The day I invited Prof. Carl Rogers to attend my lecture.

Conference paper: 8th Annual IIE Celebration of Teaching and Learning, 12 July 2017.

Tell me and I forget, teach me and I remember, involve me and I learn.

– Benjamin Franklin

 

Introduction

This conference paper provides thoughts regarding the person-centred, social constructionist and post-modernistic theory in relation to teaching and learning encounters. In conclusion, the author then engages in a metaphoric conversation with Carl Rogers, this “conversation” is followed by self-reflexive notes. Social sciences increasingly focus on self-reflexive practice to ensure that the praxis of theory remains evidence based (Cacioppo & Freberg 2016:583; Malacrida 2007:1337-1339). By revisiting the Rogerian theory, awareness is constructed that educational institutions should constantly engage in questions about humanising teaching and learning environments.

Person-centred theory (also called Rogerian theory) led the humanistic psychology movement and influenced numerous other disciplines ranging from health sciences to education (BAPC 2015; Corsini & Wedding 2008:143). Other disciplines such as nursing, neuroscience, social work, education, communication and management considers Rogerian theory and its praxis as a reliable discourse on human focused encounters (BAPC 2015; McCormack & McCance 2006:472). Underlying the person-centred theory, a solid relationship with social constructionist and post-modernistic views is found.

Knowledge and “reality” does not exist in a place where it can be “discovered”; social constructivist ideas argue that knowledge is formed through a creative process that involves the in-depth understanding of peoples’ conceptions of the world (Bryant, Kastrup, Udo, Hislop, Shefner & Mallow 2013:432–448; Raskin 2012:119–133). Inner and external psychosocial worlds are constructed through discourse; social constructivist views inform various theories of post-modern humanistic psychology (Raskin 2012:123; Silverman 2011:188).

In the Brave New World of Education, Slabbert and others argue the necessity of a unique professionalism and person-centeredness in educational approaches (Slabbert, De Kock & Hattingh 2009). They further express concern for the rapid decrease in the quality and relevance of current educational outcomes; that educational systems should respond and adapt productively to remain effective and relevant (Slabbert et al 2009:1,3). Education as a discipline should be responsive to the student’s constantly changing internal and external environments (Slabbert et al 2009:10).

Any type of education should construct meaning and purpose; education has social and economic goals or benefits for students, but also offers the values of dignity, equality, respect, individualisation, social justice and liberty that establish the moral underpinning of society (Seshadri 2008). The role of teaching and learning is to construct experiences that encourage students, as co-constructors of the world, to be the change they want to see in the world and contribute to social justice and a meaningful future society (Reeves 2013).

The person as central focus of teaching and learning:

Psychoanalysis, behaviourism and biological approaches dominated psychology well into the twentieth century; Carl Rogers (1902-1987) revolutionised psychology by facilitating the discipline’s paradigm shift from modernism to post-modernism (Cacioppo & Freberg 2016:15,16,582). In developing theory on psychological functioning, Rogers (1942, 1951, 1980) had unique view of human development, which contributed novel views on education. Rogers’ views on education was adopted by others from the mid 40’s to current arguments on teaching and learning (Slabbert et al 2009). Rogerian theory places emphasis on the value of human potential and whole-person development:

…the basis for values will be recognised as discoverable within, rather than out in the material world.  In short, the inner life, a higher awareness, a recognition that enormous resources for the creation of the good life lie within the person, is one of the characteristics needed for this coming age (Rogers 1980:332).


Rogers’ views place the inner potential of the person at the centre of the learning process; interpersonal encounters that aim to the nurture human potential. From Rogers’ initial works to his last, more than forty years’ work, emphasis is placed on interpersonal encounters as the core of all meaningful human experiences (Rogers 1942; 1951). As facilitators of learning, educators should de-emphasise static or content goals, and thus encourage a focus on the process; on experiencing the way in which learning takes place (Rogers 1980:296).

The Rogerian view on education aims to provide a climate in which the learner can take responsible control for self-directed growth [self-determination]. The Way of Being (Rogers 1980) of the educator towards the student would thus be paramount in the learning process. A process that would include environment, relationship, meaningful human interaction and experiences of the student as a person (Rogers 1951:486,488,491; Grobler, Schenck & Mbedzi 2013:23,25,30).

