Open Collections

UBC Theses and Dissertations

UBC Theses Logo

UBC Theses and Dissertations

Curriculum development in community education : a theoretical study Calliou, Sharilyn 1992

Your browser doesn't seem to have a PDF viewer, please download the PDF to view this item.

Item Metadata


831-ubc_1993_spring_calliou_sharilyn.pdf [ 7.59MB ]
JSON: 831-1.0055655.json
JSON-LD: 831-1.0055655-ld.json
RDF/XML (Pretty): 831-1.0055655-rdf.xml
RDF/JSON: 831-1.0055655-rdf.json
Turtle: 831-1.0055655-turtle.txt
N-Triples: 831-1.0055655-rdf-ntriples.txt
Original Record: 831-1.0055655-source.json
Full Text

Full Text

CURRICULUM DEVELOPMENT INCOMMUNITY EDUCATION:A THEORETICAL STUDYbySHARILYN CALLIOU(Michel Band, Alberta)B.Ed., The University of Calgary, 1979Dip.Ed., Foundations (Philosophy), The University of Alberta, 1991A THESIS SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILMENT OFTHE REQUIREMENTSFOR THE DEGREE OF MASTERS OF ARTSinTHE FACULTY OF GRADUATE STUDIES(Department of Social and Educational Studies)We accept this thesis as conformingto the required standardTHE UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIAJuly 1992Sharilyn Calliou, 1992In presenting this thesis in partial fulfilment of the requirements for an advanceddegree at the University of British Columbia, I agree that the Library shall make itfreely available for reference and study. I further agree that permission for extensivecopying of this thesis for scholarly purposes may be granted by the head of mydepartment or by his or her representatives. It is understood that copying orpublication of this thesis for financial gain shall not be allowed without my writtenpermission.(Signature) Department o i&iz) .22ezt iz'J/hhxwail,d7'yaiThe University of British ColumbiaVancouver, CanadaDateDE-6 (2/88)ABSTRACTThis study was primarily designed to develop principles and evaluation criteriaof curriculum in community education. Before these could be developed, it wasnecessary to reassess commonly well-known and accepted works of communityeducation theorists in order to deduce generic features and, thusly, identify the meansand ends envisioned by community educators. Community education can be definedas a hypothesis which attempts to explain a relationship where participants interactin certain ways and use particular methods in a location over time to achieve self-determined transformative change and social justice. Therefore, curriculumdevelopment in community education ought to mirror facets of this definition. In thisstudy, curricular experiences would be designed to have these features: (1)community-based study which has an extra-community awareness; (2) lifelongteaching and learning; (3) proactive problem-solving; (4) educational activism; (5)participatory democracy; (6) intergenerational grouping; and, (7) egalitarianism.i iTABLE OF CONTENTSPage ABSTRACT ^  iiTABLE OF CONTENTS ^  iiiLIST OF TABLES  viiiACKNOWLEDGEMENTS^  ixPREFACE^  xDEDICATION  xiCHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION ^  1The Need for Additional Development of Curriculum Theory inCommunity Education  1Statement of the Problem ^  2Previous Curriculum Development in Community Education ^ 3Elsie Ripley Clapp  3Edward G. Olsen ^  5Irwin and Russell  8Minzey and LeTarte  9Olsen and Clark ^  10Relevant Articles  11Summary ^  14The Objectives and Organization of This Theoretical Study^ 14Rationale for This Study ^  15To Add to the Theoretical Discussion ^  15To Provide Reflective Discussion Materials for Practitioners^16To Provide a Conceptualization of Authentic Practice ^ 17To Produce Criteria for Evaluation ^  17Research Questions ^  18The Decision to Make a Theoretical Study  19The Type of Theoretical Curriculum Study ^  19Limitations of This Study ^  20Definition of Terms  20Summary ^  22iiiCHAPTER 2: DESIGN METHODOLOGY ^  23The Need to Formulate Additional Theories of Curriculum inCommunity Education  23Statement of the Problem ^  23Procedures ^  24Formulation of the Inductive Argument to Hypothesis Framed forCommunity Education and Curriculum in CommunityEducation ^  25The Inductive Argument to Hypothesis ^  26Data Collection  27Sources of the Propositions ^  28Identification of the Generic Features and PropositionsFrom the Literature Review ^  30"Strength" or "Weakness" of the Propositions ^ 32Strongly Supported Propositions  32Weakly Supported Propositions  32Formulation of a Parallel Inductive Argument to Hypothesis forCurriculum in Community Education ^  33Formulation of Principles and Evaluation Criteria  35Consideration of an Appropriate Definition  36Summary ^  37CHAPTER 3: REVIEW AND ANALYSIS OF SELECTED WRITINGS ^ 38Introduction ^  38The Overall Argument of Community Education ^ 39Part I: Discussion of the Conclusion ^  40The Deduction of the Conclusion  40Social Justice ^  42Transformative Change ^  45Self-determined Change  48Summary of Part I ^  51Part II: Discussion of the Seven Premises ^  51Discussion of Premise #1: Location  51Considerations Related to this Premise ^  52The Seeming Ambiguity of the Concept ofCommunity ^  52Defining the Boundaries  54The Difficulty of Establishing Unified CommunityAction ^  54Community Involvement and Extra-communityAwareness  55Summary of Premise #1 ^  56Discussion of Premise #2: Time Interval ^  56Summary of Premise #2  58Discussion of Premises #3, #4 and #5: Methods  58Discussion of Premise #3: Problem Solving ^  58Self-Determination ^  60ivEthical Nature ^  60Holistic Approach  62Rationality  62Common Unity ^  63Discussion of Premise #4: Educational Activism^ 64Qualities of the Solutions to be Obtained for Self-determinedProblem Solving ^  65Summary of Premise #4  67Discussion of Premise #5: Participatory Democracy ^  67The Role of the State ^  68The Difficulties of Achieving Empowerment  70Summary of Premise #5  71Introduction to Premises #6 and #7: Intergenerational Connectednessand Egalitarianism ^  72Discussion of Premise #6: Intergenerational Connectedness ^ 72Discussion of Premise #7: Egalitarianism^  73Summary ^  74CHAPTER 4: REPORT OF THE RESEARCH FINDINGS ^  76The Introduction of Seven Principles of a Theory of Curriculum inCommunity Education ^  76Organization of the Findings  76Discussion of the Principles  76How These Principles Can Provide Guidance ^  76Curriculum and the Extent of Reform ^  79Discussion of Principle #1: Location  81Community-Based Studies and Action and CommunityEducating ^  85Summary ^  88Discussion of Principle #2: Time Interval ^  88Lifelong Teaching and Learning  89Discussion of Principle #3: Problem-Solving Pedagogy ^ 91Collaboration ^  92Community-based Problem Solving ^  92The Role of Knowledge ^  93The Advantages of Problem Solving Curricular Experiences^95Discussion of Principle #4: Educational Activism ^ 96Educational Activism as Curricular Experiences ^ 97Discussion of Principle #5: Participatory Democracy  99Participatory Democracy and Curricular Experiences ^ 100Discussion of Principles #6 and #7: IntergenerationalConnectedness and Egalitarian Participation ^ 103Principle #6: Intergenerational Connectedness  104Egalitarian Participation ^  106Summary of Chapter 4 ^  107vCHAPTER 5: A HYPOTHETICAL CASE STUDY ^  110Application of the Research Findings to a Case Study ^ 110A Description of the Hypothetical Case Study  110Criteria for Evaluating in Community Education Based UponThis Concept ^  110Evaluation Criteria Developed From This TheoreticalStudy  111The Opening Stem of Each Evaluation Statement .. 111Part I: The Hypothetical Case Study ^  114A Profile of the Fictitious Community  114Incidents Which Have Caused Concern in the Community . 115Emergent Problems in This Fictitious Community ^ 116Objective: To Use a Community Education Approach  117Part II: A Description of Some of the Observations Which Might BeExpected In "Radon-ville" From Application of the Principles ^ 118Discussion of Community-based Study and Community-basedActions ^  118Community-Based Study ^  118Content Development  118Informational Content of Community Dialogue ^ 118Multi-age Involvement in Content Development ^ 119Community-based Actions ^  119Extra-Community Interaction ^  120Multi-Age Research and Action Teams ^  120Community-based Problem Solving  121Lifelong Teaching and Learning ^  121Opportunities to Learn How to Teach and Learn ^ 121Quality of Discussion About Learning and Teaching  122Discussion of Proactive Problem Solving ^  122Data Collection ^  123Workshops Available to Facilitate Problem-Solving Skills . 123Knowledgeable Problem Solving ^  124Discussion of Educational Activism  124Compassionate and Ethical Solutions  124Long-term Solutions ^  125Discussion of Participatory Democracy ^  125Community-based Content and Action  126Self-government by Consent and Problem Solving^ 126Open Sharing of Information ^  126Discussion of Intergenerational Connectedness ^ 127Discussion of Egalitarian Partnerships  127Evaluation Strategies in Curriculum in Community Education . . . ^ 128Summary ^  128viCHAPTER 6: CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS^ 129Part I: Conclusions From This Theoretical Study  129Research Question #1 ^  129Research Question #2  129Research Questions #3  131Research Question #4 ^  132Research Question #5  133Research Question #6  134Research Question #7 ^  134The Multiciplicity of Existing Terms^  134Introduction of a Theoretical Definition  134Part II: Recommendations for Additional Curriculum Development inCommunity Education ^  136The Need for a More Conscious Ecological Stance ^ 137The Ethical Foundations of Community Education  138Summary ^  139BIBLIOGRAPHY^  143APPENDIX I ^  153APPENDIX II ^  155APPENDIX III ^  159viiLIST OF TABLESPage ^Table 1^Guiding Questions, Expressed Relationship and Types ofPropositions of an Inductive Argument Framed to ExplainCommunity Education ^  31^Table 2^Premises and Conclusion of an Inductive Argument to HypothesisFramed to Explain the Relationship of Characteristics and Eventsin Community Education. ^  41Table 3^Parallel Inductive Arguments Framed to Hypothesize ForCommunity Education and Curriculum in Community Educationand Proposed Principles of a Theory of Curriculum in CommunityEducation   77Table 4^Principles and Evaluation Criteria of a Theory of Curriculum inCommunity Education in a Community Committed to Self-Determined Transformative Change and Social Justice ^ 112Table 5^Evaluation Criteria Developed for Application to a HypotheticalCase Study for This Theoretical Study. ^  135Table 6a^The Identification of the Need to Change  166Table 6b^Identification of Specific Outcomes ^  167Table 7^Identification of the Location  168Table 8^Identification of Time Duration ^  169Table 9^Identification of the Method of Problem-Solving ^ 170Table 10^Identification of Educational Processes as a Means to AttainDesired Outcomes ^  171Table 11^Identification of Participation and Democratic Methods ^ 172Table 12^Identification of the Characteristics of the Interactions ^ 173Table 13^Miscellaneous Items ^  174viiiACKNOWLEDGEMENTSA thesis writing project involves more than the library, the data, the research,the analysis, and the composition. Words are committed to paper, but they wouldremain lifeless if the researcher is not nurtured. This researcher flourished becauseof the gentle and strong loving support given by so many. Your love and help havetaught me much about generosity — thank you C.I.W. for catching me every time Iwas falling and so many basic amenities. Thank you B.S. for your believing in meand this project. Thank you M.M. for the empathy and the sanctuary. Thank youY.L. for sharing your humor and knowledge and love of language. Thank you E.G.O.for extending such a firm hand to a 'new kid on the block' and so freely giving of yourknowledge and encouragement. Thank you S.M. for fulfilling all the WP requests andyour sympathetic ears. Thank you my R.B.F.L. for the empathy, love, intellectualsparring and such constant belief in me; especially when I needed it most.I acknowledge the Financial Assistance of Indian and Northern Affairs Canada(Edmonton Regional Office, Alberta), and the firm encouragement from Post-Secondary Education Counsellors: Francis Roach and Janet Third.ixPREFACEExcerpted portions of Chapter 3: Research and Analysis of the Writings hasbeen previously published in 1992 under the title "Community Education: A Theoryfor Living in Community" in The Journal of the Canadian Association for CommunityEducation, 3(May), 25-42.xDEDICATIONThis thesis is dedicated toElsie Ripley ClappandEdward Gustave Olsenwhose texts taught me much aboutthinking about curriculum in community education;toCharlotte Stone, Gloria Toole, Judy Gundersonand Brian Staples,and to those teachers ofLangevin Community School (Calgary Board of Education, Alberta, Canada)whose cheerful risk-taking taught me much about my workas aCommunity School Curriculum Coordinator.xi1CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTIONNo community can progress in its developmentwhile the individual who is a member of itremains behind; the individual who is a memberof the whole, cannot progress in his [or her]development while the community remainsbehind (Froebel, 1834).The Need for Additional Development ofCurriculum Theory in Community EducationTheories of curriculum in community education are few and theorizing hasbeen limited. Warden (1972) stated that community educators had failed to facilitatemeaningful curricular innovation because they had not examined the relationshipsbetween community education processes and curriculum. However, this lack ofcurriculum theorizing is not unique to this field. Kliebard (1982) observed that "Oneof the surest ways to kill a conversation on the subject of curriculum theory is to asksomeone to name one" (p. 11). This thesis was an attempt to add to the conversationabout curriculum education.The lack of curriculum development in community education can be a liability.Clark (1987), a community educator, regarded curriculum as the heart of education,and he believed that if the purpose, content and methodology of curriculum were leftundefined, then "chaos rather than community" would result (p. 60). Clark arguedthat a common curricular rationale was needed in community education in order tounify practice and purpose. The development of a common curricular rationale couldassist community educators to achieve the desired outcomes of this educational2philosophy (Clark, 1987, p.60). However, the connection between a philosophy ofcommunity education and a community education curriculum has been identified, butfoundational work remains underdeveloped.This theoretical study was an analysis of 30 selections by 24 Americantheorists in the field of community education. From this analysis data was collectedwhich was used to formulate parallel inductive arguments to hypothesis (a type ofargument discussed in Chapter 2). These arguments were generated for communityeducation and curriculum in community education. This theoretical studyendeavoured to generate principles, evaluation criteria and a definition of curriculumin community education.Statement of the ProblemTheoretical curriculum development in community education is hampered bythree problems.(1) Although a body of literature existed for community education, which providedrecommendations for curricular content and practice, the linkages between thetheory of community education and the theory of curriculum in communityeducation are not fully developed or clearly explicated.(2) Recommendations made for particular content or methodologies originate insources within and without the field known as community education; forexample, components of progressive education theory are evident in works byClapp (1933, 1939); and Olsen (1945); or elements of community school theory(Hanna & Naslund, 1953), yet the reasons for these recommendations are notwell explored.3(3)^Community educators have few curriculum designs which can be subjected toempirical research.Previous Curriculum Development in Community EducationThree major trends were evident in a review of the literature on curriculumtheory in community education. Firstly, the theorists stated that the nature ofcurriculum content appeared to be academic, with curricular experiences not relatedto the immediate problems of the community (Clapp, 1939; Olsen, 1945; Clark &Olsen, 1977). Secondly, experiential learning techniques were emphasized as a meansto better relate academic content to community-based studies and to help learners toperceive and understand the nature of the conditions of their community (Olsen, 1945;Clark & Olsen, 1977). Thirdly, the recommendations for curricular innovation areoften school-based (Clapp, 1939; Olsen, 1945, 1954; Irwin & Russel, 1971; Clark &Olsen, 1977) with better reference to other aspects of the community.The following section highlights the major works located as related tocurriculum developments in community education.Elsie Ripley ClappClapp's (1939) text, Community Schools in Action, consisted primarily ofanecdotal reportage from herself and teachers involved with two experimentalcommunity schools in West Virginia and Kentucky during the 1930s. Her 429 pagetext documents the use of progressive education methods, community educationendeavours and changes in reflective awareness made by teachers and communitymembers about the use of the school as a community education center. She wrote thistext to clarify the concept of community school, to illustrated what a "socially4functioning school" does and to be of some service to future generations of communityeducators (Clapp, 1939, p. 391).Dewey (1939), writing in the forward to Clapp's (1939) text, described the workof these pioneer community educators as an example which illustrated what can bedone to demonstrate the "social function of schools" beyond mere theorizing (p. vii).Dewey was referring to his recommendation that the social function of schools is moresignificant than schooling as a more than academic pursuit. Dewey (1939) believedthat rural settings were "fflrom the viewpoint of genuine community education" one ofthe greatest opportunities for demonstrating the close connection between schoolingand community improvement (p. ix) and he applauded Clapp's efforts to actualize acommunity school rather than add to theoretical discussions.However, a unified curricular rationale was not presented in her text.Examples of curriculum and instruction illustrated the creativity, flexibility andinnovative thinking of these teachers. Dewey (1939) remarked on the "tax on timeand energy" these teachers must have expended in their creative development ofcommunity-based studies (p. ix). Teachers reconceptualized the delivery of SocialStudies, Home Economics, Science, Mathematics and other subjects to increaserelevance for learners by considering, for example, the direct application of conceptsand skills to community needs and problem solving. Their experimental curriculumwork led to reconsideration of the nature and purpose of subjects in that subjects cameto be viewed as sources for praxis and not static academic discipline to be subjected torote memorization (Clapp, 1939, pp. 48-52). The theoretical framework andassumptions are not always evident, although the emphasis is on curricular activitieswhich are community-based and in the service of community enhancement.5This text was republished in 1952 under a different title with little, newinformation added.Edward G. OlsenIn 1945, Olsen's School and Community was first published, with a secondedition following in 1954. His text provided a thorough description of curriculum andinstruction, introduced a new term and meaning for curriculum in communityeducation and provided ten principles for curriculum development in communityeducation based on both progressive education and community education theories. Dr.Olsen has been a mentor in the field of curriculum in community education andproduced numerous articles, bibliographies, pamphlets and three texts (one co-authored with Clark in 1977). Olsen (1954) stated that school-based curriculum candevelop from three primary motivations which he described as book-centered, child-centered or life-centered (p. 475).Olsen's work has focused on developing a life-centered curriculum approach,although he did not believe that a community-minded school must choose one of histhree designated emphases. He stated that each of the three primary curriculumpatterns can be modified to emphasize events and conditions of the community. Forexample, he stated that if a curriculum stressed a book-centered approach withmastery of subject matter, then resources for the community (that is, people, sites,artifacts, etc.) could be used to enrich it (Olsen, 1954, p. 476). He further stated thatif curriculum was developed to serve the interests of the learner (child-centered), thencommunity resources could be used "as stimulants to aesthetic, intellectual, andsocializing pupil experiences and interests" (Olsen, 1954, P. 476). However, he addedthat if book- or child-centered approaches were not suitable, then a core curriculum6could be developed to study the fundamental questions and persistent problems ofliving in communities. He recommended that this core curriculum would occupystudents one third to two thirds of a school day. Olsen appeared to be the onlytheorist to present a unified theory of curriculum in community education and is oftencited by others writing about curriculum in community education.Olsen (1945) used the term " life-centering" the curriculum (p. 18) to refer tocurriculum based on "enduring life concerns and problems of living" (p. 409). He usedthis term to describe curricular experiences which addressed the basic concerns anyindividual has as a learner while growing up in his/her society (p. 409); although hecommented that"schooling is by no means 'life-centered' yet - the struggle goes on"(Personal communication, April 15, 1992). Olsen (1945) followed in Deweyiantradition in which schooling is conceptualized not so much as an individualisticpursuit but a communal endeavour to maintain democracy (Dewey, 1899). Deweywrote in The School and Society, originally published in 1899, that "What the bestand wisest parent wants for his own child, that must the community want for all itschildren" (1971, p. 7).Olsen (1945) introduced ten principles to guide community educators in thedevelopment of curriculum to create and sustain this connection between schoolingand community in the interests of maintaining and strengthening democracy (Olsen,1945). The text was republished in 1954, with the principles reworded (Olsen, 1954,pp. 477-480). Both sets of principles are reprinted, with the permission of the author,in Appendix I.These principles are one of too few examples of foundational work incurriculum in community education. The intent of both sets of principles remained7the same. Only the first principle was completely reworded to highlight thefunctional nature of life-centered curriculum to nurture community involvement.My following commentary examined the original set of principles presented byOlsen in 1945. Olsen, like Clapp (1939), stressed community-based studies. Thesecond, third, fourth, sixth and seventh principles elaborated ways to conceptualizeand study a locality in terms of its history, location, resources and culture. Hedescribed experiential learning techniques (fieldstudies, resource speaker visits,documentary production) to provide community-based curricular experiences tointensively analyze the local community which could be argued strengthenunderstanding and appreciation of other communities (Olsen, 1950, p. 412).Olsen (1945) stated that a major function of curricular endeavors is to assistlearners to develop understandings about the changes occurring in the unique,cultural milieu of their community (pp. 409-410). He further stressed that it would bethese future citizens who would bring change to their communities and that theyneeded curricular opportunities to understand how to make "democratic socialimprovements" which would be based on a respect for, loyalty to, and use of the finesttraditions of American ethics and social values (pp. 410-412). A major assumption oflife-centered curriculum would be a reliance on a "fundamentally democratic frame ofreference" which would increase the need to teach citizenship skills to foster citizenparticipation and leadership (Olsen, 1950, p. 409).The remaining principles described the need for a planned learningsequence,experiential learning opportunities and multi-age interaction (Principles #V,#VIII and #IX). Olsen believed that education which, he stated, "cannot be trulyrealistic, vital and defensible" unless child, curriculum and community are8purposively connected (Olsen, 1950, pp. 412-413). In 1992, Olsen commented thatcurriculum in community education could be viewed as a form of needs-basededucation, and, that when such a view is formulated it becomes "clear that traditionalpreoccupation with academic subject matter is not adequate for our times" (Personalcommunication, Feb. 1, 1992).Although this examination has been brief, Olsen's influence has beensignificant in the field of community education.Irwin and RussellIrwin and Russell (1971) wrote The Community Is The Classroom to explain aninterdisciplinary and integrated approach to curriculum and instruction designed tohelp children to find answers to basic questions which the child-as-learner would findembedded in his or her direct encounters with the community (p. 15). They used theterm - integrated - to refer to curriculum and instruction which closely blended theactivities of classroom as they believed that traditional schooling was distant andremoved from the daily concerns of living. The two teachers and curriculum theoristsstated that school subjects viewed as "skills and knowledge are often seen as ends inthemselves" with too much of a focus on "organizational patterns and theestablishment of academic standards" (Irwin & Russell, 1971, p. 15). Instead, theyexpressed the belief that curricular experiences should draw upon the events,resources and conditions of the community as a primary source for curriculumdevelopment. They argued for the implementation of what they called a community-centered curriculum.Irwin and Russell's (1971) definition of a community-centered curriculum wassimilar in nature and intent to that developed by Olsen (1945, 1954) who had used the9term life-centered curriculum. They described a community-centered curriculum asone where the community is conceptualized as a learning lab and that curricularactivities should extend outwards from the classroom into the community itself (Ibid.,p. 15). By their definition, a community-centered curriculum would be one where thechild's school-based teaching and learning experiences matched those of out-of-schoolexperiences, provided content which focussed on life in the community, and used amultidisciplinary approach which utilized the events and conditions of the immediatecommunity. Their observations are similar to those of Dewey, who argued in 1899, inThe School and Society, that the child-as-learner is unnecessarily isolated from his/herworld of experiences. Consequently, the child cannot "utilize the experiences he[she]gets outside the school in any complete and free way" and that the student'sknowledge is reduced to secondary and, sometimes, meaningless symbolization of theactual reality (1971, pp. 75-80, 112, 126).Their approach to curriculum could be described as a utilitarian approachwhere community-based studies are paramount. However, the reader (teacher orcurriculist) would not easily understand any causal relationship between theirintentions and the development of ends envisioned by community educators.Although these two American community educators did visit community schools,primarily in Britain, a discussion of major thinkers in the field is absent.Minzey and LeTarteMinzey and LeTarte's (Orig. 1972, Rev. 1979) textbook Community Education: From Program to Process to Practice (1979) provided a discussion of the theory andpractice of community education and is considered by community educators to be oneof the standard texts used at college or university levels (Ledford, 1988). Chapter VII10(pp. 99-106) has some discussion about the development of student enrichmentactivities (such as after-school child-centered projects where students could pursuetheir interests or community service) to promote lifelong learning. However, thesesuggested enrichment activities were presented as an antidote to what Minzey andLeTarte perceived to be the overly-intellectual climate of traditional schooling whichseemed to neglect the social, cultural or vocational aspects of the individual's personaland community life (p. 100). This criticism is a familiar one which was evident in theprevious works discussed above.However, the chapter does not provide any theoretical development for thecommunity-based enrichment activities recommended and there are no guidelines fordeveloping authentic curriculum in community education. Their discussions aboutthe basic assumptions, principles and goals of community education are not directlylinked with their chapter's description of curriculum. Also, their discussion did notinclude a description of curricular activities which would integrate with the regularschool day.Although the chapter does not provide any theoretical development for theirsuggested curricular experiences, this text was included for discussion here to indicatethe limited amount of text and thought which has been devoted to curriculum incommunity education.Olsen and ClarkIn 1977, Olsen and Clark's publication Life-Centering the Curriculumappeared. The co-authors suggested that the school-based curriculum must bereshaped and patterned around the primary issues and problems of personal andcommunity living. The sections in the text related to curriculum followed closely11from Olsen's earlier works (1945, 1954) and the text was not strictly devoted tocurriculum development. Instead, chapters are committed to explaining historicalaspects of schooling and education, debunking myths about community education andexplaining some of the key characteristics of community education.Relevant Articles A literature search of educational journals located only a few articles related tocurriculum development in community education. For the most part, these articleswere published in the primary journal in the field which is known as Community Education Journal. Two issues of this journal were about curriculum (Nov.-Dec.,1975; Oct., 1982). This article will discuss three of the major articles.Warden (1975) cautioned that curriculum in community education needed toencompass a broad view of what comprised educational content and instruction toprevent curriculum in community education from becoming "a limited concept with alimited boxed curriculum" (p. 28). He stated that curriculum should not simply be afixed, narrow program of specialized offerings confined to academic study of thedisciplines, but that curriculum in community education should also includecommunity-based teaching and learning (p. 28). Similar views were expressed by thetheorists discussed above (Clapp, 1939, Olsen, 1945, 1954, Irwin & Russell, 1971, etc.).Warden (1975) expressed the hope that community-based study and action couldprovide active opportunities to develop solutions to local problems and also to assistthe learner to grapple with the "deeper meaning to life" (p. 28). Warden did notstipulate what the attributes of deeper meaning might be in terms of curricularexperiences.12Warden (1975) theorized that there were connections which needed to be madebetween curriculum development in community education and the processes ofcommunity educating (pp. 30-31). Community educators have argued that thesignificant outcomes of community education are those of emerging process and notthose of products (Minzey & LeTarte, 1979). Warden stated that the linking ofcommunity education with curriculum development would have several implications.These included: (1) the design of curricular experiences which were also process-oriented, (2) the provision of active, direct curricular activities related to local needsand problems, (3) the opportunity for learner-directed dialogue about community-basedneeds and problems, (4) the need for direct involvement of the learner with thecommunity, and (5) the reconceptualization of teacher education programs incommunity education (Ibid., pp. 30-31). He further stated that curriculum developersin community education would need to examine alternative models andconceptualizations of curriculum in order to determine principles and pedagogy whichmore closely resembled community education's intentions as traditional models wouldnot be entirely applicable (Ibid., p. 31).In the same issue of this journal which carried Warden's article, Olsen (1975)provided a succinct summary of his theory of life-centering curriculum (pp. 35-41).The summary of his theory continues to resonate with the request that risks areneeded in order to directly incorporate the fundamental concerns of living intocurricular content (poverty, family life, suitable employment) which truly reflected theevents and conditions of the community of the learner (p. 36). Olsen (1975) did notbelieve that this should imply the complete elimination of all traditional schoolsubjects, but, rather, a reconceptualization of the utility of subject designations and13subject matter in order to better link out-of-school experience with the knowledgecontained in the discipline (p. 36).Olsen (1975) suggested that enduring life concerns and problems are the chief,generic "activity areas to which people give most of their time, energy, effort andworry throughout their lives" (p. 36). The article is a useful, brief introduction tonovice community educators although it may be difficult to discern the directconnections with community education theory. Olsen's theory of life-centeredcurriculum is a blend of progressive education theory and community educationtheory.In 1982, Cook stated that the interaction between curriculum and communityeducation would suggest a reconceptualization of the traditional thought aboutcurriculum content and delivery (p. 18). His observation was not new, but it was atimely statement to those who were unacquainted with the works of pioneers likeClapp (1939) and Olsen (1945) in that the author recommended that curriculum incommunity education would provide a radical approach due to some of its differencesfrom traditional school. Cook's article restated the hope of early writers in thatcurriculum would not be just the academic pursuit of knowledge. Again Cook's (1982)feelings reiterate thateducation would not pass through and out of the phase of consideringsubject matter interests as different aspects or elements or emphases ofman's living, to a study of life, including nature and society" (Clapp,1939, p. 52).Unfortunately, he offered no new directives or methodologies to communityeducators. His two-page article drew on Olsen and Clark's (1977) concept of the life-14concerns core curriculum and he recommended that instruction would be best providedthrough experiential or action learning approaches (Cook, 1982, p. 19). However, ifexperiential learning refers primarily to hands-on activities, then print-style learnersmight be at a disadvantage in community school settings.This summary illustrated the limited material related to curriculum incommunity education; especially in terms of curriculum theory development.Curriculum has been characterized as community-based, experientially-based, andpragmatically-aware of the utilitarian function of knowledge. There is a furtherimplication that curricular experiences would not be merely an "added-on program"(Williams, 1981) in that curriculum inside and outside of the classroom would havecommunity life infused in an across-the-curriculum approach.Summary The above discussion was provided to briefly describe some of the previoustheorizing in curriculum in community education to illuminate the limited amount oftheorizing in this field. Although the actual development of alternative models ofcurriculum development and delivery are limited, these community educators didexpress the belief that curriculum in community education would be, somehow,different from that experienced by learners in what is known as traditional schooling.The Objectives and Organization of This Theoretical StudyThe major intent of this study was to extend the discussion about curriculum incommunity education. The six objectives of this study are listed below. (Chapter(s)directly related to each objective are identified in parentheses.)