ERIC Number: ED106163
Record Type: RIE
Publication Date: 1974
Reference Count: 0
Toward a Humane Curriculum.
Foshay, Arthur W.
In this paper, an integrated view is presented of the direction that education must take if it is to become the creative, effective, joyful enterprise that many educators long for. Educational institutions are not humane because they fail to deal with the human condition in all its variety and meaning. They continue to affirm the intellectual part of the human being as if it were the whole person. Instead, the human condition is made up of six qualities including the intellectual, emotional, social, physical, aesthetic, and spiritual. In order to achieve a humane curriculum, subject matter must be responsive to these six categories in addition to teacher goals for student development which include fluency (knowledge), manipulation (application, analysis, synthesis, evaluation), and persistence (continuation of learning). The result is an 18 cell grid in which the subject matter must respond or it is less than completely humane. The difficulty arises from the educational tradition that places intellectual ability above the other aspects of the human condition. Educators usually deal with only two cells of the grid -- the contribution of fluency and manipulation to intellectual growth. In order to achieve a humane curriculum, educators must define all curriculum changes by the complete set of criteria. (Author/DE)
Descriptors: Curriculum Development, Curriculum Evaluation, Educational Change, Educational Strategies, Evaluation Criteria, Humanism, Humanistic Education, Humanization, Individual Development, Learning Experience, Student Development, Teaching Methods
Social Science Education Consortium, 855 Broadway, Boulder, Colorado 80302 ($0.90)
Publication Type: Books
Education Level: N/A
Sponsor: National Inst. of Education (DHEW), Washington, DC.
Authoring Institution: Social Science Education Consortium, Inc., Boulder, CO.; ERIC Clearinghouse for Social Studies/Social Science Education, Boulder, CO.
Note: Revised version of paper presented to American Educational Research Association (April 1974)