Training of future mental health and social science practitioners in the person-centred theory requires educators to model the values and philosophy of person-centeredness; modelling these concepts would contribute to the experiential learning process (Carl 2016:45,46; Rogers 1980:296).

A movement towards the person:

Person-centeredness in teaching and learning developed alongside new thoughts on psychology and psychotherapy. Airhorn in 1935 formulated thoughts on psychotherapy that related to a more non-directive and democratic approach to education (Rogers 1951:386,387). Early literature by Nathaniel Contor (1946) argued a more person-centred approach to education in his manuscript The Dynamics of Learning. Constructing an environment where the student’s human potential is free to be explored, would be revolutionary in emphasising unique human experiences (Contor 1946; Rogers 1951:348). From a sociologist discourse, Contor (1946) resonates with Rogers in emphasising the person and human potential as central to the developmental process:

…the teacher will be concerned primarily with understanding and not judging the individual… the teacher will keep at the centre of the teaching process the importance of the student’s problems and feelings, not his [her] own… most important of all, the teacher will realise that constructive effort must come from the positive or active forces within the student (Contor 1946:83-84).


The primary intention is to nonjudgmentally appreciate the person, Contor and Rogers’ focus on the centrality of human potential emphasises that a “whole-person approach” is needed in the educational environment. Earl Kelly (1947) provided further support in his provocative writing Education for What Is Real. Kelly’s work presented significant demonstrations of perceptual behaviour developed by Albert Ames whose arguments further supported that of Rogers, Snygg and Combs (1949). Others like Kilpatrick and Dewey also advocated for more non-directive educational methodology and rejected regurgitant textbook kind of learning (Tenenbaum 1959:298). The collective views accentuated the tendency of self-determination and the human potential to change and grow in a self-actualising direction (Snygg & Combs 1949:238):

Education from this point of view is a process of increasing differentiation in the individual’s phenomenal field. However, differentiation of the field is something which can be done by the individual… It cannot be done for him [her]. As a living organism searching his field for means of self-maintenance necessary and helpful to the achievement of his [her] purpose. In fact, it [development] cannot be prevented… as a living organism with a tremendous drive toward growth and self-enhancement he [she] requires only practicable and socially acceptable opportunities for growth and development.


Teaching and learning thus is not something imposed on others; from the human potential and social constructionist discourse (discussed further on in the text), people construct learning through experiences, these processes could not be directed, but is co-constructed. Knowledge is thus the co-construction between the student and his/her internal and external environments. Educators should examine interpersonal relationships within teaching and learning encounters.

As stated by Snygg and Combs (1994), human potential involves the striving and tendency towards change and growth. As the human potential movement changed approaches to psychotherapy, the discipline of education was also affected. Development of the human organism in its totality, is a shared concern for psychology and education (Rogers 1951:486,488,491; Grobler et al 2013:23,25,30).

Teaching, learning, participation and creative co-constructing:

Education could either serve as an instrument to enforce compliance and conforming or it can become a “practice of freedom” in which people can learn to become creative co-constructers of a meaningful world (Freire 1968,1985). The human potential movement’s thinking was viewed as radical new views on education, but current thinkers are rediscovering these concepts from a social-constructionist discourse (Carl 2016; Freire 1968,1985; Rogers 1951,1980; Slabbert et al 2009). When teaching and learning is approached as a socially co-constructed process, the basic element of a more democratic person-centred engagement will focus on the construction and transformation of future societies. Early predictions were made by Hutchins in Education and democracy (1949):

The foundation of democracy is universal suffrage. Universal suffrage makes every man a ruler. If every man is a ruler, every man needs the education that rulers ought to have… the main purpose of a democratic educational system is the education of rulers.


Human beings have the tendency to construct and reconstruct perceptions of the world and thus becomes active participants in forming the world, society and “reality” (Rogers 1987: 483,484; Grobler et al 2013:17,21). With focus on human potential, a democratic person-centred approach to education would advocate for human beings to become individuals that (Rogers 1951:387,389):

  • Can develop responsibly, make intelligent choices and are capable of self-direction.
  • Think independently, able to evaluate the contributions made by others and acquire skills for productive critical thinking.
  • Would be able to adapt flexibly and intelligently to any new problematic situations by utilising previously acquired knowledge.
  • Creatively cooperate in activities, not for the approval of others, but in terms of own self-determination and socialised purposes.

