Theorist Paper

Kathleen M. Stemmler

Northern Arizona University

March 15, 2003

Abstract

This paper compares and contrasts three theorists’ perspectives on social issues, education and the treatment of individuals as students and clients. It discusses their pertinent ,pedagogical views as they were conceived during a 100 hundred year time frame spanning the late 19^th through the late 20th centuries. The author examines these pedagogies in relation to her classroom perspectives and practices while she was teaching at Northern Arizona University and most recently at a speech she gave to a high school in Los Angeles, Ca. on March 21, 2003.

Introduction

It was difficult to choose three theorists from a list of sixteen. If time had allowed, I would have enjoyed reading something from and about all of the educational theorists that appeared on the list. Instead, I chose two that are well-known in educational circles, a male and a female, and one from another field, psychotherapy whose influence extends into educational theory. I cannot pretend to know much about any of the above three individuals. I read as much as time allowed, particularly about John Dewey, as he was a prolific writer, philosopher and educator. It was easy to find information on him. So many individuals have thoughts about at least one of his many works. Maria Montessori, the three-time Nobel Prize nominee (Plekhanov, 1992) had less articles online written about her, as did Carl Rogers.

Needless to say, I was intrigued by all three. It is especially rich, if one considers not only the theorists, and their philosophies but the environment or era of which they were a part. As an anthropologist, I studied some of the early theorists that wrote during the time of John Dewey (1859-1952). I recognized theoretical similarities between Franz Boaz, the father of American Anthropology, and Dewey. I researched a little further, only to discover that they were most likely at Columbia University during the same time period (Ember, C. and Ember, M.,1977).

Maria Montessori, (1870-1952), a pedagogical anthropologist in addition to being the first Italian-trained medical doctor (Piekhanov, A., 1992), was also busy during this time period, researching human behavior as it relates to education.

Carl Rogers (1902-1987), came a bit later after the two former theorists, but was able to apply his philosophy regarding authentic learning across cultures, more so than Dewey.

This is an assignment I could spend a great deal more time on in order to get a better sense of what each individual would consider an effective, authentic learning experience in contemporary education. What follows is what I think are essential contributions to the educational experience from each theorist’s perspective.

John Dewey

Deweyan philosophy has a long history. Dewey wrote and revised his writing and thoughts throughout his long life. His approach to philosophy was similar to his approach to education; open-ended and flexible (Schutz, A., 2001). He was labeled a progressive pragmatist. In part this translated to an almost open door policy towards revisions of his thoughts presented in almost all of his discourses. In other words, the door, according to Dewey, was always open for empirical testing. This is certainly an example of pragmatic thinking, for Dewey realized that times and events change as do the “laws” for many phenomena. For example, during Dewey’s life time, Darwin established the alternative to the origin of life as being that of the process of natural selection as opposed to a rather veiled, vast, partially metaphysical realm tempered by deities. This is still a radical concept to many (Bullert, G., 2003).

Dewey, inspired by these findings of the origin of species, designed his pedagogical thinking to incorporate the interaction and survival of organisms described by Darwin. According to Dewey, human beings as organisms, must adapt to their environment or die out. They must succeed as a group to survive and their survival depends on the individual and its contribution and successful interaction with the group. These concepts had a major impact on the way Dewey structured learning at his Lab School located at the University of Chicago (Schutz, A., 2001). His application of the interconnectedness of the individual, to the group and the environment was central to Deweyan pedagogy. It was in complete contrast to the then rigid, structured teaching methods many public schools utilized at the time. Dewey insisted that a more naturalistic approach must take place in the realm of education (Musolf, 2001). He emphasized the importance of the individual and his/her complex, effective relationships with the group. He then reversed the order of thinking and proposed that the environment could be manipulated to enhance the learning of the individual and therefore the group. The manipulated environment, Dewey proposed should be an active, cooperative adventure that would lead students to feel discomfort, and motivate them to work together to problem solve. As we read earlier in Chapter 25 of our text (Joyce, B., Weil, M. and Calhoun, E., 2000), mismatching the student and the environment will cause the student discomfort and challenge them to develop the appropriate skills to adapt to a wider variety of teaching strategies. Teachers are always manipulating the environment to enhance the process of learning. This could certainly be a result of Deweyan pedagogy.

Maria Montessori

Maria Montessori like Dewey, established her school, Casa de Bambini or “Children’s House” in Rome. But unlike Dewey, whose school was made up of mainly middle class students, Montessori’s was filled with children born in poverty (Schapiro, D., 1993). Her specific focus was on children with disabilities. She and Dewey both agreed that the direct teaching methods utilized in the public schools to confront children with knowledge and then reward or punish them according to their degree of success in recitation was barbaric.

Montessori’s pedagogical theories on education originally came from observing children from a medical standpoint. She theorized, again, like Dewey through scientific inquiry, that children learned from what they found in their environment (Plekhanov, A. 1992). As a result, she developed what is now referred to as the Montessori method of education. At the center of this methodology, is the idea that children, regardless of their abilities or disabilities, need to be respected. In addition, their education needs to focus on both the spiritual and intellectual essence of the child and teaching methods should include experiences that use sensory exercises: baric, chromatic and motor for example, that can assist the child to learn how to think in broader terms. This methodology Montessori referred to as the “Self-creating” process (Plekhanov, A., 1992).

