The Concept of Educative Style

by Hope Jensen Leichter - 1973

More fundamentally, however, looking beyond the school makes evident the need for a basic shift in perspective in studying education, directing attention anew to the learner. When we consider that individuals learn from many significant othersóparents, siblings, grandparents and other kin, peers, and clergy as well as schoolteachersówe are impelled to examine the character of the teaching and learning experience in each of these educative encounters. Once that inquiry has begun, we soon see the need to chart the content and course of the individual's various encounters, and above all to gain understanding of how he engages in, moves through, and combines diverse educative experiences over a lifetime.

Dr. Hope J. Leichter is professor of education at Teachers College. The work reported here is going forward under a grant from the Spencer Foundation. The author also wishes to express her appreciation to Burrie Ganzle and Susan Voorhees for their able assistance.

Most educators today would agree that many institutions other than schools and colleges educate, that what goes on in one institution profoundly affects what goes on in others, and that before making prescriptions for any particular institution one had best be aware of the larger educational context in which its clients are inevitably shaped. The point has been especially compelling to those attempting to measure the impact of education in specific institutions. Thus James Coleman and others concluded in Equality of Educational Opportunity that "schools bring little influence to bear on a child's achievement that is independent of his background and general social context";1 while more recently A.H. Halsey, Torsten Husen, Ronald Davie, Christopher Jencks, and others have emphasized the crucial importance of out-of-school factors in an individual's educational development.2 The family has quite properly received extensive attention in considerations of education outside the school, although day-care centers, peer groups, and television programs have also been studied in the search for educative influence.3

Inevitably, this looking beyond the school has posed new questions for researchers. Some of this inquiry has continued to focus on the school, examining the processes and outcomes of learning (or the failure to learn) in other places, often the family, to determine their influence on learning in the classroom. In this respect, questions have been raised about how education takes place in particular nonschool institutions and the similarity or dissimilarity between that education and the education provided in school (some of the more interesting work in this realm has concerned itself with "cultural distance" in educational values between parents and teachers). In inquiries of this sort, influence may be examined in two directions, asking by what processes the school reinforces, complements, contradicts, or inhibits the efforts of the family and community and by what processes the family and community reinforce, complement, contradict, or inhibit the efforts of the school. Even when the concern is primarily with the school, then, there is clear need to study the character and range of educational interaction in nonschool situations, from the most informal encounters of children with children in parks and playgrounds to the more formalized encounters of children with adults in libraries, learning centers, camps, museums, and religious institutions.

More fundamentally, however, looking beyond the school makes evident the need for a basic shift in perspective in studying education, directing attention anew to the learner. When we consider that individuals learn from many significant others—parents, siblings, grandparents and other kin, peers, and clergy as well as schoolteachers—we are impelled to examine the character of the teaching and learning experience in each of these educative encounters. Once that inquiry has begun, we soon see the need to chart the content and course of the individual's various encounters, and above all to gain understanding of how he engages in, moves through, and combines diverse educative experiences over a lifetime.


In considering the complexities inherent in this more inclusive view of education, what I have chosen to call educative style appears to offer a significant point of entry for our analysis of how the individual mediates his various educative experiences.

Individuals differ in the way they initiate, search for, absorb, synthesize, and critically appraise the various educative influences in their environment. Even on the level of everyday observation, such differences are readily apparent. Some individuals reach out zestfully for new experience, while others wait for opportunity to come to them. Some are playful, others more somber. Some risk embarrassment (for example, willingly trying a foreign language in public), while others play it safe. Some theorize easily, others are more concrete. Some seek perfection, others have less exacting standards of excellence. Some are gregarious, others loners. Some learn best from listening, others from seeing or doing. Some prefer print, others prefer people or television or cinema.

Presumably these general approaches to education, which constitute an individual's educative style, are learned and the processes by which they are learned can be observed and analyzed. Thus one may examine the individual's experience in a host of educative encounters, not only to determine what knowledge, values, and tastes are acquired from these encounters, but also to discover the characteristic educative style that is developed in the course of them and the ways in which that style is reinforced or modified in each particular engagement.

