University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

An exploratory study of educational and philosophical differences between conventional and open education teachers at the elementary level

(USC Thesis Other)

An exploratory study of educational and philosophical differences between conventional and open education teachers at the elementary level

PDF

Download

Open document

Flip pages

Download a page range

Download transcript

Copy asset link

Request this asset

Transcript (if available)

Content AN EXPLORATORY STUDY OF EDUCATIONAL AND PHILOSOPHICAL
DIFFERENCES BETWEEN CONVENTIONAL AND OPEN
EDUCATION TEACHERS AT THE
ELEMENTARY LEVEL
by
Sylvia Simon Tansey
A Dissertation Presented to the
FACULTY OF THE GRADUATE SCHOOL
UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA
In Partial Fulfillment of the
Requirements for the Degree
DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY
(Education)
August 1982
UMI Number: DP24947
All rights reserved
INFORMATION TO ALL USERS
The quality of this reproduction is dependent upon the quality of the copy submitted.
In the unlikely event that the author did not send a complete manuscript
and there are missing pages, these will be noted. Also, if material had to be removed,
a note will indicate the deletion.
Dissertation Pub! sbng
UMI DP24947
Published by ProQuest LLC (2014). Copyright in the Dissertation held by the Author.
Microform Edition © ProQuest LLC.
All rights reserved. This work is protected against
unauthorized copying under Title 17, United States Code
ProQuest LLC.
789 East Eisenhower Parkway
P.O. Box 1346
Ann Arbor, Ml 48106- 1346
UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA
THE GRADUATE SCHOOL
UNIVERSITY PARK
LOS ANGELES. CALIFORNIA 90007
This dissertation, w ritten by
Sylvia Simon Tansey
under the direction of h...^.¥.. Dissertation Com
mittee, and approved by a ll its members, has
been presented to and accepted by The Graduate
School, in p a rtia l fu lfillm e n t of requirements of
the degree of
D O C T O R O F P H I L O S O P H Y
Dean
D a te J.uJLy..J,4,..±9.8L2L,
DISSERTATION COMMITTEE
i i
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The completion of a complex project such as a
doctoral dissertation requires the happy interaction of
many factors. In the case of this specific investigation,
I could not have even considered applying to Graduate
School without the financial and moral support of my
mother, Regina Simon. I would not have persevered through
some very difficult times had it not been for the always
kind and knowledgeable encouragement of my advisor,
Dr. James F. Magary. Certain portions of this study
would have been incomplete without the aid of my friend
and colleague, Dr. Robert E. Rangel. My discussions with
Dr. Andrew L. Comrey were extremely helpful in the
development of the Tansey Teacher Inventory as well as in
the analysis of the data. I am grateful to the many
teacher-colleagues who kindly participated in the pilot
studies and to those who graciously constituted the
samples for the study. I thank Dr. Jerry Garlock and
Dr. Milton Wolpin for their contributions of precious
time to the thoughtful reading of the study.
However, even with the indispensable help of all
the persons here acknowledged, the study would not have
been completed were it not for the author's compulsive
need for closure.
i i i
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS 11
Chapter
I. REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE AND
Introduction
Outline of Chapter I
Definitions
Definition-Description of
Open Education
Philosophical Bases of Open Education
History of Open Education in Britain
The Roots of Open Education in the
United States
The Teacher in Open Education
The Advisory Function in
Open Education
The Teacher in the Conventional
Setting
Differences Between American and
British Education
Models of Teaching: A Comparison of
Open and Conventional Teaching
Bennett*s Study
Personality Theory: Theoretical
Basis of the Questions Posed
by the Study
Statement of the Problem Situation
Purpose and Importance of the Study
Research Questions
Delimitations
Limitations
Outline of the Remainder of
the Study
THE PROBLEM 1
II. PROCEDURES 168
Introduction
Instrumentation
The Samples
Statistical Procedures
i v
Chapter Page
III. ANALYSIS AND EVALUATION OF FINDINGS . . . 173
Introduction
Tansey Teacher Inventory, Part I
Tansey Teacher Inventory, Part II
Summary of Analysis
IV. SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS, AND
RECOMMENDATIONS ......................... 193
Summary
Conclusions
Recommendations
BIBLIOGRAPHY ....................... 209
REFERENCE NOTES . . . . . . . . . ................ 224
APPENDIXES . . ................................. 226
A. Letters...................................227
B. Classroom Observation Schedule (COS) . . 236
C. Tansey Teacher Inventory ............... 24 0
1
CHAPTER I
REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE AND
THE PROBLEM
Introduction
Teaching is unique. No other occupation
can claim a membership of over two million
college graduates and tens of thousands with
advanced degrees. To expect teachers to
contribute to the development of their
occupational knowledge seems reasonable; to
the extent that they do, their future standing
and work circumstances will benefit. (Lortie,
1975, pp. 243-244)
The recent but consistent and enormous growth in
scientific knowledge and its attendant technology has led
and continues to lead to constant change in the social,
religious, political, and economic conditions and life
styles of the varied populations of the Planet. The
economic, political, religious, and social aspects of any
society are salient factors in the development of the
educational system of the society; so important in fact,
that any history of.a particular society is incomplete
without discussion of the interaction among its social,
religious, political, educational, and economic facets.
The Wirtz Report (Shane, 1977) is one of the few public
documents which has attempted to demonstrate that what
happens in schools is the result of what is happening in
2
the larger society in which the schools function*
Americans have not understood this relationship, and the
school and television continue to be the scapegoats for
the major problems of American culture. This growing
criticism has contributed greatly to the "back to basics"
movement (Armbruster, 1977; "Back to Basics in the
Schools," 1974; Hechinger, 1975) which in turn has greatly
diminished public support for educational innovation.
The inter-relationship among the educational
system and the other aspects of the American society is
reflected in the list of expectations for schooling
discussed by Goodlad (1975). In the United States, the
public school is expected to prepare its students for
college, to contribute to the GNP, to keep an age-group
out of the job-market, to produce a labor force, to
instill the competitive drive, to maintain a certain
homogeneity of values, and to curb juvenile crime*
Goodlad (1975) did not mention certain specific
responsibilities more recently placed on the school and
its teachers: to teach immigrant children to read in their
first language as well as in English; and to provide
classroom environments wherein black, brown, and white
children will peacefully pursue academic goals*
The burden of society*s educational demands falls
on the classroom teacher. This investigation is concerned
with that American teacher, the one who works with
3
children in the fourth, fifth, and sixth grades of the
elementary school, who is willing to try a new approach
to teaching.
The new approach, which is the subject of this
exploratory study, is "open education." Open education
came to the United States in the early 1960s from England,
where it was known as "informal" education. The change in
term occurred when American practitioner-visitors to Great
Britain returned as explicator-advocates of the newer,
supposedly better, educational practice, and somehow the
British "informal" became the American "open education."
In this study, the adjectives "informal" and "open" are
used interchangeably. The investigation presents the
hypothesis that open educators at the fourth, fifth, and
sixth grade levels are different from conventional
teachers in their educational background, out-of-school
interests, and educational philosophy.
To provide a more adequate basis for the under
standing of the purpose of this study, the background of
the problem, as described in the Review of Literature, is
presented in this first chapter.
However, it is necessary to make a preliminary
statement concerning the areas which are not included in
the study, about the point of view, and about the use of
the third-person pronoun, before proceeding with the list
of contents.
4
The problem investigated here was chosen by a
practitioner of some 25 years of teaching experience. The
choice of the problem was a direct outgrowth of the
conjunction of the author's professional concerns and her
graduate studies. That is not meant to demean the
importance of the question, but rather to enhance it.
The study is not concerned with the problem of
teaching effectiveness, nor with what constitutes good
teaching. Nor was the author concerned with the
evaluation of student progress; the student was not the
subject of this study. Because of limitations on the
length of the study, there was no discussion of the class
room as a social system nor of the problems of institu
tional change and innovation--although these are salient
factors in any teaching situation— despite the available
literature (Anderson & Little, 1974; Arnstine, 1975;
Bennis, Benne, & Chin, 1969; Goodlad & Klein, 1974;
Goodlad, Fenstermacher, LaBelle, Rust, Skager, & Weinberg,
1975; Havelock & Havelock, 1973; McLaughlin, 1975;
Reichert, 1969; and Traub, Weiss, Fisher, & Musella, 1972),
The investigation does not deal with the
Summerhillian philosophy (Neill, 1960), which was a
radical absence of structure in an educational setting;
nor is there discussion of open architecture, wherein
classrooms are built to be a basic part of the whole
building, rather than as self-contained cubes.
5
Finally, two idosyncratic decisions were made
concerning the writing of this investigation. First, open
education is of a piece and difficult to separate into
components. Where no logical decision about chapter
parameters was possible, arbitrary boundaries were chosen.
The second arbitrary choice was made in the use
of the third-person pronouns he and she. Teachers are of
both sexes; the use of the form he/she is awkward and
impedes the flow of thought. Therefore, the author
decided to use the two pronouns interchangeably throughout
the study.
Outline of Chapter I
Chapter I includes the following sections:
Definitions; Definition-Description of Open Education;
Philosophical Bases of Open Education; History of Open
Education in Britain; The Roots of Open Education in the
United States; The Teacher in Open Education; The Advisor
in Open Education; The Teacher in the Conventional Setting;
Differences Between American and British Education; Models
of Teaching: A Comparison of Open Education and Conven
tional Teaching; Bennett's Study; Personality Theory:
Theoretical Basis of the Questions Posed by the Study;
Statement of the Problem Situation; Purpose and Importance
of the Study; Research Questions; Delimitations; Limita
tions; and the Outline of the Remainder of the Study.
* . 6
Definitions
"Eleven-plus” examination -(also called the PSLE,
Primary School Leaving Examination): Commonly given
examination in Britain at the end of-primary school to
determine whether the student pursues an academic course
in grammar school to prepare for University or trade
school. It is no longer mandated since education was
reorganized by the Act of 1944.
Family or vertical grouping: Classes in which
children's ages fall within a range of two years or more
are called family or vertical grouping.
Headmistress/ or headmaster/ or head teacher;
These titles are equivalent to the American principal;
subject to less public and parental pressure than the
principal in the United States.
Her Majesty's Inspectors (HMI): Professional
civil service career educators who oversee national
educational standards through the Department of Education
and Science are Her MajestyVs Inspectors. They advise
the Local Education Authority (LEA).
Integrated day: Children pursue various activities
without regard to artificial demarcations by subject
areas or time periods in the integrated day.
Local Education Authority (LEA): The LEA in
England is the educational agency of local government
7
which controls, manages, and finances education. Its
members are elected.
Primary school: The primary school consists of the
infant school, for children of 5 to 7 years old; and the
junior school, for 7 to 11 year olds.
Streaming; Streaming is placing in the same class
pupils of approximately the same ability.
Teacher center: A center set up to provide teachers
with opportunities for creating and testing materials and
ideas, and to promote professional development.
De f in i ti on- De sc ript ion o f
Open Education
Open education as it evolved from practice in
England is difficult to define because individual
differences abound among practitioners; there are no
definitive statements (Rathbone, 1971. Indeed, every
practitioner and advocate has emphasized the lack of a
"model” classroom. Since the late 1960s, there has been
much discussion in the United States about the philo
sophical and practical sources of open education; one
author has gone so far as to declare that: "In the act
of analyzing the British primary school experience, we
Americans created open education, where before it did not
exist" (Barth, 1977, p. 489). Sealey (1977) agreed that
"the term 'open education' was coined here in the United
States" (p. 3).
8
The statements of Barth and Sealey were confirmed
by Atkin (in Spodek & Walberg, 1975) as well as by Clegg
(1971), one of the more well-known English spokespersons.
Clegg concluded a brief history of the movement and a
description of the changes in English primary schools
since World War II with the statement that the changes
were "completely spontaneous" and had "nothing at all to
do with educational philosophy" (p. 46). He had asked
teachers who exemplified successful practice to teach
teachers as they would have the teachers teach children—
thus, wise, enthusiastic, and experimenting teachers led
the "revolution." Rathbone (1971, pp. 155-167) described
his experience in a workshop for teachers in England,
which was taught as teachers teach children in the open
education setting.
Clegg's list of changes forms one description of
open education: seating is informal, so that children may
work individually or in small groups; the teacher gives
very few lessons from the front of the classroom; the
whole basis of learning depends on experience, within and
without the classroom; there is very little scheduling and
the day is no longer broken up into subject lessons, but i
is "integrated," so that "children work at their own pace
on a topic chosen by them from a range carefully prepared
by the teacher" (p. 19); spelling lists and formal exer
cises in English and arithmetic are more rarely used; the
teacher tends to conceal or withhold knowledge so that the
child will seek elsewhere or work with the teacher; and
there are more individual books and fewer sets of standard
graded textbooks.
The articles in Teaching in the British Primary
Schools (Rogers, 1970) described more fully the implementa
tion of the principle that children learn from experience,
from exploration, and from active discovery. The
importance of the interaction between the child and the
teacher about the content, the exploration, was clearly
and even poetically described by the American philospher,
Hawkins (1970), in a series of lectures:
We should emphasize individual differences
in all their qualitative richness. This means
that education should provide always for
differences of interest and of momentary
capacity or readiness and should do this by
not merely permitting, but encouraging diversity
in the way children spend their time in school.
It means to give them significant choices, to
let them become responsible, in every way
possible, for the regulation of their own
learning. (p. 61)
There is much less streaming and grade placement
by age? rather, there is vertical or "family grouping."
That is, there are classes of children aged 5 to 7, 7 to
9, etc. in the primary school. Great attention is given
in the informal classroom to the uniqueness of each
individual child.
An early American interpreter of open education
defined it this way:
10
Open education sees a fundamental independence
of each learner from all others, from all would-be
assistants, such as teachers and parents, and from
all codified knowledge as it exists in universities
or texts. It holds the individual child capable
of interacting with and learning something from
nearly any responsive element in his environment.
(Rathbone, 1971, p. 103)
Barth (1972) gathered a list of 29 assumptions
about children's learning and the nature of knowledge,
which he saw as underlying the practices and statements
of open educators. Twenty-four assumptions concerned the
motivation, conditions of learning, social learning,
intellectual development, and evaluation of children's
learning. (See the section on the philosophical bases
of open education.)
His five assumptions about knowledge were:
1. The quality of being is more important than
the quality of knowing; knowledge is a means
of education, not its end. The final test of
an education is what a man i£, not what he
knows.
2. Knowledge is a function of one's personal
integration of experience and therefore does
not fall neatly into separate categories or
"disciplines."
3. The structure of knowledge is personal and
idiosyncratic, and a function of the synthesis
of each individual's experience with the world.
4. There is no minimum body of knowledge which is
essential for everyone to know.
5. It is possible, even likely, that an individual
may learn and possess knowledge of a phenomenon
and yet be unable to display it publicly.
Knowledge resides with the knower, not in its
public expression. (pp* 44-97)
11
According to Tratib et al. (1972) , the character
istics of open education are these:
1. Setting instructional objectives: The
individual student has the opportunity to participate in
setting his/her own objectives.
2. Materials and activities: The range of
materials and activities available to students is broad
and diverse.
3. Physical environment: The classroom environment,
is flexible to the extent that it can be readily modified
to suit the requirements of a particular activity. In
addition, flexibility means the use of the school beyond
the classroom and the use of the community beyond the
school.
4. Structure for decision making: The students
group themselves according to interest, and move from one
activity or group to the next on their own.
5. Time scheduling: There is no fixed timetable;
students change activities as they are self-motivated to
do so.
6. Individualization of instruction: Students
work at their own individual pace and in their individual
modality.
7. Composition of classes: The students are
grouped without attention to age or achievement.
12
8. Role of teacher: The teacher has major
responsibility for providing suitable materials in the
classroom? is a resource person; and works with individuals
and small groups.
9. Student evaluation: The teacher observes,
collects work samples, and keeps anecdotal records, but
does not use formal assessments. The evaluation data are
continuously collected and directly involve the student.
10. Student control: The students are involved in
the setting and enforcement of rules governing behavior.
In discussing open education as characterized by
Traub, Good, Biddle, and Brophy (1975) wrote; "'Openness'
is best viewed as a continuous set of variables" (p. 174).
Sealey (1977) emphasized that children did not
have license to behave entirely as they wished, despite
the freedom. Teachers were clearly in charge; children
were expected to behave responsibly and to take active
roles in learning.
To emphasize again, most of the literature
describes open education but leaves it to the reader to
define. The difficulties and resistance involved in the
formulation of a definition were rather fully discussed by
Katz (1971). She listed these problems: (1) fear of the
development of orthodoxies and rigidities; (2) "openness"
cannot be defined absolutely; (3) there is wide variety
and no advocacy for an ideal version; (4) the major data
13
from which to seek a definition is "personal testimony"?
(5) some attributes cannot be discerned from direct
classroom observation; (6) a central theme is quality of
relationships and consequent classroom climate. Qualities
of relationship include honesty, respect, warmth, trust,
and humaneness. How are these analyzed and specified?
Despite the difficulties, Katz attempted an
operational definition, which is supported by many
accounts and "personal testimonies." The components are
these:
1. Space, and the movement of persons within it,
is less routinized than in a traditional classroom.
2. Activities of the children are of wider range,
less fixed, and often transcend the classroom.
3. Source of activities: The more open, the more
likely that children's spontaneous interests determine
their activities.
4. Content or topics: Wider, open-ended, go
beyond the classroom.
5. Time: more flexible.
6. Teacher-child relationships: (a) Interaction
is often initiated by the child. (b) Teacher works with
individual children as the instructional unit. (c)
Teacher is likely to be seen giving suggestions, guidance,
encouragement, information, directions, instruction,
feedback, clarification; posing questions; probing child's
14
thinking; and listening— all primarily during individual
teacher-child encounters. (d) Teacher response to
undesirable behavior: to interpret its meaning in terms
of the classroom group*s life and moral implications,
rather than punish or ignore it.
Rathbone*s Preface (1971) demonstrated clearly the
problems involved in defining open education:
Proponents of open education . . . are in no
way interested in offering recipes for reform.
They are proponents of an approach that emphasizes
trust, freedom of choice, flexibility, and
individual responsibility— not just for children
but for teachers and schools as well. While open
education constitutes no fixed "system,” it does
anticipate that each teacher will come to know
his own philosophy and, acknowledging it, will
then seek to work out an appropriate methodology.
This requires— -for open education teachers as well
as for readers of this book— an ability to be
selective and critical of whatever new ideas come
along. In this process of decision-making, the
teacher learns to capitalize on his own strengths
and to reconfirm certain of his beliefs, while
learning at the same time to recognize his own
weaknesses and to test out new ideas, whatever
their resource. (p. xiii)
According to Church (in Rogers & Church, 1975),
The most significant difference between open
education and conventional schooling is that open
education values the inherent childhood dispositions
[active, curious, exploratory, inventive, exuberant,
fantasizing, questioning, testing, stretching,
wondering, bodily, physical, sensual, in touch
with concrete, play-oriented, capable of intense
concentration; self-centered but not egotistical];
instead of behaviorally modifying them out of the
child, open educators want to preserve and
strengthen them as the driving powers behind real
learning. (p. 9)
15
Macdonald (in Spodek & Walberg, 1975) defined
open education this way:
Open education . . . would reflect the fact
that persons are self-regulating open systems
who when not psychologically thwarted are
curious and seek out stimulation and also
creatively order and reorder their ideas, notions,
and activities; further, that they are sociable
and seek contact with other persons. And,
finally, an open society in the school would
reflect a respect for the "personness" of each
individual by the justice of equal access to
self-fulfillment and self-worth through the
freedom to make choices and have alternatives.
(p. 57)
Tamburrini (1976), trained at the Froebel Institute
in London, discussed the principles of open education in
a speech given in Los Angeles in 1972. The first and
overriding value is: respect for individuality, which
includes a regard for qualitative differences. The
second concern is an outgrowth of the first principle and
she called it: to foster cooperation rather than
competition. The third principle is: an openness in the
diagnostic components of teaching, so that the teacher can
then help the students extend their thinking. It follows
from the next principle— knowledge is a construction of
reality— that children must be involved in self-initiated
activities before they encounter codified rules. The
next principle is self-explanatory: the quality of a
pupil's thought processes is as important as the product.
The sixth and last principle which Tamburrini believed
was basic for effective open education is; teacher
16
intervention and participation. The teacher must respond
to the children's activities with relevant questions and
suggestions from his storehouse of knowledge in child
development and subject matter.
Among the rather large body of "personal testimony"
writing in open education which has developed during the
past 15 years are the following examples. For the most
part, these authors are practitioners whose teaching
experiences moved them to use some of the practices of
open education, whether or not they used that label.
Their writings have supplied descriptions of the
practitioners' search for viable procedures, as well as
careful discussion of the problems involved, which
demonstrate the philosophy of open education in practice.
One of the more well-known authors is Holt (1970),
who, in How Children Fail, described how his ideas and
philosophy of education changed by way of his classroom
experience and thoughtful observation. He is certainly
one of the earliest observer-advocates of open education
in the United States.
Our Children are Dying (Hentoff, 1967) is a deeply
moving account of Dr. Elliott Shapiro's principalship of
P.S. 119 in Central Harlem, New York City.
In Kohl's 36 Children (1968) is reproduced much of
the work of the children he taught in Harlem, in 1962, as
17
a new teacher just out of Harvard. His The Open Classroom
(1969) is, indeed, a practical guide to a new way of
teaching.
Death at an Early Age (1968) is a remarkable
account by a new teacher, Kozol, who worked in the black
ghetto of Boston. He was fired.
Herndon (1968), in The Way it 1Spozed to Be, wrote
a comical but very serious account of his experience in a
middle-class suburban junior high school.
In Will the Real Teacher Please Stand Up? (Greer &
Rubinstein, 1972) the authors presented a guide for
"opening up" the classroom, with specific suggestions as
well as extensive quotations from humanistic teachers and
philosophers.
William P. Hull was one of the first Americans to
visit (1961) England and realize the significance of work
going on in the British infant schools. He worked for a
time for the Elementary Science Study of the Education
Development Center (EDC).
This necessarily brief discussion of personal
accounts of open education is a sampling of the extensive
reports that have appeared in the popular and professional
literature. It is not within the scope of this
investigation to review all the guides to "opening up"
the classroom.
18
The foregoing statements have not presented open
education in a way that would enable the reader to know
what actually goes on in such a setting. In open
education or the informal classroom, there are few desks
and those are arranged informally; each child has a place
to keep his personal things. The remainder of the room is
separated into work areas, including many if not all of
these: a library and comfortable book corners in which to
read; a place to write; musical instruments; an acting
platform; a place to make puppets; cooking materials; junk
materials; a workbench and tools; a math area in which
are weighing, measuring, and counting materials; a science
area in which are items from nature and the mechanical
world; painting and art areas; places for using water,
sand, and clay; animals; printing materials; and physical
education and agility equipment. At least half the
school day is spent in self-selected activities within
that rich environment. The remainder of the day includes
group physical activities; group stories and discussions;
sharing periods, during which out-of-school as well as
in-school accomplishments and experiences are shared;
school-wide assemblies; and group excursions (Ashton-
Warner, 196 3; Blackie, 1971; Campbell & Patton, 1975;
Featherstone, 1971; Gross & Gross, 1970; Murrow & Murrow,
1971; Nyberg, 1975; Richardson, 1969; Rogers & Church,
19
1975; Sargent, 1970; Sealey, 1977; Sherman, 1970; Smith,
Barr, & Burke, 1976).
It is difficult to define clearly the activities
of the teacher as being separate from those of the
children within the open education setting; this has been
done arbitrarily here, and a description of the teacher is
placed in another section of this chapter.
Philosophical Bases of
Open Education
To explore the philosophical roots of open
education would require an exploration of the history of
educational theory and practice in the Western World,
especially in Britain and the United States, as well as
extensive discussion of Freudian and contemporary
humanistic psychologies. Such effort is well beyond the
scope of this study; an attempt has been made, however, to
review selected philosophers and psychologists and teachers
whose works are considered by many advocates to form the
philosophical and practical foundations of open education.
Several names appeared in every serious discussion
about the philosophical roots of open education and in
every attempt to explain the development of its practice.
Among these names were John Dewey, Jean Piaget, Friedrich
Froebel, and Susan and Nathan Isaacs. Again, the
investigator made an arbitrary separation in the discus
sion here between the philosophical foundation of open
20
education and the historical development of its practice.
An attempt has been made to keep repetition and overlap
at a minimum.
John Dewey forms an important chapter in American
intellectual history. His life— 1859 to 1952— spanned a
momentous century in Western Civilization. It is not
possible to present more than a brief glimpse of his work
and the relationship of progressive education to open
education. Silberman (1973) wrote that Dewey,, misunder
stood in the United States, "has been more widely read,
and has had a more profound impact on practice, in England
than in the United States" (p. 126).
Dewey's importance to open education, as a leader
in the progressive movement in the early years of the
twentieth century, cannot be denied. According to Thomas
and Walberg (in Spodek & Walberg, 1975), the following
tenets of progressive education are shared by open
education:
1. Effective education is compatible with the
natural growth of the child.
2. Free movement, physical activity, and the
affective domain are as much components of
education as are cognitive and intellectual
processes.
3. The life within the school is not separated from
the life without.
21
4. Children learn by doing.
5. School activities are not capriciously chosen but
must reflect conditions of real life.
6. Children within the school setting must have
opportunity for making choices and evaluating
consequences.
Experience and Education (Dewey, 1938/1973) is
considered by many to be the philosophical guide for
today*s open educator. Yet, surely this statement from
The Child and the Curriculum, written in 1902, must also
be considered a principle of open education:
Learning is active. It involves a reaching
out of the mind. It involves organic assimila
tion starting from within. Literally we must
take our stand with the child and our departure
from him. It is he and not the subject-matter
which determines both quality and quantity of
learning. (Dewey, 1902/1971, p. 9)
Many of the advocates of open education could
agree fully with these statements from Experience and
Education (Dewey, 1938/1973):
Only slight acquaintance with the history
of education is needed to prove that educational
reformers and innovators alone have felt the need
for a philosophy of education. Those who adhered
to the established system needed merely a few
fine-sounding words to justify existing practices.
The real work was done by habits which were so
fixed as to be institutional. The lesson for
progressive education is that it requires in an
urgent degree, a degree more pressing than was
incumbent upon former innovators, a philosophy
of education based upon a philosophy of
experience. (p. 29)
22
The new education is simpler because it is in
harmony with principles of growth. (p. 30)
The progressive movement "is more in accord with
the democratic ideal to which our people is committed"
(p. 33) than the traditional school of the autocrat.
Principle of continuity of experience means
that every experience both takes up something
from those which have gone before and modifies
in some way the quality of those which come
after. . . . The greater maturity of experience
of the adult gives him insight to help organize
the conditions for experience of the student.
(p.- 35)
On traditional education's emphasis on preparation
for the future:
We always live at the time we live and not
at some other time, and only by extracting at
each present time the full meaning of each
present experience are we prepared for doing
the same thing in the future. This is the only
preparation which in the long run amounts to
anything. (p. 49)
From his discussion of the nature of freedom:
There is . . . no point in the philosophy of
progressive education which is sounder than its
emphasis upon the importance of the participation
of the learner in the formation of the purposes
which direct his activities in the learning
process, just as there is no defect in traditional
education greater than its failure to secure the
active cooperation of the pupil in construction
of the purposes involved in his studying. (p. 67)
On the curriculum:
Anything which can be called a study . . .
must be derived from materials which at the
outset fall within the scope of ordinary life-
experience. (p. 73)
It is a cardinal precept of the newer school
of education that the beginning of instruction
23
shall be made with the experience learners
already have; that this experience and the
capacities that have been developed during
its course provide that starting point for
all further learning. (p. 74)
And finally: The condition "that experiences to be
educative must lead out into the expanding world of facts
and ideas" is satisfied only if "the educator views
teaching and learning as a continuous process of
reconstruction of experience" (p. 87).
Piaget (1896-1981) was another great thinker whose
seminal work it is not possible to treat adequately here.
His early interest was biology, from where he moved to the
theoretical foundations on which current biological
knowledge rests and then to the study of the general human
capacity for the scientific enterprise. His observation
of the growth and development of his own three children
contributed to his studies. He maintained that the
history of the capacity for mature intelligence implies
evolutionary and developmental perspectives.
A helpful guide is Furth's Piaget for Teachers
(1970). The book is a series of letters to teachers,
explicating Piagetian principles. Furth was himself a
teacher, as Piaget was not, and had some strong views on
reading in the public schools. He wrote in the Preface,
"I suggest that the spontaneously growing intelligence of
the child should be the focus of grade-school activities
24
and that all else should be subordinated to this priority”
(p. ix) .
He maintained further:
In reality no organic connection exists
between reading performance and IQ once the
four-year stage of intellectual development
has been passed. In other words, it is not
IQ but motivation that really counts in the
business of learning to read. (p. 14)
And again:
The first job of our elementary schools
today should be to strengthen the thinking
foundation on which any particular learning
is grounded. To do this administrators,
teachers and society at large must come to a
fuller understanding of the natural development
of the child's mind. Moreover, if early
schooling aims to emphasize and purposefully
nourish the thinking capacity of the child, it
cannot look to performance in reading and writing
as an immediate criterion of succes. But in the
long run, some positive transfer can reasonably
be expected from a child who has been encouraged
to develop intellectually for three or four years
and who has been given a clear message that
thinking is among the primary purposes of school
life. Such a child will soon reach the point
when further applications of his thinking skills
require the content, variety, and articulation
only reading can supply. In other words, he will
spontaneously come to realize the value of reading
and will learn to read in the easy, self-taught
fashion of many pre-school youngsters from homes where
reading is an everyday activity. (p. 5)
Piaget made a distinction between development
(intelligence) and learning which has relevance for open
educators. Furth sketched five major differences between
the two, although in life, they go hand in hand.
25
In order for the intelligence of a child
to grow, he has to be active in a general human
environment . . . learning requires: a. special
experience.
A child*s intelligence develops because it
functions. Developing and functioning are the
same process for the operative structures.
[This] means that intellectual development is
the birthright of every human being and actually
takes place in any environment. [It also means
that] . . . intelligence grows from within.
Thus the task becomes one of furthering and
nourishing this growth by providing suitable
opportunities, not by explicit teaching of what
to do or what to know. . . . Learning, however
. . . usually depends upon some reward or reason
that lies outside the learning process. . . .
There is no need to postulate a memory factor
for operative structures. Memory for operative
structures is in their functioning. Nobody
need remember that a subclass is included in a
superior class or that the reverse drawing of P
is*! - Once these things are known, they are
available; if a child "forgets" them, this only
proves that he has never known them. . . .
Although intelligence can be referred to as
knowing, it is better to view it as a general
instrument of knowing. It is not concerned with
particulars, but provides the framework (forms)
within which any particular knowing takes place.
Thus intelligence deals with general concepts,
such as the object concept— to regard things as
separate, existing objects— the class concept,
the relation concept, the concepts of logical
reasoning, and so forth.
Intellectual development, strictly speaking,
cannot go wrong. Later structures build upon
earlier structures and incorporate them in a
higher synthesis. Sensorimotor coordinations
do not disappear with operational spatial
concepts. Moreover, with increasing development
knowing takes on the character of being necessary
and universal, that is, independent of particular
circumstances. It converges on but a single
topic, though expression and use of that logic
will necessarily take many diverse forms. It
therefore provides the firm basis on which truth
and critical evidence can rest. (pp. 63-73)
26
In Duckworth’s article "Piaget Rediscovered" iiuthe
Journal of Research in Science Teaching (1964), is the
statement "that children go through certain stages of
intellectual development." And Piaget "maintains that
good pedagogy can have an effect on this development"
(p. 135).
Her paraphrase of Piaget’s theory:
Development of intellectual capacity goes
through a number of stages whose order is
constant, but whose time of appearance may
vary both with the individual and with the
society. Each new level of development is a
new coherence, a new structuring of elements
which until that time have not been systematically
related to each other. (p. 135)
The chief implication of Piaget’s theory for
educators is that children be allowed to do their own
learning. Good pedagogy involves presenting the child
with situations in which he must experiment: manipulating
things and symbols, asking questions and seeking his own
answers, comparing his findings with others, trying things
out to see what happens.
Friedrich Froebel (1782-1852) was born in
Germany, child of a pastor. His experience as a teacher
showed him that the minds and characters of children were
often neglected until they reached school age; and that
9 and 10-year olds had bad habits of conduct and learning
that were so ingrained, it was difficult to eradicate
them. In his book The Education of Man (1887) he
27
emphasized the importance of character as opposed to book
learning, and of permitting the human being to develop in
accordance with nature.
The core of Froebel*s educational philosophy was:
"Every human being, even the youngest child, shall be
respected as an end in himself" (Lawrence, 1953, p. 233).
It followed that the educator must learn the laws and
processes of growth by which the divine principle’in each
child seeks to realize himself. If the child is given
full scope to develop in his own way, he will seek growth
by means of play. Since the child1s growth is continuous
and cumulative, the educational beginnings must be
correct. The significant period, therefore, for education
is infancy and the preschool age, which had previously
been neglected.
Froebel opened his first kindergarten in Kleihau
in 1837. It was child-centered. There were "gifts":
balls, building blocks, colored tablets for design-making,
colored paper to cut and fold, clay and sand, pencils and
paints. The use of these materials in some precise,
prescribed ways was called "occupations." Music was part
of the program; Froebel composed and published some of
the songs.
The suppression of liberalism in Prussia after the
attempted revolution of 1848 led to the emigration of
liberal and wealthy Germans to England, Western Europe,
28
and America, where they set up kindergartens based on
Froebel's theories. Thus, it was after his death in 1852
that his ideas began to take hold in England, Western
Europe, and America.
Lillian Weber, a nursery school teacher and
principal, and one of the earlier American visitors to
England (1965-66), observed and discussed, thought and
read, and published a highly informative book (1971). She
too listed Rousseau, Pestalozzi, Froebel, Montessori, and
Dewey, as well as Piaget and Bruner, as contributing to
the "background of eclecticism" (p. 171) from which came
informal education.
Weber discussed extensively the ideas of Susan and
Nathan Isaacs and their part in the development of open
education practice. Mrs. Isaacs believed that education
implements the natural development of the child; her
husband played a leading role in reconciling her analyses
with those of Piaget. Weber wrote of the couple:
From the Froebel Institute, from the Nuffield
Foundation, from other analyzers of informal
education, have come writings which accept the
formulations of the two Isaacs as core for the
continuing development and extension of the
definition and application of informal education.
These formulations confirmed the conclusions of
their own systematic observation of children, and
made clear the continuity in the thinking of
English informal educators on how children learn,
as well as the consensus on the informal organiza
tion of the infant school. (p. 172)
29
The Isaacs, from their studies of child develop
ment, saw each child as unique, active, and whole. We may
choose a specific strand of growth for the convenience of
study, but it is always the whole child who acts and
reacts. Play is necessary to intellectual development
because it creates practical situations, which require
reaccommodation to reality. As quoted in Weber:
[Play] helps him [the child] to achieve inner
balance and harmony through the active expression
of his inner world of feelings and impulses, and
of the people that dwell in his inner world.
The child re-creates selectively those
elements in past situations which can embody
his emotional or intellectual need of the
present. (p. 176)
Another necessary component of intellectual and
social growth is active participation with other children
and with adults.
The educator cannot teach the child, nor
can he learn for him. All that he can do is
to create such situations as will give the
child opportunities to learn for himself. In
this regard he has to control the social
environment of the child as well as the
physical, in order to make it possible for the
child to learn. The child can, however, learn
only by his own real experience, whether social
or physical, and the educator must not stand
between the child and his experience. (pp. 177-178)
In Andreae's report on the adaptation of the open
classroom philosophy in New Rochelle, New York (1970), she
stated that the philosophy evolved from a number of great
thinkers and educators:
30
1. Rousseau's assertion that education
is living.
2. Pestalozzi's belief in the child's
capacity to learn for himself through living
"according to nature."
3. Froebel's aim to "stir up, to animate,
to strengthen," the pleasure and power of the
human being to labor uninterruptedly at his own
education.
4. John Dewey's belief that learning results
from doing and, therefore, to preserve the unity
of the child's experience, the project method of
learning should precede studying separate subjects.
5. Maria Montessori's emphasis on the
importance of the environment and the necessity
for children to learn through their senses.
6. Piaget's insight into the way children
develop thinking skills. (p. 8)
From them and others, wrote Andreae, we have
learned the following principles, which are embodied in
the open classroom philosophy:
1. The child grows as a whole with his social,
emotional, intellectual, physical, and moral growth
closely interwoven and interrelated.
2. Every individual has a unique design for
growth and a different learning style. Children
differ in their approach to learning and in the
rate and content of what they learn. A real
appreciation and understanding of the uniqueness
of each individual will promote individual learning,
which allows children to develop at their own pace
in the crucial early years of school.
3. Learning is a continuous process in which
a child builds an awareness of himself and his
environment. Children learn to think in stages.
In the early stages, they learn mainly from the
testimony of their senses and not so much through
words. The majority of primary school children
cannot merely be told "what they should know."
A learner has to organize material into his own
behavior, which is a constant process of assimilat
ing and adapting.
4. Learning occurs when a child is totally
involved in his own exploration and discovery.
It is an active, rather than a passive, process.
Children learn from experience, from exploration,
31
and from active participation in discovery with
time provided for reflection and practice.
5. A responsive environment promotes the
initiative of children, their participation and
involvement, and their sense of responsibility
and self-discipline. In order for children to
grow into healthy, independent adults, they must
have opportunities to express their natural urge
toward independence at an early age.
6. The child*s own motivation should be the
focal point of his learning. This will provide
the most effective, efficient, and relevant
growth. (pp. 9-10)
This consultant in the New Rochelle experiment
drew on the contributions of Jean Piaget and Nathan Isaacs
