Process in humanistic education

Adrian Underhill

We still seem to be unclear about what humanistic education offers. Perhaps we have tended to evaluate the versions of humanistic education that have reached ELT through the filter of our existing attitudes and values. Perhaps also we are unclear because we have focused on the more observable classroom techniques, rather than on the special attention paid by humanistic education to the personal and interpersonal processes that support those techniques. This article outlines what as teacher, trainer, student, colleague, parent, and observer I believe are some of the themes of humanistic psychology. It highlights some of the processes, values, and attitudes that underpin humanistic education and which are drawn from humanistic psychology.

Introduction

Within the last fifteen years in ELT the term humanistic approaches has been applied, with more or less accuracy, to the Silent Way, Community Language Learning, and Suggestopedia. In my view these approaches have been widely misunderstood, partly because of the ways in which they have been presented, and partly because to understand them requires an openness and a shift in attitude. Our appetite for technique has led us to try some of their novel and colourful classroom practices, without serious attention to the values, attitudes, and awarenesses that inform those practices. I dont believe that we have to use Silent Way or Suggestopedia or Community Language Learning, or any other patent Way or Method or Approach, in order to facilitate learning in a way that is consistent both with the values of humanistic psychology, and with our own individual awareness, knowledge, and skills. There are teachers whose practice effectively embraces humanistic values without their necessarily being aware of it. There are also teachers whose claim that they maintain humanistic values is not supported by their practice.
of

Basic

themes humanistic psychology

Humanistic psychology is a general term given to a loose, overlapping confederation of explorations in the field of human potential that share some common beliefs and values, but which do not work from a single articulated theory. The elements of humanistic psychology are not new. But it is true that two people in recent years have been particularly associated with its evolution and development: Abraham Maslow (1908-1970) and Carl Rogers (1902-1987). Abraham Maslow saw high level wellness, the quality of living beyond mere normalcy or absence of sickness or neurosis as the aim of psychology. He is characteristically optimistic about the intrinsic good nature of human beings. He saw this inner nature as possessing a dynamic for growth and
ELT Journal Volume 43/4 October 1989 Oxford University Press 1989

250

articles

welcome

actualization which is easily suppressed, leading instead to sickness, neurosis, and to a quality of living and learning which is well below that of which we are capable. He saw fear of knowing ourselves and evasion of personal growth as the main causes of this suppression. He called his approach humanistic psychology, but always regretted that he had to use the adjective humanistic, which he felt should be unnecessary. Like Maslows, Carl Rogers focus is on helping well-adjusted people to move towards realizing their own individual and unique potential, towards becoming what he called fully functioning persons. Rogers was actively involved in school education. He proposed a shift of focus in education from teaching to learning, and from teacher to facilitator. He saw teachers as facilitators of learning not just from the neck up, but of learning that involves the whole person. Much of what is called learning, he said, involves little feeling or personal meaning, and has insufficient relevance for the whole person, with a resulting lack of interest that leads at best to a lowering of the sights of what is possible in education, and at worst to failure, and a consequent sense of being a limited person. Rogers holds that experiential learning has to be self-initiated. The stimulus may come from outside, but the sense of discovery, and the motivation which that brings, comes from the inside. Only the learner can evaluate whether the teaching is personally illuminating and meaningful. The job of the facilitator is not to decide what the students should learn, but to identify and create the crucial ingredients of the psychological climate that helps to free learners to learn and to grow. Some common themes From the work of Maslow, Rogers, and others, a number of underlying themes about human nature and human learning emerge clearly as common ground shared by the different strands that make up the body of humanistic psychology. The common ground emphasizes seven points: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 High-level health and well-being. The whole person. The human motivation towards self-realization. Change and development. Education as a life-long process. Respect for an individuals subjective experience. Self-empowerment.

