Why Humanistic Teacher Education Still Matters

This article was downloaded by: [North West University]On: 21 December 2014, At: 00:36Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registeredoffice: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Action in Teacher EducationPublication details, including instructions for authors andsubscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/uate20

Why Humanistic Teacher Education StillMattersSara M. Sage a , Sondra Smith Adcock b & Andrea L. Dixon ca Indiana University South Bendb University of Floridac Georgia State UniversityPublished online: 20 Jul 2012.

To cite this article: Sara M. Sage , Sondra Smith Adcock & Andrea L. Dixon (2012) WhyHumanistic Teacher Education Still Matters, Action in Teacher Education, 34:3, 204-220, DOI:10.1080/01626620.2012.694021

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/01626620.2012.694021

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the“Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis,our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as tothe accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinionsand views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors,and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Contentshould not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sourcesof information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims,proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever orhowsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arisingout of the use of the Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Anysubstantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing,systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms &Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/uate20

http://www.tandfonline.com/action/showCitFormats?doi=10.1080/01626620.2012.694021

http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/01626620.2012.694021

http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

Action in Teacher Education, 34:204–220, 2012Copyright © Association of Teacher EducatorsISSN: 0162-6620 print/2158-6098 onlineDOI: 10.1080/01626620.2012.694021

Why Humanistic Teacher Education Still Matters

Sara M. SageIndiana University South Bend

Sondra Smith AdcockUniversity of Florida

Andrea L. DixonGeorgia State University

The debate concerning who teachers are and what they are supposed to do continues with similarfervor as 100 years ago. In today’s political climate, there is a resurgence in essentialism (a focuson traditional instruction and teacher-led curricula). As our nation’s teachers face the demands ofaccountability standards imposed by recent legislation, it is critical to examine the teaching domainsthat are overlooked and underemphasized within this framework. The authors review literature onhumanistic teacher education. Then, the authors discuss humanistic teacher education dispositionsand provide brief examples of how they have incorporated them in their work in teacher preparation.

INTRODUCTION

Who makes the best teachers for our nation’s schools? It seems that everyone has an opinion aboutteachers. As a result, this debate has a long history of deep and enduring differences in perspectiveabout the purpose of schools in our society, about what we want children’s experiences as studentsto be like, how we think schooling can best have this effect, and who we believe we can trust withour children’s care and destinies. Over the last several decades, the work of preschool through12th grade teachers (P–12) in America’s public schools has become more complex. Standardsfor schooling are higher than ever; teachers are required to not only keep order and disseminateknowledge, but also must be increasingly effective in helping a diverse group of students learncomplex material and develop a wide range of skills (Bransford, Darling-Hammond, & LePage,2005). Teachers must develop a variety of identities as professionals, subject matter experts,change agents, nurturers and child advocates, and moral agents (Hammerness et al., 2005).

Additionally, today there are competing paradigms in teacher, administrator, and schoolcounselor preparation programs, as different stakeholders define important components withineducation professions in a variety of ways. In the United States, there has been a centuries-long

Correspondence should be addressed to Sara M. Sage, School of Education, Indiana University South Bend,1700 Mishawaka Ave, South Bend, IN 46634. E-mail: [email protected]

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Nor

th W

est U

nive

rsity

] at

00:

36 2

1 D

ecem

ber

2014

WHY HUMANISTIC TEACHER EDUCATION STILL MATTERS 205

tension between advocates of progressivism (broadening the function of education to includeopportunities for learners to grow meaningfully through their schooling experiences and a morestudent-centered approach) and essentialism (traditional instruction and achievement in coreacademic disciplinary knowledge and a more teacher-directed approach) (Sedlak, 2008). Morerecently, there has been a shift in teacher education from broad pedagogical models to morecontent knowledge and technical training in teacher education (Null, 2007), often with a veryteacher-directed focus, which is thought to be important in improving P–12 student performanceand teacher accountability. An accompanying move to high-stakes assessment using standardizedtests in the nation’s public schools has taken the focus away from broader pedagogical con-cerns, (e.g., the teacher–student relationship) to an emphasis on the use of standards, standardizedcurriculum, and teacher-directed approaches in the classroom.

Is it to be essentialism or progressivism? Imig and Imig (2006) argued that in the battle forcontrol over the last century between essentialists and progressivists, the essentialists have con-sistently won in terms of educational policy in the United States. It is precisely this current realityof accountability and the huge movement to improve P–12 education in this country that requiresa thorough examination of where we are headed in education and of the history and evidencewe choose to include or exclude. In this article, the authors revisit authors such as Carl Rogers,Arthur Combs, and others and advocate for progressivism and indeed humanistic education andteacher/counselor preparation.

HISTORY OF HUMANISTIC EDUCATION

Early in the 20th century, educators and psychologists began to develop a humanistic orientation,which may be defined as “more humane, meaningful, and active ways of working with theirstudents and their clients” (Richards & Combs, 1992, p. 372). John Dewey (1916, 1938) and theProgressive Education movement in the 1920s to 1940s sought to clarify this work by examin-ing humans’ innate desire to learn and learning as a social and person-driven act. Progressiveeducation in the early 20th century aroused some fear and hostility among essentialists that teach-ers were “watering down the traditional curriculum and coddling students” (Richards & Combs,1992, p. 373), and the progressive movement faded during World War II.

The aftermath of World War II led psychologists who were treating servicemen reenteringsociety to search for ways beyond psychoanalytic and behavioral psychologies to better under-stand the complex realities of peoples’ lives. Their search led to the emergence of a “third force”in psychology: humanistic psychology. Humanistic principles focused on understanding self andothers, developing new concepts of healthy psychological development and functioning based onan innate striving toward self-actualization, and identifying the dynamics of human relationshipswhich contribute to experiences conducive to human learning and growth (Richards & Combs,1992).

In the 1960s and 1970s, a surge in humanistic psychology with such familiar names as CarlRogers, Abraham Maslow, and Rollo May leading the way, and in conjunction with the Johnsonadministration and the War on Poverty, produced a strong emphasis on humanistic, or affectiveskill development in teacher education and on child-centered instructional methods (Associationfor Humanistic Psychology, n.d.; Sedlak, 2008). During this time, there were numerous authorswriting about the need to focus teacher education on the development of genuine relationships

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Nor

th W

est U

nive

rsity

] at

00:

36 2

1 D

ecem

ber

2014

206 SARA M. SAGE ET AL.

with students and to use methods in teacher education that emphasized the teacher candidateexamining self, using humanistic education principles. When learning is examined from a human-istic viewpoint, it is not simply a rational, performance-based endeavor; rather, it is an internalmatter of human needs, goals, desires, hopes and fears; a lifelong natural, experiential process ofdiscovering the personal meaning of ideas (Richards & Combs, 1992).