in working with the teachers as they learned in a new way:
1. There are definite stages of conceptual
thought which we all go through in a clear
sequence.
2. It is not possible to leave out or skip
stages— stage two is not reached until stage one
is comp1eted•
3. The learning process is continuous and
cumulative; we build only on what we know.
4. This knowing begins at birth and grows
from an individuals actions and reactions to
his immediate environment, from the assimilation
and accommodation of the individual's own actions.
(p. 25)
Barth (1972, Introduction) maintained that from
the literature of educational thought, the works of Piaget,
Freud, Erikson, Tolman, Froebel, Susan Isaacs, Dewey,
Rousseau, and Montessori have had an important influence
on open educators.
He has compiled a list of basic assumptions in
which the works of Dewey, Piaget, Froebel, and the Isaacs
are reflected. Barth sought in these assumptions,
32
accepted by most open educators, to find the rationale
which underlies the professional behavior of practitioners.
The assumptions:
1. Children are innately curious and will
explore without adult intervention.
2. Exploratory behavior is self-perpetuating.
3. The child will display natural exploratory
behavior if he is not threatened.
4. Confidence in self is highly related to
capacity for learning and for making important
choices affecting one’s learning.
5. Active exploration in a rich environment,
offering a wide array of manipulative materials
facilitates children's learning.
6. Play is not distinguished from work as
the predominant mode of learning in early
childhood.
7. Children have both the competence and
the right to make significant decisions concerning
their own learning.
8. Children will be likely to learn if they
are given considerable choice in the selection
of the materials they wish to work with and in
the choice of questions they wish to pursue with
respect to those materials.
9. Given the opportunity, children will
choose to engage in activities which will be of
high interest to them.
10. If a child is fully involved in and is
having fun with an activity, learning is taking
place.
11. When two or more children are interested
in exploring the same problem or the same materials,
they will often choose to collaborate in some way.
12. When a child learns something which is
important to him, he will wish to share it with
others.
13. Concept formation proceeds very slowly.
14. Children learn and develop intellectually
not only at their own rate but in their own style.
15. Children pass through similar stages of
intellectual development, each in his own way and
at his own rate and in his own time.
16. Intellectual growth and development takes
place through sequence of concrete experiences
followed by abstractions.
17. Verbal abstractions should follow direct
experience with objects and ideas, not precede
33
them or substitute for them.
18. The preferred sources of verification
for a child*s solution to a problem comes through
the materials he is working with.
19. Errors are necessarily a part of learning;
they are to be expected and even desired, for they
contain information essential for further learning.
20. Those qualities of a person's learning
which can be carefully measured are not necessarily
the most important.
21. Objective measures of performance may
have a negative effect upon learning.
22. Learning is best assessed intuitively,
by direct observation.
23. The best way of evaluating the effect
of the school experience on the child is to
observe him over a long period of time.
24. The best measure of a child's work is
his work. (pp. 18-58)
Thomas and Walberg (in Spodek & Walberg,. 1975)
added Rousseau and Tolstoy to the progressive movement as
antecedents of open education. They also discussed,
as "popular critics," John Holt and Herbert Kohl. These
two practitioners, among others, are discussed in other
sections of this chapter.
Macdonald's perspective (in Spodek & Walberg,
1975) on open education added to the common list of
antecedents (Rousseau; Pestalozzi; Froebel; the progressive:
movement, including Dewey, Gounts, Rugg and Kilpatrick;
Piaget) the names of Abraham Maslow, Jerome Bruner, and
William James.
34
History of Open Education
in Britain
An adequate discussion of the history and
development of educational philosophy and practice cannot
be made in a vacuum, separate from the social, political,
religious, and economic conditions of the society in which
the educational system exists (Wardle, 1976). Such a full
exposition of education in Britain is beyond the scope of
this investigation- This section, therefore, contains
some of the more important dates, names, and facts,
presented with the intention of laying a basic groundwork
for the understanding of the development of informal
education in England. The distinction between history
and philosophy made in these pages is arbitrary.
Wardle (1976) pointed out that in Britain there
has been a chronic fear of over-educating the lower levels
of the rigidly stratified society. This was demonstrated
by the fact that education was not free until toward the
end of the nineteenth century, when the private and
church-connected schools gained more social prominence;
as well as by the fact that 16 years as the school-leaving
age was not effected until 1973, although earlier
legislated, and by the infamous "payment by results"
period.
At this point it is necessary to interject a
reminder: The passage of legislation does not always imply
35
implementation of that legislation. Among the reasons
for a society to fail to put into practice legislation
approved by its lawmakers is a lack of funds.
For purposes of clarification, Wardle (1976)
divided the development of English popular education into
three periods. The first, from approximately 1780 to 1870,
was the time during which all the elementary schools were
provided and paid for by the church and the rich. Those
church schools accepting the central government grants
first offered in 1833 were called "voluntary" schools
(Parker, 1979). With the offering of the grants, the
government took the right to inspect the schools.
During the second period, 1870-1903, school
attendance was made compulsory, elected local school
boards were enabled to tax the population for support of
the schools, and board and voluntary schools continued to
be subsidized by government funds. Compulsory attendance
came about slowly and in stages: in 1880, for ages 5 to 10;
in 1893, raised to age 11; in 1899, raised to age 12.
Parker (1979, p. 17) noted further changes in compulsory
education: it was.raised to age 14 in 1918; to age 15 in
1947; and to age 16 in 1965. It was during this period
that the dual system began Of the "voluntary" schools
(privately run, with the help of government funds) and the
"maintained" schools (run and financed by the local
government boards). The central government's Education
36
Department was established in 1856 and the Board of
Education in 1899.
The third and current period began in 1902 with
the legislative replacement of the school boards by the
still-existing Local Education Authorities (LEAs). The
LEA corresponds to the American superintendent, and while
it is the educational agency of local government, it is
also the local arm of the central government. Wardle
(1976, p. 61) called this arrangement a partnership
between central government and local education authorities.
He also stated that this third period revealed an
increasing state intervention in education.
In 1944, the Ministry of Education replaced the
Board of Education; and was itself replaced by the
Department of Education and Science (DES) in 1964. The
political head of the DES, composed of professional
educators and support personnel, is in the cabinet of the
prime minister as Secretary for Education and Science.
His department formulates educational policy for all of
England.
Weber (1971) cited Robert Owen as a true
antecedent of informal education because he established
the first (private) infant school in 1816. His purpose
was "to preserve childhood for the children" (p. 102).
When education became compulsory for the 5-to-10 year age
37
group in 1880, those poor children below that age who were
already in school were allowed to remain.
The first kindergarten, based on the ideas of
Froebel, was established by philanthropist William Mather
in Manchester, in 1873.
The period between 1862-1897 saw "payment by
results," as demanded by the Revised Code of 1862, when
government grants were determined by any child's
attendance for a fixed number of times throughout the year
and for that child's passing an examination "in any of the
three R's" (Wardle, 1976, p. 68).
According to Wardle (1976)
If the immediate results of the Revised Code
were almost universally disastrous there were
certain indirect results which were less unhappy.
The public outcry against payment by results, in
which virtually every contemporary educationalist
joined, gave much publicity to the program of
public elementary education, and the reduction in
grant which immediately followed its application
worsened the financial position of many schools
especially those in impoverished areas, thus
underlining the need for positive action. At the
same time the total failure of payment by results
to achieve either efficiency or cheapness dis
credited the negative approach. (pp. 69-70)
As a result of the Boer War (1899-1902) and its
revelation to the population of England of the very poor
physical conditions of the recruits, legislation in 1906
gave elementary schools permission to hold organized games
during school hours. The same year saw legislation
38
relating to child labor, and to seeing to the medical and
nutritional needs of children in school.
In 1918, the Education Act allowed for the
financial support of nursery schools. This legislation
was partially the result of the enduring efforts of Rose
and Margaret McMillan, philosophical successors to Robert
Owen.
Clegg (1971) mentioned Bertrand Russell as one of
the precursors of informal education. He, with his
second wife, Dora Winifred Black, established a school in
1927 for their two children, John and Kate. They operated
the school from 1928-1934 in Telegraph House, their home,
which was located in Beacon Hill just outside the village
of Harting about 60 miles southwest of London.
Their educational theory was based on a synthesis
of the work of Freud, J. B. Watson, Montessori, and
Margaret McMillan. Russell taught that the good life was
inspired by love and guided by knowledge. He rejected the
will and religion as bases for morality.
The Russells ran the school on the following
guidelines:
1. As soon as the child could walk and talk—
about age 2— his diet, hygiene, and sleep were controlled
by adults, but he lived with his contemporaries.
39
2. One should leave one’s neighbors alone to
pursue their own interests, provided they do not limit
the liberty.of others. However, they are also expected to
render services to the group.
3. The younger children were allowed to fight,
under supervision.
4. From the age of 5, those children who wished
it were taught reading, writing, and sums.
5. From the age of 5, the children were involved
in nature study, painting, weaving, modeling, carpentry,
sewing, simple chemical experiments, and German and French
games and expressions.
6. From the age of 8, the children were involved
in an academic program which included history, geography,
literature, playwriting, arts and crafts, science/and
mathematics, French, and German.
The school was moved several times, and Dora ran
it with her second husband until the War Office forced
them to close it in 1945 (Park, 1963).
The Hadow Report, published in 1931, dealt with
post-elementary education, after age 11. The report was
one of an intermittent series of government reports on the
schools, begun in 1905, which described practice in
specific schools "and represented a distillation of the
inspectorate's experience in the schools" (Weber, 1971,
p. 157) and this influenced further development.
40
To demonstrate the influence on informal
education of the Hadow Report, Weber (1971) offered this
quotation:
The primary school should not . . . be
regarded merely as a preparatory department
for the subsequent stage, and the courses should
be planned and conditioned, not mainly by the
supposed requirements of the secondary stage,
nor by the exigencies of an examination at age
of eleven, but by the needs of the child at that
particular phase in his physical and mental
development. (p. 157)
Clegg (1971, p. 29) also quoted from the Hadow
Report in his discussion of open education: "We are of the
opinion that the curriculum of the primary school is to be
thought of in terms of activity and experience, rather
than of knowledge to be acquired and facts to be stored."
The Isaacs* work immediately preceding and during
the Second World War, and the war work of Anna Freud with
evacuated children, deeply influenced the Education Act of
1944, which brought education more under the control of
the central government and reduced the discrepancy between
rural and urban education.
Another of the results of the Education Reorgan
ization Act of 1944 was the creation of the "modern"
secondary school. The large group of children, who were
not eligible for grammar school nor technical school, was
sent to the modern secondary school where educational
expectations were low. Again, social and political acts
cannot be separated from reactions in the educational
41
domain: In 1969, LEAs were asked to submit to the central
government their own local plans for reorganizing
secondary education to include "comprehensive" schools, to
make them more accessible to lower socioeconomic levels of
the population. The local organization led to a
"bewildering array of comprehensive schools" (Shane &
Shane, 1979, p. 59). Shane and Shane (1979) reported that
an increasing number of students was able to pass the "0"
level examination (see chart) as a result of changed
practices brought about by the 1969 governmental request.
The following graphic representation of the
organization of the British educational system as a result
of the Educational Reorganization Act of 1944 was based
on Nogrady (1975).
In 1967 a study was published which has since
become a milestone in open education. It is known as
"The Plowden Report," after the chairman of the Council
which produced it. The full title of the two volume
official study is 'Children and Their Primary Schools, A
Report of the Central Advisory Council for Education
(England).
Chapter 15 is entitled "The Aims of Primary
Education," The following paragraphs (as printed by
Elementary Science Study of Education Development Center
in The ess reader, 1970, pp. 159-160) demonstrate the
philosophical stance of the study.
The English Educational System
21
20
19
18
17
16
15
14
13
12
11
10
9
8
7
6
5
University finals: Honours
(usually 1 main subject and
1 subsidiary subject)
General (usually 3 or 4 subjects)
"A level (usually 2 or 3 subjects)
"0" level (between 5 and 8 subjects)
CSE (between 3 and 5 subjects)
Common Entrance Exam
Eleven Plus Examination
Average Examination Age
U 1
( l ) ns
Jd 0 c
O' 3 o
*0 ■H
E W 4 J
Grammar
School
Technical
School
Mod«i
Sec
Sch
Primary School
Public
School
rn
dindai
<>oT
Prep
School
Maintained, State Schools
CSE = Certificate of Secondary Education
n?n ^eve} ~ Jeve] - on the General Certificate of Education
"A" level = Advanced level
Voluntary,
Independent
Schools
Source: M. E. Nogrady, 1975, p. 84.
to
43
505. A school is not merely a teaching shop,
it must transmit values and attitudes. It is a
community in which children learn to live first
and foremost as children and not as future adults.
In family life children learn to live with people
of all ages. The school sets out deliberately to
devise the right environment for children, to
allow them to be themselves and to develop in the
way and at the pace appropriate to them. IE tries
to equalize opportunities and to compensate for
handicaps. It lays special stress on individual
discovery, on first hand experience and on oppor
tunities for creative work. It insists that
knowledge does not fall into neatly separate
compartments and that work and play are not
opposite but complementary. A child brought up
in such an atmosphere at all stages of his
education has some hope of becoming a balanced
and mature adult and of being able to live in,
to contribute to, and to look critically at the
society of which he forms a part. Not all primary
schools correspond to this picture, but it does
represent a general and quickening trend.
506. Some people, while conceding that children
are happier under the modern regime and perhaps
more versatile, question whether they are being
fitted to grapple with the world which they will
enter when they leave school. This view is worth
examining because it is quite widely held, but we
think it rests on a misconception. It isolates
the long term objective, that of living in and
servicing society, and regards education as being
at all stages recognisably and specifically a
preparation for this. It fails to understand that
the best preparation for being a happy and useful
man or woman is to live fully as a child. Finally,
it assumes quite wrongly, that the older virtues,
as they are usually called, of neatness, accuracy,
care and perseverance, and the sheer knowledge
which is an essential of being educated, will
decline. These are genuine virtues and an
education which does not foster them is faulty.
507. Society is right to expect that importance
Will be attached to these virtues in all schools.
Children need them and need knowledge, if they are
to gain satisfaction from their education. What
we repudiate is the view that they were automatically
fostered by the old kind of education. Patently
they were not, for enormous numbers of the products
of that education do not possess them. Still more
we repudiate the fear that the modern primary
44
approach leads to their neglect. On the contrary
it can, and when properly understood, does lay a
much firmer foundation for their development and
it is more in the interests of the children. But
those interests are complex. Children need to be
themselves, to live with other children and with
grown ups, to learn from their environment, to
enjoy the present, to get ready for the future, to
create and to love, to learn to face adversity, to
behave responsibly, in a word, to be human beings.
Decisions about the influences and situations that
ought to be contrived to these ends must be left
to individual schools, teachers and parents. What
must be ensured is that the decisions taken in
schools spring from the best available knowledge
and are not simply dictated by habit or convention.
The first paragraph in Chapter 16, "Children
Learning in School" reveals a major difference between
the British and the American teacher and explains, perhaps,
one of the reasons that open education has not really
become established in the United States.
Towards Freedom of Curriculum
508. The ending, in 1898, of the system of
payment by result, under which a proportion of
teachers1 salaries was dependent upon the results
of an annual examination of pupils held by H.M0
Inspectors, led to an increasing freedom for
teachers to exercise their own judgement in matters
of syllabus. In 1905 the Board of Education first
issued a Handbook of Suggestions for consideration
of Teachers, a title that itself indicated a change
in outlook. The Elementary Code laid down some
very broad requirements, but a large measure of
choice was left to the individual school. In the
preface to the 1918 edition of the Handbook occurs
the following significant passage: "Neither the
present volume nor any developments or amendments
of it are designed to impose any regulations
supplementary to those contained in the Code. The
only uniformity of practice that the Board of
Education desire to see in the teaching of public
elementary schools is that each teacher shall
think for himself, and work out for himself such
methods of teaching as may use his powers to the
best advantage and be best suited to the particular
45
needs and conditions of the school. Uniformity
in detail of practice (except in the mere routine
of school management) is not desirable, even if
it were attainable. But freedom implies a
corresponding responsibility in its use." The
passage was reprinted in the preface to the 1937
edition of the Handbook. In 1944 the Code, which
had become increasingly permissive, finally
disappeared, and in the 1944 Education Act the
only statutory requirement that remained was that
children should be educated accoring to "their
age, ability and aptitude." (p. 161)
In the last 15 years or so, there have been many
widely discussed accounts of the British infant school
"revolution." One of the more well-known ones is
Featherstone1s, which first appeared in The New Republic
and was later incorprated into the book Schools Where
Children Learn (1971).
Yeomans, a consultant to the National Association
of Independent Schools (United States), wrote a pamphlet
about his visit to the schools of Leicestershire County,
England. Its title is Education for Initiative and
Responsibility and its third edition was published in
August 1972.
The Murrows' book (1971) offered a brief history
of British public schools from the inception of universal
state education in 1870 until the time of publication,
with emphasis on their visits to primary schools
practicing open education.
During their tour they found an attitude of
positive belief in continuing change. "In the first
46
minutes spent in such a school, it is evident that the
major concern is the development of relationships between
child and child, teacher and child, and teacher and
teacher" (p^ 21).
The Murrows reported what so many other author-
advocates report: The teachers* feeling that each child
must come to learning his own way is reinforced by a
growing body of research. Teachers in England enjoy a
degree of freedom unknown in most other parts of the
world.
There is a clear presentation of the juridicial
framework under which the British schools function,
including a discussion of the HMI (Her Majesty's
Inspectorate of schools). The inspectors number almost
500 men and women, expert teachers and educators, who
live where they work. They do not have the power to hire
and fire, but they may enter any school to observe and
advise. The Inspectorate was established by law in 1839
and works within the Department of Education and Science,
reporting directly to the Secretary of State.
A famous example of an HMI is John Blackie, author
of Inside the Primary School (1971). A Chief Inspector
of Primary Education, he played an influential role in the
development of British open education, using his influence
rather than his authority. As Lady Plowden wrote in her
Foreword,
47
This is a book to be welcomed. It describes
for the general reader the primary schools of
England today. It tells how the schools and their
curriculum developed, how they are organised, and
how and what the children in them are learning.
(Blackie, 1971, p. iii)
Featherstone and Cohen dealt with the pedagogical
implications of the Plowden Report in their article in the
Harvard Educational Review (Spring 1968). They said "a
crucial precondition for reform: the large measure of
autonomy granted principals and teachers within the
decentralized English educational system" (p. 326).
Another element in reform, they wrote, was the HMI1s
"who have become advisors, agents for disseminating change
and identifying good schools and willing teachers"
(p. 327).
This point is mentioned here to emphasize that a
theme of the literature is this major difference between
American and British teaching conditions, which is treated
in another section of this chapter.
Marshall’s Adventure in Creative Teaching (1968)
is an account of the inservice teacher training experience
she led in the summer of 1965 at Doncaster Technical
College. The course was an example of the type of
inservice work being done in England. The three
intentions of her work there were that it should place the
teachers for a short time again in the position of the
taught, to be a child with all kinds of demands placed on
48
him; to ask teachers to attempt personally as many
creative activities as possible; and to have the teachers
experience learning as an integrated whole.
The group of four women and eleven men worked from
a theme, presented by Marshall: the poem "Upon Nun
Appleton House" by Andrew Marvell.
The book is replete with quotable statements,
displaying Marshall's philosophy of education. She wrote
that one must be a full person, aware of what it means to
be alive, before one can be a good teacher. In planning
work with the 15 adults-students, they found that
commonsense and compromise between tradition and progress
brought the best results. Marshall's mission was not to
"teach" but to encourage students to learn.
Two books from two different parts of New Zealand
were written by their practitioner-authors before the
Plowden Report was begun— before talk of open education
was heard in the United States.
Ashton-Warner apparently wrote. Teacher (1963) sever
years before she found a publisher for it. In it, she
described her 17 years of teaching in the infant room of
a Maori school and how she discovered her concept of the
Key Vocabulary.
Richardson's In the Early World was published in
1964; in it, he discussed how he found his way of teaching
through eight years of experience in Oruaiti. The book
49
contained many photographs of the children's creative
work with clay and wood and cloth. There were also many
stories and poems.
These two teachers worked intuitively, encouraging
their students to live their lives in the present and
express themselves creatively. The two books present
examples of open education in operation in the British
Commonwealth.
It is emphasized over and over again in the
literature describing the development of open education in
Britain (Atkin in Spodek & Walberg, 1975; Clegg, 1971?
Featherstone & Cohen, 1968? Sealey, 1977? Wardle, 1976?
Weber, 1971) that practitioners were the major
contributors to reform and that the change was a slow
long process. As reported elsewhere in this investigation,
Clegg (1971) wrote that the changes were spontaneous and
sprang from practice. In that same work, he wrote that
"real progress in education is best brought about when it
is drawn convincingly and sincerely from good practicing
teachers" (p. 41).
Another fact emphasized in the same body of
literature is the autonomy granted to teachers and
headmasters within the larger English educational system.
Governmental reports described specific instances of
excellent practice, thus providing tacit approval for
pursuit of change. There is minimal legislative
50
prescription for practice. In fact, in the preface of the
Handbook of Suggestions for Teachers, first issued by the
Board of Education in 1905, appears this paragraph:
The only uniformity of practice which the
Board of Education desires to see in Public
Elementary Schools is that each teacher shall
think for himself, and work out for himself
such methods of teaching as may use his powers
to the best advantage and be best suited to the
particular needs and conditions of the school.
Uniformity in details of practice (except in the
mere routine of school management) is not desirable
even if it were attainable. (Wardle, 1976, p. 72)
Wardle (1976) also cited the writings of Rousseau,
Pestalozzi, and Froebel, and the educationists*
commentaries on them, as well as the presence of a few
unusually enlightened practitioners as two factors which
contributed to the change in educational practice.
Wardle (1976) also attributed change to the great
influence of John Dewey and his effect on the curricula and
methods of English education. The historian also
mentioned that the development of psychological theories
influenced changes in British education.
Atkin (in Spodek & Walberg, 1975) stated the case
succinctly:
Informal education in Great Britain was devised
by teachers— not by professional administrators,
not by government bureaucrats, not by education
professors or theorists, not by the media, not by
the public, and not by the inspectorate. (p. 185)
In the spirit of a postscript to this necessarily
brief history of British open education are the comments
51
of Parker. (1979). He agreed with Wardle that central
government control over local educational practice had
increased steadily with the increase of government funding.
The political, social, and economic problems facing the
English people, of course, will have an enormous influence
on the future path of British education. Among the
problems are the growing proportion of ethnic minorities
(West Indians, Pakistanis, and Indians) within the
population; the attempts at providing education for all
socioeconomic levels? the demand for more influence on
school practice by parents and students; and the changes
in Britain's status as a world power. Shane (1979)
reported, from his 50 interviews with parents, educators,
and citizens, a widespread "distress over egalitarianism"
(p^> 60) .
John Coe, in the LEA office in Oxfordshire,
England, (Rogers, 1979) reported that children were
achieving better in the basics when they were taught
within the widest curriculum. Nevertheless, it remains
to be seen how the changing society will affect the
informal classroom in Britain.
52
The Roots of Open Education
in the United States
A discussion of the roots of open education in the
United States should include the presentation of salient
historical facts. That is especially difficult because,
as was stated in the brief history of open education in
Britain, the history of education cannot be separated from
the political, social, economic, and religious context in
which that education occurred. Cohen (1974), in fact,
stated no adequate histories of American education have
been written, because the men who have written them and
taught them have not perceived education as an aspect of
American history, - but have instead viewed it as a way of
"communicating an appropriate ideology to a newly self-
conscious profession" (Preface, p. 2). The difficulties
of writing a history of American education are further
compounded by the facts that our roots first grew in the
European social, political, economic, and religious soil;
and that each state here in the United States developed
its own ways of providing and maintaing education.
Anderson (1973) wrote that some of our practices
crossed the Atlantic— team-teaching, for example; and we
know that Dewey*s ideas had great influence in England.
Historians may never be able to separate the origins of
the educational strands of influence affecting Europe and
the United States.
53
Cohen (1974) believed that the field of historical
study of American education was "transformed" (Preface,
p. 3) by the work started in the late 1950s and early
1960s by L. A. Cremin (1964), and others, under the aegis
of the Ford Foundations Fund for the Advancement of
Education, and that, as a result, historians are now
writing more about the "complex interplay between schools
and society" (Preface, p. 3).
Perhaps it is this broad and deep and diffuse
history of American education which causes the "definite
absence of a general purpose 'and aim— for teacher and *
student alike" (Preface, p. 1) about which Cohen
complained. ■.
Cohen's five-volume Education in the United States
(1974) is a documentary history; that is, he quoted from
influential works written as long ago as 1607 and as
recently as 1973. A sampling of the volumes' contents
will help demonstrate the length and the breadth of the
history of education in the United States:
The Renaissance in the Continent and in England
European Influences: Pestalozzi; Froebel; Robert Owen
Assimiliation of the Immigrant
Educational Alternatives: Alcott, Peabody, Thoreau;
Emerson
Education of Women: Noah Webster, 1904
The New Education: G. S. Hall and the Child Study
Movement
Ideas from the Continent: Psychological Measurement
of Intelligence; Freud; Piaget; Constitution of
UNESCO, 1945
Ideas from England: Summerhill; Susan Isaacs, 1933;
Plowden Report, 1967
Urban Experience
New Practices: Hull House; University Elementary
School; School Nurse, 1903
The Federal Government and Education: First White
House Conference on Children, 1908; Establishment
of the Children*s Bureau
Progressive Era 1919-1929: Americanization; Psychology,
Mental Hygine and Social Work
A New Orientation for Education 1930-1950: The
Depression; the Social Reconstructionists
The Minorities: Catholics; Jews; Chicanos; Indians;
Japanese; Blacks
The Supreme Court as National School Board
Re-appraisal 1951-1971: Problems: Puerto Rican
Children; Television; Compensatory Education;
Computer-assisted Instruction; the Open Classroom;
Education Vouchers; the Federal Government and
Education
55
A full understanding of the roots of open
education in the United States is further impeded by the
relationship between legislation, at any level, and its
implementation. Edwards and Richey (1947) emphasized
this point: "It is always dangerous to assume that
conditions prescribed by law actually exist in fact"
(p. 104).
Given the limitations described,the author has
first presented in the following pages a sample of
important dates and legislative enactments and then a
summary of the visible, more informal— not related to
public educational institutions, per se— precursors of
open education in the United States.
By 1671, early education was compulsory in all of
New England, except in Rhode Island. However, such
education was the responsibility of the father or of the
master of the apprenticed child. As early as 1642 there
were laws relating to compulsory education in the colony
of Virginia. But these affected special classes of
children: orphans? illegitimate and poor children.
Education also could involve apprenticeship. Thus, as in
England, education was developing in two paths: private
school for those who could afford it and publicly-required
education in one form or another for those who could not.
There were significant changes occurring in the
social, cultural, political, and religious aspects of
56
American life throughout the decades preceding and
immediately following the American Revolution. Growing
secularization of thought and feeling allowed for the
increasing separation of government and religion; an
ambitious middle class was developing; political power was
moving to the common man. But, so far as education was
concerned, change was slow in coming: "The failure of the
Constitution to mention education in express terms . . .
probably reflects the widespread sentiment of the time
that education was a private, religious, or philanthropic
function" (Edwards & Richey, 1947, p. 240)«
In 1785, in order to implement the sale of new
lands to settlers, Congress adopted a rectangular survey;
that is, the land was laid out into townships six miles
square and these were divided into one-mile square
sections. The sixteenth section was reserved for the
support of education. From the time of the admission to
the Union of Ohio in 1802, each new State was given the
sixteenth section in every township for the maintenance
of schools, except Texas, Maine, and West Virginia.
Furthermore, with the admission of California in 1850, the
grant was increased to two section^; and increased to four
sections for the three arid southwestern states.
Other grants have increased the total amount
of land given by the federal government to the
states for educational purposes to nearly a
quarter million square miles. . . .[The grants]
57
formed a basis for permanent school funds in
new states and stimulated the older states
to set aside lands and to create permanent
school funds. (Edwards & Richey, 1947, p. 239)
Education was thus left to the states.
By 1828, almost all the states had created
permanent school funds whose income was to supplement
local funds. Except in New York and New England, however,
support was confined to elementary education and for the
children of the poor. The curriculum was severely
restricted to reading, writing, and a little arithmetic.
Again, the similarity to the development of public
education in England is seen in this quotation from
Edwards and Richey (1947):
A proposal to offer a more advanced program
free of charge and open to all would have been
regarded by those in whose hands wealth and
political power were concentrated, as an extrava
gance, or waste, a step toward bankrupting the
country, a threat to the social order, and even
perhaps a downright robbery which placed a
penalty upon thrift and which encouraged
indolence. (p. 248)
During the 1840s Horace Mann, Henry Barnard, and
John D. Pierce were early advocates of universal, free
education. Although that idea of universal education
supported by a tax on all property was taking hold in the
different states and regions, everywhere the change was
slow in coming.
58
The first American infant school was founded in
Boston in 1818, with the purpose of teaching the children
to read so they could be admitted to the town schools.
Massachusetts was the first state to pass a
statewide compulsory attendance law in 1852; Mississippi
the last in 1918. There was passed in 1855, also in
Massachusetts, a law ending school discrimination in the
public and district schools based on "race, color or
religious opinions of the applicant or scholar" (Cohen,
1973-74, p. 1711). The applicant denied admission could
recover damages.
By 1870, gradedness was the norm in American
schools. Anderson (1973) wrote that the movement toward
free public schools in rapidly industralizing England had
a strong influence on American education.
The decades around the turn of the twentieth
century saw much expansion in the spread of universal
education in the United States. However, by 1900, only
about 8 percent of the post-eighth grade age children
were students in secondary schools.
John Dewey considered Francis W. Parker to be the
father of Progressive Education. Parker, after much
travel and study in Holland, Germany, Sweden, France, and
Italy, became the superintendent of schools in Quincy,
Massachusetts, in 1873. His focus was on the child rather
than on the subject. This "progressive education" which
59
has come to be associated with John Dewey, was part of
broad social and political changes which originated during
the decades of growth immediately after the Civil War and
around the turn of the twentieth century, when education
became one of the avenues to realizing the promises of
American life. Perrone in Roots of Open Education in
America (Dropkin & Tobier, 1976) wrote that "John Dewey,
more than any other person, gave the reform movement
intellectual leadership" (p. 179) . Dewey founded the
Laboratory School through the University of Chicago in
1896— and by the time he left for Columbia in 1904, it "had
become the most interesting experimental venture in
American education" (Cremin, 1964, p. 136).
Cremin wrote that progressive education "was part
of a vast humanitarian effort to apply the promise of
American life . . . to the puzzling new urban-industrial
civilization that came into being during the latter half
of the nineteenth century" (1964, p. viii).
This meant expanding the program of the school to
include concern for health, vocation, and quality of
community and family life. It meant applying the growing
body of research in psychology and the social sciences in
the classroom. It meant instructing the many kinds and
classes of children who were entering the school.
Progressive education involved individualization
of instruction, student initiative, integrated learning,
60
creative expression, spontaneity, and community. It had
great impact on the organized teaching profession and on
public and private education at all levels in the United
States.
All histories of open education cited the eight-
year study, sponsored by the Progressive Education
Association and published in 1942, involving 1,475
graduates of 30 progressive high schools. Perrone (in
Roots, 1975) wrote: "Matched person for person, the
graduates of the progressive schools tended to out
distance their non-progressive school peers on almost all
of the academic and social dimensions studied" (p. 185).
Progressive education died in the decade following
World War II. While the War contributed to the develop
ment of open education in Britain, it contributed to the
dormancy of progressive education in the United States.
Anderson (1973) wrote that the conservatism and the
resistance of school administrators and teachers were
among the main causes for its decline. It may be that the
"remarkable diversity of American education" (Cremin,
p. x) also had something to do with the decline, as it did
with the fact that there was no capsule definition of
progressive education because it meant different things
to different people.
There are other salient dates and events in the
history of American public education, such as the Russian
61
launch of Sputnik in 1957, which resulted in the National
Defense Education Act of 1958 and federal dollars to
education; the Supreme Court decision of 1954 against
racially segregated public schools; the Elementary and
Secondary Education Act of 1965, which resulted in a
massive infusion of categorical federal funds into
compensatory, bilingual, vocational, and alternative
education; the enactment of PL 94-142, in 1975, which
provided for education for all handicapped children and
led to changes in educational practice in all parts of the
country. But they are not directly related to the
progress of open education in the United States.
Bronson Alcott and Henry David Thoreau are
considered pioneers in American open education by the
practitioners and writers at the Workshop Center for Open
Education, associated with the City College of New York
(Delano, 1978) . They both had definite ideas about
education based on their own childhood experiences. They
both set up their own schools after initial teaching
experience in public "town" schools. Those initial
experiences were in one-room schoolhouses in the 1830s,
in Connecticut and Massachusetts, where rote learning and
discipline by flogging were the rule. However, they both
believed that experience and imagination were very
important in learning. There were trips in the neighbor-
hood to study botany and history; there were much story
62
telling and conversation; writing was important. They
both knew how crucial is contact between home and school.
They never used the term "open education," but they
practiced it.
Other antecedents of open education were discussed
by their practitioners and historians in Dropkin and
Tobier, The Roots of American Open Education (1976).
Africa Free Schools began in New York in 17 86 to
teach free blacks and apprenticed slaves survival skills.
Cotton Mather was involved in this enterprise in Virginia.
These schools taught black history during and after the
Civil War to black adults.
Again in the non-public sector were the schools
established for working men who agitated for public
education. They began in the 1820s; the more well-known
schools were started during the Depression in New York
and drew their intellectual energy from Dewey.
The Settlement Houses were community centers where
neighborhood people came together to identify and solve
common problems. They developed around the turn of the
twentieth century. Among their functions they taught
English to immigrants, and they established nurseries and
day-care centers. In New York City, they were more
recently involved in mini-schools and even now still
provide tutoring.
63
The Shule or "Folkshule" was established in New
York City by worker-Zionist organizations before World
War I among the immigrant Jews. The curriculum included
Yiddish language and literature and Jewish history.
Children attended these schools after school or on the
weekends. The movement spread throughout the United
States after the War.
Kindergartens were started in New York in 1873 by
several inspired teachers, who were greatly influenced by
Froebel.
One-room schoolhouses were prevalent in the North
and South during the mid- and late 1800s. The community
provided the land and building and the county or town
provided the teachers, who could be fired by the parents.
Students taught each other in a group ranging in size from
30 to 60. Grades one through eight were included and
4-year-olds who could get to school were welcomed in the
South. In both North and South there was much parent
participation.
The Highlander Folk School in the mountains of
eastern Tennessee grew out of the Depression. It was
established to use adult education to change society, to
deal with adult problems regardless of sex or race. Rosa
Parks studied there for three months before she refused
to move to the back of the bus in Montgomery in 1955.
64
They also established nursery schools, especially during
the Depression. Many of their unpopular ideas are now
the law.
During the Depression, also, artists taught at the
Gramercy Boys Club in New York City under the auspices of
the College Art Association, financed by the Works
Progress Administration (WPA). Many of those students are
now teachers and artists.
In New York City, at the turn of the twentieth
century, there were several privately financed schools
based on progressive education. One of these became the
Bank Street College, now a well-known school and teacher
training institution.
One of the greater influences on the development
of open education in the United States were the American
practitioners and writers who visited the informal
classroom of England and attempted to explain them to
their American colleagues. The-sections on definition and
philosophical bases of open education in this investiga
tion have presented some of the more important names in
that process.
Last to be mentioned in this section on the roots
of open education in the United States are three
institutions which currently promote and disseminate its
study and practice.
65
The Education Development Center in Newton,
Massachusetts "was established in 1958 to develop new
ideas and methods for improving the content and process
of education" (Elementary Science Study, The ess reader,
1970, Preface). It is a private, non-profit corporation,
whose funds for the various projects came from the
National Institute of Mental Health, National Endowment
for the Humanities, National Science Foundation, the Ford
and Sloan Foundations, USOE, U.S. Agency for Inter
national Development, and various school systems.
When the Education Development Center (EDC) was
first established, its work was a particular science
project. There are now over 20 projects, each with its
own funding, director, and staff. The projects fall into
these major areas: social studies, science/math, open
education, media, international and special projects.
Two EDC contributions to the literature of open
education have been particularly helpful to the present
writer. The Walberg and Thomas Characteristics of Open
Education (1971) provided much material for thinking.
Analysis of an Approach to Open Education (1970)
is a report of a study funded by the U.S. Office of
Education and carried out by members of the Early
Education Research Group at Educational Testing
Service (ETS) in cooperation with members of the
advisory staff at Education Development Center
(EDC) who are sponsoring one of the educational
programs in Project Follow Through. (p. 1)
66
The study was an attempt to create a conceptual model of
open education that would allow and encourage evaluation
and research.
The Workshop Center for Open Education was
established by Lillian Weber, in 1967, from her base as a
professor at the City College of New York, and is housed
there. She is one of those knowledgeable American
visitors to England who brought back an important product.
A sister organization, the City College Advisory Service
to Open Corridors, started functioning in 1970, holding
after school and weekend classes and annual summer
institutes for public school teachers who wanted to "open"
their classrooms. The Workshop publishes position papers,