(1)^the identification of the propositions (statements) of an inductive argument toexplain the theory of community education (Chapters 2 and 3);15(2) the production of a congruent inductive argument to hypothesis to explaincurriculum in community education based on propositions identified in (1)(Chapter 4);(3) the translation of the propositions of the inductive argument framed forcurriculum in community education into principles for development ofcurricular experiences (Chapter 4)(4) the restatement of the principles as evaluation criteria with application to ahypothetical case study to illustrate curriculum in community education(Chapter 5);(5) the introduction of a definition for curriculum in community education(Chapter 6); and,(6)^the recommendation of areas for further theorizing about curriculum incommunity education (Chapter 6).Rationale for This Study This study was conducted for the following reasons.To Add to the Theoretical DiscussionAs theories of curriculum in community education are few, this study wasconducted to add to the body of literature which has not had a major infusions sinceOlsen and Clark (1977). The previous discussion of curriculum in communityeducation demonstrated that theorizing has been limited mainly to one key individual- Dr. Edward Olsen. Thus, it would seem there is a need for further curriculumdevelopment.16To Provide Reflective Discussion Materials for PractitionersSimpson and Jackson (1984) argued that the role of the teacher is more thanpossession of knowledge about classroom management, developmental stages oflearning, and subject-matter mastery. They considered that the teacher is alsoinvolved in curricular activities and responsibilities which require makingphilosophical judgements (p. 5). Although Simpson and Jackson are not communityeducators, the observation does apply to community education because communityeducators will be involved directly with community issues as community-basedcurriculum will draw on the local problematique for content and experience. Thelikelihood of making philosophical (that is, ethical, logical and rationallycompassionate) judgements will be increased as teaching and learning become moredirectly immersed in issues (poverty, unemployment, racism, sexism) which requireknowledge and action on the part of community educators. As teaching and learningbecome more directly linked with community life, as techniques and content aremodified to reflect that community life, and as evaluation is made of the effectivenessof curricular experiences to change community life, then teachers and learners will bemore deeply plunged into the philosophical nature of their shared worlds.Curriculists and practitioners will need to examine their approach to localizedcurricular phenomena. According to Beauchamp (1982), curriculum theories canexplain curricular phenomena through "definition, description and prediction" (p. 26).Community educators need a variety of alternative curriculum models in order toreflect and understand the life of the local community.17To Provide a Conceptualization of Authentic PracticeSome teachers in community schools believed that it was definitely importantto use community resources. This belief was documented and was found to be morestrongly held by teachers in community schools (Williams, 1981, p. 78). Yet, it hasbeen further documented that teachers in community schools seldom changed theirpractice or were unable to articulate what exact changes were required to produce acurricular approach congruent with community education theory (Olsen, 1947;Williams, 1981; Clark, 1982; Cook, 1982; Wear, 1982; Jones & Falkenberg, 1989).If teachers do believe that their role in community schools is one which shouldbe based on "different curricular expectations" (Williams, 1981, p. 88), the curriculumand instruction should somehow reflect these differences. Theorizing could help toarticulate these subtle, or not so subtle, differences.To Produce Criteria for EvaluationSeveral Ministries of Education and district school boards in Canada sanction acommunity-based curriculum approach in funded community school programs:(Alberta Community School Programme, 1981; Saskatchewan Community SchoolsProgram, 1980; Greater Victoria School District #61 District-Wide CommunityEducation Project, 1988; Winnipeg Community Education Development Association,1979; York [Ontario] Board of Education Community School Program, 1989; and theNewfoundland Experimental Pilot Project Community School Program, 1991).Extensive freedom of choice is indicated in statements from these provincially fundedprograms with recommendations made for curricular activities such as those found inAlberta's Interdepartmental Community School Committee document aboutcommunity school operation. This document contained suggestions for field trips,18local studies, resource speakers, study of issues (racism, ageism), use of communityresources, adult basic literacy classes, across-age tutoring, and parental/guardianinvolvement (1983, p. 18).Principles and evaluation criteria, developed through this study, could helppractitioners to assess the nature of the differences sought in curriculum andinstruction. For example, in 1953, Krug stated that "casual observation of acommunity-based field trip" may not clearly highlight the relative nature of thecommunity orientation in content and objectives which the teacher may be striving tocreate (p. 92). Thus, an understanding of the nature of curriculum in communityeducation is crucial because, according to Krug (1953),when field trips are conducted and resource speakers used merely toactivate study or interest or to provide variety in learning activities,these may be considered 'good' features of any instructional programrather than identifying characteristics of a community school (p. 92).Thus, evaluation criteria could assist practitioners to identify aspects of the 'good'features of community-based learning as implemented in a community educationsetting.Research QuestionsThe seven research questions which guided this theoretical study are statedbelow.(1) What are the essential features of community education?(2) What are the propositions (statements) of an inductive argument to hypothesisto explain community education theory?19(3) What are the propositions of a parallel inductive argument to hypothesis whichcould explain a theory of curriculum in community education?(4) What principles for a theory of curriculum in community education aresuggested from the propositions of the developed parallel inductive argument?(5) How could the application of these principles to curriculum design assistcommunity educators to achieve the objectives of a community educationprogram?(6) What evaluation criteria for curriculum in community education are suggestedfrom the developed principles?(7)^What definition (terms and meaning) is suggested from this theory ofcurriculum in community education?The Decision to Make a Theoretical Study The study was based on the analysis of the writings of important theorists.This decision to work downwards from theory was made to accommodate theperceived incomplete knowledge of community education theory at the practitionerlevel (MacGregor, Personal Communication, Feb., 1992). This analysis worked"downwards" from community education theory rather than from the "grassroots" ofpractice because studies have documented that knowledge of community theory wasincomplete at the practitioner level (Williams, 1981; Clark, 1982; Wear, 1983). Thus,interviews with practitioners or observations of practice were not part of the study.The Type of Theoretical Curriculum Study Walker (1982) suggested that there are four types of curriculum theories:program rationalization, rationalization of procedures, conceptualization of curricularphenomena, and explanation of curricular phenomena (p. 63). Walker described20program rationalization to consist of "contents, aims, and approaches to education" (p.63). The second theory provided a justified explanation of procedures to constructcurriculum. Walker (1982) used Bobbit's (1918) use of management techniques toillustrate this theory of curriculum development. His third theory ofconceptualization, which contained no specific prescriptions for curriculum orinstruction, was intended to provide "helpful ways of thinking about curriculum" (p.63). The fourth theory of explanation made scholarly attempts to analyze and explainchanges which occurred in curriculum and instruction; for example, the appearance of"new" math or the dropping of the teaching rhetoric.This theoretical study about curriculum in community education most closelyresembled the third type of theory described by Walker (1982) because it intended toassist practitioners to conceptualize, that is, to provide a vision of curriculum andinstruction as related to the field of community education.Limitations of This StudyThis research was not designed to:(1) evaluate current levels of practice in curriculum in community education;(2) examine theoretical curricular frameworks outside of the field of communityeducation;(3) identify implications for teacher education;(4) offer a critique of community education theory; or,(5)^provide "how-to" instructions for practice.Definition of TermsFor the purposes of this study, the following definitions were used:1.^Community Education: Community education is defined as a series ofactivities through which community members interacting together identify21individual needs, common problems and concerns, and available resources. Thecommunity members make use of those resources to generate alternativemethods for meeting needs, solving problems and resolving concerns. Thepurpose of this interaction is to gain a greater sense of influencing what goeson about them as well as gain greater control of themselves. It is the sense ofcommunity which creates a learning atmosphere where all those whoparticipate can benefit from the utilization of the available resources. In suchan atmosphere, the sense of common purpose, the awareness of commonalities,encourages the discovery of needs and resources, which greatly enhance theacquisition of information and knowledge. It also provides encouragement ofconceptual skills such as problem solving, conflict management, etc.(Piotrowski, 1975, p. 14).2. Community: A group of people who share awareness of their commonalitiesand participate in the process of meeting mutual needs (Piotrowski, 1975,p. 14).3. Curriculum: Curriculum refers to the purpose, content, practices andevaluation of curriculum in community education. The purpose is a statementof educational aims which have a basis in an ideological framework. Thecontent refers to the information, knowledge, values, history, etc., to be studied.Practice refers to methods of instruction and learning. Evaluation refers to thestrategies used to assess growth, shortcomings or stagnation.Although debate about the semantics of curriculum definition can bewildersome participants, the curriculist Doll (1989) noted that there is a generally accepteddefinition for curriculum. He defined curriculum as "the formal and informal contentand processes by which learners gain knowledge and understanding, develop skills,and alter attitudes, and appreciations, and values under the auspices of that school"(p. 8). However, in community education curriculum is not limited to just theauthority of the school. Consequently, such a definition overlooks the community-wide nature of curriculum in community education. Thus, the standard definition ofcurriculum was not used for this study.4.^Curriculum Theory: A set of related statements, or propositions, that givesmeaning to the phenomena related to the concept of curriculum (Beauchamp,1982, p. 24).225.^Educative Community: A community characterized as one where collaborativeefforts of "all of the formal and informal organizations, agencies, andindividuals" are evidently in use to produce community betterment and an"acceptable quality of life for all citizens" (Winecoff & Lyday, 1991, p. 8).SummaryIn this chapter the need for additional curriculum theorizing in communityeducation was argued. The brief summary of previous curriculum development workin the field of community education confirms Wear's (1982) observation. Wear (1982)stated that community educators are more often doers and organizers, but seldomtheorizers; in fact, "Swimming or even wading in philosophy of education orcurriculum theory is rare" (p. 6). Thus, this theoretical study was developed to extendthe field of curriculum theorizing in community education as indicated by theproblems identified in this field. These included the lack of theoretical exploration,the lack of congruent theory between community education and a companioncurriculum, and the need to develop new models of curriculum theory in communityeducation. For curriculum and community to be more closely related requires theresources of theory to explain and interpret perceptions and actions in curriculum andinstruction.23CHAPTER 2: DESIGN METHODOLOGYThe Need to Formulate Additional Theoriesof Curriculum in Community EducationThe Canadian curriculist McCutcheon (1982) observed that educators are inneed of curriculum theories. Curriculum theories can guide educators to envision anorganizational framework which can facilitate new perceptions by creating new"alternative courses of action" (p. 20). Her statement can be applied to communityeducation as well. What might a curriculum in community education look like? Thepurpose of this study was to create a theory of curriculum in community educationfrom the collective writings of prominent American community educators.Statement of the ProblemAt present, there are numerous practical suggestions for curriculum; however,congruency, origin of or sources and lack of testable models are absent in curriculumdevelopment in community education. This problem was identified by two methods.The personal experience of the researcher, while a teacher consultant for eight yearswith the Alberta Community School Program (1981 - 1989), indicated that there werelimited theoretical resources about curriculum in community education to use withteachers for the purposes of personal or group in-servicing. The lack of theoreticalresearch in curriculum in community education was further identified through areview of the literature to discover previous curriculum work in this field. This firstliterature review - a synthesized critique of the status of knowledge of a researchproblem - documented the limited curriculum theorizing evident to date in curriculumin community education. The results of this literature review were discussed inChapter 1.24These research questions were used to guide this theoretical analysis and werefirst introduced in Chapter 1.(1) What are the essential (generic) features of community education?(2) What are the propositions of an inductive argument to hypothesis to explain atheory of community education?(3) What are the propositions of a parallel inductive argument to hypothesis whichcan explain a theory of curriculum in community education?(4) What principles for a theory of curriculum in community education aresuggested from the propositions of this parallel inductive argument?(5) How will application of these principles to curriculum design assist communityeducators to achieve desired outcomes.(6) What evaluation criteria for curriculum in community education are suggestedfrom the principles?(7)^Is a definition (term and meaning) suggested from this theory?The following discussion described the sequence of steps used to answer theseresearch questions.ProceduresA research design refers to the thoughtful plan and structure of theinvestigation to be conducted (McMillan & Schumacher, 1989, p. 30). The researchdesign used in this study consisted of several steps. Firstly, a problem was sensed incurriculum in community education and then developed through discussion with otherpractitioners and a literature review. Secondly, generic features of communityeducation theory were identified through a literature review. This phase can beidentified as data collection. Then, parallel inductive arguments to hypothesis were25developed for community education and curriculum in community education.Fourthly, principles, evaluation criteria and a definition were generated forcurriculum in community education. The following discussion provides a moredetailed description of the research design.Formulation of the Inductive Argument to HypothesisFramed for Community Education and Curriculum in Community EducationThe methodology used to develop the two inductive arguments can besummarized as follows. In Step #1, the generic features of the theory of communityeducation were identified through a literature review of 30 selections by 23 Euro-American male and 1 female theorists. A series of codes were devised to identify theessential characteristics which community educator Maurice Seay described asthreads which "appear again and again in a great variety of programs in widelyseparated geographical regions" (1972, p. 16). As suggested by McMillan andSchumacher (1989), these codes were developed as the selections were read for themes,patterns or repeated ideas without forcing the data into some predetermined apioriframework (p. 417). Thus, theoretical constructs were deduced from theories in thefield.In the second step, propositions (that is, statements) were formulated from thefeatures identified in Step 1. A proposition is a statement which is either true orfalse and is used to developed arguments wherein a statement; which, it can beclaimed, "logically follows from the others" (Barry & Soccio, 1988, p. 292). For thepurposes of this study, all statements were accepted as "true" based on the strength ofsupport received in the analysis of the literature in the sense that they were essentialor frequently occurring features identified by the theorists.26In the third step, these propositions were organized as premises and aconclusion for an inductive argument to hypothesis for community education. Aseries of questions were devised to guide the formulation of the propositions. Thisstep will be discussed in further detail in a following section.In the four step, these propositions were used to formulate a parallel argumentto hypothesis for curriculum in community education. Fifthly, these propositions wererestated as principles and evaluation criteria for a theory of curriculum in communityeducation.The Inductive Argument to Hypothesis Copti discussed the two types of arguments. These are deductive and inductivearguments. Both arguments consist of two parts: premises and conclusion. Premisesare propositions (statements) which provide evidence for a conclusion. The conclusionis the propositional statement which identifies the outcome (Copti, 1982, pp. 5 - 7).The deductive argument is one which asserts that its premises will provide"conclusive grounds" for a claim made (Copti, 1982, p. 54). A variation of the classicalexample of the deductive argument isAll humans are mortal.Maurice Seay is a human.Therefore, Maurice Seay is mortal.Thus, a particular conclusion about Seay is inferred (validly) from the premises given.The second type of argument is known as the inductive argument. In theinductive argument "a general or universal conclusion is inferred from premises all ofwhich are particular propositions" (Copti, 1982, p. 52). This is a variation of aclassical example of the inductive argument.27Elsie Clapp is human and mortal.Edward Olsen is human and mortal.Jack Minzey is human and mortal.Therefore, probably all humans are mortal.In this style of argumentation the conclusion is only claimed to follow from statedpropositions with some degree of likelihood (Copti, 1982, p. 54). Community educationcan be viewed as an inductive argument in that a conclusion (that is, outcome) is saidto follow from certain inputs (which are, propositions).One form of the inductive argument is the inductive argument to hypothesis.The inductive argument is an inductive form of argument where a tentativeconclusion is reached which relates and explains a group of statements (Barry &Soccio, 1988, p. 227). The phrase, inductive argument to hypothesis, appears clumsy tosome readers, but that is the term used. Community education can be viewed as aninductive argument to hypothesis in that it attempts to explain a likely outcome ifparticular events and conditions were available to create planned, educative andeducated changes in the quality of life for community members at the communitylevel. No one can predict with complete certainty what would occur, but communityeducators have attempted to posit the likelihood of particular outcomes, encapsulatedin the conclusion of the inductive argument to hypothesis, of what might occur ifcertain events or conditions were to be actualized.Data CollectionData refers to the results which are gathered through research processes fromwhich conclusions and interpretations can be made (McMillan & Schumacher, 1989,p.534). In this case, the data collected are those features which occurred with a high28frequency in the literature review. The features are the source of the propositions inthe parallel inductive arguments.Sources of the PropositionsAn examination and synthesis were made of five decades (1939 - 1989) ofreadings in the American tradition of the field of community education. Achronological listing of sources is located in Appendix 1, which is a selection ofreasonably well-known authors in the field. The readings were searched to locatedefinitional work related to the concept of community education. Readings werelocated, keeping in mind a warning from Fletcher and Thompson (1980) who are twoBritish community education theorists. They stated that[d]espite some fifty years of activity . . . there are remarkably few readilyaccessible writings. This is in part because it is a minority commitment,partly because its practitioners have devoted most, if not all, of theirenergies to the tasks in hand and partly because as a movement most ofwhat has been written has had a limited circulation (Fletcher &Thompson, 1980, p. 1).With this caution in mind, the literature was selected to locate what are known astheoretical definitions.A theoretical definition is one where attempts are made to adequatelycharacterize or scientifically describe a phenomenon (Copti, 1982, pp. 152-153). Thus,texts (books and articles) were examined to locate theoretical definitions.The search for theoretical definitions began with the location of bibliographiesor surveys of the literature. The results of a study by Wood and Neat (1988) indicatedthat the most cited texts were as follows:291. Minzey & LeTarte's 1972/1979 CE: From Program to Process to Practice(10/22)2. CE Journal (8/22)3. Mott foundation films (5/22)4. Kerensky & Melby's Education II. The Social Imperative (4/22)5. Berridge, Stark & West, 1977, Training the CE (3/22)6. Clark & Olsen, 1977, Life-Centering Education (3/22)These results were obtained from 22 of 35 questionnaires circulated to universitiesand colleges with community education programs. These texts were available forstudy from libraries and the personal collections of the researcher and colleagues.Another community education researcher, Ledford, conducted a study in 1988which indicated that no new textbooks have been published since 1979. Kerensky's1989, The Sovereign. New Perspectives on People. Power, and Public Education, waspublished just after Ledford's study was completed. Ledford (1988) noted that Seay's1974 text, Community Education: A Developing Concept, seemed to have the mostcomprehensive information about community education. He further identified theMinzey and LeTarte text as the second most comprehensive text for communityeducators (Ledford, 1988). They were located in libraries and read as starting points.Ledford's analysis of texts in the field of community education spanned 1969 to1983. He concluded that there appeared to be no specific changes or notable trendsover time in the content of text (Ledford, 1988). He stated that the study resultsrelated to the lack of evident change could indicate that community education was astagnant or stable field or that the time interval chosen for the study was too brief(Ledford, 1988, p. 28).30It would be unfortunate if only one analysis, that is, Ledford's (1988), set thestandard to describe the field. However, Martin (1987) commented that "it is nowpossible to locate various distinctive patterns in this historical development of CE" (p.11). A reading list was developed and confirmed by Dr. Inge Williams to begin thesearch for these generic features or distinctive trends in the literature. The selectionof readings was also confirmed through correspondence with Dr. Edward Olsen whostated that he "was impressed by [the] comprehensive survey of the literature and[the] critical evaluation of its major emphases" made by this researcher in thistheoretical study (Personal communication, June 5, 1992).Identification of the Generic Features and Propositions From the Literature ReviewFive questions were used to identify, organize and order data - elements of theexpressed relationship between inputs (premises) and outcome (conclusion) - collectedthrough the literature review. McMillan and Schumacher (1989) described theorganization of data as an intuitive process based on divergent thought and logicalanalysis (p. 417). The questions used to guide the organization of the data are shownin Column I of Table 1 and the expressed relationship is shown in Column II of thesame table. Column III listed the type of premise, that is evidence or conclusion,developed. Thus data was collected, sorted and ordered into logical categories toformulate a sequence for community education's process-orientation.The questions used were based on reasonableness, and on discussion withcommunity education practitioners, as no models appeared to be evident with which todevelop questions. Thus, an expressed relationship was developed to identify location,time interval or duration, methods, and characteristics to produce a likely outcome(s)for community educating. That is, propositions were stated as premises to focus thisTable 1^Guiding Questions, Expressed Relationship and Types of Propositions of an Inductive ArgumentFramed to Explain Community EducationIGuiding Questions1. Where can communityeducation occur?2. When can communityeducation occur?IIThe Expressed Relationshipof This Inductive ArgumentIF Actions to create definedoutcomes occur in a definedsettingIF Actions occur at particulartime intervalsIIIPremises and ConclusionIdentificationLocation Premise(Evidence)Time Intervals/Duration Premise(Evidence)3. How can the purpose(s) ofcommunity education beachieved?4. What is/are characteristic(s) ofeffective communityeducating?5. What is/are the purpose(s) ofcommunity education?IF Particular method(s) are usedto achieve the definedoutcomesIF Particular characteristic(s) areevident among participantsTHEN Potential outcomes ofCommunity Education arelikely to occurMethod(s) RequiredPremise(s)(Evidence)Characteristic(s)Premise(s)(Evidence)THEN, CONCLUSIONDesired Outcomes32interpretation of an argument to illustrate the hypothesis that if communityeducating occurred in a designated location during a particular time interval usingparticular methods under certain conditions, then there is a likelihood that thepotential outcomes of community education will occur."Strength" or "Weakness" of the PropositionsThe identification of generic features was needed to formulate propositions.Highly similar features were grouped in categories which were distinct, neither toobroad nor too limited, and related to the guiding questions. A summary of this datacollection is provided in Appendix III. An inductive argument is developed in termsof its strength or weakness. Not all items located in the data collection wereincluded.Strongly Supported Propositions. If 16 or more of the 30 selections (50 - 100percent) provided statements which supported a feature, it was adopted and used todevelop a proposition for the argument.Weakly Supported Propositions. Features were considered not supported if notheorists provided statements of evidence of a particular event or characteristic.Weakly supported features were those where 1 to 15 of the 30 selections hadstatements related to a feature. For example, although environmental issues are nowgenerally deemed crucial, only a few of the selected theorists noted the need fornatural resource conservation or protection (Olsen, 1945; Seay, 1953; Totten, 1970).Thus, the feature of environmental caretaking could not be included in thedevelopment of this argument, although it could be strongly argued that this aspect ofcommunity educating would need to be included based on the current status ofenvironmental vulnerability.33Formulation of a Parallel Inductive Argument to Hypothesis for Curriculum in Community EducationOnce the inductive argument to hypothesis had been used to develop a theoryof community education, a parallel argument to hypothesis was developed forcurriculum in community education. This was done through examination of thepremises of the inductive argument to hypothesis to determine their relationship tocurriculum in community education. These premises had identified the location, timeinterval, methods and characteristics for community education. The same fourelements were related to curriculum in community education.The inductive argument to hypothesis began with an analysis to discoverwhether or not location was also relevant to curriculum theorizing. Did curriculumand instruction require a particular location in curriculum in community education?As a specific location might be necessary for community educating, then one might berelevant to curriculum theorizing. For example, if the literature search revealed thata rural location would be needed, then the parallel inductive argument to hypothesisfor curriculum in community education would also include a rural location.The second element of time interval was also considered for relevance andsensibility. Did curriculum and instruction require implementation at a specific timeinterval or intervals? As a specific time might be necessary for community educating,the specification of a time interval or duration might be needed in theorizing incurriculum in community education. For example, if the literature search revealedthat community educating was a lifelong activity, then this element was also includedin the argument for curriculum in community education.34The third element was related to methods suggested for effective communityeducating. These would also be examined to see if identification of particular methodsalso related to the development of curriculum in community education. Didcurriculum and instruction require the use of any or all pedagogical practices? Orwould community education narrow the field of curriculum in community education?If particular events are necessary to actualize community education, then it could beargued that these particular events must also be present in curriculum instruction.For example, if the literature search revealed that dialogue and experiential learningwere necessary for community educating, then these were included in the argumentfor curriculum in community education.Finally, any characteristics identified for community education were analyzedfor their relevance to curriculum in community education. Did curriculum andinstruction require that certain characteristics were needed to enhance communityeducating? These identified characteristics were examined to determine theirrelevance in the development of an inductive argument to hypothesis for curriculumin community education. For example, if the literature search revealed thatcompassion was an essential feature of effective community educating, then thedevelopment of the parallel argument would ensure that this element was included incurriculum in community education.Thus, the two inductive arguments were developed as mirror or twinarguments without addition to or omission from the parent argument for the theory ofcommunity education. In this way, the origin of this theory of curriculum incommunity education could be clearly identified and understood. This methodology35was chosen to address the problems of congruency and origin identified in thestatement of the problem.Formulation of Principles and Evaluation Criteria The propositions of the inductive argument were used to construct principlesand evaluation criteria. The concept of a principle was not meant to be usedprescriptively, but rather as a guideline (Olsen, 1950). Each principle was worded andreworded several times for clarity and to ensure that essential information was notlost in the translation. These were presented and discussed in Chapter 4.The concept of evaluation criteria was used to designate standards which wouldbe evident if this particular theory of curriculum in community education was inoperation. The questions or statements could be developed as closed or open formitems (McMillan& Schumacher, 1989, p. 258). In a closed form type of question orstatement the participant must chose among predetermined items, where in the openform of question or statement the participant may write or give oral answers in anyresponse they want (McMillan & Schumacher, 1989, p. 258).The evaluation criteria were developed as open-ended questions to avoid theinfluence of predetermined responses on closure. The question format used for theevaluation criteria are fairly broad and can be identified as semi-structured questionswhich would follow specified categories. These follow the direction of the principlesdeveloped for curriculum in community education (McMillan & Schumacher, 1989, pp.266-267). The semi-structured question is one which is open-ended "but is fairlyspecific in its intent" (McMillan & Schumacher, 1989, p. 267). This format was chosenso as to be specific in intent but to still allow opportunity for data not yet consideredto surface.36The principles were not applied to evaluate an actual test case study as nocommunity school has yet adopted these principles. Thus, the evaluation criteriawere applied to a hypothetical case study developed for this thesis study. These wereexamined, presented and discussed in Chapter 5. The researcher made the decision toinvent and discuss a hypothetical case study to provide the reader with a sense ofwhat this theory of curriculum in community education might be like in practice.Consideration of an Appropriate DefinitionA final intention of this study was the development of a definition forcurriculum in community education. Barry and Soccio (1988) identified fiveguidelines, "not commandments", for creating a term and meaning for a phenomenon(p. 50). According to their guideline, an acceptable definition is one which providesessential features, is not too broad or limited, not circular, not obscure or vague andnot expressed in the negative (Barry & Soccio, 1988, pp. 50-51). Keeping theseguidelines in focus, analysis was made of the propositions of the argument forcurriculum in community education, the resultant principles and evaluation criteria.According to Copti (1982) a definition has two parts. The first part is called thedefiniendum which refers to the term used (Copti, 1982, p. 148). For example,community education is a term which refers to a philosophy of education. Thedefiniens is the meaning assigned to the term (Ibid., p. 148).An assessment was first made to decide whether or not the field of curriculumin community education required another definiendum - without creating more jargon- and definiens for community educating activity related to curricular opportunities.Secondly, previous definitions were re-examined to assess their accuracy. On thebasis of findings discovered through this examination, a final decision was made as to37the need for a new definition and term. It was understood that it would be necessaryto create the definition from discoveries made in this study to create furthercongruency. Thus, the definiens would be based on the generic features containedwithin the propositions of the inductive argument framed for curriculum incommunity education.SummaryThis chapter has provided an overview of common terminology to be usedthroughout the thesis - for example, premise, proposition, inductive argument,definiens - and the overall research design of this theoretical study. The proceduresused to create solutions for the research problems were outlined and described andfollow established guidelines for research which includes problem formation, datacollection, development of a hypothesis, application of research findings (albeit to ahypothetical case study) and presentation of the findings (McMillan & Schumacher,1989). These procedures included: a purposeful literature review to identify theextent of the research problem, data collection to identify generic features ofcommunity education, development of the inductive arguments to hypothesis, creationof principles and evaluation criteria and the generation of a definition for curriculumin community education.The methodology was developed to answer the question: What mightcurriculum in community education look like? The answer was presented as a theory,which was defined by Delese Wear and Dale Cook (1982), community educators, as "apossibility, an invitation to consider existing or future phenomena; it is a frameworkon which to begin thought" (p. 5). As yet, no community education theorist haschosen this