Attention to these themes in the classroom requires an attention to what is often called process. Process concerns the way in which the content of a lesson, syllabus, or curriculum is taught and learnt from the point of view of the learner, and how that content can become directly relevant to the lives of the learners. Process focuses on the immediate subjective reality of the individuals in a learning group, and is concerned with how participants relate to themselves and each other in order to carry out the task. Whatever contributes to the ambient learning atmosphere, including the attitudes, values, and awareness of the teacher and of the learners, is part of the process. The dynamics of process revolve around issues such as authority and self-determination; co-operation and competition; expectation and motivation; the individual and the group; security and risk; failure and success; self-esteem and its absence; personal meaning; and how participants feel, think, and act in relation to themselves, to each other, and to what they are
Process in humanistic education

251

articles

welcome

doing. Teachers who claim it is not their job to take these phenomena into account may miss out on some of the most essential ingredients in the management of successful learning. Process is important precisely because it affects the quality of the outcome of the task. The problem for process is that it takes place at least partly beyond our consciousness. But this does not have to be the case, and the aim of a facilitator is to become more awake to process, while at the same time fulfilling the requirements of the task.
Process in the

classroom

This section explores some of the processes which we can, if we choose, become more

that go on in our classrooms alert.

to

Subjective experience

Feelings are part of the powerhouse of process, since how we are feeling at any given moment colours the way we perceive things. This cant be avoided, though it can be overlooked. There are many aspects of school experience that produce in us strong subjective feelings, yet which we become accustomed to, and may come to confuse with our feelings about the act of learning itself. Consider, for example. the process of being in a group. Being a member of a group, such as a class of learners, involves us in the dangers and risks associated with trying to get our conscious and unconscious needs met in a context where others are trying to do the same for themselves. We ask ourselves: To what extent will my affective needs for acceptance, regard, and love be met? Will I be included or excluded from the group or from subgroups? Will I make a fool of myself? How safe will it be to be myself, and what masks, roles, and defences may I have to adopt to protect my selfesteem? What power networks will evolve in the group, and where will I stand in relation to them? How competitive will people be? How co-operative? How aware of all this will the group leader/teacher be? These apprehensions and reactions to group processes affect the way we work, feel, and participate in the tasks and the processes of groups. All of us have evolved more or less effective ways of meeting these uncertainties in the groups we have been part of in the past, beginning with family groups and then early school groups. Humanistic values emphasize the importance of the teachers sensitivity and skill in helping learners to face these issues in ways that enhance both their learning of the topic and their experience of being successful at learning. As another example, consider the process of making mistakes. The making of mistakes is related both to the issue of being in a group and to that of selfesteem. Problems arise when the main way to feed our positive self-esteem as learners is to be correct (or good, or well-behaved, etc.) in the eyes of ourselves, our teacher, or our peers. The more concerned we are with being correct, the less likely we are to take the risks which might lead to our making mistakes and to making discoveries. This may significantly affect not only how comfortable we feel with the learning process, but which of our own learning faculties, strengths, and strategies we are able to develop. While as teachers we may make statements like student mistakes are evidence that learning is taking place, I think we often fail to grasp and put into practice the values implied by such statements, and we continue to exert such an unconscious preference for correctness that we perpetuate unintentionally what Gattegno calls the tyranny of the correct answer. Under this regime the learning faculties of intuition, hunch and creativity tend to be eclipsed by the learners efforts to be correct. This undermines
Adrian Underhill