curriculum bulletins, and occasional papers as well as the
quarterly Notes.
Vito Perrone became the Dean of the Center for
Teaching and Learning of the University of North Dakota
in 1968, when it had been called the New School of
Behavioral Studies in Education. The re-organization in
1972 brought together the departments of Education and
Library Science and elements from the College of Arts and
Sciences and Fine Arts. The Center is a college program
concerned with alternative approaches to teacher
education, elementary school classrooms, and university-
school-community relationships. It publishes a bulletin
eight times during the academic year called "Insights into
67
Open Education," as well as occasional papers. It has
been deeply involved in federal Follow Through programs.
What is the future of open education in the United
States? That question is obviously part of the larger
questions: What is happening to the American society?
What are the political, economic, and social currents
governing the planet Earth? One answer emerges in Nash's
article in Roots (Dropkin & Tobier, 1976), based on a
presentation in April 1975:
The chief enemy of open education . . . is
fear. Fear has many allies, one of the most
important being inflation. Inflation means
working harder this year than last year to stay
in the same place. . . .But to increase your
salary every year means pleasing someone in
authority over you. It means subordinating,
perhaps ingratiating, yourself, and developing
a whole congeries of attitudes and procedures
regarding authority that are the enemies of
self-actualization, self-confidence, independence,
and interdependence. Therefore, in times of
inflation or economic recession, it is very hard,
and has been very hard, to nurture open education,
because in these times the forces of fear are
strengthened. What we get in such times is the
consequences of the strengthening of fear. (p. 128)
And in the political, economic, and social
circumstances of 1982, what opportunities are there for
the practice of open education?
68
The Teacher in Open Education
The separation between the definition of open
education and the description of the behavior and
activities of the teacher in that setting was very
difficult, if not impossible, to make. The distinction
was made, therefore, arbitrarily, for the purposes of this
investigation. (In the same way, the decision on the use
of tense in this presentation was difficult to make,
because the statements described observations which have
already been made. Yet, these observed teachers and other
open educators are now functioning in the described
manner. In reporting specific studies, the past tense was
used; in making general descriptive statements, the
present tense was used.)
At the outset, it is important to talk about
numbers. Atkins, in Rogers and Church (1975), stated
that about one-third of the British primary schools use
the informal classroom. Featherstone and Cohen (1968)
confirmed this percentage. Rogers in Rogers and Church
(1975) wrote that "only a tiny percentage of America*s
classrooms are or have been truly open" (p. 101).
Arnstine, in Nyberg (1975), agreed with him. Bennett
(1976) wrote that only 17 percent of British teachers
practice open education. This investigator has found in
the literature no statement contradicting these estimates.
69
Cohen (1977), of the Bank Street College in New
York City, made a presentation in 1973, in which she gave
a precise yet full description of the role of the teacher
in open education. Her statements are confirmed in the
records of practitioners, the commentaries of authors,
and the observations of researchers. Because her
presentation was so clear and appropriate, it is quoted
extensively here.
It must . . . be stated at the- outset that at
the heart of the concept of the open classroom is
the living teacher, a thinking, feeling, exploring,
sometimes fumbling, always questioning, deeply
committed-to-children human being. . . .
If we could speak of one thing that most
qualifies the role of the teacher in an open
classroom, it is the capacity for using judgment,
judgment in making decisions, in retracting
decisions, and in assessing what the teacher and
the children are in need of learning as a constant
element in their lives. . . .But there is no package
one can buy labeled good j udgment. . . .
There is no model. The role cannot be
methodically reproduced or imitated. The vital
force is a creative, flexible, and intelligent
response to developing situations as these involve
people and ideas. It is not laissez faire and it
is not amorphous. There is, and there must be,
structure; there are, and there must certainly
be, boundaries. But the structure serves the
possibilities for openness, and the boundaries
are flexible. Both are subject to analysis and
change as the requirements of the learning demand
change. . . .
The teacher in the open classroom is an
authority, but in the most far-reaching sense.
She knows more than the children, and she has
access to resources the children cannot dream
of. She is impartial in a way that children
cannot yet be, and so she is the guarantor of
justice for everyone.
The teacher in the open classroom is not
authoritarian, however. Her power is not drawn
70
from status, from the ruler in her hand or the
backing of the principal down the hall. Her
power is in the children's dependency on her,
and she does not abuse that power. She respects
children and she asks for respect in turn. . . .
The teacher in the open classroom does not
hesitate to show her feelings within socially
acceptable bounds; but by the same token, she
accepts the feelings of children and asks that
they be within socially acceptable bounds too. . . .
The teacher in the informal classroom is an
enabler and expeditor. She organizes the room
for productive interaction of people with each
other and with materials and ideas. The physical
structure and layout of a room thus supports its
ideology. . . .The open classroom tolerates the
ambiguity and incompleteness of process in the
important areas of thought and feeling. But the
practical implementations for work cannot be
either ambiguous or incomplete. If you can't
find a pencil, you can't write a fine story. . . .
The teacher in the open classroom plans far
more independently and inclusively than tradi
tional teachers ever did.
The teacher in the open classroom must be
able to assess the development of children she
teaches along many dimensions— academic ones, of
course, but also on social, emotional, and physical
aspects of growth. . . .The teacher must know the
learning styles that are characteristic of the
children she teaches and the quality of their
interaction with others, herself included. She
must also know what they come to school with in
the way of total life experiences and what they
are interested in.
Thus, evaluation in the open classroom begins
and continues with the teacher's perceptions, not
with scores on standardized tests . . . .
In this way, the process of a child's learning
is evaluated, and not only the end product. . . .
And finally, the role of the teacher involves
interaction with colleagues in establishing a
school climate of which her class is a part.
(pp. 3-10)
In their attempt to find an operational definition
of open education, Walberg and Thomas (1971 and 1972)
described the behavior of the teacher also. They searched
71
the literature on open education and derived eight themes.
Each theme was defined by a set of characteristics.
Twenty-nine nationally prominent open educators,
researchers, and observers were surveyed for their
agreement or disagrement, and comments. From the revised
list were developed a Classroom Observation Rating-Scale
and a parallel Teacher Questionnaire. These two
documents were tested in 20 British open classrooms, 21
American open classrooms, and 21 American traditional
classrooms. The sites were balanced for lower and higher
SES. The data revealed very great differences between
open and traditional teachers for all eight themes. The
differences between open and traditional teachers were far
greater than between schools of different SES or between
schools in Great Britain and the United States.
The eight themes with a sampling of the
characteristics of each here presented provide an
operational definition-description of open education as
well as of the activities of the teacher.
Theme I: Provisioning for Learning. The teacher
provides a rich and responsive physical and emotional
environment. Manipulative materials are supplied in
great diversity and range with little replication
. . . and children work directly with them. . . .
The environment includes materials developed by
teacher and children and common environmental
materials. . . .The teacher permits and encourages
children's use of materials in ways he had not
forseen and helps to move activity into useful
channels. . . .Children move freely about the room
without asking permission. . . .Many different
72
activities generally go on simultaneously. . . .
Children help one another. . . .The teacher
occasionally groups children for lessons directed
at specific immediate needs.
Theme II: Diagnosis of Learning Events. The
teacher views the work children do in school as
opportunities for him to assess what the children
are learning, as much as opportunities for children
to learn. In diagnosis, the teacher pays attention
not only to the correctness of a child's response
or solution, but also to the understanding and
reasoning processes which lead the child to the
particular response or solution. . . .Errors are
seen as a valuable part of the learning process
because they provide information which the teacher
and child can use to further the child's learning. .
. .Children do not always depend on teacher
judgment; they are also encouraged to diagnose
progress through the materials they are working
with. . . .
Theme III: Instruction-Guidance and Extension
of Learning. The teacher acts primarily as a
resource person who, in a variety of ways,
encourages and influences the direction and growth
of learning. The teacher uses the child's inter
action with materials, equipment, and his environment
as the basis of his instruction. . . .The teacher
avoids whole class assignments, instead amplifies
and extends the possibilities of activities children
have chosen, through conversation, introduction of
related materials, direct instruction when warranted,
and assignments appropriate to individual needs. . . .
The approach to learning is interdisciplinary. . .
the child is not expected to confine himself to a
single subject, such as mathematics, when learning.
Theme IV: Humaneness-Respect, Openness and Warmth.
The teacher promotes an atmosphere of warmth, open
ness, and respect for one another. The teacher
respects each child's personal style of operating,
thinking and acting. . . .The teacher demonstrates
respect for each child's ideas by making use of them
whenever possible. . . .The teacher respects each
child's feelings by taking them seriously. The
teacher recognizes and does not try to hide his own
emotional responses. . . .Conflict is recognized and
worked out within the context of the group, not
simply forbidden or handled by the teacher alone. .
. .The teacher recognizes and admits his limitations
when he feels unable to give a child the help he needs
73
Theme V: Reflective Evaluation of Diagnostic
Information. The teacher subjects his diagnostic
observations to reflective evaluation in order to
structure the learning environment adequately.
Standardized, grade-level, or age-level "norms of
performance are not used for evaluating children
or children"s work. . . .Evaluation of a child's
school experience is not accomplished by looking
at data collected in a single situation or series
of experiences; that is, evaluation of the effect
of a child's school experience covers a long range
of time, more than a year. - . . .The teacher, keeps.
a collection of each child* s work and makes use of
it for his own evaluation of the child and to
encourage his self-evaluation.
Theme VI: Seeking Opportunity to Promote Growth.
The teacher seeks activities outside the classroom
to promote personal and professional growth. The
teacher seeks information about new materials. . . .
The teacher seeks further information about the
community and its physical and cultural resources. .
. .The teacher enjoys ongoing communication with
other teachers about children and learning.
Theme VII: Assumptions-Ideas about Children and
the Process of Learning. The teacher's assumptions
about children, the process of learning, and the
goals of education are generally humanistic and
holistic. Teachers are aware of and respect the
child's individuality and his capacity to direct
his own learning. . . .Individual children often
learn in unpredicted ways, at their own rate, and
according to their own style. . . .Work and play
should not be distinguished in the learning process
of children because play is a child's way of
learning. . . .The child must be valued as a human
being, and treated with courtesy, kindness, and
respect. . . .Fear of making mistakes or of not
doing well impedes a child's progress in learn
ing. . . .Objectives of education should include,
but go beyond literacy, dissemination of knowledge,
and concept acquisition.
Theme VIII: Self-perception. The teacher is a
secure person and a continuing learner. . . .The
teacher sees his own feeling as an acceptable part
of the classroom experience. . . .The teacher sees
himself as one of many sources of knowledge and
attention in the classroom. . . .The teacher feels
comfortable working without predetermined lesson
plans and set curricula or fixed time periods for
subjects, (pp. 95; 100-106)
74
Another attempt to describe the teacher in open
education was made by Amarel, Bussis, Chittenden, and
Tanaka (1970) by observing the teachers and interviewing
the teachers, advisors, and parents in the Follow Through
Program of the Education Development Center of Newton,
Massachusetts. The authors produced an "Analysis of
Behaviors Tentatively Proposed as Defining Characteristics
of the 'Open Teacher'" (pp. 28-49). They divided the
characteristics into three broad categories: the teacher's
internal frame of reference, the teacher's activities when
children are not present, and the teacher's interactive
behaviors with children.
The teacher's internal frame of reference includes
her ideas about children and how they learn as well as her
perception of her self. The perception of self includes
a "beyond the classroom" self (p. 31); how she views the
scope of her responsibility; her function as a decision
maker; and her activities as a continual learneri (See
also Dropkin, 1977, which describes some of the teacher's
learnings at Summer Institutes of the Workshop Center for
Open Education of the City College of New York.)
The second category, the teacher's activities
when children are not present, includes three important
aspects. The first, provisioning for learning, emphasizes
the teacher's responsibility for providing the environment
and the necessity that he understand the potential value
75
of the materials and activities placed there. The second
activity in this category involves the teacher's
"reflective evaluation of diagnostic information" (p. 41).
The third factor is the teacher's activity to promote his
personal growth. This includes interaction with other
teachers and adults connected with the teaching situation;
pursuit of information about the community surrounding the
school; and perhaps most important, involvement or growth
in some purely personal interest, outside of school.
The third category, interactive behaviors with
children, includes five factors. They, like much of this
analysis, agree with the previously presented work of
Walberg and Thomas. The five are; diagnosis of learning
events, guidance and extension of learning, honesty of
encounters, respect for persons, and warmth.
In a follow-up to the above analysis, Bussis,
Chittenden and Amarel (1976) studied the curriculum
priorities of 60 practicing open educators in four north-
eastern cities of the United States. The investigators
developed an interview format which takes about two-and-a-
half hours to administer. The 60 teachers revealed five
major concerns in the cognitive area:
Reflectivity and Intention. Concern that
children know "what they are about" and "why."
Concern that children think through what they
are doing, understand (in their own terms) what
they are doing. . . .
76
Construct/Discover/Pursue Interest, Concern
that children sustain an involvement in meaningful
activity (as defined from the child"s perspective)
that leads to new knowledge/insights/constructions.
Cognitive Perspective♦ Concern that children
encounter and come to value diverse areas of learning
and the phenomena involved in them— e.g., music,
art. . . .
Proficiency/Competency Outcomes. Concern that
children become versatile and proficient in one or
more curricular content areas. Concern that the
quality of work is high.
Exchange/Share/Reciprocity. Concern with the
reciprocity process in learning. Emphasis on
children learning from each other (not just asking
other children for answers). Active interchange
of ideas, or group projects where each child
contributes uniquely. (pp. 191-192)
The two major concerns of the six identified in
the personal/social area were:
Awareness and Acceptance of Self: Emotions/
Abilities. Concern that children come to recognize
and differentiate their feelings and abilities and
accept them as legitimate and worthwhile. Knowing
self and experiencing self-respect in order to cope
better with life. '
Social Problem-solving/Appreciation of Others.
Concern with mutual respect/sensitivity for others *
feelings and ideas. Concern that•children interact
and negotiate so as to work through group and
interpersonal problems. (p. 193)
In an essay-review of the Bussis et al. work cited
previously, Wenkert (1977) discussed the dangers of
specialization. Investigators become so specialized, he
wrote, that they do not know much about anything else.
For example, the authors Bussis et al. (1976) used much
of their book to justify the interview as a research
technique. Wenkert said that it needs no justification:
it is accepted. But because the investigators were so
77
specialized and did not know better, they did not use the
technique to its full potential.
From their experiences working with learning
groups and from their readings in Rokeach, Hart and
Maslow, Brown and Gross (1979) described the open teacher
thi s way:
Who is the open teacher? A person who knows
self and is highly knowledgeable of how people
learn. A person who is aware of prevailing social
and political norms and values in the school-
community and through meaningful dialogues works
at the cutting edge of bringing about change toward
greater openness. One who believes in and values
the contributions of each and every person in the
learning process. The open teacher is proactive,
adaptive, a creative problem-solver, an implementer,
a facilitator, a diffuser, an innovator, directed
from within, trusting and trusted, expects the best
from self and others, demands the best from self
and others, and enjoys. This person is high in
empathy, commitment, security, and intimacy and
is self-rewarded through the success of the
learner— the teacher's reason for being in the
first place. (p. 12)
Rosenblum (1971) suggested that the open education
teacher takes risks, models realness, knows herself,
takes pleasure in learning, cognitively understands
growth and interpersonal relations, deals in the here and
now, accepts and owns himself, and takes responsibility.
It is generally agreed that it takes from three
to five years* experience in the open classroom setting
for an individual teacher to function comfortably. This
is true because the teacher is responsible for deciding
how to make the curriculum (that is, the environment)
78
accessible and responsive to the interests and needs of
individual students. Weber described the teacher's
responsibility in this way:
The adult has the role of correcting a child's
misconceptions, of offering new possibilities, of
suggesting new variants for trial, of sharing, as
it fits, his own wider experiences of transmitting
in this way, the culture and the language. (1971,
p. Ill)
The themes of Walberg and Thomas (1970 & 1971),
the characteristics of Amarel et al. (1970), and the
concerns of Bussis et al. (1976) are reflected in the
classroom behaviors and activities of the open educator.
The teacher spends a great deal of time talking with
individual children and small groups; these extended and
brief interactions carry the bulk of the instructional
load. The verbal interchanges allow the teacher to serve
as model for the children. The teacher is consistently
polite; listens and expects to be listened to carefully;
is patient and willing to wait for a sign of interest to
reinforce; questions and reminds in such a way as to
develop the attitude of inquiry, to encourage child self-
directions, and to recognize accomplishment and success;
and expects the children to help each other.
The planning of the open classroom teacher
includes differential plans for each child, based on
observation of that individual's approach to the classroom
environment and his level of development as revealed in
79
the use of materials and solutions to problems. The
teacher-prepared activity or work cards for each center
or area do not take the place of teacher-child discussion
or child-initiated work; the cards are kept up-to-date and
made by the children also (Ahlgren & Germann, 1977; Howes,
1976; Resnick, 1972; Sealey, 1977; Weber, 1971).
This description of the open education teacher:,
thus far has not explicitly discussed the kinds of
documentation involved in the day-by-day work. Sargent
(1972) kept a journal of her activities during the 1968-69
academic year. It includes diagrams of floor plans—
because the space changed— as well as descriptions of the
centers: materials, activities, and participation. There
are also comments illustrating her reflective evaluation
of behaviors and materials. Thus the book forms a
revealing practical example of much of the descriptions
appearing in this section of this investigation.
Perrone is also concerned about documentation.
In the April 1977 issue of 'Insights' Into Open Education,
Perrone described two kinds of documentation: one, a
process for classroom/program evaluation; the second, a
process for personal/professional learning. Under the
first, the teacher would be interested in the content and
context of the child*s learning, for example. The second
would involve an examination by the teacher of his own
80
practice and classroom. Perrone was concerned that
documentation be systematized some how, for maximum
usefulness. He referred to Dewey's idea that teachers
become "students of learning"; this method would prove
helpful in reaching that objective.
In an earlier issue of Insights Into Open
Education (November 1974) Perrone had also discussed the
importance of teachers' reflective examination of their
practice through careful documentation. He also
emphasized that his experience had demonstrated that
teachers take from three to five years to develop into
good open educators.
In the September 1976 issue of Insights Into Open
Education was presented a more formalized way for teachers
to reflect on their professional growth. The workbook
described in the article, Staff Development Workbook for
Classroom Teachers and Principals, was organized around
six components ("Awareness and Reflection," "Trust,"
"Opportunities for Growth," etc.), each with questions to
ponder and activities to pursue.
One final description of the teacher in the
English informal classroom from an often-quoted source,
Brown and Precious (1968), is offered by way of summary.
They wrote that teaching is a vocation, that the teacher
should be working in the schools because she thinks that
it's worthwhile. It is essential that the teacher have a
81
life outside the school, to contribute to the personality
and to preserve freshness of outlook. The teacher needs
to be intelligent, well-trained, adjusted, sympathetic,
resilient, sensitive to others; to have a sense of humor
and common sense; and to be aware of his own personal
limitations and capabilities. The teacher should know
the difference between love and identification and
encourage the latter from the children.
The teacher in the informal classroom has several
responsibilities: to create a relaxed atmosphere based on
trust, understanding, and mutual respect; to observe the
children, discover their individual idiosyncrasies, become
aware of their needs; develop a relationship with each
child. "There is a communication in the good teacher-
child relationship which is indefinable" (Brown &
Precious, 1968, p. 27). The teacher must also be ready
to concede that she is not always right. The teacher is
in charge of the classroom, responsible for its environ
ment. While the teacher interacts with individual
children whenever possible to ascertain and meet their
developmental needs, the children discover their own
questions and conclusions. From this knowing of the
children and his own experience, the teacher knows when
to intervene. From her diagnosis of the individual
child's difficulties, the teacher is able to offer
82
appropriate aid in the social, emotional, or intellectual
domain. And last, the teacher is involved in constant
assessment of the individual child, in written and dated
records, in order to determine that child's needs.
As is to be expected in a young field, there is
not very much reasearch on the teacher in an open
education setting, although the results of several larger
studies have more recently entered the literature since
this investigation was begun in 1976.
In the first attempt to examine the construct
validity of Barth's assumptions (1972), Coletta (1973 &
1975) said that the personality characteristics of the
teachers of poor children should be carefully considered.
Coletta found that open education teachers .assessed
children intuitively and that they believed that learning
occurred through exploration.
In a second study, Coletta (1975) discovered no
significant personality differences between high- and low
rated, open and traditional primary teachers. He used a
modified form of the Walberg-Thomas Classroom Observation
Rating-Scale (1971) to select the high- and low-rated open
education teachers. All 30 subjects were administered the
Edwards Personal Preference Schedule and the Thurstone
Temperament Schedule. Among the recommendations of the
study was the suggestion that other personality instruments;
83
be used in future investigations, since it is possible
that neither instrument used here was sensitive enough.
In a study designed to measure the relationship
between the Fundamental Interpersonal Relations
Orient a t'ion-Behavior (FIRO-B) by Schutz, and the teaching
style of professional elementary school teachers rated on
a continuum of traditional to open, the sample included
15 open educators, 11 open traditional teachers, and 17
traditional teachers. McNeilly and Wichman (1974) found
that the open education teachers enjoyed initiating
interpersonal activities, while the traditional teachers
preferred to be the recipients of the interaction. Also,
the traditional teachers wanted to be included by other
people, and to be influenced and controlled by others to
a greater degree than did the open education teachers.
Feitler, Wiener, and Blumberg(1970) also used the
FIRO and their own Teaching and Learning Preference
Questionnaire. Their sample was 272 graduate and under
graduate students in Syracuse University*s School of
Education, most of whom had had teaching experience. The
investigators discovered that persons with high control
needs chose structured seating with the teacher in the
control position; while those with low control needs
opted for the teacher in a physical position of less
obvious control. The investigators suggested that much
more research is needed.
84
Elofson (1973) designed a study for portrayal and
analysis, rather than generalizability. She observed and
worked with teachers ,in two Washington, D.C., urban
schools for eight weeks between April and June 1973,
using Walberg*s Classroom Observation Rating Scale (CORS)
(1971) to determine the extent of openness. Of the 33
teachers in both schools, six teachers, one student
teacher, and one principal participated in the study; half
of the 30 planned observations were cancelled; the
observations and interviews were done within a very short
period of time--so any outcome statements were based on
minimal study. The author made two generalizations,
however: the principal acted as a buffer between the
teachers and the community, open education is hard work
and the teacher must be patient with herself and the
children, and the teacher must be willing to work. The
final comment was that the development of an open
education teacher takes three to five years.
Applebee (1976) also used the CORS. She conducted
two studies to contrast formal and informal teaching
practices in open plan and conventional classrooms.
Sample I included 12 teachers in informal classrooms;
Sample II included 30 teachers, 13 of whom had "mixed"
styles. In addition to the CORS, teacher questionnaires
were administered and pupil interviews conducted.
Applebee found that formal teachers used class teaching
85
significantly more than informal teachers; that there was
significantly more teacher talk in the formal classrooms,
where children were expected to be quiet; that formal
teachers were at the front of the room or at their desks
and they provided no framework for pupil choice. On the
other hand, in the informal classrooms, there was
opportunity for pupil choice in situations structured so
that many activities occurred simultaneously; there was
significantly more movement at the pupil’s discretion;
pupil talk was more valued— more than 80 percent of the
language to which pupils attended was from peers; there
was significantly more small group work. According to
the author, "The use of various groupings and the provision
of a framework for pupil choices successfully discriminated
among teaching styles. . . ." (p. 3).
Clark (1976) chose 14 elementary schools in upstate
New York for his observation study. Seven of the schools
scored higher ("high outliers") in achievement than
predicted, and seven ("low outliers") lower. Nine
classes in each school were involved in the study. Seven
instruments, including the CORS, were used; some were
developed by the investigator; several were adaptations of
tests in the literature. Reading teachers, as separate
from the classroom teacher, worked with children in their
classroom settings; these persons also were administered
an interview, one of the seven instruments. The researcher
86
made no differentiations on the physical space and
facilities. A summary of the findings on the differences
between the teachers in the "high outlier" schools arid ..the
teachers in the "low outlier" schools:
1. "High outlier" teachers made less effort to
maintain class control, required less rigid student
behavior; however, they were more effective in maintaining
the level of control they appeared to want.
2. "High outlier" teachers were warmer, more
%
responsive, and placed more emphasis on the cognitive
development of their students.
3. "High outlier" teachers expected more of the
children in their classes to graduate from high school and
go to college, to become good readers and good citizens.
4. "High outlier" teachers saw their students as
more intelligent, better behaved, more pleasant to teach,
and as having more concerned parents.
5. There was no difference between high and low
outlier teachers in perceiving the availability of aid
from the administration.
6. "Children in reading classes in high outlier
schools engage in more salient reading, while children in
low outlier schools engage in more oral reading" (p. 10).
7. The reading teachers in "high outlier" schools
rated the reading program higher in using appropriate
87
materials, in extending reading into other areas, in
asking children to read with a purpose, and in using
informal diagnosis.
8. In grades one to three, "high outlier"
teachers used more positive and less negative reinforce
ment.
9. "High outlier schools appeared more open than
low outlier schools" (p. 10) .
10. The principals in "high outlier" schools
generally saw their personnel as more competent than
principals in "low outliers."
11. Principals in "high outlier" schools saw
themselves as having better rapport with teachers, pupils,
and parents than principals in "low outliers."
12. Principals in "low outlier" schools had better
rapport with the school boardi
Myers and Duke (1977) wrote their paper "Open
Education as an Ideology" after visiting 122 public
school elementary classrooms "reportedly engaged in open
education in the state of New York" (p. 227). They
visited, in 1976, urban, suburban, and rural schools in
all socioeconomic status levels. The authors encountered
teachers who professed to having open education classrooms
but exhibited no evidence of it. They commented that
Dewey*s progressive education and Goodlad's non-gradedness
met the same kind of problem.
88
On the difficulties of implementing open
education:
Unless considerable released time is provided
for teachers, there is no reason to believe that
open education will be widely adopted. It is
also safe to assume that students with experience
in non-open education classrooms also may require
time to adjust to the new form of organization,
interactions, and expectations of open education.
The fact that open education seems to require
extraordinary teachers is perhaps its major weakness
so far as its adoption and potential for improving
the education of students.
The tenderness and loving attitude of many
teachers in open education classrooms seems to go
beyond a high service orientation. There was much
hugging and touching in the classrooms visited. . .
it might be worth reflecting on the fact that open
education's emphasis on natural growth in an open
setting is not natural. . . .To be able to develop
naturally requires, ironically, much relearning
both by children, teachers, and parents. (p. 231).
The authors felt that open education teachers
seemed to work much harder than average traditional
teachers. And that is "a regrettable finding because it
is obvious that many teachers do not have the energy,
interest, or time to work hard" (p. 2 31). They found
that open education was being implemented more at the
elementary level than in the higher grades. They reported
that several teachers and principals acknowledge that
lower SES parents did not want to place their children in
open classrooms. They concluded that
Open education is a logically tenable ideology
that lacks the army of extraordinary teachers, the
knowledge of how changes can be effectively intro
duced, the broad-based active support of adminis
trators and citizens, and the conceptual clarity
89
to make it a realistic alternative for the
average public school. (p. 233)
Johnson and Page (1971) had a different point of
view in their report on the Selected Classroom Project
(SCP). Their basic premise was that any teacher, in
grades four through eight with five or more years of
experience and with the direct support of the Project
staff and a cooperative school setting, could change from
the standard teacher-centered classroom to an open or
student-centered one in a period of four months or less.
Certain essential elements needed to be present before a
successful change to a student-centered classroom could
occur:
1. Someone who understood the objectives and was
supportive must be available when needed.
2. Flexibility in using space and resources.
3. Clear communication between teachers, students,
administrators, and parents.
The more successful teachers in the Selected Classroom
Project exhibited the following characteristics:
a) five or more years of teaching experience
b) quite directive in previous teaching and
considered to have been successful by peers and
supervisors
c) tended to be firm and had clearly understood
rules
d) were considered demanding by students
e) considered themselves "Generalists" rather
than subject matter "Specialists"
f) were liked and respected by other staff
and administrators
90
g) showed obvious concern when listening to
others
h) were very open in relationships with others
i) conversed easily with students
j) worked cooperatively with staff members
when appropriate
k) responded in action to the needs of others
1) appeared to be confident of themselves
m) not easily rattled in a demanding situation
n) rarely reacted in extremes
o) behaved consistently in varying situations
p) were slow to change, but became firmly
committed to successes. (p. 2 8)
The conclusions Johnson and Page drew from their
study were:
1. Traditional teachers can plan and
implement open classrooms in a short period
of time if
-participation is voluntary
-they are experienced, emotionally mature
and have constructive relationships with students
-they have visible administrative support
-their advisors are frequently and personally
available
-they can form close relationships with and
are supported by advisors
-they retain conventional elements in order
to feel secure
-they start the program quickly, without
intellectualizing
-they are aided with specific means, e.g.,
procedures for goal-setting
-they are not alone (among teachers) making
the change
2. Conventional teachers changing to open
education will not be cured of personality
problems or bad habits.
3. Open classroom is not appropriate for
all students. (pp. 66-70)
Both Spodek (1970) and Schwartz (1974) discussed
the problems which teachers face in their attempts to
change their belief systems and behaviors. Schwartz
dealt thoroughly with the individual teacher's ability to
91
tolerate the anxiety which would come from attempting to
trust children to master their world; from more noise and
movement among the children; from the exploration of her
own beliefs; from assuming personal responsibility for
educational change; and from the amount of time and
effort required for such change on the teacher's part.
The Center for Teaching and Learning (CTL) of the
University of North Dakota has a commitment to provide
teachers with the opportunity to explore open education as
an alternative way of teaching. They published a series
of four research and evaluation projects based on their
program and open education in general (Patton, April 1974;
Landry, December 1974; Landry, October 1975; and Patton &
Campbell, September 1975). The first three volumes
compared CTL classrooms and non-CTL classrooms in North
Dakota; the last volume was a description-and-survey of
"the Follow Through approach" (p. 1) of CTL as practiced
in classrooms in Zuni, New Mexico; Great Falls, Montana;
and the Washington Triad Communities (Burlington-Edison,
Ferndale, Sedro Valley).
The researchers developed a questionnaire based
in part bn Walberg and Thomas (1970 & 1971). The 19-page
questionnaire consisted of 24 behavioral items and 27
attitudinal items, as well as items about the teachers*
perceptions of their classroom control. The questionnaire
92
was piloted in February 1972 with 15 teachers in two
North Dakota communities.
The questionnaire was revised in April 1972 and
sent by mail to a random 10 percent sample (344) of North
Dakota elementary teachers and to 49 CTL master's level
interns of 1971-72. Sixty-seven percent of the 344
teachers and 98 percent of the interns responded.
Before presenting the results, it is necessary to
give definitions used in the study. Individualization
means "the degree to which cognitive and affective
(emotional) needs of the individuals can be met, including
the degree to which children's needs can be made known
and dealt with openly" (Patton, April 1974, p. 4).
Centralization means
The degree to which decision-making is in the
hands of the teacher in the classroom, i.e. , the
degree to which the teacher makes decisions about
what happens in the classroom. The completely
centralized classroom is one where the teacher,
makes all of the decisions. The completely
decentralized classroom is one where the children
have total responsibility for what happens in the
classroom. (Patton, April 1974, p. 4)
Diversification means "the range of forms of
learning stimuli incorporated into the activities,
curriculum and experiences of the children in the class
room" (Patton, April 1974, p. 5).
Integration means
The degree to which the activities in the
classroom are interrelated together into a relatively
93
thematic whole whereby cognitive and affective
skill development occurs in the context of the
search for knowledge, information and under-
standing about the real world of the children.
(Patton, April 1974, p. 5)
Peer interaction means
The degree to which the activities, curriculum,
physical arrangement and organization of the
classroom contribute to peer interaction as an
experiential basis for children to learn from and
teach each other. (Patton, April 1974, p. 5)
A summary of the results of the first year’s
study:
1. CTL teacher’s classrooms are significantly
more individualized.
2. CTL teachers agree with (the questionnaire’s)
statements supporting individualization.
3. CTL teachers' classrooms are less centralized.
4. CTL teachers agree with statements supporting
decentralization.
5. CTL teachers are significantly less likely to
use textbooks.
6. CTL teachers are significantly more likely to use
story books and fiction; audio-media; games and
puzzles; art; drama; role-playing; movement;
manipulative materials and environmental/organic
stimuli.
7. CTL teachers' classrooms showed a significantly
higher degree of integration.
94
8. CTL teachers' classrooms showed a higher degree
of peer interaction.
9. CTL teachers held much more favorable opinions
about open education.
10. CTL teachers showed slightly more autonomy in
making decisions about their classrooms*
11. The status and role of the teachers as part of
the system was not different.
The researchers "suspect that the differences . .
found are a result of both teacher pre-disposition towards
open education and the real operating success of the CTL
program in training and preparing teachers to conduct
more open classrooms" (Patton, April 1974, p. 9).
Landry (December 1974) made the following
comparisons.
1. Comparison of the CTL internal classrooms of
1971-72, 1972-73 and 1973-74.
2. Longitudinal followup of the sample of 1971-72
interns, comparing baseline data to data collected
during the first post-intern teaching year (1973)
and the second (1974).
3. Longitudinal followup of the sample of 1972-73
interns, comparing that year to their first post
intern year (1974).
The questionnaire was sent in April-May 1974 to
1972, 1973, and 1974 master's level interns. Responses
95
were returned from 12 of the 1972 interns, 19 from 1973,
and 20 from 1974. In testing the null hypothesis, the
investigator found no differences among the three groups
in the first comparison.
In the second comparison, "the results indicate
that overall CTL graduates continue to conduct relatively
open classrooms as measured by the questionnaire items
for each dimension of openness" (Landry, December 1974,
p. 11).
On the last comparison, "for the most part the
similarities are quite striking" (Landry, December 1974,
p. 12).
In the third study (Landry, October 1975), a
comparison was made among the master's level interns of
1972, 1973, 1974, and 1975. The total number of
questionnaires involved in that analysis was 56. They
were compared, also, with a random sample of North
Dakota teachers. The findings, in summary:
1. The CTL interns had significantly more open
(in quality) classrooms than the teachers in
the N. D. sample.
2. The CTL interns maintained their commitment to
the practice of open education "but there is a
tendency for their overall attitude toward open
education to moderate" (Landry, October, 1975,
p. 14).
96
3. The CTL program has been consistent in emphasis
on open education for interns over the four-year
period.
The last monograph about the CTL program was
prepared by Patton and Campbell (September 1975). It
consists of the comments of teachers at all three Follow
Through sites, elicited in interviews over a four-year
period about the eight dimensions (decentralization,
informality, individualization, diversification, peer
interaction, integration, community resource use, and
teacher growth). It was "a description of variation"
(p. 101) in the physical, social, and learning
environments.
Follow Through was a federal program designed to
"carry through" the third grade, on the beginnings made
in Head Start. The CTL was one of the 22 nation-wide
organizations each of which provided a different model/
approach.
The basic premise of the Center*s educational
approach is that individual children are unique,
that they learn in their own ways and have their
own interests, needs and hopes. . . .Learning is
viewed as a personal matter varying with each
child and proceeding at different rates. (p. 2)
A sample of summary statements prepared by the
investigators follows:
On decentralization: "Several teachers mentioned
that the greater the variety of things to do and materials
97
to work with, the fewer discipline problems they
encountered" (p. 14). "Children* were initiating far more
activities and taking more responsibility for their own
learning as the year came to a close" (p. 7).
On individualization: "Teachers were generally in
touch with the children's growth and needs because of the
high degree of individualization. But they found
communicating that process difficult" (p. 37).
On diversification: "The degree to which teachers
used diverse methods of teaching various concepts and
subjects appeared to increase significantly over the four
years" (p. 51).
On peer interaction: "In being free to associate
with one another at all times and encouraged to share and
help, children become very cooperative in many ways and
less concerned with who is fastest or best" (p. 57).
"Children were very willing and conscious of helping each
other with academic and personal problems" (p. 61). "There
was a gradual shift of emphasis from a competitive
classroom to a more cooperative one" (p. 63).
On integration: "Teachers in the Zuni classrooms
described integration in the curriculum as an organic
process which occurs quite naturally due to the nature of
the program" (p. 70).
On teacher's goals and personal growth: "Support
from the administration and from the program was essential
98
in making significant changes in the classroom" (p. 90) .
The most frequently stated personal reward
from teaching in the CTL Follow Through program
was seeing children excited about learning and
actively engaging themselves in learning
experiences rather than passively absorbing
what was going on around them. This active and
curious atmosphere appeared to be dominant in
all the settings providing a great source of
satisfaction to teachers" (p. 16 0)
The Rand Corporation in Santa Monica, California,
was commissioned by the United States Office of Education
to examine four federally financed innovative projects to
promote educational change in public schools. This
investigation includes a brief summary of only one project,
ESEA Title IV. The Rand investigators developed their
questionnaire between July and October 1973. The summary
of results presented here is based on their first year of
work, July 1973 to July 1974. Of interest here are three
(of the five) school districts they studied, which
focused on strategies of informal education. Incidentally,
the Rand volumes covering these studies, Berman and
McLaughlin (1975) and Mann, McLaughlin, Baer, Greenwood,
McCluskey, Prusoff, Wint, and Zellmari (1975), included
much discussion about the great difficulties in changing
organizational behavior.
It is emphasized that the teachers involved in the
innovative projects were volunteers? and that generaliza
tions made here were self-perceived, that is, based on
99
questionnaires, even though the investigators did visit