At the very least, then, one can observe particular individuals in a variety of educational situations over time and produce special versions of life histories that address themselves to distinctively educational questions, using the commonsense categories indicated above. But my effort here will be to go beyond these categories to certain more fundamental components of educative style that have suggested themselves in the course of my research. A number of these are obviously drawn from the literature on personality, social structure, and culture, but I should make clear that my purpose here is not to review that literature but rather to suggest how certain of its key ideas have proved fruitful in enabling me to ask more profound questions of my data.

Consider a variety of examples. There is, for instance, the individual's mode of temporal integration. Individuals differ in the way in which they integrate experiences at one point in time with those of another. The process of selecting for retention and re-examination varies. Some remember minute details with exact sequence and dating, and are capable of lifting out periods of the past as if they were total units, with the clarity and immediacy of a present-day event; others tend to remember globally and diffusely, with less detail and less clearcut segmenting of time. Some build up discrete layers of memory, while others tend to fuse experience from one stage of life with another.

These differences in modes of integrating experiences over time are a critical component of educative style, since learning does not merely take place at a particular moment; rather, the individual moves both backward and forward in time, learning from past experiences as these are reinterpreted and re-enacted in combination with newer events.

Another aspect of timing as a component of educative style concerns the speed or pace of learning. It is a truism that some individuals learn faster than others. A good deal of psychological research has addressed itself to the timing of learning—examining such matters as speed, repetition, and the spacing of repetitions. And certain basic anthropological research on the relation of culture and biology has suggested that individual differences in rates of interaction are a fundamental feature of personality organization.4 Following these leads, one may presume that interaction rates will provide fruitful data for the analysis of educative style.

One other dimension of timing that appears worthy of consideration is the way the individual combines experiences at any given moment. Some individuals are "multi-channeled," some are "single-tracked." Some carry out numerous tasks at the same time, switching from one to another in brief segments; others prefer to do one thing at a time, starting a new task only when the current one is completed.

The point is that all of these aspects of temporal integration will affect not merely the quality and rapidity of an individual's learning, but his basic approach to educational situations and his ability to profit more from one sort of educational encounter than from another.

Another component of educative style is the manner in which an individual responds to cues from others. Here certain familiar concepts from personality and cultural research have pertinence. David Riesman's now classic distinction between the inner-directed and the other-directed individual is one such concept. He describes the inner-directed person as one controlled by a self-contained gyroscope, moving through experiences in terms of internalized concepts of the desirable and the appropriate. In contrast, the other-directed person has subtle antennae, capable of responding to partial and indirect cues from others, but lacks continuity of self-direction.5 A good deal of the recent research on "locus of control" has explored similar distinctions. In addition, relating this to the component of temporal integration, inner- and other-directed individuals may differ in their organization of time, some having internal clocks while others order their activities in relation to cues from others, i.e., to external clocks.

Another component of educative style concerns the way an individual appraises the values, attitudes, and knowledge suggested to him in his various encounters. Some affiliate readily with the beliefs of others, tending to incorporate them whole and uncritically; others are more discriminating and selective, tending rather to derive their own syntheses. It is probable in this respect that research on those who have undergone drastic shifts in belief systems, for example, conversion to religious and social beliefs, may have direct bearing on our understanding of modes of critical appraisal as a component of educative style.6

Another component of educative style is the process by which an individual scans and searches the environment for educational opportunities. Some individuals are wide ranging as they move into the new and unfamiliar, going with pleasure into the geographically, the socially, or the intellectually unknown, while others are less expansive and venturesome in their coverage of the field. Some enjoy novelty, some prefer the habitual. Clearly the individual's approach to the new and unfamiliar will profoundly mark his approach to education.

