Vous êtes sur la page 1sur 6


html The Humanistic Approach Introduction to the Humanistic Approach The Humanistic Approach began in response to concerns by therapists against perceived limitations of Psychodynamic theories, especially psychoanalysis. Individuals like Carl Rogers and Abraham Maslow felt existing (psychodynamic) theories failed to adequately address issues like the meaning of behavior, and the nature of healthy growth. However, the result was not simply new variations on psychodynamic theory, but rather a fundamentally new approach. There are several factors which distinguish the Humanistic Approach from other approaches within psychology, including the emphasis on subjective meaning, a rejection of determinism, and a concern for positive growth rather than pathology. While one might argue that some psychodynamic theories provide a vision of healthy growth (including Jung's concept of individuation), the other characteristics distinguish the Humanistic Approach from every other approach within psychology (and sometimes lead theorists from other approaches to say the Humanistic Approach is not a science at all). Most psychologists believe that behavior can only be understood objectively (by an impartial observer), but the humanists argue that this results in concluding that an individual is incapable of understanding their own behavior--a view which they see as both paradoxical and dangerous to well-being. Instead, humanists like Rogers argue that the meaning of behavior is essentially personal and subjective; they further argue that accepting this idea is not unscientific, because ultimately all individuals are subjective: what makes science reliable is not that scientists are purely objective, but that the nature of observed events can be agreed upon by different observers (a process Rogers calls intersubjective verification). The issues underlying the Humanistic Approach, and its differences from other approaches, are discussed more fully in the text, but the sources below provide useful supplementary information. One point worth noting: if you want to fully grasp the nature of the Humanistic Approach, you cannot consider it in abstract terms. Instead, you must consider if and how the ideas connect to your own experience--for that is how the meaning of behavior is derived! Carl Rogers Carl Rogers was not only one of the founders of the Humanistic Approach, but also arguably the most influential therapist in the 20th century: a number of surveys, including several done after his death, found that more therapists cited Rogers as a major influence on their thinking and clinical practice than any other person in psychology (including Freud). To understand this, one must know something about Rogers as a person, as well as his theoretical ideas. I never met him, but have seen several videos of him, and have read a number of accounts, both biographical and anecdotal, by individuals who know him well. Consistently, what comes across is a person who was caring and respectful of others, a man who found value in all people, yet was humble about his own achievements--in many ways, he represented the fully functioning person which his theory describes! In terms of his theory, there are two fundamental ideas which are particularly worth noting) First, Rogers talked about healthy development in terms of how the individual perceived their own being. A healthy individual will tend to see congruence between their sense of who they are (self) and who they feel they should be (ideal self). While no one tends to experience perfect congruence at all times, the relative degree of congruence is an indicator of health. Some researchers have tried to measure congruence by using a self-assessment technique called a Q-Sort. The second fundamental idea is Rogers's concept of the conditions for healthy growth, and the role of a therapist in fostering healthy growth. Through a process Rogers called person-centered therapy, the therapist seeks to provide empathy, openness, and unconditional positive regard. These conditions for growth are discussed further in the text; for information on person-centered therapy, see the links below. (One note about person-centered therapy: originally, Rogers called his technique non-directive therapy, based on the concept that the therapist is simply a "mirror" who reflects the individual's thoughts and feelings Abraham Maslow Like Carl Rogers, Abraham Maslow is widely regarded as one of the founders of the Humanistic Approach. While less influential among therapists than Rogers, Maslow may actually be better known to the general public, because of his interest in applying psychological principles to areas like behavior in business settings. In this regard, his hierarchy of needs has been a basic concept in human resources and organizational behavior for several decades. Maslow coined the term "the Third Force" to describe the Humanistic Approach, to emphasize how it differed from the Psychodynamic and Behaviorist Approaches, which dominated psychology (at least in North America) in the 1950's. His theory emphasizes motivation as the key to understanding human behavior (an emphasis which is somewhat reminiscent of Freud's theory, though the two models focus on very different types of motives). Nonetheless, it becomes the basis of a theory of personality (as discussed in the text, talking about motives implies a person who experiences those motives!), and ends up describing the characteristics of healthy growth in ways that are very similar to Rogers's "fully functioning person". One difference between Maslow and Rogers is the emphasis that Maslow gave to peak experiences. Peak experiences are moments in life which take us beyond our ordinary perceptions, thoughts, and feelings. Typically, the individual feels energized, more "alive". In some ways, peak experiences are similar to the Zen concept of satori (literally "enlightenment"), which, like a peak experience, comes unexpectedly, and transforms the individual's understanding of themselves and the world. Because of the "mystical" nature of peak experiences, some psychologists are less comfortable with Maslow's theory than with Rogers's, which uses concepts more easily related to "mainstream" psychology. Possibly, this accounts for Maslow being viewed as less influential among therapists. In any case, there is no doubt that Maslow's ideas about motivation have become widely known and used, as the links below help to illustrate.

