dissertation proposal by temi rose 2/20/02
Table of Contents
CHAPTER ONE: THE PROBLEM STATEMENT
A National Perspective
Art in Academia: Valuing Aesthetic Cognition
Technology in Education: Ethical Considerations
Art and ritual.
Learning, Change and Democracy
Rationale for this Study
CHAPTER II: LITERATURE REVIEW
Introduction: Weaving a Web
Art in Schools: Theory
Justice, Responsibility and Care
Conversational Reality
Motivation and Learning
Adult Education
Action Research: Methodology and Principles
Art in Schools: Practice
Technology in Schools
Conclusion: Seeking an Articulation
CHAPTER III: METHOD
The Site
The Participants
Data Sources
Procedure
Researcher's Role
Data Analysis
APPENDIX I - THE STATE GUIDELINES FOR TECHNOLOGICAL
EDUCATION
APPENDIX II - THE STATE GUIDELINES FOR ART EDUCATION
APPENDIX III – LETTER FROM RESEARCHER TO THE CAMPUS
LEADERSHIP COMMITTEE
APPENDIX IV– FROM THE FINE ARTS ACADEMY COORDINATOR:
E-MAIL INITIATING CONTACT WITH RESEARCH COMMUNITY
BIBLIOGRAPHY
MOTIVATION AND LEARNING
We have seen how different theorists perceive the future being created by individuals
in mutual interaction. As we all know from experience, levels of motivation
affect interpersonal interaction. Educators who wish to convey knowledge run
afoul when the learners are not motivated to participate. The literature on
technology integration in schools pointed to a lack of positive motivation towards
the proposed changes. In this section we will explore some factors that might
affect participants’ ability to take part in change efforts requiring interpersonal
and intrapersonal growth and change.
This study takes as given that a change agent can affect the future of a given social system. The questions that remain are whether the change agent’s behavior is ethical and initiates and motivates participant empowerment. All change can be considered educational but I have previously stated that I was not interested in any change effort that did not also support democratic practice. In this section the discussion of conversational reality theory and feminist psychology will broaden to include Third Force Psychology as embodied in the work of two psychologists, Abraham Maslow and Carl Rogers. Third Force Psychology was the name that Maslow (1968) gave to describe a type of psychological investigation concerned with the dynamics of interpersonal relationships. Maslow described that Third Force Psychology as describing the interpersonal, relational arena leaving Freudian psychology to describe internal states and Behavioral psychology to study observable behavior. The key elements of Third Force Psychology discussed here will be self-determination and intrinsic motivation towards self-actualization.
The first subsection in this section on motivation will discuss Abraham Maslow’s hierarchy of needs and his theory of becoming.
Self-actualization
Maslow (1955, 1968, 1971) developed a theory of becoming based on what he called
self-actualization theory. It was Maslow’s feeling that psychological research
had focused attention primarily on the pathological, neglecting the meaning
and constitution of psychological health. The purpose of Maslow’s conceptualization
of self-actualization was to illuminate a possible model of psychological health
so that clinicians and individuals might appreciate what they were trying to
develop in themselves and others. The core schema in Maslow’s conceptualization
he called a hierarchy of needs. In this hierarchy, needs are divided into two
major categories, B-needs and D-needs. According to Maslow’s theory, everyone
has an intrinsic need to develop. Psychological development will follow the
pattern that satisfaction of basic needs, or D-needs, will be attempted before
the satisfaction of being needs, or B-needs.
The D in D-needs, stands for deficiency. D-needs, in hierarchical order are the needs for: 1) physiological maintenance; 2) safety; 3) belongingness; and 4) esteem. D-needs are motivated from an insufficiency. When we lack safety, for instance, we have a drive to become more safe. In Maslow’s model, D-needs must be met before people could achieve the satisfaction of their "being" needs.
The B in B-needs, stands for being. The B-needs, in hierarchical order are the need for: 1) knowledge; 2) aesthetic pleasure; and 3) transcendence from ego-based rationality towards the realization (actualization) of interpersonal potentials in the personality. B-needs increase inversely in relation to the degree to which they are satisfied. In other words, although the need for safety and belongingness becomes greater as feelings of safety and belongingness decrease, the need for aesthetics and knowing increase the more they are satisfied.