the sites. The authors reported these changes in the
teachers:
1. Increase in cooperative behavior and teamwork.
2. Increase in "risk-taking behavior," or willingness
to try new ideas.
3. Willingness and ability to create new curriculum
materials.
4. Increase in sense of "professionalism" and pride
in accomplishments.
5. Change in actual and perceived: re 1 atlonship . wi:th
children (i.e., from "dispenser of knowledge" to
"facilitator of learning").
6. Better relations with parents.
Project teachers agreed that they could "never return to
the traditional classroom" (p. 17).
All the projects were supposed to have continued
to operate after the withdrawal of federal monies.
McGhan (1978) studied the teacher*s authority
style in a sample drawn from Michigan elementary schools,
grades four and five, during the 1974-75 academic year.
To determine the extent of openness, the author used the
Walberg and Thomas (1970 & 1971) CORS. Then he
administered surveys to the teachers and students at two
open elementary schools. The teacher survey was "Teacher
reported practices in controlling student activities"
100
(TOPEN) and the students responded to the equivalent
"Student report of teachers*use of authority” (SOPEN).
"A principal finding of this study is that a
limited degree of openness is present in Michigan
elementary schools" (p. 5). In fact, only 6.5 percent
of the surveyed schools could be described as "sometimes
to often open," while 93.4 percent could be said to be
"sometimes to seldom open." The author also found that
"somewhat more openness occurs with female teachers"
(p. 8). Another interesting result is that, "In general,
openness was lower in the classrooms of more experienced
teachers and higher in the classrooms of teachers who had
more training" (pv 8).
Khan and Traub (1980) studied 87 teachers in six
schools in Ontario, Canada. They differentiated between
open and traditional teachers as well as "open" and
traditional architecture. They used four scales,
developing several for their study and adapting several
items from previous scales. Their four scales were:
Attitude Toward Education, 39 items; Attitude Toward
Teaching, 27 items; Attitude Toward Pupils, 20 items; and
Attitude Toward Innovation, 22 items. The items from
these scales were arranged in scattered order on one
questionnaire; approximately half the items were
negatively worded. The teachers responded on a five-point
scale, the highest number (5) indicating the most
101
progressive/least traditional. To determine the extent of
openness in the program, the Dimensions of Schooling
Questionnaire (DISC), earlier developed by Traub et al.
(1972) was administered to teachers also. "Architectur-v
ally open" meant schools with few permanent walls and with
shared learning areas; self-contined classrooms were
classified as closed; and some form of combination was
called "mixed." The six schools of the study included
two of each architecture type; within the two, one
scored high on openness, the other low.
The findings revealed that the teachers in open
architecture schools with more open programs had the
highest scores on all the scales except "Attitude Toward
Teaching." The teachers with less open programs were
significantly lower on all the scales than teachers with
more open programs, no matter what the architecture. And
"schools with open architecture had higher mean scores on
all scales than the schools with either mixed or closed
architecture" (Khan & Traub, 1980, p. 9).
The authors found it difficult to interpret the
effects of open architecture on the scaled scores. It may
be a flaw in the design of the study; but they had no
choice in the availability of schools. They also felt
that the open teachers in an architecturally open school
may be unrepresentative of teachers at large.
102
In summary, then, the teacher*s behaviors and
activities in an open education setting have been
described from systematic observation in many such
settings. But, the educational history and the personal
philosophical stance which permit the individual teacher
to practice open education are not yet known.
The Advisory Function in.
Open Education
The structure of the advisory or teacher center,
the institution from which the advisor works, developed
in 1952 as part of the Office of the Local Education
Authority (LEA) under Clegg in Leicestershire, England.
He was looking for advisors who would work as encouragers
in patient, undoctrinaire, and non-authoritarian ways with
growing teachers (Clegg, 1971). The advisor is not an
inspector, does not make judgments nor report evaluations,
and is separate from sources of power. Her responsi
bilities are to teach teachers without pressure to conform
to any particular model; to spread worthwhile innovations
in her travels from school to school and classroom to
classroom; to work with teachers and children on a
practical, specific level; to talk to groups of parents;
and to organize workshops and discussion courses. The
advisor goes only where she is invited; her method is to
work with the teacher to help him develop his skills— in
other words, to work with teachers as an exemplar for
103
teachers1 work with children. The advisor thus works in
two sites: the individual teacher's classroom and a
central meeting place. All the studies (Amarel et al. ,
1970; Brown & Precious, 1968; Bussis et al., 1976;
Devaney, 1974; Spodek & Walberg, 1975) emphasized that the
advisor works with the teacher on specific questions and
problems in a "hands on" way rather than dealing with
theory; and that the teacher is an autonomous individual
who solicits support, not pressure.
In discussing the differences between American and
British education. Featherstone and Cohen (1968) remarked
on the role of the advisor:
The archetype of the class, although perhaps
not its most influential members, are the HMI1s,
the government inspectors, who in recent years
have stopped playing the role of educational
policemen in charge of enforcing standards and
instead have become advisors, agents for dis
seminating change and identifying good schools
and willing teachers. In what is perhaps an even
more important departure, local authorities have
set up similar groups, either formally or
informally: in some cases the work of local
inspectors has taken on an advisory character,
and a few exceptional authorities have set up
advisory offices with teams of teachers whose
sole responsibilities are to encourage and train
other teachers and interest them in trying out
new ideas. In some places head of schools seem
to fill the advisory role; there are infinite
variations. (pp. 326-327)
Devaney (1974) described the characteristics of
the advisor in English informal education:
1, He has mastered classroom teaching.
104
2. He has experience in teaching with naturalistic
open-ended learning materials.
3. He has an understanding of developmental learning
principles and has a talent for explicating them.
4. He has some depth in one area of curriculum or
scholarship.
5. He has enthusiasm to learn more, especially in
the area of his .personal interest; and has the
resourcefulness to communicate that enthusiasm
naturally.
6. He has confidence and leadership in working with
adults.
7. He has skills in interpersonal communication.
8. He prefers to be involved in other people's
growth, and not with budgets, etc.
9. He respects the teacher's individuality and
privacy.
In the late 1960s there developed in the United
States several advisories, either with foundation monies
or federal funds by way of the Follow Through Program.
The advisory of the Education Development Center in
Newton, Massachusetts, was organized under the leadership
of David Armington in 1968. Their emphases were on how
children learn, rather than what: on the teacher's own
specific every day events and problems; and on viewing
the teacher as an experimenter and decision-maker.
105
Some other American advisories are: Mountain View
Center for Environmental Education, at the University of
Colorado in Boulder; the Community Resources Institute in
the Bronx; the Creative Teaching Workshop in Manhattan was
part of the Boston-based Advisory for Open Education. The
Greater Boston Teachers Center was initiated by Edward
Yeomans of the National Association of Independent Schools
in 1971. The We11springs of Teaching (1969) is a des
cription of one of the many teacher workshops he organized.
This particular one was held at Shady Hill School,
Cambridge, Massachusetts, during July 1968. The purposes
of the workshop were
that some of the participants, at least, would
be able to look beneath the surface of their day-
to-day responsibilities and perhaps to discover
inner resources— the wellsprings of teaching— not
hitherto explored. We reasoned that the demands
upon teachers whose classrooms are designed in
the Leicestershire manner require a degree of
security that is reached only when there is
harmony at the deepest levels between the teacher
and the person. It would be futile to "train"
the one without helping to enlarge the experience
of the other. (p. 7)
and
another purpose of the workshop was to allow
teachers to become aware of the new security
which comes when a teacher is prepared to
become psychologically mature and accept the
facts of uncertainty and ambiguity. (p. 8)
and
for effective learning to take place teachers had
to make significant choices both in the content
of what was to be learned and in the regulation
of that learning. (p. 9)
106
The City College of New York (CCNY) Advisory
Service to Open Corridors was founded in 1970 by Lillian
Weber (Alberty & Dropkin, 1975). The advisor there begins
as an apprentice to experienced advisors who are working
in one of the New York City schools which has "changed"
to open education. She meets regularly with other
advisors to plan and share problems and attends a weekly
Advisory Development Session; she attends conferences and
visits schools in other parts of the world. An important
part of her apprenticeship is the encouragement she
receives to take risks and the consequent permission to
fail.
The (CCNY) advisor works in two schools with
teachers who are volunteers in the Open Corridor Program—
the CCNY open education program directed by Lillian Weber.
Among the advisor's many responsibilities: ongoing
discussions with principals, parents, and other teachers
about the framework of Open Corridor; helping teachers
re-organize their classrooms without telling them what to
do; observing the teachers to find their strengths and
interests and ways to support their growth; working in
the classrooms with children and thus modeling for the
teacher; acting as a sounding board for the teachers;
arranging for the teachers' visits to other classrooms.
The advisor also works with student-teachers and para-
professionals as well as with parents. The advisor is
107
involved in curriculum development by conducting workshops
and by helping individual teachers develop specific
curriculum tools. Through weekly meetings with the
administrator, the advisor acts as a liaison and is able
to stress that the teacher1s development takes place over
time. She also attempts to promote a sense of community
among the open corridor teachers and will work with
individual teachers and children in other parts of the
school.
In his discussion of the institutional elements
required for teachers to change to open education, Nyquist
and Hawes (1972) mentioned some of the services provided
by an advisory program:
1. The involvement of parents, teachers and
administrators at every step.
2. Meaningful in-service education activities
for teachers and other school personnel.
3. Built-in personal support for each teacher,
including the approval and encouragement of the
administrator,.at least one other teacher who
shares her attitude and goals, and hopefully,
someone similar to a "Teaching Head" coming into
the classroom as a coworker, not supervisor.
4. Patience to allow the philosophy to become
actualized through gradual development recognizing
the individuality of the teachers * learning as
well as the child's.
5. Tolerance of flexibility— even at times—
in regard to schedules, routines, use of space,
etc. (p. 90)
The Center for Teaching and Learning (CTL) of the
University of North Dakota trains teachers for open
education settings. Since the beginning of their program
in 1968, each student has been permitted to choose his own
108
advisor after becoming acquainted with the staff. Like
all aspects of open education, the relationship between
advisor and advisee is idiosyncratic to the particular
dyad. Weiss (1974) wrote about her experience as an
advisor. She felt that the two components of the
relationship were (1) the establishment of an individual
study program by the student; and (2) his self-evaluation.
In order to fulfill the responsibilities of the relation
ship, she first became acquainted with the advisee.
In Weiss*s analysis, the advisor plays the roles
of facilitator, counselor, colleague, and sometimes,
friend. She was also evaluated; she dealt with that role
by delegating the responsibility to the student himself,
and by knowing each student and his work well enough so
"that neither of us had surprises for the other" (Weiss,
1974, p. 4).
When the CTL became involved in the federally
funded Follow Through Program, a position was developed
called "permanent resource colleague." One was assigned
to each site. McCracken (1975) described one day during
her fourth year as resource colleague to 26 teachers in
the Washington Triad. (See the section on the teacher in
open education.) She demonstrated a spelling lesson with
a teacher and a small group of children; then she met
with that teacher privately to discuss followup activities.
During recess she discussed with the teachers their
109
activities since her last visit. Then she conducted a
formal demonstration with a whole class on increasing
vocabulary and concepts, after which she, the teacher,
and the aide worked with the children on their writing
followup to her demonstration. During lunchtime, she
shared her suitcase full of materials. After lunch she
demonstrated a short lesson with material from the
suitcase and then helped the teacher assess childrenfs
work and plan for the coming month. She then drove to
consult with the director of the Program, and returned to
the school for a discussion-meeting with the teachers and
the principal. Her activities, as she described them,
conform well to the more formal descriptions by
researchers.
Pederson (1979) described the establishment, in
1978, of the four teacher centers in the North Dakota
Teacher Center Network. The funds were provided by a
five-year grant from a private foundation and contributions
from the ND Education Association, the State Department of
Public Instruction, and local school districts and
colleges within the state. A teacher center
is a setting designed to provide continuing
education for practicing teachers in a manner that
is responsive to their own definitions of need. A
Center facilitates communication among teachers,;
provides opportunities for teachers to share
successes and concerns; supports teachers who wish
to implement new or different instructional
directions or strategies; encourages curriculum
and materials development; focuses on self-improvement
110
and provides a mechanism for identifying,
recognizing and utilizing the expertise of
teachers.
Workshops, seminars, lectures with
discussion, informal discussions, conferences,
and research activities are sponsored by the
Center as requested through the assessment of
teacher needs. Therefore, teachers have a
greater voice in determining their own
priorities for in-service in relation to the
learning needs of the students with whom they
work. (Pederson, 1979, p. 2)
A teacher center can thus be seen as an advisory
in a slightly different arrangement.
Weber (1971, pp. 153-154) described English
Teachers Centres as places where were gathered learning
materials, publications, and reports of research. "They
were often laboratories, giving teachers a chance to
become directly acquainted with learning materials,
immersing them, workshop fashion, in direct trials of new
methods" (p. 153).
The Teacher in the Conventional
Setting
The purpose of this section is to describe the
teacher in the conventional setting and thereby provide
some basis for comparing him to the teacher in the open
education classroom. In 1963, Getzels and Jackson wrote:
Despite the critical importance of the
problem and a half-century of prodigious
research effort, very little is known for
certain about the nature and measurement of
teacher personality, or about the relation
between teacher personality and teaching
effectiveness. (p. 574)
I l l
Walberg cited the same lack when he wrote in June
1970, "To my knowledge, no one has yet satisfactorily
defined or devised a measure of teaching effectiveness"
(p. 416).
Three of the more serious problems researchers
face in this area are the matter of definitions, the
choice of instrument, and the setting of criteria
(Getzels, 1955). What does "effective" teacher mean?
Does "effectiveness" have anything to do with personality?
How is effectiveness measured? Are children’s scores on
standardized tests a measure of teacher effectiveness?
How much progress should the children exhibit within a
specifiedi/period of time? Does the socioeconomic status
of the student have anything to do with teacher
effectiveness?
Rather than attempt to evaluate the conventional
teacher and the open educator, the investigator has
chosen to describe the behaviors of each in his own
educational setting. As complete a description as is
currently available of open educators was presented in
earlier pages of this study. In the following pages are
found several descriptions of elementary school teachers,
and a sampling of research on the American teacher, all
of which appeared before discussion of open education
entered the literature.
112
The Getzels and Jackson article (1963) is a review
of studies published in the 1950s on teacher personality
and characteristics.
The personality.of the teacher is a significant
variable in the classroom. Indeed, some would
argue it is the most significant variable. . . .
There has always been a concern with the personal
qualities of teachers, and recently this concern
has become the basis for a growing body of
research. . . .Personality means the person as a
psychological or unique whole, and refers to the
dynamic organization of motives within the
individual. (p. 507)
Their article covered several different categories;
several studies cited there will be reviewed in greater
depth later in this section. The authors concluded that
attitude surveys and value, interest, and activity
inventories were not successful predictors of successful
teaching because, first "it is as if the values indicative
of the good student bear no relationship to the values
characteristic of the successful practicing teacher"
(p. 526); and second, researchers have not differentiated
subject-matter and teaching level among prospective
teachers, and apparently those factors do make a
difference.
As for cognitive abilities,
There is ample evidence to be sure, that
teachers as a group score appreciably higher in
tests of intellectual ability than does the
general population. . • .When, however, teachers
and students preparing to teach are compared with
other professional groups, the comparison is not
nearly so favorable. Students of education
consistently rank near the bottom. (p. 570)
113
The authors comment that very high cognitive
ability may not be necessary to success in teaching.
For his study, Life in Classrooms (1968), Jackson
interviewed in depth a sample of 50 teachers, who were
considered outstanding by their administrators and
supervisors, from suburban*coinmunities surrounding
Chicago. Among the 50 were a small number from a
metropolitan private school. From his interviews and
observations he developed a description of the factors
underlying teacher behavior in the conventional classroom.
Because classroom life is very complex, his method was
based on the participant-observer stance of other social
sciences.
Anthropologists understand this fact [the
grayness of daily lives] better than do most
other social scientists, and their field
studies have taught us to appreciate the
cultural significance of the humdrum elements
of human existence. (p. 4)
According to Jackson, several salient facts about
schooling must be kept in mind: children are in school for
a long time; the settings in which children perform are
highly uniform; children are in school whether they want
to be or not; classroom life is cyclic and has elements
of redundance and repetition; activities include seat
work, group discussions, teacher demonstrations, question
and answer periods, written as well as oral.
114
Several features of the classroom which are not
immediately visible are fully as important as those that
are; discussion of them is necessary to an understanding
of the impact of classroom life on the student. Jackson
presented three such features. The first is the element
of "crowds"— most things in the classroom are done with
or in the presence of others. This leads to delays and
waiting, interruptions, and distractions. "No one knows
for certain how much of the average student*s time is
spent in neutral as it were, but for many students in many
classrooms, it must be a memorable portion" (p. 15).
The second element is that of "praise"— evaluation
of the student's academic achievement, institutional
adjustment, and personal qualities. "Adaptation in school
life requires the student to become used to living under
the constant condition of having his words and deeds
evaluated by others" (p. 10). The chief source of
evaluation is the teacher, who is the administrator of
tests which are "indigenous to the school environment"
(p. 19). But classmates, as well as one's self, also
pass judgment. "Learning how to make it in school
involves, in part, learning how to falsify our behavior.
All students probably learn to employ psychological
buffers that protect them from some of the wear and tear
of classroom life" (p. 27).
115
The last invisible feature is the power of the
teacher. "Teachers are indeed more powerful than
students, in the sense of having greater responsibility
for giving shape to classroom events, and this sharp
difference in authority is another feature of school life
with which students must learn how to deal" (p. 10). in
the conventional elementary school classroom the focus is
on the teacher: she manages the classroom dialogue; she
is the supply sergeant; she grants privileges to
deserving students; she is the offical time-keeper. The
teacher's behaviors "are all responsive, in one way or
another, to the crowded condition of the classroom"
(p. 13). In many cases, the child's experience in school
is the first time power over him is wielded by a stranger.
The teacher's authority is prescriptive as well as
restrictive: the student must learn to use her own power
in service of the teacher's desires. What about the
relationship between this power and democratic ideals?
Jackson concluded that school is preparation for life,
because factories and offices function in much the same
fashion.
In a classroom setting involving these underlying,
often hidden elements, the teacher is responsible for
commanding his students' attention. His classroom
management style is crucial. He can increase students'
involvement by making some alteration in the curriculum;
116
by grouping students according to ability; by artificially
enlivening a dull activity; by moving toward more
"democratic" classroom procedures and encouraging students
to participate in rule-making. Always, however, "the
school experience . . . is more than the sum of its parts"
(p. 111).
Although Cronbach (1963) argued for a group-controJ.
model of teaching, in which the teacher encourages and
uses democratic procedures to establish group goals, he
cautioned that the teacher can allow the group to decide
only those issues in which the teacher is able to abide
by the children*s decisions. He wrote further that the
teacher's role is limited by the expectations of his
colleagues, his students, and the community, as well as
by the subject-matter and his own self. Cronbach
reported that students believed that the teacher * s role
included a great deal of control and judging. In studies
of teacher success, as cited by Cronbach, "warmth" and
orderliness were the two most consistently important
characteristics mentioned. He defined warmth as the
sponatenous expression of feelings— enthusiasm, liking for
the student— support and encouragement; as non-contingent
reinforcement; as tact and considerateness; as acceptance
of the student*s feelings.
In his book about teaching, in the 1930s and
1940s, as an occupation, Dreeben (1970) stated
117
Teaching . . . is a high-turnover occupation . . .
both their undergraduate and graduate preparation
(including practice teaching) frequently leaves
teachers unprepared for the rigors and sometimes
overwhelming problems arising from their first
classroom confrontation. (p. 64)
He listed the characteristics of prospective
teachers: predominantly female; from smaller rather than
larger cities; lower end of the socioeconomic scale;
concerned for people rather than for making money or
doing creative things. Beginning and experienced teachers
came from white collar and farm families; their parents
were better educated than the average population; they
came from a whole spectrum of residential communities and
the entire range of socioeconomic levels--except that more
were from the center; the degree-holders were increasing
among them. On a list of 90 occupations ranked on status,
teaching was 36th. On the Army General Classification
Test, college graduates in education ranked 17th on a
list of 20.
Flanders (1970) present Nathaniel Cantor's
assumptions underlying conventional teaching. Cantor
believed that teachers acted as if they assumed that:
1. The teacher's responsibility is to set out what
is to be learned and the student's responsibility
is to learn it.
2. Knowledge taken on authority is education in
itself.
118
3. Education can be obtained through disconnected
subjects.
4. The subject-matter is the same to the learner as
it is to the teacher.
5. Education prepares the student for later life
rather than being a living experience.
6. The teacher is responsible for the student*s
acquiring of knowledge.
7. Students must be coerced into working on some
tasks.
8. Knowledge is more important than learning.
9. Education is primarily an intellectual process.
Travers and Dillon (1975) emphasized that teaching
is not a specific competency, that the art of teaching
requires endless variation to keep it alive. They
suggested the following important characteristics of
teacher behavior as being conducive to student achievement:
problem-solving skills; the ability to organize materials
and to present them in logical sequence; the ability to
provide variability in materials, tests, activities and
cognitive tasks; enthusiasm; and business-like behavior
or achievement-oriented teaching.
As described by advocates of open education.
The traditional teacher sees her or his task
as transmitting knowledge and skills, the objectives
for which are determined ahead of time with the
curriculum essentially prescribed. Tests can
measure whether this has been accomplished. Grading
119
can be based on the test's sorting out levels of
achievement. The emphasis is on cognitive
development; the life of the body, the senses and
feelings, are secondary to what happens in the
head. Correct answers still dominate. There is
concern about being efficient and not wasting
time. Content and skills tend to be compartmentalized
for efficiency’s sake. The excitement of learning
tends to depend upon teacher stimulation and external
motivation? it is the teacher who is primarily
inventive and creative in the situation with the
children following. A large part of the teacher's
role consists of working hard to be inventive and
to embellish the prescribed curriculum so it is
interesting. Much of the emphasis is on preparing
for the next step in learning and for the future in
general. There isn't much trust that learning
takes place unless the teacher does something that
is highly controlled and orderly so that as much
as possible he or she is on top of exactly what
the children are learning. There are few loose ends.
What a child knows is ultimately more important than
what a child Is; for the traditional teacher the
quality of knowing is more important than the
quality of being.~~ (Rogers & Church, 1975, p. 3)
The following quotation from Jensen (1969) is a
description of the kinds of behavior expected from the
students in the classroom of a conventional teacher;
The instructional methods of the traditional
classroom were not invented all in one stroke, but
evolved within an upper-class segment of the
European population, and thus were naturally
shaped by the capacities, culture, and needs of
those children whom the schools were primarily
intended to serve. At least implicit in the
system as it originally developed was the
expectation that not all children would succeed.
These methods of schooling have remained
essentially unchanged for many generations. We
have accepted traditional instruction so completely
that it is extremely difficult even to imagine,
much less to put into practice, any radically
different forms that the education of children
could take. Our thinking almost always takes as
granted such features as beginning formal
instruction at the same age for all children
(universally between ages five and six) instruction
120
of children in groups, keeping the same groups
together in lock step fashion through the first
several years of schooling, and an active-passive,
showing-seeing, telling-listening relationship
between teacher and pupils. Satisfactory learning
occurs under these conditions only when children
come to school with certain prerequisite abilities
and skills: an attention span long enough to
encompass the teacher*s utterances and demonstra
tions, the ability voluntarily to focus one *s
attention where it is called for, the ability to
comprehend verbal utterances and to grasp
relationships between things and their symbolic
representations, the ability to inhibit large-
muscle activity and engage in covert "mental"
activity, to repeat instruction to oneself, to
persist in a task until a self-determined standard
is attained— in short, the ability to engage in
what might be called self-instructional activities,
without which group instruction alone remains
ineffectual. (p. 7)
The research project Characteristics of Teachers
(Ryans, 1960) was begun in 1948 from project offices at
the University of California at Los Angeles. The research
was sponsored by the American Council on Education with
funds from the Grant Foundation. During the ten-year
study period, approximately 100 separate researches were
carried out; and over 6,000 teachers in 1,700 schools and
450 school systems participated in one or another phase
of the investigation. The Study thus provided a
description of a cross-section of American teachers during
the period 1950-55.
Ryans agreed with other researchers that, even
though the importance of the teacher's role is universally
recognized, very little progress has been made in
defining good teaching or in distinguishing the
121
characteristics of effective teachers. Professionals and
laymen alike disagreed on the role of the teacher as well
as the other components of the teaching situation.
"Furthermore, it seems reasonable to suspect that learning
emphases and teacher roles vary in relation to the
characteristics of the pupils taught, to grade level, and
to field of learning (subject matter)" (p. 370).
The basic concerns of this Study were description
and prediction. Therefore,
The goals of the researcher become (1) the
identification and description of the specific
teacher behaviors and the major dimensions they
comprise, and (2) the determination of how and
to what extent various data descriptive of
teachers (verbal responses, overt acts,
biographical information, kind of training,
etc., all of which may be subsumed under teacher
characteristics) are either (a) antecedents or
(b) concomitants of some behavior agreed to be
a component of some criterion of teacher
behavior. (p. 372)
Any study involving the behavior of the human
being carries limited powers of generalization. Ryans
(1960) emphasized that predictions of teacher behavior
coming from this Study must be considered in the "actuarial
sense" and that individual prediction is much more limited.
In this Study, individual teachers in specific schools in
the various school districts were all volunteers. Any
generalization coming from the Study is therefore "a
function of the similarity between the teachers studied
and the group in question at any particular time" (p. 379).
122
In the final form of the Study, the teacher character
istics were described strictly operationally.
The Study*s research . . . includes (1)
designation of certain major dimensions of
teacher classroom behavior, involving (a)
development of appropriate observation and
assessment procedures, (b) conduct of systematic
observations of teachers in their classrooms,
and (c) carrying out of factorial analyses of
observers* assessments relative to a number of
aspects of teacher behavior; (2) following
determination of major dimensions of teacher
classroom behavior and the components of such
dimensions, conduct of systematic observation
and assessment of relatively large samples of
teachers of different grades and subjects to
obtain criterion data; (3) development of
inventory materials requiring responses which
it was hypothesized might be correlated with
major dimensions of teacher classroom behavior
and other teacher traits, and determination of
significant predictor-criterion relationships
by (a) administering such material to teachers
for whom criterion data were available, (b)
analyzing the responses to determine the value
of each possible response as a predictor of a
specified teacher behavior, and (c) casting the
selected items into scoring keys which, in light
of the analysis, might be expected to be reliably
related to the major teacher behavior dimensions
and traits; and (4) carrying out researches
involving cross-validation, validity generaliza
tion study, and validity extension study to
obtain evidence relative to the probable usefulness
of the scoring keys. (pp. 378-379)
The final form of the TCS Classroom Observation
Record included 18 teacher behaviors:
fair-partial, democratic-autocratic,
responsive-aloof, understanding-restricted,
kindly-harsh, stimulating-dull, original-
stereotyped, alert-apathetic, attractive-
unimpressive, responsible-evading, steady-
erratic, poised-excitable, confident-uncertain,
systematic-disorganized, adaptable-inflexible,
optimistic-pessimistic, integrated-immature,
broad-narrow. (p. 381)
123
These behaviors were assessed by carefully trained
observers on a scale of one to seven, four representing a
rating of average. Several interdependent patterns of
teacher behavior emerged:
TCS Pattern X q — warm, understanding, friendly
vs. aloof, egocentric, restricted teacher behavior.
TCS Pattern YQ--responsible, businesslike,
systematic vs. evading, unplanned, slipshod
teacher behavior.
TCS Pattern Zo— stimulating, imaginative, surgent
vs. dull, routine teacher behavior. (p. 382)
The TCS Patterns X q , Yq and Zq were not only
highly correlated with pupil behavior but were highly
intercorrelated among elementary school teachers, much
less so among secondary teachers. Women teachers of grades;
five and six (a relatively small sample) were rated
somewhat higher than other elementary teachers on several
Patterns, particularly on Yq. Further,
teachers over 55 years of age received
distinctly lower mean assessments on Patterns Xq
(friendly), and also slightly lower with regard
to Pattern Zq (stimulating), than younger teacher
groups. Teachers over 40 years of age generally
tended to receive higher mean assessments on
Pattern Yq , this being particulary true of English-
social studies teachers.
Among elementary teachers the mean assessments on
the classroom behavior Patterns X q , Y q , and Zq were
slightly but insignificantly higher for married as
compared with single teachers. (p. 383)
Other trends which were noted in the comparison of
attitudes, educational viewpoints, verbal understandings,
and emotional adjustment included:
124
1. The attitudes of elementary teachers toward
pupils, toward administrators, and also toward
fellow teachers and nonadministrative personnel in
the schools were markedly more favorable than were
similar attitudes of secondary teachers.
2. The attitudes of teachers who were judged
by their principals to be superior in their teaching
performance were significantly and distinctly more
favorable toward pupils, and also toward adminis
trators, than the attitudes of teachers who were
judged by their principals to be unsatisfactory
or poor.
3. Neither amount of teaching experience nor
age appeared to be very highly associated with
teacher attitudes, although there was a slight
tendency for the attitudes of secondary teachers
of greater experience to be slightly more favorable
toward administrators and somewhat less favorable
toward pupils than other experience groups.
4. More favorable attitudes toward pupils
were expressed by women teachers in the secondary
school, but among elementary teachers there was a
tendency for men to possess more favorable pupil
attitudes than did women.
5. Teachers whose observed classroom behavior
was judged to be more characteristically warm and
understanding (TCS Pattern Xq) and more stimulating
(TCS Pattern Z q ) possessed more favorable attitudes
toward pupils and also more favorable attitudes
toward administrators.
6. Actual pupil behavior in the classroom
(based upon observers' assessments) did not appear
to be related to the attitudes held by teachers.
7. The educational viewpoints expressed by
secondary teachers were of a more traditional or
learning-centered nature, while those of elementary
teachers leaned more in the direction of permis
siveness; within the secondary school science and
mathematics teachers appeared more traditional in
their viewpoints and English and social studies
teachers more permissive in theirs.
8. Teachers judged to be more warm and under
standing in their classroom behavior, and to a
somewhat lesser extent, those judged to be more
stimulating, expressed more permissive educational
viewpoints. Teachers judged to be more businesslike
and systematic showed a slight tendency toward more
traditional viewpoints.
9. The verbal understanding scores obtained by
secondary teachers were significantly higher than
those of elementary teachers, English and foreign
125
language teachers excelling other subject-matter
groups within the secondary school.
10. Men teachers at both the elementary and
secondary levels appeared to be markedly more
emotionally stable than women teachers.
11. There was a tendency for elementary
teachers who were judged to be warm and under
standing in classroom behavior, and also those
judged to be stimulating in their classes, to
manifest superior emotional adjustment.
12. There seemed to be no observable
relationship between scores on the validity-of-
response scale and the classification of teachers
by amount of teaching experience, age, sex, grade
or subject taught, or observed classroom behavior.
(pp. 385-386)
Another instrument created for and used in the
Study was a booklet known as the Teacher Characteristics
Schedule, which
was an omnibus, self-report type of inventory > . \
made up of items culled from the originally
separate instruments. In its final form it
consisted of 300 multiple-choice and check-list
items relating to personal preferences, self-
judgments, frequently engaged-in activities,
biographical data, and the like. (p. 387)
The Teacher Characteristics Schedule yielded scores in the
following dimensions:
Teacher Characteristic Xco— warm, understanding,
friendly vs. egocentric, restricted classroom
behavior.
Teacher Characteristic Yco— responsible, business
like, systematic vs. evading, unplanned, slipshod
classroom behavior.
Teacher Characteristic ZCq— stimulating,
imaginative vs. dull, routine classroom behavior.
Teacher Characteristic Rco— favorable vs.
unfavorable opinions of pupils.
Teacher Characteristic Rico--favorable Vs.
unfavorable opinions of democratic classroom
procedures.
Teacher Characteristic Qco— favorable vs.
unfavorable opinions of administrative and other
school personnel.
126
Teacher Characteristic Bco— learning-centered
("traditional") vs. child-centered ("permissive")
educational viewpoints.
Teacher Characteristic ICo— superior verbal
understanding (comprehension) vs. poor verbal
understanding.
Teacher Characteristic Sco— emotional
stability (adjustment) vs. instability. (p. 388)
Findings which resulted from correlating scores on
the above dimensions with observers' assessments included
the following:
Among elementary teachers, XQ (warm, friendly
classroom behavior) is best predicted by XCOr
-Bco, ZCp, Ico, and Sco; Yp (businesslike,
systematic classroom behavior) is best predicted
by YCo; and Z0 (stimulating classroom behavior)
is best predicted by Zco and Xco. (p. 389)
The findings in relation to age:
There appears to be little doubt about the
existence of significant differences between
teachers comprising different age groups with
respect to a number of teacher characteristics.
Among 60 different F tests computed with the data
for these teachers, 45 of the sets of differences
between means were found to be significant at or
beyond the .05 level. Generally, scores of older
teachers (55 years and above) showed this group
to be at a disadvantage compared with younger
teachers, except from the standpoint of Yco
(systematic and businesslike classroom behavior)
and Bco (indicative of learning-centered,
traditional educational viewpoints). Younger
teachers generally attained higher scores relative
to other scales. (p. 390)
Findings in relation to experience:
There was a general tendency for teachers
with extended experience to score lower than
less experienced teachers on most of the
variables. Yco (responsible, businesslike
behavior in the classroom), however, was a
notable exception; in this case the more
experienced teachers scoring significantly
higher than the less experienced. (p. 391)
127
Teacher characteristics in relation to avocational
activities:
Teachers who report frequent participation
in any of a number of avocational activities
(gardening, chess or cards, painting, sculpting,
music, etc.) tend, as a group, to score higher
on Xco, Yqq, ^co' ^cof ^lco* Qco* ”®co (child-
centered viewpoints) than teachers who do not
report participation in any of these activities.
Many of the differences between participants and
nonparticipants are substantial and significant.
Teachers who actively engage in outside-teaching
interests appear generally to score relatively
high on the characteristics measured. (p. 393)
The final comparison presented here from the TCS
concerns the "high" group: teachers who were assessed by
observers at one standard deviation or more above the
mean on Patterns XQ, Y0, and Z0; and the "low" group:
those teachers rated one standard deviation or more below
the mean on the same Patterns. For elementary and
secondary teachers combined, the following are some of
the more notable characteristics which separated the
high group from the low.
There was a general tendency for high
teachers to: be extremely generous in appraisals
of the behavior and motives of other persons;
possess strong interest in reading and literary
affairs; be interested in music, painting, and
the arts in general; participate in social
groups; enjoy pupil relationships; prefer non
directive (persmissive) classroom procedures;
manifest superior verbal intelligence; and be
superior with respect to emotional adjustment.
On the other hand, low teachers tended generally
to: be restrictive and critical in their
appraisals of other persons; prefer activities
which did not involve close personal contacts;
express less favorable opinions of pupils;
manifest less high verbal intelligence? show
128
less satisfactory emotional adjustment; and
represent older age groups. (pp. 398-399)
Although Lortie1s sociological study School
Teacher was published in 1975, the data he used ranged
from the early 1960s to the early 1970s. His study, then,
covered a period that began about a decade after the data
were collected for the Ryans' study (1960).
Lortie (1975) prepared an historical chronology to
present an overview of conventional teaching as an
occupation. Since the early nineteenth century, American
teachers have worked in organizations, the school boards
of public education. However, the children in the
colonial schools of the first century and a half of
European settlement on this continent were taught by men
mostly, who were hired by local authorities for specific
periods of time to perform "stipulated duties for pre
determined salaries" (p. 3). The colonial teacher
probably did other kinds of work also, and his moral
standing and knowledge of the teaching material were
screened by officials of the community, including, usually,
a clergyman. The teacher's performance was monitored
through periodic visits to the schools by the officials
who demanded recitations from the students. Otherwise,
there was little restraint on the teacher's authority in
the conduct of his class nor his use of physical punishment.
The school governing board consisting of citizens emerged
129
during this early period and became a key factor in the
mass schooling which developed in the nineteenth century.
Originally the school board consisted of a committee of
selectmen, but it became "a distinct body with unique
rights and responsibilites" (p. 3)
Although the formation of the Republic placed
education under state authority, de facto powers
moved to local school boards which gained authority
over most facts of the schools. The formal
structure which emerged during the nineteenth
century was monolithic: unlike the federal
government's division of power between executive,
legislative, and judiciary branches, all formal
powers were concentrated in the citizen governing
board. One fails to find, for example, any clear
distinction between "administrative" and "pro
fessional" domains in the schools systems which
grew out of the Common School Crusade. As school
systems multiplied in number and grew in size,
they became more bureaucratized. By the
twentieth century the superintendent had become
the chief administrative officer responsible for
implementing school board decisions. The outcome
of bureaucratization was to divide the "third
party” (the governing body) into two layers, one
consisting of part-time citizens, the other of
full-time administrators. Through time,
administrators increasingly stood in for boards
in supervising teacher activities and affairs.
(p. 3)
Increasing urbanization and industrialization led
to the loss of much teacher privacy and independence,
and to the transformation from teacher to employee,
"supervised by full-time, physically present adminis
trators acting on authority delegated by school boards"
(p. 4). However, the one-room rural schoolhouse existed
well into the twentieth century. As we learned more about
130
the proper treatment of children and as education became
compulsory, the teacher's authority and use of physical
coercion became much more limited.
The hierarchization of schools and the diffusion
of compulsory attendance produced dual "captivity"
in the relationship between teachers and students.
Students were assigned to particular schools by
place of residence, and once in school they were
allocated to specific teachers by school adminis
trators. Teachers, having accepted employment in
a given school district, were assigned to a school
by the superintendent and to particular students
by the principal. Thus neither student nor teacher
had much to say about their relationships each
was forced to come to terms with an externally