approach to develop a theory of curriculum in community education.38CHAPTER 3: REVIEW AND ANALYSIS OF SELECTED WRITINGSIntroductionThe purpose of this review and analysis of the writings was to locate definitionsof community education in order to locate the constructs of this theory of education.American community education theorists were aware of internal struggles to definethe concept. According to Seay (1974) the concept seemed mirage-like because of "itsall inclusive nature and breach of old habits" (p. 10). By "all inclusive", Seay referredto the interdisciplinary nature of the field which, at times, merged and borrowed fromfields like community development, community planning, education, political scienceand other areas not traditionally considered within the realm of education. Decker(1972) observed that in its infancy community education "begged, borrowed, or stolefrom other disciplines to suit its needs" (p. 209). Minzey and LeTarte (1979) agreedthat borrowing had occurred, but that this did not make particular disciplinessynonymous with community education. For example, they argued that communityeducation and community development are not be considered equal (Minzey &LeTarte, 1979, p. 20). The discussion within the field appeared to have been anattempt to establish the uniqueness of community education as a philosophy, amovement and an educational process and not merely a set of add-on school programs(Ibid., p. 31).The British community education philosopher and theorists, Allen (1987)observed that community education appeared to be a concept which was "problematicand contested despite its widespread currency" (p. 22). Although there appears to bedifficulties with definition (not unique to this field) and acceptance, there are39currently 85 members countries of the International Community EducationAssociation who have adopted this philosophy of education.Eric Batten (1981), British community education theorist, stated thatcommunity education appeared to be vaguely shaped with "no general organizingtheory within a country" (p. 27). Yet, he considered the efforts of communityeducators worldwide to be significant enough to "redirect educational policy andpractice in ways which bring education into a closer and more equal relationship"with the issues and needs of their own area (p. 2). Thus, this study attempted toidentify, firstly, the generic features of this theory.Despite the "nebulous nature" and seeming imprecision of definition (Minzey &LeTarte, 1979, p. 38), this study was able to locate the recurrent themes alluded to byAmerican theorists like Maurice Seay (1972) and Ledford (1988). The locations ofthese themes was necessary to proceed to the next step of this research design, that is,to formulate propositions for the parallel inductive arguments to hypothesis.This chapter has provided a discussion of the research findings based on thisanalysis of the writings of major American contributors to the field of communityeducation during the period 1939-1989. The findings are presented in two parts. PartI has presented the conclusion, that is, the intended outcomes or end envisioned bycommunity education theorists. Part II has presented the premises (that is,propositions of support) identified through this analysis which described the events orconditions (means) which would enable achievement of the outcomes.The Overall Argument of Community EducationCommunity education can be reconstructed as an inductive argument whichattempts to explain a relationship where participants interact in certain ways and use40methods to achieve desired outcomes in a specified location over time. Simplified thiscan be stated: if particular elements are in place, then particular outcomes areexpected. Of course, charting such theoretical terrain can be risky since humanpsychology and motivation are difficult to predetermine. Community educationtheorists are well aware of the voluntary and unpredictable depths of human nature,but have continued to offer this argument to discuss a pedagogy of possibility tocreate transformative change and social justice.This chapter has presented a discussion of this five part relationship describedabove. Included in this discussion are the following elements: location, time interval,methods, characteristics and outcomes. The outcomes have been encapsulated in theconclusion statement of the argument and are located at item #8 on Table 2. Thepropositions, which serve as premises, have been presented in Items #1 to #7 onTable 2. Table 2 was prepared to offer the reader an overview of this argumentationdeveloped from analysis of the 30 selected readings.This chapter will, firstly, offer the reader a description of the conclusion and,secondly, provide a review of the seven propositions in the numerical order listed onTable 2.Part I: Discussion of the ConclusionThe Deduction of the ConclusionThe conclusion reads:Then community members are likely to create self-determined transformativechange and social justice.The conclusion was formulated from data collected to answer the question:What is/are the purpose(s) of community education? In this case, purpose referred to41Table 2^Premises and Conclusion of an Inductive Argument to HypothesisFramed to Explain the Relationship of Characteristics and Eventsin Community Education.5. TIME DURATION (Characteristic)3. PREFERRED METHOD #1 (Event)4. PREFERRED METHOD #2 (Event)5. PREFERRED METHOD #3 (Event)6. PREFERRED QUALITY OFINTERACTION #1 (Characteristic)7. PREFERRED QUALITY OFINTERACTION #2 (Characteristic)8. CONCLUSIONDesired Outcome(s)IIPremises and ConclusionIFCommunity members study their needs,problems and concerns and create actionswhich have an extra community awareness ofinfluences and consequences.AND, IFCommunity members recognize and acceptthemselves and each other as lifelongteachers and learners (community educators).AND, IFCommunity members use problem-solvingmethods to meet needs and resolve problems.AND, IFCommunity members use collaborativeteaching and learning (that is, educationalactivism) to create educated, educative andenduring solutions.AND, IFCommunity members respect the ideals ofand use the methods of participatorydemocracy for cooperative problem-solving.AND, IFCommunity members respectfully involve allages in dialogue, study, planning, problem-solving, evaluation, shared decision makingand other aspects of community education.AND, IFCommunity members recognize and accepteach other as equal (egalitarian) partners.THENCommunity members are likely to create self-determined transformative change and socialjustice.IElement of The TheoreticalRelationship1. LOCATION (Characteristic)42the general good of community education. The following discussion addressed thethree features of the conclusion. These three features were: social justice,transformative change and self-determination. These features will be discussed inthis order.Social JusticeA variety of phrases and statements were located which included the concept ofsocial justice (that is, just and right relations and actions among community membersto provide a basic quality of life). Totten (1970) offered a summary of aims whichencapsulated those mentioned by the other theorists. He described the outcomes ofchange as those which would counteract the perceived alienation produced byurbanization, which would create common concerns and actions to resolve thedehumanizing effects generated by social problems (like bigotry and poverty), whichwould afford opportunity to genuine community involve to reduce indifference ofapathy and which would, hopefully, assist in the foundation of a peaceful and lessviolent world civilization (p. 12). He further stated that community members mustalso strive not only for material gain but also "strive for the things worth being" [Hisitalics] (Totten, 1970, p. 148).Several of the community education theorists took issue with what theyperceived to be the alienating and dehumanizing effects of urbanization. Misner(1938) identified a hope that community education could be a means to counteract the"effects of the machine age" and to "transform the potential evils of machinetechnology into human assets" (p. 54). Minzey and LeTarte (1979) also stressed theirbelief that urbanization created ill effects on individuals and communities of apsychological, physical and emotional nature and that the recreation of nurturing43social groupings could reduce the sense of anomie and alienation experienced by someindividuals (pp. 27-29).All of the theorists expressed an optimistic hope that community improvementis possible through the use of educational, collaborative and democratic means toameliorate social injustice and an inequitable quality of life. Olsen (1954) providedthis rationale for community-wide improvement: "The good community is concernedwith the well-being of all its people" [His italics] (p. 69). Thus, the phrase, and socialjustice, was included in this statement of the conclusion to qualify the nature of thehumanitarian change-making sought.In the discussion of social justice by community educators, social justicereferred to the resolution of situations of inequity and debilitated qualify of life (lackof affordable housing or nutritious food or access to decision making) based on"humane values and humanitarian issues" (Seay, 1974, p. 27). The hope for meetingbasic needs was most thoroughly described by Seay in 1953. He specified the needsand problems which community-wide educational processes would address (Ibid., p.11). He identified problem areas in terms of nourishment, clothing, shelter,recreation, physical and mental health, citizenship, morality, religion and work (Ibid.,p. 11). Seay's humanitarianism is evident, although he did not use the term socialjustice and he did not specify with exactitude the minimum standards to be achievedin these areas.The term social justice was used to describe the nature of justice sought bycommunity educators wishing to use educational process to solve these self-identifiedproblems. Olsen (1951) stated that education needed to serve a changing civilizationand would need to be, therefore, dynamic and reorganized around a new "moral-civic-44social" purpose (p. 176). Although he did not use the term social justice, thehyphenated phrase - moral-civic-social - could be interpreted as a basis for improvedquality of life in his further qualification that schools must attend to the "enduringlife needs of the whole person of the whole community" (Ibid., p. 176).Totten (1970) enlarged the concept of social justice by stating that communityeducators may find there is need to "find better ways to distribute and use good andservices to meet the basic needs" (p. 160). In a similar vein, Olsen (1953) discussedthe need for the reconstruction of domestic economics to meet basic needs (p. 28).Thus, community educators were concerned with the poverty of some individualswhich they had witnessed in their local, national and global communities. Together,these writings have formed a tradition of questioning why basic needs had not beenprovided for all individuals in American capitalist society. In 1938, Everett firstobserved that there is struggle for dominance and that this struggle does have rootsin "clear-cut social classes and vested interests" (p. 45).Community educators appeared to believe that social justice would not occurwithout a struggle and there is discussion about the socio-economic and other barrierswhich inhibit positive social interactions (for examples, Olsen, 1945, 1951, 1954;Melby, 1955; Totten, 1970; Minzey & LeTarte, 1979). Community educators expressedconcern about factors like class or caste structures evident in American society (Olsen,1945, pp. 18, 102-107). For example, Olsen (1954) stated that social class is anundeniable reality of American society despite the idealization of equality inAmerican democracy; and, that teachers must actively promote opportunities to studyand understand the effects of these community conditions (p. 106).45Minzey and LeTarte (1979) provided a different perception of affluence. Theystated that community educators must not make judgements about the ability of theindividual or community to solve problems to meet needs on the basis of wealth ordegree of education (p. 131). Totten (1970) identified additional barriers like racism,wealth and class as these could create conflictive situations which could hamperpositive relations and marginalize some individuals in terms of the quality of lifeenjoyed (p. 12). Thus, the barriers to achievement of social justice (a fair andequitable quality of life) were recognized by community educators as inhibiting factorswhich would daunt their expressed goals to attain social justice.As these barriers might remain invisible to some, other community educators,like Melby (1955), Olsen (1954) and Fasheh (1990), have drawn on the goal ofeducation as the search for truth to accent the need to locate the reasons for socialinjustice. The component of social justice is of major significance in the discussion ofthe outcomes envisioned by community educators.Transformative Change Community education is about change. Statements were located in all of the30 selections which supported a need for change for a variety of reasons and outcomes.Minzey and LeTarte (1979) summarized three, basic assumptions about change-making. These included: (1) communities possess the ability to create positivechange, (2) communities have social problems which have solutions, (3) individuals aremotivated to change (Ibid. p. 45). Community education theorists talked about eventsor characteristics which would theoretically create change, or identified events orcharacteristics which had created positve change. These descriptions included the useof phrases which referred to the creation of progress and improvement in community46living (Kirkpatrick, 1938, p. 19); social reconstruction (Clapp. 1939; Olsen, 1945, p. 3);improvement of all aspects of group living (Hanna & Naslund, 1953, p. 52); and,problem solutions obtained through unified social action (Totten, 1970, p. 11).Perhaps, community education could have been called change education orcommunity change education. In 1972, Hiemstra provided a statement whichexpressed the awareness of the pervasiveness of the need for change felt bycommunity educators. He statedThat we now live in an age of rapid change has been said in many waysby many people. Change has become the only inevitability in history,therefore, we must learn to educate for change (Hiemstra, 1972, p. 18).It is this social change which has also brought some social problems. These included,in addition to unmet basic needs, poverty, deteriorating morality, racial unrest,racism, increased crime, population growth, unemployment, health problems andenvironmental degredation (Minzey & LeTarte, 1979, p. 29).These 24 theorists have not focused on education for a particular group ofclients identified with terms like early childhood or adult education, nor did theyfocus on a particular ideology like Montessori Education or experiential learning.Instead, they have focused on establishing connections between education andcommunity betterment through education-based change. The type of changesidentified are for the purposes of community improvement, betterment orreconstruction. These essential goals are not immediately evident in the descriptorcommunity.The term community is used to identify the primary geographical and/or social(that is, interest or other type of collective association) groups a member inhabits and47claims ownership to; that is, his/her point of reference in terms of place andparticipation. The community is envisioned as a place where methods used at thecommunity level could create desired, planned, social change (Seay, 1974). However,to identify the change sought as merely social change would be inadequate. Socialchange is not only an inadequate term, but also a ubiquitous term. Chirot (1989)stated that any event which organized people would normally enact while livingcollectively would constitute a social change if the actions were repeated rather thanepisodic (pp. 760-761). Thus, a more specific term was sought to describe this aspect ofthe end envisioned by community educators.Boles and Seay (1974) distinguished social changes in social institutions fromthose which could be classified as general change as those which would be planned,researched and purposeful (p. 55). They defined a social institution as the ideas,customs or beliefs (ideology) which society valued enough to continue (p. 53). Theycited schooling as an example of an institution. Thus, institutions which were valuedwould endure; however, community living is rife with examples of institutions (likepoverty or sexism) which also endure and it is these institutions which communityeducators needed to dismantled, modified or eliminated.Instead of social change, community educators were seeking transformation.Webster's (1970) defined transform thusly, "to change the condition, nature of functionof (Guralnik, Ed., 1970, p. 1510). This meaning is applicable to the nature of thechange advocated by community educators. Theorists supported the "power ofeducation" to transform their communities in terms of the quality of life and measureof social justice (for examples, Everett, 1938; Clapp, 1939; Seay, 1945, 1953; Olsen,481945; Totten, 1970). Therefore, the term transformative change was chosen forinclusion in the conclusion to identify the quality of social change.Self-determined ChangeAnother strongly supported feature of community education is the belief in theright of the individual to self-determine personal and community events andconditions. Twenty-three of the 30 selections contained statements which emphasizedself-determination. Everett (1938), one of the earliest community education pioneersand philosophers in the field, wrote that genuine "understanding, mutual respect andsignificant accomplishment" to reconstruct community conditions could only resultfrom "self-determined change by community members" (p. 442). Community-basedidentification of problems and community-based action were continuing threadsthroughout the literature. Minzey and LeTarte (1979) stated that community controlis self-determination wherein "responsibility and the decision making authority"returns to the grassroots of the local citizenry (p. 17).All of the theorists identified that the change agent is the individual who mustcooperate, in some fashion, with other members of his/her social group. In 1990,Decker stressed that community members develop as change agents when they havebeen assumed "some responsibility" and have had opportunity for "activeengagement" in communal problem solving (p. 4). Minzey and LeTarte (1979)observed that during the 1970s and the 1980s that there was an increasing valuing ofself-determination and attempts were being made to return "authority to the citizen"(p. 29). This return to local, community-based control was viewed as an empoweringforce and a basic tenet of American democracy, which could enable individuals toincrease control over the issues affecting their lives (Minzey & LeTarte, 1979, p. 29).49These two theorists asserted that the most meaningful and genuine change-makingwould more likely occur if it was created by the community itself (Ibid., p. 35),although they did not qualify this assumption with examples to demonstrate theirpremise. Will community-based, local change always be the most meaningful andeffective?Theorists stressed the necessity of self-determination in a variety of ways.Clapp (1939) provided one of the earliest statements about the need for community-based will and community-based action in terms of community education. She statedthat change cannot meaningfully occur by imposed authority from without or abovethe community levelCommunity education is, from the point of view of the people working init, primarily education of themselves in facing new problems, in workingwith others on these, and, in guiding work upon them. It is here thatlearning is not only shared, but mutual (Clapp, 1939, p. 169).Clapp (1939) continued that the teacher, who is beoming a community educator, mustabandon authority based on role status and expectations, and become a respectedauthority by virtue of his/her knowledge of the community which is confirmed in thecreation of positive actions to improve the quality of life (p. 169). Furthermore, shestated that community education be actualized by planning, design or legislationwhich does not have direct input from those the plans, designs or legislation willaffect.Community education is not brought into being by the putting over of aplan, or by the imposing of ideas. It requires that full recognition begiven to people's desires and needs, feelings and opinions, ways of doing50and thinking; and that the relation of any particular enterprise to otherenterprises and to the whole be currently understood (Clapp, 1939, p.169).Thus, Clapp observed, based on her reflective theorizing about the operation of twoexperimental community schools in the southern U.S., that change must result fromself-determined actions and not from the will of experts alone. This observation alsoillustrated that intended change must be holistic and consider the relationshipsamong conditions and events.Larry Horyna (1990) continued this view in the contemporary literature andstated that "local people are in the best position to identify community needs andwants" (p. 7). Self-determination has an aspect of inclusiveness wherein allcommunity members are to be directly involved in planning and designing change-making. As early as 1938 Hullfish cautioned that community educators must resistany tendency to identify the community with the "partial interests of self-centeredindividuals and groups" (p. 49). Consequently, self-determination has become aningrained tenet in community education theory. Minzey and LeTarte (1979) statedthat a continuing assumption of community education is that people should be "donewith and not to" in relation to creating transformative change [Their italics](p. 113).In some ways this aspect of self-determination is both means and an end. However,the researcher felt that this aspect should receive a more prominent placement in theconclusion because the methods for change-making, recommended by the theorists,always included the element of self-determination.51Summary of Part I This first section of Chapter 3 introduced three features of the outcomesenvisioned in the literature of community education. This end can be described asone which would result from self-determined efforts to create transformative changeand social justice.Part II: Discussion of the Seven PremisesIn this second section, each premise was presented as an italized statement atthe beginning of each discussion.Discussion of Premise #1: LocationCommunity members study their needs, problems and concerns and createactions which have an extra-community awareness of influences andconsequences.The first premise addressed the question: Where can community educationoccur? Statements were located in 28 of the 30 writings which indicated thatcommunity-based study and resolution of social problems to meet basic needs shouldoccur at the community level. Communities are the source of client, content,motivation and action. In 1938, Everett stressed that the community is the primarysetting for educational problem solving (p. 442). In 1939, Clapp also stated that ifcommunity educative is to be effective, localized change making, then individualsmust begin with examination and resolution of local issues first (p. 256). However,change is not limited to a physical locale.Minzey and LeTarte (1979) stated that community must be understood as morethan a location, but rather as a feeling and as a reference to local conditions (p. 21).The potential for the interests of selfish localism to dominate choices made to solve52problems was discouraged by these two theorists. Thirteen of the 24 theorists in 17 ofthe 30 selections stated that the community is not just one of geographic territory.Instead, community is to be interpreted in "all of the broad meaning of that concept inthe local, state, regional, national or international community" (Hanna & Naslund,1953, p. 52). Awareness of the interplay of global influences, effects and consequencesis evident. However, there is little explanation given of techniques needed tominimize the potentially detrimental effects of solutions obtained in one locale, orrecommended methods for regional planning.According to Seay (1953), community-based problem solving could enableindividuals to use skills, values, concepts, experience and knowledge to bear on localand global problems. Thus, it became necessary to add a caveat to this premise whichindicated that community educators are cognizant of the holistic interrelationshipbetween local and global communities. Therefore, the phrase, extra-communityawareness, was added to indicate this extended sense of community-based action.Considerations Related to this Premise The following discussion has addressed considerations the researcher has withthis first premise. Four considerations, that is, points for further reflection, have beendescribed. These include the ambiguity of the concept of community, the difficulty oflocating community boundaries, the complications of attempting to establish unifiedcollective action and the need for extra-community awareness.The Seeming Ambiguity of the Concept of Community. Although communityhas become an imprecise and contested term (Decker, 1972, Martin, 1987), all of thesetheorists used the term to designate a geographical area and/or to characterize a senseof collective identity. All of the theorists also extended the intent of the Socratic53maxim, "Know Thyself" to "Know Thyself in The Community" in terms of whatEverett (1938) had identified as a "shared world setting" (p. 443).Several major trends work against the concept of community. Two of these arepopulation mobility and the anonymity of urban settlement. Minzey and LeTarte(1979) stated that a community does not have a static population because theconstitutents are constantly changing due to "inward and outward migration" (p. 131).In light of factors such as these, the implementation of community education would betwofold. Firstly, individuals would need to experience and understand their self-recognition and identification with a particular 'community'. Secondly, thesecommunity members would need to experience and comprehend their responsibility toand ownership of events and conditions of the problems in their area. However, it isdifficult of imagine that individuals, especially those in urban settings, could bebrought to focus their attention on this setting as a primary source of identity andaction, in light of mobility (for reasons of career, education or other) and barriersengendered in differences like class and other forms of segregation.However, the term continues to be firmly coupled to the term education in thethis field. Community educators appear to use the term to signify the importance ofgrassroots will and action. It would seem necessary, then, to foster positive ways topromote identification with and commitment to improvement of conditions within anarea rather than (or, in combination with) commitment solely concerned withindividualistic or collective pursuits of self-interest. As many community membersnow live in a more associational manner (clubs, occupation, interests, social causes,religious affiliations), individuals appear to be less bound by loyalty to aneighbourhood. A first task of community educators would be that of rebuilding a54consciousness about immediate community. This has been an emphasis throughoutthe literature and has often been discussed as creation of a sense of community, thatis, conscious and intentional group solidarity.Defining the Boundaries. In 1945, Olsen (pp. 43-71) provided one of the mostextensive explanations for the identification of the geographical, material,institutional and psychological dimensions of a community's location, resources andculture. Half of the theorists felt it necessary to discuss methods of conducting acommunity inventory. Fletcher (1990) observed that community education might bebetter labelled locality education (p. 177). Twenty-one of the 24 theorists attempted tolocate these boundaries using the service area of the school; for an example, see Olsen(1945, p. 45). It would seem necessary that community educators would need to decideif the selected area would have fixed or fluid boundaries and whether decisions madeby community members to accept or reject communities as defined by local, rural,municipal, educational or other authorities were required.The feature of extra-community awareness could assist community educators toensure that local control of an area through self-determined actions would not conflictnegatively with the understandings and expectations of the members of othercommunities who may consider an area their territory.The Difficulty of Establishing Unified Community Action. As a communitymembership has diverse interests (social, spiritual, economic, political), these interestsand other factors (racism, classism, sexism, etc.) may alienate community groups andcreate irresolvable conflicts. These same interests and factors may also limit accessto, let alone control of, needed resources and power. O'Hagen (1987) stated that somecommunity educators have overlooked the fact that the community is a contrast of55contradictory impulses (p. 74). He further argued that these difficulties were not theresult of simple misunderstandings, but resulted from inequitable distribution andcontrol of power and resources (O'Hagen, 1987, p. 74).All of the theorists supported the development of common concerns. However,the levelling of political, economic, power, and class differentiations is much easierstated than accomplished. Community educators (theorists and practitioners) need toexplore further discussions about methods to create unified action through consensusbuilding or coalition building. A distinction between co-optation -assimilation toanother point of view without respect for a similar perspective or need - and collectiveunity which respects and incorporates diversity needs to be made and put intopractice. These are difficult issues of human relationships to resolve and requirefurther research.Community Involvement and Extra-community Awareness. The writingsemphasized extra-community awareness; however there is scant evidence to show thata local emphasis will automatically lead to global awareness; or even to, as suggestedby Decker (1992), education's helping individuals to "understand and discharge theirglobal responsibilities" (p. 5). In this regard, it is likely that community educatorswill need to more openly emphasize the connection between studied consideration oflocal and extra-community influences on the local and other communities in terms ofsituation, conditions, resources and power.With regard to this sense of global awareness, members of the local communitymay also be hampered in creating community-based actions due to lack of access toinformation from other communities about events in their communities which areimpairing the quality of health of the local community. Therefore, it would be56reasonable to assume that community educators will need to more rationally considerthe nature and quality of interaction with other locales and peoples.Summary of Premise #1 This first premise identified the community as the primary site of community-based study and action. However, the community is not only located to a particularphysical territory but also included in the community a sense of communalidentification and purpose. The question of location was specifically addressed;however, there were still some ambiguities which require further clarification andstudy. These included the nebulousness of the concept of community, the difficulty ofdefining a locale, barriers (socio-economic, racial, class, etc.) which inhibit unified,collective action and the need for further exploration of the links between local andglobal social problems and solutions. These four areas identified a range of problemswhich could influence community-based study and action.Discussion of Premise #2: Time IntervalIf community members recognize and accept themselves and each other aslifelong teachers and learnersThe second premise was developed to answer the question: When couldcommunity education occur? Statements were located in 26 of the 30 selections whichindicated that lifelong learning is a basic feature of community education. Seay(1972) identified lifelong learning as one of the six most recurrent themes incommunity education. He stated that an individual's education is more thanschooling and is a "composite of all his experiences" (p. 17). Hiemstra (1972)summarized community education as "lifelong, continuous, and encompassing both inand out of school activities" (p. 61). Decker (1992) stated that the current narrow57conception of education as grade- and age-based should be viewed as a sequence ofsteps and "not as a continuum, grouping students by age and by academic ability asmeasured on standardized tests" (p. 5). However, the focus in community educationhas not been limited to lifelong learning.There has also been a sense of lifelong teaching. In 1953, Olsen posited thatall community members "are teachers or potential teachers, as well as learners" inthat every individual has knowledge or experience to contribute to educationalproblem solving to meet community needs (p. 90). Community members areconsidered lay and valuable teachers in community education. According to Muntyan(1953), community education extended the educational authority throughout thecommunity to all members, which further suggested to him that what is traditionallyconsidered teaching skills and authority would need "to be reconstructed in terms ofgroup processes and methods" (p. 42).This perception of individuals is one where they are viewed as alternatively, orsimultaneously, as teachers and learners. Twenty of the 30 selections containedstatements which identified individuals as teachers involved in the process ofcommunity educating. For example, Totten (1970) stated that in communityeducating all individuals are to be considered "participants and producers in all areasof our culture as well as acquirers of knowledge" and respected in terms of theirpotential as teachers (pp. 13, 148). The community member is ascribed the active roleof teacher not just the involved citizen. The citizenship role has an added dimensionof teacher. Kerensky and Melby (1975) suggested that the mobilization of acommunity as skilled teachers and learners would be a challenge (p. 195).58Thus, community educators would need to re-examine their conceptualizationsof who is the teacher and who is the learner. Teaching is considered a specializedprofession. Strategies would be required to informally train individuals to moreeffectively teach (that is, research, prepare, share, instruct and evaluate curricularexperiences). This is not to suggest the complete elimination of the profession ofteaching, but to create the understanding that the availability of informal teachershad increased.Summary of Premise #2 The second premise identified the time interval as lifelong and lifelong interms of teaching and learning processes which would be considered necessary topromote continuous community-based study and action. Also, community memberswould need to learn how to value their potential as teachers.Discussion of Premises #3, #4 and #5: MethodsIn this section of Part II, the three most often cited methods preferred bycommunity educators have been discussed. The three methods were: problem solving,educational activism, and participatory democracy. This discussion will also proceedin this order. The formulation of these premises answered the question: How can thegoals of community education be achieved? The goals referred to are those of self-determined transformative change and social justice.Discussion of Premise #3: Problem SolvingCommunity members use problem solving to meet needs and resolve problems.Twenty-nine of the 30 selections contained statements which indicated thatcommunity members should use problem solving as one method to achieve outcomes.Twenty-three of the 30 selections contained statements which indicated the formal or59informal methods of problem solving needed. The methods indicated a variety ofmethods which have been summarized in Table 5.0 of Appendix III.The community is often identified as a learning laboratory for communityeducating (for example, Clapp, 1939; Misner, 1953; Seay, 1953; Irwin & Russell, 1971).Problem solving was described as a means to couple knowledge with action throughprocesses of problem solving. A sense of pragmatism was evident in the theoreticalwritings, with knowledge viewed as a resource for praxis. The term pragmaticreferred to a sense that knowledge would have not earthly use unless it directlyrelated to discovering the reasons