252

articles

welcome

the function of mistakes as a legitimate way of working, as a way of seeing what happens. The more we try to be correct, the more we may play safe by resorting to intellect and calculation, at the expense of our mtuitive and creative learning faculties. In a classroom run according to humanistic values, mistakes are no longer simply mistakes, but also outcomes of learners efforts which, as such, are positively valued. Mistakes as outcomes become a workshop tool which can help to guide the learners investigation. The teachers attitude produces questions which are asked not so much to elicit a right answer, but to get feedback on the learners process, and to help them to see their own process in relation to the task in hand. It needs to be added that teachers views of student mistakes are governed by their attitudes towards their own mistakes. If they are very much concerned not to make technical or linguistic mistakes themselves, then they may project this anxiety about mistakes on to their students. The teachers own attitudes are a model for the class. and help to shape the unseen ground rules by which the group will operate. As the fear of mistakes reduces, so there is less emphasis on the need to remember, and a tacit acknowledgement that often when we appear not to remember something it is simply that we cannot recall it. not that we have forgotten it. While we remain attached only to the task and its performance, it is difficult to avoid valuing memory and correctness. But as teachers become alert to process, so they become aware of ways of aiding recall rather than emphasizing memory. One way of aiding recall is to aid initial and subsequent processing of the learning, and in this respect reflection can be a powerful instrument. There are two dimensions to reflection, both of which tend to be undermined when the task is emphasized at the expense of the process. The first dimension is an identifiable stage in a lesson in which both cognitive and affective experiences are discussed in a supportive way which values each persons contribution and effort, whatever it has been. The second dimension lies in the time and space granted implicitly and explicitly to all participants to pause unilaterally and stand back from, and reflect on, what they are doing. In task-orientated classes there is usually little space for such reflection, as conspicuous action tends to be more highly valued. If reflection occurs at all, it is usually under the general heading of consolidation, and even then the focus is usually on the task rather than the process. In humanistic terms, reflection paves the way for negotiation and choice in matters of control and responsibility in the classroom. Through reflective discussion of their experience of an activity, teacher and learners co-operatively evaluate the processes they are opting for, bring to light their different learning preferences, and adjust the kinds of choices they arc making.
Choice, control,

and

responsibility

To what extent do we have the power to influence events that affect us, to make them more personally signficant? What choice do we have in the way we deploy our time and energy? What happens when we have insufficient influence on the events that affect us? And what happens when we are given more responsibility than we are able to cope with? These issues are especially significant in education, where the stated aims involve influencing the growth, development, and learning of other people. Humanistic values, whether in education, management, politics, medicine, or psychology, require the facilitator, manager, leader, practiProcess in humanistic education 253

articles

welcome

tioner, or therapist to be skilled in finding the appropriate balance for each individual between self-directed autonomous power and other-directed authoritative power. Appropriate is the key word, because the right balance between autonomous and authoritative power depends on the individual and the context, and is in continuous flux. As a learner in a group led by a teacher, I am susceptible to at least four uses of power.
1 Authoritative power: This is power that is exercised for and on behalf of me by others (usually the teacher) whose ultimate intention is to help me become self-directing and autonomous. The teacher uses his or her power and skill to help me in situations where I cannot immediately help myself. Implicit in this is the teachers assumption that this will help me towards my next more autonomous phase.

2 Autonomous power: This is power that I am able to exercise for and on behalf of myself in response to the task in hand, thereby experiencing myself as basically self-directing in taking responsibility for myself, in being selfdetermining and self-evaluating. The teacher uses his or her skill to facilitate and support my autonomy. Implicit in this is the assumption that at some level I have the expertise to know what I need to do, and how I need to do it. 3 Authoritarian power: This is the degenerate version of authoritative power. It is power that is exercised over me consciously or unconsciously for the sake of interests that are not mine. Perhaps these interests are part of the agenda of the teacher, or of forces beyond the classroom. Perhaps they are in no ones interest at all. An example of this could be instances of my having to follow an imposed syllabus, or doing tasks that do not engage me. Implicit in this is the assumption by the teacher that I am an object and not a subject. 4 Abdicated power: This is the degenerate version of autonomous power. It is power that has been inappropriately given to me, not because I am ready to take it, but because the teacher is unable or unwilling to take it, or because he or she understands my need for autonomy, but is unskilled in facilitating it appropriately. Implicit in this may be the teachers own confusion and discomfort with his or her role, and the projection of that confusion onto me. An ever-changing balance of the first two sorts of power, authorative and autonomous, sensitive to the context, constitutes a competent and legitimate dimension of power, while the authoritarian and abdicated sorts of power constitute degenerations of the first two, away from the interests of the learner towards the projected agenda of the teacher or of the system. A learners previous experience of these different kinds of power will affect the way he or she is initially prepared to respond in new circumstances. The role of the teacher in facilitating different power relationships and in evolving new ones is paramount, and one of the instruments available to him or her in the management of authority and responsibility is the use of negotiation. The content of negotiation between teacher and learners may concern what is studied, how it is studied, how the results are to be evaluated, and how the process affects the participants. The teacher tries to be alert to the appropriate balance between leading the learners and following them,
254 Adrian Underhill

articles

welcome

between facilitating the learners autonomy and using his or her own authority. Healthy classroom decision-making continously shifts back and forth between the authoritative and autonomous poles, and along this dimension we can plot at least the following seven types of negotiation: 1 The teacher makes authoritative T: Today were going to . . . non-consulting decisions:

