No description available.

No description available.

The author defines development, or growth, as the ethically desirable direction of change. Is there a principle which can express what all developmental changes have in common, and what makes them desirable? The orthogenetic principle defines development as change towards increasing integration with complementary differentiation of people with respect to their environment. Heinz Werner and Bernard Kaplan first articulated this idea. It characterizes the portrayal of development by Jean Piaget, Lawrence Kohlberg, and John Dewey. None of these authors, however, justify orthogenesis as an ethical definition of development across a global range of experience. The author attempts this here, giving educators a tool for criticizing or justifying education having development as its aim. The author analyzes integration and differentiation into three aspects: co-ordination of distinguished elements in the environment; autonomous choice from a de-centered or objective perspective; immunity from environmental vicissitudes alongside an opening of and openness to the environment. Advancing these qualities is justified as ethically desirable in two ways. It overcomes the problem of egocentrism and habit-attachment which gives meaning to the notion of development across human experience. It also meets formal ethical criteria of universalizability, universality, and prescriptivity. Educators can use the orthogenetic principle to examine assumptions about development within psychological theories to see how these might themselves influence development. This enables educators to make eclectic use of psychologies within an ethical framework. The principle is also used to generate guidelines for thorough and objective inquiry into what is most growthful for a particular person at a particular time. The author argues that the principle cannot prescribe any educational course in advance of such inquiry into unique situations.

Recent decades have witnessed the growing emergence of a conception of higher learning as entailing the interaction of individual tendencies with physical and social conditions. The present study explores the theoretical and practical implications of this conception across several key areas of the literature, including higher education reform, critical thinking, moral education, college writing, and college teaching. Generally speaking, educational interactionism is the attempt to explain intellectual and moral growth in terms of the ongoing and reciprocal interaction of human beings and their physical and social environments. It accordingly seeks to reconcile the historical antipathy between inner-directed theories (rationalism, idealism, romanticism) and outer-directed theories (empiricism, positivism, essentialism) of human agency, meaning, and growth. In terms of educational practice, educational interactionism seeks to resolve the persistent tension between attention to students' individual needs and interests and the transmission of a socially viable body of subject matter. It does so chiefly by asserting that neither has any meaning without the other. In projecting this interactive conception across what are for the most part discrete literatures, the present study seeks to illustrate how similar principles operate across these areas and to encourage dialogue between them. It should be viewed as a first step in a larger effort to integrate and clarify the general features of an interactive educational conception, eliminate many present inconsistencies, and outline its implications for educational policy and teaching practice.

No description available.

No description available.

No description available.

No description available.

No description available.

No description available.