Teaching and learning becomes a participatory process of co-constructing, does not exist in a vacuum, but significantly contributes to the delicate fabric of society. Education as a discipline is subjected to continually changing theoretical approaches (Slabbert et al 2009:10); person-centred approaches provide ample opportunities for education to further explore the post-modern principles as expressed by Rogers (1951:388-391):

  • We cannot teach another person directly; we can only facilitate learning.
  • A person learns significantly only those things which the organism perceives as being involved in the maintenance of, or enhancement of, the structure of self.
  • Threatening experiences would result in change in the organisation of self and will be resisted through denial or distortion.
  • The structure of self appears to become more inflexible under threat; experiences can only be integrated if the self is relaxed and expanded to include it.
  • Significant learning is promoted by conditions in which (i) threat to the self of the learner is reduced to a minimum, and (ii) differentiated perception of the field of experience is facilitated.


A more current definition explains person-centeredness as an approach to development with emphasis on the process of development; it confirms that people themselves can determine what they consider to be improvements in the value of their lives (Van Vlaenderen & Neves in Ratele, Duncan, Hook, Mkhize, Kiguwa & Collins 2012:10-6).

Social constructionist and post-modernist views:

People exist in a world of constantly changing experiences, everyone is involved in the business of creating and constructing the self, realities and unique worldviews; these constructions is reliant on the transactions between people and their environments (Rogers 1951:497-498). When teaching and learning is viewed as a process of co-construction, the educator becomes part of that process where people co-construct knowledge. Social constructionist discourse views knowledge as the product of democratic action, debate and discussion amongst learners and educators. Social constructionist methods would contrast with approaches where learned educators impose knowledge from a top down approach of authoritative instruction (Campbell in Ratele et al 2012:12-4; Freire 1968,1985).

Social constructionism closely relates to post-modernistic thoughts; concerned with the process by which human abilities, experiences, common sense, critical thinking and scientific knowledge are both produced and reproduced in society (Kiguwa in Ratele et al 2012:7-29). Post-modern frameworks focus on the individual’s subjective experiences of social encounters with the aim to generate knowledge unique to the people’s relational location in time and space (Stevens, Seedat & Van Niekerk in Ratele et al 2012:13-8). From a post-modernistic view; the world, knowledge and reality becomes a co-construction among people and the general premises of post-modernistic thought could be summarised as (Bryant et al 2013:432–448; Raskin 2012:119–133; Ratele et al 2012; Rogers 1951):

  • Language is a medium through which reality is constructed.
  • No single reality exists, “reality” changes over time and is connected to time and context.
  • Diverse versions of reality are equally valid as it is socially constructed; different realities between people exist.
  • The reality or self is not to be discovered, but contributors to perceived realities and meanings.

 

Post-modernistic approaches’ self-reflective nature is open to the uniqueness of others and utilise non-directive methods to actively engage with others’ understandings of the world. As there is no one reality, the educator is not the expert, doesn’t find solutions or impose his/her own meaning, but is part of a dialogical participatory process. The relationship, and not techniques, is the vehicle for development in teaching and learning; a post-modernistic approach offers significant considerations in current approaches to education (Slabbert et al 2009:40). The understandings post-modernity, where persons develop according to their own self-directed actions while making sense of the world, can be summarised as (Slabbert et al 2009:40-49):

  • The process is flexible with emphasis on empathetic understanding.
  • Reality constantly change, so no exact and ultimate certainties could exist.
  • The student is a holistic and boundless self.
  • Unrestricted conviction in human potential and self-determination.
  • Freedom from authoritarianism when reality is collectively constructed.
  • Persons strive to construct social and emotional wellbeing for themselves.

From the above it could further be concluded that the teaching and learning context should provide a space of interaction where alternative understandings or new meanings can emerge within the student; this will then enable novel responses to the teaching and learning process. Learning is refreshed in a process that redirects the flow of energy and information into achievement and improvement of the total person.

Post-modernism and Rogers:

Post-modernism and social constructionism emphasises the tenet that each person is responsible for the individual way s/he organises the way life is lived. Viewing everyone as unique architects of their lives; advocates for understanding the person and then creating a teaching and learning process appropriate for the uniqueness and diversity of individuals (Thyer 2008:272). The Rogerian view relates to post-modernistic and social constructivist thinking; Carl Rogers (1980) concludes on the person-centred ideas co-constructed by him, colleagues and their students as follows:

I cannot help but conclude by saying that we have the theoretical knowledge, the practical methods and the day-to-day skills which to radically change our whole educational system. We know how to bring together, in one experience, the intellectual learning, the range of personal emotions and the basic physiological impact that constitute significant learning by the whole person. We know how to develop student teachers into agents for this sort of change. Do we have the will, the determination, to utilise this know-how to humanise our educational institutions? That is the question we all must answer (Rogers 1980:286).