imposed requirement of cooperation. It is a truism
of sociology that formal requirements can induce
informal evasions, and some parents undoubtedly
manage to influence the placement of their children.
Teachers, moreover, have fought hard to gain
seniority rights in the matter of transfer within
school systems, and this grants some freedom in
the kinds of students experienced teachers will
teach. Such choice, however, remains categorical
rather than individual; unlike fee-for-service
professionals, teachers cannot build a clientele
of selected individuals. . . .Despite considerable
stability in the formal powers of school boards
and officials, power relationships have changed
over the last four or five decades, and such
changes were well under way before collective
bargaining attained genuine potency. Although
they have rarely challenged the authority system
in principle, teachers have worked together to
offset the capacity of boards and administrators
to use their formal rights. (pp« 4-5)
At the turn of this century, certification was
centralized in the state and was no longer in the hands
of the local school board; tenure became widespread; and
salary schedules began to be based on teachers' years of
education and service. These three changes took time to
131
spread, but their practice limited the power of local
school authorities.
The income of teachers, like that of all persons
working in the public sector, is usually lower but more
secure than the income of persons employed in the private
sector. The property tax has been used to support
schools, an arrangement which emphasized the power of
local citizens over their schools. Lortie quoted several
historians of education as reporting that teachers
received incomes below artisans' wages and often below
the earnings of day laborers^--in 1841. The level of
teachers' income has risen steadily since then, but their
relative position within the economy has not changed.
The teacher of the colonial period was male?
however, the expansion of public education and the growth
of industry and commerce in the American society led to
the feminization of teaching: women could be hired for
much less cost than men. Furthermore, teaching was the
most desirable among the few alternatives— domestic
service, factory work, laundering, baking— open to women.
The male teacher of the modern era, especially in
elmentary schools, has moved to the administrative
position. Despite the public discussion of equalizing
opportunities and wages for women, teaching remains one
of the few occupations in which women perform the same
work and receive the same compensation as men.
132
Teaching seems to have more than its share of
status anomalies. It is honored and disdained,
praised as "dedicated service" and lampooned as
"easy work." It is permeated with the rhetoric
of professionalism, yet features incomes below
those earned by workers with considerably less
education. It is middle-class work in which
more and more participants use bargaining
strategies developed by wage-earners in
factories. (Lortie, p. 10)
Lortie wrote that the real regard accorded
teachers has never matched the professed regard. In
colonial times, teachers were important because Puritans
forged a strong connection between literacy and salvation,
but the clergyman was at the center of things. Teachers
performed the menial tasks involved with schooling as well
as the teaching. Thus, the teacher was special but not
stellar. He was a valued member of the local community.
The position of teachers changed somewhat as
urbanization, secularization, and school expansion
occurred during the nineteenth century. Teaching
became work performed by young women, and given
the relative position of the young and the female
in the nineteenth century this probably reduced
rather than augmented its social rank. Teachers
became more abundant, making the individual
teacher less uncommon and prestigious. Yet we
find that the teacher"s social position retained
some of its earlier characteristics. . . .The
moral controls surrounding teaching set it apart
from the dominant alternatives of factory and
domestic work. Whether better paid or not,
teaching was demonstrably "respectable" employment
and closer to middle-class standards. (Lortie,
1975, p. 12)
The "special but shadowed" (p. 12) position of the
teacher has continued into modern times. The administrator
and college professor have taken the place of the
133
clergyman. "Thus teachers never did gain control of any
area . . . where they were clearly . . . most expert;
day-to-day operations, pedagogical theory, and . . .
expertise have been dominated by persons in other roles"
(p. 12). Although "middle-class" is the term conven
tionally used to describe teachers, in recent years more
lower and working-class Americans have moved up the
social ladder via teaching.
Lortie maintained that the separation of one
teacher from another as each taught in the self-contained
classroom— "the single cell of instruction" (p. 15)—
interacted with the growing public school system*s
dependence on single young women to work as teachers so
long as they remained single, to create as well as to
adjust to the large turnover among members of the
occupation. If teachers had worked inter-dependently,
the loss of teachers to marriage would have been difficult
for the institution to handle.
The training and certifying of teachers as well
as the existence of teachers* associations are relatively
new developments from the perspective of three and a half
centuries of schooling. As standards for teacher training
became established, access to that training also became
easier, through the availability of public educational
institutions. As for teachers* associations, they have
grown in membership and power since the 1950s and 1960s.
134
In spite of the changes in professional teacher
preparation and the increasing influence of teachers*
organizations, schools today continue to be governed "by
representatives of the citizenry" (p. 22) . "Teachers have
not gained the legal right to govern their daily work
affairs; they do not possess the explicit rights, for
example, gained by professors, physicians in hospitals,
and clergymen in the armed services" (p. 22). As the
financial rank of the teacher remains as it was, so too
the social status^-prestige— has not changed. Lortie
argued that basic teaching techniques also have remained
much as they had been for three centuries.
In Witty*s study (1947), a scholarship was to be
presented to the teacher described most effectively and
convincingly in the winning composition entitled "The
Teacher Who Has Helped Me Most." Twelve thousand letters
came, from January through 1946, in response to the
contest announced on the radio program "Quiz Kids." The
respondents were in grades two through twelve. This
study did not describe specific teacher behaviors, but
rather attitudes and "atmosphere."
The teacher who wishes to influence boys and
girls most effectively will attempt to provide a
classroom atmosphere in which success, security,
understanding, mutual respect, and opportunity
to attain worthy educational goals are all
pervading. (Witty, p. 669)
135
Witty analyzed the letters in three groups (ages 6-9, 9-14,
14 and up) and placed 12 traits in rank order. The most
important trait was "cooperative, democratic attitude."
In descending order, the others were: kindliness and
consideration for the individual; patience; wide interests;
personal appearance and pleasing manner; fairness and
impartiality; sense of humor; good disposition and
consistent behavior; interest in pupils* problems;
flexibility; use of recognition and praise; and unusual
proficiency in teaching a particular subject.
Symonds (1954) conducted an exploratory, intensive
study of 19 teachers, all volunteers, to attempt to
examine the relationship between teaching methods,
techniques and procedures, and teacher personality. His
sample consisted of 14 female and 5 male teachers, 9 of
whom were married. Their years of teaching experience
ranged from fewer than 5 years to more than 35; and they
taught at the elementary and secondary levels. Each
teacher was interviewed, on tape, 10 times; each was
administered the Rorschach and the Thematic Apperception
Test; and each was observed.
From his data, Symonds described factors which
make teachers ineffective: feelings of inferiority,
insecurity and inadequacy, especially if they persist
after the first few years; projection and aggression; in
almost all of the 19 teachers, reaction formation, "by
136
which the teacher attempted to hide from himself and from
the world tendencies within himself which he regards as
unacceptable and undesirable" (p. 82). He also felt that
the teachers he studied appeared to be immature in their
relationships with others and were unable to have
satisfactory love relationships. Effectiveness, according
to Symonds, was closely related to satisfaction in work,
and the effective ones were kind, considerate, and
helpful. To be effective as a teacher and gain
satisfaction from the work, he wrote that "one should not
have outgrown some of the childish elements of his
personality" (p. 83). Symonds concluded
that teaching is essentially an expression of
personality. . . .Methods and procedures learned
during college preparation may influence teaching
superficially but they do not determine the
nature of the relation of a teacher to his
pupils or the teacher*s basic attitude toward
teaching. (p. 83)
McGee*s study (1955) asked if teachers* classroom
behavior toward pupils could be predicted from scores
obtained on a scale measuring authoritarian trends. He
used a "coincidental"— available— sample of'teachers in
the Oakland Public Schools. There were 184 regular
classroom teachers, not more than 32 years of age, who
had not more than three years of teaching experience.
McGee used Form 30 of the F-Scale (a Likert-type
questionnaire measuring anti-democratic potential) and
an observation instrument created by the investigator.
137
The questionnaire was presented to the subjects as a
public opinion inventory of social issues. The observation
period lasted between 45 and 50 minutes.
From the 150 responses, McGee concluded that the
correlation between his observation instrument and the
F-Scale was .58. The median F-Scale score for teachers
(2.89) was lower than for 14 groups of middle class
adults, as reported in Adorno, Frenkel-Brunswik, Levinson,
and Sanford, The Authoritarian Personality (1950) . There
was no significant difference between volunteers and non
volunteers , between elementary and secondary teachers,
between male and female, and between the majority and
minority on the F-Scale, in McGee1s sample. The
investigator concluded that "teachers* classroom behavior
on an Authoritarian-Equalitarian dimension can be
predicted with fair accuracy from scores on the F-Scale"
(p. 144).
Gowan's study (1957) was one of the 100 researches
included in Ryans * Characteristics of Teachers . Gowan
selected 20 outstanding female teachers from the 3,000
Southern Californians who had participated in Ryans* work,
and interviewed each intensively.
The age range of his sample was 22-56, with the
median at 39. They were described as better groomed and
better "appearing." They were born in 13 states, 6
teachers of the 20 in California. Six had graduated from
138
UCLA; the others had attended state colleges and normal
schools. Half of the 20 had earned master’s degrees.
The range of teaching experience in the sample was from
2 to 36 years; 10 years was the median. Twelve had
superior school scholastic records; five average, and
three below average. Four of the 15 married subjects had
been divorced; two of the four had remarried.
Ten of the 20 teacher were first-born, and three
of those had no siblings. Five of the group were last
born. For 11 of the 20, there had been strong familial
teaching traditions. Half the group maintained church
membership. As a group, the sample came from "well knit"
families,on farms or in small towns.
Four of the 20 had written and published
children’s books, and three more had written and
published poetry.
Gowan administered four assessments to the sample:
A1lport-Vernon Study of Values, Gui1ford-Zimmerman
Temperament Survey, California Q Inventory; and the Kuder
Preference Record. The Allport-Vernon Study of Values
had little discriminatory power among the subjects, but
the author described the sample as being more shy, dating
less as adolescents; being friendly and cooperative;
having excellent personal relations; being emotionally
stable; having genuine love for children; and having
strong work libido and lacking orientation toward money
139
or power. The author generalized from the Kuder that the
20 were not interested in mechanical, computation, or
scientific matters, but much more interested in social
service.
On the Teacher Characteristics Study Patterns X
(warm, understanding, friendly), Y (responsible, business
like, systematic), and Z (stimulating, imaginative,
surgent), Gowan's sample were rated at the 91st percentile.
The teachers placed the social value of their work in the
affective domain. "It would seem that these teachers
want to teach" (p. 119).
The purpose of Popham1s exploratory study (1958)
was to determine the relationship which existed between
the out-of-school activities and the attitudes toward
teacher-pupil relations of selected teachers. The
instruments he used were the Minnesota Teacher Attitude
Inventory (MTAI) and an inventory of teachers1 out-of-
school activities; both were administered by mail. The
subjects were those 1954 graduates of the 24 Indiana
institutions of higher learning granting standard
accreditation for teachers who were employed as teachers
during the 1956-57 school year. The total number of
responses used in the study was 738. Popham stressed
that his study did not manipulate variables nor seek
causality.
140
Sixty-nine percent of the sample was female; 31
percent male. The age range was from 2 0 to over 60, with
the vast majority (62.6%) between 20 and 29 years of age.
Over 63 percent were married; almost 2 percent divorced,
and over 3 percent widowed. The salary range was from
$3,499.00 to over $5,000.00; with 75 percent earning
between $3,500.00 and $4,499.00. The teachers taught at
all grade levels, with a greater proportion in grades one,
two, and three; and only 3 percent in kindergarten. The
teaching experience ranged from almost none to more than
12 years, with 70 percent between 0-3 years, and 19 percent:
over 12 years. The sample was 87.1 percent Protestant;
10.5 percent Catholic; 1.5 percent other; 0.8 percent none,
The Minnesota Teacher Attitude Inventory "is
designed to measure those attitudes of a teacher which
predict how well he will get along with pupils in inter
personal relationships, and indirectly how well satisfied
he will be with teaching as a vocation" (Cook, Leeds, &
Callis, 1951, p. 3). The Inventory contains 150 state
ments, each to be answered by the subject in one of five
possible ways: strongly agree, agree, undecided or
uncertain, disagree, or strongly disagree. The scores on
the Inventory do reflect the educational philosophy of the
authors, a fact the potential user is cautioned to be
aware of. Agreement or disagreement with the statements
has been labeled "right" or "wrong" for purposes of
141
scoring. The range of possible scores is from plus 150 to
minus 150; each response which is rated "right" receives
one point, and for each response rated "wrong" a point is
lost. A sample of the statements and their correct
responses:
(1) Most children are
obedient. agree, undecided
(5) Teaching never gets
monotonous. disagree, strongly disagree
(16) A pupil’s failure
is seldom the fault
of the teacher. strongly agree, agree
(29) Children have a
natural tendency to
be unruly. agree, undecided
(47) The child must learn
that "teacher knows
best." agree, undecided
(75) No child should rebel
against authority. agree, undecided
(81) All children should
start to read by the
age of 7. strongly agree, agree
(102) Whispering should
not be tolerated. strongly agree, agree
142
(112) Grading is of
value because of
the competition
element. Strongly agree
(132) Children just
cannot be trusted. strongly agree, agree
From this sampling it can be seen that the open
educator would not agree with all the authors* evaluations
of the 150 statements.
Popham*s findings included these:
1. Female teachers scored higher on the MTAI.
2. Teachers in lower grades scored higher on the MTAI
3. Those teachers who were satisfied with their
teaching careers earned higher scores on the MTAI
than those who were not.
4. Those teachers who attended local education
organization meetings and participated in
professional organizations scored higher on
the MTAI than those who did not.
5. Those teachers who read professional books
scored higher on the MTAI than those who did not.
6. Those teachers with higher participation in
religious organizations scored lower on the MTAI.
7. Those teachers who spent more time on hobbies
scores higher on the MTAI.
143
8. There were no significant relationships between
MTAI scores and teacher participation in sports
or commercial entertainment.
In his discussion attempting to demonstrate that
research on teaching has yielded important results, Gage
(1978) wrote that research has shown that children*s
scores on standard achievement tests are higher in the
formal classroom than in the classroom where there is a
high level of conversation. He pointed to a study of
third grade teachers conducted by the Center for
Educational Research at Stanford, and published in 1977.
From that study he cited specific, observable teacher
behaviors which maximize achievement in reading: They are:
-Teachers should have a system of rules that
allows pupils to attend to their personal and
procedural needs without having to check with
the teacher.
-Teachers should move around the room a lot,
monitoring pupils* seatwork and communicating to
their pupils an awareness of their behavior,
while also attending to their academic needs.
-When pupils work independently, teachers
should insure that the assignments are interesting
and worthwhile yet still easy enough to be
completed by each third-grader working without
teacher direction.
-Teachers should keep to a minimum such
activities as giving directions and organizing
the class for instruction. Teachers can do this
by writing the daily schedule on the board,
insuring that pupils know where to go, what to
do, etc.
-In selecting pupils to respond to questions,
teacher should call on a child by name before
asking the question, as a means of insuring that
all pupils are given an equal number of oppor
tunities to answer questions.
144
-With less academically oriented pupils,
teachers should always aim at getting the child
to give some kind of response to a question.
Rephrasing, giving cues, or asking a new question
can be useful techniques for bringing forth some
answer from a previously silent pupil or one who
says "I don't know" or answers incorrectly.
-During reading-group instruction, teachers
should give a maximal amount of brief feedback
and provide fast-paced activities of the "drill"
type. (p. 2 34)
These described behaviors contain some elements
found also in the classroom behavior of open educators.
It is therefore necessary to question which innovative
and/or informal population samples Gage used in the 1977
study.
Differences Between American
and British Education
Many authors cited political and cultural
differences between the American and the English societies
to explain the differences between the two countries in
the development and implementation of open education
(Anderson, 1973; Devaney, 1974; Featherstone & Cohen,
1968; Hapgood, 1971; Rogers, 1979; Rogers & Church, 1975;
Spodek & Walberg, 1975; Weber, 1971).
For example, British society accepts authority
much more readily than the American: "The school knows
best" (Rogers & Church, 1975, p. 20). The children, by
the same token, accept the authority of the school and the
teacher to a much greater degree than do American students
The English teacher is not so well paid as the American,
145
but she enjoys more status and respect. However, with the
more recent political and economic conflicts in British
society, it remains to be seen which changes will occur.
The English primary schools are much smaller than
the American, comprising often fewer than 300 children.
English teachers and headmasters are traditionally
autonomous and work in collegial fashion; the curriculum
is not standardized by statute, as it is in the United
States. Here, although each state developed its own
educational legislation and practice, teacher training
institutions, textbook publishers, test makers, and state
legislators, more recently, federal funding for
compensatory, bilingual, and special education as well
as desegregation have contributed to the creation of the
standard American school and the average American teacher.
The American elementary school teacher, at least in school
districts in the state of California, is given a state-
mandated list of subjects to teach and locally-supplied,
explicit curriculum guides. While in Britain, as early
as 1918, as stated in the Handbook of Suggestions for
the Consideration of Teachers.
The only uniformative practice that the
Board of Education desires to see in the teaching
of the public elementary schools is that each
teacher shall think for himself, and work out
for himself such methods of teaching as may use
his powers to the best advantage and best suited
to the particular needs and conditions of the
school. Uniformity in detail of practice is
146
not desirable . . . even if it were obtainable.
(Spodek & Walberg, 1975, p. 232)
Indeed, English teachers, because of their
professional freedom over a long span of time, have been
the creators of open education. "One of the most
significant aspects of the changes in England is that, in
all cases, working teachers have been major contributors
to re form" (Feather stone„S. .Cohen ,—19 6 8,- p v 326) . Attempts
at reform, when they do come in the United States, tend
to start in the university or the legislature, and/or the
top administrative levels, and the teacher is often the
last to be involved. He often becomes the unwilling
carrier of an unwieldy educational plan.
This problem of reform has other aspects, also.
The American people have much more direct control over
education through their state (and federal) legislatures
than do the British. We legislate a reform and want
instant change; often we do not properly train teachers
nor give them the all-important time necessary to
incorporate new philosophies and practices. This idea of
instant solutions to old problems contributes greatly to
the feeling of instability in the educational establish
ment, and to the "there we go again!" complaint of the
teacher.
The administrative structure is also completely
different. The English headmaster and -mistress— or
147
"head"— has a great deal of freedom in shaping, with her
teachers, the program of her school. The position is an
end goal in itself. The head works directly with children
and teachers; he is a master teacher; he has less paper
work than his American counterpart. The American
principal, on the other hand, is an administrator, a
business manager, not often an educational leader. He is
the- implementor of educational policy and the engineer for
the instructional program and not the creator-— although,
as in any institution, he does set the tone for his
school and the instructional emphases exhibited there are
often the result of his leadership style. He too is
hampered by the "system": mandated curriculum, large
school, alienated parents, etc.
Another factor contributing to the constellation
of differences between British and American education is
the support system exemplified by the advisors, who
usually come out of the office of the Local Education
Authority (LEA), and Her Majesty's Inspectors (HMI's),
who are attached to the National Department of Education
and Science. (See the section on the advisor in open
education.) These two agencies provide inservice training
as well as on site hands-on visits to classrooms.
Inservice courses are also given by the Nursery Associa
tion, the Froebel Institute, the teachers' college, the
(2Q) Institutes of Education (which are responsible, with
148
the colleges, for assessment and examination of candidate
teachers; teachers are qualified by the Department of
Education and Science only after recommendation by the
Institutes); and the Nuffield Foundation (which exists
outside the official structure and specializes in math and
science). The Teachers Centres, which house materials and
publications, also are sites for inservice. Inservice
sources take place after school, over the weekend, during
the summer; the fees are minimal; ho increment is given
for attendance.
English teacher education is also different from
the American. The student who is accepted at a college
of education, after completing the sixth form (year) of
secondary education (comparable to the first two years in
American colleges), begins a three-year course of study.
That course of study is a unity of practice and theory,
not separate subjects, in three general areas: study of
child development, practice, and curriculum; and a
discipline of individual choice. The core of the training
is practice, which is scheduled for each of the three
years. This practice is multi-leveled, that is, it
includes experience below and above the area chosen by
the student. "The area of concentration stresses the
students’ individual exploration and personal development"
(Weber, 1971, p. 150).
149
In her final teaching practice (approximately
five weeks), a student takes over an infant school
class and is expected to function independently
with responsibility for all aspects of the class,
including the preparation of varied material that
can be used on many levels. The student can even
change things about— physical arrangement, content,
method. The class teacher accepts this independent
role but permits the student teacher to call on her
for help if needed. (For continuity the class
teacher also maintains daily contact with her
children.) The headmistress, as always, plays a
strong supportive role, and college supervision
of the student teacher is close— twice a week,
and often more— since the student can be supervised
by subject tutors as well as education tutors.
(Weber, 1971, p. 150)
The first year of teaching is one of probation,
in which the young teacher works under careful
supervision, and is assessed very seriously at
least twice by the LEAs. The latter also receive
reports from the school heads, which have been
shared with and signed by the probationer. While
there exists a strong obligation to make that year
successful, and sometimes an extended probation in
an more sympathetic situation is recommended, not
all young teachers pass their probation to receive
final qualification. (Weber, 1971, pp. 150-151)
It is only after he has taught for at least five
years that a teacher would apply to take advanced study
in child development at one of the Institutes to be a
teacher trainer. Advanced study would also be necessary
before applying for a deputy headship. After he has been
observed and interviewed by the LEA inspector, he is put
on an approved list.
Later he applies for the headship and the
inspections and interviews are repeated— this is the
assessment. If he is accepted for promotion, he undergoes
more interviews, for an advertised position, with the LEA
150
and the local Board of Managers, who aids the head in the
administration of certain funds. In this whole process,
the qualifications, standards, and inspectorial are
national functions, but the Board of Managers and the LEA
have a distinct role in choosing the head and supporting
his freedom. Great care is taken in choosing because, as
in the United States, removal is difficult after appoint
ment. One of the purposes of the inspection system--
national HMIs and local LEAs-— is the support of profes
sional growth in the head as well as in the teacher.
Because of the marked differences in the society,
in the legislative function, in the institutional
structure, and in the power of the teacher, many
observers believed that open education would not make a
significant difference in American education (Anderson,
1973; Arnstine in Nyberg, 1975; Devaney, 1974) . Goodlad,
as reported by Devaney (1974), stated that our greatest
failure— and hence, greatest impediment to meaningful
change— is the failure to educate teachers for self
renewal. Other factors are: the nature of the school
organization, the lack of leadership on the part of the
principal, alienated parents, lack of on-site aid for
teachers, and the conservative temper of the times. And
Anderson (1973) said that the teaching profession is more
conservative than the populace; the public won't pay for
it and the teachers won't work at it.
151
Models of Teaching: A Comparison of Open
and Conventional Teaching
A brief discussion of models of teaching will
provide another way to compare open education to
conventional teaching. The model serves as "an inter
pretative framework" (Nuthall & Snook, 1973, p. 48) for
what teaching ought to be. Joyce and Weil (1980) insisted
that no teacher or model is best, because research has
shown that different models have different specific
objectives. "No presently known single approach succeeds
with all students or reaches all goals" (Joyce & Weil,
1980, p. 8).
Both authorities listed the behavioral model,
based on the work of Skinner. Its purpose is to change
the visible behavior of the learner. For optimum results,
instruction should be individualized.
Another style of teaching is the discovery-learning
or information-processing model. It is concerned with the
development of integrated, self—directed individuals
through intellectual functioning. Dewey, Bruner, Piaget,
and Montessori are names associated with this model.
Perhaps the greatest difference between this model and
open education is that in open education discovery-
learning is emphasized, namely, the teacher presents the
classroom environment and the materials in such a way that
152
students discover what the teacher intends them to
discover.
The third model cited by Nuthall and Snook (1973)
is the rational model, emerging from analytic philosophy,
in which changes in behavior are brought about inten
tionally and by rational, language-related means.
Advocates of the model are often supporters of the
traditional academic disciplines.
Joyce and Weil (1980) described two other
approaches. The first, the social interaction model is
based on relations to society and other individuals,
exemplified by the group-investigation methods of Dewey.
The second, the personal model is oriented toward
individual students and the development of selfhood;
attention to the student*s emotional life is expected to
result in more effective information-processing ability.
Examples of this model are Rogers with his non-directive
teaching, and Peris with his awareness training. The
personal model does not deal with the subject-matter
content, which is one emphasis in open education.
Joyce and Weil reiterated, "Since no single
teaching strategy can accomplish every purpose, the wise
teacher will master a sufficient repertoire of strategies
to deal with the specific kinds of learning problems he
or she faces" (1980, p. 19). The open educator does
attempt to handle a wide spectrum of learning styles and
153
problems, but the teaching ambiance is different from the
models thus far mentioned.
As an advocate of openness in education, Sherman
(1970) stressed that a precarious balance of openness and
structure is necessary, if the educational institution is
to serve well both society and the individual.
A graphic representation of the teacher differ
ences on three dimensions, between structure (Alternative
S) and openness (Alternative O) as described by Sherman
(1970), p. 35) is on the following page.
Bennett1s Study
Teaching Styles and Pupil Progress (Bennett, 1976)
emphasized the very difficult research problem of
controlling for variables in field studies in education.
That difficulty is discussed in each of several
consistently critical statements which appeared in
journal articles following the publication of Bennett's
study (Bennett & Entwistle, 1977; Choppin, Bossert, &
Rosenshine, 1978; Featherstone & Bissell, 1977; Gray &
Satterly, 1976; Hechinger, 1977; Smith, 1977; and Weber,
1976) .
The study concerns pupil progress in reading,
math, and English in 37 fourth-year primary classrooms in
the English counties of Lancashire and Cumbria. The data
on the children were collected for the academic year
-1-9-7.3—74 . The stndi.es i involving _c lass room and teacher_____
154
A COGNITIVE STYLE A
closed: structured ^ \ o p e n ; f l e x i b l e
L L
T T
E E
R R
N
EMOTIONAL AWARENESS
N
AND SENSITIVITY
A unaware; out-of-touch
:wlth self and others ^
aware; in touch A
^ with self and others
%---
T
1 ?
T
I I
V V
E E
TRUST IN SELF
S limited self-trust;
i n s e c u r e ^
self-trust; O
^ R p n s p o f c o m n o t o n c o
Some of the dichotomies facing the practioner are
listed here:
Alternative S Alternative O
Minimal attention to
differences
Acceptance of
differences
Guidance and curriculum
separation
Guidance-curriculum
unity
Authoritarian management Democratic management
Socialization demands and
expectancies
Idiosyncratic growth and
development
Covering content Curiosity
"Teacher" role Person who is and feels
Competitive— threatening
relations with parents
Cooperative— collabora
tive relations with
parents
155
selection were done prior to that year. Although
Bennett's study was not primarily concerned with teacher
behaviors in the formal and open education settings, it
is discussed here because of the statements he did make
relevant to the teacher.
From his sample, Bennett judged that only 17
percent of the English teachers were practitioners of open
education; he felt that Blackie and Silberman, with their
estimate of 30 percent, were optimistic. Bennett noted
that 25 percent taught formally, and that the remaining
58 percent incorporated elements of formal and informal
practices— his "mixed" classrooms--in their teaching. He
reported that formal and mixed classes demonstrated three-
to-five months more academic growth in reading during the
year than informal classes. The formal classes were
four-to-five months ahead of the mixed and informal in
math and three-to-five months ahead in English.
He did gather evidence relating to "teaching aims
and teacher opinions" and to "the external constraints
impinging on the classroom process" (p. 150), through a
questionnaire and through observations of teachers.
Bennett reported a strong relationship between teachers'
goals and opinions and their actual educational practice.
Formal teachers are more concerned about academic
achievement and stress it in their classrooms, while
informal teachers stress social and emotional goals, he
156
wrote. That difference in goals may have been true for
Bennett's sample, but there have been questions about how
representative of open educators his sample was.
Although Bennett controlled for the age of the
teachers, their years of experience, their socioeconomic
status, and the effects of the eleven-plus selection
examination, he did not report what consideration, if any,
was given to the number of years of experience teachers
had within a particular teaching style. The literature
reported a broad agreement that open educators need
approximately five years* experience in an open education
setting before they consider themselves to be effective
teachers. How much experience did the 13 informal
teachers in his study have in open classrooms?
Bennett acknowledged the difficulties of teaching
informally:
It is generally accepted that to teach well
informally is more difficult than to teach well
formally. It requires a special - sort of teacher
to use informal methods effectively— one who is
dedicated, highly organized, able to work
flexibly, able to plan ahead and willing to spend
a great deal of extra time in preparatory work.
How many teachers do we have who could meet these
specifications? (pp. 160-161)
Did he control for this factor? It is interesting
that the teacher whose class made the greatest gains in
English, reading, and math during the year of the study
was an open educator. She was in her middle thirties
with ten years' experience. In her classroom the children
157
spent more time on math and English than was spent in most
of the formal classes. She emphasized creative writing.
She selected and created materials which helped her stress
grammar. She "stated that she was the main incentive:
’personality has a lot to do with it: they know I will be
pleased if they do well'" (p. 98).
Granted, that field studies in dynamic situations
often leave little control in sample selection to the
investigator. When that is the case, then ought the
investigator make the sweeping generalizations made by
Bennett?
Personality Theory: Theoretical
Basis of the Questions
Posed by the Study
An investigation of such a fundamentally important
variable in the teaching-learning process as the teacher
requires a preliminary discussion of personality theory.
Sanford (1970) cautioned: "Experimental methods have so
far proved inadequate for dealing with the complexity of
personality, with the vast network of meanings in which a
particular pattern of behavior is likely to be entwined"
(p. 79). He postulated that an adequate
theory must deal with the elements of personality,
their manner of organization and their boundaries;
the nomothetic and idiographic qualities of those
elements within the structure; and the change
over time in elements and structure.
The personality theory of Alfred Adler (1870-
1937) has been chosen as the framework for this
158
study because of its parsimony (Hall and Lindzey,
1970) and its breadth; it forms a synthesis of
the objective observational methods of natural
science and the subjective causality of social
science, and acts as a synthesizing agent among
several other important theories (Ansbacher,
1964).
Adler's ideas are supported by field theorists,
such as Lewin and Goldstein, because he postulated
that dynamic forces are relational, not fixed.
His emphasis on the whole rather than the parts
is similar to the position of the Gestaltists.
His similarity to G. W. Allport and Murphy is
demonstrated by the import he gives to the
contribution of the social setting to the develop
ment of personality. The goal-directedness of
human behavior, the consistency of the self, the
individuality of the perceived world are postulates
which relate Adler to the humanism of Rogers and
Maslow. His doctrine of the creative self, his
argument that man constructs his own personality
out of the raw material of heredity and experience
demonstrates Adler's relationship to the existential
psychologists.
Adler's work developed as an antithesis to
Freud's, stressing social relations rather than
biological factors, and the striving for perfection
rather than the sex instinct. . Many of his writings
contain direct responses to Freudian edicts, a
continuing controversy that began as early as
1906, when Adler rejected the sexual etiology of
mental phenomena. Although Adler was one of the
pioneers in a new science, his final formulations
in Individual Psychology lie in the mainstream
of current trends in psychological theory.
Consistent with his own theory and the
philosophical stance of Sanford (1970), many of
Adler's postulates stem from his own life experi
ences, as two biographers (Bottome, 1957; Orgler,
1963) demonstrated. However, this brief discussion
will be confined to basic, pertinent propositions
and will exclude biographical data.
The basic formulations of Individual Psychology
(Ansbacher, 1964; Hall and Linzey, 1970) pertinent
to this study are:
1. The prepotent dynamic principle is the
innate striving for superiority, or perfection, or
totality. This applies to all human activity and
is therefore nomothetic. The striving stems from
normal feelings of inferiority which arise from a
sense of imperfection.
159
2. The striving is directed by an individually
unique goal, which, although influenced by
biological and environmental factors, is the
creation of the individual. Although the goal
provides the unity and uniqueness of the person
ality, it is often unknown and not understood—
which is Adler’s definition of the unconscious—
by its possessor. The goal and its causative
influences are idiographic. Because the goal is
an ideal which may sometimes be impossible to
reach, it is fiction and at the same time the
final cause of behavior.
3. The style of life is the whole that commands
the parts, the self-consistent organization of the
individual's psychological processes. This is
Adler's chief idiographic principle. The individual's
style of life is based on the way he chooses to reach
his self-chosen goal; it is formed very early in
life, by the fourth or fifth year. In fact, "A
very marked attitude of a man can be traced back
to an origin in childhood. In the nursery are
formed and prepared all of man's future attitudes.
Fundamental changes are produced only by means of
an exceddingly high degree of introspective" (Adler,
1955, p. 10). The individual's opinions of himself
and the world and his interpretations are aspects
of the style of life, and influence his every
psychological process.
4. Social interest is another innate human
ability and therefore nomethetic. It isa crucial
factor "because the individual is embedded in a
social situation" and "cannot be considered apart
from his social situation" (Ansbacher, p. 2). The
normal individual has an adequate amount of social
interest; that is, his striving includes concern
for the welfare of other and is much more task-
oriented than the striving of the neurotic.
Because of this social-embeddedness, all values
become social values.
5. The creative self is a summarizing principle,
considered by Hall and Lindzey to be Adler's most
important achievement in personality theory. Adler
wrote:
The teleology of human psychological life
arises from immanent necessities (environ
ment and heredity), but is in its unique
ness a creation of the individual.
Every individual represents both a
unity of personality and the individual
fashioning of that unity. The individual
160
is thus both the picture and the artist.
(Ansbacher, p. 177)
We arrive at our idographic selves by way
of nomothetic paths.
This study suggests then that the open education
teachers form a small population whose unique educational
background is one factor which has led them to adopt an
educational philosophy, to maintain out-of-school
interests, and to practice classroom procedures which are
different from those of the vast majority of elementary
school teachers. Within the Adlerian framework, the
small group of open education elementary school teachers
is different from other teachers in goal, style of life,
and social interest. Each member of this small population
has created a self which is substantially different from
that of other teachers and which is characterized by
differences in educational philosophy, out-of-school
interests, and educational practices.
Statement of the Problem Situation
Open education came to the United States from
England in the mid-1960s. Its practice is characterized
by the following components:
1. seating is informal, so that children may work
individually or in small groups;
2. the teacher presents very few lessons from the
front of the classroom;
161
3. the schedule includes blocks of time during which
the children pursue activities at their own pace
in the carefully prepared classroom environment;
4. the work children do is not divided into subject-
matter areas;
5. there are no sets of books used in group
instruction;
6. a class includes children of all ability levels
and within a two-to-three year age range;
7. the arts are an important part of the daily
program;
8. the bases of learning are experience and
exploration within and without the classroom;
9. the teacher gives great attention to the
uniqueness of each individual child by observing
his activities and then interacting with him.
Many problems stand in the path of the American
elementary school teacher who decides to examine his
educational philosophy and practice for the purpose of
changing to the open education model. These obstacles
can be placed into three categories:
1. Personal: Real change requires thought, time,
effort, and pain, even with the support of peers,
administrators, and parents.
2. Professional: Open education is still
relatively new and untried, even though it has sound
162
psychological and philosophical bases. Investigations of
the effectiveness of open education have resulted in
mixed findings in terms of various parameters of
children's growth in the cognitive and affective domains.
It is probably too soon to have the results of well-
designed, longitudinal studies.
3. Societal: The present Zeitgeist is against
the kind of experimental teaching situations which are
inherent in open classrooms.
Yet, in spite of these massive drawbacks, there
are elementary school teachers who, individually and
alone, or in relatively supportive groups settings, are
attempting to teach by the philosophy and methods of open
education. Why? Are there areas of differences between
these experimenting teachers and the great majority of
teachers who have chosen not to attempt this particular
alternative?
The writer asked that question of four prominent
American educators working with teachers in the practice
of open education. Weber (Note 1) works with self
selected teachers from the public schools of New York City
and had difficulty with the concept of fixed differences
between conventional and open education teachers.
Perrone (Note 2) found among the diversity of open
education teachers two commonalities: their personal
interest in learning and "their increasing sense of
163
responsibility for what happens in their classrooms."
Rogers (Note 3) agreed with "the notion that open teachers
tend to have different social, political, and often even
religious beliefs and values." Spodek (Note 4) was aware
of differences in philosophic orientation as well as the
non-conventional educational backgrounds of the teachers
with whom he worked. However, he was not certain of the
source of these differences. (Copies of the investi
gator 's letters and the four personal communications are
in Appendix A.)
Purpose and Importance of the Study
The purpose of the study was to determine if there
was a difference between open educators and conventional
teachers in a cluster or syndrome of factors: educational
background, out-of-school interests, and educational
philosophy. For example, Does the educational history of
open education teachers consist of something other, or
more than, the earning of a college degree immediately
after graduation from high school?
Do open education teachers have the usual student
teaching experience?
Do open education teachers have- more out-of-school
interests as well as a greater variety of interests than
conventional teachers. For example, do open education
164
teachers attend sporting events as well as symphony
orchestra concerts?
Do the teachers who practice open education have
different philosophical assumptions from conventional
teachers? Do they accept the importance of play in
children's education or the importance of children's
interactions with each other?
If there is a more effective way to educate
children in this increasingly complex American society
than the traditional methods of the past, then it should
be defined and studied. The crucial element in any
classroom is the teacher. The teacher who is able to
practice that different method should be found and
studied.
If the investigation revealed significant
differences between the two elementary teacher samples, it
could provide a resource for further study. For example,
perhaps a School of Education would develop an experi
mental teacher training program which could be maintained
and studied over an extended period of time, even into