2 The teacher makes a proposal, then consults T: I suggest we . . , what do you think?

the learners:

3 The teacher consults first, and on that basis makes a proposal: T: What are the important issues for you . , . ? OK, Lets . . 4 The teacher and learners consult and propose together: T or Sts: Lets talk it over and see what we can agree . . 5 The learners consult the teacher and then make Sts: Wed like you to tell us and then well decide a proposal: ..

6 The learners propose first and then consult the teacher: Sts: This is what we have decided . . . what do you think . . ? 7 The learners make autonomous decisions which the teacher Sts: This is what we want to do . . . T: OK, lets try it . respects:

None of these seven types of teacher intervention is more valid than any other in itself, and one type of intervention may turn into another as it works itself through. The important criterion is the appropriateness of the intervention to the total context, given the underlying value placed on helping learners to become autonomous. For example, there are contexts where the first intervention, an authoritative non-consulting decision by the teacher, is the most valid. But this intervention could become invalid if it becomes a habitual response in the repertoire of the teacher in the face of evidence that the learners are ready to take more responsibility. Likewise persistent and inappropriate use of any of the other interventions at the expense of the full range constitutes a degenerate and limiting use of power by the teacher. You may find it interesting to use this dimension as an instrument against which to reflect on your own practice. Which of the seven types of intervention is most typical of your practice? Which do you feel most comfortable with? Which do you feel least comfortable with? From the humanistic perspective, what is valued is the ability of the teacher to move skilfully and appropriately between the full range of interventions in this dimension. But, of course, any intervention consists of far more than just the words the teacher uses: it consists of the totality of his or her intention, which is transmitted both verbally and non-verbally. This means that to effect a significant change in intervention, a significant change in intention is required. Related to these issues is the question of who learners perceive themselves to be working for. Do they feel they are working for themselves, or for the teacher, or for the syllabus, or for their sponsors, or their parents? Does the teacher behave as if the students are working for themselves or for the teacher? The explicit belief of humanistic psychology is that under the right conditions of supportive non-interference, people can be self-directing and resourceful about what they need to do to make progress which they experience as significant.
Process in humanistic education