Some consider Carl Rogers the “founding father” of humanistic education, in publicationssuch as On Becoming a Person (Rogers, 1961/1995) and Freedom to Learn (Rogers, 1969).Rogers (1961/1995) described his view of the basic motive of education as follows:

his (teacher’s) basic reliance would be upon the self-actualizing tendency in his students. The hypoth-esis upon which he [sic] would build is that students who are in real contact with life problems wishto learn, want to grow, seek to find out, hope to master, desire to create. He would see his function asthat of developing such a personal relationship with his students, and such a climate in his classroom,that these natural tendencies could come to their fruition, (pp. 289–290)

Arthur Combs was a student of Rogers and a prolific author in the field of humanistic edu-cation. Combs and colleagues (Combs, Blume, Newman, & Wass, 1974) defined the movementas perceptual-humanistic psychology and an effective teacher as “a unique human being who haslearn to use himself effectively and efficiently to carry out his own and society’s purposes in theeducation of others” (p. 8). The authors went on to describe the “self-as-instrument” concept asone that requires teacher education to be viewed as a process of becoming:

Becoming a teacher is not a matter of learning how to teach. It is a question of personal discovery,of learning how to use one’s self well. No teachers’ college can make a teacher. The best it can do isprovide students with problems, resources, information, and opportunities to explore what they mean.Beyond that the student is his own pilot and must find his own best ways of working. He must makea commitment to the process of learning . . . it means that teacher-education programs must concernthemselves with persons rather than competencies. (pp. 8–9)

There were several other humanistic education authors of significance during this period.Thomas Gordon, a clinical psychologist, wrote books for parents and teachers, emphasizing anopen, warm, caring relationship with children. In Teacher Effectiveness Training (1974), Gordonemphasized skills such as active listening and problem solving with students. In a similar vein,Clark Moustakas (1966) described the importance of authenticity and effective interpersonal rela-tionships with students. Haim Ginott (1975), a clinical psychologist who started as an elementaryteacher, wrote for parents and teachers about working effectively and genuinely with children.Ginott stressed the importance of congruent communication—language that fits feelings andsituations—as well as the importance of setting therapeutic limits.

Several of these authors, and others, wrote specifically about applying humanistic educa-tion principles in programs of teacher education. The teacher preparation program developedby Combs and others at the University of Florida (the Florida Experimental Program) was basedon principles of perceptual/humanistic psychology. Graduates from the experimental programshowed significantly more confidence, more skill in helping others develop, and more opportuni-ties for self-initiated experiences in their first year of teaching than those in the control group (asmeasured by the Combs’ Perceptual Dimension Scale) (Combs, et al., 1974). M. Mark Wasicsko,a student of Combs, has updated Combs’ work from the University of Florida by creating atraining manual for assessing educator dispositions (Wasicsko, n.d.) and founding the National

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Nor

th W

est U

nive

rsity

] at

00:

36 2

1 D

ecem

ber

2014


Network for the Study of Educator Dispositions in 2002 (College of Education and HumanServices, 2010).

Frances Fuller, an educational psychologist at the University of Texas at Austin, was involvedin a number of projects incorporating humanistic principles in the preparation of teachers, suchas the Mental Health in Teacher Education Project and the Personality, Teacher Education andTeaching Behavior Project (G. V. Anderson, Bown, Lieb, & Reid, 1975). Fuller’s largest contri-bution to the field is a developmental conceptualization of the concerns of teachers (Fuller, 1969)from nonconcern, early in a teacher education preservice program, through concerns about self,the tasks of teaching, and finally to a mature teacher’s concern about learners and their progress.Fuller suggested using personalized feedback and other strategies designed to be more develop-mentally appropriate for the person in the teacher education program (Fuller & Case, 1969; Fulleret al., 1969).

Cecil Patterson and William Purkey (1993) also wrote about the humanistic preparationof teachers, emphasizing the importance of teachers’ attitudinal characteristics. Drawing fromRogers, Combs, and their own work, they include several specific suggestions for teacher educa-tion programs, including a focus on the person of the teacher educator, establishing an internalframe of reference, educating for perceptual clarity (monitoring “self-talk”), using group pro-cesses frequently, conducting continuous, integrative seminars and selecting supervising teacherscarefully.

Leading humanistic thinkers were well aware throughout their careers that their progressiveview of human nature and corresponding views of teaching and learning were not in the main-stream and, indeed, often strongly criticized and held in contempt. Arthur Combs, a lifelongadvocate for humanistic preparation for teachers, responded as follows:

Humanism is no fragile flower, too tender for a tough world. Quite the contrary. It is a systematic,conscious attempt to put into practice the best we know about the nature of human beings and howthey learn. That is the scientific approach advocated by educators for generations. Putting humanistthinking to work is not misguided. Ignoring its message is a far greater error. Humanistic educa-tion maintains that what students experience about themselves and their world is far too importantfor education to overlook. Instead, such human considerations must be included in every aspect ofeducational thinking and practice. (Combs, 1981, p. 449)

Carl Rogers held similar lifelong views (Aspy & Roebuck, 1988). Rogers, in the foreword toFreedom to Learn (1969) stated,

It will be clear that I see our whole educational system at a crisis point – a point of desperatelyimportant choice . . . I believe it will be evident that I rely on the potentiality and wisdom of thehuman being – if this potential can be released – to bring about the desperately needed changes ineducation, before it is too late. (p. vii)

There are additional authors writing in more recent times to apply humanistic ideas toclassroom teaching. Elaine Faber and Adele Mazlish (1995) applied much of Haim Ginott’s(1975) work in their book How to Talk so Kids can Learn. George Gazda and colleagues(1999) have written an extensive text on human relations development for educators, drawingupon the work of Rogers and the helper model of Robert Carkhuff (1972). Kottler and Kottler(2000) described a model of the helping process (assessment, exploration, understanding, actionand evaluation) in their book Counseling Skills for Teachers. Nel Noddings (2003) advocated

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Nor

th W

est U

nive

rsity

] at

00:

36 2

1 D

ecem

ber

2014


for an ethic of care to support the “one-caring” and “cared-for” (p. 182) relationship betweenthe teacher and the student as a way to redesign the education progress. Parker Palmer (1997,2004) has written extensively about the importance of being authentic and having deep self-knowledge as a teacher and modeling personal values in one’s work. Palmer (1997) stated, “Weteach who we are”(p. 2) and asked “Who is the self that teaches?”(p. 7), building his work onthe premise that “good teaching cannot be reduced to technique; good teaching comes from theidentity and integrity of the teacher” (p. 10).