for community need and the methods to meet theseneeds (Everett, 1938, p. 443). Community educators believed that finding out alsoimplied applying the new knowledge to problems which seem persistent.Seay (1972) summarized the problem solving educative processes as a sevenstage sequence (p. 18). This sequence included: (1) collection of facts to formulate aproblem, (2) design of experiments and demonstrations to attempt problem solution, (3)participation in study circles to discuss features of the problem, (4) direct observationof the problem to consider available solutions, (5) development of projects related tothe problem, and (6) usage of diverse instructional materials (p. 18). The approachmay be interpreted as quite linear because Seay (1972) does not directly discuss theinterconnectedness of problems or solutions. This sequence does not recommend theholistic approach suggested by Clapp (1939) who stated that problem solving needed tobe cognizant of relationships among events and conditions in the community.There are some additional considerations related to the problem solving processwhich include: (1) self-determination, (2) ethics, (3) holism, (4) rationality and (5)common unity.60Self-DeterminationThe first quality is directly related to initiation of the problem solving processwhere community education theorists again emphasized local control. Twenty of the30 selections contained statements which indicated that community members were tobe directly involved in the self-determination and self-solution of problems. Clapp's(1939) pronouncement summarized the intent of this sense of self-determinationAbove all, it seems to me, the record should make clear that itcommunity education one is never dealing with a fixed plan, a formula,or a ready-made organization, but with needs as they are revealed --needs and aspirations of the people (pp. 255-256).Community educators expressed a belief that problems are most effectively solvedthrough local involvement. Olsen (1954) stated that "paternalism" or a "dependenceon 'Mr. Big' to solve problems" could lead to a malfunctioning in problem solving:especially those related to the economic welfare of the community (p. 70). He furtherobserved that when problem solving is concentrated in the hands of an individual orcorporation, then there is potential to misuse power and, even, to possibly bring harmto the individual or the community (p. 70). Olsen believed that individuals shouldnever be exploited for their labor and that economic activity ought to be an open andshared endeavor of the community (Ibid., p. 70). Thus, self-determination is animportant aspect of the problem solving process for many aspects of communal life.Ethical NatureAlthough the discussion of the ethical nature of problem solving was limited,that is, only five of the 30 selections made direct reference to such, the need for anethical basis was strongly implied within the discussions related to social justice.61Olsen (1954) stated that youth need to be respectful of other community members andthat they needed to "grow in their insight into ethical values and principles" (p. 508).However, most of the writings did not place an emphasis here. Therefore, it would bereasonable to assume that methods chosen to achieve social justice would be actionswhich would be socially just and ethical. However, the literature has provided littledirection to develop or judge the ethical nature of actions.Not all measures taken to ensure social justice might provide such. Forexample, a problem related to community unemployment might be resolved with acollectively supported decision to open a toxic-waste facility. However, ethicalquestions could be raised about short- and long-term environmental and social (forexample, health) consequences of this action and the quality of the economic gain tobe acquired. In 1945, Olsen stated that "knowledge without ethics is at bestindifferent" to community standards and could destroy them and individuals (p. 35).Thus, it would be logical to assume that problem solving would have a framework ofethics which would guide discussion and selection of appropriate solutions.Additionally, the enormity and entrenchment of some barriers to economic,political or social equality are unethical hindrances to self-determination. Collectiveproblem solving will raise issues related to the lack of empowerment for allcommunity members. There is, however, a pacifist tone to the writings of thesecommunity education theorists which could hopefully assist in the dissolution of thesebarriers.The ethical nature of problem solving, and of the problems themselves, willrequire community educators who understand the basis and operation of ethics toguide positive community living.62Holistic ApproachSchuell (1990) observed that problems are often seen as independent of oneanother and that problem solvers tend to work on one problem at a time (p. 103).However, problems are not isolated, singular puzzles. Schuell (1990) further observedthat when the problem solver begins to work with one problem, s/he will often findanother problem and that these problems have sub-problems (p. 103). In communityeducating, the problem solving process could begin to reveal further difficulties whichwould need to be integrated in a holistic pattern which illustrated the complexities ofcommunity life.Rationality Few of the theorists observed that problem solving could be interpreted as anoverly rationalistic approach. Reasoning was stressed as an aspect of problem solvingin all of the selections but the emotional nature of problem solving was not oftenaddressed. Kerensky and Melby (1975) are two of the theorists who did raise thisdimension. They argued that community educators cannot be expected to appreciatethe affective considerations of community educating if only the cognitive concernswere stressed (Kerensky & Melby, 1975, p. 148). Their discussion included feelingswhich could, if negatively expressed, create conflict and injure the positive intentionsproblem solvers (for example, Everett, 1938; Clapp, 1939; Olsen, 1945). Conflict hasemotional content. Minzey and LeTarte (1979) observed that emotions can eveninhibit personal motivation to attempt problem solving because timidity, frustration,suspicion and antagonism would only interfere with design and implementation ofsolutions (p. 45).63Therefore, it would seem necessary to have individuals develop a sensitiveawareness that as problems are identified, studied and discussed in their immediatecommunity, then intelligent observation, thoughtful ideation and, perhaps, a mixedbag of emotions will be expressed. Perhaps, community members will need to includea sense of compassion and respect in their interactions with others in order to lessenthe potentential destructive of conflictive interactions.If left unchecked, negative expressions of feelings could also diminish the self-esteem and confidence levels of participants (Kirkpatrick, 1938). Kirkpatrick observedthat in community education "the foundation of morality and proper society" must berespected because individuals must appreciate and respect the rights and feelings ofeveryone (p. 5). Kirkpatrick (1938) continued by stating that community educatingcannot occur unless "self-regarding" and "other regarding feelings and acts arebalanced interaction" (p. 5). Therefore, problem solving ought not to be viewed asmerely a process of the development of correct reasoning and justification, but onewhich also included the dimensions of feelings. Techniques for diffusing negativeexpressions and nurturing positive expressions will need to be studied and learned bycommunity members to maintain collaborative problem solving.Common UnityThe theorists also viewed problem solving as a method to create commonconcerns and, as a result, a sense of community which would be both positive andnurturing. Through communal engagement and successful solution of problems,community educators expressed the hope that this would bring people into moreintimate and constructive associations which would not harm the community. It is64not evident, from the literature, if working together as a group would necessarilydevelop a sense of community team spirit.Discussion of Premise #4: Educational ActivismCommunity members use collaborative teaching and learning (that is,educational activism) to create educated, educative and enduring solutions forcommunity problems.A second method of community educating was identified as educationalactivism. Twenty-three of the theorists supported the use of educational processes toachieve the desired outcomes. Olsen's (1958) statement can be viewed as a summaryof the intent of many of these theorists. He believed that community members, of allages, must "learn to utilize educational processes as dynamic means for improving theindividual's own life" in local and global settings (Olsen, 1958, no pg. nos.). The termeducational activism was not used by the theorists; however, the term was introducedto this study to represent the importance given to "education as a means of change"(Hanna & Naslund, 1953, p. 62). Totten (1970) was often quoted by other theorists todescribe the needed network of community-wide teaching and learning where all ofthe "learning forces and factors" will be brought into complementary interaction toproduce community betterment (p. 11).However, it is difficult to assert that all life is educational: sometimes life isjust living and not intentionally instructional. Foshay (1985) argued thatcommunities themselves cannot engage in the deliberate actions of teaching andlearning and that it is necessary to have teachers who know how to create curricularexperiences which assist learners to encode and decode information (p. 12). He furtherstated that the community can only stimulate and that sometimes elements of the65community provide harmful stimulation (for examples, gangs, prostitution, addictions)(p. 12). Thus, it would be reasonable to suggest that community educators wouldagain require a firmly justified, understood and communicated knowledge of theethical nature of problems and solutions in order to identify which events orconditions of community were educative or mis-educative.A number of assumptions are implied in this premise. For example, within theconcept of educational activism there is the assumption that continuous opportunities(in informal or formal settings) for the study of issues through mutual teaching andlearning would be available. There is also the implication that community educatorswould have to access to accessible and affordable materials based on a variety ofvariables like reading level, researched information and the like in order shareteachings about the problem and solution. There is a further implication thatrestrictions which inhibited community-based teaching and learning (for examples,economic or attitudinal) would need to be identified and removed.Qualities of the Solutions to be Obtained for Self-determined Problem SolvingThe analysis of the writings suggested that particular kinds of solutions weresought. These solutions would be those which could be characterized as enduring,educated and educative.Firstly, self-created transformative change and social justice were to be long-term and not simply reactions or quick-fix repairs. In 1953, Seay observed that therewere other procedures which could produce change. These included methods like highpressure sales tactics or subsidization projects. However, the resultant change wouldmore likely be permanent if community members learned new behavors rather thanresorting to "old practices" which were harmful to the individual and the community66(p. 3). He further stated that educational objectives are often stated in terms ofchanged behaviour (1972, p. 18). Seay described this type of change as one whichwould permeate "the whole fiber of the individual" and mature as part of theindividual's "understanding as well as his [her] way of doing things" (p. 18). Thus,community educators would strive for change-making which is enduring.Secondly, transformative change was to be educated change. Melby (1955)introduced the concept of the educative community as where educational activismwould be a community-wide means to create change (p. 282). In the educativecommunity individuals would become a unified network of teachers, learners,researchers and resource sharers to create planned change (Ibid., p. 282). Hence,transformative change would be related to problem solving processes which promotedcomprehension of the origin of the problem(s), its/their effects and influences, andits/their relationships to other events and conditions of the community. Communityeducators were seeking change-making which engendered the sense that life itself ispotentially an educational experience. This sense of the potential of experience to beeducational has a heritage in Dewey's philosophy of education where education hasbeen described as a process of social experience. Dewey (1964) stated, in an essayoutlining his pedagogic creed, that "Education is a process of living and not apreparation for future living" (p. 430). Thus, if problem solving is to be aneducational experience, then the solutions to be problems studied would be, hopefully,educational conclusions.In the same manner, educated solutions would in turn create educative effects;that is, the solutions would illustrate the creation of new knowledge and experienceswhich community members could learn from or use as teaching material.67Summary of Premise #4This fourth premise introduced the term educational activism to describecommunity members' engagement in collaborative teaching and learning to producesolutions to problems. The solutions produced through lifelong processes ofeducational collaboration would be those characterized as enduring, educated andeducative.Discussion of Premise #5: Participatory DemocracyCommunity members respect the ideals and use methods of participatorydemocracy for cooperative problem solving.In community education, participatory democracy was characterized as:(1) inclusive participation from everyone (28 of the 30 selections);(2) collaborative or cooperative processes (30 of the 30 selections);(3) faith in the individual's ability to effect change (17 of the of the 30 solutions);(4) respect for the individual (26 of the 30 selections);(5) shared powers in the decision making processes (25 of the 30 selections);(6) democratic processes (20 of the 30 selections); and,(7)^cooperative planning processes (25 of the 30 selections).Minzey and LeTarte (1979) used the term, participatory democracy (p. 128), todescribe the nature of the community involvement imagined by community educators.Denton (1983) used the term direct democracy to describe community-wideinvolvement and the localization of community-based actions to create self-determinedfutures. Decentralization, as suggested by Denton (1983), would extend devolution ofdecision making from centralized control to local control. Denton (1983) suggestedthat this would create immediate responsiveness, less bureaucracy and a reduction in68external decisions which are divorced from or irrelevant to people's lives (p. 20).Although Olsen (1954) did not use the term participatory democracy, he describeddemocratic living as interactive and cooperative participation by community membersin the self-government of their daily living. He stated that democracy, which hebelieved to be essential to freedom, to be more than a political system was "above alla dynamic social faith in the ability of enlightened people to manage their own affairswith justice and intelligence" (Olsen, 1954, p. 494). Therefore, the term participatorydemocracy was selected because the phrase most closely identified the nature of socialand political interaction pictured by community educators.The writings introduced some of the difficulties related to local control. Thesehave included: the role of the state and the extent of local control and barriers toshared decision making. These two issues will be discussed in this order in thefollowing section.The Role of the StateThe term is in contrast to representative democracy where individuals areselected, appointed or elected to manage affairs Although community educatorsdescribed a participatory form of democracy, they did not discuss what therelationship between the state and the community would be. According to Minzey(1972) community control was always available "as long as communities exercise theirpolitical will" (p. 152). He stated that civic involvement had declined because thesize of a community and complex institutional structures could frustrate individualwill and attempts to act (Minzey, 1972, p. 27). Minzey and LeTarte (1979) furtherdeveloped their understanding of the lack of civic participation in 1979 by observing,again, that local control was always available, but that some elected individuals only69gave "lip service" to democracy's potential and that these elected representativesappeared to be more "oriented to a belief in 'elitist' government and governmentaloligarchy rather than in participatory democracy" (p. 128). Although Minzey andLeTarte (1979) were clearly disenchanted with some representatives of democracy,they did not suggest abolishment of the state. Instead, they argued that communitypower is available and underutilized and advocated that community members mustreaccept their responsibility in governing their lives (Minzey & LeTarte, 1979, pp.129-130).There was an ambiguous or unstated relationship between local control andcentralized control. Minzey and LeTarte (1979) described the state as a function ofthree components: legally elected boards, professionals, and the community itself (p.129). They stated that each had a unique role in an interdependent role of checks andbalances which had ceased to function and that the role of the community has becomegreatly diminished (p. 129). They argued that community education must consciously"reconstruct the system as it was intended to operate" without favor given to any oneof the three (elected board, professionals, community) elements (Minzey & LeTarte,1979, pp. 129-130). Thus, the state is defined here as a function of elements where theeffectiveness of the local element has been reduced.Denton (1983) offered this view about the extent of decentralization. He statedthat a more inclusive form of participation be initiated at the neighborhood level(Denton, 1983, p. 24). Denton (1983) argued that localized decision-making couldeliminate bureaucracy and nurture cooperative partnerships to achieve collectivegoals (p. 21). He further stated that this local self-control need not be restricted tojust the area of education (Denton, 1983, p. 21).70Just how far would American community educators be willing to extend localcontrol? Kerensky (1972) observed that community education theorists have discussedboth local control and community involvement (p. 160); however, the balance betweencentralization and decentralization has not been fully explored by these theorists.The Difficulties of Achieving EmpowermentA sense of the concept of empowerment, that is, full participation in terms ofequality of power in decision-making and local control, was referred to in communityeducation as self-help, self-education and self-determination. In 1970, Totten statedthat community educators cannot presume to give each other ready-made solutionsbut that community members must be willing to cooperatively create solutions (p. 25).The sense of empowerment is considered necessary and available to all individuals bythese theorists. Kerensky (1972) observed that change is more readily accepted ifindividuals are directly involved in the change making (p. 160). He argued that localcontrol of the decision making process needed to be moved "closer and closer to theclients" to ensure that choices and actions reflected communal viewpoints andaddressed direct and urgent needs (Kerensky, 1972, p. 160).However, some community problems have their origins at the macro-level ininstitutions and situations controlled by individuals with inordinate amounts ofwealth and power (Everett, 1939; Olsen, 1945, 1951, 1954; Minzey & LeTarte, 1979;Cowburn, 1986). Blackhurst, President of the International Community EducationAssociation, has observed that community educators will need to examine thefeasibility of the hope that educational activism can indeed "dismantle theapparatuses and structures that hinder progress and development" (p. 1). It may be71naive to assume that all community members will suddenly share power to achievecollective goals or truly respect each other as collaborative partners.The inequitable dispersion and concentration of power throughout communities— local and global — requires some techniques for levelling the inequity. In 1970,Totten stated that the development of counter-power structures might be needed torebalance the inequitable influence of power, but he did not describe processes tocreate these egalitarian structures (p. 151). Later, in 1972, Heimstra suggested thatcommunity educators would need to decide whether or not they would befriend andinvolve influential community leaders (pp. 85-86). However, this friendship buildingmight lead to little more than co-optation, even if those approached would be willingto develop such open inclusiveness. In 1979, Minzey and LeTarte suggested that thesystem needed to be restructured as a genuine participatory democracy which did notcreate new, or oppressive, power blocs (which might anyone's power) (pp. 129-130).Clearly, the call for participatory democracy introduced difficult questions aboutpower, individual and community empowerment and methods needed to achieve aparticipatory and inclusive system of local democracy.Summary of Premise #5 In this section, the concept of participatory democracy was discussed. This wasthe third of the three methods of community educating identified by the analysis ofthe 30 selections. Participatory democracy has been defined in community educationas a system of open and local self-government. However, the difficult complexities ofissues related to achieving empowerment (that is, equitable power sharing) for allcommunity members of the community and the role of the state have not been fullyexplored.72Introduction to Premises #6 and #7:Intergenerational Connectedness and EgalitarianismThis discussion focuses on the final two premises which describe characteristics,which community educators believed, could enhance interactions among communitymembers. These were intergenerational connectedness and egalitarianism. Thesetwo characteristics were located as answers to the question: What is/arecharacteristics of effective community educating?Discussion of Premise #6: Intergenerational Connectedness Community members respectfully involve all ages in dialogue, study,planning, problem solving, evaluation, shared decision making and otheraspects of community educating.According to Allan (1983), community education involves processes to re-engageindividuals in meaningful human relationships to effect local change (p. 3). Twenty-two of the 24 theorists (29 of the 30 selections) offered a recommendation thatindividuals of all ages be brought together as active participants in communityeducating. For example, in 1938, Everett stated that as adults and youth haveessential and common purposes in both work and play, then opportunities should beprovided for their interaction (p. 440). Clapp described this multi-age interaction asone which would involve everyone — babies to grandmothers. In communityeducation, collaborative teaching and learning opportunities were to be designed toreintegrate "age grouping that have been segregated for learning and social purposes"(Denton, 1983, p. 21). Study groups, tutoring clubs, and research teams would have amulti-age population which could strengthen community-wide dialogue andcommunity-based action.73Eleven of the 24 theorists directly recommended that time and opportunitymust be made available for community members to share dialogic encounters. Forexample, Olsen (1954) recommended that community members need settings ofinformal association where people can "move, talk, argue and reach agreements" inrelaxed, inclusive and intimate interactions (p. 98). Multi-age groupings were valuedby theorists because they believed that an authentic community is inclusive and thatmulti-age interactions can strengthen the sense of community needed to developcommon concerns and unified community action. (For examples: Everett, 1938;Clapp, 1939; Seay, 1945; Olsen, 1945, 1954; etc.)Discussion of Premise #7: EgalitarianismCommunity members recognize and accept each other as equal(egalitarian) partners.Twenty-one of the theorists stated that was a need for inclusive participationby all community members. Olsen and Clark (1977) believed that change-makingwould require the participation of "old and young, rich and poor, white, black, yellow,brown or red, of whatever religious, societal and political conviction regardless oftheir school attainment level" (p. 90). Community educators believe that allcommunity members should be viewed respectfully without prejudice as those whohave the right to participate in the implementation of measures to meet needsthrough educational, democratic and, hopefully, compassionate means.Decker (1972) stated that an inclusive, community-based problem solvingprocess would restore community control to its rightful place (p. 6). In 1970, Tottendescribed community educating as multi-age involvement in all aspects of communitylife — work, study, play — without separations based on socioeconomic backgrounds74(p. 157). These recommendations for egalitarian participation would seem to suggestthat strategies are required to develop and strengthen shared and conjointengagement in community-based actions. However, it could be argued that to assertthat community members should and must be involved in changing-making, will bedifficult (Decker, 1972, p. 65).Yet, community educators are realists and have expressed a critical awarenessabout the differences which can separate community members. For example, VanVoorhees (1969) observes that this "multitude of differences" could inhibit unifiedcommunity action (p. 69). The term community has important connotations forcommunity education. In 1987, Martin, a Scots educator, stated that the termcommunity is an essential feature of the term. For Martin (1987) communityrepresented the egalitarian processes of individuals producing planned, collectiveaction (p. 12). He viewed the collective actions of community educating as thosewhich could be "progressive, emancipatory and dynamic" rather than processes whichare hierarchical and excluded some individuals (p. 12). It would be reasonable toassume that this characteristic of egalitarianism would be an essential characteristics,albeit problematic to attain, for creating social justice through self-determinedtransformative change.SummaryIn Chapter 3 data collected from 30 selections authored by 24 Americancommunity education theorists was analyzed in order to identify generic features ofcommunity education. Eight propositions which were presented there as oneconclusion and seven premises for an inductive argument to hypothesis. This researchanalysis revealed that community education did not have adequate statements to75construct basic elements of a theory as related to specification location, time, events(that is, methods) and characteristics. The research revealed that communityeducators recommended that the community is the primary site of transformativechange with the caveat that an extra-community awareness of influences and effectsis required. The research also revealed that community educators believed thatcommunity-based study and action is a lifelong process of teaching and learning.Community educators identified numerous methods for community-based action whichwere summarized in three major categories for the purposes of this study. These wereproblem solving, educational activism and participatory democracy. Finally, theresearch revealed that community educators believed that particular qualities wererequired to enhance the effectiveness of community educating. These includedintergenerational connectedness and egalitarianism.Overall, these elements can be combined to develop an inductive argumentwhich illustrated the theoretical components needed to effect self-determinedtransformative change for social justice through community-based study and action asenvisioned by community educators.76CHAPTER 4: REPORT OF THE RESEARCH FINDINGSThe Introduction of Seven Principles of a Theoryof Curriculum in Community EducationThis chapter presents the research findings. The propositions and principleshave been summarized in Table 3. Column I has listed the theory of communityeducation which was explained in Chapter 3. Column II has listed the parallelinductive argument developed to explain curriculum in community education.Column III has listed the seven principles for curriculum in community educationwhich arose from this study.Organization of the Findings Each principle has been discussed in the sequence shown in Column III ofTable 3. The term principlewas used in this study, with the caution suggested by Olsen (1945),tomean a reasonable guideline for curriculum development in communityeducation and not a rigid dictum considered to be a "universally validtruth" (p. 409). Thus, these seven principles are offered only as guidancefor curriculists who wish to develop curricular experiences consistentwith community education theory.Discussion of the PrinciplesHow These Principles Can Provide GuidanceCommunity educators could use curricula designed with these seven principlesas a basis for what Warden (1983) described as a needed "core of beliefs" forcommunity educators (p. 7). Warden (1983) insisted that a common foundation wasrequired to prevent fragmentation of the community education movement (p. 7).Table 3^Parallel Inductive Arguments Framed to Hypothesize For Community Education andCurriculum in Community Education and Proposed Principles of a Theory of Curriculum inCommunity EducationICommunity EducationHypothesis1. IFCommunity members study theirneeds, problems and concerns andcreate actions which have an extracommunity awareness of influencesand consequences.2. AND, IFCommunity members recognize andaccept themselves as lifelongteachers and learners (communityeducators).3. AND, IFCommunity members use problem-solving methods to meet needs andresolve problems.IICurriculum in CommunityEducation HypothesisIFCurriculum is designed to studycommunity-based issues (concerns,needs, problems) and create community-based actions which demonstrate anextra-community awareness ofinfluences and consequences.AND, IFCurriculum is designed to involve allcommunity members as lifelong teachersand learners.AND, IFCurriculum is designed to facilitaterational problem-solving to meetcommunity-identified needs.AND, IFCurriculum is designed to demonstratethat educational activism can createeducated, eductive and enduringsolutions for community problems.IIIPrinciples of a Theory ofCurriculum in Community Education• study community-based needs andproblems and create community-based actions which have an extra-community awareness of influencesand consequences• to involve all community membersas lifelong teachers and learners• to facilitate problem-solving to meetself-perceived needs.• to provide opportunities foreducational activism to createeducated, educative and enduringsolutions to unique problems.Table 3 (continued):I^ II^ IIICommunity Education^ Curriculum in Community^ Principles of a Theory ofHypothesis Education Hypothesis Curriculum in Community Education5. AND, IFCommunity members respect theideals of and use the methods ofparticipatory democracy forcooperative problem-solving.6. AND, IFCommunity members respectfullyinvolve all ages in dialogue, study,planning, problem-solvingevaluation, shared decision making,and other aspects of communityeducating.7. AND, IFCommunity members (individuals,groups, agencies, etc.) recognize andaccept each other as equal(egalitarian) partners.CONCLUSION:THENCommunity members are likely tocreate self-determined transformativechange and social justiceAND, IFCurriculum is designed to model anddemonstrate effective use of the idealsand methods of participatory democracy.AND, IFCurriculum is designed to developintergenerational connectedness andrespect.AND, IFCurriculum is designed to developegalitarian partnerships.CONCLUSION:THENCurriculum activities are likely to assistcommunity educators to achieve self-determined transformative change andsocial justice in an educativecommunity.• to provide opportunities foreducational activism to createeducated, educative and enduringsolutions to unique problems.• to develop intergenerationalconnectedness and respect.