255

articles

welcome

Facilitation

and the of learning

management

The facilitator has a lot to do with setting the mood or atmosphere which supports self-directed learning. He or she indicates by example and by suggestion ways of creating an appropriate climate for significant learning, and by attending to both task and process at the same time is able to draw attention to some of the processes going on that affect the unfolding of the task. The facilitator helps to clarify the desire of each student to implement learning that is significant for them, and aspires to be a skilful understander of the range of struggles students face as they try to internalize another language. This is not only an intellectual exercise, but is also an exercise in awareness and insight, and in intervening in a process-sensitive way. All this makes a great demand on the teacher/facilitators resources and personal development, since I think that we can only facilitate processes in others that are already going on in ourselves. The ability to move between the authoritative and autonomous uses of power is a fundamental requirement of progressive education, and is perhaps the greatest difficulty for teachers used to more traditional attitudes to power. The paradox is that the more teachers empower learners to take responsibility for their own learning, the more they also empower themselves in an authentic and valid way, building on their own authority and credibility. The more they view the learners as the source and motivators of their own learning, the more the learners spontaneity, intelligence, creativity, and curiosity can be released to drive their learning. On the other hand, the more the teacher does what the learners could do for themselves, the more he or she disempowers them, the less they do for themselves, and the less they develop their inner criteria for acting autonomously. The more the teacher reserves the right to decide what is to be learnt, how, and how well, the more difficult it is to tap their inner motivation and commitment. Viewed from this perspective, it is no longer the teachers job alone to motivate the students. He or she creates the environment in which students work more from their inner motivation and less from the teachers subtle repertoire of reward or praise, or withholding of reward or praise. The students are weaned away from the trap of working to please the teacher, which may be quite deeply ingrained (and in formal school contexts may well have been in some sense addictive), and towards working to satisfy themselves. The behaviour of the facilitator that has the most dramatic effect on the entire learning atmosphere is the act of really listening to the student and to the content of what he or she says. This kind of listening is attentive and respectful, devoid of judgement and devoid of the distractions of defending a position or planning what the next response is going to be. When the teacher takes what students say seriously, they soon stop saying silly things. When listening in this way the teacher may be looking at the speaker, attending quietly and without distraction, responding authentically, indicating acceptance and understanding, and not interrupting with comments or questions or interpretations, except to clarify. Our students dont necessarily need reassurance, what they need is to be heard. It seems to me that over-ready reassurance can become a substitute for real understanding, and an unintentional denial of the others feelings. Unfortunately, in language teaching we are easily tempted to listen to the language of the learner rather than to the person behind the language. Listening to both requires attention to the verbal and the non-verbal component of the message, since much of the process part of a message is transmitted beyond words themselves. Attention to process requires the teacher to be aware of these levels of
Adrian Underhill

256

articles

welcome

transmission in his or her own messages. When the teachers body language and verbal message say the same thing, that is, they are congruent, the message is powerful and the teacher comes across as authentic and genuine. When body language and verbal message are not congruent, the process becomes confused, as for example when the teachers words seem supportive and respectful of the learner, yet his or her body language suggests impatience and distraction. Humanistic education pays particular attention to the intention behind any teacher/facilitator intervention, and to the congruence with which that message is transmitted, and to the effect these things have on the overall learning atmosphere. The effect referred to above concerns feedback. Feedback is essential to any self-governing organism or system, and awareness of the many levels, directions, and purposes of feedback is essential to the management of learning processes. Feedback is a kind of impartial, matter-of-fact steering device, sometimes described as a loop, carrying back information about some of the effects of a process to its source, or to a preceding stage where choices are made. In the classroom feedback is usually thought of as flowing from teacher to student, though in a humanistic model it will also flow from student to teacher and between students. But it is the teacher who is responsible for setting the standard for the quality of feedback that is to become the currency. In the first place the teacher does this by showing that he or she is nondefensively available to feedback from the learners. This openness to feedback from the students, offers them a role model, as for example when the teacher gives learners the opportunity to say how- the learning activity matches with their own preferred learning style. By encouraging statements of the type this is what doing this is like for me, and this is what Id like to be different about what were doing, the teacher helps develop students awareness of how they learn, and hence of their potential for autonomy. The second way in which teachers can establish feedback as a group norm is through their own skill and sensitivity in offering feedback. They may evaluate the quality of their feedback in relation to a number of questions, for example: 1 Is the feedback deliberate? 2 Is it related to what the receiver is working on? 3 Is it given in a form that is readily understood and which does not distract the learners from what they are working on? 4 Is it given with the intention of helping the receivers to become more aware of what they are doing and of what they could do, so as to increase their range of choices and help them become more autonomous? 5 Is it neutral in that it is neither criticism nor congratulation, yet given supportively? 6 Is it not necessarily evaluative, yet encouraging self-evaluation3 7 Does it aim to be devoid of the teachers personal projections? (For example the projected need by the teacher to be liked by the students, or for the students to be correct? or for the students to be dependent on him or her). The spontaneous and authentic expression of pleasure for the effort made by a learner can also be a kind of feedback consistent with humanistic values. This kind of praise is not dependent on student correctness, nor
Process in humanistic education 257