http://homepage.ntlworld.com/gary.sturt/human.htm Humanistic Approaches to Teaching The Trouble with Behaviourism - How a humanist teacher keeps his students motivated Humanism would concentrate upon the development of the child's self-concept. If the child feels good about him or herself then that is a positive start. Feeling good about oneself would involve an understanding of ones' strengths and weaknesses, and a belief in one's ability to improve. Learning is not an end in itself; It is the means to progress towards the pinnacle of self-development, which Maslow terms 'Self-actualisation'. A child learns because he or she is inwardly driven, and derives his or her reward from the sense of achievement that having learned something affords. This would differ from the behaviourist view that would expect extrinsic rewards to be more effective. Extrinsic rewards are rewards from the outside world, e.g. praise, money, gold stars, etc. Intrinsic rewards are rewards from within oneself, rather like a satisfaction of a need. This accords with the humanistic approach, where education is really about creating a need within

the child, or instilling within the child self-motivation. Behaviourism is about rewards from others. Humanism is about rewarding yourself! Much of a humanist teacher's effort would be put into developing a child's self-esteem. It would be important for children to feel good about themselves (high selfesteem), and to feel that they can set and achieve appropriate goals (high self-efficacy). This form of education is known as child-centred, and is typified by the child taking responsibility for their education and owning their learning. The behaviourists might advocate positive reinforcement such as praise, and punishment in the form of negative criticism. Both praise and blame are rejected by the humanists. Children can become addicted to praise, and put much effort into receiving praise from their teachers. Such children will often work for the praise, and not work if their efforts go unnoticed. This is so unlike an interested adult surfing through the internet, who derives satisfaction from learning something new, even though nobody is around to witness this acquisition of knowledge. If education is preparing the child for adult life, it would seem the humanist approach is the correct one. The humanist teacher is a facilitator, not a disseminator of knowledge. Participatory and discovery methods would be favoured instead of traditional didacticism (i.e. learn parrot-fashion every thing the teacher says). As well as the child's academic needs the humanistic teacher is concerned with the child's affective (or emotional) needs. Feeling and thinking are very much interlinked. Feeling positive about oneself facilitates learning. The self or the individual is important. Not the similarities between humans as much as the individuality of humans. Rogerian Phenomenological theory Important terms: Client-centred therapy - clients define the problems, propose a solution and implement it. (opposite is Directive therapy) Phenomenology - the world as perceived by the individual rather than as it really is. Humanism - Literature, Philosophy, Psychology - historically - concerned with human worth, individuality, humanity, freedom for the individual to determine personal actions. Development of human potential is highly valued; the attainment of material goals is de-emphasised. Self-actualisation - the end toward which all humans strive. Rogers versus Skinner Skinner - perfect society described in his novel, Walden II, 1948 - positive reinforcement, no aversion. Trying to create a better society by openly controlling its inhabitants with positive reinforcement. Rogers believes that Skinner assumes that social control will be in the better interests of society, but doubts that this would really happen. Skinner - the most effective practices would survive. Rogers - society should self-actualise. Instructional implications of humanistic theory. Student-centred teaching.. Social personal development. De-emphasise rigorous, performance-oriented, test-dominated approaches. Provide opportunity for success. Discovery learning. Respects students feelings and aspirations. Right to self-determination. Behaviour control by Rogers (Rogers & Skinner, 1956) 1 Value humanity as a self-actualising process; value creativity. 2 Use science to discover the conditions that best lead to the above. 3 Individuals or groups should be self motivated. Set their own goals. 4 Students become - self-responsible, make progress in self- actualisation, flexible, creative. Because they have autonomy. 5 All this creates a social system - (Values, knowledge, adaptive skills, concept of science) - all these would continually change and grow. Humanistic Movement in Education. Behaviourism Freudian Humanism - third force in Psychology 1) Uniqueness and importance of the individual. 2) Reaction against overly mechanistic and dehumanising approaches. Principles of Humanistic education Current and future welfare of students worth and rights of the individuals. Openness, honesty, selflessness, altruism. Traditional approach large numbers, regimentation, anonymity, competition for academic success. Little time nor energy. Common Emphasis on humanistic approaches to education. 