• to develop egalitarian partnerships.CONCLUSION RESTATED AS ANINTRODUCTORY STEMCurriculum in a community committedto self-determined transformativechange and social justice is designed ...79In this section, each principle has been introduced in italicized, double-spacedtext which appears at the beginning of each sub-section. The principle was brieflydescribed and discussed. The unity of this inductive argument suggested thatcurriculum design should use all of the principles rather than one or two. The use ofone or two principles may be starting points for communities new to this concept;however, community education is a holistic approach to transformative change. Thus,the holism of this approach presents an expectation that the principles are consideredseriously as a totality. For example, the development of programs to pair seniors withcommunity youth or pre-schoolers, which could be one interpretation of the principleof intergenerational connectedness, is not likely enough to produce community-widetransformative change and social justice. A multi-age grouping may, in fact, be aconflictual grouping if the individuals do not possess the skills and attitudes togenerate respectful cooperation.Curriculum and the Extent of ReformThe extent of the ideas about localized, community-based change has variedboth in the literature and the international practice of community education. In 1983Denton identified the possibility of "institutional reform" of the educational systemthrough mechanisms like community schools (p. 19). He also examined the possibilityof the total reconstruction of community life (Denton, 1983, p. 19).In his discussion, he described institutional reform as a "transmissive mode ofeducation" which aimed to improve schooling and assist community members with"cultural demands and expectations" while the "reconstructive mode" would be onewhere the current "cultural malaise" could be repaired to produce "healthy,supportive community life" (Denton, 1983, p. 19). The principles of a theory of80curriculum in community education, developed in this study, addressed the latterviewpoint because they were developed to focus curricular development as a holisticconstruction which would encompass and emphasize community-wide transformativechange and social justice.This set of principles was intended to assist efforts to bring change tocommunity injustice without suggesting that all institutions be eliminated. Boles andSeay (1974) defined an institution as the "ideas, practices and beliefs" of a community(p. 53). It may not be practical to abolish all existing institutions and hope to beginanew. Instead, community educators may need to explore the compromise which wassuggested by Denton (1983). He advised that community educators would need tocritically assess and perpetuate only the best features of the emerging culturewhile actively exploring potential dysfunctions and alternatives for culturalrenewal (Ibid., p. 17).Denton (1983) did not describe the criteria needed to define the nature of these "best"features; however, within the context of community education these must beunderstood as actions which create community-wide social justice. In order for theseprinciples to apply, community educators will need to assess the conditions, events,institutions and trends in the community and determine which of those they areempowered to change, in order to make collective decisions to continue those whichare valued or based on ethical standards, discard those not aligned with ethicalstandards and develop new, and not harmful, alternatives.These principles were developed as a foundational exploration of whatcommunity-wide curriculum might look like in the educative community wherecurriculum would be designed by numerous individuals. In the educative community81these principles could be used by a variety of agencies or institutions. For example, ahospital could use these principles to create a preventative health program whichattempted to dove-tail with the efforts of community agencies, individuals orinstitutions to produce change which improved the quality of life. In such a hospitalprogram, the principles of intergenerational contact and participatory democracy couldbe used to develop educational experiences which promoted multi-age discussion abouthealth concerns and the empowerment of individuals as community and personalhealth caretakers to develop and act on mutually understood solutions.The concept of the educative community implies that all agencies createcurriculum "specifically attuned to community needs" (Hanna & Naslund, 1953,p. 130). The concept also implies that all community educators have potential ascurriculum-makers because each community member is considered a change agent,teacher and learner (for example, Totten, 1970). Thus, in the educative community,the individual can be viewed as an educational activist. Therefore, it would seemreasonable to assume that these educational activists would need to know how toselect and prepare curricular content and methodologies to promote personal andcommunity betterment.Discussion of Principle #1: LocationCurriculum in a community committed to self-determined transformativechange and social justice is designed to study community-based needs andproblems and create community-based actions which have an extra-community awareness of influences and consequences.Minzey and LeTarte (1979) stated that curriculum is frequently developed on abasis of habit and tradition (p. 221). A curriculum rationale which is based on habit82and tradition may perpetuate less than optimum community conditions. Minzey andLeTarte (1979) stated that traditional curriculum has been "patched, twisted, added toand subtracted from", but not basically altered (p. 100). However, curriculum incommunity education would be altered in that the greater emphasis placed on theneeds and problems of a locality would reduce the stress placed on standardizedcurriculum and uniform textbook presentations. As curriculum in communityeducation underscored the need for community members to identify and effect socialchange, then curriculum development would also be altered in that one communitymay give greater emphasis to curricular experiences related to problems whichanother community may be having less difficulty with at the same time.This thrust of community education would reshape curricular experiences.Minzey and LeTarte (1979) stated that community education must accentuatethe organization and encouragement of community groups until theyhave achieved community identification, have been motivated, havemastered the techniques of a community approach to problem solving,and have experienced success or failure with these techniques to thedegree that they see the potential of their joint efforts (pp. 45-46).Thus, curricular formation would concentrate on the local environment.Olsen (1945) devised a community-based curriculum which he called life-centered curriculum and organized this curriculum around 13 fundamental areas ofpersonal and communal living. These included: (1) food and shelter, (2) protection oflife and health, (3) communication, (4) interpersonal relations, (5) citizenship,(6) environmental control, (7) education, (8) supportive and nurturing family life,(9) historical knowledge and appreciation, (10) religion, (11) recreation and leisure,83(12) aesthetic appreciation, and (13) self-identity. These thirteen areas could beviewed as the 'subject areas' of community-based curriculum in community educationkeeping in mind that these curricular areas would be first studied in terms of theproblems inhibiting social justice and requiring researched community-action.In a contemporary context, the emphasis on environmental control to morerigorously consider acts of stewardship rather than acts of control would be necessary.When questioned about the lack of environmental emphasis in his development of life-centered concerns, Dr. Olsen responded that the element of control needed to be de-emphasized. He stated that'Caretake the environment' is better than 'control'. This reflects thechanging concept which in recent years has been gaining acceptanceamong educators including myself (E. Olsen, Personal Communication,March 11, 1992).In community education this first principle has three components: (1) study ofcommunity-based needs and problems, (2) creation of community-based actions, and(3) cognizance of extra-community influences and consequences. Needs and problemswould be those conditions or situations of want or harm which diminished the qualityof life for some community members. Actions would refer to those events whichcommunity members conjointly generated.The first component, community-based needs and problems, referred tocollaborative research, teaching and learning about pressing problems and processesof community living. Olsen (1945) described these as the first, essential curriculum(p. 70). Thus, curricular activities would need to be designed to develop research -that is, study, interview, evaluation, observation - of an issue. Curricular experiences84would then be opportunities for individuals to assess relevant information (forexample, from such sources as texts, sites, policy papers, documentary photographs,interviews) in order to facilitate researched identification of the problem to be solved.Community members could become proactive scholars of their community throughthis form of studied analysis of information and opinions and direct observation ofevents and conditions of community-based situations.The second part referred to actions taken to create self-determined,transformative change and social justice. For example, it would not be enough tostudy poverty; community-based actions would also need to be incorporated intocurricular experiences to address issues at personal and community levels. Curricularexperiences could include the development of home visits to establish collectivekitchens (a practice of group sharing of food costs and preparation). Or, study circlescould be organized to investigate an issue in order to lobby governments (municipal,provincial or federal) to improve the minimum, annual income of those encased inpoverty.Study and action would be interpreted through a variety of "vicarious and first-hand experiences" (Olsen, 1945, p. 70). This means that curriculum in communityeducation is not limited to field studies but would extend beyond examination of printmaterials. The communal study group would need to determine the appropriate self-directed learning which might include field trips to view a site or library visits toread documents. A community-based curriculum program does not imply over-emphasis on one style of learning. However, the focus of curricular experiences wouldbe those which could actively develop empathy and involvement.85Thirdly, the reference to extra-community awareness suggests that thesignificance of local problems and needs do not eclipse the needs of other communities.The community is not an isolated entity.Community-Based Studies and Action and Community EducatingCurriculum designed with this principle as a starting point could assistcommunity educators in five ways. Firstly, individual and community self-identityand self-concept would be identified in terms of strengths, weaknesses and resources.Community-based studies could assist community members to know the context oftheir personal and communal living and the inter-relatedness of the personal to thecommunal life of a locality. According to Misner (1938), community-based observationcould help community members to "develop a sense of values and relatedness aboutthemselves and the world in which they live" (p. 72). Transformative change requiresthat individuals know their strengths, flaws and needs before considered actions aretaken. It is therefore suggested that standards of social justice can be set andexamined through what is available and what is lacking at individual and communallevels. Community-based study could create a forum for the identification andsharing of knowledge and experience.Secondly, self-determination could be strengthened as individuals come torecognize their personal and communal resources. Self-created change, as posited bycommunity educators continuously (for example, Evertt, 1938; Clapp, 1939; Seay,1945, 1953; Melby, 1955), appears to be one of the more effective means for producingconfidence and pride rather than helplessness, dependency, resentment or apathy.Thus, individuals who collectively repair or improve a local situation may begin toexperience greater confidence and, thus, feel more assured as self-determining agents.86Thirdly, community-based studies can provide first-hand appreciation of localconditions and events. This comprehension may provoke critical questioning of thereasons for and outcomes of local problems (Irwin & Russell, 1971, p. 26). Suchcomprehensions would engender critical awareness and not cynical negativity. Misner(1938) stated that community-based study ought to exceed "a blind and uncriticalacceptance of the status quo [His italics](p. 69). Fourteen of the selections reviewed inthis analysis contained statements which indicated that the status quo, that is, theexisting state of affairs, needed examined change.Mathier (1990) observed that community education theory was one whichencouraged individuals to cultivate a critical scrutiny of the world and one's positionand influence on events (p. 27). Participatory democracy requires individuals who arecapable of questioning because democratic society does not function automatically(Minzey & LeTarte, 1979, p. 151). It would seem reasonable that the ability to discerndiscrepancies can be more immediately developed through first-hand observation andparticipation rather than filtered perceptions of information gathered from secondarysources like edited textbooks. First-hand observation, as practiced in communityeducation, is a necessary sequence of the curricular experience to provide the learnerwith concrete information about a problem. It may not always be possible to providedirect experience for reasons of safety or health (for example, tour of a toxic waste siteor field trip to a combat zone). Here, secondary sources, scrutinized for accuracy andeditorial point-of-view become necessary.Fourthly, community-based action depends on the ability of the individual andthe group to envision change. Winecoff and Lyday (1991) described visioning as a"proactive tool for building educative communities" (p. 9). They described these87educative communities as ones which would be capable of survival, long-term, able tosolve current problems, interdependent and "continually reinvented" (Winecoff &Lyday, 1991, p.9). By 'continually reinvented', they referred to community-basedchange which was ever responsive to newly emergent conditions or events whichthreatened communal living. Thus, communities are not considered to be static.Fifthly, some community educators have highlighted a need for globalawareness. Hanna and Naslund (1953) stated that a community-based curriculumneed not be provincial, but that its first emphasis would be on territorial needs (p. 54).Increasing global difficulties demand that community educators develop what Mitchell(1972) has termed world-mindedness (p. 26). He cautioned that if community-basedstudy and action focused inward, without recognition of the global picture, theninsularity may result in species and planetary destruction (p. 26).Community educators could use curriculum designed with a community-basedfocus to emphasize the creation of solutions which incorporated a realization of inter-and extra-community influences. Mathews (in Decker, 1990) stated that communityeducators must determine the "inter-relations of many interests and the long-termconsequences of each possible action before implementation" (p.5). Thus, solutions,which have been created with a world-mindedness, must also facilitate globalcaretaking. Community-based study and action ought to be designed to reduce localand global distress. This requires a much more holistic approach to problemidentification and generation of solutions so that difficulties are not treated asisolated fragments of global inter-relations.88SummaryTherefore, this principle related to community-based study and action canassist community education curriculists to develop curricular experiences whichstrengthen community identity and self-concept, support a collective approach tochange-making, provide first-hand experiences of events and conditions and change-making, develop local vision and extend this vision from the local to the global.Discussion of Principle #2: Time Interval Curriculum in a community committed to self-determined transformativechange and social justice is designed to involve all community membersas lifelong teachers and learners.This principle addressed the need to identify when community educatingoccurs. Curricular experiences would be designed to involve all community membersas lifelong teachers and learners. Collaborative teaching and learning would extendthrough the lifetime of the individual and the community. Collaborative teaching andlearning would not be viewed as static processes which began and ended within theconstructs of a school day or term. Instead, as the life of a community is continuous;so is education. Accordingly, community educating cannot be confined to the regularconceptualization of the school day (Minzey & LeTarte, 1979, p. 33).Denton (1991) characterized community education as a social movement whichhas emerged historically as a philosophy of both reform and restructuring (p. 19).Throughout this evolution the relevance of lifelong teaching and learning has notdiminished. In the literature surveyed, 26 of the 30 selections featured lifelonglearning and 20 of the selections stated that every community member is, potentially,both teacher and learner. Community-wide educational activism will require greater89voluntary and skilled involvement of all community members as individuals who canfacilitate lifelong community-based study and action.Lifelong Teaching and LearningIf educational activism requires individuals who are capable of and willing toboth teach and learn to generate solutions to local problems, then curricularexperiences will need to provide opportunities to learn and practice effective teachingand learning methods. Schooling is often thought of as processes of learning -whether active or passive - but seldom is the individual also considered a teacher.The focus of interaction in schooling situations might need to extend the roles ofteacher and learner so that future citizens understand how to communicateinformation in a manner which is beyond merely telling.As all community members are considered teachers and learners in theeducative community, then individuals may need to be given opportunities to leavethe workplace when they are called upon to provide paid or unpaid communityservice. These individuals could, perhaps, be granted this freedom to leave theworkplace to sit as voluntary members of community study circles or community-based action collectives.Additionally, problem solving directed towards a critical stance of conditionswould imply that community members would be acknowledged as having a right tocontribute their talent, experience or ability in problem solving processes (Minzey &LeTarte, 1979, p. 45). Curricular experiences would need to capitalize on the lifelongexperiences and knowledge individuals have acquired in order to add depth to thecritique of a local situation.90Thirdly, this principle of lifelong teaching and learning combined with the firstprinciple, which emphasized community-based study and action with an extra-community awareness, has some implications for the educative community. Forexample, the significance of community-based study and action would be a lifetimeendeavour. Consequently, the 'school' day could be envisioned as a year-by-yearprogress through localized problems rather than subjects. For example, youngercommunity members might begin a pond study in preschool. Older students may berevisiting this pond to further scrutinize pond life and problems related to, forexample, species extinction, pollution, and recreational usage. Adults and seniorsmay also study the pond and assist younger members to develop researched actionswhich respect pond life and maintain the pond for future generations. Thus, the pondand its problems are lifelong curricular experiences for community-based study andaction, and not merely components of a subject-based program wherein the pond mayhave a brief starring role as a component of a science curriculum.Finally, as a critical stance of events and conditions is required on the part ofcommunity members, then individuals would need to be relentless in theirobservations of social justice in their area. Social justice cannot be maintained ifevents and conditions are only studied at particular times by selected individuals for aparticular subject - or examination. Hence, curricular experiences would need toinclude a sense of social justice across-the-curriculum wherein all lessons and topics ofstudy had a common theme to eliminate social injustice.In conclusion, this second principle of curricular development in communityeducation identified the time interval for community educating as lifelong; and,91lifelong in terms of both teaching and learning through processes of community-basedstudy and action.Discussion of Principle #3: Problem-Solving Pedagogy Curriculum in a community committed to self-determined transformativechange and social justice is designed to facilitate problem solving to meetself-perceived needs.Schuell (1990), an educational psychologist, defined teaching and learning asgoal-directed activity and problem solving (p. 102). He stated that these processes canbe conceptualized in this manner because an outcome is expected and there is asituation which requires resolution (Ibid., p. 102). In community educating theemphasis is clearly on production of positive outcomes to local difficulties. In 23 ofthe 30 selections reviewed, these theorists stressed the need for self-identification of aproblem; and, in 29 of the 30 selections the theorists also underscored the need toproblem solve collaboratively. For example, Clark and Olsen (1977) stated that allcommunity members would need to "first learn the art and science of problemsolving" (p. 99).This emphasis on problem solving has three implications, among others, forcurriculum development in this field. Firstly, community members would need tounderstand collaborative rather than individualized approaches to problem solving.Secondly, individuals would need to have opportunities for direct experience withapplying experimental approaches to problem solving. Thirdly, community memberswould need to re-evaluate the role of knowledge in teaching and learning whereinknowledge is viewed more as an active means than an end; knowledge is more than aproduct to be consumed.92CollaborationThe emphasis on collaborative problem solving necessitates the occasions todevelop cooperative strategies which can produce communal responses which attemptto include a variety of viewpoints and needs in the solutions generated. Therefore,curricular activities would need to be ones which highlighted, for purposes ofobservation and discussion, events which promoted cooperation rather than conflict.One example of this type of collaboration is as follows. If the community met todiscuss deforestation, then individuals would need to recognize each other ascollaborative partners on an equal footing with each other as fellow communitymembers with potential to teach, learn, change, share and problem solve. This wouldindicate that experts would not necessarily be delegated as the individuals responsiblefor the problem solution. Instead, experts could contribute their knowledge andexperience as related to a problem. In this case, knowledge would also not be enough.Community-based study of deforestation could not be confined to textbook or mediastudy but would also include the experience of observing deforestation locally andconsideration of global influences and consequences (for example, the relationshipbetween tree cutting and economic priorities). The group would need to be willing tolisten to differing points of view about deforestation before collaborativelyundertaking researched problem solving. Research would need to include theperceptions of all community members and not just the facts about deforestation.Community-based Problem SolvingThe first principle introduced in this chapter illustrated the need forcommunity-based study and action. This principle must be considered whendeveloping a problem-solving sequence because the individual is directly involved with93the formulation of solutions. Thus, in the example related above about deforestation,community members would use their knowledge, expertise and experiences to addressthe applicable conditions and events of their locale before studying about deforestationa continent or two away from their area. Therefore, a pedagogy for problem solving,in community education, would provide curricular opportunities to actually engage atthe local level in experimentation with community change-making.The Role of Knowledge A pedagogy for problem solving would also stress the need for reasonedsolutions (that is, rational, thoughtful resolutions) rather than impulsive reactions orpoorly considered plans. The role of knowledge would be altered in communityeducation from a product to be acquired to that of direct application. Knowledgewould play a supportive role and would not be viewed as an end of teaching andlearning where study is directed towards examination performance. In 1938, Everettadvised that community educators should not "clutter up the minds" of learners with"a mass of intellectual furniture" and that knowledge must have a functionalrelationship to community needs and problems (p. 443). Consequently, curricularactivities would have a pragmatic emphasis in that knowledge would be acquiredbecause of a need and for a purpose. Olsen (1945) regarded the "organized knowledge"of school subjects as a significant source for "both personal development and socialimprovement" (p. 8).In the educative community, school subjects would have to be reviewed fortheir potential as a resource for problem solving. In 1939, Clapp concluded, after herwork with two experimental community schools, that subjects are resources, "ways offinding out, methods to use, places to look for further information" and not merely94areas to study (p. 49). She further reported that her staff found it necessary to re-examine the nature of school subjects to discover the practical applications inherent insubject matter knowledge to the actual needs of the community (Clapp, 1939, p. 48).Community educators, like Clapp (1939), have argued that "education should reallyfunction in people's lives" (p. 48).When the community member is viewed as a lifelong teacher, learner, problemsolver and change agent, then the teacher can no longer be only a vehicle forinformation transfer. Olsen (1945) has caricatured some teachers as "frequentlyweary manipulators of dreary subject matter" (p. 177). If community educators are tobe collaborative problem solvers, then curricular activities will require thedevelopment of a sensitivity towards knowledge as more of an active resource forapplication than a product.Knowledge, then, becomes an active component of communal living where"information access, information sharing, and shared decision-making form the heartof the educative community" (Winecoff & Lyday, 1991, p. 9). Therefore, if curricularexperiences are to extend the role of the student from that of knowledge consumer tothat of knowledge applier, then opportunities are required for the learner to witnessthe relationship between knowledge and the strengths and deficiencies of thesolutions generated.As problem solving is a favoured method of attaining outcomes, then curricularactivities would also need to be designed to facilitate opportunities for problem solvingin areas like these: (1) rehearsal and direct experimentation with collaborativeproblem solving skills and methods, (2) direct solution of problems, and (3) use of95knowledge (subject matter, personal, traditional) as a resource and not only as acourse of study.The Advantages of Problem Solving Curricular Experiences A problem solving pedagogy can provide several benefits in the development ofthe educative community. If it is agreed that community educating requires reasonedsolutions to local problems, then curricular experiences would need to be those whichstressed rational and reasoned justifications of the identification of steps in thesequence of problem solving. The enhancement of reasoning skills can be developedas learners become more experienced with successful or failed problem solving interms of the identification of the problem (and sub-problems), the understanding of therelationships among problems, data collection, interpretation of findings andevaluation of solutions.Secondly, as an intention of the problem solving emphasis, then plannedchange, that is praxis, requires a basis in knowledge derived from a variety of sourcesrather than an accumulation of information. Community educators may begin tounderstand the value of reasoned solutions based on specific data collection ratherthan solutions based on incomplete information which could create haphazard change-making. Again, the importance of a holistic approach is apparent in that resultantchange-making would not be based on incomplete knowledge.Thirdly, curricular experiences could help to develop a communal sense ofidentity as interdependent relationships are developed through collaborative efforts.Successful or failed solutions could also generate intimacy as individuals encouragesupportive relationships although group cohesiveness and positive self-esteem may bemore readily evident in the case of favorable outcomes. Additionally, practice with96firsthand problem solving could also assist individuals to become more decisive andconfident decision makers as direct experience with difficult situations increases.Fourthly, community members could also assist individuals to observe, studyand develop means to lessen the negative effects of conflict which can hinder or derailproblem-solving strategies. It is likely that as community educators experienceconflict openly, that the disadvantages of conflict may become more obvious andindividuals will more quickly develop ways to negotiate and elicit acceptablecompromises which do not undermine the actions needed to implement a solution.Finally, the lifelong exercise of reasoning skills could add to the development ofcritical awareness of and vigilance about a community's unique events and conditionswhich contradict standards of social justice. However, although the ethical nature ofproblem solving was not emphasized in the literature, problem solving which reliedprimarily on rationality, without consideration of ethics or compassion, may makecommunal problem solving a mechanical process of identifying and implementingexpedient solutions which deny or negate further humanization of communities.Discussion of Principle #4: Educational ActivismCurriculum in a community committed to self-determined transformativechange and social justice is designed to provide opportunities foreducational activism to create educated, educative and enduring solutionsto unique problems.Thus far, these principles recommend that curriculum development wouldproceed using these three features: (1) community-based study and action whichdemonstrates extra-community awareness of influences and consequences, (2) lifelong97teaching and learning, and (3) proactive problem solving. In this section, a fourthcomponent described as educational activism will be discussed.Problems, and the nature of problems, can overwhelm some individuals orproduct situations which leave other individuals feeling helpless or apathetic (Minzey& LeTarte, 1979, p. 45). Curricular experiences designed to create educated,educative and enduring solutions could emphasize the depth of human resourcefulnessand optimism and, in so doing, reduce the feelings of frustration and inertiaexperienced by some. The search for solutions, could enhance self-determination ifindividuals were encouraged to use their own confidence and creativity. Improvedself-esteem (personal and collective) could result as individuals come to observe andvalue their contributions, and those of community partners, through the problemsolving.Educational activism can be described as a process of community educationwhich, if well considered, "empowers individuals as workers, and as citizens [of allages], enables them to develop their potential and impels them with a sense ofresponsibility for others' (Fantini, 1983, p. 26). Any solution created througheducational means is more likely to be based on thoughtful, creative action ratherthan developed from selfish motivations because education implies more than a self-interest.Educational Activism as Curricular Experiences Curricular experiences designed using this principle could assist with thedevelopment of the educative community in several ways.Firstly, as processes of local control and personal involvement are vital to thecreation of educative communities, then methods of conjoint teaching, learning and98proactive problem solving are also vital (Kerensky & Melby, 1975, p. 75). Individualswho are engaged and directly educated about the local problematique are more likelyto interested in discovering the truth of a situation and the accurate collection of datanecessary to generate reasoned solutions (which are also compassionate and ethicaland not merely convenient).Curricular activities designed to create skilled teachers and learners may be amechanism to revitalize the idea of responsible interdependency because teaching andlearning would be an interactive exchange to address local needs rather than a one-way transmittal of outcomes from expert to client. In 1972, Minzey observed thatcommunity-wide involvement at a grassroots level seemed absent in the United States(p. 151). However, the dialogic nature of teaching and learning could sparkinvolvement as community-based problems must not be, as Mathews (in Decker, 1990)has stated, only talked about but talked through in local context. Consequently,curricular experiences, which are designed to be educational encounters, may increasethe dialogic nature of the educative community and, as problem solving skills areincreased, the accuracy, cogency and depth of the dialogue may be improved as well.Secondly, collaborative teaching and learning could provide opportunities toimprove problem solving skills. For example, community educators would not justbecome adept mechanics looking to fix problems, but individuals with an increasedappreciation of the resources and concerns of their environment. Educational activistsmight also be individuals who seek to more actively perceive the educational potentialof conditions, sites and events of a locale which would be a more active engagementwith one's community.99Finally, the attainment of standards of social justice (that is, standards ofequity and inclusiveness which enhance each individual's life journey) seems torequire some changes to structures and ideology which impede justice. There is aneed for an educated awareness, that is, a realization of the human condition which iscomprehensively understood and not just studied. Boles and Seay (1974) commentedthat "proposed change is a threat to persons whose interactions would be affected, andthe change may be resisted" (p. 55). However, as educational activism is perceived asan interdependent process of teaching and learning, the resistance could be decreasedas individual's gain a deeper knowledge about the area's needs and problems.Community-wide and community-based educational activism may help to teachjustified and compassionate reasons for transformative change because education is,by its nature, considered to be more than schooling, but, ultimately, a search for bothtruth and justice. Accordingly, individuals engaged in processes of educationalactivism may come to realize that problem solving is not merely a skill but ratherthat truth and justice are important elements of creating educated, educative andenduring solutions.Discussion of Principle #5: Participatory Democracy Curriculum in a community committed to self-determined transformativechange and social justice is designed to model and demonstrate the idealsand methods of participatory democracy.Participatory democracy was a third method stressed by community educationtheorists. This method was viewed as a means to revitalize the right and ability ofcommunity members to enact community-based study and action, problem solving andeducational activism. The key aspects of participatory democracy, as identified in the10030 selections examined, were as follows: (1) participation by all (28 of the 30selections), (2) collaboration or cooperation (30 of the 30 selections), (3) faith in theindividual (17 of the 30 selections), (4) respect for the individual (26 of the 30selections), (5) shared power and shared decision making (25 of the 30 selections),(6) democratic processes (20 of the 30 selections), and (7) planning communityimprovements together (25 of the 30 selections).This method of local self-government emphasized the need for open sharing ofinformation, knowledge, experience and feelings, shared decision making based onresearched examination of a need or problem and cooperative implementation of aplanned solution. Participatory structures rather than representative structures ofdemocratic interaction are strongly implied from the theorists. Participatorystructures may more readily capture the diverse needs, interests, feelings andperceptions of individuals because consensual decisions would not be editedrepresentations of some viewpoints which would be contradictory to mainstream ortraditionally accepted perceptions. Thus, participatory structures would need to beevident throughout curricular experiences from the design of learning circles to theevaluation of outcomes. This has several implications for curriculum development incommunity education.Participatory Democracy and Curricular Experiences Curriculum designed to model and demonstrate the advantages of participatorydemocracy could help to develop the educative community in several ways.Firstly, such curricular activities could assist educational activists to learn howto consciously, respectfully and conscientiously interact so that all residents areincluded in community-based study and action. Decisions would not be made by101'experts' or specialists or certain professionals (political or knowledgeable) but wouldbe a constellation of community voices. Hence, curricular experiences would need tomodel respectful inclusiveness which indicated a determined faith in the individual'sability to change and create worthwhile change.Curricular experiences conjointly developed could also amplify feelings ofmutual trust as some individuals come to understand the strengths of unified,participatory actions based upon the openness and directness implied in participatorydemocracy.Secondly, these curricular experiences could help individuals to resolve conflictsmore openly as participatory democracy is just that: participatory. Opportunities -like forums or study groups - would be available to express opinions, tell stories,communicate feelings and grievances and exchange ideas frankly. In this way,individuals could reduce feelings of separation which can fragment a common unity ofpurpose. Therefore, curricular experiences must be based on devising situationswhere community members understand that they need to respectfully encounter eachother directly in order to lessen feelings like exclusion, helplessness or resentment.Curricular activities, which model direct and honest sharing of opinions,knowledge, experience and feelings, could increase the understanding that conflict is anormal part of problem solving as there will always be differing needs and dissentinginterests and ideas. However, participatory structures, which allow these differencesto be expressed freely, could allow the statement of differences to be viewed as naturalin the diversity of pluralistic communities. The isolation, as experienced by someindividuals in pluralistic societies, could be reduced if curricular experiencesdemonstrate that despite differences of opinion all individuals are to be respectfully102considered as those worthy of trusted faith in their ability to positively contribute toproactive problem solving.Curricular experiences, which emphasize participatory democracy, would alsodevelop opportunity for shared talk and mutual, dialogic exploration of issues. Thesedialogic encounters could be enhanced through an application of Bridges' (1979) sixnorms which he called moral dispositions. Bridges (1979) stated that these normscould improve the quality of dialogue in problem solving. The norms he specifiedincluded the willingness to be: (1) reasonable, (2) open to information supplied byothers, (3) peaceable, (4) accepting of the knowledge of others as equally relevant,(5) truthful, and (6) respectful (pp. 21-26). These six traits could also be furtherdeveloped as features to be nurtured in the creation of educative communities.Thirdly, the relationship between problem solving and participatory democracycould be stressed to demonstrate that consensual and collaborative actions arepossible. The process of problem solving is more than the design and implementationof a plan. Throughout the process of problem solving, individuals will need tounderstand and use methods to confer with each other before acting. Principles ofparticipatory democracy, as described in the selected writings, could provide afoundation for lifelong respectful interaction.Finally, curricular experiences, based on participatory democracy, could help todevelop the educative community because some of the skills and attitudes needed tofoster direct and open contact could help to augment an understanding of the natureof local control. In theory, participatory democracy engenders a responsiveness andresponsibility which aids in the more intimate association of members in theircommunity's development. Community educators, as collaborative teachers and103learners, will more readily understand and use direct consultation on a community-wide basis if structures, like forums and study circles, are readily available.Thus, curricular experiences, which are developed using processes andprinciples of participatory democracy, could assist with the development of aneducative community which is collaborative, dialogic, inclusive and open to directconsultation. This principle complements the three previous principles in that itprovides a functional form for the proactive problem-solving processes to beundertaken in lifelong community-based study and action.Discussion of Principles #6 and #7: Intergenerational Connectedness and Egalitarian ParticipationThus far, Chapter 4 has discussed the development of curricular experienceswhich would be situated in a particular locale although these would not be limited toan area, which would promote lifelong educational activism through collaborativeproblem solving and which would be based on principles of participatory democracy.The inductive argument developed for community education also implied twocharacteristics related to suggested modes of human interaction. The following twoprinciples state the nature of these characteristics.Curriculum in a community committed to self-determined transformativechange is designed to develop intergenerational connectedness and respect.Curriculum in a community committed to self-determined transformativechange is designed to develop egalitarian partnerships.Both of these characteristics could assist in the creation of the educativecommunity in that a unique discourse (that is, unified point-of-view embracing104understandings, feelings, knowledge and experience), could unfold. These twocharacteristics will be discussed in the following sections in the above order.Principle #6: Intergenerational Connectedness In 1939, Clapp stated that in community education all individuals were to beconcerned with the development of individuals of all ages, from babies tograndparents, with their groupings in families and social relationshipsas friends and neighbours, in work and play, in clubs, in socialgatherings, and in the give-and-take of daily existence (p. 333).Curricular experiences designed, using this principle as a guidepost, would haveseveral characteristics.One of these is that curricular content would require an age-inclusive portraitof shared opinions, narratives, insights, ideas and feelings. The informational,instructional and entertainment values of this content could assist communityeducators to better appreciate the stages of human change and maturationexperienced differently and similarly by the generations. Intergenerational talk couldencourage this sharing of information and discourage ignorance of local issues and theeffects these have on some members of different age groups. Multi-age discussionscould also reduce age-based stereotyping.Secondly, curricular experiences would need to be designed to actively reunitethe ages in community-based study and action because the need for collaborationimplies this form of inclusiveness. Individuals live in what could be called ageghettos in that communities have come to separate groups of individuals on the basisof age. To reduce this separation, youth, parents and grandparents could participatein a variety of collaborative teaching and learning situations. For example, they105could study the disease now known as AIDS (Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome)and its effects in their community. Multigenerational study teams could develop anumber of projects like the compilation of biographies of these community members.The product could be published and sold as a fund-raiser or presented as a memorialgift to the local medical library. Finally, the team could assess how their study hasadded to the identification of a problem and created a degree of positive change in theinterests of social justice in their community.Methods would need to be tried to lessen the stultifying effects of forced orstrained encounters between members of different generations. Additionally, multi-age educational activism could help to extend the research of a local problem becauseolder community members could contribute historical knowledge and opinions to re-educate others about misconceptions of a problem or provide missing information.These individuals could also use their narratives to help pinpoint problem originationand evolution. Krug (1953) observed that cooperative teams of adults, youth andchildren could provide opportunities for dialogic exchange and that all ages wouldbenefit from the insights shared (p. 93).Finally, intergenerational connectedness is a consideration which meets theexpressed need for an inclusive proactive citizenship required to assist in fullyinclusive forms of participatory democracy.Thus, curricular experiences which do add this quality will enhance theinclusiveness of community-based study and action. The contact between thegenerations can also provide motivation for lifelong learning as the wisdom of eldersis freely shared with those younger and the curiosity of those younger prompts thecuriosity of those older to re-examine their community. The range of available106knowledge will intensify the problem-solving process. The nurturance of thischaracteristic of community interaction could contribute much to the creation ofhealthy educative communities.Egalitarian ParticipationEgalitarianism is the belief that each community member ought to have equalsocial, political and economic rights. In community education, egalitarianism hasbeen described by Totten (1970) as the hope that all individuals of all "socio-economicbackgrounds" can "work, study, and play together on an equal basis" (p. 157). Theideal that participation will be on an equal footing appears to still be a hope incapitalist societies where class, based on economic attainment, does create somebarriers to participation and achievement. However, community educators havestressed that hierarchies of individuals should be levelled.Many other factors, besides class, can artificially deter an individual'sparticipation. These include: intelligence, ability, race, neighbourhood, sexuality,body image, schooling, disabilities, ideological persuasions, religious beliefs, ethnicity,organizational affiliations. In community education, these factors need to beconsidered barriers to full membership in and engagement with proactive problemsolving, educational activism and participatory democracy.Thus, curricular activities need to be designed to demonstrate that the equalityof the individual, without the reduction of the unique differences which can contributeto community diversity, is not a threat but an advantage to meeting needs. If allindividuals were viewed as equal partners, then it may be more reasonable to expectthat community members will come to, at least, acknowledge the strengths and giftsof others, and possibly, to care about the unmet needs of others. It would seem likely107that curricular experiences would not emphasize sexist, ageist, classist, racist or othernegative attitudes which negate equality. The abolition of these 'isms' is important tothe development of intimate, cohesive and collaborative communities.One example of a curricular activity designed with the use of this principlewould be the formation of intergenerational study teams which would also includeindividuals with a variety of viewpoints and lifestyles. An intergenerational studyteam, organized to address a community-based problem like recycling of organicwastes, could be comprised of a Jewish rock star, Mohawk poet, Buddhist parolee, andso on. If participatory democracy is to be more than an ideal, then egalitarianacceptance of others will be extremely vital.This seventh principle is the final of this set of guidelines developed to definethe boundaries of the discourse of curriculum in community education as based on theanalysis of relevant theorists.Summary of Chapter 4This chapter has reported the findings of this theoretical study as sevenprinciples which highlight the unique features of curriculum development incommunity education. These principles included the following features of the designof curricular experiences in this field: (1) community-based study and action whichpossess an extra-community awareness, (2) lifelong teaching and learning,(3) proactive problem solving, (4) educational activism to create solutions which areeducated, educative and enduring, (5) participatory democracy, (6) intergenerationalassociations, and (7) egalitarian partnerships.These principles, it could be argued, cannot be used in isolation, although itmay be necessary to begin with the use of one or two principles to guide curricular108development and implementation as readiness and resources dictate. However, if theoutcomes (stated as transformative change and social justice) are to be fully realized,then the seven features of this theory must be maintained and strengthened througha companion curriculum. The development of the educative community is a holisticprocess which requires minimal attention to these seven features.For example, the development of intergenerational encounters may strengthenthe intimate associations of the generations without necessarily fortifying proactiveproblem solving. The discussion and demonstration of egalitarian partnerships at thecommunity level may reduce racist, sexist, classist or other harmful barriers withoutaddressing the resolutions of environmental (for example, pollution, deforestation) orsocial (for example, poverty) problems of injustice. Curricular emphasis on problemsolving alone may create solutions which are insensitive to the knowledge and needsof generations not included in the development of solutions. The seven principleshave been created directly from an argument developed to explain the paradigm ofcommunity education wherein a relationship is expressed to explain how participantsshould interact in particular ways and use specific methods to achieve desiredoutcomes in a specified location over time. Therefore, curriculists in communityeducation should attend to the holistic nature of this paradigm and design curricularexperiences which complement and enhance development of an educative communityas envisioned by community education theorists.Finally, these principles are offered without empirical verification of theirability to assist community educators to obtain the outcomes envisioned. However,the intent of this study was to develop a theoretical analysis of the nature ofcommunity education in order to further develop a congruent theory of curriculum in109community education. This analytic development appeared to be an overlooked areaof theorizing in community education. Field practitioners would need to understandthat application of these principles come, as yet, untested, although they are firmlyembedded in the foundational nature of community education. Thus, the potentialconnections between the two theories in this field have become more fully explicated.As well, this set of principles presents a starting point for community educationresearchers to develop research designs which can be experimentally tested.Chapter 4 can be viewed as a response to Warden's (1974) charge thatcommunity educators had thus far failed to examine and facilitate meaningfulcurricular innovation (p. 28). It is hoped that this presentation will further theconversation about and practice of curriculum in community education.110CHAPTER 5: A HYPOTHETICAL CASE STUDYApplication of the Research Findings to a Case StudyThis chapter has presented an example of the application of the sevenprinciples of a theory of curriculum in community education to a hypothetical casestudy.A Description of the Hypothetical Case Study This case study is fictitious and the information was not meant to resemble anygroup of persons. A hypothetical case study was chosen for two reasons. Firstly, thepremises and conclusion of this study can be rendered less abstract throughdemonstration. Secondly, a fictitious case study cannot be misconstrued as evaluationof any actual community education project.The following example is presented in two parts. The first section describes theevaluation criteria from the principles of a theory of curriculum in communityeducation (as presented in Chapter 4). The second section presents the case study.Criteria for Evaluating in Community Education Based Upon This ConceptThis discussion responds to the sixth research question of this theoretical study:"What evaluation criteria for curriculum in community education are suggested fromthe principle?"The term evaluation was used to refer to the "broad and continuous effort toinquire into the effects of utilizing educational content and process to meet clearlydefined goals" (Doll, 1989, p. 237). Doll (1989) suggested that evaluation is animportant aspect of curriculum development. In this case study, evaluation was madeof the hypothetical application of the seven principles. Criteria were suggested which111might indicate events, activities and effects which might result from the design ofcurricular experiences using this theory of curriculum in community education.These criteria comprised minimal standards which, if met, would demonstratethat curriculum activities (including purpose, content, methodology, evaluation) werebased on the seven principles of curriculum in community education. Theseevaluation criteria would be meant for self-evaluation purposes to respect the overallaspect of self-determination in community education theory.Evaluation Criteria Developed From This Theoretical Study Table 4 displayed the seven principles of a theory of curriculum in communityeducation in Column I and the evaluation criteria in Column II. These criteria havebeen presented as questions because open-ended questions can prompt responses whichcan confirm or disprove intentions.The Opening Stem of Each Evaluation Statement. Each question began withthis wording.Do the curriculum activities designed to assist community educators tocreate self-determined transformative change and social justice provideinformal and formal opportunities for community members . . .?This introductory stem stressed the recognition of the evolving network of educationalopportunities to be formally and informally available in the educative community.Secondly, the stated outcomes of community education processes were included in thephrase "to create transformative change and social justice" to indicate the intendedoutcomes.112Table 4^Principles and Evaluation Criteria of a Theory of Curriculum inCommunity Education in a Community Committed to Self-Determined Transformative Change and Social JusticeIPrinciples of a Theory ofCurriculum inCommunity EducationOpening Stem: Thecurriculum of a communitycommitted to self-determinedtransformative change andsocial justice is designed to:1. study community-basedneeds and issues andcreate community-basedactions which have anextra-communityawareness of influencesand consequences.2. involve all communitymembers as lifelongteachers and learners.3. facilitate (compassionate,ethical) and rationalproblem-solving to meetself-perceived needs.IIEvaluation Criteria of ACurriculum in CommunityEducationOpening Stem: Do the curriculum activities tocreate transformative change and social justiceprovide informal and formal opportunities to:*1. (a) research, develop and study accurate contentrelated to community-based needs and issues?(b) experimentally develop community-basedactions?(c) research and discuss extra-communityinfluences on issues and solutions?(d) discuss and assess extra-community effects ofcommunity-based actions?2. (a) share their knowledge, skills and experience aslifelong teachers?(b) pursue community-based study of needs andissues as lifelong learners?3. (a) self-determine needs and issues of acommunity-wide nature?(b) identify problems and sub-problems andrelationships with other problems and solutions?(c) brainstorm alternatives for their community?(d) select alternatives to try as community-basedaction?(e) apply the alternatives?(f) assess the effects (i) within the community? (ii)without the community?*The introductory stem was stated once to avoid repetition.Table 4 (Continued):I^IIPrinciples of a Theory of^Evaluation Criteria of ACurriculum in Curriculum in CommunityCommunity Education Education1134. demonstrate ways thateducational activism cancreate educated, educativeand enduring solutions forcommunity problems.5. model and demonstrate theideals and methods ofparticipatory democracy.6. develop intergenerationalconnectedness and respectto strengthen creation ofan inclusive communitydiscourse.7. develop egalitarianpartnerships to strengthencreation of an inclusivecommunity discourse.4. (a) collaboratively teach and learn with (i) othercommunity members? (ii) with other communities?(b) evaluate solutions to identify their potential toeducate and produce solutions which are long-term and understood?5. (a) participate as valued community educators?(b) share in all decision-making processes?(c) openly share information?(d) equally share power?6. (a) appreciate and respect viewpoints of allgenerations?(b) provide intergenerational connectedness?(c) strengthen creation of an inclusiveintergenerational discourse?7. (a) provide respect for and have faith in theindividual to contribute an action of value?(b) strengthen creation of an inclusive community-wide discourse?114Part I: The Hypothetical Case StudyIn this section of the chapter a profile of the fictitious community with adescription of some of the incidents and a statement of some of the issues has beenpresented.A Profile of the Fictitious CommunityThe fictitious community is located in a parkland area on the northwest shoreof a lake. The population is approximately 6,000, with Metis, First Nations and Euro-Canadians about equally represented.The community's economic base relies on small owner-operated farms,recreational hunting and trapping, service-related careers and employment at a localplant refinery.There are two schools, a dental clinic, a hospital, plant refinery, seniors' home,co-operative grocery and hardware store, a fourteen store shopping mall, alibrary/museum/theatre facility, three movie theatres, union office and recreationcenter in the area. Most professions and occupations are well represented in the areaas well as a mix of socio-economic levels including unemployed and retired. Theaverage grade level achieved is 7.0.Twelve different religious groups are represented although some groups sharefacilities. One group rents a local school on weekends.Housing indicates the variety of lifestyles and commitments to homemaintenance.Transportation is provided by thrice-weekly rail service because a majorhighway does not come into the community and because of the plant. There is oneprivate airport.115Communication is provided by a daily newspaper printed in French, Englishand Cree. There is no local television station. There are two radio stations.Law enforcement is provided by provincial police services. Court cases areheard weekly in the local theatre.Incidents Which Have Caused Concern in the CommunityThe following lists incidents which have created concern in the community.1. One Friday morning in December the local K-9 school is closed abruptly.Parents/guardians are told there is a fault in the ventilation system. However,a Press Release issued after one week of school closure explained thatunacceptable levels of radon gas have been measured in the school. It issuspected that the gas has come from radioactive fill used in the school'sconstruction.The Press Release stated that:radon is one of the toxic wastes produced as radioactive wastes decay and hasbeen considered carcinogenic (causing cancer).The Press Release further stated that all students will be bussed to a schooloutside of the community until further notice.As the New Year progresses eight further incidents were identified. These included:2. One family reported that their garden at the bottom of the new school parkinglot had sickened, until even the oldest 100 year old trees had died.3. School absentee rates are higher than average.4. Several students have refused to be bussed to the temporary school becausethey believe racism was directed at them because they have been called nameswhich denigrate their ethnic heritage.1165. Several children had been diagnosed with a mystery ailment which weakensmuscle tissue. Infant mortality is twice the regional average and is attributedto unusual incidence of SIDS (Sudden Infant Death Syndrome).6. The residents of the 30 homes adjacent to the plant had been quietly boughtout 5 years earlier.7. Two ponies had died.8. Cows, owned by an area farmer, were skinny, their fur loose and had anextraordinary number of aborted calves.9. Home owners who had made home renovations with plant rubble have hadabnormally "high" readings of levels of radon found in their homes.10. A local group had released reports which blamed the plant for all of theproblems in the community. Members of the group are convinced that theodorless and tasteless gas comes from waste materials of the local plant whichhas been disposing waste materials in a landfill north of town for 25 years withthe permission of the town council.Emergent Problems in This Fictitious Community The following description listed several of the problems which have emerged inthis community.1. The plant management is "fed up" with the adverse publicity. The plantmanagement has slowed operations and laid off 480 workers. Plant ownershave threatened total plant closure.2. Fear of unemployment has created stress-related increased in incidence of anti-social behaviors including alcoholism, family violence and lavish spending on117credit. Unemployed individuals have been involved in similar incidents andsome criminal acts of game poaching.3. Tourism has decreased and other community papers have used headlines whichhave labelled the town "Radon-ville - The Birthplace of Superman?"4. Students are generally uncooperative with bussing procedures and state thatthey have experienced increasing race-related harassment. Absenteeism isabove average. Teachers at the neighbouring school continue to requestparent/guardian interviews but these are poorly attended.5. Some students believe they are being socially ostracized because some studentsat the neighbouring school fear radon contamination.6. A local dairy farmer faces bankruptcy because customers now refuse topurchase his products.7. The local food stores have begun to import produce causing higher prices forcommunity residents and reduced income for two local market gardeners.8. Agencies in the communities (churches, hospital, social services) continue toreport severe increases in client requests for mental, emotional and physicalhealth needs. Individuals complain that delivery of social services is too slow.9.^A food and clothing bank has recently opened. Some people are resentful of itspresence and it has been vandalized twice.Objective: To Use a Community Education Approach The community has adopted a community education approach as a basis toresolve problems and meet needs as most community members did not want torelocate.118A community committee had been organized to design curricular activitiesconsistent with the implementation of a community education approach to improveliving conditions. Each community member now wears a button stating "Talk TOME! I'm A Community Educator".Part II: A Description of Some of the Observations Which MightBe Expected In "Radon-vine" From Application of the PrinciplesAfter one year of implementing a community-wide curriculum based oncommunity education, one might expect to observe the following:Discussion of Community-based Study and Community-based ActionsIn this section, some comments related to community-based study andcommunity based action are presented.Community-Based Study Content Development. Curricular activities might exhibit content based on aresearched study of community issues like radon, unemployment and racism.Community-wide distribution of easily understood materials might be available at allpotentially educative sites in formats which make materials accessible to all as theaverage education level is Grade 7.0. For example, newly produced community videoshorts might be used to introduce feature films at a local movie theatre.Informational Content of Community Dialogue. Dialogic encounters in aparticipatory democracy could become stalled if community members endlesslydiscussed opinions and feelings without accurate information. Examination of thedocumentation of community issues in sources like community minutes might exhibita knowledgeable handling of information directly related to issues. Where dialogue119could be recorded, there might be exhibited a sophisticated level of articulation aboutcows, toxic waste and alcoholism.Multi-age Involvement in Content Development. Content could exhibitresearch which had been created by multi-age research teams. There might beexamples to discuss which reflected the extent of opportunities available forintergenerational meetings which provided time to exchange viewpoints and createintergenerational collegiality. Multi-age collegiality could be measured to assess thedevelopment of strengthened feelings of solidarity and trust, examples of more opensharing of information, and development of close working relationships in jointproblem-solving ventures.As all community members are potentially lifelong teachers and learners,multi-age and multi-level teaching teams could be observed presenting information invarious sites which may have been modified for such. For example, a public libraryand study room might be available at the plant, or gender-balanced teams of plantmanagers, retired plant workers and plant union members could provide streettheatre performances about the effects of unemployment or the changes in knowledgeabout the effects of radon.Community-based Actions Curricular experiences which used this design would not limit teaching andlearning to research and study. If only evidence of community-based research andstudy were available, then the desired outcome of transformative change would nothave been pursued using a community education approach. Examples of collaborativeteaching and learning could be evaluated to identify whether or not all community120educators had been engaged in solving community-based problems in some capacity asteacher, learner or researcher.Extra-Community Interaction Self-evaluation could provide observations which indicated attempts made toeducate in neighbouring communities. For example, community members could havetaken measures to schedule meetings with school personnel in the neighbouringschool to provide information about SIDS, racism and toxic waste creation anddisposal.The multi-age self-evaluation teams could discuss opportunities like forums,video pen-pals and community tours and whether or not these curriculum experienceshad opened discussion about problems and solutions. For example, a multi-age andgender-balanced community tour team might have explained to members of othercommunities how the need for a particular product created toxic waste in theircommunity. Efforts would be evident which indicated that educational dialogue withdiverse audiences and not just the converted had occurred.Multi-Age Research and Action Teams Self-evaluation teams might locate multi-age research and action teams.Teams could be observed to understand their involvement with and effect onresolution of community problems and meeting local needs. For example, communityeducators may have surveyed and identified the reasons for origination of the foodbank and some attendant resentment. Data gathered might have provided some basisfor devising alternative measures to meet nutritional needs or to improve the publicrelations efforts of the food bank organization.121Community-based Problem SolvingThe self-evaluation team might question multi-age problem-solving teams todiscern whether or not problems had been self-identified and discuss whether or notthis self-determined process had assisted in the development of individual or collectiveself-determination and confidence.Lifelong Teaching and LearningEducational activism would require individuals who understood, valued andrespected their roles as lifelong teachers and learners. If the identified community-based curriculum experiences could demonstrate community-wide involvement of allindividuals in curriculum experiences, then these could assist residents to decode andencode experiences and create knowledge and action. For example, the dairy farmercould be interviewed to discover how often s/he has been asked to "teach" others aboutthe safety measures undertaken at the farm and other issues related to this issue.There might be a measurable increase in the number of times community membershad actively served as teachers and facilitators.Opportunities to Learn How to Teach and LearnAs teaching and learning are problem-solving processes, curriculum experiencesmight show that informal or formal courses had been designed to teach individualshow to prepare and present information, answer questions, interact with a diverseaudience, evaluate outcomes and actively facilitate learning rather than being justinformation transmitters at community lectures. The self-evaluation team couldinterview randomly selected community members and discuss their willingness andthe opportunities available to actively participate in the role of community educatoras teacher.122The self-evaluation team could also examine community-wide instructionalsessions at a variety of sites, which had been made available to help all communityresidents, and provided opportunities to rehearse and practice skills (reasoning,memory, evaluation, synthesis, reading) to assist with problem-solving procedures.Attendance figures for and feedback about these sessions might indicate whether ornot community residents had taken steps to become community educators.Guided reflective discussion to self-evaluate their roles might identify theeffects of lifelong teaching and learning in the achievement of the intended outcomesof transformative change and social justice.Quality of Discussion About Learning and TeachingIn the educative community, the self-evaluation team might find exampleswhere residents could knowledgeably discuss effective teaching and learningtechniques and differences in teaching and learning styles amongst communitymembers. They might also be able to distinguish between positive and detrimentalaspects of learning; for example, learning how to be an abusive spouse versus learninghow to be a loving, supportive spouse.Discussion of Proactive Problem SolvingThe self-evaluation team could identify curricular experiences which illustratedhow community educators had been involved in community-wide problem-solving. Inthe educative community, the individual is considered both the client and problemsolver and not just a consumer and recipient of information and solutions.The self-evaluation team could interview individuals and have them narratetheir involvement with and the difficulties of participating in collective problemsolving processes. Individuals could comment on the strengths and weaknesses of123group research processes, collective experimentation and shared evaluation. Thisfeedback could be used to improve or change problem-solving procedures andassessment.Data CollectionIndividuals could describe how they had been involved with data collectionmethods. For example, hospital employees could have actively involved othercommunity members as data gatherers about the muscle ailment or the effects,incidence or evidence of alcoholism. The community members would need to beinvolved as more than interviewees. The community self-evaluation team coulddocument and record examples of community-wide involvement in data gatheringrather than data collection made and analyzed solely by experts or selected groups.Experts could provide analyses of data.Workshops Available to Facilitate Problem-Solving Skills Curricular experiences - like workshops or lectures - could be identified whichillustrated efforts taken to help community residents practice community educating.The self-evaluation team could discuss and demonstrate the knowledge and skillsrelated to problem solving gained from these workshops or demonstrations. Forexample, individuals might be able to demonstrate how they had self-initiated theidentification of a problem. Residents might be able to explain solutions in light oftheir ability to save jobs, reduce household food budgets and restore communityautonomy.Community members might be able to assess and discuss their personalstrengths and weaknesses related to proactive problem solving and describe their124skills in terms of data collection, research methodology, solution development andevaluation of outcomes.Knowledgeable Problem SolvingCommunity educators might be more able than members of a non-communityeducating group to explain an issue related to a problem and the attendant sub-problems and the inter-relationships among problems. For example, a communityresident might be able to explain if the existence of the two dead ponies was relatedto unacceptable readings of radon; or, if the issues of racism was only an out-of-community experience for identified individuals in the community.Discussion of Educational ActivismCollaborative teaching and learning suggested that individuals could not relysolely on technological or financial solutions. Instead, individuals are to beencouraged to participate at all suitable hours of the day. Potential solutions could beassessed and discussed to identify the understanding of the discovered learning andnewly (if any) created knowledge which resulted from their self-initiated educationalactivism.They could explain how they did not automatically apply solutions, but couldexplain the use of problem-solving techniques. The effects of solutions could bestudied. Evaluation team members could ascertain whether the documentation ofsolutions had been re-articulated as community-based content in videos or in the dailynewspaper.Compassionate and Ethical Solutions Curricular experiences designed using this approach might be assessed toidentify the emphasis on rationalism or the strict employment of the scientific125method. Self-evaluation teams could interview individuals to discuss theircompassionate understandings of the human dimensions and feelings of othersinvolved with a problem.Community self-evaluation team members could observe if the discussions ofsolutions and means used to solve a problem reflected a set of ethical values orstandards which govern the conduct of individuals or groups. For example, thecommunity members might be able to explain the reasons for involvement of the localrefinery management and owners in generating solutions rather than launchinglawsuits. Or, community members could explain how solutions or means weredeveloped not to harm or hinder others.Long-term SolutionsCommunity educators could determine whether solutions had been planned forshort- or long-term purposes. For example, a short-term solution to the experiences ofracism may have been simply moving the students to a new school or building a newfacility.The issue of racism would require opportunities to sensitize individuals to thebasis and detrimental effects of racism both within and without the community. Itwould be evident that community members were working towards long-termelimination of barriers with solutions not developed as short-term reactions or short-cuts.Discussion of Participatory DemocracyCurricular activities designed using this approach might have examples whichdemonstrated that community educators had levels of knowledge and skills related to126ideals and processes. Community educators could be asked to explain this style andmethodology of democratic