Yet another component of educative style is the individual's strategy for contending with embarrassment. Embarrassment is virtually a universal experience in childhood and adult life; indeed, it is ritually fostered in most societies and often intensely experienced and vividly recalled. Yet some individuals doubtless suffer it more acutely than others and some clearly transcend it more effectively than others. Certainly the extent to which anticipated embarrassment inhibits the trial of novel experience will significantly affect the quality of educational engagement. In this respect, Erving Goffman's analysis of embarrassment and its relation to social organization as well as related anthropological studies of face-saving techniques, e.g., the use of intermediaries, should furnish valuable leads to the student of educative style.7

The concept of educative style is closely related to the concept of learning style that has been proposed by others, though there are some crucial differences. A number of anthropologists have pointed out ways in which cultures differ in their emphasis on various kinds of learning. Jules Henry, for example, has indicated several of the dimensions along which such differences occur. One distinction is between "target-seeking" learning and "diffuse" learning. "Target-seeking" learning occurs where corrective feedback is given by a specific human "target," while "diffuse" learning occurs where many individuals provide the correction. Another distinction is between "additive" and "spiraling" learning. "Spiraling" learning occurs when the student's response touches off a new response in the teacher, as in the Socratic method, while "additive" learning involves the teacher simply adding one bit of information to another. A further distinction is between "monophasic" and "polyphasic" learning, i.e., learning one thing or many things at a time.8 Similarly Margaret Mead has pointed to the ways in which cultures differ in the extent to which they organize education according to the needs of the teacher or the learner.9 Also, in a rather different context, Frank Riessman has used the concept of learning style in discussing strategies of education for the disadvantaged to point to differences among children in their preferred modes of learning, for example, learning from reading, or hearing, or physical activities,10

The relation of learning style to culture is clarified in Gregory Bateson's concept of "deutero learning," or learning about learning. Bateson's concept of "meta-communication" or "communication about communication" is also relevant. By this he refers to those cues, both verbal and nonverbal, that convey information about the way in which a message is to be codified or about the relationship between communicators.11 Albert Scheflen has elaborated Gregory Bateson's concept in a particular direction, exemplifying a "meta-communication" as a communication that conveys some such notion as "the following message is not what it appears to be."12 The general line of research suggests that "meta-communication" is basic to the process by which learning to learn takes place. The parent and the teacher, for example, frequently convey to the child notions about what constitutes attention or inattention to a task, or what Erving Goffman would call "obligations regarding main involvements."13

While these and related ideas about learning style are of considerable importance for the development of the concept of educative style, the concept of educative style is more inclusive, directing attention not merely to learning itself but to the ways in which an individual engages in, moves through, and combines a variety of educative experiences.


It might be useful at this point to clarify certain assumptions about the nature of educative style in order to understand the research opportunities inherent in the concept.

Educative styles, along with many other aspects of personal character, are learned in interaction with others. Indeed, they are not merely learned in interaction but also sustained and modified, confirmed and discontinued. This is consistent with basic premises in contemporary sociology and social psychology, as well as with what John Dewey once called "working adaptations of personal capacities with environing forces." In this sense habits or modes of conduct involve the support of environing conditions: "a society or some specific group of fellow-men, is always accessory before and after the fact."14 By educative style I do not refer to a basic personality component that is seen as isolated from the individual's social context. Rather, in keeping with recent critiques of trait psychology, I am assuming that educative style must be understood as it varies and is influenced by what Kurt Lewin called "field forces." One recent study of the "locus of control" among black and white children concluded, for example, that individual difference variables lead to strikingly different predictions when they are measured in different social settings; only "by specifically looking at situation-personality interaction can the dynamics of such interaction be understood," the study concluded.15

The concept of educative style as a product of engagement with others is also in keeping with recent work on social labels and expectations, particularly as it has been developed in the study of deviance. Howard Becker, for example, has argued that deviance is not merely an act of the individual but also a label imposed upon his behavior by others.16 One may presume that labels and expectancies are of particular significance in understanding the way in which the individual moves from one social context to another.17

In addition, educative style is not to be understood as merely the product of interaction at a single moment in time, but rather, again in terms suggested by Dewey, as the product of "moving and multiple associations."18

Given these assumptions, the various components of educative style suggested above must be seen as always dynamic and never static, always in relation and never in isolation. Timing, for example, becomes synchrony when it is viewed not merely as the pace of the learner but the pace of the learner in relation to other learners and teachers in a given educational situation. Similarly, strategies for transcending the risk of embarrassment in learning new things are meaningful only in respect to the techniques used by others to create or forestall embarrassment. And remembering itself is partly a function of what others remember and the ways in which their remembrances stimulate recall.