1 Affect - emphasis on feeling and thinking. 2 Self-Concept - positive, self-concept important Many students are disinvited students (Borton, 1970). [look at box p250]. 3 Communication - positive and honest 4 Personal Values - Importance of personal values, facilitate the development of positive values. Must know themselves, express themselves, self-identity, actualise themselves. Traditional -Mastery of academic content . Good citizenship. Sportsmanship. Humanistic approaches use group processes. Groups: Students can express their feelings more openly, discover and clarify their feelings. Explore interpersonal relationships. Articulate personal values. Games - including role-playing. Problems - Novice teacher will lack specific guidelines. 3 approaches 1) Open classroom

2) Learning Styles 3) Co-operative learning Problems with traditional schools Compelled to attend. Little choice in the content of a curriculum, the value of which may not be apparent. Share teachers time and other resources with other students. Classmates differ from one another in ability and experience. Have to put up with an instructional tempo that is often either too fast or too slow. Set of rules - not talking, moving around, going to the toilet. [Not user-friendly!] no doubt that traditional schools favour some. The Open Classroom Goals - individual growth, critical thinking, self-reliance, co- operation, commitment to lifelong learning. Most important person - student not teacher. Not curriculum bound Not age/grade locked. Student-centred - intensive, but relaxed teacher/pupil contact. Needs low teacher/pupil ratio. de-emphasises schedules. Almost no control or competition Difficult to draw the line between chaos and order, rebelliousness and expression of rights. Productive and unproductive time. Students tend to have better self-concepts and are more creative and co- operative, but academic achievements are lacking. The Learning Styles Approach Allow student to use a learning style that suits them. e.g. working on soft carpet or around a table highly structured lessons, peer teaching, computer-assisted instruction, self-learning. Subjects rotated, to be taught at different times of the day. Evaluation. Dunn and Griggs (1988) - 10 learning styles-driven schools visited, learners performed well on a variety of measures of academic performance. Many passed subjects, previously failed. Most loved school. Difficult to measure (Snow and Swanson, 1992) - current list of learning styles and instruments used to measure them are unorganised, lengthy, include a large range of habits, personality characteristics and abilities. Co-operative Learning Students are often in competition with each other or have to work individually towards achieving their personal goals. Cooperative Learning not only combines cognitive and affective aspects of learning, as well as emphasising participation and active engagement, But also stresses academic achievement and clearly defined curricular goals. Reasons for co-operative learning 1 Without co-operation our planet is doomed! 2 Bossert (1988) - cornerstone of democracy - political and economical survival. 3 Decreases dependence on teachers 4 Decreases divisiveness and prejudice. 5 Improves academic performance (Johnson et al, 1984) 6 Eradicates feelings of alienation, isolation, purposelessness and social unease amongst students (Johnson et al, 1984). 7 Promotes positive attitudes to schools (Snow and Swanson, 1992) 8 Students prefer co-operative approaches (Huber et al, 1992). Some reactions to humanistic education. Humanistic teachers aim for good things, but these are not clearly defined. Also not easily measured. Humanistic approaches are highly dependent upon the capabilities of the teacher. Overall, Open schools do not deliver academic performance, but non- graded schools (no age/grade placement and no graded report cards), have positive effects on achievement (Gutierrez & Slavin, 1992).Present structured curriculum in un-graded, no fail environment. But criticisms can not be directed at learning styles-oriented schools and co-operative learning. many learning styles schools use group methods which involve co-operative learning. http://www-distance.syr.edu/sdlhuman.html From behaviourism to humanism: Incorporating self-direction in learning concepts into the instructional design process. In H. B. Long & Associates, New ideas about self-directed learning. Norman, OK: Oklahoma Research Center for Continuing Professional and Higher Education, University of Oklahoma, 1994 (Roger Hiemstra & Ralph Brockett) [figure no. shown do not reflect the actual publication] Roger Hiemstra (Syracuse University) and Ralph G. Brockett (University of Tennessee) Throughout our professional careers we have attempted to "practice what we preach" in terms of the way we work with adult learners. This has involved the incorporation of self-directed learning principles into our teaching, training, and volunteer work in various ways. Two of our basic premises are that (a) it is important to empower adults