Montessori’s pedagogy is world renown. She began a series of teaching training sessions in London in 1919, then traveled to India and the Netherlands where she founded the AMI, Association Montessori Internationale in Amsterdam which is still in operation today.

Carl Rogers

Carl Rogers (1902-1987), is often referred to as one of the founding fathers of counseling (Moodley, R., 2000). While Dewey could only theorize about pedagogical outcomes for diverse populations, the time had finally arrived for Rogers to apply his psychotherapeutic, multicultural approach to counseling. In the 1970’s, during the heat and peak of the Civil Rights Movement, Rogers recorded and published his treatment of an African-American man. Up until this point, the psychologists assumed that members of the same cultural group needed to treat each other. Psychology had also theorized that the therapist needed to direct counseling sessions and only members of the profession knew best how to treat the patient. Rogers turned psychotherapy on its ear, when he proposed that the client knew what hurt and knew what direction needed to be taken in order for healing to occur (Moodley, R., 2000). Similar to Dewey and Montessori, Rogers insisted that the client was a unique individual to be treated with respect and allowed to go through the process of self discovery (Shumake, J., 2002).

In addition, Rogers stressed that the role of the therapist should be that of a facilitator, rather than a dictator and that pathology resulted from the client attempting to earn another’s positive regard rather than follow his or her inner compass (Moodley, R., 2000).

Another important revelation Rogers described, was how to rid some of the barriers to communication that occur during counseling sessions. He theorized that these barriers began when counselors tried to judge a person while evaluating them. He stressed the need to suspend judgment in order to receive a clearer picture of the individual (Shumake, J., 2002). In this respect, all three theorists cautioned educators, and for Rogers, counselors, to pay close attention to the individual’s view of the environment and to respect and to take these views into consideration when designing approaches for them to develop successfully.

Conclusion

I have intentionally presented information about all three theorists that are similar to how I feel educators and others might want to consider when interacting with other human beings. It is important to recognize the “entire” person; their physical, spiritual and mental essences and the need to treat the individual with respect. As Maria Montessori stresses empathy is a key ingredient. Rogers takes this further by recommending that counselors look at their client’s make-up from the insider’s point of view. This is very similar to the anthropologist’s need to study culture from the ‘emic’ or insider’s view of their culture. Furthermore, being able to awaken all of an individual’s senses as Montessori proposes, appears essential. In fact, last week I gave a talk at a school in California, took along objects that would inspire all of the students’ senses and incorporated them into my speech. As a result, the students reacted positively to the objects, wanting to explore some of them with their senses and then talk about their experiences.

Finally, all three theorists not only recognize the uniqueness of the individual but stress the incredible interplay and invaluable contributions a group can make when each individual is valued and encouraged to contribute their strengths. I recognized this phenomenon often when my students worked on complicated projects in groups. After all, we need each other to adapt and survive.

References

Billert, G. John Dewey (1859-1952). Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy. (n.d). 13p. Retrieved March 22, 2003, from http://www.utm.edu/reasearch/iep/d/dewey.htm.

Deblois, R. (2002). John Dewey in a New Century: Constructing Meaning From Real Experience. Independent School, 61, 5p.

Ember, C. and Ember, M. (1977), Cultural Anthroplogy. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall Inc.

Joyce, B., Weil, M., with Calhoun, M. (2000), Learning Styles and Models of Teaching: Making Discomfort Productive. In Models of Teaching (pp.397-408). Needham Heights, MA: Allyn and Bacon.

Maharg, P. (2002). Rogers, Constructivism and Jurisprudents: Educationa Critique and the Legal Curriculum. International Journal of the Legal Profession, 7, pp. 189-203.

Montessori North American Teachers’ Association (n.d.). Maria Montessori: A Brief Biography. Retrieved March 15, 2003, from http://www.montessori-nameta.org/generalinfo/biog.html.

Moodley, R. (2000, December). The Right to be Desparate and Hurt and Angered in the Presence of Carl Rogers: a racial/psychological identity approach. Counselling Psychology Quarterly, 13, pp. 352-365.

Musolf, G. (2001). John Dewey’s Social Psychology and Neopragmatism: Theoretical Foundations of Human Agency and Social Reconstruction, 38, pp. 277-296.

Plekhanov, A. (1992, July). The Pedagocical Theory and Practice of Maria Montessori. Russian Social Science Review, 33, pp. 273-280.

Schapiro, D. (1993, March). What If Montessori Education Is Part of the Answer? Education Digest, 58, pp. 40-44.

Schutz, A. (2001, April). John Dewey’s Conundrum: Can Democratic Schools Empower? Teacher’s College Record, 103, pp. 267-302.

Siegel, H. (2002). Philosophy of Education and the Deweyan Legacy. Educational Theory, 52, pp. 273-280.

Shumake, J. (2002). Reconceptualizing Communication and Rhetoric from a Feminist Perspective. Guidance & Counseling, 17, pp. 99-105.