The consequences of this approach seem to be humanised and democratic objectives in teaching and learning. The facilitative person-centred conditions for self-directed learning by students would not be the outcome of only one kind of educational practice, but rather an artistically free and flowing process (Eiserer 1949:36). Teaching and learning encounters should be humanised to enhance the flow of human potential.

Post-modernist, social constructionist and Rogerian discourse is focused on individualisation, self-determination and relevance of educational systems that prepares students for a future that involves numerous changes and adaptions (Sadker & Zittleman 2010). Therefore, teaching and learning should empower students to continuously develop when entering an unpredictable future. A balance in co-constructing responsible citizens and intellectual rigour should exist. 

Consulting Professor Rogers on my own approach to teaching and learning:

Rogers place the facilitator’s [educator] Way of Being and ideal conditions for development as paramount in the process of constructing the teaching and learning relationship. Metaphorically, after attending one of my lectures, I begged Carl Rogers to inform me on his experience of the teaching and learning encounter. The discussion that follows is fictional, but Rogers is heard through his theory.

I had many questions, I wanted to know what the ideal conditions for teaching and learning would be. Did he ever experience frustrations in trusting the potential of others and being non-directive?

He remained silent for a while, and then answered by relating narratives from his own experiences and childhood. He spoke slowly, sometimes measuring each word as he was recalling experiences from memory. I listened to the non-judgemental tone of his voice:

What are the effective conditions for growth? But in my garden, though the frustrations are just as immediate, the results, whether success or failure, are more quickly evident. And when, through patient, intelligent, and understanding care I have provided the conditions that result in the production of a rare or glorious bloom, I feel the same kind of satisfaction that I have felt in the facilitation of growth in a person or in a group of persons (Rogers 1980:68).


I answered that I understood what he meant, he was referring to unconditional positive regard that is demonstrated for persons’ ability and endeavours to preserve, maintain and enhance the self – the Actualising Tendency. That is how he coined the term for human potential, why at times is it difficult for me to recognise the actualising tendency and have the urge to guide the process? He looked at me, looked at the empty chairs in the lecture room as if he wanted to focus my attention on the current historical moment and environment:

The actualizing tendency can, of course, be thwarted or warped, but it cannot be destroyed without destroying the organism. I remember that in my boyhood, the bin in which we stored our winter’s supply of potatoes was in the basement, several feet below a small window. The conditions were unfavourable, but the potatoes would begin to sprout pale white sprouts, so unlike the healthy green shoots they sent up when planted in the soil in the spring.

 

But these sad, spindly sprouts would grow 2 or 3 feet in length as they reached toward the distant light of the window. The sprouts were in their bizarre, futile growth, a sort of desperate expression of the directional tendency I have been describing. They would never become plants, never mature, never fulfil their real potential. But under the most adverse circumstances, they were striving to become. Life would not give up, even if it could not flourish (Rogers 1980:118,119).


Then it became clear to me, the actualising tendency is always present, the potential. If I hear you correctly Professor Rogers, in ideal conditions life would flourish; is it about co-constructing a relationship and then trusting that potential? As literature suggests, the focus is the person, and would be the most appropriate point of departure in constructing a facilitative environment for teaching and learning? I thus serve as “the soil” in a context of hosting a space for growth? He looked me straight in the eyes:

I am no longer talking simply about psychotherapy [or teaching and learning], but about a point of view, a philosophy, an approach to life, a way of being, which fits any situation in which growth – of a person, a group, or a community – is part of the goal (Rogers 1980:xvii).


We were silent for a while, then I responded: I hear, being present in a way that fits the situation? Being present with everyone in the lecture room. How did you lecture, I read that you did not lecture, but rather engaged in conversations with your students…? Once again, his non-judgemental smile appeared:

I listen as carefully, accurately, and as sensitively as I am able, to each individual in the group who expresses himself. Whether the utterance is superficial or significant, I listen. I want to make the individual who speaks feel that what he has said is, to me, worthwhile, worth understanding, and that consequently he is worthwhile for having said it… I wish very much to make the climate psychologically safe for the individual (Rogers 1971:276).