KEY HUMANISTIC PRINCIPLES FOR TEACHER EDUCATION

What are some of the most important humanistic characteristics for today’s teachers? Key char-acteristics might also be called “dispositions,” the term that the primary accrediting agency forschools of education, the National Council for Accreditation of Teacher Education (NCATE),has defined as “professional attitudes, values and beliefs demonstrated through both verbal andnonverbal behaviors as educators interact with students, families, colleagues, and communities”(NCATE, 2008, p. 89–90). NCATE encouraged Schools of Education to develop their own setof dispositions for their educator candidates. The term dispositions was first suggested by LillianKatz and James Raths in the mid-1980s (Katz & Raths, 1986) and goes beyond the notion ofvalues or attitudes to an action component—that is, a “way to operationalize behaviors that risefrom a particular belief” (Smith, Knopp, Skarbek, & Rushton, 2005, p. 213). A set of selectedhumanistic teacher dispositions is presented in Table 1, organized into three general categories:individual teacher dispositions, relational dispositions, and contextual dispositions that relate tocreating supportive and effective classroom environments.

Is humanism out of date in 21st century classrooms? Hansen (2010) made the case that thehumanities—which complicate people, rather than science—which simplifies people, shouldbe the foundation for counseling and helping work, because people are, in actuality, quitecomplex! Similarly, past humanistic authors have argued that open systems thinking, whichemphasizes process and creating conditions for change, is more appropriate for complicatedhuman problems such as educational reform than closed system thinking, which focuseson measuring preconceived outcomes and works best for problems about things (Combs,1988).

Teaching in today’s schools increasingly calls for teachers to possess and apply humanistic dis-positions with an increasingly diverse population of students, many of whom have experiencedhigh levels of stress and trauma and who may not have attached securely with an adult before.Some authors, in the past and today, have questioned the relationship between teaching and ther-apy. Does it step over an important boundary to consider that teachers need to have some basiccounseling skills? Most humanistic authors would say no, emphatically. Patterson (1973) stated:“the humanistic teacher will have fewer ‘problem children’ . . . We can’t, and won’t improveeducation without making it therapeutic” (pp. 112, 116).

The authors—teacher educators and counselor educators—have all taught courses in whichthese humanistic dispositions are emphasized and take a strong stand in the importance of provid-ing humanistic teacher preparation. In the next section, we discuss humanistic teacher educationdispositions in more detail: Why they are important for teachers and some brief examples of howwe have incorporated them in our work in teacher preparation.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Nor

th W

est U

nive

rsity

] at

00:

36 2

1 D

ecem

ber

2014


TABLE 1Humanistic Teacher Dispositions

Dispositions Sources

Individual (within teacher)Capacity for sharing self and disciplining self (Combs et al., 1974; Palmer, 1997)Genuineness/authenticity (Gazda et al., 1999; Moustakas, 1966; Palmer,

1997; Rogers, 1969)Aware of “self as instrument” and a sense of adequacy to use self

effectively to teach others(Combs et al., 1974; Palmer, 1997; Patterson

& Purkey, 1993)Accurate perceptions about people and their behavior, including

an internal frame of reference, a focus on people and how theymake meanings

(Combs et al., 1974; Patterson & Purkey,1993)

Empathic understanding (Gazda et al., 1999; Patterson & Purkey, 1993;Rogers, 1969)

Caring and compassion (Noddings, 2003)Relational (between teacher and others)

Concern for inner life of student (self-concept, values, feelings) (Combs, 1981)Encouraging cooperative interaction (Combs et al., 1974; Kottler & Kottler, 2000;

Palmer, 1997; Patterson & Purkey, 1993)Encouraging and modeling authentic communication, including

active listening, “I” messages, inviting cooperation, usingdescription rather than criticism and judgment

(Combs et al., 1974; Faber & Mazlish, 1995;Ginott, 1975; Gordon, 1974)

Encouraging and modeling problem-solving approaches, withstudents, families, and other professionals, in which it is clearwho owns the problem

(Combs et al., 1974; Faber & Mazlish, 1995;Ginott, 1975; Gordon, 1974; Kottler &Kottler, 2000)

Accepting, trusting, and prizing the learner, with respect forindividual differences

(Gazda et al., 1999; Herman, 1995; Rogers,1969)

Offering choices and allowing real opportunity to choose (Moustakas, 1966; Rogers, 1969)Encouragement and descriptive praise (Faber & Mazlish, 1995)Confrontation (pointing out discrepancies) (Gazda et al., 1999; Ginott, 1975; Kottler &

Kottler, 2000)Contextual (classroom and teaching related)

Rich, extensive, and available perceptions about teacher’s subjectfield

(Combs et al., 1974; Palmer, 1997)

Accurate perceptions about the purpose and process of learning,including support for critical thinking and excitement about theprocess of learning

(Combs et al., 1974; Herman, 1995)

Personal perceptions about appropriate methods for carrying outpurposes of learning

(Combs et al., 1974)

Assistance and encouragement in helping students discover thepersonal meaning of information

(Combs, 1981; Combs et al., 1974)

Development of an atmosphere that encourages safety, a sense ofbelonging and the opportunity for creativity

(Aspy, Roebuck, & Benoit, 1987; Combset al., 1974; Herman, 1995; Rogers, 1969)

Questioning (Gazda et al., 1999; Kottler & Kottler, 2000)

SELECTED HUMANISTIC DISPOSITIONS FOR TODAY’S CLASSROOM TEACHERS

Selected humanistic dispositions, or the action components that rise from humanistic beliefs,are particularly important for today’s teachers and current trends in education. Teachers and

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Nor

th W

est U

nive

rsity

] at

00:

36 2

1 D

ecem

ber

2014


the quality of their instruction are situated in broader sociocultural issues of teacher account-ability, teacher–child–parent relationships, and the increasing diversity of the nations’ schools.Pedagogies that instill humanistic dispositions may help teachers develop competencies that areeffective in addressing these critical personal and social contexts. The authors group these dis-positions and accompanying pedagogies into the same three categories as Table 1: individual,relational, and contextual.

Individual

Bringing best congruent self into the classroom. “The degree to which I can create rela-tionships which facilitate the growth of others as separate persons is a measure of the growth Ihave achieved in myself” (Rogers, 1961/1995, p. 56). Combs et al. (1974) defined the effectiveteacher as “a unique human being who has learned to use himself [sic] effectively and efficientlyto carry out his own and society’s purposes in the education of others” (p. 8). Combs et al. referto this as the self as instrument concept. The authors went on to argue that whether an indi-vidual will be an effective teacher depends essentially on the nature of the individual’s privateworld of perceptions, and thus that the perceptual world of the teacher is a crucial concern toteacher education programs: “professional teacher education must be an intensely human processdesigned to involve the student deeply and personally” (Combs, et al., p. 33). Combs’ researchon the Perceptual Dimensions Scale, which assesses characteristics of effective helpers, includesseveral dimensions related to genuineness, such as perception of self as adequate and revealing(open) and others as able.