articles

welcome

does it necessarily aim to bring about correctness. On the other hand, praise that is given habitually is characteristically superficial, and may undermine the authenticity and credibility of the teacher. It can interfere with the students developing their own criteria for self-evaluation, and may tend to keep them stuck in the teachers web of power. The praise treadmill can be self-perpetuating, especially since lack of praise, where praise is a dominant currency, can be taken as criticism or even as a subtle form of punishment. Such praise can be linked to the teachers fear of students mistakes and his or her consequent effort to get students to be correct, rather than find out what purposes their mistakes are serving. In this sense praise can, at worst, become a manipulative instrument for putting pressure on learners to be corrent, thereby inhibiting the more exploratory, hunch-making, risk-taking, intuitive sides of their learning faculties. We need to investigate the thin line dividing authentic catalytic praise from the kind of praise that indicates a takeover by the needs of the teacher. Silence, accompanied by appropriate non-verbal behaviour, is a natural part of learning, of listening, and of authentic interaction. It can also help to override the urge to give superficial praise. It allows space for reflection and integration, and it gives time. It removes pressure on both teacher and learner, and it can indicate respect and encouragement of the students learning processes. It need not be seen as a threat, as a void to be filled by something unnecessary. On the contrary, the right quality of silence is an instrument which in a warm and supportive way can help to highlight process, which I suppose is the reason we tend to avoid it. I sometimes ask teachers to reflect on a particular good teacher they themselves had in the past, what it was that teacher did that was so memorable, and how that made them feel. Most people recall feelings of being accepted and respected for who they were, of being encouraged and supported in their efforts, of feeling secure that they could take risks and make mistakes, of feeling that they were spending their time well, and of a consequent rise in their feeling of self-esteem. They also usually report that the teacher knew the subject well, clearly enjoyed teaching it, and engaged the students in an atmosphere which inspired successful learning. When I ask them to describe the qualities of these teachers, what emerges corresponds closely to the characteristics of the good facilitator as described by Carl Rogers. In his description he profiles three particular qualities which we all possess, yet which we do not develop. They are genuineness; unconditional acceptance; and empathy. Teachers exercising the quality of genuineness are able to be authentically themselves in the act of teaching, rather than playing the role of teacher. They know and are able to communicate their thoughts and feelings appropriately in the learning situation. This is closely connected with the notion of congruence discussed earlier. A teacher with the quality of unconditional acceptance is able to respect and accept the learners for what they are, in an unconditional way. This means that his or her acceptance of the learners as people is not dependent on their fulfilling certain conditions in the class. (The opposite quality could be called conditional acceptance, which occurs when the teacher is accepting of the learner on condition that the learner fulfils the teachers expectations.) The teacher who is empathic is able to understand what it is like for the learner in his or her own subjective world. This teacher is able to identify with others, and to feel what its like for them at any point in a lesson. Rogers claimed that these three qualities of the facilitator help to provide 258 Adrian Underhill

articles

welcome

the climate for whole-person learning. His case studies in schools showed that students of teachers lacking these qualities learned to like themselves less, and that this significantly inhibited not only their learning of the topic in question, but also their development towards becoming fully functioning people. Rogers went on to say that one cannot impose on teachers the ability to develop such a learning climate. Like everything else it must come from within. But he said that teachers who want to develop their ability to create this climate can be helped to do so. This assertion is crucial to humanistic education and to what I call teacher development. It affirms the supreme possibility of teachers developing fully their own unique potential as teachers, to become fully functioning teachers, if they choose to do so.
Problems in putting practice