We left the lecture room, he mentioned that he would like to go for a walk alone on the campus. We greeted, he looked back at me and said:

It is a sparkling thing when I encounter realness in another person. Sometimes, someone says something that comes from him transparently and whole. It is so obvious when a person is not hiding behind a façade but is speaking from deep within himself. When this happens, I leap to meet it. I want to encounter this real person (Rogers 1980:16).


Self-reflexive notes:

By providing the theoretical horizons in this paper as well as the metaphorical conversation with Rogers, I will reflect briefly on my teaching and learning experiences. In the text to follow I offer Rogerian theory in support of my statements; self-reflexive approaches aim to safeguard that practise remains evidence based (Cacioppo & Freberg 2016:583; Malacrida 2007:1337-1339). From my lecturing encounters, I have learned that every person, lecturer and student, remains central to each one’s own subjective universe of experiences. It is from these experiences that we all construct our own “realities” and perceptions of the world. Therefore, my approach to teaching and learning might not be provincial, customary, traditional nor authoritarian.

My teaching and learning experiences did not come without blows and demands of students who did expect an authoritative “instructor” kind of approach. These dimensions within our encounters changed as we became more accepting of one another. I am constantly aware that the student exists in a unique changing world of experiences of which s/he is the centre, discourse formed from these experiences, to the student, is reality (Rogers 1987:483,484; Grobler et al 2013:17,21). Students, the class and lectures react as a whole being to the world of experiences and has one basic tendency and goal – to actualise, maintain and enhance the experiencing organism. Behaviours would be goal-directed efforts of the student and me to satisfy needs in the developmental process (Rogers 1987:486,488,491; Grobler et al 2013:23,25,30). My first effort would be to construct a context and relationship that the student can utilise for development. For me, the focus remains the relationship as paramount to conditions facilitative for teaching and learning. Secondly, I trust the principles of human potential and the tendency of human beings to change, grow and develop in a productive direction.

There were initial moments of misunderstanding, but never have I had the need to address or report a student on matters of discipline. When attending lecturer forum meetings, the issue of discipline is raised regularly. I would prefer to believe that I enter in a non-judgemental relationship with my students where respect for each unique person is paramount and becomes reciprocal. Our teaching and learning encounters never lacked continuity, direction or cohesiveness in discussion. Respect and unconditional positive regard for the person might render some explanation for my lack of experiencing discipline difficulties. Students rather experienced the need to explore the process of learning than resisting the process: Most of the ways of behaving that are adopted by the student are those that are consistent with the concept of self (Rogers 1987:507; Grobler et al 2013:29). When people experience congruence, unconditional positive regard and empathic understanding; their self-concepts become more positive and realistic. They become more self-expressive, self-directed and free in their experiencing; behaviour is rated as more mature and productive (Rogers 1987:517, Grobler et al 2013:12).

Goal-directed behaviour is usually accompanied by emotion, the intensity is indicative of the intensity of the need directed towards enhancement and maintenance of the self; the best vantage point for understanding behaviours and emotion would be from the student’s internal frame of reference (Rogers 1987: 492,494; Grobler et al 2013:24,32). I have made a point to be open to the uniqueness of each student and group, to understand the developmental stage persons are at, to grasp something of their experiences at the time. The process could even be inclusive of personal needs, feelings and emotions such as frustration with theory or examination anxiety as well as alertness, aliveness and surprising enthusiasm. Sometimes the enthusiasm originated from inner realisation of the person’s strength that was not previously explored.

It is my intention to be open to experience, perceptions and diversity as all are unique to the person; I listen carefully to narratives of students as they attempt to convey their understanding and experiences of the world and others. As a person, I want to learn about other’s worlds and cultures and understandings thereof. Part of our experiential world is significant others such as family, peers and lecturers which contributes to the construction of the each other’s self. Attached to the self are values adopted or introjected from the environment and significant others (Rogers 1987:498,498; Grobler et al 2013:26,27). I attempt to receive all contributions to the process with attention and regard for the significance of the person offering the input. My teaching and learning environments are therefore accepting of various views and narratives on cultural diversity, I want to learn from a variety people. I want to engage in a process where we understand ourselves and others more clearly.