Patterson (1973; Patterson & Purkey, 1993) clearly delineated good teaching as not a matterof teaching method but rather the person of the teacher. He posited that teachers must be gen-uine, open, and honest, and that such behavior—even when teachers become impatient, angry, orirritated—actually reduces discipline problems. When teachers are genuine, students know whothe teacher is and where she or he stands. Although this might seem to be a simplistic idea, Rogers(1969) reminded us that being real, or genuine, is not easy:

Only slowly can we learn to be truly real. For, first of all, one must be close to one’s feelings, capableof being aware of them. Then one must be willing to take the risk of sharing them as they are, inside,not disguising them as judgments, or attributing them to other people. (p. 114)

Genuineness may seem particularly difficult in today’s classroom. Most people have learnedto be impersonal, competitive, and evaluative in classroom settings. Palmer (2004) encouragedteachers, and others, to journey toward wholeness and genuineness by learning to “live in thetragic gap” (p. 175)—a gap between the way things are and the way we know they could be.According to Palmer, the tension of living in the tragic gap is the way he knows to be nonviolentand genuine. It is often easy, Palmer admitted, to fall into either the cynicism of reality or escapistfantasies of change. Each genuine interaction with a child in the classroom contributes to realhope of change in the life of that child and in the life of the teacher. To become more wholeand genuine, Palmer promoted using poetry, personal journaling, and small-group dialogue tocontemplate various stresses and paradoxes in teaching (Center for Courage and Renewal, 2008;Palmer, 2004). The first author has participated in this “courage work” for 7 years and modelselements of it with her students. One example of how this can be used in teacher education is toselect a poem, song, or video clip as a stimulus for students to journal about their fears, concerns,

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Nor

th W

est U

nive

rsity

] at

00:

36 2

1 D

ecem

ber

2014


joys, and questions about themselves as teachers and then to share some of their thoughts with aself-selected partner in class.

Combs et al. (1974) encouraged teacher educators to use three particular means to help teachercandidates develop a stronger sense of self: (1) create an atmosphere in the program and withinclassrooms that encourages student self-discovery as people and teachers; (2) provide experiencesdesigned to help students see themselves as adequate, effective people; and (3) assist the student’spersonal search for meaning and self-discovery as a person and teacher.

Applying self-care and stress management skills. Teachers, as helpers, have a stressfulprofession. The research of S. Johnson et al. (2005) found that teaching is in the top five moststressful professions in all three areas measured: physical health, psychological well-being, andjob satisfaction. There are certainly many complex reasons why teaching is stressful, includingorganizational as well as personal factors, the full explication of which is beyond the scope of thisarticle. However, one area in which to focus is the risks and stressors of being a helper, includingthe risk of burnout, limited support for their work, the reality that there are no finished productsin the helping professions (e.g., teachers often assist students with beginning new possibilities intheir lives but never see the actual growth and changes), the challenges in being who you are inthe world without constantly being “on” as a helper, and the immediacy and ambiguity of helpingwork (Combs & Gonzales, 1994).

The particular challenges of empathy, when it affects the helper in draining ways, havebeen called burnout, compassion fatigue, or empathy fatigue (Stebnicki, 2008). Stebnicki (2008)asserted, “Such a life’s work requires that we prepare our mind, body and spirit to grow anddevelop in ways that help us become more resilient in working at such intense levels of interper-sonal functioning” (p. 16). One important aspect of humanistic teacher preparation, then, is toprepare teachers for good self-care and wellness. M. Anderson (2010) outlined basic self-care forteachers, including attention to physical needs such as nutrition, exercise, and sleep, as well asbasic physical safety at school; aesthetic needs such as a pleasing classroom and school envi-ronment; and emotional/spiritual needs such as having uplifting activities outside of school,connecting with nature, and engaging in self-renewing activities such as journaling, meditation, orreading. M. Anderson also stressed the importance of balance—planning one’s time and energy—by learning to say no, eliminating perfectionism, and working more efficiently. Additionally, sothat teachers have a range of options when challenging students and situations are present in theclassroom, teacher candidates need to be prepared for the challenges in personal relationshipswith students by directly teaching skills that help engage student interest and attention, as well asgeneral skills in creating a caring classroom environment (Center for Mental Health in Schoolsat UCLA, 2008).

One way to address concerns related to self-care and wellness for teachers is to model it inteacher education courses. Mindfulness is a term used to describe a variety of philosophical andreligious traditions that is now being applied to wellness for helpers. MacDonald and Shirley(n.d.) defined mindfulness for teachers as “denoting heightened awareness of the choices thatteachers make and their consequences for pupil learning” (p. 2). For example, the first authordescribes to her students the ways she promotes her own self-care and includes brief mindfulnessactivities in her classes, such as breathing exercises, muscle relaxation, identifying a favorite placeand visualizing it, and reflecting upon crucial personal experiences through journaling. Anotheridea is to specifically teach stress management strategies and have students develop a personal

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Nor

th W

est U

nive

rsity

] at

00:

36 2

1 D

ecem

ber

2014


stress management or wellness plan to use throughout their program. To address conflict man-agement, in the first author’s course at Indiana University South Bend, we use a text by Faber andMazlish (1995) that specifically teaches communication strategies to engage students in a class-room setting, such as active listening, using “I” statements, and using encouragement. Studentspractice and model these skills with each other in small peer groups and then are evaluated on theuse of the skills in the clinical experience portion of the course.

Relational

Developing and sustaining effective peer relationships. The importance of human rela-tionships is core to the humanistic tradition. This includes not only relationships with self,students, and their families, but also with other educators. Individuals who are fully functioning,self-actualizing human beings also seek effective relationships outside of their work lives, withfamily, friends, and other social organizations and networks. These kind of rich peer relationshipsrequire a number of personal skills, such as effective interpersonal communication and problem-solving skills, including active listening and effective verbal and nonverbal communication;clear, precise and nondefensive statements and questions; assertiveness; and effective conflict-resolution strategies and commitments (Friend & Cook, 2000). It takes an open, secure, andself-directed teacher to build and sustain effective peer relationships. Such individuals can createthe kind of work and classroom atmosphere in which people trust themselves and each other, andwhere differences of all kinds are encouraged, appreciated and valued so that no one feels like anoutsider (Combs, 1961).

However, many educators do not find themselves in such a supportive, safe environment attheir schools. M. Anderson (2010) pointed out that teachers are often more conscious of helpingtheir students meet the basic need for belonging and relationship than they are for themselves.There are often many barriers to effective collaboration among teachers, not the least of which arethe structural conditions of many schools, where teachers are often isolated in their classroomsand rarely have the opportunity to collaborate with others who teach the same students or the samesubject. Close collaboration, defined by Friend and Cook (2000) as a “style for direct interactionbetween at least two coequal parties voluntarily engaged in shared decision making as they worktoward a common goal” (p. 6), requires educators to value such an interpersonal style, to trustone another, and to believe in and build upon a sense of interdependence and community (D. W.Johnson & Johnson, 2006).