to take personal responsibility for their own learning, and (b) instructional activities should be based on learners' perceived needs. We recognize there are various levels of perceived needs ranging from felt needs or wants where the highest internal control may be possible to prescribed or externally mandated requirements where little internal control often is possible. However, it is our contention that even in situations where prescribed learning is the ultimate goal, the learning process will be enhanced if learners can perceive corresponding instruction as meeting individual needs or they can at least take some responsibility for aspects of the process. It appears that many adult educators today, especially those recognizing the value of self-direction in learning, operate primarily from humanist beliefs and considerable attention is given to maximizing the value of previous experience and the input learners can have in the instructional process. It should be noted, however, that much of adult education research in the 1960's and 70's was based on positivist paradigms and quantitative or scientific research methods (Merriam, 1991). Only during the past fifteen to twenty years has a more interpretive paradigm derived from humanism and phenomenology been used increasingly by adult educators where interactive instructional approaches and more qualitative research methods are employed (Marsick, 1988). Adult education as a separate discipline or field of study also has developed from several lines of inquiry. For example, Merriam and Caffarella (1991) suggest that theory development pertaining to adult learning stems from considerable research on why adults participate in learning, general knowledge about the adult learner, and self-direction in learning (Cross, 1981; Tough, 1979). The body of research on adult characteristics, popular ideas pertaining to what Knowles (1980) calls andragogy, theories based on an adult's life situation, and theories pertaining to changes in consciousness or perspective (Mezirow, 1991) combine to provide the field's basis for designing instructional efforts. BASIC ELEMENTS OF HUMANIST THOUGHT As we noted above, our conceptions of self-direction in adult learning are derived largely from a foundation of humanism. The roots of modern humanist thought can be traced to the ideas of such individuals as the Chinese philosopher Confucius, Greek philosophers such as Progagoras and Aristotle, Erasmus and Montaigne from the Renaissance period, and the Dutch philosopher Spinoza from the seventeenth century (Elias & Merriam, 1980; Lamont, 1965).

Humanism generally is associated with beliefs about freedom and autonomy and notions that "human beings are capable of making significant personal choices within the constraints imposed by heredity, personal history, and environment" (Elias & Merriam, 1980, p. 118). Humanist principles stress the importance of the individual and specific human needs. Among the major assumptions underlying humanism are the following: (a) human nature is inherently good; (b) individuals are free and autonomous, thus they are capable of making major personal choices; (c) human potential for growth and development is virtually unlimited; (d) self-concept plays an important role in growth and development; (e) individuals have an urge toward self-actualization; (f) reality is defined by each person; and (g) individuals have responsibility to both themselves and to others (Elias & Merriam, 1980). Principles of humanist thought have served as a foundation for major developments in both psychology and education. In psychology, the humanist paradigm emerged as a response to both the determinism inherent in Freudian psychoanalysis and the limited place of affect and free will found in behaviourism. While many individuals have made important contributions to humanistic psychology, two of the most noteworthy contributors were Abraham Maslow and Carl Rogers. Maslow (1970) discussed the concept of "self-actualisation," which he described as "the full use and exploitation of talents, capacities, potentialities, etc." (p. 150). He identified a number of characteristics of self-actualising people, three of which are tolerance for ambiguity, acceptance of self and others, and "peak experiences" that lead to personal transformation through new insights. Rogers (1961), through the approach he referred to as "client-cantered therapy," noted that the major goal of therapy is to help clients foster greater self-direction. According to Rogers, self-direction "means that one chooses - and then learns from the consequences" (p. 171). Humanistic education is based on similar ideas. Patterson (1973) has stated that "the purpose of education is to develop self-actualising persons" (p. 22). According to Valett (1977), humanistic education is a lifelong process, the purpose of which "is to develop individuals who will be able to live joyous, humane, and meaningful lives" (p. 12). Priorities of humanistic education should include "[t]he development of emotive abilities, the shaping of affective desires, the fullest expression of aesthetic qualities, and the enhancement of powers of