspective, a human being’s highest purpose is that of voluntarily obeying
God’s law. This is in stark contrast to the naturalistic humanist who believes that
an individual must be true to himself, existing as an autonomous being, capable
of self-realized development.
As described by Gage and Berliner (1991) there are five basic objectives of the
humanistic view of education:
The SCANS report (Whetzel, 1992) as well as Naisbitt (1982), Toffler (1970,
1981, 1990) and other authors (see Huitt, 1997) point to the importance of these
objectives for success in the information age. It is important to realize that no
other model or view of education places as much emphasis on these desired
outcomes as does the humanistic approach.
According to Gage and Berliner (1991) some basic principles of the humanistic
approach that were used to develop the objectives are:
1. Students will learn best what they want and need to know. That is, when
they have developed the skills of analyzing what is important to them and
why as well as the skills of directing their behavior towards those wants
and needs, they will learn more easily and quickly. Most educators and
learning theorists would agree with this statement, although they might
disagree on exactly what contributes to student motivation.
2. Knowing how to learn is more important than acquiring a lot of
knowledge. In our present society where knowledge is changing rapidly,
this view is shared by many educators, especially those from a cognitive
perspective.
3. Self-evaluation is the only meaningful evaluation of a student's work. The
emphasis here is on internal development and self-regulation. While most
educators would likely agree that this is important, they would also
advocate a need to develop a student's ability to meet external
expectations. This meeting of external expectations runs counter to most
humanistic theories.
4. Feelings are as important as facts. Much work from the humanistic view
seems to validate this point and is one area where humanistically-oriented
educators are making significant contributions to our knowledge base.
5. Students learn best in a non-threatening environment. This is one area
where humanistic educators have had an impact on current educational
practice. The orientation espoused today is that the environment should by
psychologically and emotionally, as well as physically, non-threatening.
However, there is some research that suggests that a neutral or even
slightly cool environment is best for older, highly motivated students.
Open Education
There are a variety of ways teachers can implement the humanist view towards
education. Some of these include:
1. Allow the student to have a choice in the selection of tasks and activities
whenever possible.
2. Help students learn to set realistic goals.
3. Have students participate in group work, especially cooperative learning,
in order to develop social and affective skills.
4. Act as a facilitator for group discussions when appropriate.
5. Be a role model for the attitudes, beliefs and habits you wish to foster.
Constantly work on becoming a better person and then share yourself with
your students.
It would seem, then, that open education, broadly defined in the terms used by
Giaconia and Hedges, has not met the objectives and principles normally used to
define humanistic education. While it has not been detrimental to basic skills
achievement, per se, it has not had the impact on self-concept and locus of
control as expected by its originators. In addition, the decline in achievement
motivation is especially troublesome in light of the SCANS report (Whetzel,
1992) that highlighted the importance of striving for excellence in order to be
successful in a world economy.
One of the models included in the overall review of open education was
facilitative teaching developed by Carl Rogers. Aspy and Roebuck (1975)
studied teachers in terms of their ability to offer facilitative conditions (including
empathy, congruence, and positive regard) as defined by Rogers (1969) and
Rogers and Freiberg (1994). Teachers who were more highly facilitative tended
to provide more:
1. response to student feeling;
2. use of student ideas in ongoing instructional interactions;
3. discussion with students (dialogue);
4. praise of students;
5. congruent teacher talk (less ritualistic);
6. tailoring of contents to the individual student's frame of reference
(explanations created to fit the immediate needs of the learners); and
7. smiling with students.
Notice that all of these actions are congruent with a direct instruction model of
teaching.
Summary
References:
It's my view that it's possible to apply the characteristics of humanism to ELT in a
less radical way than described in the practices above. In a way that might be
more appealing for students, more practicable for teachers, and more plausible for
education inspectors.
The humanistic teacher also needs to be aware of what motivates their students.
Some will probably want to learn English because they have to (e.g. for their job),
while others want to simply for the sake of it. The former is called 'extrinsic
motivation', while the latter is called 'intrinsic motivation'.
Those students who are more extrinsically motivated will be more goal-oriented
and might want, for example, a lot of tests and exams.
Students who are intrinsically motivated will derive a lot of satisfaction from
solving language problems - the solution will be a reward in itself.
Teachers need to be aware of this mix and need to use this information to
determine issues like:
o How much testing to do
o How much fun can be had
o Should the target language be representative of one particular speech community
or not?
Humanism in practice
I firstly elicit the target language. This fosters a sense of co-operation between the
students and me.
Then I try to make the meaning of the language items as clear as possible by
using a number of techniques (e.g. pictures, mime, or a mini-explanation). Such
work on the concept of the target language needs to be repeated later in a way
that is appropriate to the abilities and progress of the group.
At the appropriate time, students also need to practise speech production by
saying or writing the target language.
Teaching skills
As I want my classes to be able to understand the 'gist' of a spoken interaction, I
make sure that they are mentally prepared for it. This means that:
I create the right conditions for understanding the text by, for example, arousing
interest and pre-teaching lexis
After this, students can be encouraged to carry out their own, related, role plays,
with the result that students' ability to carry out certain situation-specific
interactions will be enhanced. It's worth noting that these principles relate to
reading texts too!
The same applies to lesson plans. I know that if I plough on through my plan
regardless of how my students are responding, some students will be lost forever
and lose confidence both in me and their own ability to learn English.
Conclusion
The thrust of humanism seems, to me, to be the ability to advance as a species
through understanding and co-operation. This means that humanistic language
teachers need to have a thorough grasp of both how people learn and what
motivates them to learn. They need to shed the old image of the teacher being the
fount of wisdom and replace it with the teacher as facilitator.
Further reading
Counseling-Learning in Second Languages by Curran C. Apple River
Teaching Foreign Languages in Schools: The Silent Way by Gattegno C.
Educational Solutions
Structuralism by Piaget J. Basic Books
'Class, Status, and Party' in Essays from Max Weber by Weber M. Routledge and
Kegan Paul
Humanising Language Teaching. An online journal for language teachers.
www.hltmag.co.uk