The pressures currently placed on administrators and teachers can be overwhelming and maketeachers competitive rather than collaborative and protective rather than open. In school settingsthat are competitive and protective, it is still possible and perhaps even more crucial to sustaineffective peer relationships. M. Anderson (2010) and Tomlinson (2010) advocated for teachers toseek out enthusiastic and positive colleagues who model effective teaching and lifelong learningskills. These peer relationships might also be found at other schools and in professional organi-zations. Additionally, M. Anderson encourages teachers to organize regular staff meals, events,sports teams, or book clubs, or to attend community events together.

Peer relationships are also crucial for new teacher development and retention. People tend tostay in teaching and at particular schools if they perceive the schools to be places that empha-size frequent and reciprocal interaction among educators across experience levels, recognize newteachers’ needs, and develop a sense of shared responsibility among educators for the school and

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Nor

th W

est U

nive

rsity

] at

00:

36 2

1 D

ecem

ber

2014


its students (Berry, Daughtrey, & Wieder, 2009; S. M. Johnson & Kardos, 2008). Humanisticteacher education—preservice and in-service—can contribute to helping teachers build the skillsnecessary for satisfying peer relationships. One way this can be done is paying special atten-tion to the climate in preservice courses and in-service workshops to encourage open dialogueand trust—team-building; providing for multiple and sustained opportunities for peer dialogue,collaborative work, and peer feedback; and modeling collaborative strategies and skills instruc-tionally. One example of preparing teachers for successful peer relationships comes from the firstauthor’s class, in which she uses the first several class periods to model openness, warmth, andgenuineness and provides multiple opportunities for self-disclosure and team building throughpersonal introduction presentations to the class, complete with props or mementoes important toeach person. She also uses consistent small groups of three to four students that meet each classperiod throughout the semester to practice communication and other activities with each otherand to give each other peer feedback on interpersonal communication skills at midterm and theend of the semester.

Increasing skills in problem solving. Classroom interactions present teachers with hun-dreds of opportunities each day to respond to various issues and problems that range fromphysical issues such as interruptions or room temperature to student behavior such as challenges,talking, getting out of seats, and so on to teacher behavior choices such as to whom to ask aquestion, when to ignore small off-task student behaviors, what voice tone to use, how to explaina concept, and so on. In addition, teachers and other helpers often work with students and parentswho are perceived to be difficult to deal with. Humanistic teacher education, with an emphasis ona strong sense of self and the appropriate communication and problem-solving skills to addressthe daily tasks of teaching, as well as conflict resolution, has a place here as well.

Combs and Gonzalez (1994) presented specific information to avoid the threat/counter-threatcycle that can often occur and block communication, focusing on teaching helpers how to followthe lead of their students or students’ families. Several humanistic authors have used this basicidea to develop specific problem-solving models, including Gordon’s (1974) “no lose” problemsolving method (i.e., determining who owns the problem and then responding accordingly, usingactive listening and “I” messages), and Ginott’s (1975) work on respect and genuine interactionswith children (further developed by Faber & Mazlish, 1995). Several authors also have specifi-cally addressed working with parents or students who are angry or troubled (Kottler & Kottler,2000; McEwan, 2005), and with a variety of challenging situations with parents or colleagues(Bender, 2005).

Direct teaching and modeling of appropriate communication skills for problem solving andconflict resolution are important for teacher candidates. As Arthur Combs (1979) presented inhis book Myths in Education, “all learning is affective” (p. 161), as personal meaning makingis always accompanied by emotion. Hence, teaching and learning will always deal with emo-tions, and teachers will need good skills regarding their own emotions and understanding andincorporating the emotions of others.

One way in which one author has emphasized these skills in her Education classes is by con-structing an elaborate role-play in which an angry parent, portrayed by an actor, interacts withstudents role-playing a student teacher and cooperating classroom teacher regarding a conflictwith a grade or a similar issue. Students consistently report that this experience is meaningfuland helps them understand what verbal and nonverbal communication skills they use in conflict

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Nor

th W

est U

nive

rsity

] at

00:

36 2

1 D

ecem

ber

2014


situations and which are helpful or not. In one particular instance, a teacher candidate who hadexceptionally strong interpersonal skills found that she was triggered by an aggressive male actor,portraying the angry father, and actually snatched the student’s grade report out of his hand. Thiseffectively ended the role-play and generated in-depth discussion and insight about her—and eachperson’s in the class—strengths and areas for improvement when encountering conflict.

Increasing teacher effectiveness through positive relationships with diverse students.Learning skills to work with an increasingly diverse range of students is critical, many of whombring challenging behaviors and life experiences and need help to develop interpersonal skills.This may be a particular need for in-service teachers who find themselves working with verydifferent student populations than when they were initially trained or who are culturally differentfrom them. In fact, research has suggested that minority students (and their families) are lesslikely to experience social belonging and positive relationships with teachers than their Whitepeers (e.g., Hamre & Pianta, 2001).

A fundamental humanistic concept, “prizing of the individual” (Rogers, 1969) is key for teach-ers working with children from diverse and cultural backgrounds that are different from their own.When teachers “prize the individual,” they recognize the unique strengths of each student withwhom they work. In our course, Counseling Children and Adolescents (for teachers), we (thesecond and third authors) worked with preservice and in-service teachers to reconceptualize stu-dents’ maladaptive behaviors in the classroom as meeting a desired goal. Then we brainstormeffective versus ineffective ways to respond to the student in the classroom. Often teachers learnthat their strategies in the classroom exacerbate the problem rather than mitigate it.

We (the second and third authors) invite teachers to do a one-minute paper on their mostchallenging student behaviors. Then we teach teachers how to assume positive intent for the stu-dents’ behavior (Pereira & Smith-Adcock, 2011). For example, children who exhibit a lack ofmotivation, are disrespectful, or disruptive in the classroom can be frustrating to their teacher.One of our most memorable experiences was when a middle school teacher told the story of a“class clown.” In our class, we spent time examining what “clowning” was often about—needingattention, hiding negative feelings (e.g., fear of rejection, loneliness), and so on. A classroom ofteacher education candidates as well as seasoned teachers worked to understand what the ado-lescent gained from “clowning” and ways to respond that were reflective of the student’s needs,rather than directing or blaming. As counselor educators, watching teachers examine a students’behavior through a humanistic lens and generate caring and constructive ways to respond to theirfeelings was truly a wonderful experience.