self-direction and control (emphasis added)" (p. 12). Essential characteristics of the humanistic educator are empathic understanding, respect or acceptance, and genuineness or authenticity (Patterson, 1973; Rogers, 1983). Humanism is not without its critics. One of the most frequent criticisms, usually emanating from fundamentalists on the religious right, is that humanism runs contrary to basic tenets of Christian and other theological orientations. In fact, humanism does emphasize the "here and now" and frequently is viewed as denying existence of the supernatural, although as Elias and Merriam (1980) point out not all humanists see incompatibility between affirming autonomy and existence of a god. While this assumption may dissuade some individuals from fully embracing humanism, we believe that teachers, trainers, or administrators do not have to abandon traditional theologies in order celebrate the good of humanity and to engage in practices designed to facilitate self-direction. A second criticism is that humanism is sometimes believed to be a highly self-cantered, or selfish, approach to life. Typically, the argument goes something like this: "If an individual is concerned primarily with personal growth and development, how can that person truly be concerned with what is good for all of society?" Humanists are quick to refute this misunderstanding. Lamont (1965), for instance, states that the individual can find one's "highest good in working for the good of all" (p. 15). Similarly, one of the characteristics of self-actualizers discussed by Maslow (1970) is the tendency for individuals to focus on problems that lie outside of themselves. Within the realm of adult education, one of the most powerful reflections of how humanists look at the relationship between individual and social concerns is offered in this observation made by Lindeman in 1926: "Adult education will become an agency of progress if its short-time goal of selfimprovement can be made compatible with a long-time, experimental but resolute policy of changing the social order" (Lindeman, 1988, p. 105). COMPARING THE TWO PHILOSOPHIES We reviewed several sources, including our own previous work (Brockett & Hiemstra, 1991) and that of Merriam and Caffarella (1991), to make some comparisons between the philosophical beliefs of and instructional procedures used by adult educators and instructional designers. In some ways the results represent a continuum between humanist and behaviourist views. We cover an extensive time range, too, starting from Plato and Aristotle and continuing forward until very recent attempts at research on adult learning and cognitive psychology. Table1 displays the comparative information. TABLE 1: COMPARISON OF KEY DIFFERENCES IN BELIEFS AND APPROACHES BETWEEN ADULT EDUCATION AND INSTRUCTIONAL DESIGN? Adult Education Humanism Views -vs- Instructional Design Behaviourism Views Plato Rationalism/emotionalism Reflection Gestalt psychology Search for whole patterns Information processing Separation of mind and body Right brain hemisphere Memory Learning how to learn Learning as a process Instruction as a process Meaningful learning S - O - R (O = human organism) Dynamic view Perceptions Internal thoughts Liberal studies for adults Maslow/Rogers -vs- Aristotle -vs- Empiricism -vs- Sensory impression -vs- Behavioural psychology -vs- Search for single events or parts -vs- Information acquisition -vs- Innate mental abilities -vs- Left brain hemisphere -vs- Accumulation of knowledge -vs- Acquiring knowledge -vs- Learning as an end product -vs- Instruction broken into manageable parts -vs- Rote learning -vs- S - R -vs- Mechanistic view -vs- Observable behaviour -vs- Behavioural change -vs- Programmed learning -vs- Skinner/Thorndike

Cross/Knowles/Mezirow/Tough Individual determines learning Individual locus of control Personal control and evaluation Role of experience Interactive needs assessment Facilitator Qualitative methods predominate Process evaluation Goal free evaluation Learner controlled verification Affective learning Individuals control own destiny Andragogy Self-directed learning Crystallized intelligence Internal motivation Relative ends

-vs- Ausubel/Bruner/Gagne/Piaget -vs- Environment shapes learning -vs- External locus of control -vs- Imitating and observing others -vs- Reinforcement/operant conditioning -vs- Task analysis -vs- Trainer -vs- Quantitative methods predominate -vs- Product evaluation -vs- Criterion/normative/goal referenced evaluation -vs- External testing -vs- Cognitive/mechanistic/psychomotor learning -vs- Predetermination -vs- Pedagogy -vs- Expert directs learning/expert models -vs- Fluid intelligence -vs- External motivation -vs- Fixed ends