There is no stasis point in Maslow’s model. A self-actualizing person is always in the process of becoming. Maxine Greene did not credit Maslow for her famous phrase, "I am, not yet" (Pinar, 1998). But there is little doubt that she was referring to a process similar to Maslow’s description of self-actualization. Perceiving change as interpersonally created through conversation and hoping to initiate and sustain a change effort in my action research study, I considered it necessary to be able to appreciate the need levels of participants. Was technology perceived by individual participants as a D-need or a B-need? How would this affect their participation and my ability to work with them?
Maslow and Rogers were acquainted with one another and familiar with each other’s work. There are many similarities in the work of the two theorists. In the next and final subsection of our examination of motivation, we will focus on an aspect of Roger’s work that is particularly relevant to this study, his ability to let people find their own way of doing and being.
Self-organizing
Rogers (1967, 1980) was a clinical and educational psychologist. At Teacher’s
College, Columbia University, Rogers studied with W.H. Kilkpatrick, a student
of John Dewey’s. Roger’s theories concern the interpersonal dynamics
of learning and therapy. Rogers believed that teachers and clinicians took too
much responsibility in their relationship to their students and their patients.
Rogers espoused a position of co-equal, mutual development with his patients
and his students. He felt that it was important to acknowledge his own search
for knowledge and self-understanding. If he was to be fully present as a human
being in interaction with someone, he asserted that he had to acknowledge his
true self and not play a generalized helping role.
Rogers did not use the term self-organizing systems, but his descriptions fit observations of system theorists that human systems are self-organizing. Rogers believed that genuine psychological help and relevant teaching required the facilitator to relinquish control of the process and acknowledge that the student or the client must do the work. Rogers encouraged people to actualize their potential in the context of a co-therapeutic relationship. Rogers thought he ought not to tell people what to do or how to negotiate their challenges, but rather, by not telling people what to do, but continuing in conversational relationship with them, he was supporting them in finding their own solutions. He was able to show that human beings, acting as individuals and in groups, are capable of organizing themselves into functional and healthy systems. Situation-based, constructivist, and discovery learning models are based on a similar principle, that knowledge gained through autonomous activity is more resilient than any model of learning based on the transfer of information.
Summary: Self-determination
Change in the high school curriculum would be my attempt to support the self-actualization
of others, but would require that I engage in the change process, allowing myself
to learn as well as teach. Self-actualization, then, would be a collaborative
process. Seen from the vantagepoint of the particular, the self-actualization
of individuals would be the critical consideration during the change process.
Seen from a generalized point of view, the self-actualization of the arts program
through the use of technology innovation would be the hoped-for result of the
interpersonal, collaborative, self-actualization of individual understanding
and skill.
Dewey (1916) and Tarrant (1989) considered educators responsible for aligning
their pedagogy with democratic practice. It seemed to me that, in order to create
an atmosphere that would not only permit but encourage democratic practice among
participants, I would need to exercise care in my conversations. This care would
have as its primary purpose to illustrate to my co-conversationalist that I
was interested in her constructs and that I had faith in her ability to achieve
what she wished to achieve. I did not wish to fake consideration for others
but to genuinely find in myself a democratic citizen’s respect for another
citizen cooperatively engaged in creating an educational environment we shared.
I was free to be as sad or as silly as I liked, to contribute ideas, and share
knowledge. I was bound, however, to be patient with other people’s sadness
and silliness, to seriously listen to their ideas, and to honestly learn from
them when they sought to share knowledge with me.
My hope was that through the exercise of self-reflection and self-discipline in my conversations, I would make room in my own understanding for the generation of a group understanding. The essence of self-actualization is the ability to transcend our ego-needs to be right and in control in order to allow situations to emerge in which we take part fully and wholeheartedly and yet are open to being changed by what others are bringing to the situation. Since my goal was partly to increase the participants’ comfort with communication technology, and part of that process is to satisfy D-needs such as safety, belongingness and esteem with regards to sharing information and knowledge, I wanted to participate in making us all, myself included, feel safe and comfortable. If I could leverage my role as expert by consciously sharing expertise with participants, perhaps our self-determination would emerge, individually and as a group. And self-determination is a powerful motor for autonomous learning.
Autonomous learning and independent thinking are hallmark concepts of adult education theory. The next section will explore these concepts, how they are considered elements of democratic practice, and how they can be developed using care and relational discourse. next