Contextual

Moving from teacher-directed to student-led classrooms. Children learn best when theyare in the lead and instruction is “child focused” (American Psychological Association [APA],1997). In Freedom to Learn, Rogers (1969) defined significant learning as having a qualityof personal involvement, being self-initiated, evaluated by the learner, with a core essence ofmeaning. However, in today’s culture of accountability, the unequivocal message to teachers hasbecome, you are in control of and responsible for your students’ achievement. So when we rec-ommend that teachers work toward a student-led or learner-focused learning environment, thisdirective may instill fear and incredulity. However, research evidence is clear: children learn

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Nor

th W

est U

nive

rsity

] at

00:

36 2

1 D

ecem

ber

2014


more when they are allowed to lead the way (Lambert & McCombs, 2000). Furthermore, severalacademic as well as social and emotional outcomes are tied to student-led learning environments(Alexander & Murphy, 2000). When they are allowed to self-govern, self-reflect, and self-direct,students learn, I am capable. This is something I can do (learn). Finally, when teachers maximizelearner-centered principles in their classrooms, another benefit to learning occurs—children liketheir teachers, feel accepted for who they are and believe that they matter. The benefit of a positiveand teacher-to-child relationship has been shown to affect students’ cooperation and self-direction(e.g., Fredricks, Blumenfeld, & Paris, 2004), and motivation (e.g., Furrer & Skinner, 2003), andthese gains tend to be lasting (e.g., Hamre & Pianta, 2001).

In our discussions with teachers, we (the second and third authors) emphasize specific commu-nication skills for fostering student-led learning. Teachers often rely on questions in the classroomto drive instruction as well as to manage difficult situations (e.g., Why did you do that?). However,questions are not as effective as other ways of communicating with children and can be intimi-dating and cut off effective communication (Kottler & Kottler, 2000; Pereira & Smith-Adcock,2011). For example, Faber and Mazlish (1995) recommend describing a problem rather than mak-ing accusations, giving directives, or lecturing. By describing the problem, teachers give studentsthe opportunity to self-direct (e.g., “I see a big mess over there,” I notice that you’re not gettingto work very easily today”). When questions are asked, teachers communicate that they are incharge and have an answer children are expected to know. When teachers notice a problem (e.g.,“Looks like you’re just not too sure about that”), teachers communicate to children that they arecapable of making good choices and know how to problem solve.

Another method we teach is giving choices (also see Faber & Mazlish, 1995). A natural exten-sion of “describing the problem,” this way of communicating is simple to use in the classroom.We teach an approach that includes (1) noticing what the student is doing/feeling, (2) stating rulesand/or expectations in the classroom, and (3) providing a choice (see Landreth, 2002; Pereira &Smith-Adcock, 2011). We then ask the teachers to role-play several examples that are drawn fromtheir own experiences in the classroom.

Creating and sustaining effective home-school partnerships. As humanistic educators,we simply extend the ideas of prizing, accepting, and trusting parents, with respect for theirindividual differences, to parents and caregivers. Parents deserve the same radical respect we payto students. In our class discussions, we openly challenge the cultural and ideological beliefs thatmay affect the way they view the families with whom they work (e.g., “parents who just do notcare or do not show up”).

Family involvement in schooling is critical. However, in many ways, educators relate tofamilies as a one-size-fits-all approach, without understanding families’ unique assets. Forexample, Walsh (2006) stated, “Resilience is forged through adversity, not in spite of it” (p. 7).Using a strengths-based approach, we encourage teachers to look for resilience not only inthe individual but also in the family and to take into account broader sociocultural contextand developmental perspective. For example, just because parents do not always attend schoolmeetings (school-based involvement) does not necessarily mean they do not participate in thechild’s schooling (home-based involvement) through providing emotional and instrumental helpat home (Amatea, Smith-Adcock, & Villares, 2006).

We (the second and third authors) ask teachers to conceptualize their existing relationship withfamilies by drawing a concept map. We then ask them to reconceptualize, rethink, and reorganize

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Nor

th W

est U

nive

rsity

] at

00:

36 2

1 D

ecem

ber

2014


patterns that are ineffective in relating to parents. Teachers are at first resistant. The traditionalmodel of “teacher as expert” is often deeply ingrained and moving to a collaborative, coexpertrole is difficult (Amatea, Daniels, Brigman, & Vandiver, 2004; Epstein, 1995). We found that it iseasier for teachers to reframe their beliefs about children than parents. Our hypothesis is simple:teachers are closer to the students they teach, and prizing, trusting accepting, and respecting dif-ferences is thus more of a challenge. We make the following recommendations (also see Amateaet al., 2006; Matuxzny, Banda, & Coleman, 2007):

• Empathize with parents; LISTEN FIRST• Block blame; listen, find strengths and solutions• Model effective problem solving: describe the problem, assume positive intent• Focus on goals (e.g., What would you like to see your child achieve in 5 years?)

As counselor educators, we have found that working with preservice and in-service teachers isrewarding. Asking teachers to move from traditional paradigms—from teacher as expert to a morecoexpert, collaborative, helping role—requires specific attention to the climate of our classroomand the relationships we build with our students. Therefore, we practice what we teach. We modeleffective communication and problem solving in our discussions with teachers. We are reflective,acknowledging the importance of their feelings and beliefs. Nothing means more to us than thefeedback we receive at the end of the course: One student remarked, “After 30 years of teaching,you have set me on a new path with my students.”

SUMMARY AND FUTURE DIRECTIONS

It is our passion as teacher educators and counselor educators to contribute to teachers’ com-petencies as therapeutic agents—not as therapists, but as educators who are well schooled inhow to build strong relationships with their students, help students solve problems, develop nur-turing supportive learning environments, and create cooperative relationships with families andother professionals. Toward these ends, we believe it is crucial for Schools of Education to teachteacher candidates humanistic skills and dispositions and to assess their readiness for authen-tic relationships with self, students, parents and other professionals throughout their preparationprogram and clinical experiences.

Combs (1966) advocated for teacher education programs to focus on the process of teachereducation and to guide students in flexible, interdisciplinary problem-solving experiences thathelp teacher candidates become teachers. He also called for teacher educators to treat teachercandidates as trustworthy, wanted, and worthy and to avoid the “dehumanizing influences cur-rently operating in much of education elsewhere” (p. 139). Combs called for instructors in teachereducation who are skilled at helping students discover meaning, and explained that often theseinstructors have broad interests in professional education rather than being experts in particulardisciplines.

For this humanistic teacher education work to take place, it is also crucial for Schools ofEducation to hire and retain faculty and staff who can teach and assess the humanistic dis-positions of teacher candidates accurately and knowledgeably because of possessing the sameskills themselves. It would certainly be appropriate, in our view, for faculty hiring committeesto include as part of the interview process a demonstration of teaching skills or the leading of

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Nor

th W

est U

nive

rsity

] at

00:

36 2

1 D

ecem

ber

2014


an activity or discussion in which successful candidates model the dispositions required of theprogram’s teacher candidates. Additionally, programs and graduate degrees for in-service teach-ers should emphasize the teaching and assessing of humanistic dispositions. One example of howa School of Education manages the teaching and assessing of dispositions with teacher candi-dates is described in Mettetal and Sage (2005) and is further developed in other chapters in thetext (Smith, Skarbek, & Hurst, 2005).