the classroom experiences of its graduates and their
students, so that comparisons could eventually be made.
Such a result would more than justify the study.
165
Research Questions
The study was exploratory? it was designed to
determine the responses to the following questions:
1. Are the elementary school teachers of grades
four, five, and six who teach by the philosophy and
practices of open education different in their educational
background from conventional elementary school teachers
of those grade levels?
2. Are the elementary school teachers of grades
four, five, and six who teach by the philosophy and
practices of open education different in their out-of-
school interests from conventional elementary school
teachers of those grade levels?
3. Are the elementary school teachers of grades
four, five, and six who teach by the philosophy and
practices of open education different in their educational
philosophy from conventional elementary school teachers
of those grade levels?
Delimitations
The study was delimited by the following:
1. The size of the two samples was limited by
the time constraints, the energy, and the financial
resources of the investigator.
166
2. The composition of the two samples was
limited by the time constraints, the energy, and the
financial resources of the investigator.
3. The period of time during which the data were
collected was extended to four years (1978-1981) because
of the ill health of the investigator.
Limitations
The following limitations were imposed on the
study:
1. Statements about limited samples may not be
generalizable to larger populations.
2. Statements about open education teachers who
practice their art during times less favorable to
innovation in education may not be generalizable to those
who practice in more favorable periods.
3. Statements about and from elementary school
teachers who teach in private schools may not be
generalizable to public school teachers.
4. Volunteer subjects may not be appropriate
exemplars of their specific populations.
5. Subjects may not have responded honestly to
the inventory.
6. Subjects may have presented classroom
behaviors to the investigator which were different from
their usual classroom behaviors.
167
7. Teachers who teach in the public sector may
be prohibited from teaching according to their individual
philosophical stance.
8. The inventory as designed may not be sensitive
to the differences between the open educator and the
conventional teacher samples.
Outline' of the Remainder of
the Study
Chapter II of this exploratory investigation
includes a presentation of the procedures. In the four
sections are an introduction, discussions concerning the
instrumentation, the samples, and the statistical
procedures.
An analysis and evaluation of the findings are
described in Chapter III.
Chapter IV includes a brief summary of the
investigation, conclusions indicated by the findings,
and recommendations for further study.
168
CHAPTER II
PROCEDURES
Introduction
A total of 6 0 subjects, from two populations, was
observed once in their classroom environment and rated on
the Classroom Observation Schedule (COS) by an investi
gator who was present in each classroom from 45 to 60
minutes.
Each subject was then given a stamped, self-
addressed envelope containing a copy of the eleven-page
Tansey Teacher Inventory (TTI); it was requested that
the subject mail the envelope within one or two weeks.
The investigator prepared the data from the TTIs
for computer analysis; the subjects from each sample were
compared as to their educational background, their out-of-
school interests, and their educational philosophy.
The results of these comparisons are reported in
Chapter III of this study.
Instrumentation
The investigator examined many instruments created
to document life in the classroom (Simon & Boyer, 1974;
169
Traub et al., 1972). They were found to be inappropriate
for the purposes of the study.
The instrument selected to document the classroom
environment and behaviors of the teacher and the children
was the Classroom Observation Rating Scale (CORS),
developed by Walberg and Thomas (1971) and validated
(Walberg & Thomas, 1972) using three samples: traditional
teachers in the United States, and open education
teachers in the United States and in England. The
correlation between the CORS and Walberg and Thomas *
Teacher Questionnaire (1971) , which contained the same
items in a slightly different form, was .86.
An edited form of the CORS was field-tested or
piloted, in December 1977 in a public school setting. All
the items involving behaviors which were not readily
visible to a knowledgeable observer were eliminated. The
resulting instrument was the Classroom Observation
Schedule (COS), containing 32 items. A copy is found in
Appendix B.
The Tansey Teacher Inventory (TTI) was developed
by the investigator. It includes, in Part I, life
history items suggested by Glennon, Albright, and Owens
(1966)? and items about recreational and cultural
interests, some of which were suggested by Popham (1958).
In Part II are items about educational philosophy
suggested by the literature of open education and by
170
Rokeach (1960). The responses for most items are arranged
on a five-point scale; the TTI contains 99 items, 45 in
Part I, 54 in Part II.
The TTI was first pilot tested in a graduate
education class at the University of Southern California
during the summer of 1976. The second pilot study was
conducted on the revised form in a public school setting
in December 1977. The third and final form was used in
this investigation. The copy in Appendix C includes the
numbers attributed to each response for the purpose of
scoring.
The Samples
The 30 subjects from the open educator population
and the 30 subjects from the conventional teacher
population all volunteered to take part in the study after
explanatory discussions with the site administrator and/or
the investigator. They were all teachers in grades four,
five, or six. The 60 subjects were teaching at the time
of the study in schools in: (1) the Beverly Hills
Unified School District; (2) the Los Angeles Unified
School District; (3) the Palos Verdes Peninsula Unified
School District; and (4) private open education schools
in the cities of Los Angeles and Santa Monica. The label
"open education teacher" as opposed to "conventional
171
teacher" was applied by the site administrator most often
and occasionally by the teacher-subject.
Although no attempt was made to match the subjects
for the socioeconomic status (SES) and ethnic percentages
of their respective school populations, a broad selection
of SES and ethnic groups was found in the classrooms of
both samples.
Statistical Procedures
Two criteria of "open" versus "conventional"
education were developed. The first criterion was
dichotomous: "open" as opposed to "conventional." The
second identification procedure was based on the subjects'
total scores on the observation instrument, the Classroom
Observation Schedule (COS).
The scores on these two criteria were correlated,
using the Pearson Product-Moment Coefficient of
correlation (Guilford & Fruchter, 1973). Correlations
were also computed between these two criteria and each
of the 45 items on Part I of the Tansey Teacher Inventory
(TTI), and between the two criteria and the sum of the
subjects' scores on Part I. The same procedure was
followed for the 54 items on Part II of the TTI.
The significance of these correlations was tested
by the t test (Guilford & Fruchter, 1973) . Significance
levels for r were: r Q^ = .255 and £. = -333, two-
tailed test._______________________________________________________
172
A lower bound estimate of the reliability of the
COS was obtained from the correlation between the two
criteria.
In addition, the various measures were inter
correlated to provide two matrices. The first matrix was
based on the associations among the two criteria, the
scores on each of the 45 items of Part I, and the total
scores on Part I of the TTI. The second matrix was based
on the relationships among the two criteria, the 54 items
of Part II, and the total scores on Part II of the TTI.
These matrices were factor analyzed using the
minimum residual method of factor analysis (Comrey, 1973).
Ten factors were extracted and rotated by the normal
varimax method (Kaiser, 1958) to identify clusters of
homogeneous items in each of the two collections of
statements represented by Part I and Part II of the TTI.
173
CHAPTER III
ANALYSIS AND EVALUATION
OF FINDINGS
Intro due t i on
Although the analysis of the data revealed several
clusters of facts in the educational background and the
out-of-school interests of the subjects, the answer to the
first two research questions must be negative:
1. Elementary school teachers of grades four,
five, and six who teach by the philosophy and practices
of open education are not different in their educational
background from conventional elementary school teachers
of those grade levels.
2. Elementary school teachers of grades four,
five, and six who teach by the philosophy and practices of
open education are not different in their out-of-school
interests from conventional elementary school teachers
of those grade levels.
Because there were strong relationships between
criterion one (open vs. conventional) and criterion two
(scores on the COS) and the subjects* total scores on
Part II of the TTI, the response to the third research
question is in the affirmative:
174
3. Elementary school teachers of grades four,
five, and six who teach by the philosophy and practices
of open education appear to be different in their
educational philosophy from conventional elementary
teachers at those grade levels.
Tansey Teacher Inventory, Part I
Research questions one and two were embodied in
Part I of the Tansey Teacher Inventory (TTI).
An analysis of the data of Part I, TTI, revealed
88 significant correlations: .255 <_:r < . 333 56
. 3 34 <_r 32
There were two items of the 45 on Part I which
were significantly associated with the first criterion,
"open" vs. "conventional."
1. Open educators were more likely to be
movie-goers. r = .27
2. Open educators were less likely to spend
some time during the course of the week "just thinking."
r = -.32
There were three significant relationships with
the second criterion, the subjects1 scores on the COS:
1. Open educators with higher COS scores were
less likely to take coursework beyond the bachelor’s
degree. r = -.31
2. Open educators with higher COS scores were
175
less likely to be members of professional organizations
including unions. r = -.36
3. Open educators with higher COS scores were
more likely to be movie-goers. r = .40
There were ten clusters, revealed by the factor
analysis. The author applied descriptive statements to
each cluster of items.
Factor I: The introverted scholar
item no. loading
9 .53 I decided to be a teacher after the B.A.
11 .49 I didn't study teacher training as
an undergrad.
12 .56 I didn't have student teaching
experience.
39 -.43 I attend theatre several times a month.
41 -.65 I attend musicals everal times a month.
43 ^.40 I go to friends' homes often.
This cluster of items describes the tendency to
be an introverted scholar.
Factor IX: The gregarious reader
item no. loading
20 -.64 I read newspapers regularly for specific
items
23 .48 I read at least ten books a year.
28 .55 I have been active in political
campaigns.
176
item no loading
44 .47 I attend spectator events with friends
often.
This cluster of items describes the extroverted
reader of books among the subjects.
Factor III: The first-born achiever
item no
-
loading
2 .47 I am the first-born or only child.
7 -.56 I entered college after working or
without graduation from high school.
13 .46 I have been teaching for more than
fifteen years.
22 . 53 I regularly read and/or subscribe to
more than four magazines or
periodicals.
Individuals high on this factor are those who are
highly experienced teachers who were first-born, entered
college immediately after high school, and who now read
many magazines. This may represent achievement orienta
tion.
Factor IV: The cultured thinker
item no • loading
18 .43 I have studied painting, voice, etc.
in a non-public, non-college setting.
35 . 58 I watch television only for specific
programs.
177
item no. loading
40 .49 I attend concerts or opera several
times a month.
42 .43 I visit art museums/galleries several
times a month.
45 .47 I spend some time during the week
"just thinking."
This cluster of items describes the "cultured"
teacher who spends time "just thinking."
Factor V: The male teacher
item no. loading
1 .41 I am male.
6 .42 I paid my own way through college.
13 .43 I have been teaching for more than
fifteen years.
14 .49 It took me more than four years to
become an effective teacher.
18 -.55 I have studied painting, voice, etc.
in a non-public, non-college setting.
32 -.50 I regularly, actively participate in
hobbies.
Individuals high on this factor are male, paid
their own way through college, took four years to become
effective teachers and are highly experienced.
178
Factor VI: The movie-goer
item no. loading
crit. 1 . 75 "open" vs. "conventional"
crit. 2 . 75 score on the COS
38 .45 I go to the movies several times a
month.
This factor is represented primarily by the two
criterion variables. Only one item loads on this factor.
i.e., item 38: I go to the movies several times a month.
Factor VII: The public school student
item no. loading
3 . 56 I attended public schools, K-6.
4 . 90 I attended public schools, 7-9.
5 .78 I attended public schools, 10-12.
Individuals high on this factor are those who
attended public schools from kindergarten through Grade 12.
Factor VIII : The educated voter
item no. loading
15 . 59 I have taken course work beyond the
B. A.
24 .42 I belong to a professional teachers*
organization or union.
26 . 68 I vote regularly in national elections.
27 .60 I vote regularly in state and local
elections.
179
Individuals high on this factor are those who are
well-educated voters as well as members of professional
organizations. This may represent a measure of
intelligence.
Factor IX: The gregarious participant
item no. loading
29 .42 I belong to a civic organization.
30 .71 I talk easily with people wherever
I am.
total score .80 I have a high total score on the TTI,
Part I.
High scorers on Part I, TTI, are gregarious.
Factor X; The reading spectator
item no. loading
21 .50 I regularly read publications related
to teaching.
37 .51 I attend sports events several times
a month.
This cluster of items describes teachers who are
spectators at sports events and readers of publications
related to teaching. The basis for this factor is
unclear since these items appear to be unrelated.
180
Tansey Teacher Inventory, Part II
The association between criterion one, "open" vs.
"conventional" and criterion two, scores on the COS, was
highly significant, r = .83. This finding was interpreted
to mean that the label placed on the subjects' teaching
practices did indeed describe the teachers' observed
classroom behaviors. The strength of this relationship
was also taken to mean that the COS had high construct
validity.
Part II of the TTI was composed of 54 statements
about educational philosophy, each of which required a
response on a five-point scale from strongly agree to
strongly disagree.
An analysis of the data of Part II revealed 337
significant correlations: .255 r < .333 159
.334 ■ < r 178
The co-relation between criterion two, the scores
on the COS, and the subjects' total scores on Part II of
the TTI was .52, indicating a moderate relationship
between the educational philosophy and the observed
behaviors of the teachers in the two samples. The
relationship between criterion one, "open" vs.
"conventional," and the subjects' total scores on Part II
of the TTI was .42, revealing a moderate association
between the designation "open" or "conventional" and the
subjects' educational philosophy. These findings allowed
181
the investigator to respond to the third research
question in the affirmative: Elementary school teachers
of grades four, five, and six who teach by the philosophy
and practices of open education are different in their
responses to a scale to assess their educational
philosophy from conventional teachers of those grade
levels.
The factor analysis of Part II, TTI, revealed
strong associations between clusters of the items, thereby
allowing descriptive statements about the educational
philosophy of the open educator and of the conventional
teacher. In the following discussion, the word in
parentheses following the statement indicates the
response which was given five points in the scoring
process.
Factor I: Open education procedures
item no. loading
crit. one .67 "open" vs. "conventional"
crit. two .74 score on the COS
4 .61 Students should be assigned to a
class which contains children who are
in a two-three year age range,
(strongly agree)
item no. loading
182
6 .46 Standardized tests (or other objective
measures of performance) very often
have a negative effect on learning,
(strongly agree)
7 . 64 It is more beneficial for children to
read a wide variety of self-selected
reading materials at their own pace
than to read in one basal reader,
(strongly agree)
8 .55 Each child's school experiences are
justifiable in themselves and should
not be viewed primarily as preparation
for the future. (strongly agree)
11 . 50 Many students would benefit from being
given more time in the classroom for
independent learning. (strongly
agree)
13 .41 Children have the competence and
should be given the right to make
important decisions about their own
learning. (strongly agree)
14 .44 Elementary school students should be
permitted to disagree with their
teachers. (strongly agree)
183
item no. loading
23 . 61 Many teachers rely too heavily on the
use of textbooks. (strongly agree)
53 .61 Students should be taught to obey
adults, including teachers, without
question. (strongly disagree)
total score .50 on Part II of the TTI
This cluster of statements defining Factor I
describes the philosophy of the open educator with
respect to classroom procedures.
Factor II: Open education attitudes no. 1
item no. loading
3 . 58 The children should assist the teacher
in planning and arranging the
classroom environment. (strongly
agree)
11 .45 Many students would benefit from being
given more time in the classroom for
independent learning. (strongly
agree)
12 .66 When children are fully involved in
and enjoying an activity, learning is
taking place. (strongly agree)
item no. loading
184
14 .49 Elementary school students should be
permitted to disagree with their
teacher. (strongly agree)
15 .61 Children1s self-confidence is closely
related to their capacity to learn,
(strongly agree)
16 .63 Children learn better through their
successes in school than through
their failures. (strongly agree)
17 .79 Each child learns and develops
intellectually at her/his own rate
and in his/her own style. (strongly
agree)
18 .55 Errors, as part of the learning
process, are desirable, because they
provide information essential for
further learning. (strongly agree)
19 .65 Since knowledge is the result of
personal experience, it cannot fall
into neatly separated categories or
disciplines. (strongly agree)
22 .72 Elementary school teachers should seek
information about the community in
which they teach, and its resources,
185
item no. loading
to better meet the needs of individual
children. (strongly agree)
32 .61 Conflict should be recognized and
worked out within the context of the
classroom group and not handled by
the teacher alone. (strongly agree)
total score .51 on Part II of the TTI
This cluster of statements describes attitudes of
open educators.
Factor Ills Open education attitudes no. 2
item no. loading
13 . 52 Children have the competence and
should be given the right to make
important decisions about their own
learning. (strongly agree)
25 . 56 The kind of model the teacher.is has
more influence on children than the
subject matter taught. (strongly
agree)
34 .43 Elementary school teachers should
evaluate the learning of children by
direct observation. (strongly agree)
52 .47 I am uncomfortable when the teachers
at my school disagree with my educa
tional philosophy. (strongly disagree;
186
This cluster of statements describes the open
education teachers who espouse a humanistic philosophy.
Factor IV: Affective domain
item no. loading
24 .67 Elementary school teachers should
trust themselves to respond
spontaneously and in a variety of
situations within the classroom
environment. (strongly agree)
28 .51 Elementary school teachers should
seek help, when they feel it necessary,
from advisors within the school
community. (strongly agree)
31 .43 Elementary school teachers should feel
comfortable working without pre
determined curricula or fixed time
periods for specific subjects,
(strongly agree)
39 . 79 It is appropriate for the teacher to
encourage and assist the children in
the expression of their emotions,
(strongly agree)
51 .64 Good teachers should not have to seek
the services of psychotherapists for
themselves. (strongly disagree)
187
This cluster of statements represents interest in
the affective domain.
Factor V; Open education attitudes no. 3
item no. loading
12 .46 When children are fully involved in
and enjoying an activity, learning is
taking place. (strongly agree)
38 .57 Parents and visitors with special
knowledge of a topic should be among
the regular sources of information
available to children in the class
room. (strongly agree)
42 .40 Teaching is an exciting occupation
for me. (strongly agree)
This cluster of statements represents enthusiasm
for the educational process.
Factor VI; Open education attitudes no. 4
item no. loading
8 .46 Each child's school experiences are
justifiable in themselves and should
not be viewed primarily as preparation
for the future. (strongly agree)
33 .41 Elementary school teachers' educa
tional objectives should include and
go beyond literacy and concept
acquisition. (strongly agree)
188
item no. loading
43 . 61 It is acceptable behavior for teachers
to be active in political campaigns,
(strongly agree)
47
in
in
•
Teachers should not acknowledge their
ignorance about specific subject
matter in the presence of students.
(strongly di sagree)
This cluster of statements describes the liberal
philosophy of some open educators.
Factor VII: Open education attitudes no. 5
item no. loading
33 . 38 Elementary school teachers1 educational
objectives should include and go
beyond literacy and concept acquisi
tion. (strongly agree)
44 . 38 Science has fairly well demonstrated
that there are no genetic differences
among the races. (strongly agree)
45 .57 Homosexual individuals (of either sex)
should be allowed to teach in the
public schools. (strongly agree)
50 .46 Most people who live in poverty could
improve their lives if they really
wanted to. (strongly disagree)
189
item no. loading
53 . 37 Students should be taught to obey
adults, including teachers, without
question. (strongly disagree)
54 .47 Freedom of speech is a worthwhile
goal; nevertheless it is sometimes
necessary to restrict the freedom of
speech of some political groups,
(strongly disagree)
This cluster of statements describes a group of
open educators as political liberals.
Factor VIII : Human resources
item no. loading
30 .67 Elementary school teachers should
recognize and admit it when they feel
unable to give a specific child the
help he/she needs. (strongly agree)
36 .57 Elementary school teachers are one of
many sources of information and
attention in their classrooms,
(strongly agree)
37 .44 Elementary school teachers should
encourage informal talk and exchange
of information and ideas among students
as contributing to their learning
(strongly agree)
190
Individuals high on this factor acknowledge the
educational contributions to the classroom of other
persons in addition to the teacher.
Factor IX: The teacher as student
item no. loading
10 .49 Each individuals knowledge is personal
and is the result of his/her experi
ence with the world. (strongly agree)
26 .45 Elementary school teachers should be
continual explorers of new ideas and
possibilities both inside and outside
their classrooms. (strongly agree)
27 .45 Elementary school teachers should
evaluate their teaching methods as an
opportunity for their own personal and
professional growth. (strongly agree)
49 .50 Public elementary school teachers
should not belong to unions.
(strongly disagree)
Individuals high on this factor recognize the
value of the teacher's continuing growth and development,
personally and professionally.
191
Factor X: Open education attitudes no. 6
item no. loading
2 .43 It is probable that children possess
knowledge which they cannot demon-
strate publicly (as in a standardized
test). (strongly agree)
21 .54 Our society has not yet determined
which aspects of knowledge everyone
should acquire. (strongly agree)
40 .51 Elementary school teachers should
base their evaluation reports to
parents on each individual child*s
progress in relation to himself.
(strongly agree)
41 .65 The general objectives of the school
should be determined by the teachers,
parents and children. (strongly
agree)
Individuals high on this factor are teachers who
are concerned for the society as well as the individual.
Summary of Analysis
The response to the first two of the three
research questions investigated in this study was in the
negative. Elementary school teachers of grades four,
five, and six who teach by the philosophy and practices
192
of open education are not different in educational back
ground from conventional elementary school teachers of
those grade levels; nor are open educators different from
conventional teachers in their out-of-school interests.
However, the third research question can be
answered in the affirmative. Elementary school teachers
of grades four, five, and six who teach by the philosophy
and practices of open education are different in their
educational philosophy from conventional elementary school
teachers of those grade levels.
This investigation has demonstrated that the two
different teacher samples exhibited classroom behaviors,
as measured by the Classroom Observation Schedule, which
have a very strong relationship to the teachers*
designation as open or conventional, as well as to the
teachers* educational philosophy, as revealed by their
responses to the 54 statements on Part II of the Tansey
Teacher Inventory.
193
CHAPTER IV
SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS, AND
RECOMMENDATIONS
Summary
Although there is not a universally accepted
definition of open or informal education as it evolved in
England, during the 1930s and 1940s, and later crossed
the Atlantic to the United States, there are several
generally accepted components which differentiate the
practices of open education from those of conventional
teaching.
1. Open education is highly concerned with the
uniqueness of each individual student, her learning
style, her background, and her feelings.
2. Learning is based on experiences within and
outside the classroom.
3. The physical arrangement of the classroom
environment is informal and encourages the interaction
of the students.
4. The teacher presents very few formal lessons
to the whole class, but instead works with individuals
and small groups. He bases his student evaluations on
194
observation, work samples, anecdotal records, interactions
with the students, and not on formal assessments.
5. The school day is not divided into subject-
matter periods, but integrated so that children, within
large blocks of time, work at their own pace on tasks
they have chosen from the broadly varied teacher-prepared
environment.
Although Freud, Erikson, Rousseau, and Montessori
were often mentioned as being influential in the
development of the philosophical foundation of open
education, five thinkers emerged as the most salient.
John Dewey is felt by many English and American
commentators to be the grandfather of open education. His
emphases on learning by doing, physical activity and the
affective domain as well as cognitive processes, the
importance of making choices and evaluating consequences,
and the continuity between life in and out of the
schoolroom constitute tenets of open education.
Jean Piaget's theory of stages of intellectual
development are an important basis for informal education.
He maintained that the stages are constant in order, but
variable in time of appearance, depending upon the
individual and the society. Each stage of development
causes a new structuring of the elements. Pedagogy can
have a salubrious effect on intellectual development by
providing the appropriate environment.
195
Friedrich Froebel's educational philosophy
stressed the importance of every human being, even the
youngest child. His ideas about human growth led him to
establish the kindergarten. It was after the attempted
revolution in Prussia in 1848 that his ideas began to
take hold in England and Western Europe.
Nathan and Susan Isaacs, English contemporaries
of Piaget, stressed the importance of play and active
participation with other children and adults as necessary
components in intellectual and social development.
The history of education cannot be separated from
a discussion of the economic, political, religious, and
social forces at work in a given society. The major fact
about education in England is that the ruling class has
historically been fearful of over-educating the. lower
levels of its rigidly stratified society, a fact
demonstrated by the late implementation in 1973 of
earlier legislation raising the compulsory school-leaving
age to 16.
The first true antecedent of informal education
in England was Robert Owen, who established a private
infant school in 1816. Bertrand Russell and his second
wife, Dora Black, established a school in 1927, near
London, a description of whose practics would sound
familiar to advocates of open education.
196
Two government reports describing practice in
specific schools had great influence on the development
of informal education in England. The Hadow Report of
1931 and the Plowden Report of 1967 based their
philosophical stances on the behaviors of specific
teachers and their knowledgeable, thoughtful practices.
These two reports along with the work of the two Isaacs
immediately preceding and during the Second World War,
and the work of Anna Freud.with evacuated children during
that War, led prominent English educationists to write
that the changes in teaching practices since World War II
were spontaneous, grew out of practice, and had nothing
to do with educational philosophy. The changes were
developed in a long slow process and were the contribu
tions of practitioners.
In the United States, the development of
compulsory, publicly funded education was guided by what
had occurred in the mother-country, England, as well as
by the fact that in each of the individual states
educational systems developed idiosyncratically.
The Progressive Education movement of Francis W.
Parker and John Dewey, as it developed in the years
spanning the turn of the twentieth century, was the major
public precursor of open education in the United States.
Although many aspects of its practice--such as the
school*s concern for student health, vocation, and family
197
life— have come to be accepted as important concerns of
the modern public school, many of the philosophical
tenets of progressive education were not and are not
accepted by mainstream practitioners.
Two other major influences on open education in
the United States are found in the non-public sector here
and in the effect of the English practice on our own.
Among the roots of open education in America's own history
are the Africa Free Schools begun in New York in 1786;
the Settlement Houses, which were community centers; the
Folkshule of the pre-World War I Jewish immigrant; the
one-room schoolhouses of the nineteenth century; and the
schools established by Bronson Alcott and Henry David
Thoreau.
The American teachers and writers who visited the
informal classrooms of England and returned as writer-
advocates of that kind of education were perhaps the
greatest influence on the practice of open education in
the United States.
It is generally agreed that between 17 percent
and 30 percent of the English teachers practice open
education, and that there are far fewer practitioners in
the public schools of the United States. From three to
five years' experience is the period needed for an open
educator to function comfortably in the classroom.
198
It is difficult to separate the behaviors of the
open educator from the description of open education,
especially so since the physical environment and its use
are so dependent upon the teacher. The open educator's
beliefs about children and their learning, and the goals
of education, are generally considered to be humanistic
and holistic. The open educator spends the great bulk of
his instructional time in talking and working with
individual children and small groups. His planning is
dependent upon that interaction with individuals. The
interaction and planning require the keeping of anecdotal
records and other forms of documentation. In addition, it
is essential that the open educator participate in
activities and pursue interests unrelated to the school
setting; in other words, that he lead a private life, as
well as a public one.
The advisor in open education is an experienced
teacher who helps those practitioners who request her/his
service by organizing workshops and discussion courses;
by working with teachers as an exemplar for teachers' work
with children; and by working with teachers on specific
questions and problems in a "hands on" way rather than by
dealing with theory.
In the conventional classroom, the teacher has the
responsibility for classroom dialogue, supplies, and
schedules. There is minimum classroom interaction among
199
the students; they must maintain assigned seats for most
in-door activities. When the teacher does not assign
lessons to the whole class, she divides the children into
three groups for specific subjects. Much of the student
evaluation is based on formal assessment and/or informal
testing which emphasizes what is expected of a child of
a certain age and grade placement. The student is most
often required to play a passive role. The teacher is
the ultimate authority.
Ryans' Characteristics of Teachers (1960) study
discovered that teachers who reported frequent involvement
in avocational activities scored significantly higher in
specific characteristics than did teachers who reported
no such out-of-school activities. The characteristics
were: (1) warm, understanding, friendly; (2) responsible,
businesslike, systematic; (3) stimulating, imaginative;
(4) had favorable opinions of pupils, administrators,
and other school personnel and of democratic classroom
procedures; (5) held child-centered educational viewpoints.
Those teachers in Ryans' sample of more than 6,000
who scored one standard deviation or more above the mean
on the first three paterns of characteristics above
mentioned were compared to those teachers who scored one
standard deviation or more below the mean. The high
group: (1) were extremely generous in appraising motives
and behavior of other persons; (2) possessed strong
200
interest in reading and literary affairs; (3) were
interested in music, painting, and the arts in general;
(4) participated in social groups; (5) enjoyed pupil
relationships; (6) preferred non-directive classroom
procedures; (7) demonstrated superior verbal intelligence;
and (8) were better emotionally adjusted. On the other
hand, the low group: (1) were restrictive and critical in
appraising others; (2) preferred activities which did not
involve close personal contact; (3) expressed less
favorable opinions of pupils; (4) demonstrated less high
verbal intelligence; (5) were less satisfactorily
adjusted; and (6) represented older age groups.
professed regard for teachers has always been greater
than its real regard. In spite of the increased strength
of professional teachers' organizations, teachers have
not yet gained the legal right to govern their daily work
affairs. Nor, Lortie argued, have basic teaching
techniques changed much in three centuries.
Lortie (1975) suggested that the American public's
A brief comparison of the open education and
conventional models of teaching would include these
differences:
Conventional Open
Acceptance of individual
differences
1. Minimal attention to
individual differences
2. Authoritarian management Democratic management
201
3. Grade and age level Expectancies based on
expectancies in individual child
academics
Another difference often cited by researchers and
commentators between open educators and conventional
teachers is the difficulty inherent in effective informal
teaching• The open educator must be prepared to spend
extra time in preparation; must be well organized; must
be able to work flexibly; and must be skillful enough to
plan ahead effectively.
The economic, political, and social differences
between the English and American societies partially
explain the differences between the two countries in the
extent to which open education is practiced. In addition,
there are great differences in the educational systems.
The teacher has far more authority and prestige in
England than in the United States; the primary schools are
much smaller there: the headmasters are educational
leaders and have far less paperwork than the American
principal; the curriculum is not standardized by statute,
as it is here. The training of teachers is also
different: in England, the would-be teacher finds that his
three-year course in a college of education includes three
years of working with children as well as the study of
child development and a discipline of individual choice.
202
The personality theory of Adler was chosen as the
framework for this investigation because it synthesizes
several other important theories, including the existen
tialists* hypothesis that the human being creates her own
personality from the raw material of heredity and
experience*
The basic formulations of Adler’s Individual
Psychology are:
1. The human being innately strives for
superiority, or perfection, or totality.
2. The individual strives for her own unique
goal.
3. The individual's style of life is determined
by the manner in which she chooses to strive for her
self-chosen goal. The style of life is formed by the
fourth or fifth year of life.
4. Social interest, the individual's concern for
the welfare of others, is another nomothetic ability.
5. The creative self is Adler's summarizing
principle: the individual arrives at his idiographic
self by nomothetic paths.
This exploratory study was designed to investigate
the differences in educational background, out-of-school
interests, and educational philosophy between open
educators and conventional teachers who teach at grades
four, five, and six.
203
A total of 6 0 subjects, from two populations, was
observed in their classrooms and rated on the 32-item
Classroom Observation Schedule (COS). The subjects then
responded to the 99 items on the two parts of the Tansey
Teacher Inventory (TTI).
Two criteria were developed. The first was
dichotomous: open vs. conventional*the second was
continuously measured, based on the COS score. The two
criteria were correlated, using the Pearson Product-
Moment Coefficient of correlation. Correlations were also
computed for each of the two criteria and each of the 99
items on the TTI. In addition, two matrices were created
based on Parts I and II of the TTI. The matrices were
factor analyzed to identify clusters of homogeneous items
in each of the two collections of statements represented
by Parts I and II of the TTI. The significance of the
strength of the associations was computed using Fisher's
(two-tailed) t test.
An analysis of the data from Part I of the TTI,
concerning educational background and out-of-school
interests, revealed few associations between the criterion
"open" as opposed to "conventional" and the subjects' out-
of-school interests: Open educators were more likely to
be movie-goers and were less likely to spend some time
during the course of the week "just thinking." There were
three strong associations between the second criterion,
204
the score on the COS, and the out-of-school interests of
the subjects: Open educators with higher COS scores were
less likely to take coursework beyond the bachelor's
degree and were less likely to be members of professional
organizations, but were more likely to be movie-goers.
The factor analysis of Part I of the TTI yielded
descriptive statements about the subjects, but they bore
no relationship to the two criteria. Thus, the response
to the first two research questions was in the negative:
Elementary school teachers of grades four, five,
and six who teach by the philosophy and practices of open
education were neither different in educational background
nor in out-of-school interests from conventional elemen
tary school teachers of those grade levels.
The analysis of the data from Part II concerning
educational philosophy revealed a very strong association
between the two criteria; that is, the label, open or
conventional, placed on the~ subjects' teaching practices
did bear a strong relationship to the subjects' observed
classroom behaviors: r = .83. Further, the correlations
between the first criterion (open vs. conventional) and
the subjects' total scores on Part II of the TTI (.42) ,
and the second criterion (scores on COS) and the subjects*
total scores on Part II of the TTI (.52) were strong.
The matrix yielded specific clusters of statements which
205
were descriptive of the philosophy of open educators and
other clusters which described the philosophy of
conventional teachers.
Therefore, the response to the third research
question was in the affirmative: Elementary school
teachers of grades four, five, and six who teach by the
philosophy and practices of open education appeared to be
different in their educational philosophy from
conventional elementary school teachers of those grade
levels.
Conclusions
This exploratory investigation provided support
for the previous studies (Amarel et al., 1970; Barth,
1972; Bussis et al., 1976; and Walberg & Thomas, 1971 &
1972) which reported strong relationships between
teachers' educational philosophy and their classroom
behaviors. Open educators and conventional teachers were
indeed different in their educational philosophy; and
this difference was reflected in their teaching behaviors.
However, this study found nothing of importance in the
teachers' educational background nor in their out-of-
school interests which might help to explain the
differences in their educational philosophy. Further,
this investigation did not support Ryans* (1960) finding
that teachers who were interested in music, painting,
206
and the arts in general also preferred non-directive,
child-centered classroom procedures. Nor did this study
find support for Popham's (1958) relationships between
teachers' scores on a "conservative" instrument, the
Minnesota Teacher Attitude Inventory, and their greater
interest in hobbies. This investigation did reveal a
group of teachers which was not interested in the arts,
but found no relationships to educational philosophy nor
to educational practice. It must be acknowledged that the
Tansey Teacher Inventory (TTI) did not pose the crucial
questions which might have revealed basic differences
between conventional and open educators.
This study also revealed that the open education
population is not one monolithic group whose common
attitudes were always reflected in educational practice.
There were variations in philosophy and practice within
the population of open educators. That was a statement,
found in much of the early descriptive literature on open
education, which seemed to be confirmed here.
When the results of the study were interpreted in
the light of Adlerian personality theory, it must be
further stressed that Part I of the TTI was inadequate
for its assigned task. It was possible, however, that
the total population of teachers in the United States had,
in 1982, very few characteristics in common, and that it
207
was not possible to develop an instrument which would
measure the nomothetic paths followed by each unique
individual teacher.
Recommendations
If it is important to find elementary school
teachers who are willing to practice open education, then
it recommended that "meticulous study of the individual
case" (Hudson, 1975, p. 18) be made. Hudson complained
that psychologists have severely neglected that form of
inquiry, which has often led to insight in other fields.
It would also follow logically from Adlerian theory that
a careful study of the individual teacher would be
valuable in revealing nomothetic and idographic traits.
It is therefore suggested that the five high
scorers and the five low scorers on the Classroom
Observation Schedule (COS) be studied intensely. The
study should include assessments of their intelligence as
well as of salient personality variables, educational
history, and family background.
If a commonality of variables is thus discovered
within each group of five, then perhaps a useful
instrument could be developed which would distinguish
between conventional teachers and open educators in
characteristics other than educational philosophy.
208
Another potentially fruitful study would involve
following the progress for a specified period of time—
perhaps ten years— of the students who were in the
classrooms of these specific ten teachers. Perhaps then
a determination could be made about whether it really
makes any difference at all if the teacher teaches
conventionally or follows the philosophy and practices of
open education.
209
BIBLIOGRAPHY
210
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Adler, A. The practice and theory of individual
psychology. CFI Radin, trans.) London: Routledge &
Kegan Paul Ltd., 1955. (First published, 1923.)
Adorno, T. W., Frenkel-Brunswick, E., Lewinson, D. J., &
Sanford, R. N. The authoritarian personality. New
York: Harper & Row, Publishers, 1950.
Ahlgren, A., & Germann, P. R. Notes and comments:
Perceptions of open schooling. American Educational
Research Journal, Summer 1977, 14 (3), 331-337.
Alberty, B., & Dropkin, R. The open education advisor.
New York City, 10031: The Workshop Center for Open
Education, 1975..
Amarel, M., Bussis, A. M., Chittenden, E. A., & Tanaka,
M. N. Analysis of an approach to open education
(USOE Grant OEG-O-9-526618-4748 tlOO]). Princeton,
N.J.: Educational Testing Service, August 1970.
Anderson, J. A., & Little, J. W. Change and innovation in
education. New York: 10021: MSS Information ~
Corporation, 1974.
Anderson, R. H. Opting f<>r openness. Arlington, VA.
22209: National Association of Elementary School
Principals, 1973,
Andreae, J. Open education: ESEA Title I. New York:
State Education Department, Albany, Division of
Education for the Disadvantaged, December 1970.
(ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 059 334)
Ansbacher, H. L., & Ansbacher, R. R. (Eds.). The
individual psychology of Alfred Adler: A systematic
presentation in selections from his writings! New
York: Harper & Row, Publishers, 1964.
Applebee, M. L. Perspectives on primary school practice:
A study of formal, mixed and informal approaches fn “
open-plan and conventional rooms. Ph.D. thesis,
University of Lancaster (England). (ERIC Document
Reproduction Service No. ED 133 081)
211
Armbruster, F. E. All that new-fangled teaching has
flunked out. Los Angeles Times, , August 28, 1977,
Part VII, p. 3.
Arnstine, D. Open education: An aspirin for the plague.
In D. Nyberg (Ed.), The philosophy of open education.
London: Routledge & Kegan Paul, 1975.
Ashton-Warner, S. Teacher. New York: Simon and Schuster,
1963.
Back to basics in the schools. Newsweek, October 21,
1974, pp. 87-95.
Barth, R. S. Open education and the American school.
New York: Agathon Press, Inc., 1972.
Barth, R. S. Beyond open education. Phi Delta Kappan,
February 1977, 58(6), 489-492.
Barth, R. S., & Rathbone, C. H. A bibliography of open
education. Newton, Mass. 021601 Education Development