decision-making as it happens in their community.Community-based Content and Action The development of community-based content might demonstrate an inclusiveprocess where emphasis was not given to information or components deemed moreessential or significant by certain individuals or groups. Curriculum experienceswould demonstrate that development had not been guided or influenced by the desiresand wishes of certain individuals and groups. A balanced community-wide viewpointand involvement would be more evident in discussion and assessment of community-wide curriculum experiences.Self-government by Consent and Problem SolvingThe self-evaluation team could record instances where curriculum experiencesdemonstrated collective ownership of problems and solutions and the development ofalternatives like open forums and public debates to achieve openly discussed andaccepted solutions. Decisions to accept or reject alternative choices to resolve aproblem would have clearly resulted from self-determined actions accepted bynegotiation and consent rather than imposed from outside the community or by aselect group in the community.This is not to suggest that "Radon-ville" would be without conflicts. However,evaluation might reveal how face-to-face dialogue had improved or worsened or notaffected potentially conflictual encounters during the problem-solving process.Open Sharing of Information Community-based and community-developed content might be evaluated to seehow available information is and where it is located. For example, the mean127educational level for this community suggests that print materials must be modifiedwhen technical information is being presented. Evaluation members could be askedto identify videos or pamphlets which provided easily accessible information aboutfamily abuse or local alternative means for economic development.Discussion of Intergenerational ConnectednessIt could be documented that multi-age interaction, cooperation and collegialitywere evident in this design and implementation to create change, solve problems tomeet needs and evaluate the quality of social justice community-wide. Individualscould be asked to articulate a community-wide point-of-view (discourse) about uniquecommunity conditions (unemployment, infant mortality), events (plant lay-offs,attempts to re-renovate homes) and actions (programs to educate others about thedamaging effects of racism).Discussion of Egalitarian Partnerships It would be evident that barriers to equal participation were lessened and thatcommunity educators could express their reasons for valuing each other as neededpartners in problem-solving attempts. Individuals would be able to describe thedestructive effects of "-isms" to community development, self-identity and self-esteemand in problem-solving activities which used a participatory democracy mode.Community educators could be asked to articulate the reasons for and benefits ofcreating an inclusive community discourse whereby community-wide engagementdisplayed a profile of a collective voice, and not competing voices eager to protectinterests and horde power.128Evaluation Strategies in Curriculum in Community EducationCommunity improvement, betterment or reconstruction in community-basedstudy and action would suggest that self-evaluation would be based on an assessmentto determine the knowledge and skill levels of community educators in areas such asthese:(1) development of community-based curriculum;(2) presentation of community-based content as teachers;(3) active learning and learning styles;(4) critical awareness;(5) problem-solving processes;(6) educational activism;(7) educational/instructional processes which do not indoctrinate;(8) planning models and long-term solutions;(9) participatory democracy;(10) intergenerational connectedness;(11) egalitarianism; and,(12) transformative change and social justice.SummaryChapter 5 has described some of the observations which a self-evaluation teammight find evident in an educative community which had chosen to design curricularactivities using this theory of curriculum in community education.These observations were developed through creation of a hypothetical casestudy of a community.129CHAPTER 6: CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONSThis chapter has been organized in two sections: (1) presentation of theconclusions from this study; and (2) two recommendations for further curriculumtheorizing.Part I: Conclusions From This Theoretical StudyFindings are summarized and presented in the order of the research questions.Research Question #1 The first research question stated: What are the essential features ofcommunity education theory?Data collected, through an analysis of 30 American-authored selections in thefield, revealed ten generic features of the theory of community education. Thesefeatures were as follows: (1) community-based study; (2) community-based action;(3) extra-community awareness of influences and consequences; (4) lifelong teachingand learning; (5) proactive problem-solving; (6) educational activism (collaborativeteaching and learning to create educated, educative and enduring solutions);(7) participatory democracy; (8) egalitarian partnerships; (9) intergenerationalgrouping; (10) transformative change; (11) social justice; and (12) self-determination.Research Question #2 The second research question stated: What are the propositions of an inductiveargument to hypothesis to explain community education theory?In Chapter 3 the seven premises and conclusion of an inductive argument tohypothesis to explain this formulated theory of community education were described.These were formulated from the literature review described in the Chapter 3 and arestated below:130Premise #1:IFCommunity members study their needs, problems and concerns and createactions which have an extra-community awareness of influences andconsequences.Premise #2:IFCommunity members recognize and accept themselves as lifelong teachers andlearners.Premise #3:IFCommunity members use problem-solving methods to meet self-perceived needs.Premise #4 IFCommunity members develop opportunities for educational activism to createeducated, educative and enduring solutions for community problems.Premise #5 IFCommunity members respect the ideals of and use the methods of participatorydemocracy for cooperative problem-solving.Premise #6:IFCommunity members respectfully involve all ages in dialogue, study, planning,problem-solving, evaluation, shared decision-making and other aspects ofcommunity educating.Premise #7:IFCommunity members recognize and accept each other as equal (egalitarian)partners.131Conclusion:THENCommunity members are likely to create self-determined transformativechange and social justice.Considerations related to each proposition were discussed briefly (seeChapter 3) as this study was not intended to be a thorough critique of communityeducation theory. However, this analysis has revealed some areas which mightwarrant serious consideration. For example, community education theorists havestated that participatory democracy is desirable but the relationship between thecommunity and the levels of government was not fully developed. Also, the complexinterrelationships of current conditions and events may warrant the studiedexamination of environmental factors which may make environmental caretaking theprimary principle. Therefore, this analysis illustrated a need for further thought.Research Questions #3 The third research question stated: What are the propositions of a parallelinductive argument to hypothesis which can explain a theory of curriculum incommunity education?These propositions were identified as premises and conclusion and werediscussed in Chapter 4. The inductive argument was framed as follows:Premise #1: IFCurriculum is designed to study community-based issues, concerns, needs andproblems and create community-based actions which demonstrate an extra-community awareness of influences and consequences.132Premise #2:IFCurriculum is designed to involve all community members as lifelong teachersand learners.Premise #3:IFCurriculum is designed to facilitate problem-solving to meet community-identified needs.Premise #4:IFCurriculum is designed to demonstrate that educational activism can createeducated, educative and enduring solutions for community problems.Premise #5:IFCurriculum is designed to model and demonstrate effective use of the idealsand methods of participatory democracy.Premise #6:IFCurriculum is designed to develop intergenerational connectedness.Premise #7: IFCurriculum is designed to develop egalitarian partnerships.Conclusion: THENCurricular experiences (purpose, content, methodology, evaluation) are likely toassist community educators to achieve self-determined transformative changeand social justice.Research Question #4 The fourth research question stated: What principles for a theory ofcurriculum in community education are suggested from the propositions of the133parallel inductive argument? The construction of these principles were the majorwork of this study.The propositions were restated as seven principles of a theory of curriculum incommunity education as follows: Curriculum in a community committed to self-determined transformative change and social justice would be designed to:1. study community-based needs and issues and create community-basedactions which have an extra-community awareness of influences andconsequences.2. involve all community members as lifelong teachers and learners.3. facilitate problem solving to meet self-perceived needs.4. provide opportunities for educational activism to create educated,educative and enduring solutions to unique problems.5. model and demonstrate the ideals and methods of participatorydemocracy.6. develop intergenerational connectedness and respect.7.^develop egalitarian partnerships.Research Question #5 The fifth research question stated: How will application of these principles tocurriculum design assist community educators to achieve desired outcomes?Discussion of this curriculum design was provided in Chapter 4 and illustrated thepotential of these principles to assist community educators in the process of creatingthe educative community.134Research Question #6 The sixth research question stated: What evaluation criteria for curriculum incommunity education are suggested from the developed principles?The evaluation criteria developed from the principles are shown in Table 5.These formed the basis of a hypothetical case study in Chapter 5.Research Question #7 The seventh research question stated: Is a definition (term and meaning)suggested from this theory of curriculum in community education? In this section atheoretical definiens was introduced without a new term.The Multiciplicity of Existing Terms A variety of terms have been used to identify curriculum in communityeducation which include: (1) community school-related curriculum (InterdepartmentalCommunity School Committee, Alberta, 1983); (2) community-related curriculum(colloquial expression used by some community educators with the AlbertaCommunity School Programme); (3) community-based curriculum (SaskatchewanCommunity Schools Program, 1980); (4) community-oriented and community-focusedcurriculum (Greater Victoria School District #61, 1988); (5) life-centered curriculum(Olsen, 1945); and, (6) community-centered curriculum (Irwin & Russell, 1971).The identification and introduction of a new term seemed only to addadditional jargon without providing concrete benefit; thus, the term curriculum incommunity education was kept.Introduction of a Theoretical DefinitionA theoretical definition (described in Chapter 2) for this version of curriculumin community education would need to include the primary features identified in the135Table 5^Evaluation Criteria Developed for Application to a HypotheticalCase Study for This Theoretical Study.OPENING STEMDo the curriculum activities created for the purposes of self-determinedtransformative change and social justice provide informal and formal opportunities to:1. (a) research, develop and study accurate content related to community-basedneeds and issues?(b) experimentally develop community-based actions?(c) research and discuss extra-community influences on issues and solutions?(d) discuss and assess extra-community effects of community-based actions?2. (a) share their knowledge, skills and experience as lifelong teachers?(b) pursue community-based study of needs and issues as lifelong learners?3. (a) self-determine needs and issues of a community-wide nature?(b) identify problems and sub-problems and relationships with other problemsand solutions?(c) brainstorm alternatives for their community?(d) select alternatives to try as community-based action?(e) apply the alternatives?(f) assess the effects (i) within the community? (ii) without the community?4. (a) collaboratively teach and learn with (i) other community members? (ii) withother communities?(b) evaluate solutions to identify their potential to educate and produce solutionswhich are long-term and understood?5. (a) participate as valued community members?(b) share in all decision-making processes?(c) openly share information?(d) equally share power?6. (a) appreciate and respect viewpoints of all generations?(b) provide intergenerational connectedness?(c) strengthen creation of an inclusive intergenerational discourse?7. (a) provide respect for and demonstrate faith in the individual to contribute anaction of value?(b) strengthen creation of an inclusive community-wide discourse?136propositions and principles of this theory of curriculum in community education. Inthis theoretical study curriculum in community education would be defined as follows:Curricular experiences which are designed using these principles of curriculumdesign in community education would have the following features: (1) community-based study; (2) community-based actions which demonstrate extra-communityawareness of influences and consequences; (3) lifelong teaching and learning;(4) proactive problem solving; (5) educational activism; (6) production of educated,educative and enduring solutions to community-based problems; (7) exemplarypractice of the ideals and methods of participatory democracy; (8) intergenerationalconnectedness; and (9) egalitarian partnerships.It has been demonstrated that these features of curriculum in communityeducation will more likely be compatible with the aims of community education (thatis, self-determined transformative change and social justice) because the curriculumtheory is based on community education theory. However, these principles forcurriculum in community education have been presented from a theoreticalfoundation and would require field testing. Experimental designs to identify thelinkages would need to be devised and outcomes assessed to deduce their ability toenhance the development of the educative community.Part II: Recommendations for AdditionalCurriculum Development in Community EducationIn this section, two recommendations are made for areas where curriculumtheorists in community education may need to extend analysis. These include: (1)consideration of the ecological caretaking of any community; and (2) furtherexploration of the foundational ethics of community educating.137The Need for a More Conscious Ecological StanceThe environmental problems of this planet seem well-documented. The Americantheorists did not rigorously pursue the development of an ecological consciousness.Clapp (1939) reported that efforts had been made at Ballard Memorial CommunitySchool (Kentucky) to further understand "the educational import of the environment"with a study course called "Economic Geography" (p. 57). The students also studiedtheir farms, "pastures, cultivated fields and woodlands", and gardens to examinepractices - such as crop rotation, co-operative marketing and textile crafts produced -(p. 57), but no mention was made of environmental education activities or the need toplan for balanced economic activity which did not create deterioration of theenvironment.Olsen (1945) recommended that study should be made of the biophysical setting ofthe community. The biophysical setting is described as the "climate, topography, andnatural resources" (p. 47), with the natural resources described as the "naturalinheritance of a particular locality" (p. 47). He stated that urban sprawl was creatingdifficulties and land use conflicts and that these topics should be "studied inconnection with the problem of past and present land use" (p. 47). He further statedthat "poor utilization" of natural resources and "the environment brings socialproblems" (p. 48). For example, "failure to put land to its best use" may "preventfunctioning of other social processes" such as work and health (p. 51). Olsenconcluded that the "failure to plan for wise use, conservation, and possible restorationof natural resources may menace both the present and future well-being of thecommunity" (p. 51). His prediction can be validated with contemporary examples;138however, he did not include this insight in either of his two sets of principles to guidecurriculum development.Overall, references to environmental awareness or community-based actions tomaintain environmental balance were scarce. The sense of a land-sacredness, whichis evident in the thought and cosmology of some other cultures, is absent.In light of the current environmental problems, it is valid to suggest that anadditional proposition be formulated for the inductive arguments for communityeducation and then curriculum in community education. Or, the concern for theenvironment could be included as an additional phrase in the conclusion. Forexample,Community members are likely to create self-determined transformativechange and social justice which do not damage the biophysical environment orhelp to repair current damage.Community educators may view deteriorating environmental conditions as part ofa larger social problematique and decide that community-based problem-solvingattempts will address the issue of environmental education within the framework oftransformative change and/or social justice. If the educative community is "[t]hatcommunity which is a learning laboratory in its totality" (Hiemstra, 1972, p. 31), thenresponsible caretaking of the land needs to be considered. Further analysis of therelationships between human activity and effects on the immediate biophysicalenvironment would suggest that this is an important aspect to be considered.The Ethical Foundations of Community EducationThe literature related to ethical foundations in community education is quite brief.Melby (1955) stated that community educators "must see clearly the need for moral"139strength and action (p. 27). He speculated that some of the evident failures whichwere observable after World War II could be attributed to education where educatorsgenerally had "failed to stress the moral and spiritual values which were basic" to theUnited States (p. 28). Olsen (1945) stated that the creation of knowledge withoutethics can be detrimental to community maturation and achievement of measures tocreate betterment or reconstruction (p. 53). The formulation of a proposition tohighlight the ethical nature of community education could not be supported at thispoint as too few theorists included it in their discussions.The ethical nature of community educating remains an issue because the creationof planned change and social justice suggested that improvement of living conditionscannot be made through actions which would further oppress individuals, createfurther inequity or produce damage to members of the community or othercommunities.SummaryIn this chapter, a brief summary of the results of this study have been presented.These findings included the deduction of the generic features of community educationtheory based on 30 selections from reasonably well-known and accepted Euro-American writers. This researcher did make serious effort to locate writings byfemale theorists; however, this search revealed that this field of education consists of,to the present, male-dominated discourse. Of the 24 theorists studied, only onetheorist was female. However, the seminal work of Elsie Ripley Clapp should not beoverlooked because her works revealed a rare combination of theory and practice. Asthe writings are dominated by male authorship, community education theorists maywant to re-examine the direction of their theorizing and decide whether the more140feminine components (like nurturing or intuitive knowledge) have been overlookedand/or a feminine point of view marginalized.The identification of the generic features was necessary in order to define theexpressed relationship (means and ends) of community education. Analysis revealedthat the most logical combination of features would produce a relationship whichstated that: where participants interact in certain ways (as intergeneration andegalitarian partners) and use particular methods (proactive problem solving, idealsand methods of participatory democracy and educational activism) in a location(community-based with an extra-community awareness) at a specific time (as lifelongteachers and learners), then particular outcomes are likely to occur (self-determinedtransformative change and social justice). Therefore, once this relationship had beenproduced, it was possible to consider and develop the means and ends of a theory ofcurriculum development in community education.This relational definition of community education is unique in that this researcherdid not locate such a succinct statement in previous theoretical writings. Perhaps,this definitional work will provide guidance to community educators who may wish todesign experimental community education paradigms, or already have such inoperation. There are seven variables here to include in test designs and this maymake research into the development of intentional communities unwieldy. However,a foundation based on previous works has been established. Additionally, thesevariables would need to be observed (separately and in combination) to assess thestrength or weakness of their potential contribution to the development of self-determined transformative change and social justice.141Once the generic features and expressed relationship had been identified, then aresearched foundation was available to begin the construction of a theory ofcurriculum in community education which would clearly originate from within thefield. As stated in Chapter 1, the review of the literature revealed that there hasbeen an almost non-existent body of curricular theory in this field. The notableexception is the scholarship of Dr. Edward Olsen who established the need forcommunity educators to consider principles and practices of life-centered curriculum.From this study, seven principles for the development of curricular experiencesemerged. The ideal curricular experience would be one characterized as respectfullyegalitarian, intergenerational, in a process of lifelong and collaborative teaching andlearning which emphasized community-based study and solving of local problems.The nature of solutions developed ought to be those which are educative, educated(based on well-reasoned justifications) and enduring. However, the solutions ought toalso be those which are also compassionate, ethical and environmentally sound andnot merely expedient. These three latter characteristics have not yet been extensivelydeveloped in the literature and provide topics for further exploratory debate.Additionally, community-based study would not be an insular, and narrow-minded,study of local issues. Instead, curricular experiences would need to include an extra-community awareness. Community educators would need to have a holisticunderstanding of events and conditions, and the relationship therein, in order toprovide a balanced view of local and global influences and effects. In a world which isinundated hourly with new information, the demands on individuals to thoroughly142research the problem under study in terms of global connections might make problemsolving time-consuming and complex to manage.Finally, these curricular experiences would need to provide direct experience ofthe ideals and methods of participatory democracy. In this case, lifelong teachers andlearners would need to acquaint themselves with processes, (like open dialogue,consensual decision-making and removal of discriminatory uses or abuses of power), inorder to develop skills and attitudes conducive to local control and shared decision-making and to reduce the potential marginalization of anyone's point of view,knowledge or experience.These principles were redeveloped as possible evaluation criteria which could beused as guidelines to determine the authenticity of curricular experiences incommunity education. The evaluation criteria, stated as open-ended questions, wereapplied to a hypothetical case study (in Chapter 5) to give the reader some sense of aneducative community which had implemented these principles.In conclusion, this study has added a new theory of curriculum in communityeducation which can provide thoughtful reading for the reflective practitioner orguidelines for community educators who are seeking to develop curricular experiencesfor creation of the educative community.143BIBLIOGRAPHYAllan, D. (1973). Schools: A case for community education.. Provincial CommunitySchool Team, Working Paper Number 3. Vancouver, B.C.: British ColumbiaSchool Trustees Association. August.Allan, D. (1973). Relevance of community education in contemporary society.Provincial Community School Team. Working Paper Number 2. Vancouver, B.C.:British Columbia School Trustees. July.Allen, G., Bastiani, J., Martin, I. & Richards, J.K. (1987). Community education, anagenda for educational reform. Milton Keynes: Open University Press.Archambault, R. (1964). John Dewey on education: Selected writings. New York:Random House.Ariyaratne, A. (1991). Community education for a learning society. The Journal ofCommunity Education, 9(2), 3-4.American Psychological Association. (1984). Publication manual of the AmericanPsychological Association (3rd ed.). Washington, D.C.: author.Association for Community Education in British Columbia. (1988). What arecommunity schools all about? Basic concepts. no page nos.Barry, V. & Soccio, D. (1988). Practical logic (3rd ed.). New York: Holt, Rinehartand Winston, Inc.Batten, E. (1980). Community education and ideology: A case for radicalism. In C.Fletcher (Ed.), Issues in community education (pp. 27-38). London: Falmer Press.Beauchamp, G.A. (1982). Curriculum theory: Meaning, development and use.Theory Into Practice, XXI(1), 23-37.Becker, W. (1972). Review of Community education: From program to process by J.Minzey & C. LeTarte. Phi Delta Kappan, LIV(3), 209.Berridge, R.I. (1973). The community education handbook. Midland, MI: PendellPublishing Company.Berridge, R.I. & Stark, S.L. (1977). Training the community educator, a case studyapproach. Midland, MI: Pendell Publishing Company.Blackhurst, A. (1987). Introduction to International Issue: The challenge ofdevelopment. The Journal of Community Education, 5(4), 1.Blackhurst, A. (1988). Introduction to International Issue: Social change throughcommunity education. The Journal of Community Education, 6(3), 1-2.144Board of Education for the City of York. (1988). Learning to ride the third wave ‘Annual report of the community services office for 1988. York, Ontario: author.Bobbit, F. (1918). How to make a curriculum. Cambridge, Massachusetts: TheRiverside Press.Bogner, C. (1983). Project Director. Evaluation of the community schools program. Submitted to Community Education Branch, Policy Planning and Special Projects,Saskatchewan Education. Vancouver: Educational Research Institute of BritishColumbia.Boles, H.W. & Seay, M. (1974). Community education leadership: A theory. In M.Seay (Ed.), Community education: An emerging concept (pp. 86-116). Midland, MI:Pendell Publishing Company.Bridges, D. (1979). Education, democracy and discussion. National Foundation forEducational Research.Calliou, S. (1991). Some principles for consideration in community-related curriculumdesign. Edmonton. Unpublished. 25 pp. June, 1991.Canadian Association for Community Education. (1990). Constitution, CanadianAssociation for Community Education. (Amended May, 1990).Chirot, D. (1985). Social change. In A. Kuper & J. Kuper (Eds.), The social scienceencyclopedia (pp. 760-763). New York: Routledge.Clapp, E.R. (1933). A rural community school in Kentucky. Progressive Education,X(3), 123-128.Clapp, E.R. (1939). Community schools in action. New York: The Viking Press.Clapp, E.R. (1952). The use of resources in education. New York: Harper.Clark, D. (1973). The concept of community: A re-examination. Sociological Review,21(23), 397-416.Clark, D. (1989). The training of community educators. The Journal of Community Education, 7(3), 6-8.Clark, P.A. (1982). The centrality of the teacher. Community Education Journal,X(1), 13-15.Commager, H.S. (1984). The schools can't do it all. Community Education Journal,2II(3), 8-10.Cook, D.L. (1982). The curriculum and the community. Community EducationJournal, X(1), 18-20.145Cook, L.A. & Olsen, E.G. (1950). Chapter 12: Toward life-centered schooling. InLloyd Allen Cook & Elaine Forsyth Cook (Eds.), A sociological approach to education, a revision of community backgrounds of education (pp. 272-287). NewYork: McGraw-Hill Book Company.Copti, I.M. (1982). Introduction to logic (6th ed.). New York: Macmillan PublishingCo., Inc.Cowburn, W. (1986). Class, ideology and community education. London: CrommHelm.Curtis, S.J. & M.E.A. Boultwood. (1966). A Short history of educational ideas (4th ed).London: University Tutorial Press Limited.Decker, L. (1972). Foundations of community education. Midland, Michigan: PendellPublishing Company.Decker, L. (Ed.). (1990). Community education: Building learning communities.Alexandra, VA: National Community Education Association.Decker, L. (1992). Building learning communities: The realities of educationalrestructuring. Community Education Journal, XIX(3), 5-7.Denton, W.H. (1983). Reconstructionism - A philosophy for community education.Community Education Journal, X(2), 17-21.Dewey, J. (Orig. 1938; 1963). Experience and education. New York: CollierMacmillan.Dewey, J. (Orig. 1902; 1971). The child and the curriculum. Chicago: University ofChicago Press.Dewey, J. (Orig. 1900; 1971). The school and society. Chicago: University of ChicagoPress.Doll, R. (1989). Curriculum improvement, decision making and process. (7th ed.).Boston: Allyn and Bacon.Everett, S. (1938). Chapter XI: An analysis of the programs. In Samuel Everett(Ed.), The community school (pp. 435-462). National Society for Curriculum Study,Committee on the Community School. New York: D. Appleton-Century Company.Everett, S. (Ed.). (1938). The community school. New York: D. Appleton-CenturyCompany.Fantini, M. (1982). Changing concepts of community education. CommunityEducation Journal, X(1), 6-11.146Fasheh, M. (1990). Community education: To reclaim and transform what has beenmade invisible. Harvard Educational Review, 60(1), 19-35.Fletcher, C. & Thompson, N. (1980). Issues in community education. Lewes, Sussex:The Falmer Press.Fletcher, C. (1987). The concept of community education. In G. Allen et al. (Eds.)Community education, an agenda for education reform (Chap. 3, pp. 33-49). MiltonKeynes: Open University Press.Foshay, A.W. (1985). The city as teacher. Community Education Journal, XII(3), 12-15.Greater Victoria School District (#61). (1988). Report of the task force on communityeducation. Victoria, British Columbia: author.Guralnik, D. (Ed.). (1970). Webster's new world dictionary (2nd ed.). New York: TheWorld Publishing Company.Hager-Schoeny, D. (Ed.). (1982). Community education and K-12: Making theconnection. [Special Issue]. Community Education Journal, X(1), 4-6.Hanna, P.R. & Naslund, R.A. (1953). Chapter IV: The community school defined. InNelson B. Henry (Ed.), The fifty-second yearbook of the national society for thestudy of education, part II, the community school (pp. 49-63). Chicago, Illinois:University of Chicago Press.Harvey Research Ltd. (May, 1986). Evaluation of community schools. Edmonton,Alberta: Alberta Education.Heimstra, R. (1972). The educative community. linking the community. school andfamily. Lincoln, Nebraska: Professional Educators Publications, Inc.Hessong, R.F. & Weeks, T.H. (1987). Chapter 7: Educational philosophies.Introduction to education (pp. 173-194). New York: Macmillan PublishingCompany.Hickey, H.W. & Van Voorhees, C. (Eds.). (1969). The role of the school in communityeducation. Midland, MI: Pendell Publishing Company.Hopkins, K.W. (1975). Planned community education: A systems approach.Community Education Journal, V(3), 22-26.Horyna, L. (1990). Principles of community education. In L. Decker (Ed.), Communityeducation: Building learning communities (p. 7). Alexandria, VA: NationalCommunity School Association.147Hullfish, G. (1938). Developing common concerns: The road to democracy. In S.Everett (Ed.), The community school. New York: D. Appleton-Century Company.Hunnicutt, C.W. (1953). The community school as a social instrument. In N.B. Henry(Ed.), The fifty-second yearbook for the national society for the study of education sDart II. the community school (pp. 179-194). Chicago, Illinois: The University ofChicago Press.Inter-departmental Community School Committee. (1983). Document 35RII. AlbertaEducation. 1983-04-15.Irwin, M. & Russell, W. (1971). The community is the classroom. Midland, MI:Pendell Publishing Company.Jarolimek, J. (1981). The schools in contemporary society, an analysis of socialcurrents, issues and forces. New York: Macmillan Publishing Co., Inc.Jones, L. & Falkenberg, E. (1991). Impact of a community school on citizen attitudes.Community Education Research Digest, 5(2), 19-38.Kerensky, V.M. & Melby, E.O. (1975). Education II - revisited: a social imperative(Rev. Ed.). Midland, MI: Pendell Publishing Company.Kerensky, V.M. (1972). Correcting some misconceptions about community education.Phi Delta Kappan, LIV(3), 158-160.Kerensky, V.M. (1989). The sovereign, new perspectives on people. power. and publiceducation (2nd ed.). Dubuque, Iowa: Kendall/Hunt Publishing Company.Kilpatrick, W.F. (1938). Chapter I: Introduction: principles of community learning.In Samuel Everett (Ed.), The Community School (pp. 1-22). New York: D.Appleton-Century Company.Kliebard, H. (1982). Curriculum theory as metaphor. Theory Into Practice, XXI(1),11-17.Krug, E. (1953). Chapter VI: The program of the community school. In, Nelson B.Henry, Ed. The fifty-second yearbook of the national society for the study ofeducation, part II, the community school (pp. 83-99). Chicago, Illinois: Universityof Chicago Press.Kussrow, P. (1990). Core curriculum for K-12. Community Education Journal,XVII(3), pp. 22-23.Kussrow, P. (1990). Citizen participation in community education. CommunityEducation Journal, XVII(2), 21-23.148Lazaruk, W. (1982). A comparative analysis of selected designated community schoolsand non-designated schools in Alberta. Alberta: Inter-Departmental CommunitySchool Committee.Lazerfeld, P. & Barton, A. (Eds.). (1972). Qualitative analysis. historical and criticalessays (Orig. 1951). Boston: Allyn & Bacon.Lippitt, G. (1973). Visualizing change: Model building and the change process. LaJolla, CA: University Associates, Inc.Martin, I. (1987). Community education: Towards a theoretical analysis. In G. Allenet al. (Eds.), Community education: An agenda for educational reform. MiltonKeynes: Open University Press.Mathieu, D.J. (1990). Community education as radical pedagogy. CommunityEducation Journal, XVII(4), 26-29.McClure, L., Cook, S.C. & Thompson, V. (1977). Experience-based learning, how tomake the community your classroom. Portland, Oregon: Northwest RegionalEducational Laboratory.McClusky, H.Y. (1959). Some propositions in support of the community school — Asummary. The Journal of Educational Sociology, 33(4), 179-183.McCutcheon, G. (1982). What in the world is curriculum theory? Theory IntoPractice, XXI(1), 18-22.McCutcheon, G. (Ed.) (1982). Curriculum theory [Special Issue]. Theory Into Practice,XXI(1).Melby, E.O. (1955). Administering community education. Englewood Cliffs:Prentice-Hall, Inc.Melby, E.O. (1959). Keynote to the theme. The Journal of Educational Sociology,23(4), 170-178.Mezirow, J. (Ed.). (1990). Fostering critical reflection in adulthood: A guide to transformative and emancipatory learning. San Francisco, Calif.: Jossey-BassPublications.Minogue, K. (1985). State. In A. Kupper & J. Kupper (Eds.), The social scienceencyclopedia (pp. 818-820). New York: Routledge.Minzey, J.D. & Olsen, C.R. (1969). Chapter III. Community education: An overview.In Howard W. Hickey & Curtis Van Voorhees (Eds.), The role of the school incommunity education, (pp. 29-40). Midland, MI: Pendell Publishing Company.149Minzey, J. (1972). Community education: An amalgam of many views. Phi DeltaKappan, LIV(3), 150-153.Minzey, J. (1981). Community education in the United States. In D. Davies (Ed.),Communities and Schools (pp. 269-295). New York: McGraw-Hill Book Company.Minzey, J.D. (1985). Beyond economics: Redefining a core curriculum. CommunityEducation Journal. XII(4), 23-25.Minzey, J.D. & LeTarte, C.E. (1979). Community education: From program toprocess to practice. the schools' role in a new educational society (2nd ed.).Midland, Michigan: Pendell Publishing Company.Misner, P. (1938). A community educational center. In S. Everett (Ed.), Thecommunity school (pp. 51-82). New York: D. Appleton-Century PublishingCompany.Mitchell, M. (1972). Can community education build world mindedness? CommunityEducation Journal, II(1), 23-26.Muntyan, M. (1953). Chapter III: Community-school concepts: A critical analysis. InNelson B. Henry (Ed.), The fifty-second yearbook of the national society for thestudy of education, part II. the community school (pp. 31-48). Chicago, Illinois:University of Chicago Press.Naslund, R. (1951). The origin and development of the community school concept.Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation. Leland Stanford Junior University.O'Hagen, B. (1987). Community education in Britain: Some myths and theirconsequences. In G. Allen et al. (Eds.), Community education: An agenda foreducational reform (pp. 70-80). Milton Keynes: Open University Press.Olsen, E.G. (1950). School and community, the philosophy, procedures and problemsof community study and service through schools and colleges. (Orig. 1945). NewYork: Prentice-Hall Inc.Olsen, E.G. (1951). The community school. The North Central Association Quarterly,XXVI(2), 176-180.Olsen, E.G. (1954). School and community, the philosophy. procedures. and problems of community study and service through schools and colleges (2nd ed.). New York:Prentice-Hall, Inc.Olsen, E.G. (1958). Is the community school anti-intellectual? School Executive.(Reprint obtained from the Author. No page nos.)Olsen, E.G. (1972). Enlivening the community school curriculum. Phi Delta Kappa,LIV(3), 176-178.150Olsen, E.G. (1975). A life-centered curriculum. Community Education Journal, V(3),35-41.Olsen, E.G. (1975). Community education: Perspective and potential. In EffieFairchild & Larry Neal (Eds.), Common-unity in the community: a forward-looking program of recreation and leisure services for the handicapped (pp. 15-22).Oregon: Center of Leisure Studies, University of Oregon.Olsen, E.G. & Clark, P. (Eds.). (1975). The community education curriculum [specialissue]. Community Education Journal, V(6).Olsen, E.G. & Clark, P. (1977). Life-centering education. Midland, MI: PendellPublishing Co.Ozmone, H.A. & Craver, S.M. (Eds.). (1981). Chapter 4: Reconstructionism andeducation. Philosophical foundations of education (pp. 120-152). Columbus, Ohio:Charles E. Merrill Publishing Company, a Bell & Howell Company (2nd edition).Patton, M. (1990). Qualitative evaluation and research methods. Calif.: SagePublications.Perrin, P. (Ed.) (1965). In K. Dykema & W. Ebbit (Eds.), Writer's guide and index toEnglish , (rev. ed.). Chicago: Scott, Foresman and Company.Piotrowski, L.J. (1975). The third century educational process. CommunityEducation Journal, V(3), 13-17.Poster, C. & Kruger, A. (1990). Community education in the western world. London:Routledge.Prince Albert Public Schools. (1989). Community school program, discussion paper,revised for staff handbook. Saskatchewan Education: author.Rennie, J. (1985). British community primary school, four case studies. London: TheFalmer Press.Schuell, T.J. (1990). Teaching and learning as problem solving. Theory into Practice,XXIX(2), pp. 102-108.Seay, M. (1945). Chapter X: The community-school emphases in postwar education.In Nelson B. Henry (Ed.). The forty-fourth yearbook of the national society for thestudy of education. american education in the postwar period, part I. curriculumreconstruction (pp. 209-225). Chicago, Illinois: University of Chicago Press.Seay, M. (1953). Chapter I: The community School: New meaning for an old term.In Nelson B. Henry (Ed.), The fifty-second yearbook of the national society for the study of education. part II. the community school (pp. 1-14). Chicago, Illinois: TheUniversity of Chicago Press.151Seay, M. (1972). Threads running through the community school movement.Community Education Journal, II(1), 16-19.Seay, M. Ed. (1974). Community education: A developing concept. Midland,Michigan: Pendell Publishing Company.Simpson, D. & Jackson, M. (1984). The teacher as philosopher. Toronto: MethuenPublications.Soltis, J. (1978). An introduction to the analysis of educational concepts. Reading,Mass.: Addison-Wesley Pub. Co.Totten, W.F. (1970). The power of community education. Midland, MI: PendellPublishing Company.Totten, W.F. (Ed.). (1972). Community education [Special Issue]. Phi Delta Kappan,LIV(3).Totten, W.F. (1972). Community education: The feasible reform. Phi Delta Kappan,LIV(3), 148-149.Van Voorhees, C. (1969). Community education: A developmental process. In H.W.Hickey & C. Van Voorhees (Eds.), The role of the school in community education.Midland, MI: Pendell Publishing Company.Walker, D.F. (1982). Curriculum theory is many things to many people. Theory IntoPractice, XXR1), 62-65.Warden, J. (1975). The curriculum of community education. Community EducationJournal, V(3), 28-31.Warden, J. (1983). Community education as a movement. Community EducationJournal, XI(1), 4-8.Watson, F. (Ed.). (1922). The encyclopedia and dictionary of education, (Volume III).Toronto: Sir Issac Pitman & Sons.Wear, D.W. (1982). What teachers think of community education. CommunityEducation Journal, X(1), 16-18.Wear, D. (1987). Curriculum theory; some starting points for inquiry. CommunityEducation Journal, XIV(2), 6-7.Wear, D. & Cook, D. (1987). The need for critical reflection. Community EducationJournal, XIV(2), 5.Whetten, C.L. (1981). Getting involved with K-12. Community Education Journal,VII(3), 22-24.152Winecoff, L. & Lyday, W.J. (1991). Community educators, visions, and educativecommunities. Community Education Journal, XVIII(2),  8-12.Williams, I (1981). A comparative analysis of attitudes of community school teachersand regular school teachers toward children and toward the use of community resources. Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation. Oregon: University of Oregon,Teached Education and Graduate School.Wood, G. & Neat, S. (1988). A search for core readings in community education.Community Education Journal, XV(4), 25-26.153APPENDIX I*Ten Principles Developed by Dr. Edward Olsento Life-Center Curriculum (Orig. 1945; 1950: pp. 409-412)I Distinguish three omnibus aims in the area of school-community relationships: (a)social comprehension; (b) social motivation; and, (c) social skills.II Define the community as the service area of the school; but relate it directly andconstantly with the larger areas of state, region, nation and the world.III Recognize three major levels of culture to be studied in every community, immediateor remote, contemporary or historical.IV Emphasize physical setting, social processes, social structure, and social problems; andstress the close inter-relationship among these factors.V Plan a sequential development of student experiences through each year of the entireschool program.VI Begin this sequence with consideration of material culture in the local community, inparticular reference to its geographic and demographic aspects.VII^Expand this initial study in three related dimensions: (a) space, (b) time, and, (c)scope.VIII^Utilize all appropriate techniques for effectively relating the school with thecommunity: (a) firsthand experiences with reality; (b) representations of reality;and, (c) symbols of reality.IX Focus attention upon the status, problems, and social contributions of youth who haveparticipated in the basic processes of the various communities and societal areasstudied.X Direct primary personal loyalties to a people's finest traditions, ethical ideals andsocial values, rather than to their geographic territory, political structure, or anyother segment of their material or institutional culture."*Reprinted with the permission of Dr. Olsen.154Ten Principles Restated (Orig. 1954; Second Ed, pp. 477-480)1. Analyze the improvement-of-living aim into its functional elements.2. Define the community as the service area of the school, but relate it directly andconstantly with the larger areas of region, nation, world.3. Recognize three levels of culture to be studied in every community.4. Stress the interrelationships between such factors as community setting, socialstatuses, social processes, and social problems.5. Plan for sequential development of community experiences throughout each year ofthe school program.6. Begin this sequence with consideration of material culture in the local community.7. Expand this initial study into other related dimensions.8. Use all appropriate techniques for relating the school with the community.9. Focus attention upon the needs, problems, and social contributions of young people.10. Direct personal loyalties toward our finest traditions, ethical ideals, and moral andspiritual values.155APPENDIX IIData Collection: A Listing of the Thirty Selections Usedfor This Theoretical StudyThis is a chronological listing of the American-authored works selected for thistheoretical study. These writings were examined to identify generic features which wereused as a basis to formulate propositions of an inductive argument to hypothesis for atheory of community education.I^IIYear Author and Title Information1. 1933 Clapp, E.R. (1933). A rural community school in Kentucky. Progressive Education, X(3), 123-128.2. 1938 Everett, S. (1938). An analysis of the programs. In S. Everett (Ed.), TheCommunity School, (pp. 435-462). New York: D. Appleton-CenturyCompany.3. 1938 Kilpatrick, W.H. (1938). Introduction, principles of community learning.In S. Everett (Ed.), The Community School, (pp. 1-22). New York: D.Appleton-Century Company.4. 1939 Clapp, E.R. (1939). Community schools in action. New York: The VikingPress.5. 1945 Olsen, E. (1950, Orig. 1945). School and community. the philosophy,procedures and problems of community study and service throughschools and colleges. (1st ed). New York: Prentice-Hall Inc.6. 1945 Seay, M. (1945). The community school emphases in postwar education. InNelson B. Henry (Ed), The forty-fourth yearbook of the national 156society for the study of education (Part I), (pp. 209-225). Chicago,Illinois: The University of Chicago Press.7. 1953 Seay, Maurice. (1953). The community school: New meaning for an oldterm. In Nelson B. Henry (Ed.), The fifty-second yearbook of thenational society for the study of education (Part II), (pp. 1-14).Chicago, Illinois: The University of Chicago Press.8. 1953 Muntyan, M. (1953). Community-school concepts: A critical analysis. InNelson B. Henry (Ed.), The fifty-second yearbook for the national society for the study of education (Part II), (pp. 31-48). Chicago,Illinois: The University of Chicago Press.9. 1953 Hanna, P.R. & Naslund, R. (1953). The community school defined. InNelson B. Henry (Ed.), The fifty-second yearbook for the national society for the study of education (Part II), (pp. 49-63). Chicago,Illinois: The University of Chicago Press.10. 1953 Hunnicutt, C.W. (1953). The community school as a social instrument. InNelson B. Henry (Ed.), The fifty-second yearbook for the nationalsociety for the study of education (Part II), (pp. 179-194). Chicago,Illinois: The University of Chicago Press.11. 1955 Melby, E. Administering community education. Englewood Cliffs, NewJersey: Prentice-Hall, Inc.12. 1959 McClusky, Howard Y. (1959). Some propositions in support of thecommunity school — a summary. The Journal of Educational Sociology, 33(4), 179-183.13.^1969 Minzey, J. & Olsen, C.R. (1969). Community education: An overview. InH.W. Hickey, C. Van Voorhees (Eds.), The role of the school in157community education, (pp. 29-40). Midland, MI: Pendell PublishingCompany.14. 1969 Van Voorhees, C. (1969). Community education: A developmental process.In Howard W. Hickey & Curtis Van Voorhees (Eds.), The role of the school in community education. Midland, MI: Pendell PublishingCompany.15. 1970 Totten, F.W. (1970). The power of community education.  Midland, MI:Pendell Publishing Company.16. 1972 Minzey, J. (1972). Community education: An amalgam of many views.Phi Delta Kappan, LIV(3), 150-153.17. 1972 Kerensky, V.M. (1972). Correcting some misconceptions about communityeducation. Phi Delta Kappan, LIV(3), 158-160.18. 1972 Hiemstra, R. (1972). The educative community, linking the community,school, and family. Lincoln, Nebraska: Professional EducatorsPublications, Inc.19. 1972 Decker, L. (1972). The foundations of community education.  Midland, MI:Pendell Publishing Company.20. 1973 Berridge, R.I. (1973). The community education handbook. Midland, MI:Pendell Publishing Company.21. 1974 Seay, Maurice. (1974). The community education concept — A definition &How the concept grew. In M.F. & Associates. Community education: An emerging concept, (pp. 1-16 & 17-46). Midland, MI: PendellPublishing Company.22.^1975 Piotrowski, L.J. (1975). The third century educational process. CommunityEducation Journal,  V(3), 13-17.15823. 1977 Olsen E. & Clark, P. Community education: Past and present. In Olsen E.& Clark, P. Life-centering education (Chapter 3). Midland, MI:Pendell Publishing Company.24. 1975 Kerensky, V. & Melby, E. (1975). Education II — Revisited: A social imperative (2nd Ed.). Midland, MI: Pendell Publishing Company.25. 1979 Minzey, J. & LeTarte, C. (1979). Community education: From program to process to practice, the school's role in a new educational society,(2nd Ed.). Midland, MI: Pendell Publishing Company.26. 1981 Minzey, J. (1981). Community education in the United States. In DonDavies (Ed.), Communities and their schools, (pp. 269-295). NewYork: McGraw-Hill Book Company.27. 1982 Fantini, M. (1982). Changing concepts of community education.Community Education Journal, X(1), 6-11.28. 1988 Horyna, L. (1990). Principles of community education. In Decker, L. &Associates. Community education: building learning communities  (p.7). Alexandria, VA: National Community Education Association.29. 1989 Kerensky, V. (1989). The sovereign, new perspectives on people, power andpublic education. Dubuque, Iowa: Kendall/Hunt PublishingCompany.30. 1990 Decker, L (Ed.). (1990). Community education: Building learningcommunities. Alexandria, VA: National Community EducationAssociation.159APPENDIX IIIData Collection: Tabulation of Information to Formulate thePropositions of Parallel Inductive Arguments for CommunityEducation and Curriculum in Community EducationThe following tables were compiled to show the data collection made through aliterature review of 30 selections written by 24 American community education theorists.Each table is titled to identify the area of data collection. A chronological listing of theselections positioned vertically along the left side of each table. The features which wereidentified are listed in a vertical column at the top of each table. The symbol `^'represents the presence of this feature. A blank space represents the absence of thisfeature or no statement located.A Hypothesis for a Theory of Community EducationCommunity education can be expressed as a hypothesis which attempts to explainthe relationship where participants interact in certain ways and use methods to achievedesired outcomes in a location over time.Data was collected to identify the type of interactions, the preferred methods, thelocation and time duration in order to formulate the propositions (premises andconclusion) of an inductive argument to hypothesis for a theory of community education.Tables 6a. and 6b.: Identification of the Desired OutcomesTable 6a, titled The Need to Change, was constructed after a preliminary readingof all the works. Data collected was used to construct part of the conclusion statement ofthe inductive argument.Table 6a: The Need to Change.The following codes were used to identify the expressed need to change:1.^NPC = Need to Change1602. NPC = Need to Change at Personal level3. NS/CC = Need to change social/community conditions4. NCS = Need to change schools5. NGC = Need to change global (worldwide) conditions6. NNC = No need to change7. NS = No statement locatedThere were no cases located for statement #5, (NNC). Change was most oftenindicated in direct statements, examples or in phrases like 'meet needs' or 'solveproblems'.From the data collected in Table 1.0.a. the first part of the statement whichidentified a desired outcome in the conclusion was formulated. This category was labelled'change'. The discussion of the selection of a term to describe the type of change soughtwas described in Chapter 3.An analysis of the data in Table 1.0.b. confirmed the feature of 'need to change'which is stated in phrases like 'community improvement', 'community betterment' and'social reconstruction'. Analysis also indicated that community educators discussed abroad spectrum of changes which were just not related to reform of schools. These wereidentified in Table 6b.Table 6b.: The Variety of Change Outcomes Identified in the Literature.Table 6b lists the types of specific changes identified in the 30 selections by the 24theorists. The listing of each of these features in the conclusion would be cumbersome. Aterm was sought to categorize the quality of these statements. The term social justice waschosen. The discussion of the selection of this term was discussed in the sub-section titled,The Additional Desired Outcome of Social Justice (Chapter 3).161Table 7: Data Collected to Identify the Location of Social ChangeData was collected to answer the question: Where can community education occur?Twenty-two of the 24 theorists in the 30 selections identified the community as theprimary arena where processes would be enacted to create transformative change andsocial justice.Four codes were used:1. C = Community2. OL = Other Location3. CBA = Community-based Actions4. ECA = Extra-community AwarenessThere were no cases of item #2.Extra-Community Awareness.While reading to identify statements related to identify the location of changeprocesses, the characteristic of 'extra-community awareness' emerged. This awarenessreferred to a cognizance of influences and conditions beyond borders of the community onthe part of the participants. Additionally, there were statements which indicated thatchange could have extra-community consequences.Thus, the code 'ECA' was added to indicate the consideration of the effects onchange processes on or beyond the community.This awareness was included in the first proposition statement to qualify suggestedcommunity-based study and actions as those which would not be restricted to a local area.Table 8: Identification of the Time Interval Table 8 is a compilation of the data to answer the question: When can communityeducation occur? Statements were located in twenty-six of the 30 selections. Twenty ofthe selections contained statements which described that a community members would be162teachers at some point in their lifetimes while engaged in cooperative procedures toidentify and solve community-based problems and/or evaluate the results of appliedsolutions.The second premise was formulated to capture the features of 'lifelong', 'lifelonglearning' and 'everyone a teacher and a learner'.Table 9: Identification of Problem-Solving as a Method of Change Twenty-three of the 24 theorists in 29 of the 30 selections identified problem-solving as a cooperative procedure to achieve the desired outcomes. This is consistentwith the finding in Table 6b where 30 of the selections contained statements whichindicated that community members were engaged in activities to solve the problems of thearea to meet a variety of needs.Table 10: Identification of Educational Processes to Attain Desired OutcomesThis table summarized data which suggested the fourth proposition of a theory ofcommunity education. Although twenty-three of the selections contained statementswhich indicated the need to change the schools, this was not the extent of educationalreform advocated.In addition, a majority of the theorists stated that individuals were to be activelyengaged in processes of learning together. While solving local problems. Twenty-eight ofthe selections contained statements which indicated that living was to have or has aneducational basis. The presence of this educational basis in living was perceived as anecessary means to create change in conjunction with collective problem-solving andparticipatory democracy.Table 11: Identification of Participatory and Democratic Methods This table summarized data related to the development of the fifth proposition of atheory of community education. Twenty-eight of the 30 selections contained statements163which indicated that all individuals would be directly involved in processes of community-based problem-solving as a method of meeting self-identified needs.Twenty of the selections contained statements which indicated that democraticideals and methods would be used in self-governing actions at the local level. Twenty-sixof the selections contained statements which indicated shared decision making. Therecommendation for shared decision making seemed to suggest shared power as it wouldbe difficult to develop collective decisions in the openly respectful manner suggested bycommunity education theorists if some individuals continued to maintain greater powerover the decision making. If this were to occur, then consensual decisions would notlikely happen, or decisions would evolve which did not respect the sense of shared andactive participation recommended by the theorists.The decision was made to use the term participatory democracy because itcombined the features of 'participation by all' with 'democratic processes' and 'shareddecision making'.Table 12: Identification of the Characteristics of the Interactions among ParticipantsData was collected to discover whether or not theorists stated that particularinteractions among participants would be needed. Three codes were devised whilereading. These were:1. PWAA = Participation With all Ages2. EQ = Equal Right to Involvement3.^EEQ = Everyone to be Considered an EqualStatements were located in 29 of the 30 selections which indicated that children,youth and adults are to be involved. The activities mentioned included: dialogue,problem-solving, shared teaching and learning, planning, community action and study.164The term intergenerational connectedness  was used to describe this feature ofmulti-age interaction.Items #2 and #3 data were used to formulate the seventh proposition of theinductive argument to hypothesis for a theory of community education. Items #2 and #3indicated that some community education theorists recommended that communityeducators would need to recognize each other as equal partners in community basedactions to solve problems in order to meet needs.The term egalitarian partnerships was chosen to describe features of 'equal right toinvolvement' and 'everyone to be considered an equal'. The term referred to equality ofindividuals community-based actions but not to an economic equality.This data was used to formulate the seventh principle of the inductive argument tohypothesis for a theory of community education.Table 13: Miscellaneous ItemTable 13 presented a tabulation of some of the miscellaneous categories. Asdiscussed in Chapter 6, ethics and environmental awareness were not thematic featuresdeveloped by community education theorists.Five of the selections contained statements which indicated resource conservation.Six of the selections contained statements related to the ethical nature of communityeducation.Self-Determination.Overlooked in an initial analysis were statements in 21 of the 30 selections whichreferred to the feature of self-determination. A majority of the theorists stated a versionof what Horyna (1990) described as self-determination:Local people are in the best position to identify community needs and wants (p. 7).165This feature did not appear to be another proposition. Instead, the data was usedas a descriptor to modify transformative change to indicate that change will be self-initiated to assist individuals "to gain a greater sense of influencing what goes on aboutthem as well as gain created control over themselves" (Piotrowski, 1975, p. 14).Table 6a The Identification of the Need to Change^ 166ChronologicalList ofSelectionsCoded Features1 2 3 4 5 6 71. Clapp (1933) ^ ^ ^2. Everett (1938) ^ ^ ^3. Kilpatrick (1938) ^ ^ ^ ^4. Clapp (1939) ^ ^ ^ ^ ^5. Olsen, E. (1945) ^ ^ ^ ^ ^6. Seay (1945) ^ ^ ^ ^7. Seay (1953) ^ ^ ^ ^ ^8. Muntyan (1953) ^ ^ ^9. Hanna & Naslund (1953) ^ ^ ^ ^10. Hunnicutt (1953) ^ ^11. Melby (1955) ^ ^ ,,/12. McClusky (1959) ^ ^ ^13. Minzey & Olsen, C. (1969) ^ ^14. Von Voorhees (1969) ^ ^ ^15. Totten (1970) ^ ^ ^ ^ ^16^Minzey (1972) ^ ^ ^ ^17. Kerensky (1972) ^ ^ ^18. Hiemstra (1972) ^ ^ ^ ^19. Decker (1972) ^ ^ ^ ^20. Berridge (1973) ^ ^21. Seay (1974) VVVVV22. Piotrowski (1975) ^ ^ ^ ^23. Kerensky & Melby (1975) ^ ^ ^ ^ ^24. Olsen, E. & Clark (1977) ^ ^ ^ ^ ^25. Minzey & LeTarte (1979) ^ ^ ^ ^26. Minzey (1981) ^ ^ ^ ^27. Fantini (1982) ^ ^ ^ ^28. Horyna (1988) ^ ^29. Kerensky (1989) ^ ^ ^30. Decker (1990) ^ ^ ^TOTALS 30 18 30 23 9 0 0Key:1. NC = Need tochange2. NPC = Need tochangepersonal level3. NS/CC = Needto changesocial/community conditions4. NCS = Need tochange schools6. NCG = Needto changeglobal6. NNC = Noneed to change7. NSL = NostatementlocatedTable 6b Identification of Specific OutcomesChronologicalList ofSelectionsCoded Features1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 101. Clapp (1933) ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^2. Everett (1938) ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^3. Kilpatrick (1938) ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^4. Clapp (1939) ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^5. Olsen, E. (1945) ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^6. Seay (1945) ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^7. Seay (1953) ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^8. Muntyan (1953) ^ ^ ^ ^9. Hanna & Naslund (1953) ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^10. Hunnicutt (1953) ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^11. Melby (1955) ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^12. McClusky (1959) ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^13. Minzey & Olsen, C. (1969) ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^14. Von Voorhees (1969) ^ ^ ^ ^15. Totten (1970) ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^16. Minzey (1972) ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ I17. Kerensky (1972) ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^18. Hiemstra (1972) ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^19. Decker (1972) ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^20. Berridge (1973) ^ ^ ^ ^21. Seay (1974) ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^22. Piotrowski (1975) ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^23. Kerensky & Melby (1975) ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^24. Olsen, E. & Clark (1977) ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ..,25. Minzey & LeTarte (1979) ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^26. Minzey (1981) ^ ^ ^ ^ ^27. Fantini (1982) ^ ^ ^ ^28. Horyna (1988) ^ ^ i/ ^29. Kerensky (1989) ^ ^ ^ ^30. Decker (1990) ^ ^ ^ ^ ^TOTALS 30 20 7 17 11 7 30 30 18 27Key:1. IC = Improve Conditions of the community 6. BC = Rebalance or balance culture2. ISO = Improve social order or social 7. MN = Meet needsreconstruction 8. SP = Solve Problems3. PP = Peaceful progress 9. UJ = Universal Justice/Human4. UCE = Urbanization, counteract effects Brotherhood/Global Justice5. ^ SQ = Not maintain status quo 10. ISL = Improve standard of living167168Table 7^Identification of the LocationChronologicalList ofSelectionsCoded Features1 2 3 41. Clapp (1933) ^ ^2. Everett (1938) ^ ^ ,./3. Kilpatrick (1938) ^ ^ ,,/4. Clapp (1939) ^ ^5. Olsen, E. (1945) ^ ^ ^6. Seay (1945) ^ ^ ^7. Seay (1953) ^ ^ ^8. Muntyan (1953) ^ ‘,/ ^9. Hanna & Naslund (1953) ^ ^ ^10. Hunnicutt (1953) ^ ^ ^11. Melby (1955) ^ ^12. McClusky (1959) ^13. Minzey & Olsen, C. (1969) ^ ,,/ ^14. Von Voorhees (1969) ,,, ^15. Totten (1970) ,,/ ^16. Minzey (1972) ^ ^ ,,/17. Kerensky (1972) ^ ^18. Hiemstra (1972) ^ ^ ^19. Decker (1972) ^ ^ ^20. Berridge (1973) ^ ,,/21. Seay (1974) ^ ^ ^22. Piotrowski (1975) ^ ^23. Kerensky & Melby (1975) ^ ^ ^24. Olsen, E. & Clark (1977) ^ ^25. Minzey & LeTarte (1979) ^ ^ ^26. Minzey (1981) ,,/ ^27. Fantini (1982) ^28. Horyna (1988) ^29. Kerensky (1989) ^ ^30. Decker (1990) ^TOTALS 28 0 26 17^Key: 1.^C = Community2. OL = Other location3. CBA = Community-Based Action^4.^ECA = Extra-community awareness169Table 8^Identification of Time DurationChronologicalList ofSelectionsCoded Features1. LLL = LifelongLearning2. ETU. = Everyone aTeacher or Learner1. Clapp (1933) ^2. Everett (1938) ^3. Kilpatrick (1938) ^4. Clapp (1939) ^ ^5. Olsen, E. (1945) ^ ^6. Seay (1945) ^ ^7. Seay (1953) ^8. Muntyan (1953) ^9. Hanna & Naslund (1953) ^10. Hunnicutt (1953) ^ ^11. Melby (1955) ^12. McClusky (1959)13. Minzey & Olsen, C. (1969) ^ ^14. Von Voorhees (1969) ^ ^15. Totten (1970) ^ ^16. Minzey (1972) ^17. Kerensky (1972) ^ ^18. Hiemstra (1972) ^ ^19. Decker (1972) ^20. Berridge (1973) ^21. Seay (1974) ^ ^22. Piotrowski (1975) ^23. Kerensky & Melby (1975) ^ ^24. Olsen, E. & Clark (1977) ^ ^25. Minzey & LeTarte (1979) ^ ^26. Minzey (1981) ^ ^27. Fantini (1982) ,./ ^28. Horyna (1988) ^29. Kerensky (1989) ^ ^30. Decker (1990) ^ ^TOTALS 26 20170Table 9^Identification of the Method of Problem-SolvingChronologicalList ofSelectionsCoded Features1 2 3 4 51. Clapp (1933) ^ ^ ^ ^2. Everett (1938) ^ ^ ^ ^ ^3. Kilpatrick (1938) ^ ^4. Clapp (1939) ^ ^ ^ ^ ^5. Olsen, E. (1945) ^ ^ ^ ^ ^6. Seay (1945) ^ ^ ^ ^ ^7. Seay (1953) ^ ^ ^ ^ ^8. Muntyan (1953) ^ ^ ^ ^ ^9. Hanna & Naslund (1953) ^ ^10. Hunnicutt (1953) ^ ^ ^11. Melby (1955) ^ ^ ^ ^ ^12. McClusky (1959) ^13. Minzey & Olsen, C. (1969) ^ ^ ^ ^ ^14. Von Voorhees (1969) ^ ^ ^ ^15. Totten (1970) ^ ^ ^ ^16. Minzey (1972) ^ ^ ^17. Kerensky (1972) ^ ^ ^ ^18. Hiemstra (1972) ,./ ^ ,./ ^ ^19. Decker (1972) ^ ^ ^ ^20. Berridge (1973) ^ ^ ^21. Seay (1974) ^ ^ ^ ^ ^22. Piotrowski (1975) ^ ^ ^ ^ ^23. Kerensky & Melby (1975) ,./ ^ ,,/ ^24. Olsen, E. & Clark (1977) ^ ^ ^ ^ ^25. Minzey & LeTarte (1979) ^ ^ ^ ^ ^26. Minzey (1981) ^ ^ ^27. Fantini (1982) ^28. Horyna (1988) ,/,/,/,/ ^29. Kerensky (1989) ^ ^ ^30. Decker (1990) ^ ^ ^ ^ ^TOTALS 23 19 29 29 20Key:^1.^SIP = Self identification of problems2. SP = Study problem3. SP = Solve Problem4. C = Collaboration, cooperation5. PST = Planning & applying solutions together171Table 10^Identification of Educational Processes as a Means to Attain DesiredOutcomesChronologicalList ofSelectionsCoded Features1 2 3 4 5 6 71. Clapp (1933) ^ ^ ^ ^2. Everett (1938) ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^3. Kilpatrick (1938) ^ ^ ^4. Clapp (1939) ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^5. Olsen, E. (1945) ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^6. Seay (1945) ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^7. Seay (1953) ^ ^ ^ ^ ^8. Muntyan (1953) ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^9. Hanna & Naslund (1953) ^ ^ ^ ^10. Hunnicutt (1953) ^ ^ ^ ^ ^11. Melby (1955) ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^12. McClusky (1959) ^ ^ ^13. Minzey & Olsen, C. (1969) ^ ^ ^ ^14. Von Voorhees (1969) ^ ^ ^ ^ ^15. Totten (1970) ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^16. Minzey (1972) ^ ^ ^ ^17. Kerensky (1972) ^ ^ ^18. Hiemstra (1972) ^ ^ ^ ^19. Decker (1972) ^ ^20. Berridge (1973) ^ ^ ^ ^21. Seay (1974) ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^22. Piotrowski (1975) ^ ^ ^ ^ ^23. Kerensky & Melby (1975) ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^24. Olsen, E. & Clark (1977) ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^25. Minzey & LeTarte (1979) ^ ^ ^ ^26. Minzey (1981) ^ ^ ^ ^27. Fantini (1982) ^ ^ ^ ^ ^28. Horyna (1988) ^ ^ ^29. Kerensky (1989) ^ ^ ^30. Decker (1990) ^ ^ ^ ^ ^TOTALS 29 20 26 28 15 20 14ey: 5. /SH =^e -e ucation and self help in1. LT = Learning together problem solving/Meeting needs2. ET/L = Everyone a teacher/learner 6. LBD = Learning by doing3. ALE = All life educative 7. LBTA = Learning by testing in action4. EBL = Education basis for based living172Table 11^Identification of Participation and Democratic MethodsChronologicalList ofSelectionsCoded Features1 2 3 4 5 6 71. Clapp (1933) ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^2. Everett (1938) ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^3. Kilpatrick (1938) ^ ^ ^4. Clapp (1939) ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^5. Olsen, E. (1945) ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^6. Seay (1945) ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^7. Seay (1953) ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^8. Muntyan (1953) ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^9. Hanna & Naslund (1953) ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^10. Hunnicutt (1953) ^ ^ ^11. Melby (1955) ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^12. McClusky (1959) ^ ^ ^ ^ ^13. Minzey & Olsen, C. (1969) ^ ^ ^ ^14. Von Voorhees (1969) ^ ^ ^ ^15. Totten (1970) ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^16. Minzey (1972) ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^17. Kerensky (1972) ^ ^ ^ ^18. Hiemstra (1972) ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^19. Decker (1972) ^ ^ ^ ^ ^20. Berridge (1973) ^ ^ ^21. Seay (1974) ^ ^ ^22. Piotrowski (1975) ^ ^ ^ ^ ^23. Kerensky & Melby (1975) ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^24. Olsen, E. & Clark (1977) ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^25. Minzey & LeTarte (1979) ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^26. Minzey (1981) ^ ^ ^ ^ ^27. Fantini (1982) ^ ^ ^28. Horyna (1988) ^ ^ ^ ^ ^29. Kerensky (1989) ^ ^ ^ ^30. Decker (1990) ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^TOTALS 28 30 17 26 25 20 25Key:1. PBA = Participation by all 5. SD = Shared (power) decision making2. C = Collaboration cooperation 6. DP = Democratic processes3. FI = Faith in the individual 7. PT = Planning together4. RI = Respect for the individual173Table 12^Identification of the Characteristics of the InteractionsChronologicalList ofSelectionsCoded Features1 2 31. Clapp (1933) ^ ^2. Everett (1938) ^ ^ ^3. Kilpatrick (1938) ^ ^4. Clapp (1939) ^ ^ ^5. Olsen, E. (1945) ^ ^ ^6. Seay (1945) ^ ^ ^7. Seay (1953) ^8. Muntyan (1953) ^ ^ ^9. Hanna & Naslund (1953) ^ ^ ^10. Hunnicutt (1953) ^ ^ ^11. Melby (1955) ^ ^ ^12. McClusky (1959) ^ ^13. Minzey & Olsen, C. (1969) ^ ^14. Von Voorhees (1969) ^15. Totten (1970) ^ ^ ^16. Minzey (1972) ^ ^ ^17. Kerensky (1972) ^ ^18. Hiemstra (1972) ^ ^19. Decker (1972) ^ ^ ^20. Berridge (1973) ^ ../ ^21. Seay (1974) ^ ^ ^22. Piotrowski (1975) ^ ^23. Kerensky & Melby (1975) ^ ^ ^24. Olsen, E. & Clark (1977) ^ ^ ^25. Minzey & LeTarte (1979) ^ ^ ^26. Minzey (1981) ^27. Fantini (1982) ^28. Horyna (1988) ^ ^ ^29. Kerensky (1989) ^ ^ ^30. Decker (1990) ^ ^ ^TOTALS 29 23 23Key:^1.^PWAA = Participation with all ages2. EQ = Equal right to involvement3. EEQ = Everyone to be considered as an equal174Table 13^Miscellaneous ItemsChronologicalList ofSelectionsCoded Features1 2 3 4 5 61. Clapp (1933) ^ ,./2. Everett (1938) ^ ^ ^ ^3. Kilpatrick (1938) ^ ^ ^ ^4. Clapp (1939) ^ ^ ^ ^5. Olsen, E. (1945) ^ ^ ^ ,,/ ^6. Seay (1945) ^ ^ ^ ^7. Seay (1953) ^8. Muntyan (1953) ^9. Hanna & Naslund (1953) ^10. Hunnicutt (1953)11. Melby (1955) ^ ^ ,,/ ^ ^12. McClusky (1959)13. Minzey & Olsen, C. (1969) ^ ^14. Von Voorhees (1969)15. Totten (1970) ^ ^ ^ ^ ^16. Minzey (1972) ^17. Kerensky (1972) ^ ^18. Hiemstra (1972) ^ ^19. Decker (1972)20. Berridge (1973) ^21. Seay (1974) ^ ^ ^22. Piotrowski (1975) ^23. Kerensky & Melby (1975) ^ ^ ^ ^ ^24. Olsen, E. & Clark (1977) ^ ^25. Minzey & LeTarte (1979) ^26. Minzey (1981)27. Fantini (1982)28. Horyna (1988) ^29. Kerensky (1989) ^30. Decker (1990) ^ ^TOTALS 21 5 6 13 11 5Key:^1.^SD/LC = Self-determination or Local control in C.E.2. RC = Resource (natural) conservation3. M/E = Moral/ethical means4. TT = Talking together5. E > A = Education which is more social than academic6.^DSSL = Develop socially significant learning


Citation Scheme:


Citations by CSL (citeproc-js)

Usage Statistics



Customize your widget with the following options, then copy and paste the code below into the HTML of your page to embed this item in your website.
                            <div id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidgetDisplay">
                            <script id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidget"
                            async >
IIIF logo Our image viewer uses the IIIF 2.0 standard. To load this item in other compatible viewers, use this url:


Related Items