Adult education has undergone several changes in the past two decades in addition to considerable scholarship on adult learning, self-direction, and instruction described earlier. Brookfield (1989) and Mezirow (1991; Mezirow & Associates, 1991) have been two of the scholars helping the field become more aware of critical thinking, transformative dimensions of adult learning, and emancipatory learning. Jarvis (1985) has encouraged adult educators to better understand sociological perspectives pertaining to the teaching and learning process. Smith (1982; Smith & Associates, 1990) has been instrumental in helping educators of adults understand more about learning how to learn concepts. Peters, Jarvis, and Associates (1991) even describe how the field's development in the past two decades has been informed by various interdisciplinary dimensions. All of these changes do not always fit neatly within the humanistic side of the comparison figure. However, we have initiated this comparison as a mechanism to suggest that many adult educators and instructional designers (and even educators who devote most of their research and energy toward the education of youth) have been approaching several of the problems pertaining to learning and instruction from different ideological points of view and often different research methodologies. It is our contention that many of the tenets, beliefs, and views of the world that may appear to fit when dealing with youth or young adults with few life experiences may not work well for educators working with adults as learners. HUMANIZING THE INSTRUCTIONAL PROCESS: APPLYING SELF-DIRECTION IN LEARNING PRINCIPLES In the previous section, we made some general comparisons between what is often found in the fields of adult education and instructional development. Our intent was not to dichotomise the two fields into a right -vs- wrong status, nor did we intend to enter into what Tobias (1991) calls a perennial controversy between advocates of tailoring instruction to learners' unique attributes versus instruction that steers learners toward certain curricular standards. Rather, our goals was to show that although there are differences in the concepts and people representing the two fields, there is nonetheless much potential for exchange. There are several shared elements between the humanist orientation and the behaviourist paradigm: Learning should focus on practical problem solving. Learners enter a teaching-learning setting with a wide range of skills, abilities, and attitudes, and these need to be considered in the instructional planning process. The learning environment should allow each learner to proceed at a pace best suited to the individual. It is important to help learners continuously assess their progress and make feedback a part of the learning process. 5. The learner's previous experience is an invaluable resource for future learning and thus enhancing the value of advanced organizers or making clear the role for mastery of necessary prerequisites. Several years ago, Miller and Hotes (1982) presented a series of strategies for humanizing the systems approach to individual instruction. While stressing the use of "accurate measurable behavioural objectives," "appropriate practice opportunities," and "task analysis," Miller and Hotes pointed out that one way to humanize the system "is to make it responsive to the needs of the individual student" (p. 22). They believe the three strategies that can be useful are learning by example (modeling), learning by doing, and positive reinforcement. We believe there is considerable value in examining the ways humanist and behaviourist approaches to adult learning might be linked. In our own work on self-direction in learning, we have presented a framework for understanding key dimensions of the concept (Brockett & Hiemstra, 1991). We developed what we call the Personal Responsibility Orientation (PRO) model (see Figure 1). This model starts with the notion of personal responsibility, in which "individuals assume ownership for their own thoughts and actions" (p. 26). This, we believe, is central to an understanding of self-direction in learning, especially when working with adults as learners. We assert that only by assuming primary responsibility for personal learning is it possible for an adult to take a proactive approach to the teaching-learning process. Obviously, we believe that an adult learner's proactivity is desirous because from our experiences the ability to be self-directed regarding learning pursuits benefits everyone. Further, personal responsibility is not an either/or characteristic; rather it exists within each of us to a greater or lesser degree. FIGURE 1: THE "PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY ORIENTATION" (PRO) MODEL In essence, we suggest that a humanistic orientation to the instructional process can help learners increase their levels of responsibility. We do recognize there may be times when self-directed