Another assumption basic to research on educative style concerns the nature of education. One may define education as the deliberate, sustained, or systematic attempt to transmit or acquire knowledge, skills, and values.19 Yet it surely includes a vast range of experience, some of which lies in the domain of the peripheral (not in the unconscious but rather on the margins of attention). Peripheral experience is often immensely difficult to describe verbally and can only be approached via some artificial reconstruction. Yet it is precisely in that domain—often fleetingly and imperceptibly—that some of the most significant dimensions of educative style are acquired and sustained. Hence one of the most important, though problematic, requirements of research on educative style is that its techniques capture peripheral experience. Some social scientists, Erving Goffman and Eliot D. Chappie, for example, argue for observational studies on the ground that the significant dimensions of interaction can rarely be talked about, and when they are talked about, they are described in ways that have little relation to behavior. This line of argument warrants serious consideration in the study of educative style. It in no way precludes the examination of those aspects of experience that are readily described verbally, but it does imply the need for a range of techniques that reach toward those fleeting experiences that can rarely be clearly articulated (in this respect those who have examined communication behavior at the level of "microanalysis," notably Ray L. Birdwhistell, Albert E. Scheflen, Daniel N. Stern, and Adam Kendon, warrant close attention).

Another requirement for the study of educative style is a fairly broad time span. Since I am presuming that education takes place throughout life and that educative styles are the product of "moving and multiple associations," it follows that research on educative style must have sufficient time span to encompass the entire educational career. Studies of particular stages of the life cycle remain important, but those studies must be placed in the context of a broader time perspective. Thus, for example, a microstudy of the interaction of two siblings and the ways in which each contributes to the other's style of scanning and searching for new experience would ideally be connected with adult life histories that shed light on the way in which early experience with siblings is sustained in later experience.

While a broad time span needs to be retained, research on educative style also requires data from numerous natural settings that take full cognizance of small day-to-day events. This is consistent with a basic presumption that it is essential to understand the significance of that which appears to be trivial, particularly when the trivial recurs. One moment of embarrassment, one encounter with a sibling may be trivial, yet these day-to-day events take on importance because experiences of embarrassment and encounters with siblings are recurrent throughout life. Therefore, research on educative style requires that the investigator have the ability to shift not only from one time perspective to another but also from one scale of behavior to another.


Problems of educative style may be investigated using a variety of quite different methods, each of which has special advantages.

Large-scale survey research, for example, the recent work of James Coleman, Christopher Jencks, Benjamin Bloom, and Torsten Husen, has made fruitful use of various statistical techniques, such as regression analysis, in studying the different sources of educational achievement. While such techniques are now being employed in the attempt to allocate influence between home and school, they do not lend themselves as readily to direct examination of the ways in which particular individuals combine various educative experiences.

Biographical research, on the other hand, has elicited a good deal of interest among educational historians. Lawrence Stone has tended to stress the statistical treatment of mass data—he has used the term prosopography, or collective biography, to describe his work—while Robert

McClintock and Lawrence A. Cremin have concentrated on portraying individual educational careers. The questions that biographers have been able to ask, however, have been limited, on the one hand, by their conceptions of educational development and, on the other, by the character of the data available to them. The biography of a Benjamin Franklin or a Frederick Douglass or a Jane Addams, written with educational questions uppermost in mind, could contribute enormously to our knowledge of the ways in which individuals engage educationally with their environments. Such biographies fulfill the need for a time perspective that covers the entire life span of an individual, and they allow us the benefit of hindsight. Yet they enable us to deal only partially with the subtleties of social interaction (because of the limitations of the data), and they are of little use in dealing with educational problems unique to the present—for example, what John H. Fischer has called the "competition for attention" produced by modern media of communication.20 In this respect continuing research using life history techniques by present day behavioral scientists can certainly furnish important methodological leads for the study of educative style.21