Who makes the best teachers for our nation’s schools, and Schools of Education? We havepresented a case that the best teachers are those who possess and can demonstrate humanisticdispositions as individuals, in relationships, and in the classroom context. We believe this is acrucial missing piece in the current discussion on improving education and teacher education andencourage and value additional reflection and discussion on humanistic education.

REFERENCES

Alexander, P., & Murphy, P. (2000). The research base for APA’s leaner-centered psychological principles. In N. Lambert& B. McCombs (Eds.), How students learn (pp. 25–60). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.

Amatea, E. S., Daniels, H., Bringman, N., & Vandiver, F. M. (2004). Strengthening counselor-teacher-family connections:The family-school collaborative consultation project. Professional School Counseling, 8(1), 47–55.

Amatea, E. S., Smith-Adcock, S., & Villares, E. (2006). From family deficit to family strength: Viewing families’contributions to children’s learning from a family resilience perspective. Professional School Counseling, 9, 177–189.

American Psychological Association. (1997). Learner-centered psychological principles: A framework for schoolredesign and reform. Washington, DC: Author. Retrieved from http://www.apa.org/ed/governance/bea/learner-centered.pdf

Anderson, G. V., Bown, O. H., Lieb, I. C., & Reid, J. B. (1975). In memoriam: Frances Elizabeth Fallon Fuller. Austin,TX: University of Texas Press.

Anderson, M. (2010). The well-balanced teacher: How to work smarter and stay sane inside the classroom and out.Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.

Aspy, D. N., & Roebuck, F. N. (1988). Carl Rogers’s contributions to education. Person-Centered Review, 3(1), 10–18.Aspy, D. N., Roebuck, F. N., & Benoit, D. (1987). Person-centered education in the information age. Person-Centered

Review, 2(1), 87–98.Association for Humanistic Psychology. (n.d.). Humanistic psychology overview. Retrieved from http://www.ahpweb.org/

aboutahp/whatis.htmlBender, Y. (2005). The tactful teacher: Effective communication with parents, colleagues, and administrators. White

River Junction, VT: Nomad Press.Berry, B., Daughtrey, A., & Wieder, A. (2009). Collaboration: Closing the effective teaching gap. Retrieved from http://

www.eric.ed.gov/PDFS/ED509717.pdfBransford, J., Darling-Hammond, L., & LePage, P. (2005). Introduction. In L. Darling-Hammond & J. Bransford (Eds.),

Preparing teachers for a changing world: What teachers should learn and be able to do (pp. 1–39). San Francisco,CA: Jossey-Bass.

Carkhuff, R. R. (1972). The art of helping. Amherst, MA: Human Resources Development Press.Center for Courage and Renewal. (2008). Programs. Retrieved from http://www.couragerenewal.org/programsCenter for Mental Health in Schools at UCLA. (2008).Understanding and minimizing staff burnout. Los Angeles, CA:

Author. Retrieved from http://smhp.psych.ucla.edu/pdfdocs/Burnout/burn1.pdfCollege of Education and Human Services, Northern Kentucky University. (2010). National Network for the Study of

Educator Dispositions. Retrieved from http://coehs.nku.edu/educatordispositions/index.phpCombs, A. W. (1961). What can we become? California Journal of Instructional Improvement, 4(4), 15–23.Combs, A. W. (1966). Teacher education - A problem in becoming. In E. B. Smith, H. C. Olsen, P. J. Johnson, & C.

Barbour (Eds.), Partnership in teacher education (pp. 211–227). Washington, DC: American Association of Collegesfor Teacher Education, The Association for Student Teaching.

Combs, A. W. (1979). Myths in education: Beliefs that hinder progress and their alternatives. Boston, MA: Allyn andBacon.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Nor

th W

est U

nive

rsity

] at

00:

36 2

1 D

ecem

ber

2014


Combs, A. W. (1981). Humanistic education: Too tender for a tough world? Phi Delta Kappan, 62(6), 446–449.Combs, A. W. (1988). New assumptions for educational reform. Educational Leadership, 45(5), 38–40.Combs, A. W., Blume, R. A., Newman, A. J., & Wass, H. L. (1974). The professional education of teachers: A humanistic

approach to teacher preparation (2nd ed.). Boston, MA: Allyn and Bacon.Combs, A. W., & Gonzalez, D. M. (1994). Helping relationships: Basic concepts for the helping professions (4th ed.).

Needham Heights, MA: Allyn and Bacon.Dewey, J. (1916). Democracy and education. New York, NY: Macmillan.Dewey, J. (1938). Experience and education. New York, NY: Collier.Epstein, J. (1995). School/family/community partnerships: Caring for the children we share. Phi Delta Kappan, 76,

701–712.Faber, A., & Mazlish, E. (1995). How to talk so kids can learn. New York, NY: Fireside.Fredricks, J. A., Blumenfeld, P. C., & Paris, A. H. (2004). School engagement: Potential of the concept, state of the

evidence. Review of Educational Research, 74, 59–109.Friend, M., & Cook, L. (2000). Interactions: Collaboration skills for school professionals (3rd ed.). New York, NY:

Longman.Fuller, F. F. (1969). Concerns of teachers: A developmental conceptualization. American Educational Research Journal,

6(2), 207–226.Fuller, F. F., & Case, C. (1969). Concerns of teachers. A manual for teacher educators: Increasing teacher satisfaction

with professional preparation by considering teachers’ concerns when planning preservice and inservice education.Austin, TX: University of Texas Research and Development Center for Teacher Education.

Fuller, F. F., Peck, R. F., Bown, O. H., Menaker, S. L., White, M. M., & Veldman, D. J. (1969). Effects of personalizedfeedback during teacher preparation on teacher personality and teaching behavior.Washington, DC: U.S. Departmentof Health, Education and Welfare, Office of Education.

Furrer, C., & Skinner, E. (2003). Sense of relatedness as a factor in children’s academic engagement and performance.Journal of Educational Psychology, 95,148–162.

Gazda, G. M., Asbury, F. R., Balzer, F. J., Childers, W. C., Phelps, R. E., & Walters, R. P. (1999). Human relationsdevelopment: A manual for educators (6th ed.). Needham Heights, MA: Allyn and Bacon.

Ginott, H. G. (1975). Teacher and child: A book for parents and teachers. New York, NY: Avon.Gordon, T. (1974). Teacher effectiveness training. New York, NY: Peter H. Wyden.Hammerness, K., Darling-Hammond, L., Bransford, J., Berliner, D., Cochran-Smith, M., McDonald, M., & Zeichner,

K. M. (2005). How teachers learn and develop. In L. Darling-Hammond & J. Bransford (Eds.), Preparing teachersfor a changing world (pp. 358–389). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Hamre, B. K., & Pianta, R. C. (2001). Early teacher-child relationships and the trajectory of children’s school outcomesthrough eighth grade. Child Development, 72, 625–638.