these values into

I would like to mention two areas of difficulty that may face us when we try to put humanistic values into practice in the classroom. The first area concerns the difficulty of managing change in ourselves, especially at the level of our values and attitudes, and how we manifest them in our behaviour in class. When we try to change we may find that we are locked into patterns of teaching, and that these patterns may be rooted quite deeply in our own training and in our experience of our own teachers and authority figures from the past. We cant just forget the teacher role that we have been brought up with: it exerts a strong influence, and may make it difficult to become sufficiently aware of our existing patterns to know what to change. An example of this is the uncertainty we may feel about changing the power relationships in our classes, and the anxiety of losing respect through not being the fount of all knowledge. This a genuine dilemma, and is connected with our investment in our personal status quo. But I dont see how we can be in the business of extending our students goals unless we are also in the business of extending our own. There is a clear connection here between the development of our teaching practice and our own personal development. If we are unclear about what is proposed by humanistic education, it could also be symptomatic of our not wanting to be clear; and underlying this may be a reluctance to change or to admit there is a need to. A second area of difficulty arises from the various external pressures operating against our wishes to try different things. Learners may find it disturbing to be asked to take more responsibility for their learning, and teachers may lack knowledge, experience, confidence, and skill in facilitating this change. Teachers may also lack the support and understanding of parents, colleagues, directors, inspectors, trainers, and of the cultural and political environment. Materials, syllabuses, training schemes, and school organization can also mitigate against change. Even where there is support, it often appears to be support for innovative techniques rather than innovative process. And to advocate humanistic techniques or recipes without commensurate understanding of the attitudes, awarenesses, and vision that underpin them may be no more than to promote yet another kind of licensed authoritarianism, disrespectful to the subjective reality of teacher and student alike. I do not deny that, for some teachers, to experiment with techniques can induce a shift in attitude to process. Some of my own learning has happened in that way. But very often that does not happen, and then the dissonance between technique and process puts teachers and learners in a situation that is unworkable. What is it that makes us resist putting a higher value on our own alertness to the processes of learning?
Process in humanistic education 259

articles

welcome

Some versions of the paradigm for learning that I have attempted to describe in this article have come to bear the name humanistic. But some people, including I suspect Maslow, would settle for a name like common sense. For me, the challenge presented by the paradigm can be stated quite simply: doing the same things with a different awareness seems to make a bigger difference than doing different things with the same awareness. My proposal is that changing techniques while maintaining the same attitudes amounts essentially to more of the same, and that the quantum shift we search for in our ability to facilitate more effective learning lies in a shift at the level of our attitudes. our awareness, and our attention to process.
Received February 1989

Further

Reading

Maslow, A. 1970. Motivation and personality.

This is cess. I Heron process

a small selection of books whichfocus on prorecommend Brandes and Ginnis 1986, and 1977 as excellent introductions to humanistic in the classroom.

New York: and Row. Mearns, D. and J. McLeod. 1984. A person-centred approach to research in Levant and Schlein (eds.):

Harper

New Directions

in Theory, Research

and Practice.

New

Berne, E. 1968. Games People Play. Harmondsworth: Penguin. Boydel, T. 19i6. Experiential Learning. Manchester: University of Manchester. Monographs. Bolton, R. 1986. People Skills. New York: PrenticeHall. Brandes, D. & P. Ginnis 1986. A Guide to StudentCentered Learning. Oxford: Basil Blackwell. Gattegno, C. 1972. What We Owe Children. London: Routledge. Gattegno, C. 1972. Teaching Foreign Languages in Schools. Reading: Educational Explorers. Gordon, T. 1974. Teacher Effectiveness Training. New York: Wyden. Graham, H. 1986. The Human Face of Psychology. Milton Keynes: Open University Press. Heron, J. 1977. Dimensions of Facilitator Style. University of Surrey: Human Potential Research Project. Heron, J. 1987. Six Category Intervention Analysis. University of Surrey: Human Potential Research Project. Houston, G. 1984. The Red Book of Groups. Rochester Foundation.

York: Praeger Press. Rogers, C. 1983. Freedom to Learn. Sew York: Merrill. Shaffer, J. 1978. Humanistic Psychology. New York: Prentice-Hall. Stevick, E. 1980. Teaching Languages, A Way and Ways. Rowley, MA: Newbury House. Thorne, B. 1988. The Counsellor and the Environment for Learning. Given as The First Annual Counselling Lecture in the University of Sheffield, available from the University of Sheffield.

The author

Adrian Underhill is Director of the International Teacher Training Institute at International House in Hastings, and Director of Training for the International Language Centres Group. He leads workshops in many countries on teacher and staff development, people skills for managers and teachers, and humanistic education. He is chairman of the IATEFL Teacher Development Group.

260

Adrian Underhill

articles

welcome