Center, Inc., 1971.
Bennett, N. Teaching styles and pupil progress.
Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1976.
Bennett, N., & Entwistle, N. Rite and wrong. E dueationa1
Research, June 1977, i9(3), 217-222.
Bennis, W. G., Benne, K. D., & Chin, R. The planning of
change (2nd ed.). New York: Holt, Rinehart and
Winston, Inc., 1969.
Berman, P., & McLaughlin, Ml W. Federal programs
supporting educational change, Vol. IV: The findings
in review (R-1589/4-KEW; Contract HEW--OS-73-216).
Santa Monica, CA 90406: The Rand Corporation, 1975.
Blackie, J. Inside the primary school. New York:
Schocken Books, 1971.
Bottome, P. Alfred Adler: A portrait from life. New
York: The Vanguard Press, 1957.
Brown, G. J., & Gross, S. J. The open teacher. Journal
of Children and Youth, Fall 1979, pp. 9-12. (ERIC
Document Reproduction Service No. ED 183 271)
212
Brown, M., & Precious, N. The integrated day in the
primar y schoo1. London: Ward Lock Educational, 1968.
Bussis, A. M., Chittenden, E. A., & Amarel, M. Beyond
surface curriculum (An interview study of teachers1
understandings). Boulder, Colo. 80301: Westview
Press, 1976.
Campbell, J., & Patton, M. Variations in open education
settings: A documentation of the North Dakota Follow
Through Program from the perspective of the teachers.
University of Minnesota: Minnesota Center for Social
Research, September 1975.
Choppin, B., Bossert, S. T., & Rosenshine, B. V. Review
Symposium: N. Bennett: Teaching styles and pupil
progress. American Educational Research Journal,
Winter 1978, 15(1), 158-169.
Clark, R. M. A micro-study of teacher behavior in outlier
schools. Paper presented at Annual Meeting of American
Educational Research Association, San Francisco, CA,
April 19-23, 1976. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service
No. ED 126 071)
Clegg, Sir A. Revolution in the British primary schools.
Washington, D.C.: National Association of Elementary
School Principals, 1971.
Cohen, D. H. The role of the teacher in the informal
classroom. Reprint from Educational Alternatives,
Vol. II, Proceedings of the 1973 and 1974 Conferences
on Open Education. (ERIC Document Reproduction
Service No. ED 129 422; filmed 1/31/77)
Cohen, S. (Ed.). Education in the United States, a
documentary history. New York: Random House, 1974.
(Five volumes.)
Coletta, A. J. Personality characteristics and assump
tions held by open and traditional teachers of the
poor. Paper presented at the American Educational
Research Annual Meeting, New Orleans, February 1973.
(ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 074 163)
Coletta, A. J. Personality characteristics held by open
and traditional teachers. Journal of Educational
Research, March 1975, 68(7), 250-252.
213
Coletta, A. J. , & Gable, R. K. The content and construct
validity of the Barth Scale: Assumptions of open
education* Educational and Psychological Measurement,
.Summer 1975, 35 (2)~ 415-425. (ERIC Document Repro-
duction Service No. EJ 125 083)
Comrey, A. L. A first course in factor analysis. New
York: Academic Press, 1973.
Cook, W. W., Leeds, C. H., & Callis, R. Minnesota
teacher attitude inventory. New York: Psychological
Corporation, 1951.
Cremin, L. A. The transformation of the school. New
York: Vintage Books, 1964.
Cronbach, L. J. Educational psychology. New York:
Harcourt, Brace & World, Inc., 1963.
Delano, G. Bronson Alcott and Henry David Thoreau: 19th
century pioneers in open education. New York City:
City College School of Education Workshop Center for
Open Education, April 1978.
Devaney, K. Developing open education in America.
Washington^ D.C. : National Association for the
Education of Young Children, 1974.
Dewey, J. The child and the curriculum and The school
and society. Chicago: The University of Chicago
Press, 1971. (First published 1902.)
Dewey, J. Experience and education. New York: Collier
Books, 1973. (First published 1938.)
Doob, H. S. Summary of research on open education.
Arlington, V. 22209: Educational Research Service,
Inc., 1974.
Dreeben, R. The nature of teaching. Glenview, Illinois:
Scott, Foresman and Company, 1970.
Dropkin, R. (Ed.). The teacher as learner. New York,
10031: City College Workshop Center for Open
Education, 1977.
Dropkin, R., & Tobier, A. (Eds.). Roots of open
education in America. New York, 10031: Workshop Center
for Open Education, 1976.
214
Duckworth, E. Piaget rediscovered. Journal of Research
in Science Teaching, 1964, 2^(3) , 172-175.
Edwards, N., & Richey, H. G. The school in the American
socia1 order. Boston: Houghton Mifflin Company, 1947.
Elementary Science Study of Education Development Center,
Inc. The ess reader. Newton, Massachusetts 02160:
Author, 1970.
Elofson, T. H. Open education in the elementary school:
Six teachers who were expected to change. Urbana,
Illinois: Center for Instructional Research and
Curriculum Evaluation, University of Illinois,
February 1973. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service
No. ED 084 023)
Featherstone, J. Schools where children learn. New York:
Liverright, 1971.
Featherstone, J., & Bissell, J> S. Book reviews: *
Teaching styles and pupil progress. Harvard
Educational Review, May 1977, 47 (2), 214-222.
Featherstone, F., & Cohen, D. K. Report analysis:
children and their primary schools. Harvard
Educational Review, Spring 1968, 3_8, 317-340.
Feitler, F. C., Wiener, W., & Blumberg, A. The
relationship between interpersonal relations
orientations and preferred classroom physical
settings. Paper presented at Annual Meeting, AERA,
Minneapolis, 1970. (ERIC Document Reproduction
Service No. ED 039 173)
Flanders, N. A. Analyzing teacher behavior. Reading,
Massachusetts: Addison-Wesley Publishing Co., 1970.
Froebel, F. The education of man. (Translated by W. N.
Hailmann.) New York: D. Appleton and Company, 1887.
Furth, H. G. Piaget for teachers. Englewood Cliffs,
N.J.: Prentice-Hall, Inc., 1970.
Gage, N. L. The yield of research on teaching. Phi Delta
Kappan, November 1978, <60 (3) , 229-235.
Getzels, J. W. Necessity and innovation in the selection
and training of teachers. Elementary School Journal,
April 1955 , 55. (8) , 427-434.
215
Getzels, J. W., & Jackson, P. W. The teacher's personal
ity and characteristics. In N. L. Gage (Ed.), Handbook
of research on teaching. Chicago: Rand McNally and
Company, 1963.
Glennon, J. R. , Albright, L. E., & Owens, W. A. A catalog
of life history items. Chicago: American Psychological
Association, Divison 14, 1966.
Good, T. L., Biddle, B. J., & Brophy, J. E. Teachers make
a difference. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston,
1975.
Goodlad, J. I. The dynamics of educational change:
Toward responsive schools. ' New York: McGraw-Hill
Book Company, 1975.
Goodland, J. I., Fenstermacher, G. D., LaBelle, T. J.,
Rust, V. D., Skager, R., & Weinberg, C. The
conventional and the alternative in education.
Berkeley, CA 94704: McCutchen Publishing Corporation,
1975.
Goodlad, J. I., Klein, M. F., and Associates. Looking
behind the classroom door. Worthington, Ohio:
Charles A. J one s P ub1ishing Company, 1974.
Gowan, J. C. A summary of the intensive study of twenty
highly selected elementary women teachers. Journal of
Experimental Education, December 1957, 46(2)7 115-124.
Gray, J., & Satterly, D. A chapter of errors: Teaching
styles and pupil progress in retrospect. Educational
Research, November 1976, 19(1),45-56..
Greer, M., & Rubinstein, B. Will the real teacher please
stand up? A primer in humanistic education. Pacific
Palisades, CA: Goodyear Publishing Company, Inc., 1972.
Gross, B., & Gross, R. A little bit of chaos, Saturday
Review, May 16, 1970, pp. 71-75.
Guba, E. G., & Getzels, J. W. Personality and teacher
effectiveness: A problem in theoretical research.
Journal of Educational Psychology, October 1955, 46(6),
330-344.
Guilford, J. P., & Fruchter, B. Fundamental statisties in
psychology and education (5th ed.). New York: McGraw-
Hill Book Company, 1973.
216
Hall, C. S., & Lindzey, G. Theories of personality
(2nd ed.) . New York: John Wiley and Sons, Inc., 1970.
Hapgood, M. The open classroom: Protect it from its
friends. Saturday Review, September 18, 1971, pp. 66-
75.
Havelock, R. G., & Havelock, M. C. Training for change
agents. Ann Arbor, Michigan: Center for Research on
Utilization of Scientific Knowledge, Institute for
Social Research, University of Michigan, 1973.
Hawkins, D. .Messing about in science: I, thou, it; On
living in trees; The informed vision. In The ess
reader. Newton, Massachusetts 02160: Elementary
Science Study of Education Development Center, Inc.,
1970.
Hechinger, F. M. The all-new "law and order" classroom.
Saturday Review, May 3, 1975, pp. 40-41.
Hechinger, F. M. Reappraising the open classroom.
Saturday Review, March 19, 1977, pp. 6; 58-59.
Hentoff, N. Our children are dying. New York: The Viking
Press, 1967.
Herndon, J. The way it 1spoozed to be. New York: Simon
and Schuster, Inc.,1968.
Holt, J. How children fail. New York: Dell Publishing
Co., 1970.
Howes, V. M. Basic skills and the open classroom.
Thrust (for educational leadership), May 1976, 5(5),
12-14.
Hudson, L. Human beings: The psychology of human
experienceT Garden City, N.Y.: Anchor Books, 1975.
Jackson, P. W. Life in classrooms. New York: Holt,
Rinehart and Winston, Inc., 1968.
Jensen, A. R. How much can we boost IQ and scholastic
achievement? Harvard Educational Review, Winter 1969,
39(1), 1-123.
217
Johnson/ G. F. J./ & Page, W. C. Helping traditional
teachers to plan and implement student centered
classrooms; Selected classroom project, Washington,
D.C. : Bureau of Elementary and Secondary Education
(DHEW/OE). (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No.
ED 055 962)
Joyce/ B./ & Weil/ M. Models of teaching. Englewood
Cliffs/ N.J. 07632: Prentice-Hall, Inc., 1980.
Kaiser, H. F. The varimax for analytic rotation in factor
analysis. Psychometrika, 1958, 23_, 187-200.
Katz, L. G. Open-informal education: Recommendations for
research and development. Final Report. Urbana,
Illinois University, College of Education, December
1971. Submitted to the National Institute of Education
Planning Unit. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service
No. ED 058 944)
Khan, S. B., & Traub, R. E. Teachers' attitudes in open
and traditional schools. Canadian Journal of Education
1980, 5(3). (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No.
(EJ 230 832)
Kohl, H. R. 36 children. New York: New American
Library, 1968.
Kohl, H. R. The open classroom. New York: The New York
Review, 1969. ~
Kozol, J. Death at an early age. New York: Bantam Books,
1968.
Landry, R. G. (Ed.). Comparative and longitudinal
analysis of teaching intern classrooms on selected
dimensions of openness: Second year. University of
North Dakota: Center for Teaching and Learning,
December 1974. (Supported in part by NIE Grant No.
00-0160/#3-0979.)
Landry, R. G. (Ed.). Comparative and longitudinal
analysis of teaching intern classrooms on selected
dimensions of openness: Third year (1975). University
of North Dakota: Center for Teaching and Learning,
October 1975. (Supported in part by NIE Grant No.
00-0160/#3-0979.)
218
Lawrence, E. (Ed.). Friedrich Froebel and English
education. New York: Philosophical Library, 1953.
Lortie, D. C. School-teacher (a sociological study).
Chicago 60637: The University of Chicago Press, 1975.
Mann, D., McLaughlin, M. W., Baer, M., Greenwood, P. W.,
McCluskey, L., Prusoff, L., Wirt, J. G., & Zellman, G.
Federal programs supporting educational change. Vol.
Ill: The process of change. (R-1589/3-HEW: Contract
HEW-OS-73-216.) Santa Monica, CA 90406: The Rand
Corporation, 1975.
Marshall, S. Adventure in creative education. London:
Pergamon Press Ltd., 1968.
McCracken, M. A day in the life of a resource colleague.
Insights into Open Education, January-February 1975,
7^(5) , 3-5. (A publication of the CTL, University of
North Dakota, Grand Forks, N.D. 58201.)
McGee, H. M. Measurement of authoritarianism and its
relation to teachers' classroom behavior. Genetic
Psychology Monographs, 1955, 52, 89-146.
McGhan, B. R. Teachers' use of authority and its
relationship to the socioeconomic status, race, teacher
characteristics, and educational outcomes. Flint,
Michigan: Flint Public Schools, 1978. (Mimeographed)
(ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 151 329)
McLaughlin, M. W. Innovations in classroom organization.
Santa Monica, CA 90406: The Rand Corporation, May 1975.
(Mimeographed)
McNeilly, C., & Wichman, H. Open and traditional teachers
Differences in orientation to interpersonal relations.
(ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 095 162;
filmed December 6, 1974)
Moyer, F. H. A comprehensive bibliography of open
education and open space schools— -A reader's guide.
Plainfield, N.J.: Author, 1972. (ERIC Document
Reproduction Service No. ED 065 909)
Murrow, C., & Murrow, L. Children come first (The
inspired work of English primary schools). New York:
American Heritage Press, 1971.
219
Myers, D. A., & Duke, D. L. Open education as an
ideology. Educational Research, June 1977, 19(3),
227-235.
Neill, ^ • Summerhill: A radical approach to child
rearing. New York: Hart, 1960.
Nogrady, M. E. An investigation of the relation between
open structure education and the development of
creativity in young children. Unpublished doctoral
dissertation, University of Southern California,
August 1975.
Nuthall, G., & Snook, I. Contemporary models of teaching.
In R. M. W. Travers (Ed.), Second handbook of research
on teaching. Chicago: Rand McNally and Company, 19 73.
Nyberg, D. (ed.). The philosophy of open education.
London: Routledge & Kegan Paul, 19 75.
Nyquist, E. B., & Hawes, G. R. (Eds.). Open education.
New York: Bantam Books, 1972.
Orgler, A. Alfred Adler, the man and his work. London:
Sidgwick and Jackson, 1963.
Park, J. Bertrand Russell on education. Ohio: Ohio
. State University Press, 1963.
Parker, F. British schools and ours. Bloomington,
Indiana: Phi Delta Kappa Educational Foundation, 197 9.
Patton, M. (Ed.). Comparative and longitudinal analysis
of teaching intern classrooms on selected dimensions
of openness. University of North Dakota: Center for
Teaching and Learning, April 1974. (Supported in
part by NIE, Grant No. 00-0160/#3-0979,)
Patton, M., & Campbell, J. (Eds.). Variations in open
education settings: A documentation of the North
Dakota Follow Through Program from the perspectives
of teachers. University of Minnesota: Minnesota
Center for Social Research, September 1975.
220
Pederson, C. A. North Dakota teacher center network.
Insights Into Open Education, January-February 1979,
2.(5) , 2-4. (A publication of the CTL of the University
of North Dakota, Grand Forks, N.D. 58201.)
Perrone, V. Open education: A perspective on where we've
been, and where we are today. Insights Into Open
Education, November 1974, _7, 3. (A publication of the
Center for Teaching and Learning, University of North
Dakota, Grand Forks, N.D. 58201.)
Perrone, V. Documentation: A process for classroom/
program evaluation and personal/professional learning.
Insights, Into Open Education, April 1977, 9/7), 2-9.
(A publication of the CTL, University of North Dakota,
Grand Forks, N.D. 58201.)
Popham, W. J. Out-of-school activities of teachers as
related to an index oftheir professional performance.
Unpublished doctoral dissertation, School of Education
Indiana University, June 1958.
Rathbone, C. H. (Ed.). Open education: The informal
classroom. New York: Citation Press, 1971.
Reichart, S. Change and the teacher. New York: Thomas Y.
Crowell Company, Inc., 1969.
Resnick, L. B. Teacher behavior in an informal British
infant school. School Review, 1972, 81, 63-83.
Richardson, E. S. In the early world. New York:
Pantheon Books, 1969.
Rogers, V. R. Teaching in the British primary school.
New York: Macmillan Company, 1970.
Rogers, V. R. A British administrator looks at British
schools. Phi Delta Kappan, September 1979, 61(1),
61-62.
Rogers, V. R., & Church, B. (Eds.). Open education:
Critique and assessment. Washington, D.C.: Association
for Supervision and Curriculum Development, 1975.
Rokeach, M. The open and closed mind. New York: Basic
Books, Inc., 1960.
221
Rosenblum, M. The open teacher: An alternative to
traditional teacher education (OE, US Department of
Health, Education and Welfare, Contract No. 1-7-062805-
3963). Pilot Communities Program, a project of the
Education Development Center, no date (approximately
1971).
Ryans, D. G. Characteristics of teachers (Their
description, comparison and appraisal: A research
study). Washington, D.C. 20036: American Council on
Education, 1960.
Sanford, N. Issues in personality theory. San Francisco:
Jossey-Bass, Inc., 1970.
Sargent, B. The integrated day in an American school.
Boston 02109: National Association of Independent
Schools, 1970.
Schwartz, R. L. The open classroom: Growth crisis for
the teacher. Elementary School Journal, March 1974,
74 (6), 326-335. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service
No. EJ 098 275)
Sealey, L. Open education: A study of selected American
elementary schools. New Haven, Conn. 06511: The :
Edward W. Hazen Foundation, 400 Prospect Street, 1977.
Shane, C. M. , & Shane, H. G. Toward compulsory educa
tional equality: The British experience. Phi Delta
Kappan, September 1979, '_61(1) , 58-60.
Shane, H. G. The academic score decline: Are facts the
enemy of truth? Phi Delta Kappan, October 1977, 59(2),
83-86; 145-146.
Sherman, V. S. Two constrasting educational models:
Applications and policy implications. Menlo Park, CA
94025: Stanford Research Institute, 1970. (ERIC
Document Reproduction Service No. ED 061 750)
Silberman, C. E. (Ed.). The open classroom reader. New
York: Vintage Books, 1973.
Simon, A., & Boyer, E. G. (Eds.). Mirrors for behavior
III: An anthology of observation instruments. Wyncote,
Pa. 19095: Communication Materials Center (distributed
by Research for Better Schools, Philadelphia,
Pennsylvania 19103) , 1974.
222
Smith, V. H. An obituary for the open classroom?
Changing Schools, May 1977, 2(), 6-7.
Smith, V. H., Barr, R., & Burke, D. Alternatives in
Education: Freedom to choose. Bloomington, Indiana:
Phi Delta Kappa Educational Foundation, 1976.
Spodek, B. Extending open education in the United States.
Paper presented at the Conference of the National
Association for the Education of Young Children,
Denver, Colorado, March 5-7, 1970. (ERIC Document
Reproduction Service No. ED 038 182)
Spodek, B., & Walberg, H. J. (Eds.). Studies in open
education. New York> 10011: Agathon Press, Inc., 1975.
Staff development, teacher growth: Summary of a document.
Insights into Open Education, September 1976, 9_, 1.
(A publication of the Center for Teaching and Learning,
University of North Dakota, Grand Forks, 58201.)
Symonds, P. M. Teaching as a function of the teacher's
personality. Journal of Teacher Education, March 1954,
5(1), 79-83.
Tamburrini, J. Values in open education. Notes from
Workshop Center for Open Education. New-York City:
City College School of Education Workshop Center for
Open Education, Spring 1976.
Traub, R. E., Weiss, J., Fisher, C. W., & Musella, D.
Closure on openness: Describing and quantifying open
education. Interchange, 1972, ^ 3 (2-3) , 69-84.
Travers, R. M. W., & Dillon, J. The making of a teacher.
New York: Macmillan Publishing Co., 1975.
Walberg, H. J. Professional role of discontinuities in
educational careers. Review of Educational Research,
June 1970, 40(3), 409-420.
Walberg, H. J., & Thomas, S. C. Characteristics of open
education: Toward an operational definition (USOE
Title IV Program Contract No. OEC-1-7-062805-3963).
Newton, Massachusetts 02160: Education Development
Center, 1971.
223
Wardle, D. English popular education/ 1780-1975.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1976.
Weber, L. The English infant school and informal
education. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall,
Inc., 1971.
Weber, L. An American response. Notes from Workshop
Center for Open Education, Winter 1976, pp. 21-26.
Weiss, L. Educational advising. Insights Into Open
Education, January 1974, 6^(4), 2-8. (A publication
of the Center for Teaching and Learning, University
of North Dakota, Grand Forks 58201.)
Wenkert, R. Book review: Bussis, Chittenden and Amarel:
Beyond surface curriculum: An interview study of
teachers* understandings. American Educational
Research Journal, Summer 1977, j!4_(3) , 358-361.
Wexler, G. J. Personality characteristics of innovative
elementary teachers as measured by the Catte11 sixteen
Personality Factor Questionnaire. Unpublished
doctoral dissertation, University of Southern
California, School of Education, 1977.
Witty, P. A. An analysis of the personality traits of
the effective teacher. Journal of Educational
Research, 1947, _40, 662-671.
Yeomans, E. The wellsprings of teaching. Boston:
National Association of Independent Schools, February
1969.
Yeomans, E. Education for initiative and responsibiiity.
Boston: National Association of Independent Schools,
August 1972.
224
REFERENCE NOTES
225
REFERENCE NOTES
Note
1. Weber, L. Personal communication, July 25, 1977.
2. Perrone, V. Personal communication, August 8, 1977.
3. Rogers, V. R. Personal communication, August 31,
1977.
4. Spodek, B-. Personal communication, September 14,
1977.
226
APPENDIXES
227
APPENDIX A
LETTERS
CO PY
228
1946 Overland Avenue
Los Angeles, CA 90025
July 20, 1977
Dr. Lillian Weber
City College Workshop Center for Open Education
140th Street and Convent Avenue
New York, N.Y. 10031
Dear Dr. Weber,
I am an elementary school teacher of many years' experience, in
the Los Angeles City Schools, and I am interested in open education.
So much interested in fact, that my master's project concerned
open education in the State of California. Now, my doctoral
dissertation is about the teacher in open education.
My thesis is that there are differences between conventional or
traditional teachers and open education teacher. The literature
reveals differences in philosophy and classroom bbhavior, but I
intuit additional differences in out-of-school interests, educational
history, and some personality constructs. My own brief experience
with an informal classroom, my twenty-one years of experience, and
my reading all tell me that there are real differences!!!
Are you able to share any of your insights about the teacher in open
education with me? I would appreciate any comments and suggestions
you care to make.
Thank you!
Sylvia Simon Tansey
CO PY
229
Workshop Center for Open Education______ Lillian Weber, Director
City College School of Education Room 6, Shepard Hall
Convent Avenue and 140th St.
New York, NY 10031 (212) 368-1619-
1620
July 25, 1977
Sylvia Tansey
1946 Overland Avenue
Los Angeles, CA 90025
Dear Sylvia Tansey,
I will be interested in what you come up with about the teacher in
open education. I don't know whether you know of the Chittenden,
Bussis and Amarel work, BEYOND SURFACE CURRICULUM. As to my own work,
it has been a story of working with teachers who are rhoving towards
what is called open education. Each one is at a different point in
this movement, dependent of course on personal and educational
history and institutional possibilities. The next step in development
for each teacher emerges from a prior step and the teacher defines
that next step in terms of her understanding. But I see traditional
teachers becoming open education teachers all the time and so it's
hard for me to think of a definite fixed traditional, a definite
fixed open or real inborn differences.
All best wishes for your work.
Sincerely,
* Lillian Weber
Director
LW:bg
CO PY
230
1946 Overland Avenue
Los Angeles, CA 90025
July 20, 1977
Dr. Vito Perrone
Center for Teaching and Learning
University of North Dakota
Grand Forks, N.D. 58201
Dear Dr. Perrone,
I am an elementary school teacher of many years' experience in the
Los Angeles City Schools, and I am interested in open education.
So much interested, in fact, that my master's project concerned
open education in the State of California. Now, my doctoral
dissertation is about the teacher in open education.
My thesis is that there are differences between conventional or
traditional teachers and open education teachers. The literature
reveals differences in philosophy and classroom behavior, but I
intuit additional differences in out-of-school interests, educational
history! and some personality constructs. My own brief experience
with an informal classroom, my twenty-one years of experience, and my
reading all tell me that there are real differences!!!
Are you able to share any of your insights about the teacher in open
education with me? I would appreciate any comments and suggestions
you care to make.
Thank you!
S ylvia Simon Tansey
CO PY
231
The University of North Dakota
Box 8158
Grand Forks 58202
The Center for Teaching and Learning
August 8, 1977
Sylvia Simon Tansey
1946 Overland Avenue
Los Angeles, CA 90025
Dear Sylvia:
Enclosed are some materials that might be of use to you. You might
also look in Dissertation Abstracts for 1972 (Karen Craig). I can't
really respond to your intuition about personality constructs. I find
enormous diversity among teachers who are involved in open classrooms.
The commonality, from my experience, is in their interest in learning
(personally) and in their increasing sense of responsibility for what
happens in their classrooms.
Best wishes,
Vito Perrone
Pvb
Enc.
CO PY
232
1946 Overland Avenue
Los Angeles, CA 90025
August 23, 1977
Dr. Vincent Rogers
School of Education
University of Connecticut
Storrs, Connecticut 06268
Dear Dr. Rogers,
I am an elementary school teacher of many years’ experience in the
Los Angeles City Schools, and I am interested in open education.
So much interested, in fact, that my master’s project concerned open
education in the State of California. Now, my doctoral dissertation
is about the teacher in open education.
My thesis is that there are differences between conventional or
traditional teachers and open education teachers. The literature
reveals differences in philosophy and classroom behavior, but I intuit
additional differences in out-of-school interests, educational
history, and some personality constructs. My own brief experience
with an informal classroom, my twenty-one years of experience, and my
reading all tell me that there are real differences!!!
Are you able to share any of your insights about the teacher in open
education with me? I would appreciate any comments and suggestions
you care to make.
Thank you!
S ylvia Simon Tansey
233
C O PY
The.
University Storrs, Connecticut 06268
C ^ c t i c U t School, of Education
August 31, 1977
Ms. Sylvia Tansey
1946 Overland Avenue
Los Angeles, CA 90025
Dear Ms. Tansey:
Just received your letter and can only say In response that I agree
with the hypothesis which you have presented. That Is, my own
personal experience certainly supports the notion that open teachers
tend to have different social, political, and often even religious
beliefs and values. If you have read my little booklet for ASCD
called, Open Education: Critique and Assessment, you will notice a
chapter in that book dealing with the value conflict between
traditional and open education, I think that this deals very closely
with the issue which you raised. As a matter of fact, that work was
done as a doctoral dissertation here by one of my good colleagues -
Mr. Charles Church.
In any case, take a look at the ASCD booklet - you may find it
interesting.
Sincerely,
Vincent R. Rogers
Professor of Education
VRR:ebm
1946 Overland Avenue
Los Angeles, CA 90025
August 23, 1977
Dr. Bernard Spodek
Department of Early Education
University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign,
111inois
Dear Dr. Spodek,
I am an elementary school teacher of many years' experience in the
Los Angeles City Schools, and I am interested in open education.
So much interested, in fact, that my master's project concerned open
education in the State of California. Now, my doctoral dissertation
is about the teacher in open education.
My thesis is that there are differences between conventional or
traditional teachers and open education teachers. The literature
reveals differences in philosophy and classroom behavior, but I
intuit additional differences in out-of-school interests,
educational history, and some personality constructs. My own brief
experience with an informal classroom, my twenty-one years of
experience, and my reading all tell me that there are real
di fferences I!!
Are you able to share any of your insights about the teacher in open
education with me? I would appreciate any comments and suggestions
you care to make.
Thank you!
S ylvia Simon Tansey
235
CO PY
UNIVERSITY OF ILLINOIS AT URBANA-CHAMPAIGN
College of Education
DEPARTMENT OF ELEMENTARY AND EARLY CHILDHOOD EDUCATION
311 Education Building
Urbana, Illinois 61801
(217) 333-2560
September 14, 1977
Sylvia Simon Tansey
1946 Overland Avenue
Los Angeles, California 90025
Dear Ms. Tansey:
The topic you've identified for a thesis in relation to beliefs
and interest of teachers in open and conventional classrooms is an
intriguing one. I know there are differences in philosophic
orientation and in ideologies amongst teachers adhering to an open
as opposed to a traditional philosophy. As far as out of school
interests, educational history and others, I really find it hard
to think that one through. Many of the teachers that I know who
have moved into open education have not graduated from conventional
preservice undergraduate teacher education programs, but I'm not
sure whether this is true of the group as a whole or rather because
certain more articulate somewhat different individuals are more
easily observed within a group. One of- the best studies of teachers
in elementary education was done by Ted Chittenden. The book that
was published, Beyond Surface Curriculum, describes analysis of
interviews he had with open informal teachers. I think it would be
a good one for you to correspond with in terms of your ideas.
I wish you luck in your continued studies and if I can be of
any help to you further along, please feel free to call on me.
Sincerely,
Bernard Spodek, Ph.D.
Professor- Elementary and
Early Childhood Education
BS:dtk
236
APPENDIX B
CLASSROOM OBSERVATION SCHEDULE (COS)
237
CO PY
CLASSROOM OBSERVATION SCHEDULE
Behavior is observed = 1 Behavior is not observed = 0
I• The Environment
1. Each child has a space for his personal storage.
2. The major part of the classroom is organized
for common use.
3. Materials are readily accessible to children.
4. Manipulative materials are supplied in
diversity and range.
5. Common materials from the natural environ
ment are provided, e.g., sea shells, rocks,
clay, etc.
6. Books are supplied in diversity and pro
fusion, including reference material and
children's literature. (Minimum: six per
child, non-reference titles)
7. No sets of books are available, such as
math, readers, etc. ; 2 or 3 individual
copies of texts are acceptable.
8. Children use books written by their class
mates as part of their reading and
reference material.
9. The classroom environment includes materials
developed by the children.
10. The environment includes materials
developed by the teacher.
11. The day is divided into large blocks of
time within which the children, with the
teacher's help, determine their own routine.
238
12. Many different activities go on simultaneously.
13. The children's activities, products, and
ideas are reflected about the classroom.
14. The class operates within explicit guidelines.
II. The Child
1. Children move about the room without asking
permission of the adults present.
2. Children work in small groups at various
activities.
3. Children voluntarily group and regroup
themselves.
4. Children work individualy at various
activities.
5. The children spontaneously look at and discuss
each other's work.
6. Children openly help each other with their
work.
7. Children work directly with manipulative
materials.
8. Children use materials in original ways,
i.e., in ways other than those suggested
by the manufacturer.
9. The work children do is not divided into
subject matter areas.
10. Children may voluntarily make use of other
areas of the building and schoolyard during
regular class time.
11. The children are deeply involved in what
they are doing.
239
III. The Teacher
1. The teacher is in charge.
2. The teacher deals with conflicts and
disruptive behavior by involving the group.
3. The teacher bases instruction on each
individual child and his/her interaction
with materials and equipment.
4. Before suggesting any extension or redirection
of a child's activity, the teacher gives
diagnostic attention to that particular child
and his/her particular activity.
5. To obtain diagnostic information, the teacher
closely observes the specific work or concern
of a child and asks immediate, experienced-
based questions.
6. The teacher sometimes works with small groups
of children in an attempt to meet specific
needs.
7. The teacher keeps a collection of each child's
work for use in evaluating his development. ____
8. The teacher keeps notes and writes individual
histories of each child's intellectual,
emotional, and physical development. ____
(All these items must be observable: no verbal interaction between
teacher and observer concerning them during the observation period.)
SCH00L_
TEACHER
ROOM NO.
DATE
240
APPENDIX C
TANSEY TEACHER INVENTORY
241
C O PY
TANSEY TEACHER INVENTORY
Please respond according to your first impression;
do not spend too much time on any one item. There
are no right or wrong answers, obviously.
I have taught in this school for years.
I now teach grade .
I have taught in grades____ .
SCHOOL_________________
TEACHER ___________
ROOM NO.________________
DATE " - ~ - -
242
TANSEY TEACHER INVENTORY: Part I
Please circle the appropriate response.
1. I am: female 1 male 2
2. I am either the first-born or only child of my parents
No 1 Yes 2
3. For grades K-6, I attended:
military schools 1
parochial schools 2
vocational schools 3
private schools 4
public schools 5
4. For grades 7-9, I attended: military schools j
parochial schools 2
vocational schools 3
private schools 4
public schools 5
5. For grades 10-12* I attended:
military schools 1
parochial schools 2
vocational schools 3
private schools 4
public schools 5
6. My way in college was paid:
completely by my family 1
completely by scholarship 2
a combination of family
and scholarship 3
partly by myself 4
completely by myself 5
7. I entered college:
immediately after high
school graduation
(disregard summer)
six months after
graduation
1-10 years after
graduation
more than ten years
after graduation
without graduation from
high school
243
8. I earned my bachelor’s degree from a:
normal school 1
college run by religious group 2
liberal arts private college 3
private university 4
state college or university 5
9. I decided to be a teacher when I was:
in grammar school 1
by the time I graduated from
high school 2
working after HS, but before
college 3
during my undergraduate work 4
after I earned my bachelor's
degree • 5
10. I worked with children in a group setting
before my student teaching experience.
Yes 2 No 1
11. I studied a prescribed teacher-training
curriculum as an undergraduate.
Yes 1 No 2
12. I have had the prescribed student
teaching experience
Yes 1 No 2
13. I have been teaching for:
1-4 years 1
5-9 years 2
10-14 years 3
15-19 years 4
20 years or more 5
14. For me to become an effective teacher, I
feel it took:
one year of experience 1
two years of experience 2
three years of experience 3
four years of experience 4
more than five years of experience 5
15. I have taken course work (not inservice)
beyond the bachelor's degree.
Yes 2 No 1
244
16.
17.
18.
19,
20.
21,
2 2 ,
I am now studying for a higher degree.
Yes 2 No 1
I have earned a:
master's degree 1
doctor's degree (Ph.D)
or Ed.D.) 2
I have studied in a non-public school, non college
setting (circle all that apply):
voice painting
dance sculpture 1 point each
an instrument other art medium
acting
When I am reading and come across a word I do
not know, I usually:
keep right on reading 1
immediately look it up in
the dictionary 2
write it down, look it up
later 3
make a mental note to look
it up later 4
sometimes look it up,
depending on context 5
I read the daily newspaper:
never
regulary each day
Sunday only
several times a week
regularly each day, specific items only
J regulary. readpublications related to teaching.
No 1 Yes 2
I regularly read and/or subscribe to the following
number of magazines and periodicals:
0 2-3 4-6 7 or more.
23. I read approximately the following number of books a year:
0
1
1-4 5-9 10-14
4
15 or more
2 45
24. I belong to a professional teachers' organization (this
includes a union) to which I regularly pay dues.
No 1 Yes 2
25. I smoke tobacco. Yes 1 No 2
26. I vote in national elections regularly.
No 1 Yes 2
27. I vote in local (city, county, state) elections regularly.
No 1 Yes 2
28. I have been active in political campaigns.
No 1 Yes 2
29. I belong to civic organizations (Kiwanis, League of
Women Voters, etc.)
No 1 Yes 2
30. I talk easily with people wherever I am.
usually no 1 usually yes 2
31. During the past 2-3 months, I have participated in
physical activity:
none 1
1-2 hours per week 2
2-4 hours per week 3
5-6 hours per week 4
7 or more hours per week 5
32. I regularly, actively participate in hobbies in these
areas (circle all that apply):
voice-singing acting
musical instrument reading 1 point each
cooking sport(s)
sewing travel
arts and crafts
33. I attend religious services:
every week 1
three times a month 2
once or twice a month 3
special occasions only 4
never 5
246
34. I listen to the radio
never 1
several times a week 2
every day, more than an hour 3
every day, less than an hour 4
only for specific programs 5
35. I watch television:
never 1
every day, more than one hour 2
every day, less than one hour 3
several times a week 4
only for specific programs 5
36. On television, I watch requlary (circle all
that apply):
sports 1
movies made for television 2
old movies 3
musical events on Channel 28 4
drama on Channel 28 5
37. I attend sports events:
never 1
once a year or less 2
a few times a year 3
about once a month . 4
two or three times a month 5
38. I go to the movies:
never 1
once a year or less 2
a few times a year 3
about once a month 4
two or three times a month 5
'
39. I attend the theater:
never 1
once a year or less 2
a few times a year 3
once a month 4
more often than once a month 5
40. I attend concerts or opera:
never 1
once a year or less 2
a few times a year 3
once a month 4
two or three times a month 5
247
41. I attend the musical theater:
never
once a year or less
a few times a year
about once a month
more often than once a month
42. I visit ar museums and galleries:
never
once a year or less
a few times a year
about once a month
more often than once a month
43. I spend an evening with friends at their homes or mine:
never
a few times a year
. about, once a month
■ two or three times a month
once a week or more
44. I go to spectator events (sports, concerts, etc.) with fr
never
a few times a year
about once a month
two or three times a month
once a week or more
45. I spend some time during the course of a week "just thinking."
No 1 Yes 2
t—l C M C O « v j- L f> r -tC V J O O ^ L O 1 —iC M C O ^ tJ O C U jrH C M C O Lf>
248
TANSEY TEACHER INVENTORY: Part'll
Please circle the dot which best expresses your opinion on the
disagree-agree continuum. Again, respond according to your first
impression and do not spend too much time on any one item.
1. Children must be in an accepting and warm emotional school
climate in order to learn.
strongly disagree ............. strongly agree
1 2 3 4 5
2. It is probable that children possess knowledge which they
cannot demonstrate publicly (as in a standardized test).
strongly disagree . . . . . strongly agree
1 2 - 3 4 5
3. The children should assist the teacher in planning and arranging
the classroom environment.
strongly disagree . . . . . strongly agree
1 2 3 4 5
4. Students should be, assigned to a class which contains children
who are in a two-three year age range.
strongly disagree . . . . strongly agree
1 2 3 4 5
5. Children's learning is facilitated by relationships, with
teachers, of trust and mutual respect.
strongly disagree . . . . . strongly agree
1 2 3 4 5
6. Standardized tests (or other objective measures of performance)
very often have a negative effect on learning.
strongly disagree . . . . . strongly agree
— ' ' 1 2 3 4 5
7. It is more beneficial for children to read a wide variety.of
self-selected reading materials at their own pace than to read
in one basal reader.
strongly disagree . . . . . strongly agree
1 2 3 4 5
249
8. Each child's school experiences are justifiable in themselves
and should not be viewed primarily as preparation for the future.
strongly disagree............... strongly agree
1 2 3 4 5
9. Play and work are not separate modes of learning in early
chi 1dhood.
strongly disagree . . . . . strongly agree
1 2 3 4 5
10. Each individual's knowledge is personal and is the result of
his/her experience with the world.
strongly disagree ............. strongly agree
1 2 3 4 5
11. Many students would benefit from being given more time in the
classroom for independent learning.
strongly disagree ............. strongly agree
1 2 3 4 5
12. When children are fully involved in and enjoying an activity,
learning is taking place.
strongly disagree ............. strongly agree
1 2 3 4 5
13. Children have the competence and should be given the right to
make important decisions about their own learning.
strongly disagree . . . . . strongly agree
1 2 3 4 5
14. Elementary school students should be permitted to disagree
with their teachers.
strongly disagree ............. strongly agree
" 1 2 3 4 5
15. Children's self-confidence is closely related to their
capacity to learn.
strongly disagree ............. strongly agree
1 2 3 4 5
16. Children learn better through their successes in school than
through their failures.
strongly disagree ............. strongly agree
1 2 3 4 5
250
17. Each child learns and develops intellectually at her/his own
rate and in his/her own style.
strongly disagree ............. strongly agree
1 2 3 4 5
18. Errors, as part of the learning process, are desirable,
because they provide information essential fur further learning.
strongly disagree . . . . . strongly agree
1 2 3 4 . 5
19. Since knowledge is the result of personal experience, it cannot
fall into neatly separated categories or disciplines.
strongly disagree ............. strongly agree
1 2 3 4 5
20. In the elementary school, direct experience with objects and
ideas should come before and not substitute for verbal
abstractions.
strongly disagree ............. strongly agree
1 2 3 4 5
21. Our society has not yet determined which aspects of knowledge
everyone should acquire.
strongly disagree.. ............. strongly agree
1 2 3 4 5
22. Elementary school teachers should seek information about the
community in which they teach, and its resources, to better
meet the needs of individual children.
strongly disagree ............. strongly agree
1 2 3 4 5
23. Many teachers rely too heavily upon the use of textbooks.
strongly disagree . . . . . strongly agree
1 2 3 4 5
24. Elementary school teachers should trust themselves to respond
spontaneously and in a variety of situations within the classroom
environment.
strongly disagree ............. strongly agree
1 2 3 4 5
25. The kind of model the teacher is has more influence on children
than the subject matter taught.
strongly dhfsagiree . . . . . strongly agree
1 2 3 4 5
251
26. Elementary school teachers should be continual explorers of
new ideas and possibilities both inside and outside their
classrooms.
strongly disagree .............. strongly agree
1 2 3 4 5
27. Elementary school teachers should evaluate their teaching
methods as an opportunity for their own personal and
professional growth.
strongly disagree . . . . . strongly agree
1 2 3 4 5
28. Elementary school teachers should seek help, when they feel it
necessary, from advisors within the school community.
strongly disagree . . . . . strongly agree
1 2 3 4 5
29. The feelings of elementary school teachers should be an acceptable
part of the classroom environment.
strongly disagree .............. strongly agree
1 2 3 4 5
30. Elementary school teachers should recognize and admit it when
they feel unable to give a specific child the help he/she needs.
strongly disagree . . . . . strongly agree
1 2 3 4 5
31. Elementary school teachers should feel comfortable working
without predetermined curricula or fixed time periods for
specific subjects.
strongly disagree . . . . . strongly agree
~ 1 2 3 4 5
32. Conflict should be recognized and worked out within the context
of the classroom group and not handled by the teacher alone.
strongly disagree . . . . . strongly agree
1 2 3 4 5
33. Elementary school teachers' educational objectives should include
and go beyond literacy and concept acquisition.
strongly disagree . . . . . strongly agree
1 2 3 4 5
252
34. Elementary school teachers should evaluate the learning of
children by direct observation.
strongly disagree strongly agree
1 2 3 4 5
35. Elementary school teachers can best evaluate the effect of the
school experience on children by observing them over a long
period of time.
strongly disagree strongly agree
1 2 3 4 5
36. Elementary school teachers are one of many sources of information
and attention in their classrooms.
strongly disagree . . . . . strongly agree
1 2 3 4 5
37. Elementary school teachers should encourage informal talk and
exchange of information and ideas among students as contributing
to their learning.
strongly disagree . . . . . strongly agree
1 2 3 4 5
38. Parents and visitors with special knowledge of a topic should
be among the regular sources of information available to
children in the classroom.
strongly disagree strongly agree
1 2 3 4 5
39. It is appropriate for the teacher to encourage and assist the
children in the expression of their emotions.
strongly disagree strongly agree
" 1 2 3 4 5
40. Elementary school teachers should base their evaluation reports
to parents on each individual child's progress in relation to
himself.
strongly disagree . . . . . strongly agree
1 2 3 4 5
41. The general objectives of the school should be determined by
the teachers, parents, and children.
strongly disagree strongly agree
1 2 3 4 5
253
42. Teaching is an exciting occupation for me.
strongly disagree . . . . . strongly agree
1 2 3 4 5
43. It is acceptable behavior for teachers to be active in political
campaigns.
strongly disagree ............. strongly agree
1 2 3 4 5
44. Science has fairly well demonstrated that there are no genetic
differences among the races.
strongly disagree ............. strongly agree
1 2 3 4 5
45. Homosexual individuals (of either sex) should be allowed to
teach in the public schools.
strongly disagree ............. strongly agree
1 2 3 4 5
46. All normal children in public school should have started to read
by the age of seven.
strongly disagree ............. strongly agree
5 4 3 2 1
47. Teachers should not acknowledge their ignorance about specific
subject matter in the presence of students.
strongly disagree ............. strongly agree
5 4 3 2 1
48. One individual really can do very little to bring about changes
in our society.
strongly disagree . . . . . strongly agree
5 4 3 2 1
49. Public elementary school teac hers should not belong to unions.
strongly disagree ............. strongly agree
■ ■ — 5 4 3 2 1
50. Most people who live in poverty could improve their lives if
they really wanted to.
strongly disagree ............. strongly agree
5 4 3 2 1
254
51. Good teachers should not have to seek the services of
psychotherapists for themselves.
strongly disagree ............. strongly agree
5 4 3 2 1
52. I am uncomfortable when the teachers at my school disagree with
my educational philosophy.
strongly disagree . . . . . strongly agree
5 4 3 2 1
53. Students should be taught to obey adults, including teachers,
without question.
strongly disagree . . . . . strongly agree
- 5 4 3 2 1
54. Freedom of speech is a worthwhile goal; nevertheless it is
sometimes necessary to restrict the freedom of speech of some
political groups.
strongly disagree ............. strongly agree
5 4 3 2 1