When persons feel more accepting of themselves and innovative ideas, they are more flexible and free to listen and partake in the process and self-directed development becomes increasingly more productive (Rogers 1987:515,517; Grobler et al 2013:79,12). By entering into a relationship free of power struggle, judgement or top-down authoritative approaches; development is achieved under conditions where students are free to explore and assimilate teaching and learning experiences (Rogers 1987:517, Grobler et al 2013:12). When students are free to explore their own ideas and interpretations of theory in relation to their lived experiences; conversations and thinking emerges that could not be duplicated or repeated. The process thus merges lecturer, student, theory teaching and learning as a lived experience. Significant experiences are not easily forgotten, I believe that true accomplishment of teaching and learning is when responsible fellow human beings continue to develop even after graduation. Such a person would be accepting of the self and others and develop a valuing system of respecting the world, others and the self (Rogers, 1987:520,522; Grobler et al 2013:111,112).

I conclude that each person, at whatever level, has an underlying flow of movement toward constructive fulfilment of the person’s inherent possibilities. Striving towards change and growth demonstrates that within all persons there is a natural tendency toward a more complex and complete development, the terms that Rogers most often used as the actualising tendency or self-actualisation (Rogers 1980:118). For the authoritative orientated person, who expects to be intellectually instructed to what should be read and learned for the exam, I agree, the person-centred approach does not provide such reassurances and might be a threatening idea. The Rogerian approach does however provide flexibility, openness and freedom in which human potential can freely flow and thrive.

Conclusion:

This paper’s focus excluded aspects of preparation, lecturing techniques and assessment methods; these concepts within a Rogerian approach begs for a reflection on its own, the focus was rather the co-constructed relationship and process. Constructing an emotional safe space of unconditional acceptance through a non-judgemental relationship would allow students to explore and discover ways towards more satisfying relations with themselves and others.

From a non-directive perspective, education should be a space where a person or group can adjust, adapt, learn and enhance themselves. Meaningful interpersonal encounters is the prime learning agent for change, this unique relationship should allow for student’s need to relate their narratives and facilitators should be able to tune in to the richness and meanings of these narratives and realities. Teaching and learning is guided by the co-constructors thereof, not the other way around.

The process guides people into each other’s experiential worlds and realities; embarking on a journey of exploration of one another. Only the participants in the process know how fast or slowly they want to travel (Grobler et al 2013:43). The role of teaching and learning is to construct experiences that encourage students, as co-constructors of the world, engage in self-directed growth and contribute to social justice and a meaningful future society (Reeves 2013).

The experiential world and needs of students is constantly changing; but the fundamental need for meaningful interpersonal encounters remains a constant. Students are becoming increasingly more used to face-to-screen relationships, the information revolution could be considered as the most influential factor currently changing society and the working environment (Slabbert et al 2009:17). Ideas on a blend of personalised face-to-face and electronic engagements with the students are increasingly more introduced (Slabbert et al 2009:3,19; Whaits 2014,2015). Confronted with the multidimensional changes in education, society and digital technology, it might be appropriate to ask: How does all this impact on the students of our time?

A more empathetic understanding of the student’s changing world in relation to the digital progresses and its consequences is needed for education (Slabbert et al 2009:28). Neither, the content nor understanding thereof might bridge the digital generational gap between educators and students; but empathetic insights could facilitate profound changes in an ever-changing educational environment, change never imagined or anticipated could constructively emerge (Slabbert et al 2009:28).

Since the 1940’s authors advocated a more person-centred approach to education; current perspectives on education are in consensus with the thoughts formulated by Rogers, Freire, Kilpatrick, Dewey and others. Even today, teaching and learning encounters and its methodology are challenged to construct creative environments that is radically different from the old, traditional and known. Teaching and learning methodology should be flexible; that it transforms far beyond the lecture room into the spaces where people engage and live with each other, including digital environments.

Education should explore the possibilities digital engagements hold; discover the possibilities of constructing person-centred encounters in a digital age. New questions need to be asked to find novel and creative answers. The tendency to find old answers to new questions should be abandoned, education should constructively be asking: Do we have the will, the determination, to utilise this know-how to humanise our educational institutions? That is the question we all must answer (Rogers 1980:286); and if we say yes… the journey begins…

 Author: Jacques H Botes

psychosocialservices@gmail.com

Bibliography:

Bryant, FB, Kastrup, H, Udo, M, Hislop, N, Shefner, R & Mallow, J. 2013. Science anxiety, science attitudes, and constructivism: a binational study. Journal of Science Education Technology 22:432–448.