Finally, social network research appears to hold considerable promise for getting at some of the more elusive dimensions of educative style. The study of social networks permits the tracing and analyzing of an individual's interaction with a host of significant others. A network may be regarded as the links that can be drawn from an "ego" (or individual) perspective. An individual's network may contain numerous groups but is rarely conterminous with any particular group. Thus the concept of network offers a useful tool for describing the life-space of the individual and for examining the way in which the individual moves from one educative experience to another. Consistent with studies of field forces in psychology and of role-set in sociology, recent investigations of kin and other social networks assume that network structures can be mapped and that the form these structures take has a significant influence on the behavior and values of the individuals within them. Thus the study of social networks is not merely a mechanical tracing of ties but rather an examination of multiple interactions as these occur in the individual's various social encounters.

Prior studies of social networks suggest a variety of dimensions of network structure, some of which appear to have direct bearing on the investigation of educative style. Elizabeth Bott, J. Clyde Mitchell, and others have pointed out that the consistency of the individual's behavior from one situation to another is related to the extent to which that individual's network is "connected" or "close-knit," i.e., those within the network know and interact with each other.22 This finding clearly implies that network structure profoundly affects the development of educative style and the modification of that style as the individual moves from one set of social contacts to another.

In addition, several aspects of "connectedness" suggested in prior research may well be significant for the understanding of educative style. In studying the network of associations among adolescents, James S. Coleman showed a relationship between network structure and social values and attitudes toward school achievement, thereby pointing to the significance of the connectedness of adult and peer networks.23 Urie Bronfenbrenner's analysis of the educational importance of the amount of contact between children and adults points in the same direction.24

My own research on the relation of social networks to educative style illustrates a way in which the understanding of educative style as a continuous process of interaction can be advanced. In this research the social networks of teenagers are being traced and examined in an effort to consider how interaction with others influences educative style. The work reaches beyond the individual's perspective on his own experience by tracing his contacts with others and then obtaining their views of their interactions with him. Special attention is being given to the connectedness (or lack of it) of particular networks in an effort to get at the crucial factor of crosspressures and the way in which the individual responds to them. Comparisons are being undertaken throughout between the data on the teenagers and adult life history materials in order to include a broader time perspective. And a central concern at every point is the elusive problem of how the individual brings together and synthesizes his educative experiences in different settings.


While our increased awareness of the multiplicity of institutions that educate renews the need for a central focus on the individual learner, this focus need in no way imply a return to an atomistic individualism in thinking about educational policy and practice. In its very nature the concept of educative style is social in character. But beyond this it provides crucial clues to the ways in which various educational influences make their impact on the individual. And it should, therefore, change significantly the way we phrase questions of educational policy and practice. Raising the proper questions is after all one of the essential contributions of research. Whether or not initially intended by researchers, questions that seek to sort out independent influence of single variables are apt to lead to policy considerations that treat particular aspects of education in isolation. Consideration, for example, of the impact of teachers' salaries and instructional expenditures as these relate to pupil achievement are by implication arguments with reference to levels of salaries and expenditures. When the question is put, instead, about the circumstances in which varied educational influences are combined to produce maximum effect, a more complex kind of policy formulation is immediately implied.

Recent debates about early childhood education provide another case in point. In these debates, the effects of the family and the school on educational achievement have been discussed in dichotomous terms, with either-or implications for policy. Thus, for example, there are proposals for removing the lower-class child from the home and counterproposals that would use economic and employment policies to encourage mothers to remain at home.25 Some of the extremes of this kind of debate could be averted if the questions were phrased in terms of the most effective combination of family, community, and school effort.

Assumptions about the most appropriate locus of education are also illustrative. Sesame Street, for example, is an outstanding instance of a deliberate attempt to formalize education through the media. While the effects of Sesame Street have been examined, questions of how Sesame Street might be combined with family education or with community programs such as Head Start to produce maximum positive effect have not been systematically asked. This is even true in instances where specific attempts have been made to mediate between family and school (as in a number of programs to train paraprofessionals) or to influence the home environment (as in the work of Susan Grey and Phyllis Levenstein). In designing programs and considering questions of the most effective points for educational intervention, the issue of how individuals combine educative experiences and the styles by which they educate themselves both early in childhood and later in life is clearly fundamental.