Linked assets

University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Conceptually similar

PDF

Videotape focused feedback techniques in marathon group therapy: Effects on self-actualization and psychopathology

PDF

The origin, philosophy, and development of education among the Mennonites

PDF

An exploratory study of compliance of elementary school teachers in implementing the California Dental Disease Prevention Program

PDF

The relationship between teacher attribution of student performance and conceptual level of teachers

PDF

An identification of the philosophical beliefs of educators in the field of health education

PDF

An exploratory study of the relationship between selected environmental variables and a measure of creativity in children

PDF

Influence of different cultural backgrounds on teacher pupil interaction and teacher attitudes of Israeli and American teachers in Jewish education

PDF

An investigation of the relation between open structure education and the development of creativity in young children

PDF

Robert Maynard Hutchins: Philosopher of education

PDF

An exploratory study on the effects of a structured social interaction program for reducing aggressive behavior among students of a desegregated elementary school

PDF

The relationship between the level of cognitive development and success in first-year algebra

PDF

The philosophical basis of Orff-Schulwerk

PDF

An exploratory study of the development of Jewish studies in American higher education with special emphasis on three contemporary programs

PDF

The global challenge to the individualistic theory of the person : philosophical and empirical evidence for an emerging paradigm shift

PDF

The relationship between critical thinking ability, personality, and academic achievement of graduate students in the School of Education at the University of Southern California

PDF

Educational philosophies and intercultural ideologies: A study of the belief orientations of preservice teachers

PDF

An optional learning program at the secondary level: A descriptive analysis

PDF

Investigation of the effectiveness of reading workbooks at the elementary level

PDF

The relationship between teacher perceptions of local school factors and the use of student study teams

PDF

Higher education and development in Indonesia: The viability of the multi-purpose function of the community college at the undergraduate level of the university system

Asset Metadata

Creator Tansey, Sylvia Simon (author)

Core Title An exploratory study of educational and philosophical differences between conventional and open education teachers at the elementary level

Degree Doctor of Philosophy

Degree Program Education

Publisher University of Southern California (original), University of Southern California. Libraries (digital)

Tag education, philosophy of,OAI-PMH Harvest

Language English

Contributor Digitized by ProQuest (provenance)

Permanent Link (DOI) https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-c26-518673

Unique identifier UC11246104

Identifier usctheses-c26-518673 (legacy record id)

Legacy Identifier DP24947.pdf

Dmrecord 518673

Document Type Dissertation

Rights Tansey, Sylvia Simon

Type texts

Source University of Southern California (contributing entity), University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses (collection)

Access Conditions The author retains rights to his/her dissertation, thesis or other graduate work according to U.S. copyright law. Electronic access is being provided by the USC Libraries in agreement with the au...

Repository Name University of Southern California Digital Library

Repository Location USC Digital Library, University of Southern California, University Park Campus, Los Angeles, California 90089, USA