Cacioppo, JT & Freberg, LA. 2016. Discovering psychology: the science of mind. Boston: Cengage Learning.

Carl, AE. 2016. Teacher empowerment through curriculum development: theory into practice. 4th Ed. Cape Town: Juta and Company Ltd.

Contor, N. 1946. The dynamics of learning. Buffalo: Foster and Steward.

Corsini, RJ & Wedding, D. 2008. Current psychotherapies. Belmont: Thomson Higher Education.

Eiserer, PE. 1949. The implications of nondirective counselling for classroom teaching. Ohio: Association for supervision and curriculum development.

Freire, P. 1968. Pedagogia do Oprimido. New York: Bloomsbury Publishing.

Freire, P. 1985. The politics of education: culture, power and liberation. London: Macmillan.

Grobler, H, Schenck, R & Mbedzi, P. 2013. Person-centred facilitation: process, theory and practice. 4th Ed. Cape Town: Oxford University Press Southern Africa (Pty) Ltd.

Hutchins, RM. 1949. Education and democracy. School and society (69)1994.

Kelly, EC. 1947. Education for what is real. New York: Harper and Bros.

Malacrida, C. 2007. Reflexive journaling on emotional research topics: ethical issues for team researchers. Qualitative Health Research 17(10):1329–1339.

McCormack, B & McCance, TV. 2006. Development of a framework for person-centred nursing. Journal of Advanced Nursing 56(5):472–479.

Merriam, BS. 2009. Qualitative research, a guide to design and implementation. San Francisco: Jossey Bass.

Monette, DR, Sullivan, TJ & De Jong, CR. 2008. Applied social research, a tool for the human services. 8th edition. Belmont: Brooks/Cole.

Raskin, JD. 2012. Evolutionary constructivism and humanistic psychology. Journal of theoretical and philosophical psychology: American Psychological Association 32(2):119–133.

Ratele, K, Duncan, N, Hook, D, Mkhize, N, Kiguwa, P & Collins, A. 2012. Self, community and psychology. Cape Town: UCT Press.

Reeves, E. 2013. Academia: Philosophy of Education. [Online] Available at: https://www.academia.edu/6323289/Philosophy_of_education. [Accessed 6 April 2016].

Rogers, CR. 1942. Counselling and psychotherapy: newer concepts in practice. Chicago: Houghton Mifflin Company.

Rogers, CR. 1951. Client-centred therapy: its current practice, implications and theory. London: Constable.

Rogers, CR. 1987. Client-centred therapy: its current practice, implications and theory. London: Constable.

Rogers, CR. 1980. A Way of Being. Boston: Houghton Mifflin Company.

Sadker, DM. & Zittleman, KR. 2010. In: Teachers, schools, and society. 9th ed. New York: McGraw-Hill.

Seshadri, C. 2008. Philosophy of Education as a Knowledge Field. [Online] Available at: http://www.nuepa.org/download/eminent_seshadri_22042008_report.pdf. [Accessed 6 April 2016].

Silverman, D. 2011. Qualitative research – issues of theory, method and practice. 3rd edition. Los Angeles: Sage.

Slabbert, JA, De Kock, DM & Hattingh, A. 2009. The brave new world of education: creating a unique professionalism. Juta: Cape Town, South Africa.

Snygg, D & Combs, AW. 1949. Individual behaviour: a new frame of reference. New York: Harper and Bros.

Tenenbaum, S. 1959. Carl R. Rogers and non-directive teaching. The association for supervision and curriculum development. Educational leadership 16(5):296–328.

The British Association for the Person-centred approach (BAPC). 2015. What is the person-centred approach? Retrieved from http://www.bapca.org.uk (Accessed on 02 September 2016).

Thyer, BA. 2008. Comprehensive handbook of social work and social welfare: human behaviour in the social environment. Canada: John Wiley & Sons Inc.

Whaits, A. 2014. Opening Address on 10 February 2014. Ms Anne Whaits, Academic Manager: Varsity College.

Whaits, A. 2015. Memorandum: Embedding and scaling the VC blended learning experience.

Categories:
Comment function is not open