Educational programs are often organized on the basis of implicit assumptions about the differences in educative style between children and adults, as in programs of peer-mediated instruction. So are experiments in curriculum design, which often rest on notions of the ways in which individuals combine diverse educational experiences. The open classroom, for example, makes assumptions about the locus of the most vivid educational experiences inside and outside the classroom. Montessori methods make assumptions about the way in which individuals move through and respond to educational stimuli. And most school formats make assumptions about the time and place of effective learning experiences. These assumptions could surely be clarified and tightened by research on the processes by which individuals mediate the various educational influences in their environment.

Finally, the understanding of educative styles could have important implications for self-study as a life-long enterprise, if the conditions for nurturing positive educative styles (styles that offer potential for what Dewey called growth) could be discovered and reproduced. For the emphasis on educative style implies a basic change in the approach to problems of education. It focuses on the individual as he learns a particular educative style and then, living that style, consciously or unconsciously makes of himself a particular kind of person. And it conceives of education as a complex process of transactions between the individual and a host of other individuals, social groups, and organized institutions. To adopt such an approach is to complicate immeasurably the way we study education and the way we make policy for it. But in the last analysis, that complication seems a small price indeed for educational insights that will surely be truer and educational policies that will surely be more effective.

1 James S. Coleman et al. Equality of Educational Opportunity. Washington, D.C.: United States Government Printing Office, 1966, p. 325.

2 A.H. Halsey, ed. Educational Priority, Vol. I: E.P.A. Problems and Policies. London, England: Her Majesty's Stationery Office, 1967; Torsten Husen. Social Background and Educational Career: Research Perspectives on Equality of Educational Opportunity. Paris, France: Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development, 1972; Ronald Davie, Neville Butler, and Harvey Goldstein. From Birth to Seven: The Second Report of the National Child Development Study. London, England: National Children's Bureau, 1972; also related is the work of the Plowden Commission. Lady Bridget Plowden. Children and Their Primary Schools: A Report of the Central Advisory Council for Education, Vols. 1 and 2. London, England: Her Majesty's Stationery Office, 1967; Christopher Jencks et al. Inequality: A Reassessment of the Effect of Family and Schooling in America. New York: Basic Books, 1972.

3 Lawrence A. Cremin, "Notes Toward a Theory of Education," Notes on Education, Institute of Philosophy and Politics of Education, Teachers College, Columbia University, No. 1, June 1973.

4 Eliot D. Chappie. Culture and Biological Man: Explorations in Behavioral Anthropology. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston, 1970.

5 David Riesman with Reuel Denney and Nathan Glazer. The Lonely Crowd: A Study of the Changing American Character. New Haven, Conn.: Yale University Press, 1950.

6 In this connection studies of "brainwashing" offer useful leads, for example, Robert J. Lifton. Thought Reform and the Psychology of Totalism: A Study of "Brainwashing" in China. New York: W.W. Norton, 1961; research on hypnosis, particularly on individual differences in hypno-tizability and on changes of beliefs during hypnosis, is also relevant, for example, Herbert Spiegel. Fact or Fiction, A Filmed Experiment. New York: College of Physicians and Surgeons, Columbia University, 1967.

7 In this context much of Erving Goffman's analysis of interaction has relevance; see particularly, "Embarrassment and Social Organization," American Journal of Sociology, Vol. 62, 1956, pp. 264-271, and "The Nature of Deference and Demeanor," American Anthropologist. Vol. 58, 1956, pp. 472-52; for a discussion of the role of the go-between as well as a description of embarrassment in connection with educational examinations, see Ezra F. Vogel. Japan's New Middle Class. Berkeley, Calif.: University of California Press, 1963.

8 Jules Henry, "Culture, Education and Communications Theory," in George D. Spindler, ed. Education and Anthropology. Stanford, Calif.: Stanford University Press, 1955, pp. 188-215.