opportunities are minimal, such as when involved in collaborative learning or when learning entirely new content, but believe that the assumption of personal responsibility is possible in ways not tied to the type of learning or content. We also recognize that various social, political, and organizational factors may inhibit the employment of humanistic techniques, but urge that as much attention as possible be given to the potential of learners taking charge of their own learning. For example, in the PRO model, we make an important distinction between "learner self-direction" and "self-directed learning." Learner self-direction refers to those characteristics within an individual "that predispose one toward taking primary responsibility for personal learning endeavours" (Brockett & Hiemstra, 1991, p. 29). It is probably best understood in terms of personality. To a great extent, the characteristics of learner self-direction are found in basic tenets of humanistic philosophy and psychology, such as those described earlier in this chapter. Self-directed learning, in the PRO model, refers specifically to the teaching-learning process, and centres on the planning, implementation, and evaluation of learning activities where learners assume primary responsibility for the process. For purposes of the current discussion, we would like to elaborate a bit on this notion, as this is where it is possible for educators and trainers to actively implement strategies that will allow them to humanize the instructional process. Both Patterson (1973) and Valett (1977) present a host of useful strategies designed to humanize education. While many of their ideas can be adapted to adult learning settings, these works tend to stress elementary and secondary education. More recently, Hiemstra and Sisco (1990) have presented an approach to individualizing instruction derived from principles of humanism and designed specifically for working with adult learners. The individualizing instruction (II) process model consists of six steps, which are related to each other in a circular rather than linear format (see Figure 2). The six steps are: (a) activities prior to the first session (e.g., developing a rationale, preplanning); (b) creating a positive learning environment (physical, social, and psychological); (c) developing the instructional plan (with active involvement of participants in assessing personal and relevant group needs, ascertaining the relevance of past experience, and prioritizing knowledge areas to be covered); (d) identifying the learning activities (determining learning activities and techniques); (e) putting learning into action and monitoring progress (formative evaluation); and (f) evaluating individual learning outcomes (matching learning objectives to mastery). In the II process, the instructor's role is to manage and facilitate the learning process; "optimum learning is the result of careful interactive planning between the instructor and the individual learners" (pp. 47-48). FIGURE 2: INDIVIDUALIZING INSTRUCTIONAL PROCESS MODEL In examining the II process model, it is not difficult to see some links between this humanist-derived approach and behaviourist-oriented models of systematic instructional design, stemming initially from Tyler (1950) and appearing in some aspects of several instructional theories portrayed by Reigeluth (1987) and his colleagues. For example, both the II model and most systematic or prescriptive instructional development models use an organized and deliberate design. Most stress the importance of the learning environment and all emphasize the need to evaluate learning. At the same time, there are some very important differences between humanist and more behavioural approaches. For instance, an instructor in the II process serves more as a facilitator, while an instructor operating within a behavioural framework is more a manager or director of the process and delivery system. In addition, the II model places great importance on affective aspects of the teaching-learning transaction. Concern for interpersonal relationships and active involvement of learners in determining both process and content of the learning experience are two examples. Furthermore, while behaviourist models tend to focus on the outcomes of learning, the II approach also places great importance on "the process that enables mastery to occur" (Hiemstra & Sisco, 1990, p. 48). Here are some initial ideas for those adhering to humanist views on how to promote a better understanding: 1. Engage in dialogue with those not understanding or even dismissing humanist views through articles, papers, books, and even co-authored writing. 2. Model effective adult instruction that is grounded in humanistic views. 3. Recruit instructional design students into adult education courses where humanistic views are described and employed in the instructional process. 4. Encourage adult education students with a humanistic orientation to learn about behaviourist or cognitive models of instructional development and to become able to analyse and, where appropriate, adapt elements from such models into their own practices. 5. Determine or explore various ways that instructional design theories and approaches can better inform selfdirected learning practices. 6. Encourage all educators of adults to explicate their personal instructional philosophy, delineate their actual beliefs in terms of a humanist to behaviourist continuum, and determine how such beliefs inform their instructional efforts. (Hiemstra, 1988) We take great pride in the humanist foundation that under-girds the way in which we practice. Humanism embraces the goodness of humanity and the virtual limitlessness of human potential. Self-direction is one of many ideas from educational practice that is tied to these basic values