Hansen, J. T. (2010). Extending the humanistic vision. Counseling Today, 53(4), 44–47.Herman, W. E. (1995, April). Humanistic influences on a constructivist approach to teaching and learning. Paper

presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, San Francisco, CA.Imig, D. G., & Imig, S. R. (2006). The teacher effectiveness movement: How 80 years of essentialist control have shaped

the teacher education profession. Journal of Teacher Education, 57(2), 167–180.Johnson, D. W., & Johnson, F. P. (2006). Joining together: Group theory and group skills (9th ed.). Boston, MA: Pearson

Education.Johnson, S., Cooper, C., Cartwright, S., Donald, I., Taylor, P., & Millet, C. (2005). The experience of work-related stress

across occupations. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 20(2), 178–187.Johnson, S. M., & Kardos, S. M. (2008). The next generation of teachers: Who enters, who stays, and why. In M. Cochran-

Smith, S., Feiman-Nemser, & J. McIntyre (Eds.), Handbook of research on teacher education: Enduring questions inchanging contexts (3rd ed., pp. 424–444). New York, NY: Routledge.

Katz, L. G., & Raths, J. D. (1986, July). Dispositional goals for teacher education: Problems of identification and assess-ment. Paper presented at the World Assembly of the International Council on Education for Teaching, Kingston,Jamaica. Retrieved from http://www.eric.ed.gov/ERICDocs/data/ericdocs2sql/content_storage_01/0000019b/80/32/26/62.pdf

Kottler, J. A., & Kottler, E. (2000). Counseling skills for teachers. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.Lambert, N., & McCombs, B. (2000).Introduction: Learner-centered schools and classrooms as a direction for school

reform. In N. Lambert& B. McCombs (Eds.), How students learn (pp. 1–15). Washington, DC: AmericanPsychological Association.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Nor

th W

est U

nive

rsity

] at

00:

36 2

1 D

ecem

ber

2014


Landreth, G. L. (2002). The art of the relationship. New York, NY: Brunner-Routledge.Macdonald, E., & Shirley, D. (n.d.). The mindful teacher. Retrieved from http://www.mindfulteacher.com/McEwan, E. K. (2005). How to deal with parents who are angry, troubled, afraid, or just plain crazy (2nd ed.). Thousand

Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.Matuxzny, R. M., Banda, D. R., & Coleman, T. J. (2007). A progressive plan for building collaborative relationships with

parents from diverse backgrounds, Exceptional Children, 39(4), 24–31.Mettetal, G., & Sage, S. M. (2005). Teaching and evaluating dispositions in a preservice education course. In R. L. Smith,

D. Skarbek, & J. Hurst (Eds.), The passion of teaching: Dispositions in the schools (pp. 123–134). Lanham, MD:Scarecrow Publications.

Moustakas, C. (1966). The authentic teacher: Sensitivity and awareness in the classroom. Cambridge, MA: Howard A.Doyle Publishing.

National Council for Accreditation of Teacher Education. (2008). Professional standards for the accreditation of teacherpreparation institutions. Washington, DC: Author .

Noddings, N. (2003). Caring: A feminine approach to ethics & moral education (2nd ed.). Berkeley, CA: University ofCalifornia Press.

Null, J. W. (2007). Curriculum for teachers: Four traditions within pedagogical philosophy. Educational Studies, 42(1),43–63.

Palmer, P. (1997). The courage to teach: Exploring the inner landscape of a teacher’s life. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Palmer, P. (2004). A hidden wholeness: The journey toward an undivided life. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.Patterson, C. H. (1973). Humanistic education. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.Patterson, C. H., & Purkey, W. W. (1993). The preparation of humanistic teachers for schools of the next century. Journal

of Humanistic Education and Development, 31(4), 147–155.Pereira, J., & Smith-Adcock, S. (2011). The child-centered classroom. Action in Teacher Education, 33(3), 254–264.

doi:10.1080/01626620.2011.592111Richards, A. C., & Combs, A. W. (1992). Education and the humanistic challenge. The Humanistic Psychologist, 20(2/3),

372–388.Rogers, C. R. (1969). Freedom to learn. Columbus, OH: Charles E. Merrill.Rogers, C. R. (1995). On becoming a person. New York, NY: Houghton Mifflin. (Original work published 1961)Sedlak, M. W. (2008). Competing visions of purpose, practice and policy: The history of teacher certification in the United

States. In M. Cochran-Smith, S. Feiman-Nemser, & J. McIntyre (Eds.), Handbook of research on teacher education:Enduring questions in changing contexts(3rd ed., pp. 855–885). New York, NY: Routledge.

Smith, R. L., Knopp, T. Y., Skarbek, D., & Rushton, S. (2005). Dispositions and teacher beliefs: A heuristic to informefforts toward improving educational outcomes. In R. L. Smith, D. Skarbek, & J. Hurst (Eds.), The passion ofteaching: Dispositions in the schools (pp. 211–222). Lanham, MD: Scarecrow Education.

Smith, R. L., Skarbek, D. & Hurst, J. (Eds.). (2005). The passion of teaching: Dispositions in the schools. Lanham, MD:Scarecrow Education.

Stebnicki, M. A. (2008). Empathy fatigue: Healing the mind, body and spirit of professional counselors. New York, NY:Springer.

Tomlinson, C. A. (2010). Notes from an accidental teacher. Educational Leadership, 68(4), 22–26.Walsh, F. (2006). Strengthening family resilience (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Guilford.Wasicsko, M. M. (n.d.). Assessing educator dispositions: A perceptual psychology approach. Highland Heights, KY:

Northern Kentucky University, National Network for the Study of Educator Dispositions.

Sara M. Sage is Associate Professor in the Department of Secondary and Foundations ofEducation at Indiana University South Bend. Her research interests include teacher develop-ment and dispositions, interpersonal and counseling skills for teachers, mindfulness in teacherpreparation; professional development, and problem-based learning.

Sondra Smith-Adcock is Associate Professor in the School of Human Development andOrganizational Studies in Education at University of Florida. Her research interests include

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Nor

th W

est U

nive

rsity

] at

00:

36 2

1 D

ecem

ber

2014


counseling children and adolescents using play and expressive arts, delinquency and bullyingprevention, and school-based mental health practices.

Andrea L. Dixon is Associate Professor in the Department of Counseling and PsychologicalServices at Georgia State University. Her research interests include school counseling, multicul-tural concerns in counseling, and mattering and its applicability in counseling.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Nor

th W

est U

nive

rsity

] at

00:

36 2

1 D

ecem

ber

2014

Documents

Why Humanistic Teacher Education Still Matters