9 Margaret Mead, "Our Educational Emphasis in Primitive Perspective," in John Middleton, ed. From Child to Adult: Studies in the Anthropology of Education. Garden City, N.Y.: The Natural History Press, 1970, pp. 1-13; significant material on cultural differences in learning is also contained in Michael Cole, John Gay, Joseph A. Glick, and Donald W. Sharp. The Cultural Context of Learning and Thinking: An Exploration in Experimental Anthropology. New York: Basic Books, 1971.

10 Frank Riessman. Strategies Against Poverty. New York: Random House, 1969, especially pp. 47-54.

11 Gregory Bateson. Steps to an Ecology of Mind. New York: Ballantine Books, 1972. The psychologists' work on "learning sets" and "cognitive styles" is also relevant. Harry F. Harlow presented the concept of "learning sets" in "The Formation of Learning Sets," Psychological Review, Vol. LVI, 1949, pp. 51-56, The more recent work on "cognitive styles" is reviewed in Jerome Kagan and Nathan Kogan, "Individual Variation in Cognitive Process," in Paul Mussen, ed. Carmichael's Manual of Child Psychology, 3rd ed. New York: John Wiley, 1970, pp. 1273-1365.

12 Albert E. Scheflen, "Quasi-Courtship in Psychotherapy," Psychiatry, Vol. 28, 1965, pp. 245-257; also Albert E. Scheflen. Communicational Structure: Analysis of a Psychotherapy Transaction. Bloomington, Ind.: Indiana University Press, 1973.

13 13 Erving Goffman. Behavior in Public Places. New York: The Free Press, 1963, pp. 50-63.

14 John Dewey. Human Nature and Conduct. New York: Henry Holt and Co., 1922, p. 16.

15 Joseph DuCette and Stephen Wolk, "Locus of Control and Levels of Aspiration in Black and White Children," Review of Educational Research, Vol. 42, No. 4, Fall 1972, p. 503; also for a recent critique of trait psychology see Robert LeVine. Culture, Behavior and Personality. Chicago: Aldine Publishing, 1973.

16 Howard S. Becker. Outsiders: Studies in the Sociology of Deviance. London, England: Free Press, 1963.

17 Here Hobbs's study of classification is of particular interest: Nicholas Hobbs, "Summary: The Project on Classification of Exceptional Children," unpublished mimeographed document, October 28, 1972.

18 John Dewey. Individualism Old and New. New York: Minton, Balch & Company, 1930, p. 170.

19 Cremin, op. cit.

20 John H. Fischer, "Education and the Commonweal," delivered at the Commencement Day Convocation, Teachers College, Columbia University, May 1973, p. 5.

21 For a useful bibliography see L. L. Langness. The life History in Anthropological Science. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston, 1965; also for an earlier review see Louis Gottschalk, Clyde Kluckhohn, and Robert Angell, eds. The Personal Document in History: Anthropology and Sociology. New York: Social Science Research Council, Bulletin 53, 1960; also relevant is Robert W. White. Lives in Progress: A Study of the Natural Growth of Personality. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston, 1966.

22 Elizabeth Bott. Family and Social Network. London, England: Tavistock Publications, 1957; J. Clyde Mitchell, ed. Social Networks in Urban Situations: Analyses of Personal Relationships in Central African Towns. Zambia: Institute for Social Research, University of Zambia Press, 1969; also for a discussion of methods of studying kin networks, see Hope Jensen Leichter and William E. Mitchell. Kinship and Casework. New York: Russell Sage Foundation, 1967.

23 James S. Coleman. The Adolescent Society: The Social Life of the Teenager and Its Impact on Education. New York: The Free Press, 1961.

24 Urie Bronfenbrenner. Two Worlds of Childhood: U.S. and U.S.S.R. New York: Russell Sage Foundation, 1970.

25 Hope J. Leichter, "The School and Parents," in Dwight W. Allen and Eli Seifman, eds. The Teacher's Handbook. Glenview, Ill.: Scott, Foresman and Co., 1971.

Cite This Article as: Teachers College Record Volume 75 Number 2, 1973, p. 239-250 ID Number: 1461, Date Accessed: 10/24/2021 7:11:51 PM

Purchase Reprint Rights for this article or review